The J6C Transcripts: Patrick Byrne’s Conduit, Garrett Ziegler

The other day, I noted that while I agree with Rayne that the January 6 Committee could use referrals to make important symbolic statements, the Committee’s referral, in practice, was weaker than it should have been to make that symbolic impact. That made bmaz’ earlier gripes about such a referral look more justified.

Similarly, the release of the first set of January 6 Committee transcripts last night show how right he has been that the Committee was remiss in not turning these over to DOJ sooner. Most of these transcripts are people who pled the Fifth and most you’re hearing about are the big name people like Mike Flynn and Roger Stone. But the first I read, from a Peter Navarro aide, Garrett Ziegler, hinted at just how valuable the J6C interviews will be, even of those who (like Ziegler) refused to cooperate.

Ziegler is most famous as the guy who let Sidney Powell, Mike Flynn, and Patrick Byrne into the White House for a famously confrontational meeting on December 18, 2020, which preceded Trump’s announcement of the January 6 riot. But Ziegler’s non-answers to J6C staffers serve as roadmap of the larger operation. He refused to answer questions about the following:

Ziegler was — is — a kid, totally unqualified for the role he had at the White House, which it sounds like he didn’t do anyway, instead at least partly working for Trump’s reelection on the taxpayer dime. But he was also totally wired into most aspects of the coup attempt.

His role in all this is interesting for several more reasons. First, it appears that Ziegler did not turn over the “path to victory” email in response to his January 6 subpoena, which means for all the times he invoked the Fifth, he might still have exposure to obstruction charges.

He is represented by John Kiyonaga — a lawyer who has represented key assault defendants in January 6, including former Special Forces guy Jeffrey McKellop. In fact, prosecutors are considering charging McKellop in January for violating the protective order covering evidence on January 6 by sending evidence from jail to others.

And Ziegler published a copy of both the “Hunter Biden” “laptop” and the diary stolen from Ashley Biden.

97 replies
  1. Kennygauss says:

    Holy wow batman I love how this site brings out unheard of stuff about all the tunnel rats in the attempted subversion of a great neighbour and friend.

    Thanks everyone!

  2. Peterr says:

    Minor typo in the first bullet point: “St. Louis College” should be “St. Louis University.” There’s no such place as the former, and the latter is a well-respected Jesuit university.

    • Peterr says:

      Note, please, from the transcript:

      Q When did you graduate?
      A May 2018.

      Q What jobs have you held since graduating from college?
      A Just at the White House from February of 2019 to January of 2021, and then now I run a 501(c)3) nonprofit.

      Q So your job at the White House was your first job upon graduation from college?
      A Yes sir.

      He graduated in 2018, when Trump was in his second year in office, and got his job a year later. Nice work if you can get it.

      Re bullet point #2, the specific questions he declined to answer are interesting, especially given that a number of them are a matter of public record before turning to the questions around Navarro:

      What were your job responsibilities?
      To whom did you report during the months that you worked at the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy?
      In late 2020, approximately how many people worked in the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy?
      While you were working in the White House, did you do any work for the Trump 2020 campaign?
      Was that the direction of Peter Navarro?
      Mr. Navarro had said publicly that he allowed several members of his staff to help out in battleground States on their own time. Did that include you?

      I’d love to see the written description of his job, as approved by OPM. Of course, it probably has the ubiquitous “and other such duties as may be required” language at the end of it.

      Had he answered the questions about the campaign, he’d be admitting to Hatch Act violations. My favorite part is where the questioners asks whether individual members of the OTMP did campaign work, ending with “Were there any analysts within the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy who were not tasked with work relating to overturning the 2020 election during the time you were there?”

      I can’t help but think the transcript misses the emphasis put on the word “any”.

