Alex Holder Subpoenaed by Jan. 6 Committee for Trump Footage
Two former senior Trump administration officials, who were still working in the administration after the Jan. 6 riot, also claimed that they each had no idea the documentary was being shot in that timeframe, reportedly intimate access to Trump, his vice president, his family members, and his White House. Stephanie Grisham, who at that time was chief of staff to First Lady Melania Trump, told Rolling Stone she wasn’t aware of this documentary project either.
In other words: many of the people actually running Trump’s reelection operation are now saying they somehow had zero clue that an entire documentary was being filmed largely about Trump and his reelection campaign. And now the fruits of that doc are being mined for evidence by the congressional committee investigating Trump and his multi-pronged efforts to shred the American democratic order.
Holder released a statement later on Tuesday noting that he had “unparalleled access” to Trump and others over the final six weeks of his presidency and that he has “never-before-seen footage” of the Capitol attack. “When we began this project in September 2020, we could have never predicted that our work would one day be subpoenaed by Congress,” he wrote, adding that he had “no agenda coming into this” and only “wanted to better understand who the Trumps were and what motivated them to hold onto power so desperately.”Holder released a statement later on Tuesday noting that he had “unparalleled access” to Trump and others over the final six weeks of his presidency and that he has “never-before-seen footage” of the Capitol attack. “When we began this project in September 2020, we could have never predicted that our work would one day be subpoenaed by Congress,” he wrote, adding that he had “no agenda coming into this” and only “wanted to better understand who the Trumps were and what motivated them to hold onto power so desperately.”
|
Heather Cox Richardson on Monday's Jan. 6 Panel Session
I have really come to enjoy Heather's Substack and her daily insights and on thoughts on US politics. I was glad to get to read her summary and analysis of the January 6th committee's session from Monday as I did not get to follow it closely.
I especially found this insight interesting. In hindsight, it is logical, but it definitely wasn't something I had considered when McCarthy withdrew the Republican nominees from the committee.
Observers have commented that House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) made a bad mistake in pulling his Republican nominees off the committee. He likely expected that such a move would discredit the committee, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) inclusion of Republicans Liz Cheney (R-WY) and Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) made the committee bipartisan anyway, and subsequent judicial decisions have concluded that the committee was constituted legally. What McCarthy really lost in pulling Republicans was not the ability to sway the story—the evidence is so clear that no one is challenging it—but the ability to create chaos and make it impossible for people to figure out what was happening, as Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) did at the first impeachment hearings for Trump by yelling over witnesses, badgering, and bullying.
The strategy of causing chaos to disrupt something that isn't going your way is a well known tactic in all areas of life. But I find myself most frequently thinking of it through the lens of chess.
Very often, when I am playing chess and I find myself in a losing position, I know that if I can cause some chaos and distract my opponent, it gives me some chance that they will mess up and either misorder their moves, or just genuinely make a blunder. Their misstep gives me a chance to pounce and regain the upper hand.
|
Jim Jordan demands material on him before complying with January 6 subpoena
[Auto Generated Summary]:
In the six-page letter sent to the select committee and obtained by the Guardian, Jordan demanded House investigators share with him all materials they intended to rely upon in questioning, materials in which he is referenced, and legal analyses about subpoenaing members of Congress. "Because your subpoena is an unprecedented use of a committee's compulsory authority against another member," Jordan said in his letter, "I respectfully ask for the following material so that I may adequately further respond to your subpoena."The response puts the ball in the select committee's court, forcing House investigators to decide whether they will acquiesce to Jordan's demands in the hope that it convinces him to give some testimony, or refuse and potentially close off any chance of cooperation. The response from Jordan - finalized on Tuesday and sent to the panel on Wednesday - also included complaints that House investigators had not acted in good faith by issuing a subpoena around four months after Jordan apparently declined to give voluntary assistance. The select committee's subpoena to Jordan - which came alongside four other subpoenas to House minority leader Kevin McCarthy, Scott Perry, Andy Biggs and Mo Brooks - demanded testimony about his December 2020 meetings with Trump in the White House and other communications.
|
Jan. 6 committee concludes Trump violated multiple laws in effort to overturn election
The Jan. 6 select committee says its evidence has shown that then-President Donald Trump and his campaign tried to illegally obstruct Congress' counting of electoral votes and "engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States."
In a major release of its findings, filed in federal court late Wednesday, the committee suggested its evidence supported findings that Trump himself violated multiple laws by attempting to prevent Congress from certifying his defeat.
"The Select Committee also has a good-faith basis for concluding that the President and members of his Campaign engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States," the committee wrote in a filing submitted in U.S. District Court in the Central District of California.
|
