The legal pundits are having a little trouble coming with the actual crimes that were testified to today but the count seems to be about seven.

Jan. 6 committee member calls hearing testimony proof this wasn't a 'spontaneous thing' that just 'got out of hand'

Sarah K. Burris
June 28, 2022



Shutterstock



WASHINGTON, D.C. — One of the main things revealed in the last-minute Tuesday hearing with Cassidy Hutchinson before the House Select Committee is that days ahead of the attack on Congress, the president's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, kept mentioning the Proud Boys and Oath Keeper militias.

When they were at the Ellipse on Jan. 6, Hutchinson revealed that Trump didn't want officials to use metal detectors so people with weapons could enter the event.

Hutchinson claimed in her testimony that former president Trump said, “I don’t f***ing care if they have weapons. They’re not here to hurt me. Take the f***ing mags away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in. Take the f***ing mags away."

For some, the testimony connected the dots for what the White House knew — and when they knew it, working to dispel the argument that the crowd simply got out of hand on Jan. 6.

RELATED: Congressman wants to know 'Where is Merrick Garland?' after Cassidy Hutchinson testifies

What Hutchinson indicated in the hearing Tuesday, is that the White House knew Trump supporters could get violent, and they were being encouraged to do it.

"It was really important to underscore the president and his aides understood the violence that was going to unfold — they understood it as it was unfolding," Committee member Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-FL) told Raw Story after the hearing. "They chose not to act. You know, what I keep saying is that it underscored for me that the Jan. 6 riot wasn't a spontaneous thing, you know, a couple of First Amendment protesters who got out of hand. The president knew these people were armed and he called on them to come down to the Capitol."

Murphy went on to explain that there were "a lot of other things that led up to this moment" but that Cassidy Hutchinson's main revelations "allowed people a first-hand perspective inside the White House in the days leading up to the insurrection."

With additional reporting from Matt Laslo.

https://www.rawstory.com/january-6-stephanie-murphy-spontaneous/

 

Well, at least we finally got them to bring out that smoking gun we been hearing so much about!
Trump interfering with a driver! Of the beast no less!
Is that a felony?

 

01:40 /01:42
Cipollone said on Jan. 6: 'We're going to get charged with every crime imaginable' if Trump goes to Capitol

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/h...ng-jan-6-rally-goers-for-weapons-143006789992

 

Two-thirds back prosecuting Trump over effort to overturn election: survey
by Caroline Vakil - 06/29/22 8:46 AM ET

Share
Tweet




Two-thirds of Americans say they think that former President Trump should be prosecuted for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, according to a new poll.

A Politico-Morning Consult poll released on Wednesday asked respondents if they believed Trump’s efforts to overturn the last presidential election’s results was a crime and that he should face prosecution.


Sixty-six percent of respondents said that they thought it was a crime and should be prosecuted, while 19 percent said it was not a crime and 18 percent said they thought it was a crime but Trump should not be prosecuted.

A majority of respondents also believed that Trump misled people in the country about the 2020 election outcome (57 percent), tried to overturn the 2020 election results (65 percent) and claimed fraud had been committed in the last election without evidence (64 percent).

The poll comes follows the latest hearing held by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack.

The panel heard from Cassidy Hutchinson, a former special assistant to former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows, on Tuesday, during which she offered surprising new insight into the days before and after the Capitol riot.


Among some of the revelations offered during her in-person and recorded testimony were acknowledgements from within the White House that things could go wrong on Jan. 6, that Trump was warned his efforts to toss out the last presidential election’s results were likely illegal and that the former president allegedly lunged at a Secret Service agent in an effort to go to the Capitol that day.

Her testimony was immediately dismissed by Trump on his Truth Social platform. The former president said, “I hardly know who this person, Cassidy Hutchinson, is, other than I heard very negative things about her (a total phony and ‘leaker’).”


