Trump Subpoena: The Revolution Will Not Be Signaled

The January 6 Committee has released the subpoena it sent to the former President.

It requires document production by November 4 and a deposition starting on November 14. Notably, the first deadline is before the election.

It focuses not just on Trump’s attempt to overturn the election, summon mobsters, and raise money off of it. There are several questions focused on obstruction: both document destruction and witness tampering.

The witness tampering one reads:

All documents, including communications sent or received through Signal or any other means, from July 1, 2021, to the present, relating or referring in any way to the investigation by the Select Committee and involving contacts with, or efforts to contact: (1) witnesses who appeared or who were or might be expected to appear before the Select Committee, including witnesses who served as White House staff during your administration, who served as staff for your 2020 campaign, and who served or currently serve in the United States Secret Service; or (2) counsel who represented such witnesses. The documents referenced in (1) and (2) include but are not limited to any communications regarding directly or indirectly paying the legal fees for any such witnesses, or finding, offering, or discussing employment for any such witnesses, and any communications with your former Deputy Chief of Staff Anthony Ornato or any employee of the Secret Service with whom you interacted on January 6, 2021.

The subpoena mentions Signal at least 13 times. Which strongly suggests the President was in direct communication with some of the coup plotters via the mobile app.

The Trump associates named in the subpoena include:

  • Roger Stone
  • Steve Bannon
  • Mike Flynn
  • Jeffrey Clark
  • John Eastman
  • Rudy Giuliani
  • Jenna Ellis
  • Sidney Powell
  • Kenneth Chesebro
  • Boris Epshteyn
  • Christina Bobb
  • Cleta Mitchell
  • Patrick Byrne

The subpoena even asks him for communications involving the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, “or any other similar militia group or its members” from September 1, 2020 to the present.

The subpoena also asks the former President for all communications devices he used between November 3, 2020 and January 20, 2021. In the Stone trial, there were about nine devices identified on which he may have received a call during the 2016 election, and there are several others — such as that of his then bodyguard Keith Schiller — who weren’t discussed in the trial. Tony Ornato also receives a close focus in this subpoena; I wonder if he was receiving calls for the then-President on the Secret Service phone that has since been wiped.


134 replies
    • Matt___B says:

      Schiller left the WH in October 2017. Doesn’t mean they weren’t in touch in a “non-official capacity” later on…just like Bannon, who left the WH in August 2017.

    • TVSawyer says:

      Republican contempt gets you 4 months.
      Democrat contempt gets you what Susan McDougal got. Is there a discernable difference? From Wikipedia:
      Her refusal to answer “three questions” for a grand jury, on whether President Bill Clinton lied in his testimony during her Whitewater trial, led her to receive a jail sentence of 18 months for contempt of court. That made up most of the total 22 months she spent incarcerated.

      • bmaz says:

        Uh, you know that the maximum Bannon could have received is six months, and that four months was actually more than most would have received, right? Analogizing it to McDougal is ludicrous.

        • John Gurley says:

          What’s ludicrous is vastly different punishments for the same crime: 18 months versus 4.

          Like major Democratic donor Martha Stewart going to jail for lying about her non-insider trading.

          And the Feds got her phone records and transcripts, no problem at all.

        • bmaz says:

          Um, you are aware of what the MAXIMUM even the prosecutors requested, right? Or apparently not.

          By the way, Martha Stewart got five months. So, that really makes no point whatsoever. And she made a cookbook and bank off of the affair.

        • Peterr says:

          I’d love the recipes from John’s Dean’s Christmas in confinement at Holabird after his conviction. From his book Blind Ambition:

          Christmas Eve, 1974

          Holabird was astir on Christmas Eve. Our top hit man was baking cookies and bread; he had learned the skill in another prison. A multimillionaire heroin dealer from South America was in charge of preparing a turkey dinner for about two thirds of the principals. A spirited and talented Italian crew of Mafia men was busy preparing a lasagna feast for the others, who planned to eat a separate Italian Christmas dinner in the ping-pong room, which they had decorated by draping sheets over the table and the holes in the walls. I helped decorate the tree in the main dining area, picking up an extra chore when one of the Latin heroin traffickers couldn’t read the instructions on how to put up the cardboard angels.

          I can’t help but think of Arlo Guthrie on the Group W bench. “So, Mr. Dean, what are you in for?”

