- Reaction score
On trial in U.S. District Court in Washington, Thompson testified that the claim that the election was stolen seemed credible to him because it was coming from the president. His defense team is the first to argue that Trump and those connected to him were responsible for the actions of the mob that day.
Alternatively it makes sense for prosecutors to put sedition in there because those are the charges grand juries are indicting the accused on. That means that, at a minimum, prosecutors have convinced grand juries that there is probable cause to indict on those counts. While a grand jury indictment is still well short of a conviction, it’s not nothing, either.Plea bargains in the US don't mean the result necessarily would include conviction on the charge(s) to which the accused plead. All it means is that in the lists of charges thrown at the accused to intimidate them into plea bargains, those charges were selected as the bargain. At least prosecutors are charging something involving "sedition". Obviously it makes sense for prosecutors to put "sedition" in the bargain, in order to shut up the critics.
You’re contending that charging someone with seditious conspiracy when those charges get approved and unsealed is not ‘noteworthy’? That’s quite a stretch. These charges are, objectively, a big deal regardless of circumstances.Monitoring/investigations of some of these "groups" should undoubtedly be going on all the time. Pulling real seditious insurrectionist militants in before they act is noteworthy; using them to add to a stream of ongoing announcements, revelations, and leaks designed to stoke a political fire is not.
Certainly- but in a world with a plethora of dangers and threats, many of them nebulous, it’s always necessary to prioritize and triage, and to efficiently allocate investigative resources to cases where it’s more likely to achieve something.This isn't happening in a political vacuum. The groups are out there all the time, not just on Jan 6.
Details revealed of a dramatic Oval Office meeting on Jan. 3, 2021, in which top Justice Department officials banded together to prevent Jeffrey Clark, an environmental lawyer at the DOJ, from replacing acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen.
Trump was keen to install Clark, an ally, in order to wield the powers of the DOJ to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
Donoghue told Trump he would lose his "entire department" if he moved ahead.
"Within 24-48-72 hours, you could have hundreds and hundreds of resignations of the leadership of your entire Justice Department because of your actions. What's that going to say about you?" Donoghue remembers asking.
The president was under the impression that he would be taken to the Capitol following his speech, said Hutchinson, who was then a top aide to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows.
When he learned there were no security assets and Trump would have to return to the White House, the president grew "irate" and attempted to grab the steering wheel of "The Beast," the president's armored vehicle. Hutchinson did not witness the altercation, but heard it from others and those who were there did not dispute the account, she said.
"'I am the effing president, take me up to the Capitol now!'" Hutchinson testified that Trump said.
Trump talked about walking to the Capitol, where he might give a speech or enter the House chamber. And when staff stopped those plans, Trump attempted to grab the steering wheel of the vehicle to direct it that way, she said.
Hutchinson also testified that House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy contacted her during the rally and asked for her to make sure that Trump didn't come to the Capitol.