Meadows held in criminal contempt. Paints himself into a corner!

Well, another piece of shit floats to the top, only to sink like a stone.

Meadows is fucked any way he turns now. The evidence he provided the committee may mean Trump finally gets got. You know that’s gotta piss off Der Scheissfuhrer to no end. Even with the heel turn, Meadows is going to be thrown under the bus by the Republicans and the Democrats.

Is he a man of his convictions? Don’t know. But currently he’s a man of his indictments.

Fuck that weasel.

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics...t-mark-meadows

House Votes to Hold Mark Meadows in Contempt in Jan. 6 Probe

The House has voted to hold former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows in contempt of Congress after he ceased to cooperate with the Jan. 6 committee investigating the Capitol insurrection.
By Associated Press
|
Dec. 14, 2021

By FARNOUSH AMIRI and MARY CLARE JALONICK, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House voted Tuesday to hold former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows in contempt of Congress after he ceased to cooperate with the Jan. 6 Committee investigating the Capitol insurrection — making it the first time the chamber has voted to hold a former member in contempt since the 1830s.

The near-party-line 222-208 vote is the second time the special committee has sought to punish a witness for defying a subpoena. The vote is the latest show of force by the Jan. 6 panel, which is leaving no angle unexplored — and no subpoena unanswered — as it investigates the worst attack on the Capitol in more than 200 years. Lawmakers on the panel are determined to get answers quickly, and in doing so reassert the congressional authority that eroded while former President Donald Trump was in office.

“History will be written about these times, about the work this committee has undertaken,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson, R-Miss., the chairman. “And history will not look upon any of you as a martyr. History will not look upon you as a victim.”

The two GOP votes — Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, who serve on the committee — in favor of the resolution came after nine Republicans voted to hold former Trump ally Steve Bannon in contempt in October. While Bannon’s case was more clear-cut -- he never engaged with the committee at all -- Meadows had turned over documents and negotiated for two months with the panel about an interview. Meadows also has closer relationships within the Republican caucus, having just left Congress last year.

Meadows was also Trump’s top aide in the White House, giving him more plausible grounds to claim executive privilege. Bannon had not worked in the White House since 2017.

The Justice Department will also be weighing those factors as prosecutors decide whether to move forward with the case. If convicted, Bannon and Meadows could each face up to one year behind bars on each charge.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., another member of the panel, began Tuesday’s debate on the resolution by reading frantic texts from the day of the attack revealing members of Congress, Fox News anchors and even Trump’s son urging Meadows to persuade the outgoing president to act quickly to stop the three-hour assault by his supporters.

Republicans on Tuesday called the action against Meadows a distraction from the House's work, with one member calling it “evil” and “un-American.”

Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio praised Meadows: “Make no mistake, when Democrats vote in favor of this resolution, it is a vote to put a good man in prison.”

Trump also defended Meadows in an interview, saying: “I think Mark should do what’s right. He’s an honorable man. He shouldn’t be put through this."

And Meadows’ attorney George Terwilliger defended his client in a statement before the vote, noting that he had provided documents to the panel and maintaining that he should not be compelled to appear for an interview.

Terwilliger said, “The Select Committee’s true intentions in dealing with Mr. Meadows have been revealed when it accuses him of contempt citing the very documents his cooperation has produced.”

Meadows himself has sued the panel, asking a court to invalidate two subpoenas that he says are “overly broad and unduly burdensome.”

Meanwhile, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell told reporters: “I do think we’re all watching, as you are, what is unfolding on the House side. And it will be interesting to reveal all the participants who were involved.”

He added that he was not in contact with Meadows on the day of the attack.

Democrats quoted at length from Jan. 6 text messages provided by Meadows while he was cooperating with the committee.

“We need an Oval Office address," Donald Trump Jr. texted, the committee said, as his father's supporters were breaking into the Capitol, sending lawmakers running for their lives and interrupting the certification of Joe Biden's presidential victory. "He has to lead now. It has gone too far and gotten out of hand.”

Trump Jr. added, "He’s got to condemn this s—- ASAP." In response to one of Trump Jr.'s texts, Meadows said: “I’m pushing it hard. I agree.”

