House Select Committee Hearings on Jan. 6 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starterMT15
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Users who are viewing this thread
- Thread starter
- #793
OP
OP
MT15
Well-known member
Offline
I know you’re correct, but I am just thankful they have come forward. None of the powerful men have really done as much.
gummbo
Well-known member
Offline
It’s funny how he’s doing women’s have larger testicles then these powerful men
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Online
WASHINGTON (AP) — Trump White House official Peter Navarro, who was convicted of contempt of Congress for refusing to cooperate with a congressional investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, was sentenced on Thursday to four months behind bars.
He was the second Trump aide convicted of contempt of Congress charges, after former White House adviser Steve Bannon, who also got a four-month sentence but is free pending appeal.
Navarro was found guilty of defying a subpoena for documents and a deposition from the House Jan. 6 committee. He served as a White House trade adviser under then-President Donald Trump and later promoted the Republican’s baseless claims of mass voter fraud in the 2020 election he lost to Democrat Joe Biden.
He has vowed to appeal the verdict, saying he couldn’t cooperate with the committee because Trump had invoked executive privilege. A judge barred him from making that argument at trial, however, finding that he didn’t show Trump had actually invoked it.
apnews.com
He was the second Trump aide convicted of contempt of Congress charges, after former White House adviser Steve Bannon, who also got a four-month sentence but is free pending appeal.
Navarro was found guilty of defying a subpoena for documents and a deposition from the House Jan. 6 committee. He served as a White House trade adviser under then-President Donald Trump and later promoted the Republican’s baseless claims of mass voter fraud in the 2020 election he lost to Democrat Joe Biden.
He has vowed to appeal the verdict, saying he couldn’t cooperate with the committee because Trump had invoked executive privilege. A judge barred him from making that argument at trial, however, finding that he didn’t show Trump had actually invoked it.
Trump White House official Peter Navarro gets a 4-month sentence for defying a House Jan. 6 subpoena
Trump White House official Peter Navarro is sentenced to four months of imprisonment for defying House Jan. 6 probe.
apnews.com
superchuck500
U.S. Blues
Offline
WASHINGTON (AP) — Trump White House official Peter Navarro, who was convicted of contempt of Congress for refusing to cooperate with a congressional investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, was sentenced on Thursday to four months behind bars.
He was the second Trump aide convicted of contempt of Congress charges, after former White House adviser Steve Bannon, who also got a four-month sentence but is free pending appeal.
Navarro was found guilty of defying a subpoena for documents and a deposition from the House Jan. 6 committee. He served as a White House trade adviser under then-President Donald Trump and later promoted the Republican’s baseless claims of mass voter fraud in the 2020 election he lost to Democrat Joe Biden.
He has vowed to appeal the verdict, saying he couldn’t cooperate with the committee because Trump had invoked executive privilege. A judge barred him from making that argument at trial, however, finding that he didn’t show Trump had actually invoked it.
Trump White House official Peter Navarro gets a 4-month sentence for defying a House Jan. 6 subpoena
Trump White House official Peter Navarro is sentenced to four months of imprisonment for defying House Jan. 6 probe.
Navarro - headed to prison - took time in front of Papa Johns and a pawn shop to remind us that he is an entitled, gaslighting piece of shirt, and also on the MAGA grift train.
barbar
Well-known member
Offline
It is so crazy that these kind of charges only result in 4 month sentences. That is nothing really.
superchuck500
U.S. Blues
Offline
Yeah, I think it’s quite a variance on these. Judith Miller (journalist in the Valerie Plame / Scooter Libby affair) was sentenced to 18 months for refusing to to appear before a federal grand jury - claiming that her work and sources were protected by the First Amendment.
SoggyBottomBoy
Well-known member
Offline
Probably far less damaging to not testify and do 4 short months of easy time.
Last edited:
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Online
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Online
........Writing on his Substack newsletter, Kinzinger addressed Trump directly, saying: "If Donald wants to pursue this vindictive fantasy, I say bring it on. I'm not intimidated by a man whose actions on January 6th showed a cowardly disregard for democracy and the rule of law.
"A man too frightened to serve in the military, and a who requires a strong man like Putin to feel secure. While his supporters were attacking the Capitol, Trump sat in the White House, watching in glee as law enforcement and elected officials scrambled to protect our republic.
