Jan 6 committee rescinds Trump subpoena

[mspart]

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2022/1229/Jan.-6-committee-withdraws-Trump-subpoena-prepares-to-dissolve

Here are some excerpts.  You can read the whole thing if you care to. 

The House Jan. 6 committee has dropped its subpoena against former President Donald Trump as it wraps up work and prepares to dissolve next week.

Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, the committee's Democratic chairman, wrote in a letter to Mr. Trump's lawyer David Warrington on Wednesday that he is formally withdrawing the subpoena.

“As you may know, the Select Committee has concluded its hearings, released its final report and will very soon reach its end,” Rep. Thompson wrote. “In light of the imminent end of our investigation, the Select Committee can no longer pursue the specific information covered by the subpoena.”

...  Mr. Trump then sued the panel in November to avoid cooperating. The lawsuit contended that while former presidents have voluntarily agreed to provide testimony or documents in response to congressional subpoenas in the past, “no president or former president has ever been compelled to do so.”

The committee’s request for documents was sweeping, including personal communications between Mr. Trump and members of Congress as well as extremist groups. Mr. Trump’s attorneys said it was overly broad and framed it as an infringement of his First Amendment rights.

... On social media Wednesday evening, Mr. Trump and his lawyers construed the move as a victory. “They probably did so because they knew I did nothing wrong, or they were about to lose in Court,” Mr. Trump wrote on his social media site.

On Twitter, Mr. Trump's lawyer Harmeet Dhillon said the panel had “waved the white flag."

So here we can go with the committee's statement that they essentially ran out of time and there won't be a committee to testify to in the next month.   So subpoena goes away.

Or we could use a little reasoning here.   D's were fairly confident they would lose the House.   The fact this came true was not a surprise.  So why did they allow the clock to run on this?  Is it a fact that the lawsuit brought up the committee's illegitimate and biased stance and showed the subpoena was without merit?   From another statement from Harmeet Dhillon -

“After my firm filed suit on separation of powers grounds to block January 6 House Select Committee’s illegitimate subpoena to President Trump over his activities while president—the committee waved the white flag & withdrew subpoena,” Dhillon said in a message on social media early Thursday.  “We were confident of victory,” she added, “in court, given precedent & refusal of prior presidents to testify in Congress. J6 committee wasted millions for a purely political witch-hunt, total abuse of process & power serving no legitimate legislative purpose.

This seems to be something of note really.   Was the committee close to losing and gave up, or did they somehow, allow the clock to run out when they knew the clock would run out?  I think the former.   They are using the time now to save face.  In my opinion. 

mspart

[Mike Parrish]

There was too much time left in appeals and delays to allow for the subpoena to be worth anything.

When has the GOP/MAGA/Trump prevailed on a lawsuit regarding the 2020 election or any January 6th case? Ever?

[BerniePragle]

8 hours ago, mspart said:

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2022/1229/Jan.-6-committee-withdraws-Trump-subpoena-prepares-to-dissolve

Here are some excerpts.  You can read the whole thing if you care to. 

The House Jan. 6 committee has dropped its subpoena against former President Donald Trump as it wraps up work and prepares to dissolve next week.

Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, the committee's Democratic chairman, wrote in a letter to Mr. Trump's lawyer David Warrington on Wednesday that he is formally withdrawing the subpoena.

“As you may know, the Select Committee has concluded its hearings, released its final report and will very soon reach its end,” Rep. Thompson wrote. “In light of the imminent end of our investigation, the Select Committee can no longer pursue the specific information covered by the subpoena.”

...  Mr. Trump then sued the panel in November to avoid cooperating. The lawsuit contended that while former presidents have voluntarily agreed to provide testimony or documents in response to congressional subpoenas in the past, “no president or former president has ever been compelled to do so.”

The committee’s request for documents was sweeping, including personal communications between Mr. Trump and members of Congress as well as extremist groups. Mr. Trump’s attorneys said it was overly broad and framed it as an infringement of his First Amendment rights.

