More to ignore, Book 67.......

Ten Thousan Marbles

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014


Ten Thousan Marbles

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014
The thing that made Donald Trump could also be what takes him down: Grif
Joan McCarter

Grift made Donald Trump. Grift made the modern-day Republican Party. It seems almost inevitable that the two would eventually come together to present the greatest threat to the nation in more than a century: January 6, 2020.

Few of the revelations unveiled by the Jan. 6 committee on Monday about Trump’s fundraising were really new. After all, months after the event, former Trump fixer and attorney Michael Cohen declared Trump’s claims of election fraud the “greatest grift in U.S. history.” He said that Trump “has made it very clear that he is grifting off of the American people, these supporters, these individuals that are just sending money to him at record levels.”

But the connection the committee made to that grift—the Big Rip-off, as Rep. Zoe Lofgren termed it—to the violent and horrifying events on Jan. 6: that clicked. As did the case the committee seems to be making for felony wire fraud. That’s the takeaway from one prosecutor, anyway: New York state Attorney General Letitia James. “The new details revealed tonight related to January 6 are disturbing,” James tweeted Monday. “It’s my duty to investigate allegations of fraud or potential misconduct in New York. This incident is no exception.”

James is already investigating the Trump family and the Trump Organization for fraud in New York real estate practices. The bar in that investigation is relatively high: “James will need to show that the three eldest Trump children and their father knew what they were doing was wrong—and did it anyway.”

The Jan. 6 committee arguably has met that bar so far, presenting testimony from various members of Trump’s own team that they told him he had lost, that there was no fraud, that there was no basis for continuing the Big Lie and—this is the fraud part—for continuing to fundraise on it. There’s the financial fraud.

Then there’s the fomenting violent sedition part. Al Schmidt, former Philadelphia city commissioner, spoke to that Monday. He stressed that the city took “seriously” every claim the Trump campaign raised about fake ballots cast in dead people’s names. “Not only was there no evidence of 8,000 dead voters voting in Pennsylvania, there was not even evidence of eight,” Schmidt said.

For his efforts, Schmidt and his family were inundated with death threats from the MAGA crowd. “The threats became much more specific, much more graphic, and included not just me by name, but included members of my family, their names, ages, address, pictures of our home, every bit of detail you could imagine,” he said.

That’s the very dangerous side of the tradition of grift that the Republicans have been perfecting for the past 60 years, as author and historian Rick Perlstein told The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent. “This phenomenon of conservative Republican leaders seeing their constituencies as a pool of marks to squeeze money out of really does go back to the beginnings of the conservative takeover of the Republican Party in the 1960s,” Perlstein said. “As is so often the case in the Republican Party under the Trumpist reign, it takes normal historical patterns of behavior and turns them up to 11.”

“Right-wing voters are acclimated into an understanding of the world in which they are being victimized by dark forces,” he continued. “That’s a great way for conservative leaders to get money shoveled in their direction. But it’s also a great way to form what Marxists used to call a ‘cadre,’ a group of fanatically dedicated followers.”

“Now we face the phenomenon of millions of people, many of them armed, who are identifying their own safety, comfort and flourishing as human beings with the political success of Donald Trump and his allies. […] If you think the stakes are whether civilization itself survives, and that you’re dealing with a cabal of shadowy enemies, of course you’re licensed to use any means to stop them,” Perlstein said.

“If the stakes are racial replacement, and the shadowy enemies are the Jews said to be controlling the replacement of Whites, then it’s okay to kill Jews. It’s okay to shoot up Black churches. It’s okay to shoot up a Walmart.”

Or it’s okay to attack the U.S. Capitol and attempt to overthrow Congress and threaten to kill the vice president.

Ten Thousan Marbles

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014
Riley Williams AKA Nazi Girl Insurrectionist Has A BF Who Planned Mass Shooting At Synagogue.


One of my favorite Jan 6th insurrectionist is back in the news again. Riley Williams was the young woman who stole Nancy Pelosi’s laptop computer during the Jan 6th insurrection. And she uploaded a video online of her dancing while giving a Nazi salute. And this will not shock anyone, but she violated the terms of her pretrial home detention requirements by meeting with her boyfriend. By the way, he is a former marine who was convicted of planning a mass shooting at a synagogue.