  3. Tom G says:

    “Similarly, the release of the first set of January 6 Committee transcripts last night show how right he has been that the Committee was remiss in not turning these over to DOJ sooner.” I keep on seeing references about the earlier lack of cooperation between the J6 committee and DOJ. Has anyone explored the possibility that the reason for this was that the J6 committee couldn’t trust DOJ early on as the DOJ was and still is populated with a lot of Trump holdovers that were just waiting to throw sand into the gears of justice?
    They are cooperating now because of the appointment of Jack Smith finally showing that the DOJ is starting to get serious.

    • Barringer says:

      A word for word transcript of my out loud reaction when reading the same reply. (Except for the spelling)

    • bmaz says:

      Uh, no, that is completely and entirely bullshit. There is no evidence whatsoever that DOJ is being run by “Trump holdovers”. None. The “cooperation now” is not a function of Smith’s appointment whatsoever. The Committee has always said they would turn over when they were done, and they said that LONG before Smith. You are peddling garbage. This, and dubiously so, your first comment here. Where did you suddenly come from to do so? Do you have an agenda? You are off to a bad start.

        • bmaz says:

          Yes, I do say so. If you have one scintilla of evidence to back up your lame screed, and I know you do not, bring it. Otherwise you may have stumbled into the wrong house.

        • Tom G says:

          Oh I plan on running along, I was told this was a respected site to get insightful information I didn’t realize it was just another site run by right wing bullies.
          Bye, bye, as I don’t suffer, fools, trolls or bullies!
          Which from your post is exactly what you are!

        • bmaz says:

          Listen jackass, yes, this is a great site to come get good information and facts from. It is not a good site to wander into to spew bullshit and factless conspiracy bunk, which is what you have done. Right wing bullies? Lol, that only demonstrates how vapid you really are. Don’t let the door hit you.

        • Fiendish Thingy says:

          bmaz, you are better than a bouncer at a dive bar.

          Thanks for keeping this place tidy and free of riff raff. I don’t always agree with you, but I greatly appreciate your role at EW.

        • Yargelsnogger says:

          Sheesh, he asked a question. Yes, there was some leading speculation in there, but still…

          And, yes, he was wrong about you being right wing, but not the other part. Instead of just debunking his more speculative points, you chose to inpugn his motives with your own speculations.
          “You are peddling garbage. This, and dubiously so, your first comment here. Where did you suddenly come from to do so? Do you have an agenda? You are off to a bad start.”

          Then he provides some links. Rather than engage with that, or explain that you think those are crappy sources for reliable information you simply tell him he’s “got nothing”?!?

          Is the purpose of your attacks to keep out bad-faith trolls, or are you trying to chase away any new reader who is coming here with opinions formed from less-than-perfect sources of information? If it is the latter, then well done!

        • bmaz says:

          Sorry, I am a little busy to engage with bad faith comments, and the links he tried to belatedly use to back his up, they were both garbage (and, yeah, I looked at the links). And we are all a little busy to deal with people who think they are entitled to weigh in on how we do our jobs and that said basis is open to public debate. It is not. And, yes, it is the latter of your two scenarios in your last paragraph.

        • Tech Support says:

          You proposed an inflammatory hypothetical that is essentially the left-wing version of the “deep state” conspiracy theory. Although it was phrased as a question, your final sentence is pure opinion stated as a declaration of fact.

          You did so in a forum that is populated and moderated by attorneys who are professionally trained to blow holes in weak arguments.

          I get my ass handed to me regularly. Don’t mistake it for partisanship.

        • Alan Charbonneau says:

          “Don’t let the screen door hit you, on your way out.
          Don’t you drown when your dream boat runs onto the ground“
          —Sanford Townsend Band

    • emptywheel says:

      I have problems with one of the prosecutors in a key role in the investigation. I’ve written about it repeatedly.
      HOWEVER, there is, even with that, abundant evidence that the investigation is being conducted professionally and with more discretion than the J6C. So if their concern was leaks, they had their own problem, not DOJ.

      And if that’s their excuse, they harmed the investigation they were trying to save.