... On social media Wednesday evening, Mr. Trump and his lawyers construed the move as a victory. “They probably did so because they knew I did nothing wrong, or they were about to lose in Court,” Mr. Trump wrote on his social media site.

On Twitter, Mr. Trump's lawyer Harmeet Dhillon said the panel had “waved the white flag."

So here we can go with the committee's statement that they essentially ran out of time and there won't be a committee to testify to in the next month.   So subpoena goes away.

Or we could use a little reasoning here.   D's were fairly confident they would lose the House.   The fact this came true was not a surprise.  So why did they allow the clock to run on this?  Is it a fact that the lawsuit brought up the committee's illegitimate and biased stance and showed the subpoena was without merit?   From another statement from Harmeet Dhillon -

“After my firm filed suit on separation of powers grounds to block January 6 House Select Committee’s illegitimate subpoena to President Trump over his activities while president—the committee waved the white flag & withdrew subpoena,” Dhillon said in a message on social media early Thursday.  “We were confident of victory,” she added, “in court, given precedent & refusal of prior presidents to testify in Congress. J6 committee wasted millions for a purely political witch-hunt, total abuse of process & power serving no legitimate legislative purpose.

This seems to be something of note really.   Was the committee close to losing and gave up, or did they somehow, allow the clock to run out when they knew the clock would run out?  I think the former.   They are using the time now to save face.  In my opinion. 

mspart

Ok, let's use a "little reasoning" here.  Let's put aside all the legal and political wrangling. 
Do you think Trump bore no responsibility for the incident at the Capitol Jan 6?  Do you not think he could have de-fused the situation, rather than fanning the fire?  Do you not think he has continued to divide the country in order to inflate his own ego, regardless of the effects on anyone else?  Do you not think he has a variable set of rules and truths, depending on his always egocentric view of the world and every situation?
Bottom line, wouldn't you like to hear what he had to say in a situation in which he were, for once, at least legally obligated to be honest?  I sure would, although I'm sure he would slither out, saved as usual by his ever-present legal team.
 

[jross]

Yes, Trump bears responsibility.  Trump lost the election.  Whether he felt or was hypothetically cheated, he should have done everything he could to ensure a peaceful transfer.  

There was probably a lot more to the 2020 election and the events leading to the Jan 6th event than the public will ever know.  I'd like to know the truth from more people than Trump.  

[Crotalus]

35 minutes ago, jross said:

I'd like to know the truth from more people than Trump.  

I can guarantee you one thing, you are not getting the truth from Trump. If he had anything beyond insane conspiracy theories, we'd know about it and he wouldn't have been begging AGs to "find" votes for him. 

[jross]

I agree that we would not get the truth from Trump.  However, I'll add that some theories seem probable and cannot be proven or disproven.  

[mspart]

10 hours ago, BerniePragle said:

I can guarantee you one thing, you are not getting the truth from Trump. If he had anything beyond insane conspiracy theories, we'd know about it and he wouldn't have been begging AGs to "find" votes for him. 

Can we guarantee that a 100% biased Jan 6 committee is telling us the truth?   Are there things they did not investigate?   The Rs submitted names for the committee and Pelosi said no.   She chose biased Rs to be on the committee so that everyone on the committee voted to impeach Trump.   That is not what I call a fair or balanced committee or hearing by such a committee.  That's what we want of course. 

mspart

 

[Mike Parrish]

56 minutes ago, mspart said:

Can we guarantee that a 100% biased Jan 6 committee is telling us the truth?   Are there things they did not investigate?   The Rs submitted names for the committee and Pelosi said no.   She chose biased Rs to be on the committee so that everyone on the committee voted to impeach Trump.   That is not what I call a fair or balanced committee or hearing by such a committee.  That's what we want of course. 

mspart

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwLjK9LFpeo

[Crotalus]

5 hours ago, jross said:

I agree that we would not get the truth from Trump.  However, I'll add that some theories seem probable and cannot be proven or disproven.  

