Jan. 6 panel refers Trump on criminal charges

[Contrarian]

The Jan. 6 panel voted Monday to refer former President Trump to the Department of Justice on at least four criminal charges, including insurrection and obstruction of an official proceeding of Congress.

Why it matters: In an unprecedented move, the congressional committee voted unanimously that the former president committed crimes for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

Driving the news: The panel referred Trump on charges of obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the U.S., conspiracy to make a false statement and "incite," "assist" or "aid or comfort" an insurrection.

"The committee has developed significant evidence that President Trump intended to disrupt the peaceful transition of power under our constitution," Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said.

The panel also announced Monday the referral of criminal charges against former Trump lawyer John Eastman for his efforts to disrupt the 2020 election.

Eastman, with Trump, pushed a theory that Vice President Mike Pence could unilaterally reject electors.

"We believe that the evidence described by my colleagues today and assembled throughout our hearings warrants a criminal referral of former president Donald J. Trump, John Eastman and others," Raskin said.

The referrals are non-binding and do not require the DOJ to take any additional action.

The big picture: The panel on Monday also voted to refer House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and three other House Republicans to the House Ethics Committee for ignoring the panel's subpoenas.

A partial copy of the panel's report charges McCarthy, along with Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Scott Perry (R-Pa.) and Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), with violating House rules requiring members to conduct themselves “at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House."

The panel also voted to approve its sprawling final report, which will include legislative recommendations and focus on additional evidence on Trump's role on Jan. 6.

Zoom out: Monday's public meeting is likely the last public session for the committee, as it will dissolve at the end of the current Congressional session.

The panel over the last 18 months has reviewed droves of evidence and conducted hundreds of interviews to glean insight into what happened that deadly day.

https://www.axios.com/2022/12/19/january-6-committee-trump-criminal-charges

Edited December 19, 2022 by Contrarian

[CrakHoBarbie]

9 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

The Jan. 6 panel voted Monday to refer former President Trump to the Department of Justice on at least four criminal charges, including insurrection and obstruction of an official proceeding of Congress.

Why it matters: In an unprecedented move, the congressional committee voted unanimously that the former president committed crimes for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

Driving the news: The panel referred Trump on charges of obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the U.S., conspiracy to make a false statement and "incite," "assist" or "aid or comfort" an insurrection.

"The committee has developed significant evidence that President Trump intended to disrupt the peaceful transition of power under our constitution," Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said.

The panel also announced Monday the referral of criminal charges against former Trump lawyer John Eastman for his efforts to disrupt the 2020 election.

Eastman, with Trump, pushed a theory that Vice President Mike Pence could unilaterally reject electors.

"We believe that the evidence described by my colleagues today and assembled throughout our hearings warrants a criminal referral of former president Donald J. Trump, John Eastman and others," Raskin said.

The referrals are non-binding and do not require the DOJ to take any additional action.

The big picture: The panel on Monday also voted to refer House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and three other House Republicans to the House Ethics Committee for ignoring the panel's subpoenas.

A partial copy of the panel's report charges McCarthy, along with Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Scott Perry (R-Pa.) and Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), with violating House rules requiring members to conduct themselves “at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House."

The panel also voted to approve its sprawling final report, which will include legislative recommendations and focus on additional evidence on Trump's role on Jan. 6.

Zoom out: Monday's public meeting is likely the last public session for the committee, as it will dissolve at the end of the current Congressional session.

The panel over the last 18 months has reviewed droves of evidence and conducted hundreds of interviews to glean insight into what happened that deadly day.

https://www.axios.com/2022/12/19/january-6-committee-trump-criminal-charges

Now let's hope the DOJ acts on this referral. It certainly is a crap shoot as to how the DOJ will respond.

[Infidel Dog]

Ho hum. 

Here we go again.

[Hodad]

I don't envy the DOJ. On the one hand, Trump and his motley crew are indisputably guilty of several of those charges, and no one should be above the law. 