          In the FDL book salon chat about his reissued book, I posted this and asked how he was spending this Christmas Eve (2009). He replied “Without the Mafia, thank you. ;)”

        • TooLoose LeTruck says:

          Same for Big Paulie… RIP… sad…

          That scene was the first thing that came to mind as I read Peterr’s comment…

        • Super Nintendo Chalmers says:

          FDL = fire dog lake? Once Jane Hamsher started to undermine the ACA, I stopped visiting that site.

        • bmaz says:

          Yes. FDL is Firedoglake. There were a LOT of people there, including me, Marcy, Peterr, Ed Walker and Jim White. You quit reading FDL because only of Jane?

          There were real problems as to the ACA, including, but not limited to, the lack of a public option, which was Jane’s big issue. Then there was the idiotic “tax” basis of Roberts’ opinion that finally saved it.

        • erneso1581 says:

          If you drew a graphic organizer of who was working on Max Baucus’s Senate Finance in 2009 (which took up work on the ACA after Ted Kennedy died) you would see a veritable constellation of staffers and ex-staffers who had moved through or were working at for-profit health provider outfits. The proof was in the final pudding.

          People like Liz Fowler who rotated back and forth between Hastert’s House Finance, WellPoint Insurance (BC/BS), Baucus’s Senate Finance, and ultimately to Obama’s Office of Consumer Info at HHS.

          And all through spring and summer 2009, Howard Dean was point man for the Public Option, loud and clear. Until sometime in September, he suddenly wasn’t and the whole thing just went away.

          A quick trip through the googlesphere informs me that Ms Wheeler at FDL then compared Fowler’s oversight of the ACA to that of the Deepwater Horizon. (For which, Zelig-like, I was standing in water up to my hips in a bayou behind Grand Isle, photographing roseate spoonbills as the damn thing was blowing up, 40 miles out in the Gulf.)

        • Rayne says:

          Then you don’t understand what Jane and the rest of the site was doing. Jane may be on my permanent shit list for reasons, but not when it comes to the ACA.

          The right-wing has been able to ratchet up to fascism as fast as it has because it has employed the Overton window for the last 2-3 decades WITHOUT EFFECTIVE RESISTANCE. We ended up with an ACA which shortchanged women on birth control and abortion when it was passed because the left failed to push back forcefully. Now look at where we are. Firedoglake provided pushback against centrist Dems who were in bed with Big Pharma & Big Hospitals, kissing ass with the anti-abortion centrists, but it wasn’t enough.

          Again, look at where we are. Or maybe you’re cis-het white guy who hasn’t had a worry in the world about your uterus back in 2009 nor now and your civil rights have been wholly intact the last +14 years.

        • Fiendish Thingy says:

          It’s not the same crime- Bannon was convicted of Contempt of *Congress*, MacDougal was held for Contempt of *Court*.

        • Faithdc says:

          This is SO important. My sweet husband thought this case was about every despicable act Bannon has ever done: there isn’t a prison big enough for that punishment. For the offense Bannon was convicted of, this was as reasonable a sentence as could have been handed down. Prosecutors often ask for maximum, and don’t get it. That being said, the judge did NOT have to give this ass a “get out of jail free” card to spread his dystopian, traitorous b.s. on RWNJ news. The judge could have thrown his ass in jail, rightly, because there is no reason for him to succeed on the merits on appeal. None.

  1. Waban1966 says:

    Decent job by the Committee making the document request not onerous, in the abstract.

    Betting line that DJT files for an injunction by Judge Cannon, and thus to delay merely by an appeal process on jurisdiction and venue play out?

    J6C hasn’t shown a lot of willingness/ability to go fast. They could have had this ready to go, signed it before the left the hearing room, flown it to Mar-a-Lago that afternoon, and had a Marshall knock on the door that evening, for the cameras. Even if DJT didn’t accept it would be better than this. It was obvious no lawyer would be willing to accept service. J6C gave away a week.

    • Waban1966 says:

      And will J6C be prepared to drop the document requests and just litigate the appearance? That’s the smart play, tee up just one issue, straight up for SCOTUS. Physically appear and testify. J6C must already have the other side of the Signal messages.