"Donald, go ahead and try to rewrite history. Use your platform to deflect blame, point fingers, and play the victim. But the evidence speaks louder than your words. History will remember the January 6 Committee as defenders of democracy—and you, as a man who betrayed it."
Liz Cheney, the vice chair of the committee and the only other Republican alongside Kinzinger, also condemned the incoming president's statements, describing the suggestion of jail time as "assault on the rule of law and the foundations of our republic."............
www.newsweek.com
"A man too frightened to serve in the military, and a who requires a strong man like Putin to feel secure. While his supporters were attacking the Capitol, Trump sat in the White House, watching in glee as law enforcement and elected officials scrambled to protect our republic.
"Donald, go ahead and try to rewrite history. Use your platform to deflect blame, point fingers, and play the victim. But the evidence speaks louder than your words. History will remember the January 6 Committee as defenders of democracy—and you, as a man who betrayed it."
Liz Cheney, the vice chair of the committee and the only other Republican alongside Kinzinger, also condemned the incoming president's statements, describing the suggestion of jail time as "assault on the rule of law and the foundations of our republic."............
Adam Kinzinger responds to Donald Trump's 'jail' threat: 'bring It on'
Former Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger responded to Donald Trump's threat of jail for January 6 House Committee members.
www.newsweek.com
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Online
Without proof, top Trump adviser accuses January 6 committee of destroying evidence – live
Jason Miller accuses bipartisan January 6 committee of destroying evidence but does not present any evidence to support claim
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Online
A House GOP subcommittee is pushing for ex-Congresswoman Liz Cheney to be investigated by the Justice Department for witness tampering in retaliation for her efforts on the January 6 probe.
In a report from the House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight, Republican lawmakers led by Barry Loudermilk of Georgia argued that Cheney’s communications with Cassidy Hutchinson, a former Trump White House official, violated the law because Hutchinson’s lawyer was supposedly unaware they were happening.
“Evidence uncovered by the Subcommittee revealed that former Congresswoman Liz Cheney tampered with at least one witness, Cassidy Hutchinson, by secretly communicating with Hutchinson without Hutchinson’s attorney’s knowledge,” it reads. “This secret communication with a witness is improper and likely violates 18 U.S.C. 1512.”
Text messages through the encrypted Signal app uncovered by Loudermilk’s subcommittee show Cheney and Hutchinson communicating directly, as well as a separate prior conversation between Hutchinson and fellow Trumpland figure-turned-witness Alyssa Farah Griffin.
Griffin, in her texts to Hutchinson, describes her own conversation with Cheney in which the congresswoman supposedly spoke approvingly about Hutchinson’s first round of testimony to the committee — and was interested in hearing more.
“She said she admires you, and can tell you want to do the right thing from your testimony,” Griffin wrote to Hutchinson in April of 2022.
Despite text messages from Griffin stating that Cheney’s “one concern” was that ethically, she couldn’t speak to Hutchinson without the latter’s attorney present, later text messages show Hutchinson reaching out to Cheney directly and asking for a phone call.
Loudermilk’s report does not specify about which section of the law Cheney’s communications with the former Trump White House aide were supposedly in violation.
The law states that it’s illegal for anyone to threaten, coerce, mislead or otherwise push to alter witness testimony for any “official proceeding,” including congressional hearings, but even Loudermilk’s own press release does not accuse Cheney of doing so.……
www.independent.co.uk
In a report from the House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight, Republican lawmakers led by Barry Loudermilk of Georgia argued that Cheney’s communications with Cassidy Hutchinson, a former Trump White House official, violated the law because Hutchinson’s lawyer was supposedly unaware they were happening.
“Evidence uncovered by the Subcommittee revealed that former Congresswoman Liz Cheney tampered with at least one witness, Cassidy Hutchinson, by secretly communicating with Hutchinson without Hutchinson’s attorney’s knowledge,” it reads. “This secret communication with a witness is improper and likely violates 18 U.S.C. 1512.”
Text messages through the encrypted Signal app uncovered by Loudermilk’s subcommittee show Cheney and Hutchinson communicating directly, as well as a separate prior conversation between Hutchinson and fellow Trumpland figure-turned-witness Alyssa Farah Griffin.
Griffin, in her texts to Hutchinson, describes her own conversation with Cheney in which the congresswoman supposedly spoke approvingly about Hutchinson’s first round of testimony to the committee — and was interested in hearing more.
“She said she admires you, and can tell you want to do the right thing from your testimony,” Griffin wrote to Hutchinson in April of 2022.