Probable is a strong word for theories that have no evidence, making them impossible to verify and equal impossible to disprove. If you tell me about a UFO encounter you had, I won't believe you, but I also can't disprove it. But I'm interested in any of the theories out there that you deem "probable" that could have had election result altering impacts. 

2 hours ago, mspart said:

Can we guarantee that a 100% biased Jan 6 committee is telling us the truth?   Are there things they did not investigate?   The Rs submitted names for the committee and Pelosi said no.   She chose biased Rs to be on the committee so that everyone on the committee voted to impeach Trump.   That is not what I call a fair or balanced committee or hearing by such a committee.  That's what we want of course. 

mspart

 

Not sure why/how you changed the author of my comment to Bernie. He shouldn't be blamed for any of my ramblings. 

Also, while we can't be sure everything from the Jan. 6 committee is 100% true, they are releasing the testimony and documents to back up the conclusions they have made. 

Edited December 30, 2022 by Crotalus

[jross]

1 minute ago, Crotalus said:

Probable is a strong word for theories that have no evidence, making them impossible to verify and equal impossible to disprove. If you tell me about a UFO encounter you had, I won't believe you, but I also can't disprove it. But I'm interested in any of the theories out there that you deem "probable" that could have had election result altering impacts. 

Evidence shows that the FBI lied to suppress the Biden laptop story before the 2020 election.

There is evidence that Twitter suppressed information damaging the Biden campaign in the 2020 election.

There was evidence in the 2016 election that Google influenced results in favor of the Clinton campaign.  Google still is unregulated and moderating search suggestions and results in the U.S.A.

There are articles about the massive influence of Facebook and the effect it can have on an election.

The election hardware used in the 2020 election was proven to be hackable without a trace record in 2006.

People openly admit doing whatever it took to vote Trump out of office.

People were caught undercover, admitting they were doing whatever they could with propaganda to get Trump voted out of office.

People were arrested for buying votes in the 2020 election.

Laws were changed in advance of the 2020 election to benefit one party.

The winning party refused to allow the opposition to monitor the voting process at specific locations.

There were anomalies in the votes in multiple locations.

The government stated that this was the 'most secure election in history.'  Can that be proven or disproven?  

All of these statements can be cited.  Forgive me for not having them at my fingertips.

[BerniePragle]

This reminds me of the old professional wrestler Ric Flair.  Whenever he was in danger of losing a match, Flair's buddies would interrupt the match, distracting the referee.  During the distraction, Flair would hit his opponent over the head with a chair (or some such nonsense) and Flair would jump on top of him.  The now not-distracted ref would see Flair pinning the opponent and declare him the winner.  Flair would strut around to the cheering of his adoring fans whooping and telling the world he was the greatest wrestler and lover the world had ever seen.  Does anyone else see the comparison? (Trump's "legal team" = Flair's buddies.)  Now that I think about it, the one flaw in my comparison is that, as I remember, Flair's fans seemed smarter than Trump's...
 

[jross]

Have you checked out the doc on peacock?

[Ban Basketball]

As David Allen Coe oft said, "Think about it..."

...what's happened to us when we're now invoking pro rasslin, and ESPECIALLY, Ric Flair as "legitimate discussions."

 

 

 

Edited December 31, 2022 by Ban Basketball

[jross]

Well, let me tell you something, brother. We were just minding our own business, having a civil discussion, when all of a sudden, things took a turn for the worst. It was like a plane crash in slow motion, brother. One minute, we were agreeing to disagree, and the next minute, we were locked in a heated argument. It was like a train wreck, brother. A train wreck with words. But, you know what they say, to be the man, you gotta beat the man. And I think it's safe to say, I took the title of top debater in this match. WOOOOO!

Haha.  The Nature Boy has arrived, brother.  He knows jabronis can be like a camel, always on its high horse, thinking they are better than everyone else. But let me tell you something, my friends - the camel is a dirty animal, and so is the jabroni. They both need to be put in their place and humbled by the mighty Iron Sheik!