  4. Tom-1812 says:

    Months of public hue and cry about the apparent tortoise-like pace of the DOJ investigation, all the while the J6 Committee has been sitting on information that might have helped accelerate the process of justice. It reminds me of my sister and I as kids spending long winter afternoons working on 1000-piece jigsaw puzzles, with each of us secretly holding a few puzzle pieces in our grubby little paws so as to have the honour and glory of putting in the last piece.

      • bmaz says:

        Hey Barringer, I think I may have screwed up your prior comment. I had posted mine to the wrong comment, so I moved to the proper thread and expanded it a bit. Sorry, please feel free to repost if you wish.

        Never mind, it is there!

  5. GeeSizzle says:

    My apologies in advance, I don’t have the time to read every post and comment on this site, but I do try to keep up to the extent I can….that said:

    Perhaps I missed it amongst the many comments where Bmaz was critical of the J6. I’ve mostly tended to skip over some as they became repetitive about the bullshit and theater. I only watched a bit of the J6C when it was streaming, but was left with the usual feeling of “these people don’t know what they are doing and suck at follow-ups” and the like. I mean, the Democrats have a pretty epic history of failing to get to the important bits and ultimately making terribly decisions (see Bill Barr confirmation, etc.) Hence, I tended to agree with Bmaz’s theater critique, as it came off in part as the usual political kabuki.

    At the same time, regarding the assessment that they are bullshit, I thought, well, they are interviewing a lot of important people, and things they say or refuse to say might be useful to know, so how can it be complete BS? Again, perhaps I missed it, but at no time did I think they would be withholding from DOJ any information they gleaned. It just seems batshit crazy to me that these two processes are running concurrently, sentences are being carried out, attempts to build other cases are under way, and meanwhile J6C might be holding important bits of info that might make the DOJ job easier. If that truly is the case, then it’s worse than bullshit and Bmaz has not been critical enough.

    When I read the word “conduit” in the post today, it dawned on me that I’d been assuming all along that J6C was just that very thing to DOJ. Not sure why I assumed this, other than ignorance and wishful thinking. But egads, I certainly was horribly mistaken. I mean, what did J6C think they would gain by this withholding strategy? (Especially as it seems they have no power to act beyond referrals, which again, seem to reinforce the “theater” critique.) If they were simply going to refer eventually, why not refer information when it matters?

    Lastly, I do think it is important that the public be informed as to what went down, so perhaps J6C had some purpose – I mean, it’s possible that by producing this info, some votes were impacted. But I wonder if whatever good that did doesn’t end up being completely negated by failing to do the one thing ultimately necessary, which is prosecute this to the top of the food chain.

    • bmaz says:

      Repetitive is probably accurate. But people kept demanding I explain myself, so I did, and maybe too often, but thought it necessary.

      I would like to point out that the Committee is STILL doing it. They turned over a whole 34 transcripts, out of the supposedly hundreds, if not near a thousand, they claim to have. I see no evidence they have handed over any documents or physical evidence, of which they claim they have a ton of. Why? Why not put it all on a huge hard drive and courier it over to DOJ Main?

      The only thing I can reason is they want to dribble it out to keep themselves in the spotlight, and if that is it, it is pretty craven. Time is wasting for DOJ, and at this point, the Committee is not just inhibiting DOJ, they are obstructing it. Frankly, it would be harsh, but DOJ might think about issuing a grand jury subpoena duces tecum for the whole lot of it. This was ridiculous long ago, but it is beyond absurd now.

      • GeeSizzle says:

        Just to be clear, I didn’t mean the repetitive description as a criticism, just that I have to skim the comments sometimes and focus on the specific commenters I like to read. And you are definitely one of them. I feel bad that I sometimes irritate you with my ignorance, but I do find your viewpoint extremely valuable. I also don’t envy the moderation you have to do here, as it seems some commenters repeatedly fail to follow the blog’s general commenting guidelines. I might fall into that occasionally, but really am trying not to.