Despite text messages from Griffin stating that Cheney’s “one concern” was that ethically, she couldn’t speak to Hutchinson without the latter’s attorney present, later text messages show Hutchinson reaching out to Cheney directly and asking for a phone call.
Loudermilk’s report does not specify about which section of the law Cheney’s communications with the former Trump White House aide were supposedly in violation.
The law states that it’s illegal for anyone to threaten, coerce, mislead or otherwise push to alter witness testimony for any “official proceeding,” including congressional hearings, but even Loudermilk’s own press release does not accuse Cheney of doing so.……
GOP House subcommittee wants Liz Cheney investigated for ‘witness tampering’
Cheney communicated with key witness and provided recommendation for new legal representation, GOP report finds
www.independent.co.ukThe start…A House GOP subcommittee is pushing for ex-Congresswoman Liz Cheney to be investigated by the Justice Department for witness tampering in retaliation for her efforts on the January 6 probe.
In a report from the House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight, Republican lawmakers led by Barry Loudermilk of Georgia argued that Cheney’s communications with Cassidy Hutchinson, a former Trump White House official, violated the law because Hutchinson’s lawyer was supposedly unaware they were happening.
“Evidence uncovered by the Subcommittee revealed that former Congresswoman Liz Cheney tampered with at least one witness, Cassidy Hutchinson, by secretly communicating with Hutchinson without Hutchinson’s attorney’s knowledge,” it reads. “This secret communication with a witness is improper and likely violates 18 U.S.C. 1512.”
Text messages through the encrypted Signal app uncovered by Loudermilk’s subcommittee show Cheney and Hutchinson communicating directly, as well as a separate prior conversation between Hutchinson and fellow Trumpland figure-turned-witness Alyssa Farah Griffin.
Griffin, in her texts to Hutchinson, describes her own conversation with Cheney in which the congresswoman supposedly spoke approvingly about Hutchinson’s first round of testimony to the committee — and was interested in hearing more.
“She said she admires you, and can tell you want to do the right thing from your testimony,” Griffin wrote to Hutchinson in April of 2022.
Despite text messages from Griffin stating that Cheney’s “one concern” was that ethically, she couldn’t speak to Hutchinson without the latter’s attorney present, later text messages show Hutchinson reaching out to Cheney directly and asking for a phone call.
Loudermilk’s report does not specify about which section of the law Cheney’s communications with the former Trump White House aide were supposedly in violation.
The law states that it’s illegal for anyone to threaten, coerce, mislead or otherwise push to alter witness testimony for any “official proceeding,” including congressional hearings, but even Loudermilk’s own press release does not accuse Cheney of doing so.……
GOP House subcommittee wants Liz Cheney investigated for ‘witness tampering’
Cheney communicated with key witness and provided recommendation for new legal representation, GOP report finds
DaveXA
Well-known member
Offline
A House GOP subcommittee is pushing for ex-Congresswoman Liz Cheney to be investigated by the Justice Department for witness tampering in retaliation for her efforts on the January 6 probe.
In a report from the House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight, Republican lawmakers led by Barry Loudermilk of Georgia argued that Cheney’s communications with Cassidy Hutchinson, a former Trump White House official, violated the law because Hutchinson’s lawyer was supposedly unaware they were happening.
“Evidence uncovered by the Subcommittee revealed that former Congresswoman Liz Cheney tampered with at least one witness, Cassidy Hutchinson, by secretly communicating with Hutchinson without Hutchinson’s attorney’s knowledge,” it reads. “This secret communication with a witness is improper and likely violates 18 U.S.C. 1512.”
Text messages through the encrypted Signal app uncovered by Loudermilk’s subcommittee show Cheney and Hutchinson communicating directly, as well as a separate prior conversation between Hutchinson and fellow Trumpland figure-turned-witness Alyssa Farah Griffin.
Griffin, in her texts to Hutchinson, describes her own conversation with Cheney in which the congresswoman supposedly spoke approvingly about Hutchinson’s first round of testimony to the committee — and was interested in hearing more.
“She said she admires you, and can tell you want to do the right thing from your testimony,” Griffin wrote to Hutchinson in April of 2022.
Despite text messages from Griffin stating that Cheney’s “one concern” was that ethically, she couldn’t speak to Hutchinson without the latter’s attorney present, later text messages show Hutchinson reaching out to Cheney directly and asking for a phone call.