Did I mention this lovely woman wants to have her home confinement requirements removed?

For those that have forgotten Nazi Girl, here are the eight charges against her. And one of them is for assaulting a police officer, and another is for the theft for Nancy Pelosi’s laptop computer. It has been suggested that Nazi Girl was going to sell the laptop to the Russians.

Anyway, because she is a young white woman, she has been on home detention until her trial. Yes, she doesn’t want to try and make a plea deal. So the mean old judge made Nazi Girl’s mom in charge of keeping her in line until the trial. There is a set of requirements that Nazi Girl had to adhere to.

And they are all so “burdensome” and “excessive,” according to Nazi Girl’s lawyer.

Harrisburg native Riley Williams, 23, calls her conditions of home detention and wearing an ankle monitor excessive, in light of the fact she has abided by all conditions for the past 16 months without fail.

At-present, Williams is confined to her home at almost all times, wears an ankle monitor, is not allowed to travel outside central Pennsylvania, must submit to drug testing yet must maintain steady employment.

“It is likely that a resolution of this matter will not occur until some point in 2023,” Williams’ lawyer, Lori Ulrich, said in the motion. “Requiring Ms. Williams to remain on home detention with electronic location monitoring the duration of that time is unduly burdensome.”

Nazi Girl is also supposed to turn in a schedule of her appointments, and she is to check in when she gets back home. In other words, she has a probation officer checking on her. And here is a another lovely “burden” for Nazi Girl:

When watching TV on a Smart TV, Williams’s third-party custodian is supposed to monitor Williams’s use. Additionally, she was supposed to use a flip phone (or non-smart phone) for all other communication.

Now, Nazi Girl’s lawyer filed on Friday a motion to ease some of those restrictions.

Prosecutors have presented evidence to the judge that Nazi Girl repeatedly violated the terms of her home detention, and the whopper of all those violations was meeting with a man who was convicted of planning a mass shooting at a synagogue.

Prosecutors filed a motion Friday asking a judge not to loosen restrictions on suspected Capitol rioter Riley Williams because they say she recently met with a man who wanted to shoot up a synagogue and lied about it…

Prosecutors say Williams also got her mother to lie to her probation officer about the visit by the man in August 2021 to her mother’s home, where she is residing, according to the motion. Williams’ mother was assigned by the court to be her third-party monitor to ensure she complies with the conditions of her pre-trial release.

The man was convicted, kicked out of the Marine Corps, and sentenced to 19 months in prison. He told Williams about his prior arrest, according to court documents. The records contained a foot note that the government believes the man at some point became her fiancé…

Williams has been in video contact with the man since the fall of 2020 even though she is prohibited from video calls with anyone but her attorney or mental health services. Her mother allowed her to use the mother’s iPad to conduct the calls, even though it is not allowed by the court, according to the document.

OH looky there! Mom let her use her iPad to make calls! And Mom lied for her little love nugget! He’s such a nice young man that Nazi Girl was meeting! He hates Jews as much as Nazi Girl! It’s a match made in Hell!

Oh, and about those appointments and schedule she had to keep? She routinely violated those too! Her probation officer had to track her down.

On a more serious note, I knew this was going to happen. Anyone as sick as Riley Williams was not going to pay attention to any old rules. Her mom is her so called “jailer.” Send her back to the woman who obviously couldn’t reach her daughter, if the damn woman even tried that is.

What mother****in’ bullshit.

Anyone want to bet that the dumbass judge gives Nazi Girl another pass because she is a white woman?

Ten Thousan Marbles

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014

Man on Republican's insurrection-eve tour of Capitol found in Jan. 6 footage threatening lawmakers
Brandi Buchman

.....Committee chairman Bennie Thompson first asked Loudermilk to cooperate with the probe voluntarily this May, giving him an opportunity to discuss the video footage the panel discovered during its review of key Capitol surveillance video.

In a statement, USCP Chief Manger said footage reviewed by the department did show Loudermilk with a group of 12 people that initially ticked up to 15 as they walked through a number of office buildings around the U.S. Capitol. Manger said the guests did not “appear in any tunnels” leading to the Capitol itself.