On the other hand, if they do try to hold Trump accountable for what he actually did, then there will be no end to the wailing and gnashing of teeth about witch hunts and politicization etc. 

It's crazy that, as a population, we've gotten to the point where the DOJ will be pilloried if they don't give a free pass to high-profile criminals.

[suds]

Not a single member of this so called 'congressional committee' was chosen by the republican party.  There's not one amongst them who hadn't made up their minds that Trump was guilty even before this investigation began. So, big surprise eh? But all's fair in love and war.  Won't be long Joe. You're next.

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, suds said:

Not a single member of this so called 'congressional committee' was chosen by the republican party.  There's not one amongst them who hadn't made up their minds that Trump was guilty even before this investigation began. So, big surprise eh? But all's fair in love and war.  Won't be long Joe. You're next.

What about the Republican who joined ?  She's the Vice Chairwoman right ?

[dialamah]

13 minutes ago, suds said:

Not a single member of this so called 'congressional committee' was chosen by the republican party.  There's not one amongst them who hadn't made up their minds that Trump was guilty even before this investigation began. So, big surprise eh? But all's fair in love and war.  Won't be long Joe. You're next.

Maybe Trump is guilty.  He's on video encouraging his supporters; that certainly makes him look guilty.  You MAGA folks are divorced from reality.  Anything you don't like is due to the other side's corruption; anything you do like is because your side can do no wrong.  You are like religious zealots.  

[dialamah]

11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

What about the Republican who joined ?  She's the Vice Chairwoman right ?

There were two Republicans.  

[suds]

37 minutes ago, dialamah said:

There were two Republicans.  

Yeah there were 2 republicans selected by Pelosi to make the committee look bi-partisan.  Neither one was selected as a possible candidate by the republicans. Liz Cheney was selected because of her high ranking party status and the fact she voted to impeach trump on the charge of inciting an insurrection. It's a long story, but there's no way the congressional committee was bi-partisan. Give me one Jim Jordan and I would have been satisfied.

Edited December 19, 2022 by suds

[West]

9 minutes ago, suds said:

Yeah there were 2 republicans selected by Pelosi to make the committee look bi-partisan.  Neither one was selected as a possible candidate by the republicans. Liz Cheney was selected because of her high ranking party status and the fact she voted to impeach trump on the charge of inciting an insurrection. It's a long story, but there's no way the congressional committee was bi-partisan. Give me one Jim Jordan and I would have been satisfied.

Liz Cheney is a whack job. These democrats are sick individuals.. 

 

[suds]

45 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Maybe Trump is guilty.  He's on video encouraging his supporters; that certainly makes him look guilty.  You MAGA folks are divorced from reality.  Anything you don't like is due to the other side's corruption; anything you do like is because your side can do no wrong.  You are like religious zealots.  

Instead of labeling me names which i'm not, why not try offering evidence that this particular 'congressional committee' was something other than a kangaroo court? Or would that be beyond your capabilities?

[West]

2 minutes ago, suds said:

Instead of labeling me names which i'm not, why not try offering evidence that this particular 'congressional committee' was something other than a kangaroo court? Or would that be beyond your capabilities?

The show trials keep the sheepies entertained while crooked Joe robs them blind. 

Can't vote against Joe tho or you ain't black as he says lol

[robosmith]

15 minutes ago, suds said:

Yeah there were 2 republicans selected by Pelosi to make the committee look bi-partisan.  Neither one was selected as a possible candidate by the republicans. Liz Cheney was selected because of her high ranking party status and the fact she voted to impeach trump on the charge of inciting an insurrection. It's a long story, but there's no way the congressional committee was bi-partisan. Give me one Jim Jordan and I would have been satisfied.

It would make NO SENSE for a PARTICIPANT in the Jan 6th insurrection, who admitted to being on the phone with Trump numerous time THAT DAY, to be admitted as a member investigating that tragedy.