The Politico-Morning Consult poll was conducted from June 24 to June 26 with a sample of 2,004 registered voters. The margin of error is plus or minus 2 percentage points.

https://thehill.com/policy/national...rump-over-effort-to-overturn-election-survey/

 

Good.
Do it.
Despicables been trying to get trump on something, anything, since he walked down the escalator.
Over 30 Federal or state criminal investigations.
MILLIONS spent. MILLIONS.
Enough documents to reach beyond the moon.
Testimony by people who hate trump, who worked for him, who supported him, who followed him.
Over 100 predictions by "experts" that this, now this will do it, now we got the bastard, that asshole Trump will go to jail over this revelation!
Only so far, no indictment.
No conviction.
NADA. ZIP. ZILCH.

Really and truly, everyone knows the answer to the question; "Is Trump really that clean and innocent, or are his investigators really that incompetent?
And the answer is, Yes.

 

Insurrection also means revolution. We the People have the powers, and any elected or appointed person only has power by consent of the governed. I have been researching why James Madison and other founders predicted We the People would have to invoke a second American Revolution. They stated this would happen between 200 to 250 years after the Constitution was signed. The root cause of all of humanity's problems is the cycle of violence done by Hubris from the Bible and renamed narcissism by Sigmund Freud. Dr. Ramani, you tube, Dr. Les Carter, and Melanie Tonia Evans have a good handle on Narcissism. A narcissist does not care about the human suffering the cause.

It is a human right to get rid of those who cause suffering.

 

Have you seen the latest about Hutchison? Turns out, according to Tony Ornato he never briefed Hutchison of any such thing, cause it isn't true. Trump didn't "lunge" for the steering wheel, he didn't try to throttle the driver, and he didn't throw a tantrum when they wouldn't take him to the Capital. And the Secret Service, starting with the driver in the Beast on January 6, is itching to testify and "set the record straight". And Shooter will bet we never hear their testimony, assuming they ever are called to testify.

It would seem that Hutchison's blockbuster testimony is a bit ......... um ......... inaccurate. And her appearance now (again) after Nancy Antoinette pulled the plug on the airing of her original circus, is highly suspect. Suspiciously like that blockbuster last second testimony from Dr. Ford just before they voted on the Kavanaugh confirmation. Can you see the similarities? Wanna bet, just like Dr. Ford and now her 'sponsor' Diane Feinstein, Hutchison and her "sponsor" Cheney will get tossed under the bus?

Which raises the question; what did Nancy's star chamber goons know, and when did they know it?

You see, it all goes back to what Shooter has been asking for quite awhile; is Trump really that innocent and pure, or are the investigators that incompetent? And the answer keeps coming back; Yes.

Now Shooter, you may recall, has said from the beginning that Trump is a pompous gas bag. But that doesn't mean he colluded with Russia(proven false), didn't enrich himself while president (like everyone before and since Trump has done), doesn't mean he raped women or plotted the overthrow of the government or stole Whitehouse dishes. Trump is about as likeable as a mouse infestation. But, to date, everything he's been accused of doing, turns out to have been false. Lies, in fact.

Never the less, we should be taking a hard look at the motivation of the investigators as well as asking the very hard questions about January 6 and the 2020 election. And where we find dishonesty or lies or especially criminal intent or acts we need to impose consequences. With extreme prejudice. If Trump fomented a revolution, throw his ass in jail. If Nancy Antoinette put together a star chamber under color of authority she needs to go to jail. If Hutchison is lying, she needs to go to jail. If Cheney knew it and played it anyway, she needs to go to jail. If Guliani, or The Pillow guy, or the Colorado secretary of state or the secretary of state in Georgia or Hunter Biden or Joe Biden or Kamala Harris stepped on their dicks, they need to suffer the consequences.

Investigate all of it. And prosecute as indicated.

On both sides of the fence. You know, despicable and deplorable. Cause apparently, to be a politician in America in the 22nd century, you either have to be a crook, naive, demented, stupid or unlikeable, or at least 2 of those things.

 

Kristi Swanson is still beautiful!