Well, let me tell you something, brother. Bringing professional wrestlers into the discussion is like a big old scoop of vanilla ice cream. It might sound good on paper, but when you take a bite, it's just plain boring. But me, I'm like a big old bowl of Jalapeno ice cream. I'm spicy, I'm unpredictable, and I'll always bring the heat. So if you want to complain about legitimacy, that's fine, but just remember: don't mess with the Macho Man, because I'm the real flavor of the month!

Edited December 31, 2022 by jross
having fun

[BerniePragle]

I stand by my Trump = Flair analogy.  My point was Trump's ever-present (but constantly changing...Goodbye Rudy) "legal team" saved his bacon same as Flair's posse did by the same methods.  Now that I think about it, I'll even double down.  There are even more similarities than I first thought.  The more I think about it, the more I like it.  I'm gonna give myself a gold star.

[Crotalus]

14 hours ago, jross said:

Laws were changed in advance of the 2020 election to benefit one party.

The winning party refused to allow the opposition to monitor the voting process at specific locations.

There were anomalies in the votes in multiple locations.

OK, most of those don't address election fraud. But here are the ones I'd like more info about. 

1. Which laws are you referring to? If it's early voting and mail in voting, then I don't care. It is clear that one party benefits from, and strives for, making voting less accessible. 

2. These claims are verifiable if true. The claims I saw were false (Trump lawyers admitted so in court relating to MI and PA), as observers from both parties were allowed according to law. Republican intimidation attempts at ballot drop off and early voting locations were blocked at some, but not all locations, however. 

3. This would also be verifiable if true. Slight errors happen in every election, hence recounts in close races, but I've seen no evidence of result altering anomalies.

[Wrestleknownothing]

18 hours ago, mspart said:

Can we guarantee that a 100% biased Jan 6 committee is telling us the truth?   Are there things they did not investigate?   The Rs submitted names for the committee and Pelosi said no.   She chose biased Rs to be on the committee so that everyone on the committee voted to impeach Trump.   That is not what I call a fair or balanced committee or hearing by such a committee.  That's what we want of course. 

mspart

 

Not quite accurate. Kevin McCarthy submitted 5 Republicans to serve on the committee. Pelosi rejected 2 of the 5 (the pride of the wrestling community, Jim Jordan and Jim Banks). McCarthy then pulled the other 3, saying it was all 5 or none. The strategy was to either get Jordan and Banks on the committee to do Jordan and Banks things, or refuse to participate so that you can claim partisanship.

[Mike Parrish]

6 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Not quite accurate. Kevin McCarthy submitted 5 Republicans to serve on the committee. Pelosi rejected 2 of the 5 (the pride of the wrestling community, Jim Jordan and Jim Banks). McCarthy then pulled the other 3, saying it was all 5 or none. The strategy was to either get Jordan and Banks on the committee to do Jordan and Banks things, or refuse to participate so that you can claim partisanship.

Precisely.

McCarthy was negotiating in bad faith and attempting to hobble the J6C.

 

[Ban Basketball]

10 hours ago, jross said:

Well, let me tell you something, brother. We were just minding our own business, having a civil discussion, when all of a sudden, things took a turn for the worst. It was like a plane crash in slow motion, brother. One minute, we were agreeing to disagree, and the next minute, we were locked in a heated argument. It was like a train wreck, brother. A train wreck with words. But, you know what they say, to be the man, you gotta beat the man. And I think it's safe to say, I took the title of top debater in this match. WOOOOO!

Haha.  The Nature Boy has arrived, brother.  He knows jabronis can be like a camel, always on its high horse, thinking they are better than everyone else. But let me tell you something, my friends - the camel is a dirty animal, and so is the jabroni. They both need to be put in their place and humbled by the mighty Iron Sheik!