The committee’s release appears to challenge that narrative—or at the very least, point out behavior it still deems highly suspicious.

“The foregoing information raises questions the Select Committee must answer,” Thompson wrote in a letter to Loudermilk on Wednesday morning. ......
Last edited:

Ten Thousan Marbles

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014

New Mexico’s secretary of state on Tuesday asked the state Supreme Court to order the Republican-led commission of rural Otero County to certify primary election results after it refused to do so over distrust of Dominion vote-tallying machines.

Democratic Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Olive's request came a day after the three-member Otero County commission, in its role as a county canvassing board, voted unanimously against certifying the results of the June 7 primary without raising specific concerns about discrepancies.

The commission's members include Cowboys for Trump co-founder Couy Griffin, who ascribes to unsubstantiated claims that former President Donald Trump won the 2020 election. Griffin was convicted of illegally entering restricted U.S. Capitol grounds — though not the building — amid the riots on Jan. 6, 2021, and is scheduled for sentencing later this month. He acknowledged that the standoff over this primary could delay the outcome of local election races.

“I have huge concerns with these voting machines,” Otero County Commissioner Vickie Marquardt said Monday. “When I certify stuff that I don’t know is right, I feel like I’m being dishonest because in my heart I don’t know if it is right.”

The commission’s vote is the latest example of how conspiracy theories and misinformation are affecting the integrity of local elections across the U.S. Trump has continued to describe the 2020 election as “rigged” or “stolen,” despite a coalition of top government and industry officials calling it the "most secure in American history.”.......

Ten Thousan Marbles

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014
Former assistant U.S. attorney for the Department of Justice talks about a Trump indictment
Rebekah Sager

Kevin J. O'Brien is an attorney specializing in white-collar crime. He’s a partner at Ford O’Brien Landy LLP and worked as the assistant U.S. Attorney to the Department of Justice in the Eastern District of New York. So when I asked him about the possibility of a former President Donald Trump indictment, he was happy to give me the entire 4-1-1.

O’Brien explained that there are two levels of inquiry in a U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) indictment of Trump

“One is, how strong is the case?” O’Brien tells Daily Kos. “Because the DOJ isn't going to indict someone just because it's possible. There's a reason why the federal government wins 90-plus percent of its cases in this area. They're very selective, especially in a high-visibility case like this, where there are political ramifications. They're going to be especially careful.” The second thing the DOJ will consider, O’Brien says, is whether an indictment is good for the country or not.

But the key to indicting Trump, O’Brien hammers, is for the House Select Committee investigating Jan. 6 to establish a real and verifiable “link” between the former president and the actions of the insurrectionists.

“If they have a physical threat on the Capital and the people inside it—that becomes a compelling case that I think few people could argue with.” But, he adds, he doesn’t think that link has been made yet.

“The technical term in the law is ‘conspiracy,’ an agreement to do something illegal. If they can't show that, then the physical storming of the Capital is not part of the case, and a lot of the suggestive evidence simply isn't relevant.”

“We hear these guys talk about the fact that they went in [to the Capitol] because of Trump, that they were emboldened by what Trump said. Well, absent evidence of a conspiracy, that type of statement isn't even admissible,” O’Brien says.

As for Attorney General Merrick Garland, O’Brien believes he is very “conscious of preserving the integrity of the Justice Department” at the moment, which, he adds, “Bill Barr did a pretty good job of dragging into the mud.”

The critical thing to remember, O’Brien says, is that we—the American people—only know what we know. The DOJ isn’t sharing everything they know. There could be a grand jury, but if there is, it’s a secret.

The decision to indict comes down to precedent. No U.S. president in history has ever been indicted, much less criminally prosecuted. But, O’Brien says, that doesn’t mean there won’t be a first time.

“There are honorable losses. Sometimes you have to bring a case just because it has to be brought. But in a case like this, which is highly politicized, the last thing they want is to do is put the country through this and give Trump a platform to complain about persecution, blah, blah, blah, and then have the jury acquit him,” O’Brien says.

Of course, if Trump isn’t indicted, many in the nation will feel he’s gotten away with a series of openly criminal acts, including but not limited to a failed coup.

O’Brien says he hopes the hearings will expose Trump to “right-thinking people,” and he adds that a case against Trump in Georgia looks pretty “serious.”