 

Vegas MAGA rioter accused of plot to bring firearms to Capitol -- now he's working with feds: report

Matthew Chapman
June 30, 2022



Capitol rioters (Photo by Saul Loeb for AFP)


On Wednesday, KLAS reported that a Las Vegas man facing felony charges for his alleged role in the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol is now cooperating with federal investigators.

"Nathaniel 'Nate' DeGrave, 32, of Las Vegas agreed to plead guilty Monday to charges of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, and assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers, the U.S. Attorney’s Office said," said the report. "DeGrave, who is originally from Pennsylvania, spoke exclusively with the 8 News Now I-Team in October. 'I’ve lost a lot since I’ve been in here,' DeGrave told the I-Team’s David Charns."

"Documents released last year revealed investigators received an anonymous tip that led them to DeGrave. On his Instagram, DeGrave says he is the CEO of a celebrity event planner and adult model management company," the report continued. "On the day of the riot, DeGrave, Ronald 'Ronnie' Sandlin, and a third man, Josiah Colt, of Idaho, met in a hotel room in Maryland and recorded videos for social media, prosecutors said. Colt took a deal to work with investigators last year. Sandlin remains incarcerated pending trial."

According to the report, DeGrave has spoken with the FBI and Department of Homeland Security about the events of January 6, as well as "unrelated matters."

NOW WATCH: 'Don't let it happen!' Trump begs Newsmax host not to cut his election conspiracy rant

DeGrave and Sandlin were hit with felony charges last September amid evidence they "discussed shipping guns" to the Capitol for the fight.

Right-wing pundits who have been pushing sympathy for the Capitol insurrectionists, such as Fox News' Tucker Carlson, have long sought to claim that nobody brought weapons to the event. This has been repeatedly debunked as false, with former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson testifying earlier this week that Trump even knew the rioters were armed and didn't care because "they're not here to hurt me."



https://www.rawstory.com/capitol-rioter-guilty-plea-2657555704/

 

Until shooter is convinced!?

Best laugh I have had today.

Thinskin

 

Oh, so what do you think, Shooter should do what you have done and accept as gospel down from the mount anything coming out of the Nancy Antoinette star chamber circus?
Haven't seen any comments from you about the Hutchison testimony being challenged by the people she claims told her stuff.
Why is that?
Wanna bet, we won't be hearing the testimony from Bobby Engel and Tony Ornato, even if they are allowed to testify?

You are proof that it is easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled.

 

Do you see anyone disputing these parts of Hutchinson's testimony other than Trump?

Trump's chief of staff knew Jan. 6 might get 'real, real bad'

White House lawyers said to be worried about criminal charges

Trump told his supporters were armed

Meadows, Hutchinson said, wanted to go to the 'war room' on Jan. 5

A call from ‘angry’ McCarthy

Trump OK’ing weapons at ‘Stop the Steal’

 

The shit always gets real when FBI shows up.

FBI subpoenas Arizona Senate president over Trump's coup attempt: report

Jerod Macdonald-Evoy, Arizona Mirror
June 30, 2022



Gage Skidmore.


Arizona Senate President Karen Fann and Mesa Republican Senator Kelly Townsend were subpoenaed by the FBI for an on-going investigation into President Donald Trump’s alleged pressure campaign on state officials to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.

“President Fann received a FOIA in the form of a subpoena by the FBI as part of the Biden Administration’s political theatrics as they look into ‘January 6,’” Kim Quintero, Director of Communications for Arizona Senate Republicans said in a statement to the Arizona Mirror. “Nonetheless, President Fann is fully cooperating in releasing whatever emails and text messages they are requesting.”

Fann, a Prescott Republican, hired and helped lead the “audit” of Maricopa County’s 2020 Presidential election results. She was also in communication with a number of Trump allies such as OANN correspondent Christina Bobb — who also worked for the Trump campaign and sent emails to Fann on behalf of Trump attorney Rudy Guiliani in December 2020 that included witness declarations, statements and expert testimony. Bobb’s non-profit would also supply volunteers for the “audit” itself as well as funding.