        Your suggestion of DOJ subpoenaing (sp?) all of this seems a good one to me. This really is absurd.

      • ExpatR&RDino-sour says:

        Whilst I still believe the J6 Committee has performed a valuable and possibly historic service to the American people in one sense, which I know you disagree with, you are still one of the few commenters I look out for. I like to think it’s ok to disagree. But I’ve never understood why the J6 would withhold information from the DOJ. If they are still doing it then their previous excuse rings very hollow and you are right to hammer that point in my view.

        To the point of the post. I have to wonder if a family connection is the reason Mr. Zeigler landed a White House position. He appears to be very bold in expressing his views in a Trumpian way to nobody who cares to listen.

        • Tech Support says:

          It’s deeply frustrating. The committee certainly positions itself as being committed to doing good work here. The initial televised hearings seemed to have had some success at shaping public opinion. The evidence they have gathered is going to be important for the DOJ going forward. So you’d think they’d want to be more cooperative. As much as empty speculation is discouraged around these parts, there’s very little of substance to discuss on this point and a lot of motivation to discuss it, at least here. Nobody in DC journalism seems remotely interested in asking these questions.

          The most obvious possibility is that there is some sort of political gamesmanship afoot. If there are individuals on the committee who have wanted to coordinate more closely with DOJ, they are being outvoted or are being procedurally sidelined by the chair. Why though?

          One thing I value from EW’s posts (and the comments) is that people much smarter than I on these issues are very good about identifying ulterior motives. The best we’ve got right now is “congresspeople are preening attention whores”. Which maybe at the end of the day is the correct answer.

      • matt fischer says:

        Would a subpoena duces tecum really do the DOJ any good?

        Correct me if I’m wrong, but couldn’t the House move to quash the subpoena by invoking congressional privilege? The issue would then be tied up in court, where a judge, reluctant to weigh in on a dispute between coequal branches, would demand DOJ show the information sought could not be otherwise obtained.

        Ultimately, and before the question of privilege were resolved, the House would cough up the docs of their own accord (and on their own timeline), rendering the issue moot.

  6. Konny_2022 says:

    I’ve been curious to learn more about the role Navarro played after the release of his “report” (available at because the infamous “Be there, will be wild” tweet begins with the praise of this report, after all.

    And since the House hold both Navarro and Scavino in contempt, I’m also curious whether — and if, how — various Scavino tweets during 2020 are considered. Following Rayne’s advice before I read about it, I kept some which I found not only outrageous but scary because the stylized the then-president as Nero of ancient Rome. (I’m not and never was on Twitter, but looked tweets up almost regularly during the tweet presidency.)

  7. joel fisher says:

    Given the recent revelations of Trump’s henchthings taking the 5th during 1/6 Committee hearings, it might be time for a primer on a few things:
    1) Waiver of 5th A protection by answering questions;
    2) Offers of immunity;
    3) Impact of Pardons; (It always seemed odd to me that the evil doers wouldn’t at least hesitate from criminal activity after a pardon. BTW, Stone pardoned on 12/23/20. ) and
    4) The relationships, if any, of the above.
    Also, fwiw, one thing the 1/6 Committee has assuredly done is make it much harder to pick a jury.

    • bmaz says:

      How do you know they didn’t? Just because there was one pissant transcript out there before, you think that exonerates the J6 Committee? Seriously?

      • greenbird says:

        “didn’t DoJ get it like i did … ?”
        i just noticed its date is about a year ago, is all.
        i do not know whether or not DoJ got it, but they COULD have.

        BB: mmmmmmmmmmm it’s a possibility. (crunch crunch crunch …)

  8. mickquinas says:

    I have a significant quibble with one thing about Dr. Wheeler’s presentation of Garrett Ziegler: “Ziegler was — is — a kid”.

    Sure, he was, and likely still is, far younger than most folks who would be serving in positions of similar responsibility. Sure, it seems pretty clear that he was grossly under-qualified for the position he held, like a toddler in a dynamite factory.