        • KM Williams says:

          It looks like a worthwhile stunt to me. Stunts are about all the US public “gets”, or wants, these days anyway. Anything that makes Trump spend his money on lawyers, especially really dumb ones! is worthwhile IMHO. :-)

        • John B. says:

          I do not think it is a worthless stunt. It’s a record of communications they believe led to the J6 insurrection and obstruction of the peaceful transfer of power by the president*of the United States. It’s now something the trumpers have to respond to and what we as the American people can pay attention to, both now and in the future. Being an Eeyore about it helps nothing and no one.
          Frankly, it’s a bit tiresome.

        • bmaz says:

          What is “tiresome” is people thinking useless stunts are meaningful. It is not a record of jack shit, and, no, Trump will never respond. And he retains a 5th Amendment right to assert, though nobody has noted that it may differ as to documents versus testimony, if ever so argued.

          But, hey, nice Winnie The Poo reference.

        • John B. says:

          I agree that he is unlikely to respond, although I could see his ginormous ego getting in the way of that and any residual common sense. He loves the spotlight and he would indulge in “telling his story”. But yes, he can always assert the 5th but that does him no good. My point about it not being a useless stunt is it’s a marker. It establishes a first record of what the J6 committee believes happened. If he was in fact in direct communication with all the militia groups, that in itself is something most of us have suspected, but to see it put out there is significant IMO.

        • Lit_eray says:

          It is clear he retains a 5th Amendment right for criminal or civil proceedings by the House. Not so clear should the House proceed under their inherent constitutional powers, especially if he does not show up. Yes it is hardly likely they will proceed in this fashion.

          There is precedent for locking him up to coerce appearance even before he appears before the bar of the house.

          It seems that his 5th Amendment rights are not so obvious under the inherent constitutional power approach. Habeas Corpus appeals would be attempted. Have no idea how they could avoid mucking up any DOJ criminal prosecutions.

          I am not trying to be intentionally tedious or annoying. Just attempting to point out that there is, or at least seems to be, a valid approach that the House could take that would not be a ridiculous stunt.

          Write, call or email your representatives.

        • Rayne says:

          It doesn’t, but bmaz has privileges here. Community members who bleat on across all topics trash talking US democracy at large — especially commenters with a history of sockpuppeting and other forms of evasion within a short tenure here — can go exercise their First Amendment freedoms at their own blog/website.

          By now every regular community member at this site should know bmaz doesn’t think much of the way in which the House January 6 Committee conducted its hearings. They also know bmaz doesn’t appreciate demands for summary execution of the law without due process including presentation of evidence meeting state and/or federal standards. By now they should all expect him to be very unhappy about these and either ignore them or change their approach or move on to something more productive.

          Pick yours.

        • ApacheTrout says:

          I don’t believe Trump will respond to the subpoena (other than appeal it) or ever testify, but let’s game this out (got nothing better to do with the Dodgers blowing open chunks in my schedule).

          The Committee seems to be telling Trump they have evidence of the communication between key members of his inner circle and seditious militia members, which apps were used, and on which phone said communications occurred. To me, that’s a throwdown, daring Trump to be non-responsive and telling Trump they’d be willing to share (or better yet, have shared) their evidence with the DOJ.

          And since Marcy highlighted the words “to the present,” it seems the J6 is very alert to current communication activities. If this subpoena had come from the DOJ, I’d have wondered if there was an ongoing surveillance operation, with bets being placed on which phones are ringing today, or were buzzing all last week and suddenly went quiet today.

          I dunno, maybe I’m just pissed about the Dodgers and looking for the proverbial good news diamond in the rough to sooth my heart break.

        • hollywood says:

          I hear you about the Dodgers. So I looked to the Lakers for solace. Turns out they don’t have a three point shooter so they lost to the Warriors and the Clippers. Boo.

        • Tech Support says:

          I mean… the Lakers are LeBron, AD, a thoroughly washed Russell Westbrook and a G-League squad.

          For extra salt in the wounds their next draft pick goes to the Pelicans, so there are no consolation prizes for being bad.

        • Tracy Lynn says:

          Although I recognize this isn’t Trash Talk, I have to say perhaps Dave Roberts shouldn’t have predicted a WS win for his team.

        • timbo says:

          I agree that the J6 Committee may have probable cause to demand Signal chats specifically. What is curious to me is if DOJ also has had that probable cause and for how long—I assume they have but do not recall any specific public information that would confirm that presumption.

          What this subpoena does do is show that, even if J6’s efforts here do not lead to direct accounability by the conspirators for their actions around the J6 plot, there may be some legal consequences coming for those who thought all their Signal chats were not known and would never be known. So, yeah, I’m expecting plotter Signal signals to go dead as of today, with more obstruction trending.