Quintero also confirmed that Townsend, a staunch supporter of the “audit” efforts and bogus election fraud claims, was issued a similar subpoena. Quintero said she is not aware of any other senator who wsa issued a subpoena.

“We have no reason to believe (Fann and Townsend) will be called to testify in Washington D.C.,” Quintero said. “The documents expressly say that she is not to comment on the matter, so this is all we can release at this time.”

The Arizona Capitol Times reported that Fann said there is a “list” of lawmakers who received a subpoena.

A Republican spokesman for the Arizona House of Representatives did not immediately respond to a questions about whether any members of that chamber had also been subpoenaed.

The subpoenas follow a string of other subpoenas to other high profile Arizona politicos who have found themselves enmeshed in election fraud claims and other legal battles.

Arizona GOP Chairwoman Kelli Ward was issued a subpoena by the Department of Justice last week along with other Arizonans who signed onto a document that would have sent fake electors to Congress on Jan. 6.

Politico first broke the news of Ward and her husband Michael being subject of a subpoena, citing an unnamed source who was familiar with the case but could not speak publicly. Alexander Kolodin, the Wards’ attorney and an attorney for both the Arizona Senate and Cyber Ninjas, confirmed to the Arizona Republic that he was representing them in the matter.

The Washington Post also reported that Arizonans Nancy Cottle and Loraine Pellegrino, who signed the false elector document as chair and secretary, were also served subpoenas in the matter.

This is not the first subpoena that Cottle, Pellegrino or Ward have faced. All three have been issued subpoenas by the House Select Committee investigating the riot on Jan. 6 at the Capitol, with Ward’s phone records specifically being sought by the committee. The Wards have filed a countersuit on the initial subpoena by the committee in federal court in Phoenix, which is still pending.

The document at the heart of the matter, which led the DOJ to issue a subpoena, involves 11 Arizona Republicans who met at the state party headquarters to falsely declare themselves the state’s official presidential electors.

The document created a second set of electors for former President Donald J. Trump and included former and currently elected members of the Arizona legislature.

Rep. Jake Hoffman, R-Queen Creek, was one of those electors. Hoffman would later go on to own a business that looks and acts identical to the email campaign platform utilized by Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, to email 29 Arizona lawmakers asking them not to certify the election results.

Former Rep. Anthony Kern, who was at the Capitol on Jan. 6, was also one of the electors, along with Senate Candidate Jim Lamon and Turning Point Action head Tyler Bowyer.

The subpoena appears to be part of a larger investigation into Trump allies and associates and their role in the Jan. 6 riot.

Arizona Mirror is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arizona Mirror maintains editorial independence.


https://www.rawstory.com/karen-fann-fbi-subpoena/

 

Ex-Trump Lawyer Believes ‘Many Damning Facts’ Show Trump Incited Insurrection, But It’s Not in the Country’s ‘Best Interests’ to Prosecute Him
By Ken MeyerJun 30th, 2022, 2:12 pm
960 comments




One of Donald Trump’s previous legal defenders says the former president is increasingly vulnerable to criminal charges in light of the revelations that have come from the House January 6 committee.


CNN recently reached out to Ty Cobb, who represented Trump during Robert Mueller’s investigation into whether the former president or his inner circle was connected to Russia’s interference during the 2016 election. The network spoke to him and several other attorneys to get their thoughts on Trump’s level of exposure after Cassidy Hutchinson’s explosive testimony Tuesday on the Trump administration’s conduct around January 6.

According to CNN’s report, Cobb says Trump is now in more legal danger than he was throughout the Mueller special counsel investigation:

Cobb, who represented Trump in the White House during Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, said this situation is much different than with Mueller. At the time of the Mueller investigation, Cobb believed Trump shouldn’t be charged with any crime – and the President wasn’t.

Nor did Cobb believe Mueller’s investigation was warranted. Now, that is not the case.