    But he was, and is, an adult. He was, and is, a person designated in our society (correctly or incorrectly) as having the capacity for moral distinction and the responsibility for ethical action. The available evidence suggests that he failed in both of those capacities, and although he was part of a system and society that encourages childishness in adult white males, and often gives them a pass on monstrous behavior, he wasn’t a child then, or now.

    I know that Dr. Wheeler knows this, and I’m somewhat abashed at what feels like pedantry, but words matter. Garrett Ziegler was, and is, an adult man, and he needs to grow the rest of the way up, own his actions, tell the truth, and take his lumps. He’ll likely get the Brock Turner or Kyle Rittenhouse treatment in court anyway, he doesn’t need it here.

    • mickquinas says:

      Good Lord. Here I am, reviewing my comment and realizing that “grow the rest of the way up” plays into that same trope of excusing criminality by infantilizing the emotional development of white men in our society. So automatic. Mea culpa.

      • Rayne says:

        It’s really easy, isn’t it? They get pretty photos of boyish faces and never nasty mug shots after robbing the public of its wealth and rights?

        Good on you recognizing it.

        ADDER: I’d really like to know if Ziegler’s curriculum at university included a class in ethics. Funny how Cassidy Hutchison grokked the ethical challenges and she was hardly more than a kid herself being 23-24 years old on January 6, 2021.

        • SonofaWW2Marine says:

          The late, great Donald Kagan liked to say that a person had to be pretty bright to convince him- or herself that something foul was actually OK. He usually said it while comparing sophists and juries in Classical Athens, but was well aware that it fit our world too. Cf. William F. Buckley’s remark that he’d rather be governed by the first 100 people in the Boston phone book (a dated reference now!) than by the entire Harvard faculty.

        • mickquinas says:

          I appreciate the affirmation.

          A quick Google of the Bachelor of Science degree at St. Louis University shows PHIL 2050 (Ethics) as part of the “road map” for year three, on top of a couple of year two courses that appear to include self-examination and world-view construction that I would presume to address ethical questions as well. I doubt that this is a new innovation for the degree program. (

        • Hug h roonman says:

          For some folks a course in Ethics is about as meaningful as a graduate course in “Integrity” or “Critical Thinking Skills”.

          In 2009 I queried someone with an Ivy League MBA Degree (with ten years of Investment Management work experience) applying for a position on a Team I managed- “What do you think might be some of the long term implications of the 2008 Financial Crisis on the Investment Management Industry?”

          Will never forget the INSTANT Deer in the Headlights reaction.

          There wasn’t a wrong answer to that question.

          He didn’t get the Job.

        • Susan D. Einbinder says:

          Taking a course about ethics has nothing to do with one’s own ethics: Learning about different ethical frameworks (utilitarianism, for example) and being able to cogently apply them in writing to instructor-provided examples doesn’t make someone ethical. Unfortunately. And Buckley’s comment about faculty is woefully true….

        • Rayne says:

          When one’s acquired ethics are lacking, a course in ethics is the final backstop.

          Now we can see the backstop didn’t work; we can also ask Ziegler should he ever attempt to run for office why the disparity between a known-quantity in college-level ethics he should have taken and his performance during the Trump administration.

        • Tech Support says:

          Per Wikipedia (so, take it with a grain of salt) Cassidy Hutchinson grew up in a middle-class community, attended public schools and universities, and interned her way into the DC political labor pool.

          Garret Zielger, as best as I can tell, is a product of the upper-class right-wing catholic pipeline, not only for his Jesuit undergraduate studies but his fellowship in the John Jay Institute, which appears to be built to feed christian conservatives into positions of political influence. He’s also a whack-job who actively promotes conspiracy theories and is active on Gab. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he cut his social media teeth on 4chan. That fellowship and his clear willingness to say nutjob stuff out loud is probably the best explanation for how he got fast tracked into Trump’s mob family.