        • JVO says:

          It frames Trump as under subpoena again at a minimum. Maybe Garland appreciates J6C moving narrative further toward we can prove a lot about his acts and statements re that day. I agree it’s really not much and probably far less than how much he will fund raise from it. So there is that too!

        • bmaz says:

          It does not accomplish squat, snd just proves how completely feckless the J6 Committee is by demonstrating that their big blockbuster move comes after they are done and likely extinct within little more than two months. Meager food for souls forgot.

        • Giorgino says:

          Is it not a statement, for the record? For history to know the details they have discovered? It’s the period to their upcoming report, well his not compliance will be.

        • timbo says:

          I agree that that’s the main argument for at this time. It is also good to have the legal way paved for Contempt of Congress should the DP still find themselves holding the reins in the House after Jan 2023. And, as pointed out by another poster above, it also would provide more of a case for inherent contempt proceedings if the political situation in this country tanks further.

        • timbo says:

          I’m guessing that Garland is not happy about info about Signal device being subject to probable cause seizure being spread further and wider.

        • Waban1966 says:

          I agree that is the most likely outcome of J6C, and I think you are also of the view that Garland won’t indict. That too I originally thought was 80% no indictment. J6C has moved that to 75% he has to indict for internal Dem politics. That too however means nothing substantively. He’s messed up the timing for any real broader impact.

          At this point the one arguable meaningful needle to thread is: J6C subpoena has a chance to make a Trump 2024 announcement look like attempt to evade the subpoena. If Garland indicts just after election day, then maybe 25% chance it all holds together politically. Most likely scenario at this point surely is R control of House and a government shutdown over denial of appropriation to continue Trump prosecution.

          There’s another theory on which the impact of J6C is to make Liz Cheney a “national unity pick” when the house votes, by state, on who is president after a s-show Nov 2024-Jan 2025. She’s acceptable to Dems now as against any R who could get the nomination. As EW consistently points out Cheney is the daughter of the master bureaucratic strategist, and shows similar skills. The details of this await a post another time.

        • Commentmonger says:

          Liz Cheney would be a terrible President. Her policies are terrible. If she was a “National Unity Pick”, then we would have much greater problems in general at that time.

        • Thomas says:

          Every time I hear or read someone repeat the asinine proposition that the seditionist traitor crime boss facing at least five multiple felony indictments is going to “run for president in 2024,” I just want to vomit.
          The DOJ is allowing 21 Fake Elector criminals to run for public office this year, when they have enough evidence to lock their asses up for 25 years.

          Are they going to drag them to jail after they are elected? After they take office? Never? Just let them continue to use their offices to commit more felonies like they are brazenly and publicly promising to do?
          Trump has been involved in at least three multiple felony racketeering schemes since he left office, and his response to the search warrant was to immediately conspire to commit multiple additional felonies.
          Yet, since he hasn’t been arrested yet, that must mean he will be running for president!
          I just want to stuff a rag in the mouth of every nitwit who keeps repeating that.

        • bmaz says:

          Seditiionist is a stretch, “Traitor” is ludicrous and a lie. So “stuff a rag” in that. Identify the foreign nation the US is formally at war with. I challenge you.

          And if you do not differentiate your name per our requirements, you are done. Stop.

        • Nick Barnes says:

          I don’t think you need “formally at war” (which is good as formal declarations of war are rather a thing of the past), but rather open and armed hostility.

        • bmaz says:

          Yes, that has always been the interpretation. For starters, under the War Powers Act, you cannot be in open and armed hostility with another nation for more than a very brief period without at least an AUMF, if not a formal declaration. So, yeah treason is ludicrous.

        • Rayne says:

          Both you and bmaz need to lighten up on the use of the word “traitor” which isn’t a legal term any more than “collusion” is.

          And if “open and armed hostility” was the criteria for charges of treason, there’d be many more Americans charged. 18 USC 2381 Treason is still associated with traditional kinetic warfare and a formal enemy. Read the code carefully, especially this bit: levies war against them or adheres to their enemies.

          Don’t get me started on declarations of war being a thing of the past. ~eye roll~

        • Rayne says:

          On October 22 you said,

          Seditiionist is a stretch, “Traitor” is ludicrous and a lie. So “stuff a rag” in that. Identify the foreign nation the US is formally at war with. I challenge you.