“Here there are many damning facts,” said Cobb, who pointed to Hutchinson’s testimony that Trump knew his supporters were armed on January 6, riled them up, then appeared to concur with them chanting to hang the vice president as worthy of prosecutors’ attention.


If that “isn’t insurrection, I don’t know what is,” he said Wednesday.

Even though the Secret Service is reportedly planning to dispute an explosive story Hutchinson relayed in her testimony, her revelations have generated new questions about whether Trump will be charged in connection with the storming of the U.S. Capitol. Charging a former president for his actions in office would have major legal ramifications, however, and Cobb warned it could open a can of worms that he advised against.

“Cobb, too, cautioned the type of hyper-partisan political era that charging a former President might bring — saying it could be ‘one more step in the erosion of our institutions,'” the report said. “I am not convinced prosecuting Trump is in the best interests of the country in the long term.”

https://www.mediaite.com/news/ex-tr...the-countrys-best-interests-to-prosecute-him/

 

The Oath Keepers will tell a jury they really believed Donald Trump would turn them into his own, personal militia on Jan. 6

• 
  

Laura Italiano
Thu, June 30, 2022 at 4:46 PM·8 min read


In this article:

• 
  

• 
  

In this Jan. 6, 2021 file photo rioters supporting President Donald Trump storm the Capitol in Washington.John Minchillo/AP

• 
  Lawyers for Elmer Stewart Rhodes will tell jurors the far-right group believed President Trump would federalize them.
  
• They will argue at their Sept. 28 seditious conspiracy trial that this, not sedition, was their lawful reason to be at the Capitol on Jan. 6.
  
• They'll also claim the Insurrection Act is so vaguely written, Trump legally could have used it to make them a federal militia.
  

When nine accused leaders of the Oath Keepers go on trial for seditious conspiracy in Washington, DC, this fall, jurors in the government's first big, Jan. 6 showcase trial will hear a defense argument that sounds little short of crazy.

They'll be told that the far-right extremists believed President Donald Trump would invoke the Insurrection Act as they gathered at the Capitol, 100 strong in their camo-colored tactical gear — and turn them into his own, ultra-loyal federal militia.

Their fantasy mission? To "Stop the Steal," "Defend the President," and "Defeat the Deep State," according to since-deleted rhetoric from their website. A defiant Trump would officially be their commander in chief.

"Do NOT concede, and do NOT wait until January 20, 2021," Inauguration Day. "Strike now," Oath Keepers leader and founder Elmer Stewart Rhodes urged in an open letter to Trump on Dec. 14, 2020.

"You must call us up and command us."


Oath Keepers founder Elmer Stewart Rhodes was charged with seditious conspiracy in the January 6 investigation.Photo by Philip Pacheco/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images
James Lee Bright, a lawyer for Rhodes, jokes that most people will laugh to learn the Oath Keepers thought they'd ever be a federal militia. "They believe what?" Bright imagines them thinking. "These guys are fucking crazy."

But he says he plans nonetheless to convince jurors that the pro-Trump, anti-government group actually had two lawful — and non-seditious — reasons to be at the Capitol on Jan. 6.


Reason one: They were an invited security force for rally planners and participants, including Roger Stone, Ali Alexander, Latinos for Trump and Virginia Women for Trump.

Reason two: They were awaiting Trump's orders.

When those orders failed to come, Rhodes' lawyers will argue, the Oath Keepers left the Capitol. They had dinner at Olive Garden, and then collected the weapons and provisions they'd stashed — at the ready but never used — in their rooms at a Comfort Inn in Arlington, VA. Then they went home.

"I just want to fight," federal prosecutors say Rhodes complained after failing to get Trump on the phone that night, like some extremist Pinocchio with a thwarted dream of becoming a real militiaman.

Prosecutors, will, of course, tell jurors a different tale.

The feds argue in court papers that the Oath Keepers' private chat messages show sedition was their real motive.

