- Infamous second son paper trail enter device code code#
- Infamous second son paper trail enter device code trial#
Ali Alexander, who had close contact with Roger Stone and others close to Trump, texted that Trump was supposed to order supporters to the Capitol, noting “We shall see.” The night before, at a rally on the evening of Jan.
Infamous second son paper trail enter device code trial#
In particular, Trump backers like Steve Bannon (who is about to go on trial for refusing to testify before Congress) predicted violence on his podcast - and did so soon after speaking with the president. More important, today’s testimony showed Trump and those around him not only expected violence to occur - and were actively encouraging it. 6 committee hearing tells a very different story - that Trump’s supporters not only expected violence but embraced it. 6, there was a recurrent notion that the violence that engulfed the Capitol that day was a spontaneous outpouring. Exactly why Trump did that is murky, but the optics of his removing Cipollone, elevating Eastman, and attempting to coerce Pence are clear - and terrible. Instead, it appears that Trump himself shut the White House counsel out of a meeting where most presidents would want the most qualified, thoughtful lawyers to advise them: a high-stakes debate over the constitutional duties of the vice president. Nor would he likely have any grounds to claim privilege based on conversations with other White House personnel, especially given that Jason Miller, who was not a White House aide at that time, has previously testified that Cipollone conveyed to Miller that he thought Eastman’s theories were wacky. Had Cipollone simply decided on his own volition not to stay, there would be no basis to assert any privilege. Cipollone acknowledged he walked to that meeting and went “to the Oval Office with the idea of attending the meeting but ultimately did not attend.” But when pressed as to why, Cipollone said only, “The reasons are privileged.”
4 meeting with law professor and pro-Trump lawyer John Eastman former Vice President Mike Pence Pence’s counsel, Greg Jacob and Pence’s chief of staff, Marc Short, is especially notable. In light of that context, Cipollone’s testimony about Trump’s Jan. Instead, Cipollone invoked privilege to protect his “direct conversations” with Trump. 6 committee has emphasized that no topics were per se off limits. Since last week, reporting on former White House Counsel Pat Cipollone’s closed-door testimony to the Jan. The ball is now in Attorney General Merrick Garland’s court. The law provides that “Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”
Infamous second son paper trail enter device code code#
Let’s look at one of the applicable federal criminal code provisions. Meaning Trump sent them there and could have sent them away. Capitol rioter Stephen Ayers testified that if Trump had told them to leave, they would have. Jason Van Tatenhove, a former spokesperson for the Oath Keepers, testified that we were essentially on the brink of a civil war. The group of people who stormed the Capitol were sent there by Trump. Trump explicitly and implicitly told far right militia groups, the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, that they must do something to “stop the steal” of the election. All evidence indicates that Trump fully knew and understood that there was no basis for his claims that the election was stolen and knew and understood that he was ginning up an angry mob of conspiracy theorists to storm the election and try to overturn the election. And if they have the will to further investigate these efforts, Merrick Garland and his deputy, Lisa Monaco, certainly know how. What matters is that Trump World’s campaign to influence witnesses only seems to be escalating - and now, the DOJ knows it. Their lawyer alerted us, and this committee has supplied that information to the Department of Justice."Īs Jessica Levinson and I have discussed, whether or not the committee having “supplied that information to the Department of Justice” constitutes an official criminal referral is unimportant.
That person declined to answer or respond to president trump’s call and instead alerted their lawyer to the call. "After our last hearing, President Trump tried to call a witness in our investigation, a witness you have not yet seen in these hearings. 6 committee witnesses and how those payments could themselves constitute potential wrongdoing by the former president and his allies.īut as unsubtle as those overtures - at least some of which were directed to Cassidy Hutchinson - were, they don’t hold a candle to Cheney’s announcement today: There has also been recent reporting, including from “The Rachel Maddow Show” and our blog about the Trump campaign paying for the legal fees of various Jan.
0 kommentar(er)