        • bmaz says:

          Because that was the word they used, thus why it is in quotes. But the definition of traitor is one who has committed treason. People just get sloppy.

        • Rayne says:

          We’ve been here before. The word “traitor” means one who betrays and does not exclusively refer to someone who commits treason; one can betray an oath and not commit treason. Merriam Webster dictionary:

          Definition of traitor
          1: one who betrays another’s trust or is false to an obligation or duty
          2: one who commits treason

          “Traitorous” behavior betrays and is NOT the same as “treasonous.”

          I feel like we’re arguing the nature of “collusion” all over again.

        • bmaz says:

          Collusion is yet another word with no substantive legal use. Legally traitor involves committing treason. But we have a lot of people that wander in here blabbing such things. But it is bogus. Trump is a lot of things, but not a traitor because of treason.

        • Thomas says:

          I think the only gain from the subpoena will be to write in the report that Trump refused to show up or surrender documents.

        • bmaz says:

          Lol, what useless nonsense. The Committee is going to put a footnote in their lame report eh?

          Like Mark above, “Thomas” is not sufficiently differentiated, can you please modify it to not be so ambiguous. We are really going to insist on this going forward.

        • gmoke says:

          The job of the J6 committee is NOT to nail Trmp and his minions to the walls of the nearest jail. Their job is to propose laws, regulations, and practices which help make the chaos unleashed on J6 never happen again.

          They may not accomplish “squat” but we won’t know until they finish their report to Congress.

          Confusing a Congressperson with a prosecutor is a fundamental mistake, even though quite a few Congresspersons have been prosecutors in their former lives.

        • bmaz says:

          They are not accomplishing diddly shit, nor will their long after the fact report. Their much ballyhooed subpoena is idiotic. And, thanks, I understand legislative purpose just fine, what have they accomplished in that regard exactly? The answer is nothing, nor have they even proposed anything. It is a joke.

        • Rayne says:

          Ease up, Mr. Cactus. We all know how you feel about the House January 6 Committee but they are not done. They still have a final report to publish under Section 4 of H.R. 503 which established the Committee (see The recommendations for corrective action will appear in that report which they may still be working on right now.

          It’s more than irrational to expect a committee which interviewed more than 1000 witnesses, subpoenaing ~100 of them, to generate a final report when they’re still conducting an investigation. You’re fine with the speed the DOJ has taken with their largest ever criminal investigation; the parallel House investigation should be afforded the same approbation particularly since they have a time restraint more than half that of the DOJ’s along with an obligation to communicate findings with the public.

          *straps on Kevlar tactical gear*

        • bmaz says:

          DOJ has actual authority. J6 Committee pissed and preened around until they are pretty much out of office, and have no remaining authority whatsoever. Their “report” is, at this point, less relevant than the Mueller report. They are a completely made for TV only joke.

        • Rayne says:

          Hmpf. Accurate.

          Take the conn, Cholla, I have to go hack at things for a while with my pruning shears to relieve some stress.

        • taluslope says:

          Pissing and preening is what politicians do. Sometimes it even serves a positive purpose in moving public opinion. I’d be interested in your opinion regarding J6 and Watergate committees. For me they both got out information that otherwise I wouldn’t have known. John Dean = who? No equivalent.

        • taluslope says:

          Pissing and preening is what politicians do. Sometimes it even serves a positive purpose in moving public opinion. I’d be interested in your opinion regarding J6 and Watergate committees. For me they both got out information that otherwise I wouldn’t have known. John Dean = who? No equivalent?

        • gmoke says:

          My suspicion, and I could most definitely be wrong, is that the J6 Com was clear from the beginning that they would not make the mistakes that the IranContra investigative Com did which got those cases overturned. That may be one reason why they haven’t cooperated as much with the DOJ as the ever polite and moderate bmaz would like.

          But again, I could most definitely be wrong.

        • gmoke says:

          I know you’ll correct me if I’m wrong, but J6 Com doesn’t seem to have granted immunity to its witnesses as Iran-Contra Com did which let North and Poindexter to walk, (along with GHWBush’s pardons).

          LOL to you if I’m correct. LOL to me if I’m not.

        • bmaz says:

          No, they have made an asinine series of agreements restricting the nature and scope of testimony with recalcitrant witnesses. Which, frankly, is just as stupid.