Members of the committee said the texts raise fresh questions about what was happening at the White House — and what Trump himself was doing — as the attack was underway. The committee had planned to question Meadows about the communications, including 6,600 pages of records taken from personal email accounts and about 2,000 text messages. The panel has not released any of the communications in full.

Cheney, the panel’s vice chairwoman, said at the committee's Monday evening meeting that an important issue raised by the texts is whether Trump sought to obstruct the congressional certification by refusing to send a strong message to the rioters to stop.

“These texts leave no doubt,” she said. “The White House knew exactly what was happening at the Capitol.”

The investigating panel has already interviewed more than 300 witnesses, and subpoenaed more than 40 people, as it seeks to create the most comprehensive record yet of the lead-up to the insurrection and of the violent siege itself.

If Meadows had appeared for his deposition, lawmakers had planned to ask him about Trump’s efforts to overturn the election in the weeks before the insurrection, including his outreach to states and his communications with members of Congress.

The panel says it wanted to know more about whether Trump was engaged in discussions regarding the response of the National Guard, which was delayed for hours as the violence escalated and the rioters beat police guarding the Capitol building.

The documents provided by Meadows include an email he sent to an unidentified person saying that the Guard would be present to “protect pro Trump people," the panel said, and that more would be available on standby. The committee did not release any additional details about that email.

Committee staff said they would have interviewed Meadows about emails “to leadership at the Department of Justice on December 29th and 30th, 2020, and January 1st, 2021, encouraging investigations of suspected voter fraud,” even though election officials and courts across the country had rejected those claims.

speaking of pieces of shit ...


Eric Holder held in contempt of Congress after historic vote

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-congress-vote

Attorney general first sitting cabinet member to be held in contempt as 17 Democrats join Republicans to pass resolution




Eric Holder gave a statement after the vote and said the Republican leadership was engaging in 'election-year politics and gamesmanship'. Photograph: AP

Ed Pilkington New York

@edpilkington
Thu 28 Jun 2012 17.48 EDT


The attorney general Eric Holder has become the first sitting member of a president's cabinet in US history to be held in contempt of Congress after Republicans vented their fury over a bungled gun-tracking investigation.


Seventeen Democrats, under pressure from the pro-gun lobby the NRA, joined 238 Republicans to carry a criminal contempt resolution against Holder. A currently serving attorney general has never before been censured in this way.


The criminal contempt resolution, passed by 255 to 67, with most Democrats walking out of the chamber en masse before the vote, related to Operation Fast and Furious, a federal investigation launched in Arizona designed to ensnare gun smugglers involved with the Mexican drug cartels.


Thursday's vote was of symbolic value, pointing to the almost total collapse of trust between the two main parties in Congress. Republican anger has been fueled by a conspiracy theory that Fast and Furious was deliberately set up to fail by the Obama administration to pave the way for greater federal gun controls.


Holder delivered an angry statement about 20 minutes after the contempt vote, accusing the Republican leadership of engaging in "election-year politics and gamesmanship". He said the charges against him were "unnecessary and unwarranted" and insisted that as soon as he learnt about flawed tactics of Fast and Furious he had taken action to stop it and make sure such methods were never used again.


"That was my response to Fast and Furious, and any suggestion to the contrary is not consistent with the facts," he said, adding that the Republican leadership was advancing "truly absurd, truly absurd conspiracy theories".
John Boehner, the speaker of the House, said: "I don't take this matter lightly. I hoped it would never come to this – but no justice department is above the law and the constitution."


Democrats responded by accusing the Republican group in the House of engaging in political hystrionics. John Dingell, a Democrat from Michigan who is a former board member of the NRA, accused the Republicans of engaging in a "partisan political witch-hunt with the attorney general as its target".


In legal terms the vote is of doubtful practical significance as the contempt issue will now be handed to the US attorney for the District of Columbia – a prosecutor who, as an official within Holder's department of justice, is unlikely to proceed with a case against his own employer.


In a second vote, the House passed a civil contempt resolution by 258 to 95. That too has limited practical implications. The civil contempt motion will allow the House to proceed to the courts to ask them to force Holder to release the disputed documents, but judges rarely agree to intervene in cases where the president has already invoked executive privilege.


Operation Fast and Furious went awry after agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives practised a controversial technique known as "gun-walking", where low-level smugglers were allowed to traffic weapons in the hope that bigger fish could be caught further down the line.