          (Just saw Harpie’s comments below. Great find!)

        • Rayne says:

          Hey “Margaret Theresa” the so-called spook:

          Censorship is what governments do. We’re exercising our First Amendment right of free association not to tolerate sock puppets who use fake government email addresses for their bullshit trash talk.

          Go find some place else to play your games. It’s not as if you can’t do your schtick on Twitter without getting called out on it by new management.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Your comment reminded me of Dorian Gray, and the ubiquitous Victorian painkiller, laudanum.

      This Ziegler is certainly an adult and subject to adult penalties for criminal conduct. But as a newbie – and unlike his cousin, Ron, of Nixon fame (see below) – his experience and judgment would have woefully lagged behind the high elicited from being in TFG’s presence and the juice from working in the WH.

      As a skilled predator, Trump counts on such things and purposely hires such people, the more physically beautiful the better. (He seems to have a penchant for the Breck Girl look.) The practice is similar to hoods who hire minor street kids to do their dirty work and take the fall.

  9. Bay State Librul says:

    From the peanut gallery — just a thought, can we have a time out with regard to the J6 Committee findings.
    We have beaten the issue to death, and I think we all know where everybody stands.
    I’d rather like to comment on the IRS
    My bitch is with Trump’s effective tax rate for 2018 which was 4.1% — it sits atop the IRS rates like a bad toupee

  10. harpie says:

    There is some information on ZIEGLER in this 4/13/22 comment thread with info from two articles:

    It begins with

    – NAVARRO aide, Garrett ZIEGLER works on “reports touting “the Trump economic record” in sectors like mining and manufacturing in swing states.”

    “Following in the footsteps of his older cousin Ron Ziegler, onetime press secretary for President Richard Nixon, Garrett Ziegler landed an internship at the White House as a college student in 2017. He joined NAVARRO’s staff in 2019.

    • harpie says:

      Interesting timing:
      1/24/19 At a WH meeting, Ginni [SCOTUS Spouse] THOMAS hands TRUMP a political purge and replace list.
      2/XX/19 [– January 2021] ZIEGLER becomes a Policy Analyst in the White House Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy [He had interned at the WH in 2017]
      2/19/19 In declining to take a defamation-related case before SCOTUS (McKee v. Cosby), THOMAS issues a remarkable unjoined concurrence challenging the Court’s reliance on the “actual malice” standard in 1964’s NYT v. Sullivan [cf. TRUMP’s repeated pleas to “loosen up libel laws”][<h/t Eureka [heart emoji]]
      5/16-18/19 Ginni [SCOTUS Spouse] THOMAS and her friend [“I’m not asking you Cleta, honestly”] MITCHELL make plans with CNP [Council for National Policy] to steal the 2020 Presidential election.

      See MORE at this comment thread:

        • harpie says:

          I don’t know that he is…though, I wouldn’t be surprised. These circles have been grooming young Stepford People for generations, now. [I think of Ginni and Coney-Barrett may be some of them] When I went to add his beginning date to the TL, it ended up being right there next to the Ginni entry.

      • Rayne says:

        Yeah…there must be some line between the Zieglers and CNP. Wouldn’t be farfetched since CNP has been around since Reagan’s time.

        • AgainBrain says:

          Anyone know off-hand whether Garrett Ziegler is related to Christian Ziegler (FL Republican Party vice-chair, and “Moms of Liberty” infamy)?

          Likely coincidence, but thought maybe someone here might know — I did a brief search, couldn’t find any obvious connection between the Altamont Zieglers and the Sarasota Zieglers, but again…”brief search”.

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          When I was looking into Garrett back when he first popped up, I found cousin Ron but not Christian. After a deep dive into Garrett’s world, I felt the familiar rightwing reinforcement-mechanism vertigo–that is, overly exposed to the ways they recruit and place people like Young Garrett, and sickened by same.