        • timbo says:

          It’s great to see Congress making new mistakes. The system of checks and balances is never perfect. Assuming otherwise marks one as an idealist and/or a fanatic. (I’d give some of the romanticists a bit of a pass here as shooting for an ideal is better than shootings generally.)

        • TXphysicist says:

          When Kinzinger responded to an interview question about Trump’s possible refusal to testify with something like “Well, that’s just a bridge we’ll have to cross when we get there”, all I could think was “Oh, thanks for confirming you’re an idiot who didn’t game out the 99.5%+ most likely Trump scenario over the last 14 months”.

        • TXphysicist says:

          No, actually, the precedent that it sets doesn’t trouble me. Am I supposed to be afraid that a GOP-controlled House subpoenas former POTUS Joe Biden to testify on the Afghanistan withdrawal? Obviously not. I mean, they’d probably make a referral for prosecution regardless of what FPOTUS Biden said, but this is all beside the point.

          My point is that they should have subpoenaed Trump months ago. Maybe even a year ago. It was an obvious necessity on January 7th, 2021. And it was obvious that he’d refuse to appear. And it was always very, very likely that the Dems would lose the House after the midterms. Not sure how you could so egregiously misinterpret my first comment, but whatever.

        • timbo says:

          Ah. It’s good to hear you now say some of that. And my apologies for not being able to game out the 99.5% likely meaning of your original statement.

        • bmaz says:

          Despite all the sturm and drang of the relentless Benghazi “investigations”, did they interfere with a very active DOJ criminal probe? No. They are not comparable, so, please, don’t try to gaslight me.

        • TXphysicist says:

          That’s truly a good point, bmaz.

          The J6 committee is all about swaying public opinion. But for about 95% of Americans, there is no swaying them (jeebus, did you see that bonkers new MSNBC interview of Trumpists w/ Elise Jordan??). And the remaining 5% will probably split down the middle at the polls, roughly.

          That means the committee should get out of the way of DoJ. After watching Garland’s Ellis Island speech, I believe he knows what he has to do. I pity the man. What a terrible place to be in.

    • P J Evans says:

      Everyone on that committee has other committees they have to take part in, plus floor activities, plus dealing with thing in their own offices. It isn’t like they do nothing else all the time.

  2. Matt___B says:

    Schiller left the WH in October 2017. Doesn’t mean they weren’t in touch in a “non-official capacity” later on…just like Bannon, who left the WH in August 2017.

  3. Savage Librarian says:

    The Trump associates named aren’t listed alphabetically. Might they be listed in order of their amount of involvement? Noticeably absent is Mark Meadows. I wonder if he ever used Signal or has copies of some communications. Scott Perry is mentioned elsewhere. So maybe some of his seized devices have something.

    • emptywheel says:

      He did use Signal. Those were some of the earliest the committee learned about. For example, he sent Signal texts to Jimmy Jordan. A lot of Signal texts involving Trump would be through Meadows.

      • Rwood0808 says:

        Marcy, do we know if there is a scheduled hearing before a South Carolina Judge to compel Meadows to appear before the Fulton County SPGJ? I have yet to see anything regarding it.

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      The absences are fascinating. No Trump children, for example. I wonder about Meadows–whether the committee believes they still might be able to get him to talk to them, and what they got in the docs he turned over that they haven’t shown the public yet.

  4. Doctor My Eyes says:

    The Dirty Bakers Dozen? Could make a pretty good movie. The nicknames alone would entertain: “Nixon’s lapdog”, “The Kraken”.

    Sorry. My mind is now spinning down that path. I’ll not share the rest, except to say it’s a dark, dark comedy with dysfunctional armageddon overtones. And absolutely NO SEX.

  5. gknight says:

    The revolution will not be televised…
    on Fox.

    But it may be streamed.
    Or tweeted.
    Or on Facebook (Meta).
    Or signaled.

    But it will be exposed on emptywheel. Thanks all here!

  6. Patrick Carty says:

    I know Trump can refuse to show up or take the 5th on his scheduled appearance day of November 14, but the documents are due on Friday the 4th, just before Election Day. Will the biggest weekend news be the documents that were delivered or the contempt that they were not? I’m guessing the latter.

  7. harpie says:

    12/26/20 PERRY to MEADOWS:
    11:23 AM Did you call Jeff Clark
    [time??] Just sent you an updated file
    [time??] Roger. Just sent you something on Signal
    < MEADOWS [time??] I got it. I think I understand. Let me work on the deputy position.]