Fani Willis, the Fulton County, Georgia, district attorney, is leading a special grand jury investigating Trump’s efforts to reverse the 2020 election after he pleaded with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find 11,780 votes.” Raffensperger was subpoenaed to testify in June. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, he is one of the first among about half a dozen witnesses to testify before the 23-person special grand jury. CBS News reports that the secretary of state also received a subpoena for documents for all "writing or medium that memorializes the events surrounding the Jan. 2, 2021, telephone call with President Donald Trump" and "any writing or medium that explains" Trump's demeanor during the call.

But O’Brien muses over why there’s no investigation into Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and her involvement in a scheme to undermine the 2020 election.

According to reporting by The Washington Post, Ginni Thomas pressured 29 GOP Arizona lawmakers to disregard Joe Biden’s win and “choose” presidential electors who would turn over the state’s election results.

“If you incited 27 people … to break the law. I mean, if that's a parallel to what's been going on, that the committee knows about it and has talked about it, that's alarming. But it's even more alarming if there's a connection between those things. She's going home every night, and she calls [Justice] Clarence [Thomas] her ‘best friend,’ and they're politically somewhat aligned, and he’s deciding cases that bear a disclosure. I mean, that just jumps out at you.”

Ten Thousan Marbles

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014
Trump's fundraising scam built on the back of retirees
Joan McCarter

Donald Trump’s scammy, aggressive fundraising tactics have been making news since he rode down that escalator to announce his white nationalist presidential bid seven years ago. The Jan. 6 House committee revealed that Trump was fundraising for an election legal defense fund that did not exist, and that the proceeds from it have instead lined the pockets of Trump family and hangers-on.

Since he lost the election, Trump’s Save America PAC has been raking in tens of millions more from Trump supporters. So where are all these millions coming from, the money for that non-existent defense fund and for the Save America PAC that just keeps on raking it in? Retirees, in large part, The Washington Post finds: more than half of the donations are from people on Social Security. The Post reviewed Federal Election Commission records for the Save America PAC and a Save America joint fundraising committee, data showing that “nearly two-thirds of those 2.5 million contributions came from people who listed their occupation as ‘retired.’ More than 6 in 10 were contributions of $100 or less from retirees.”

Trump has raised over $390 million since his election loss, another review by The New York Times finds, and “much of the money spent by political committees affiliated with Mr. Trump went toward paying off his 2020 campaign expenses and bolstering his political operation in anticipation of an expected 2024 presidential run.” One of those groups bolstering his operation is the America First Policy Institute, a supposed think tank, which of course has “paid to hold events with Mr. Trump at his private clubs, including Mar-a-Lago, in South Florida, and Bedminster, in New Jersey.”

Largely on the backs of the small dollar donors who keep falling for his snake oil. “Small-dollar donors use scarce disposable income to support candidates and causes of their choosing to make their voices heard, and those donors deserve the truth about what those funds will be used for,” Rep. Zoe Lofgren said at Monday’s hearing. Like Don Jr.’s girlfriend, Kimberly Guilfoyle, getting $60,000 for her two-minute introduction of Trump at the Jan. 6 rally that kicked off the insurrection.

Of the $98 million raised for the Save America PAC, the one he created after the election and is the “primary hub of his ongoing political operations,” just $4 million had gone to candidates, other PACs or party committees by the end of April of this year.

If they’re still giving money to Trump, those small-dollar donors won’t even really care that their money is going to feather TrumpCo’s nest. They’re that deep into it. But the rule of law demands that the government care. The Justice Department should investigate Trump’s PACs as it has done a number of scam PACs and, if it finds evidence of fraud, levy charges like it’s done against those scams.

“It would certainly be novel for the Justice Department to pursue a fraud case against a former president’s PAC, but Trump’s fraudulent postelection fund-raising was novel, too,” Brendan Fischer, a campaign finance expert at the watchdog group Documented, told the Times. He pointed out that the amount of money raised since the election by Trump was “entirely unprecedented.”

Common Cause’s Stephen Spaulding sees ample evidence in what the committee has found thus far for the Justice Department to investigate whether these actions have “crossed the line into wire fraud.”