The chats are full of references to a Civil War against "the usurpers" — Joe Biden and Kamala Harris — and to using force to oppose the transfer of presidential power, which is the very definition of seditious conspiracy.

The feds also argue that Rhodes oversaw two military-style "stacks" or formations, of Oath Keepers who forcibly breached the Capitol — and that the real reason the group left DC was that the FBI had begun making arrests.

A far fetched fantasy
"I don't necessarily understand the mindset of it," says Bright, whose private practice is based in Dallas.

"It's not my world view," says Bright, speaking to Insider this week about the Oath Keepers' strategy for a 5-to-6 week trial scheduled to begin Sept. 28.

"But the evidence does exist that these individuals believed in it," he said of the group's hope that Trump would use the Insurrection Act to summon them into federal service against an imagined Biden-Harris "coup."

"They believed that if it was invoked, it was legal," Bright said. "And it would have been legal, arguably."

Which leads to perhaps the most eyebrow-raising part of the Oath Keepers' planned defense.

The Insurrection Act is so broadly written — leaving words like "insurrection," "militia" and "militias of the state" without clear definition — that Trump actually could have federalized the Oath Keepers, Rhodes' lawyers will tell jurors.

"It's so farfetched, and yet it's legal," at least until a court stepped in and held otherwise, Bright believes.


An Oath Keeper from Idaho in Bozeman, Montana.William Campbell/Corbis via Getty Images
Experts in the Insurrection Act, on the other hand, say no. It's just farfetched.

"While I understand where they got the idea from, what they're saying is mostly nonsense," says Joseph Nunn, counsel for the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School.

Yes, Nunn concedes, there is a separate, archaic federal statute, 10 USC 246 — drafted in 1792, the same year as the original Insurrection Act — which still includes as part of a larger definition of militia, "all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age ... and under 45 years of age."

It's a statute Rhodes cites in his writings, though the 57-year-old believes that military vets such as himself would somehow be eligible until age 65.

"That definition plausibly includes the Oath Keepers," says Nunn. "It also includes me. It also includes seniors in high school." It also includes the Crips street gang and the Brigham Young University men's choir.

"So it would be technically possible," Nunn says, "for the president to invoke the Insurrection Act and call on some group of civilians to act as a militia, and help the president enforce the law or suppress a rebellion."

But "it's just not plausible," he says, not the least reason being that there's no framework for it. Would a federalized Oath Keepers militia be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice? Could they be court-martialed?

And ultimately, as desperate as he was to stay in power, Trump didn't go there, probably, as Nunn puts it, because "there were some people in his ear, explaining to him that he couldn't do things."

"There's no world in which it's remotely likely where the president of the United States would invoke the Insurrection Act" says Nunn, "and call on what is fundamentally just a social club of guys who have firearms."

Or is there? The House Jan. 6 hearings are producing evidence and witnesses that suggest that Trump repeatedly seized upon moves his legal advisers told him were illegal as he clung to power.

There are a few other complications that Rhodes didn't think of, says Michel Paradis, a professor of military and constitutional law at Columbia Law School.

For one, in the centuries since 1792, virtually every state has expressly banned private paramilitary militias from acting as law enforcement in their jurisdictions.

Also, Paradis notes, there's a 1956 revision to the Insurrection Act that requires a president to first ask nicely that the insurrectionists disperse and go home before invoking the act.

How would that even work? The Oath Keepers believed that the real insurrectionists were Biden, Harris, "Communists from China" and a shadowy "deep state." Would Trump ask them to disperse, or would he ask the pro-Trump mob that breached the Capitol?

"There's simply no example throughout all of Constitutional history of the president ever, essentially, creating his own draft under the Insurrection Act," and calling up civillians, Paradis says.

"It's always been done by drawing upon the militia resources of the states, what we now call the National Guard."

Both Paradis and Nunn agree the Insurrection Act is in dire need of a Congressional overhaul that would clarify these points, and better define what a president can and can't do.