    1/5/21 PERRY text to MEADOWS:

    The [1/5/21] text message sent to former WH chief of staff Mark Meadows, & first revealed by @RepLizCheney last week, asking him to “Please check your signal,” was sent by [Rep. Scott] Perry, 2 sources familiar w the documents provided by Meadows tell me & @thamburger: [WaPo link]

  8. harpie says:

    1] We know that Scott PERRY communicated with MEADOWS about Jeff CLARK via Signal.
    2] OATH KEEPERS had several Signal chats going before and during J6.
    3] STONE: []
    From The Stone Tapes: [A Storm Foretold]

    STONE coordinates a response during a rapid-fire succession of calls. […]
    3] directs aides to recruit retired military and law enforcement officials for Stop the Steal.
    4] tells them to monitor a group chat on the app Signal titled “F.O.S.” — friends of Stone. [TARRIO of the Proud Boys was among the group’s members, a later shot of Stone’s phone showed]. […]

  9. Thomas says:

    The list of seditionists is almost all of the known “War Room” conspirators.
    Others not on the list: Phillip Luelsdorff, Patrick Lewis, Bernard Kerik, Phillip Waldron, and Jason Miller.

    Where was Kellyanne Conway on Jan 6? Or Stephen Miller?

  10. joel fisher says:

    None of this is going to happen if the GOP grabs the house on 11/8. I haven’t heard whether the actual subpoena has been served; but at that point Trump will begin a series of challenges all the way to SCOTUS. Should take a few months from when the subpoena is served, easily into January ’23. Be ready for this: after the 1/6 Committee is dissolved, Trump will say he really wanted to testify and his droolers will believe him.

        • Savage Librarian says:

          I really miss Eureka. I hope she is able to find her way back again sometime.

          BTW, bmaz, several posts back you said something I found very interesting. But I’m foggy about which post it was.

          It was something about not only having to have evidence in a case, but being able to find a way to introduce it. I meant to ask you if you were referring to building a narrative. Or did you mean something more technical?

          Is there a legal textbook that you would recommend for what you meant? And, if so, would that textbook discuss how to build a narrative, as well?

        • bmaz says:

          Yes, it is more technical I guess. In court, unlike in the internet, you have to lay the foundation for admissibility of a fact, document, or anything else. How do you do that? Is there a direct fact witness that can testify? Is there a governmental record that can be taken notice of? Will the other side stipulate to it? Will the court take formal notice of it? How do you do it?

          Here are the Federal Rules of Evidence. Even knowing those may not be enough, for instance what is the difference between probity and prejudice (Rule 403)? It is not always easy. That is why I always ask “you think this is obvious, it is not, how are you going to get it into evidence?”

        • Savage Librarian says:

          Thanks, that’s helpful. It has always seemed like a complex process to me and a bit scary. But I guess confidence is built step by step through reading, education and actual practice. I see that there are interesting supplements, too, some with legislative history and some with advisory committee notes.

          I guess the narrative aspect might be more confined to opening and closing statements. I appreciate how you and Marcy and EarlOH have helped me to understand the ins and outs better.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Getting evidence in is big hurdle and a good start. But it has to be persuasive, to hold up under cross examination, and to stick in the minds of jurors more than counter-evidence from the other side, not to mention unspoken bias or a lot of other things that go into a unanimous finding of guilt or innocence.

          It might constitute the necessary framework, but it has to be woven into a persuasive, complete script.

        • Savage Librarian says:

          I must have missed that. Do you know what it is? If not, maybe she’ll be kind enough to remind us.

        • bmaz says:

          I dunno, I tried contacting her and got no response. She has not commented in over two months, which is not like her.

        • Savage Librarian says:

          I’ve been worried about her. I hope she is ok. I hope it’s only a messed up email address. That happened to me not long ago. It got held hostage for awhile.

          But I fear it might be something else.

      • joel fisher says:

        Trump can stall this with one tiny hand tied behind his back. I know I’m asking my betters to smack me back to reality, but why couldn’t a 50-50 Senate pick things up?

  11. frebnedzo says:

    The January 6’th subpoenas may be pointless but they aren’t really part of the justice process, they are part of a (necessary) political process (hope this is proper link formatting)

    cigarette use in USA didn’t get reduced by laws, it got reduced by a constant drumbeat of bad news that eventually made it socially unacceptable, Domestic violence used to be the punchline of jokes (“to the moon, Alice”) as was drunk driving, as was chasing the secretary around the office furniture. While laws may have eventually been enacted, I believe the change in public perception preceded.