Meanwhile, Trump just keeps on building that war chest, spending little of what he takes in on the candidates and causes he supposedly supports. Just this week, they sent out another one, Trump Jr. asking people to pay for the opportunity to put their name on the “official” birthday card for his dad.

Ten Thousan Marbles

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014
Jan. 6 committee hearings uncover evidence for civil suits that could financially devastate Trump
Charles Jay

We don’t know whether Attorney General Merrick Garland’s DOJ will eventually indict Donald Trump on criminal charges related to the Jan. 6 attempted coup. And if indicted, we don’t know whether a jury will convict Trump.

But there are other attorneys besides Garland who most likely have been closely watching the House select committee’s hearings. These are the attorneys in multiple civil lawsuits seeking damages from Trump for his role in propagating the Big Lie of a “stolen election” and instigating the Jan. 6 insurrection.

MSNBC’s Ja’han Jones, writing in The ReidOut Blog, said

The main focus of the House Jan. 6 committee's first two public hearings has been clear: proving then-President Donald Trump was responsible for the Capitol riot by showing he knowingly lied about so-called fraud in the 2020 election.
The audacity of Trump's "big lie" has become clearer as we've learned more about what his staffers were telling him in private — that he was, justly, an election loser. And those lies could cripple Trump financially.

The burden of proof is much lower in civil lawsuits — remember what happened to O.J. Simpson — and could result in Trump having to pay millions of dollars in damages and legal expenses. He might even end up having to declare bankruptcy again.

Now that wouldn’t be as gratifying as seeing Trump behind bars. But seeing Trump financially ruined would still be somewhat satisfying.

Back in February, The Guardian wrote that there are 19 pending legal actions against Trump. Fifteen of them are civil lawsuits.

The most significant and advanced pending criminal case against Trump is the one in Fulton County, Georgia, where District Attorney Fani Willis has convened a special grand jury to hear evidence into Trump’s efforts to overturn the state’s 2020 presidential election results.

The Guardian wrote:

Most of the cases fall under three themes: financial wrongdoings that made him more money; his role in the January 6 2021 insurrection; and his alleged interference in the 2020 election. Trump has denied wrongdoing in most of these cases. He has filed motions to dismiss several of them and has filed countersuits in some cases.

There are six civil lawsuits seeking damages from Trump for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection.

— Eleven House members are suing Trump, his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and two extremist groups, the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, for conspiring to incite the violence at the Capitol. The lawsuit was originally filed in February 2021 by Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.),who later was named chairman of the House Jan. 6 select committee, and the NAACP civil right group.

According to CNN the lawmakers each described “how they narrowly escaped the mob, and how some still have nightmares and anxiety months later.”

“As I sat in my office on January 6th with rioters roaming the hallways, I feared for my life and thought I was going to die," Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee said in a statement at the time. "This invasion was a direct result of Donald Trump's rhetoric and words.”

The lawsuit, backed by the NAACP, cited a rarely used federal statute passed in 1871 to combat violent acts by the Ku Klux Klan. It allows civil actions to be brought against people who use "force, intimidation, or threat" to prevent anyone from upholding the duties of their office.

— Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) filed a lawsuit to hold Trump accountable for the violent insurrection at the Capitol. The San Francisco Chronicle said the lawsuit “could mean court-ordered inspection of Trump’s communications and actions leading up to, during and after the riot, and potentially a deposition of Trump under oath.”

In February, D.C. District Judge Amit Mehta allowed Swalwell’s lawsuit to proceed in a ruling declaring that Trump was not covered by presidential immunity or free speech protections enough to dismiss the lawsuit. The lawsuit also cited the 1871. Ku Klux Klan Act.

— At least four separate lawsuits have been brought by members of the Capitol Police and D.C. Metro Police against Trump for physical and emotional injuries suffered during the Jan. 6 insurrection.

One of the lawsuits filed on behalf of seven Capitol Police officers by the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law also named Trump’s ally Roger Stone as well as the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. It also cited the Ku Klux Klan Act.