Loudermilk’s report does not specify about which section of the law Cheney’s communications with the former Trump White House aide were supposedly in violation.
The law states that it’s illegal for anyone to threaten, coerce, mislead or otherwise push to alter witness testimony for any “official proceeding,” including congressional hearings, but even Loudermilk’s own press release does not accuse Cheney of doing so.……
GOP House subcommittee wants Liz Cheney investigated for ‘witness tampering’
Cheney communicated with key witness and provided recommendation for new legal representation, GOP report finds
It's interesting and somewhat frightening that the GOP has turned reality on its head by accusing (with zero evidence) their opponents of the very things they do.
fooferdoggie
Well-known member
Offline
well, they learned from the master.
superchuck500
U.S. Blues
Offline
A House GOP subcommittee is pushing for ex-Congresswoman Liz Cheney to be investigated by the Justice Department for witness tampering in retaliation for her efforts on the January 6 probe.
In a report from the House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight, Republican lawmakers led by Barry Loudermilk of Georgia argued that Cheney’s communications with Cassidy Hutchinson, a former Trump White House official, violated the law because Hutchinson’s lawyer was supposedly unaware they were happening.
“Evidence uncovered by the Subcommittee revealed that former Congresswoman Liz Cheney tampered with at least one witness, Cassidy Hutchinson, by secretly communicating with Hutchinson without Hutchinson’s attorney’s knowledge,” it reads. “This secret communication with a witness is improper and likely violates 18 U.S.C. 1512.”
Text messages through the encrypted Signal app uncovered by Loudermilk’s subcommittee show Cheney and Hutchinson communicating directly, as well as a separate prior conversation between Hutchinson and fellow Trumpland figure-turned-witness Alyssa Farah Griffin.
Griffin, in her texts to Hutchinson, describes her own conversation with Cheney in which the congresswoman supposedly spoke approvingly about Hutchinson’s first round of testimony to the committee — and was interested in hearing more.
“She said she admires you, and can tell you want to do the right thing from your testimony,” Griffin wrote to Hutchinson in April of 2022.
Despite text messages from Griffin stating that Cheney’s “one concern” was that ethically, she couldn’t speak to Hutchinson without the latter’s attorney present, later text messages show Hutchinson reaching out to Cheney directly and asking for a phone call.
Loudermilk’s report does not specify about which section of the law Cheney’s communications with the former Trump White House aide were supposedly in violation.
The law states that it’s illegal for anyone to threaten, coerce, mislead or otherwise push to alter witness testimony for any “official proceeding,” including congressional hearings, but even Loudermilk’s own press release does not accuse Cheney of doing so.……
GOP House subcommittee wants Liz Cheney investigated for ‘witness tampering’
Cheney communicated with key witness and provided recommendation for new legal representation, GOP report finds
I read the report - this whole thing about criminal investigation of Cheney is pure bullshirt and is nothing more than deceptive intention to influence a narrative.
The report does not find that Cheney may have broken the law - it only suggests that Cheney may have violated ethical standards in her communications with Cassidy Hutchinson. Only the press release by Loudermilk references criminal investigation of Cheney for encouraging perjury - not the report and there is no “referral.”
It also fails to address legislative immunity. This is all a hot pile of dog shirt and the media is eating it up without actually reading the report.
- Banned
- #808
Is it common for those running committees to communicate in secret with witnesses before their testimony?
superchuck500
U.S. Blues
Offline
Yes, that’s not the issue or the allegation. A select committee hearing is not a criminal prosecution or a grand jury. Committee members communicate with witnesses about their testimony (but note also that prosecutors also communicate with witnesses about their testimony). Hearings and depositions are for the purpose of getting testimony into the record - it’s not a surprise event.
But it isn’t alleged that Cheney wasn’t supposed to communicate with Hutchinson about her testimony - it is alleged that she did it without Hutchinson’s attorney being present . . . which the report notes is a potential ethical issue, at least for lawyers (there’s no applicable ethical rules for congress). At the same time, those allegations are usually made by the represented party - if they were happy to speak unrepresented, it’s effectively a waiver situation.
What the real issue is that they’re alleging that Cheney may have suborned perjury (a federal crime) - and that if she did it was outside of the scope of legislative immunity. Both seem baseless.
- Banned
- #810
I asked if it was common, as I don't know. Maybe someone else does know.
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account on our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.