    So the role of the J6 committee is to say the obvious ‘Trump, and the autocratic tendencies in the Republican party he champions, is unacceptable’.

    Whether they will be loud and clear enough to effect enough R’s and independents who are only ‘fascism-curious’ is unclear. But the problem is political and DOJ won’t solve that. Trump will probably remain free, but if he and the autocratic part of the Republican party became as publicly ostracized as Nixon post-Watergate, America could continue being a democracy.

    • bmaz says:

      Lol. The most dangerous place in America used to be between Chuck Schumer and a TV camera, now it is between Zoe Lofgren, Liz Cheney or Kinzinger and a TV camera. J6 is not changing anybody’s minds, they are just howling in the wind.

      And if the subpoena of Trump was so necessary, why did the mighty J6 Committee wait until they declared themselves done to issue it? They are a complete joke.

      • joel fisher says:

        Why did they wait? Certainly is the question on my mind. Perhaps the answer lies in your almost, but not quite, accurate statement: “not changing anybody’s minds”. There may be actually be a tiny percentage of voters who are undecided–I’m thinking less than 1%–and these days moving voters ever so slightly to the left might result in a positive result in a razor thin election.

        • bmaz says:

          I don’t know as to why the subpoena only was issued once they claimed to be done. Nor why other subpoenas took so long, or were never issued. Less than 1% is being kind. I have not encountered one single person. And I live in a very large metropolitan area.

        • timbo says:

          I suspect that not all Trump supporters that suddenly realize that they’ve been wrong for too long are actively advertising when they’ve finally decided to quietly stop supporting MAGA. In instances where they are the only person in their circle that they are self-aware of, the pressure to not say anything to anyone about no longer being a believer in Trump and his nutso opinions must be really, really high, particularly given the intimidation factor.

        • quickbread says:

          Waiting may not have been a sound legal strategy. But Trump has a special talent for frontrunning and scrambling facts that should damage him by discrediting the revelations in advance. For the J6 Committee, I think they needed to consider that, like Bannon, there was always a wild-card possibility that (before the MaL search, anyway) Trump would’ve seized the platform to turn the proceedings into a circus before the committee had a chance to share all of its evidence and testimony and paint a clear picture of the events for the American people. Trump probably would’ve succeeded at poisoning the proceedings to a much larger audience than he already reaches on RW media.

          At the same time, especially after such damning facts were laid out publicly, a subpoena to hear from the guy accused of being at the center of the insurrection seems inevitable, even if he’ll never comply. Anything less would’ve been perceived as totally toothless or biased to a fatal degree.

        • timbo says:

          Thanks. That makes sense. If Trump is going to be wandering around in public, spouting more nonsense go forward, poisoning more of the public discourse in our country, might as well ask how come he wouldn’t come to the Congress and spout that nonsense while under oath in the People’s House… I mean he claims he’s a strong man, not afraid to stand up to his opponents, etc, so where is he when the Congress wants his testimony under oath?

    • bmaz says:

      By the way, your recitation of the tobacco litigation is garbage. There were many parents of that, my family of which was one. It was not just time and public attrition, it was also public litigation, fueled by Melvin Belli out of California, and two lawyers in Arizona, known even more for the Miranda decision.

        • bmaz says:

          That would be Melvin. Hilariously, he also had a prominent role in an episode of the Original Star Trek.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          The Friendly Angel in And the Children Shall Lead. It should have been the Friendly Angle, who was about as friendly as the brilliant Judge Friendly, in the Second Circuit in the 1960s – 80s.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Oh, yeah. A seemingly pleasant and benevolent devil, so long as he gets his way. Not so much when he doesn’t. Kirk pierces his seeming good nature, allowing his acolytes to see the evil he works through them, which turns his evil onto the devil, consuming him.

          An interesting metaphor for Trump and the MAGA crowd. Belli and Trump were even about the same weight. Sadly, the disclosure of Trump’s evil seems only to attract his followers all the more.

    • hester says:

      ” cigarette use in USA didn’t get reduced by laws, it got reduced by a constant drumbeat of bad news that eventually made it socially unacceptable,”

      Good analogy. Imho, the subpoena is mostly about optics, and for political purposes. I’m glad for it.

Comments are closed.