__ The NAACP filed a lawsuit against Trump and the Republican National Committee for trying to overturn the election results in Michigan. The lawsuit argued that Trump and his campaign had threatened to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of predominantly Black voters in Detroit by pressuring local officials to refuse to certify Joe Biden as the election winner in Wayne County.
All of these lawsuits were filed before any of the House select committee’s public hearings on the Jan. 6 coup. The committee so far has introduced evidence that strengthens all of the civil lawsuits against Trump related to Jan. 6.

Monday’s hearing revealed testimony by former Attorney General William Barr, Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien and other members of Trump’s inner circle who said that they had made clear to Trump in no uncertain terms that they did not agree with the idea of him saying the election was “stolen” because there was no evidence of widespread fraud.

Subsequent hearings should include more evidence that as part of a multi-pronged coup plot to remain in power, Trump weaponized a violent mob to stop Vice President Mike Pence from completing the electoral vote count in Congress.

And just the first two days of the Jan. 6 panel’s public hearings could result in even more civil lawsuits against Trump.

At Thursday night’s opening public hearing, Capitol Police officer Caroline Edwards, testified that she was knocked unconscious by the insurrectionists, teargassed, and felt like she was in a “war scene” on Jan. 6. She suffered a traumatic brain injury.

Edwards was not among the Capitol Police officers who had previously filed civil lawsuits against Trump.

And then there are the election workers who faced death threats after Trump named them and spread lies about their work as he made his baseless claims of election fraud.

Former Philadelphia City Commissioner Al Schmidt, the only Republican on the city’s election board, testified Monday that after Trump denounced him by name in a Tweet, he and his family members were the target of graphic and very specific threats.

Trump also falsely accused Fulton County, Georgia, election workers Ruby Freeman and her daughter of election fraud by supposedly introducing suitcases of illegal ballots. As a result, the two women were targeted with numerous racial slurs and threats of lynching.

Freeman and her daughter settled a defamation lawsuit against the right-wing cable news outlet OAN, but still have a defamation case pending against Giuliani.

And Trump could face even more legal complications after it was revealed during Monday’s Jan. 6 committee hearing that he raised more than $250 million off of his “stolen election” claims in the two months after Election Day for an “election defense fund” that did not actually exist.

Instead the committee found that some of the money was funneled to Trump business properties as well as Trump’s own Save America political action committee. Kimberly Guilfoyle, Don Jr.’s girlfriend, reportedly received $60,000 for a two-minute speech at the Jan. 6 rally outside the White House.

New York State Attorney General Letitia James tweeted Monday night that she found the new details revealed at the committee’s hearing to be “disturbing.”

James would have jurisdiction to open an investigation into fraud involving campaign donations on behalf of defrauded donors or on the basis that funds were passed through New York-based banks, Business Insider reported.

Before James took office, a lawsuit filed by the New York Attorney General’s office resulted in a $25 million settlement for victims of the fraudulent Trump University. Another lawsuit forced the dissolution of the Trump Foundation after the New York AG’s office detailed “a shocking pattern of illegality” that amounted to the purported charity “functioning as little more than a checkbook to serve Mr. Trump's business and political interests."
So what’s the bottom line. Regardless of what AG Garland decides about criminal charges, Trump is likely to be entangled in costly legal proceedings for years to come.

The Jan. 6 committee might never depose Trump, but the former president has already given depositions in several civil lawsuits. These include the Trump University lawsuit and another lawsuit brought by a group of demonstrators who said Trump’s security guard assaulted them during a 2015 demonstration outside Trump Tower.

On Tuesday, New York’s highest court cleared the way for Trump and his two eldest children, Ivanka and Don Jr., to be deposed next month in James’ ongoing civil investigation into Trump’s business practices. The question is whether Trump and his organization falsely valued multiple assets for economic benefit.

Top law firms are reluctant to represent Trump out of concern for their reputation and whether they will get paid. Among the lawyers recently used by Trump is Alina Habba, who runs a boutique law firm based in Bedminister, N.J. near Trump’s golf resort.

So as the Jan. 6 committee reveals new evidence against Trump, he can expect even more lawsuits, mounting legal fees, depositions, and verdicts resulting in millions of dollars in damages.

As Jones concluded on The ReidOut Blog:

We’re still early in the Jan. 6 committee hearings, but one thing seems abundantly clear: Trump needn’t only worry about his exposure to criminal charges. Civil cases stemming from his election defeat could devastate him, as well.