          Cannot go back there. Not yet.

  11. Savage Librarian says:

    As the Director of the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, I wonder if Peter Navarro had an interest in anything related to blockchain technology. I think it was after Trump left office that Navarro expressed his concern about China and blockchain.

    But that has me wondering if there may be any connection between Navarro and the 1776 plan, perhaps through people who work with blockchain like Eryka Gemma. Both Gemma and Navarro had their hands on a plan to disrupt and overthrow government. But both plans were actually composed by others.

  12. P J Evans says:

    What gets me is people taking the 5th on things like how old they are and were they went to college. That’s easy information to find and check!

  13. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Modest understatement: Garrett Ziegler is no Cassidy Hutchinson. They had similar years of experience, came from a similar place on the political spectrum, and worked in the same WH milieu. But ethically, he’s an acorn, she’s a shade tree.

    • Tom-1812 says:

      Insurance companies are certainly up to speed on climate change. When my home insurance policy renewal arrived in the mail last January, it came with a covering letter advising me of changes–i.e., reductions–in coverage for roof damage. As the letter explained, “Over the past few years, incidents of strong wind and hail have increased,” with the result that the company has received more damage claims “particularly for older roofs.” Therefore, any policy holder with a roof 15 years or older should expect a depreciation in their coverage based on the age of their roof.

      • Tom-1812 says:

        And we’re in the middle of a major winter storm drubbing even as I write this! Looking out my window right now the visibility is so obscure it’s like watching Kari Lake being interviewed on TV.

  14. Elvishasleftthebuilding says:

    So apparently Mr. Ziegler has formed a group doing “forensic analysis” on Hunter Biden’s laptop – associated with, a “non-profit research group.” I spent a little time listening to the December 13, 2022 program on featuring Mr. Ziegler. My brain is not really capable of understanding what he is talking about – and to the extent I can understand it, I don’t really even want to repeat it because it is so vile. Given Mr. Ziegler’s fondness for taking the Fifth Amendment he will get to spend a significant portion of his life in prison.

  15. Johnny057 says:

    I always learn something new when I read these posts here. Despite the drama surrounding the referrals to the DOJ and their usefulness (or lack thereof), I seem to have missed something I’ve been waiting on to emerge as product from the J6C, mainly specific proposed legislation that could help prevent this in the future. Has this been discussed and have I missed it? Or is it moot given the change in party leadership in the next Congress (would it ever see the light of day)? Thanks!

    • Peterr says:

      The complete final report — not just the summary released the other day — contains a section on recommendations, beginning on p. 689. The very first one speaks of the reforms made to the Electoral Count Act passed by the House and awaiting action by the Senate. From there they discuss various other items, some of which are legislative, while others are changes to procedures and policies that do not require additional legislation. I’m still working through it, but you didn’t miss it. It just came out in the last hour.

    • Naomi Schiff says:

      House and Senate did pass electoral vote reform measures to close some of the loopholes or fuzzy places the trump forces tried to use. Perhaps others here have an idea whether it will be useful or effective. Upstanding people like Collins and Manchin participated.

  16. ThomasJ7777 says:

    Thanks to Ziegler, I learned about 18 USC 119. Ziegler doxxed the magistrate judge who approved the MAL search warrant.

    Ziegler also doxxed the 9 FBI agents (and their families) who conducted the search.
    Ziegler also doxxed the synagogue of the judge.

    Ziegler could have only gotten that information, the same night, from Christina Bobb, who received a copy of the warrant at MAL. That’s because, at the time Ziegler doxxed all of those people, their names were under seal, and only Christina Bobb and Donald Trump are known to have had that info before it was unsealed a few days later.

    I really hope that in addition to espionage and obstruction of justice, and conspiracy, that those three people (and whatever whackjob used the info to make threats) are charged with 10 counts of violating 18 USC 119.

    I want them to be too old to start over when they get out of jail. Except Trump. He will get out of jail when he is dead.