About 1,400 of the 2,000 guns involved went missing, and two were found at the scene of the killing of a US border agent, Brian Terry. During the debate leading up to the contempt vote, Republican speakers repeatedly referred to the wishes of the Terry family to seek the truth.


The dramatic standoff between the Obama administration and the Republican-controlled House has been provoked by demands that the department of justice hands over thousands of official documents. The Republicans believe the files will show that Holder and other senior administration officials were complicit in the gun-walking and that they tried to cover it up. The DoJ has refused to hand over the documents, saying they are irrelevant to the operation and pointing out that they have already disclosed about 7,600 documents that do relate directly to Fast and Furious.


Last week Obama invoked executive privilege to block the disclosure of the internal documents.


In the runup to the vote, members of both parties from the House oversight and government affairs committee were shown emails to and from Holder relating to Fast and Furious. The correspondence dated from February 2011 – precisely the moment when the administration wrongfully told Congress that there had been no gun-walking to Mexico, a false statement that it retracted 10 months later.


The newly disclosed emails, details of which were obtained by Associated Press, appeared to support the attorney general's insistence that at that time he was unaware that guns had been allowed to "walk" at the time. On 23 February, three weeks after the administration denial had been made, Holder wrote to his officials following new revelations in the media to say: "We need answers on this. Not defensive BS. Real answers."


On 3 March, Holder's deputy, James Cole, sent an email to all his officials saying: "We obviously need to get to the bottom of this."


This article was amended on 29 June 2012. The original said that fifteen Democrats joined 238 Republicans to carry a criminal contempt resolution against Holder. This has been corrected.

It's obvious the the OP doesn’t know about the separation of powers...the executive, legislative and judicial branches.
The dumb fuck thinks the legislative branch has judicial powers!!
Then again only a dumb fuck would vote for BRANDON!!

Is this another “Russian Collusion” thread.

the corrupted and partisan doj might very well try to act

for in the present case the Marxists control both the house and the doj

It's obvious the the OP doesn’t know about the separation of powers...the executive, legislative and judicial branches.
The dumb fuck thinks the legislative branch has judicial powers!!
Then again only a dumb fuck would vote for BRANDON!! Originally Posted by bb1961

It’s more obvious you’re clueless and have no understanding at all of what each branch is authorized to do. You, as usual, don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

Meadows could have showed up and answered questions. Even if privilege applied to some questions, he would still have to answer others, that aren’t subject to executive privilege. Calls or texts between Meadows and Fox News Hosts surely can’t be subject to any privilege. Or communication with non-White House staff.

People simply hiding behind Executive Privilege isn’t how judicial oversight works. Neither is it how one asserts the privilege.

It’s more obvious you’re clueless and have no understanding at all of what each branch is authorized to do. You, as usual, don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

Meadows could have showed up and answered questions. Even if privilege applied to some questions, he would still have to answer others, that aren’t subject to executive privilege. Calls or texts between Meadows and Fox News Hosts surely can’t be subject to any privilege. Or communication with non-White House staff.

People simply hiding behind Executive Privilege isn’t how judicial oversight works. Neither is it how one asserts the privilege. Originally Posted by NoirMan

The more you post the more you show your ignorance.
It takes an ignorant fuck to not understand the court has to rule on this issue, but coming from a BRANDON supporter I don't expect much.

Is this another “Russian Collusion” thread. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Or is it a Benghazi thread...

but coming from a BRANDON supporter I don't expect much. Originally Posted by bb1961

Who is Brandon...

The more you post the more you show your ignorance.
It takes an ignorant fuck to not understand the court has to rule on this issue, but coming from a BRANDON supporter I don't expect much. Originally Posted by bb1961

You are plenty dumb. And worse, you have no idea what stupidity you are spewing, but you keep doing it. The court does not need to determine the issue. That is just a terrible argument made by desperate people trying to stretch the time until the election in hopes that the republicans will just make it all go away. No one actually believes the privilege argument will work. No judge thus far has agreed with the argument, because it is nonsensical.