Well, let me tell you something, brother. Bringing professional wrestlers into the discussion is like a big old scoop of vanilla ice cream. It might sound good on paper, but when you take a bite, it's just plain boring. But me, I'm like a big old bowl of Jalapeno ice cream. I'm spicy, I'm unpredictable, and I'll always bring the heat. So if you want to complain about legitimacy, that's fine, but just remember: don't mess with the Macho Man, because I'm the real flavor of the month!

That was actually sad. 

Hope all is well at home. 

[Ban Basketball]

1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Not quite accurate. Kevin McCarthy submitted 5 Republicans to serve on the committee. Pelosi rejected 2 of the 5 (the pride of the wrestling community, Jim Jordan and Jim Banks). McCarthy then pulled the other 3, saying it was all 5 or none. The strategy was to either get Jordan and Banks on the committee to do Jordan and Banks things, or refuse to participate so that you can claim partisanship.

And,  it's often forgotten that Gymmy J was one person "of interest" in the entire investigation,  so having him serve as an investigator of hisself may have been a bit of a "conflict of interest, " as those in the legal fields say. 

[jross]

Sometimes you just gotta take a chill pill, ya know? It's like Jake the Snake used to say, 'calm down and hit the canvas like a ton of bricks.' - OpenAI ChatGPT - tell me a quote about chill pill in the style of jake the snake

Well, let me tell you, brother, everything is fine at home. The fridge is stocked, the laundry is done, and I just spent the morning oiling up the lawn mower. Everything is fine, brother, except for my wife. She's still mad at me for not remembering to put the toilet seat down. But you know what they say, brother: Don't get mad; get even. So I just bought her a new toilet seat with a built-in stand. Problem solved, brother. Hulkamania forever! - OpenAI ChatGPT - tell me a joke about everything is fine at home in the style of hulk hogan

OpenAI ChatGPT spoke in the style of Ric Flairy, Iron Sheik, and Macho Man Randy Savage in the previous comment.  Searched something like two guys debate/argue in the style of...

[Ban Basketball]

13 minutes ago, jross said:

Sometimes you just gotta take a chill pill, ya know?  OpenAI ChatGPT - tell me a quote about chill pill in the style of jake the snake
 

Oh,  I know.  I do indeed know,  and I'm WAY ahead of you.  

And,  yes,  they are literally called Chill Pills.

Edited December 31, 2022 by Ban Basketball

[jross]

3 hours ago, Crotalus said:

OK, most of those don't address election fraud. But here are the ones I'd like more info about. 

1. Which laws are you referring to? If it's early voting and mail in voting, then I don't care. It is clear that one party benefits from, and strives for, making voting less accessible. 

2. These claims are verifiable if true. The claims I saw were false (Trump lawyers admitted so in court relating to MI and PA), as observers from both parties were allowed according to law. Republican intimidation attempts at ballot drop off and early voting locations were blocked at some, but not all locations, however. 

3. This would also be verifiable if true. Slight errors happen in every election, hence recounts in close races, but I've seen no evidence of result altering anomalies.

 

Important: Partisan election interference through big tech, covertly and overtly, has a massive influence and should be taken seriously.  

Fraud:  The secret voting process reduces the risk of voter coercion.  It is, unfortunately, complex to audit and identify fraud.  Fraud does happen.  Are you aware of the story of Rachel Rodriguez in Texas, who admitted on video that she knew she was illegally affecting up to 7,000 votes?   https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/ag-paxton-san-antonio-election-fraudster-arrested-widespread-vote-harvesting-and-fraud

/Pausing here.  Thoughts?  Can you prove that fraud does not occur?  Does that mean that fraud does not occur?  Is 7,000 votes a lot for a single person to influence?  Is it reasonable to believe she was the only person that committed fraud in the 2020 election?  Is it reasonable to believe that fraud only would occur for one candidate?

Edited December 31, 2022 by jross
adjusted "not dismissed" to "taken seriously" for positive language

[Mike Parrish]

Electoral fraud is exceedingly rare.

 

[jross]

Election fraud conviction is exceedingly rare.  How do you prove that fraud is exceedingly rare?