1/6 Discussion outside the 1/6 Select Committee and 1/6 Defendants Threads (1 Viewer)

[cosjobs]

Off topic posts in those threads really derail them. I started this just so  we could post 1/6 outside the scope of the Committe and Defendant threads.

I'm not trying to overwhelm the front page with 1/6 threads, quite the opposite. 

Anyway, the liberal media (sarcasm) Business Insider published this story today:

Trump was confused when White House staffers didn't like him rewinding Capitol riot highlights on TV, report says
sankel@businessinsider.com (Sophia Ankel) - 4h ago

Trump "gleefully" watched the Capitol insurrection, an ex-White House official said last month. 
But he was confused when staffers who also watched were not as excited, the AP reported.
 
Former President Donald Trump was confused when White House staffers didn't like him rewinding Capitol riot highlights on TV, The Associated Press reported Monday.
The report offers new details into what happened in the West Wing on January 6, 2021, as a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol in an attempt to stop the certification of the 2020 presidential election. 

The AP report repeats a previous claim made by Stephanie Grisham, a former White House press secretary, who told CNN last month that Trump "gleefully" watched the insurrection unfold on TV, rewinding the footage at several points to watch it over again.

"Look at all of the people fighting for me," Trump said at the time, according to Grisham.

As White House staffers watched the riot unfold, the former president was shocked that they weren't as excited as he was, the AP said.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The AP report repeats a previous claim made by Stephanie Grisham, a former White House press secretary, who told CNN last month that Trump "gleefully" watched the insurrection unfold on TV, rewinding the footage at several points to watch it over again.

"Look at all of the people fighting for me," Trump said at the time, according to Grisham.

As White House staffers watched the riot unfold, the former president was shocked that they weren't as excited as he was, the AP said.

These staffers missed out on a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create something similar to The Gorilla Channel, only for real.  You miss 100% of the shots you don't take, guys. 

 

[Stealthycat]

well if Stephanie Grisham said it, run the story as fact !

promote that new book Stephanie !!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I'll_Take_Your_Questions_Now

 

[dozer]

BREAKING: A federal judge has rejected Donald TRUMP's effort to dismiss lawsuits against him by multiple members of Congress and the Capitol seeking to hold him responsible for the events of Jan. 6.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

In a remarkable, 112-page ruling, Judge MEHTA said Trump essentially entered into a "tacit agreement" with the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, sending a rally crowd he knew included violent elements to the Capitol.

Mehta notes that Trump's tweets during and after the attack appeared to "ratify" the violence.

The judge says there's a plausible (perhaps likely) case that Trump was aware of what he was unleashing at the Capitol — and approved.

Amid the violence, Trump tweeted an attack on Mike Pence that his supporters viewed as an endorsement of their actions. When they left, he told them to remember this historic day, a plausible ratification of their actions.

Trump "took advantage of the crisis" to lean on congressional allies to delay the proceedings even further, Mehta notes.

MEHTA says Trump's words can plausibly be considered incitement to "imminent lawless action," a key legal standard.

Politico Article: Judge rejects Trump effort to toss lawsuits accusing him of Jan. 6 conspiracy

 

[dozer]

BREAKING: A federal judge has rejected Donald TRUMP's effort to dismiss lawsuits against him by multiple members of Congress and the Capitol seeking to hold him responsible for the events of Jan. 6.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

In a remarkable, 112-page ruling, Judge MEHTA said Trump essentially entered into a "tacit agreement" with the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, sending a rally crowd he knew included violent elements to the Capitol.

Mehta notes that Trump's tweets during and after the attack appeared to "ratify" the violence.

The judge says there's a plausible (perhaps likely) case that Trump was aware of what he was unleashing at the Capitol — and approved.

Amid the violence, Trump tweeted an attack on Mike Pence that his supporters viewed as an endorsement of their actions. When they left, he told them to remember this historic day, a plausible ratification of their actions.

Trump "took advantage of the crisis" to lean on congressional allies to delay the proceedings even further, Mehta notes.

MEHTA says Trump's words can plausibly be considered incitement to "imminent lawless action," a key legal standard.

Politico Article: Judge rejects Trump effort to toss lawsuits accusing him of Jan. 6 conspiracy

Marcy Wheeler, Emptywheel
 

How Judge Amit Mehta Argued It Possible That Trump Conspired With Two Militias

As Judge Mehta laid out, there were five things Trump did that made the plaintiffs’ claims of a conspiracy plausible, which is the standard required to reject the motion to dismiss:
 

1- They agreed to pursue the goal of disrupting the vote certification.

2- Trump encouraged means of obstructing the vote count and the militias (and others) carried them out.

3- Trump incited law-breaking.

4- Trump called for collective action.

5- Trump ratified the riot.

“These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!”

 

[dozer]

The North Carolina state attorney general says that section 3 of the 14th amendment barring insurrectionists from running for public office APPLIES to Madison Cawthorn.

The State Board of elections has already said they HAVE the authority to bar him.

Politico: North Carolina officials reject Cawthorn claim that Constitution’s insurrectionist ban no longer applies

The case is an important early test for those seeking to impose consequences on members of Congress who embraced false claims about the 2020 election results.

In a late Monday court filing, state attorneys said a provision of the 14th Amendment — disqualifying insurrectionists from holding federal office — is not a defunct Civil War-era relic meant to apply only to former Confederates but a guard against future acts of insurrection.

As a result, Cawthorn, who is fighting a challenge to his eligibility to run, could face that prohibition if the North Carolina State Board of Elections determines he meets the criteria, the state attorneys said.