Claiming privilege does not preclude anyone from showing up to testify. Never has in any circumstance. What it does allow is for the person to not answer questions that infringe on the privilege. A wife cannot be compelled to testify against her husband (spousal privilege) but she still has to show up and testify about other things. Doctors dont have to disclose discussions with their patient (doctor-patient privilege) still gotta show up. Attorneys dont have to reveal conversations with their clients (attorney-client privilege) - still gotta show up and assert the privilege. But they have to appear, assert the privilege and answer non-privileged questions.

Questions that arent subject to the privilege, like discussion with other people, still have to answered. You surely cant actually believe (well you are actually dumb enough to believe anything so i guess that is rhetorical) that Meadows doesnt have to answer questions about texts he received from the likes of Bannon, Hannity, Ingrahim, legislators, etc.

Also, he turned over documents, which, were those documents privileged, waves the privilege so he would be required to answer questions on them. But, he has stated several times that he turned over "non-privieged" documents, so surely he can answer questions as to those things because he has acknowledged that they are not subject to the privilege.

It’s the first Mark Meadows thread.

May be the last, unless he get buttfucked in jail.

The story about the many loyal neocons texting Trump during the assault on the Capitol to call off the dogs is interesting. More proof that Trump was and is a fucking maniac. Even Superfly Don Jr. allegedly begged Daddy Whorebucks to intervene.

But of course you all know this to be a lie, right. Just like the PowerPoint Meadows had.

None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

and ….

This message is hidden because bb1961 is STILL on your ignore list.

Swing and a miss, TWK.

Weak reply when you rely on What Aboutism. Just mailing it in.

It’s the first Mark Meadows thread.

May be the last, unless he get buttfucked in jail.

The story about the many loyal neocons texting Trump during the assault on the Capitol to call off the dogs is interesting. More proof that Trump was and is a fucking maniac. Even Superfly Don Jr. allegedly begged Daddy Whorebucks to intervene.

But of course you all know this to be a lie, right. Just like the PowerPoint Meadows had.

None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

and ….

This message is hidden because bb1961 is STILL on your ignore list. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

speaking of power point presentations ..



https://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=106...2&postcount=10



The plan involved then-president Trump declaring a national security emergency to delay the certification of the 2020 election results, then manhandling the vote to favor him and stay in the White House.


It was not clear who created the PowerPoint plan or how it came to be emailed to Meadows. Meadows’ lawyer said the former chief of staff did not act on the plan or otherwise do anything about the email, according to The New York Times.


so .. the power point presentation you seem to find so damning .. that was not created by Meadows or anyone else in the Trump admin nor even acted on ...


is a NOTHINGBURGER

Swing and a miss, TWK.

Weak reply when you rely on What Aboutism. Just mailing it in. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

weak that you ignore Holder being held in contempt but bellow about Meadows.



thank you valued poster

It’s the first Mark Meadows thread.

May be the last, unless he get buttfucked in jail.

The story about the many loyal neocons texting Trump during the assault on the Capitol to call off the dogs is interesting. More proof that Trump was and is a fucking maniac. Even Superfly Don Jr. allegedly begged Daddy Whorebucks to intervene.

But of course you all know this to be a lie, right. Just like the PowerPoint Meadows had.

None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

and ….

This message is hidden because bb1961 is STILL on your ignore list. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

you do know tiwittybird DELETED a tweet during the riot where Trump told the people to disperse yeah? don't claim you didn't remember that or it is fake news, sport.


One of the tweets included a video of Trump repeating unfounded claims that the election was taken from him and encouraging his supporters to disperse after violence erupted at the Capitol. He said that law and order were needed and that he loved his supporters.


https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-...pitol-n1253157


so when is Jack Dorky going to testify about this?

you do know tiwittybird DELETED a tweet during the riot where Trump told the people to disperse yeah? don't claim you didn't remember that or it is fake news, sport.


One of the tweets included a video of Trump repeating unfounded claims that the election was taken from him and encouraging his supporters to disperse after violence erupted at the Capitol. He said that law and order were needed and that he loved his supporters.


https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-...pitol-n1253157


so when is Jack Dorky going to testify about this? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Twitter removed three tweets from the account of President Donald Trump on Wednesday and suspended his account for 12 hours after he continued to push conspiracy theories about the election after a mob stormed the U.S. Capitol.

He broke the rules. I assume you either didn't read what you pasted or agree with this "unfounded claims that the election was taken from him"