"It leaves totally to the president's discretion what constitutes an insurrection," says Nunn, who has written extensively on the topic for the Brennan Center.

"And it's largely up to the president to decide, do I need to activate a few hundred guys from the Maryland National Guard? Or do I send in the 1st Armored Division?'

Wouldn't it still be sedition?
The Oath Keepers' two-pronged sedition defense — that they were at the Capitol as invited rally security, and that they were awaiting the president's orders — is not a convenient, after-thought excuse, Bright notes.

"These guys were not planning this in the shadows," he says. "It all predates January 6. The government has recordings of the Oath Keepers discussing not bringing weapons into the district" until Trump gave the OK, he says.

And as president, Trump had flirted aloud with the idea of invoking the act, including against migrants at the southern border in 2019, and against violent George Floyd protesters in the summer of 2020, although always in the context of calling up the military or National Guard.

But did Trump — or anyone from Trumpworld — give any indication to the Oath Keepers that he would federalize them, or invoke the Insurrection Act to stay in office?

"To date, we are unaware of any direct communications that ever took place between the Oath Keepers and Trump, or anyone in his inner circle," Bright says.

Here's another problem with the defense.

What if the government tells jurors sure, go ahead and assume the Oath Keepers did believe Trump would federalize them, even absent any encouragement of that belief from Trumpworld.

Wouldn't anything the Oath Keepers did, or planned to do — as an armed, Trump-led militia obeying their Commander-in-Chief's orders as he continued to cling to power — still amount to sedition?

"I understand that," says Bright. "And that is an area of law we are really deeply looking at. We're looking into that. We anticipate that argument being made.

"It's all quite complicated," he adds. "And legally, it's fascinating."

Read the original article on Business Insider

https://www.yahoo.com/news/oath-keepers-tell-jury-really-224643643.html

 

So come on, all you trump hating obsessed despicables.
According to media reports you have all the evidence and witnesses you need to put Donald in jail for the rest of his life.
So do it.
Tired of all the promises and "bombshell" exposes that end up being outright lies half the time and exaggerated spin and propaganda the rest of the time.
So put up or shut up.
Get your trump perp walk and then head for the storm cellar.
Cause its coming.

 

The Miami Herald might be one of the most under rated newspapers in the country. They all but single handedly brought down Jeffery Epstein by just doggedly staying on the story. First covering the outrageous sweetheart deal Epstein got on his first charges. And then finding the victims that were silenced during the persecution. And then exposing Epstein's entire system for recruiting grooming and abusing his victims.

So this is significant to me.

Florida man Roger Stone is once again in a major political scandal: Miami newspaper

Bob Brigham
June 30, 2022



Roger Stone, pictured exiting a federal courthouse in Florida on January 25, 2019, is a renowned political dirty trickster who has consulted with Trump for four decades, (AFP Photo/JOE RAEDLE)


Florida is once again in the national news after Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson's bombshell testimony on Tuesday implicated Roger Stone in his third presidential scandal in the Sunshine State since 1996.

"The joke among journalists in South Florida is that there is always a Florida angle to any significant national story — and in this week’s explosive testimony at the Jan. 6 committee hearings by a former White House aide, the local connection was her mention of Roger Stone, a Fort Lauderdale-based political operative and Donald Trump minion," The Miami Herald editorial board wrote on Thursday. "According to Cassie Hutchinson, a former aide to Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, in the crucial hours where he hoped to wrest back the presidency he had lost in November, Trump turned to Stone for help. 'Get me Stone!' Can’t you just hear the enraged Trump?"

"Get Me Roger Stone" was the title of a 2017 Netflix documentary that featured commentary from Trump.

"Ms. Hutchinson, is it your understanding that President Trump asked Mark Meadows to speak with Roger Stone and General [Michael] Flynn on January 5?" Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) asked.

"That's correct. That is my understanding," she replied. "I'm under the impression that Mr. Meadows did complete both a call to Mr. Stone and General Flynn the evening of the 5th."

