Full agreement, but I’m still wondering: What use is her testimony? Did she break any laws by badgering people like Meadows about stolen election bullshit? Did she corroborate other testimony that implicates others as having broken laws? I read the NYT article and didn’t see anything worthwhile.
This!
That’s what I want to know. It will be of no use to show her testimony to the public.
Maybe it’s not what she said to Meadows that matters, but what he said in return.
And her testimony on its own may be of little-to-no value, but it may help to be included as part of a larger narrative. It’s hard to tell until we see what the committee presents.
I think this is why the committee talked to her.
Meadows is smart and probably said nothing to her, so I doubt anything comes of it. But it was right for them to talk to her anyway, just in case.
I think it is of SOME value to impress upon people that a Set justice had such poor judgment to be married to a lunatic. And that is IF you accept her IMO outrageous claim that they never discuss such things. Makes you wonder about their dinner conversations? Or perhaps he is as loquacious in the home as he used to be on the bench.
Both Thomases are despicable human beings. While I agree that has only tangential relevance to 1/6 hrs, it doesn’t bother me to see it publicized.
According to the Washington post article it wasn’t her contacts with Medows that they were concerned about it was Eastman. My guess is that they had some evidence that Eastman might have been trying to pressure her to get her husband on board with regard to the dubious legality of his scheme to overturn the election. If so this would be a clear obstruction of justice on Eastman’s part.
A few dozen people arrested for participating in the January 6 attacks complain that being in jail really really sucks and ask to be transferred to Gitmo:
Someday this document and its signatories will be as cherished as the Declaration of Independence.
or not
Selfish people, aren’t they? Why aren’t they demanding that conditions at their current location be improved, so lots of other people won’t be so uncomfortable.
Hmmm I wonder why.
Because those people are criminals who deserve everything they get. The letter writers are innocent political prisoners and patriots.
I’m just surprised they are not demanding a “whites only” prison. Or maybe that’s the point.
I hear the halaal food at Gitmo is better than the regular food in DC
Just can someone tell these chumps that there is no bacon there? No pork chops, no sausage, not even a pork rind to be had.
Next hearing is October 13th.
Hold off on popping it?
The accidentally publicized list (see Appendix) of private documents held by Trump, that were slurped up by the FBI NARA Warrant, includes a note that there were discussions of pardons for “RN, IR, JC and MB”. The last of these would match Mo Brooks, who is said to have requested a pardon, according to the J6 Committee.
I would expect them to send a subpoena for this document.
EDIT: Looking at the House Freedom Caucus, I also see a Ralph Norman…
EDIT 2: I see an Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean who were given pardons, together.
I’m betting that JC is Jeffrey Clark. IR has me stumped, but I still haven’t given up.
ETA: I just saw Sage Rats edit, he may be right given the confluence, but I still haven’t ruled out Clark, because I think I read elsewhere that he requested a pardon.
Thanks for the link. I was looking for a non-payalled version of this.
My favorite entry
Invoice for legal fees from Stein Mitchell, Beato & Missner
;post-it notes "said you reed to pay this bill? Work prior to his
becoming WH counsel’’ “No”
Trump stiffing his lawyers again.
I see a Mahmoud Reza Banki as an alternative to Mo Brooks. Likewise, I see a Ronen Nahmani as an alternative to Ralph Norman.
Moderating:
It’s fine to discuss all this stuff, of course, but you’re doing it in the January 6th Hearing-Adjacent Discussion thread. Please take further discussions re the documents seizure to the appropriate thread:
Thanks.