Ten Thousan Marbles

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014

Judge rejects Steve Bannon's motion to throw out contempt of Congress charges

A federal judge on Wednesday refused to throw out the charges against Steve Bannon for contempt of Congress, sending the former Donald Trump adviser to trial next month.

Judge Carl Nichols of the DC District Court rejected Bannon's motion to dismiss the case against him, including his arguments that the House select committee's subpoenas were illegal and that he was protected by the secrecy of the presidency because he had been in contact with Trump at the end of his administration.

The decision is likely to add firepower to the House's January 6 investigation, which is holding public hearings this month on its findings, and it blesses the Justice Department's decision to indict Bannon, who had left the Trump administration in 2017.

Bannon and several other conservatives have tried to fight the select committee's subpoenas in court, but their arguments have been repeatedly rejected by federal judges......


Ten Thousan Marbles

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014
A federal judge refused to throw Steve Bannon a lifeline on Wednesday, instead deciding that the right wing provocateur will indeed go to trial in the coming weeks for refusing to testify before the Jan. 6 Committee.

However, the judge indicated he may eventually hold the Department of Justice accountable for spying on one of Bannon's defense lawyers and secretly obtaining his call and email records.

While Bannon’s lawyers insisted that he was protected because of DOJ’s policy that former White House advisers don't have to testify before Congress if a president invokes "executive privilege," U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols on Wednesday was unconvinced that Bannon could point to in noting that "none of these letters unambiguously instructed” Bannon to simply not show up.

“It’s more than a stretch… that they specifically addressed this situation,” Nichols said, noting that Bannon was actually a former White House official—and he was claiming privilege on behalf of Donald Trump when he was no longer the president.

In court on Wednesday, one of Bannon’s defense lawyers disclosed that their client had at least one private conversation with then-President Trump that he wants to keep secret from the Jan. 6 Committee.

That’s one reason Bannon tried to justify his invocation of executive privilege to prevent him from testifying before the panel investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

David Schoen, one of Bannon’s lawyers, who also happened to represent Trump at his second impeachment trial, twice referenced this interaction before a federal judge as the reason why his client should not be prosecuted now for contempt of Congress.

“He’s a former senior adviser who the president then calls in,” Schoen said when describing why the interaction should be barred from congressional inquiry, adding that anyone in Bannon’s position who had previously served in the White House and “was later called in to have a conversation with the president” would not anticipate being prosecuted for keeping that interaction private.

Federal prosecutor Amanda Vaughn said that “cherry-picking” snippets of DOJ memos about executive privilege could not be used as a “free pass to commit crimes” and not show up before Congress.

She said there was no opinion from the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, which designs these sorts of policies, that would say Bannon “didn’t have to turn over documents of his communications with the Proud Boys, or Oath Keepers, or his meetings with members of Congress on January 5th at the Willard Hotel.”

Bannon’s executive privilege argument rests on a string shaky premises. For one, he’s arguing that executive privilege extends to former presidents. For another, he’s holding that executive privilege extends to him—at the time, a private citizen—because he had interactions with the then-president. And then, finally, as the prosecution pointed out Wednesday, Bannon holds that he has blanket protection from talking to Congress about anything because he had a conversation with the president.

When Bannon refused to testify or hand over documents to the congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection at the Capitol building in October last year, the panel held him in contempt of Congress, and the Department of Justice followed up with a criminal indictment in November. The rightwing provocateur immediately seized it as an opportunity to attack the attorney general, House speaker, and president.

From the start, Bannon said he would turn this into the “misdemeanor from hell for Merrick Garland, Nancy Pelosi, and Joe Biden.” His lawyers developed a legal strategy that would attempt to use the case’s to get any DOJ, Congress, or White House records that would hint at this being merely a political prosecution. And since then, the case has gotten messy.

In February, Bannon’s defense team revealed that the FBI had spied on one of Bannon’s lawyers: Bob Costello of New York. The Daily Beast then exposed that federal agents had actually cast a wide dragnet that surveilled several incorrect Robert Costellos, some of whom live in other states and have never even practiced law. That worried the federal judge overseeing the case, who said he wanted to review the investigative tactics used by the feds.