Attorney Katie Phang, who teaches at the University of Miami School of Law, wondered, "Why did Trump want Meadows to talk to Roger Stone & Michael Flynn?"


Katie S. Phang

@KatiePhang
·
Follow
The day before the Capitol attack, on 1/5, why did Mark Meadows want to go to the War Room at the Willard Hotel where Giuliani, Bannon, Eastman, et al. were located? Why did Trump want Meadows to talk to Roger Stone & Michael Flynn?
1:45 PM · Jun 29, 2022

The Herald noted Stone was reportedly, "in contact with leaders of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, which also have Miami and Florida ties."

And this wasn't Stone's third Florida scandal involving a presidential campaign.

In 2008, Jeffrey Toobin was taken to the Miami Velvet swinger's club by Stone while writing a New Yorker profile published under the headline, "The Dirty Trickster."

"Stone served as a senior consultant to Bob Dole’s 1996 campaign for President, but that assignment ended in a characteristic conflagration. The National Enquirer, in a story headlined 'Top Dole Aide Caught in Group-Sex Ring,' reported that the Stones had apparently run personal ads in a [Florida] magazine called Local Swing Fever and on a Web site that had been set up with Nydia’s credit card. 'Hot, insatiable lady and her handsome body builder husband, experienced swingers, seek similar couples or exceptional muscular . . . single men,' the ad on the Web site stated. The ads sought athletes and military men, while discouraging overweight candidates, and included photographs of the Stones," Toobin reported. "At the time, Stone claimed that he had been set up by a 'very sick individual,' but he was forced to resign from Dole’s campaign. Stone acknowledged to me that the ads were authentic."

Four years later, Stone was yet again involved in the Brooks Brothers riot during the 2000 Florida recount, which he told Toobin he directed from a Winnebago.

“I set up my command center there. I had walkie-talkies and cell phones, and I was in touch with our people in the building. Our whole idea was to shut the recount down. That was why we were there. We had the frequency to the Democrats’ walkie-talkies and were listening to their communications, but they were so disorganized that we didn’t learn much that was useful," Stone said.

Watch the trailer for "Get Me Roger Stone":

 

Feds say photo shows MAGA-rioting Trump appointee using riot shield against cops after he claims unfair prosecution

Brad Reed
July 01, 2022



Federico Klein (FBI images)


Federico Klein, a former Trump-appointed State Department aide who was arrested last year for taking part in the January 6 Capitol riots, is facing pushback from his claims that he's being unfairly targeted by federal prosecutors.

CBS News' Scott MacFarlane flags a new court filing made by DOJ lawyers in which they rebut Klein's claims that he's being "selectively prosecuted" by showing a photo that allegedly shows him using a riot shield against law enforcement officers at the United States Capitol.

"Klein and others around him attacked, and attempted to enter, the Capitol as the Vice President, Members of Congress, and thousands of staffers convened inside," DOJ lawyers wrote in the filing. "That conduct, and the 'threat to civilians' it engendered... dispels any inference of disparate treatment."

The DOJ lawyers also rebutted assertions that Klein and his fellow January 6 defendants shouldn't be treated any worse than the left-wing anti-police brutality demonstrators who routinely committed acts of violence and vandalism at the Hatfield Federal Courthouse in Portland, Oregon.

READ MORE: 'Complicit in everything': Questions raised about Jim Jordan after Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony

"Although both Portland and Jan 6 rioters attacked federal buildings... the Portland defendants primarily attacked at night, meaning that they raged against a largely vacant courthouse," the DOJ attorneys argued.

See the photo showing Klein at the Capitol below.


Scott MacFarlane

@MacFarlaneNews
·
Follow

Former Trump political appointee Federico Klein argues he's being selectively prosecuted in Jan 6 case because of his prior service in Trump Admin Justice Dept hits back hard against the claim, in new court filing arguing Klein used police riot shield *against* officers (more)



9:15 AM · Jul 1, 2022


https://www.rawstory.com/capitol-rioter-trial-2657597520/