  17. harpie says:
    11:55 PM · Dec 22, 2022

    NOTABLE: Trump had a 23 minute call with John EASTMAN the same day he started drafting his infamous memo about the Jan. 6 strategy. […] [screenshots]

    12/23/20 EASTMAN prepares memo

    8:58 AM EASTMAN call from EPSHTEYN

    9:09 AM EASTMAN calls CHESEBRO [“over 41 minutes”][> 9:50 AM]

    [“Eastman continues to trade calls with Epshteyn and Chesebro throughout the day.]

    1:32 PM EASTMAN to Molly MICHAEL [email]: “Is the President available for a very quick call today at some point? Just want to update him on our overall strategic thinking.”

    1:37 PM WH switchboard to EASTMAN [“almost 23 minutes”] [> 2:00 PM]

      • harpie says:

        8:16 AM

        From: Eastman, John
        Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 10:16 AM MST
        [> 8:16 AM ET]
        To: [redacted PIISC]@donaldtrump[dot]com
        CC: [CHESEBRO]@msn[dot]com
        Subject: FW: Draft 2, with edits
        – Dec 23 memo on Jan 6 scenario[dot]docx”
        [redacted PIISC] [EPSHTEYN]

        I’m fine with all of Ken’s edits. They had not come through to me on the last round. Here’s the final.

        As for hearings, I think both are unnecessary. The fact that we have multiple slates of electors demonstrates the uncertainty of either. That should be enough. And I agree with Ken that Judiciary Committee hearings on the constitutionality of the Electoral Count Act could invite counter views that we do not believe should constrain Pence (or Grassley) in the exercise of power they have under the 12th Amendment. Better for them just to act boldly and be challenged, since the challenge would likely lead to the Court denying review on nonjusticiable political question grounds.


        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          Thanks, harpie! That parenthetical “(or Grassley)” reminds me of a strand of the plot I haven’t seen followed: Pence, whisked away to some lockbox, is unable to preside over the tallying, and Grassley takes his place.

          I have long wondered how much Grassley was read into the plot, or whether he was presumed to be a malleable tool by Eastman et. al.

  18. Rayne says:


    I’ve downloaded all 34 of the House J6 Committee’s transcripts released so far, but unfortunately they’re not searchable even with Adobe. Does anyone have ALL of the transcripts in searchable form and/or can someone provide searchable copies, or know of a place on line where searchable copies exist?

    I’m trying to write a post and very much need to know if some key items reappeared elsewhere in the transcripts without having to read every single one of them before finishing my post.


    • nedu says:

      As a proof-of-concept, I’ve just successfully converted one (1) page of one (1) document to plain text. Specifically, I converted the first page of Cassidy Hutchinson’s Sept 14, 2022 transcript.

      The proof-of-concept toolchain runs on openSUSE, using (a) pdfimages from the poppler-tools package to extract the page image to tiff, and (b) tesseract from the tesseract-ocr package to convert the tiff image to plain text.

      Right now, this is nothing more than a successful proof-of-concept for a single page conversion to searchable text.

      Maybe let me know — if you want to go forward with this approach?

      • Rayne says:

        Here’s my ultimate aim: I need to be able to search every one of the transcripts for keywords like, oh, “[email protected].” Not an example of the only term but one which is more complicated because it contains a symbol and punctuation.

        Do you feel confident the results of your proof of concept are fully searchable, with likelihood of missed terms low to none? We could give it a whirl if you think it works satisfactorily, I’ll have to trust your judgment.

        • nedu says:

          Just in general, ocr typically always needs some post-conversion cleanup and qa. (Sometimes that can be partially automated with dictionary assistance.) It really depends on how clean the input is.

          Do you have a linux box available, or would you need me to run the conversions, and then say, I don’t know, maybe email the output?

        • Rayne says:

          Is your email address used with your username in working order? We can hash this out in email rather than take up thread space.

Comments are closed.