Of course ANY MAGA would be happy to have someone intent on sabotaging the investigation, on the committee.

Fortunately no one else is that stupid.

[robosmith]

10 minutes ago, West said:

Liz Cheney is a whack job. These democrats are sick individuals.. 

 

Thanks for admitting your delusional denial of reality once again.

AKA, no culpability by Trump makes any sense to YOU.

[robosmith]

6 minutes ago, suds said:

Instead of labeling me names which i'm not, why not try offering evidence that this particular 'congressional committee' was something other than a kangaroo court? Or would that be beyond your capabilities?

It was NO KIND of COURT, it is at most a GRAND JURY rendering an INDICTMENT, NOT a CONVICTION and NOT a TRIAL.

[Hodad]

8 minutes ago, suds said:

Yeah there were 2 republicans selected by Pelosi to make the committee look bi-partisan.  Neither one was selected as a possible candidate by the republicans. Liz Cheney was selected because of her high ranking party status and the fact she voted to impeach trump on the charge of inciting an insurrection. It's a long story, but there's no way the congressional committee was bi-partisan. Give me one Jim Jordan and I would have been satisfied.

Do you think that a committee is more "fair" if the members of the committee are tasked with investigating themselves? Are people likely to do good or impartial work? To subpoena themselves? 

That doesn't seem reasonable to me, but it's exactly what the Republican leadership proposed. The truth is, they KNEW that sending members (like Jordan) to investigate themselves would be be both functionally ineffective and unacceptable to the the Democrats. Making those nominations was their way of sabotaging the process and supporting the victimhood narrative. Mean ol' Nancy Pelosi is picking on them by rejecting the suggestion that people should investigate themselves!

And it seems to have worked. You- and a lot of others -seem to have been wooed by the distraction. 

There would have been no problem, and a more bipartisan commission if McCarthy had played in good faith and nominated Republicans who weren't directly involved in the events of the day. But dealing in good faith is not very popular with that lot.

[robosmith]

5 minutes ago, West said:

The show trials keep the sheepies entertained while crooked Joe robs them blind. 

Can't vote against Joe tho or you ain't black as he says lol

Are you getting "robbed"? How does that work?

I've never been "robbed" by the government.

[suds]

9 minutes ago, robosmith said:

It was NO KIND of COURT, it is at most a GRAND JURY rendering an INDICTMENT, NOT a CONVICTION and NOT a TRIAL.

Well excuse me all to hell. I see it as more of an investigation to aid in ensuring what happened that day never repeats itself.  So whatever, you figure it was fair and balanced do you?

[suds]

28 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Do you think that a committee is more "fair" if the members of the committee are tasked with investigating themselves? Are people likely to do good or impartial work? To subpoena themselves? 

That doesn't seem reasonable to me, but it's exactly what the Republican leadership proposed. The truth is, they KNEW that sending members (like Jordan) to investigate themselves would be be both functionally ineffective and unacceptable to the the Democrats. Making those nominations was their way of sabotaging the process and supporting the victimhood narrative. Mean ol' Nancy Pelosi is picking on them by rejecting the suggestion that people should investigate themselves!

And it seems to have worked. You- and a lot of others -seem to have been wooed by the distraction. 

There would have been no problem, and a more bipartisan commission if McCarthy had played in good faith and nominated Republicans who weren't directly involved in the events of the day. But dealing in good faith is not very popular with that lot.

I can see your point.  But it's ok for someone (like Pelosi) who was directly involved with security that day to choose the members of the commission???  Maybe she should have chosen to recluse herself?  She could have been called in for questioning just as easily as Jordan. How would that have looked?  Or was that part of the plan so that she wasn't going to get called in? Business as usual, the whole thing stinks.

[West]

49 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Thanks for admitting your delusional denial of reality once again.

AKA, no culpability by Trump makes any sense to YOU.

The loons have an obsession with Donnie that's crossed the line from sad to creepy

[West]

10 minutes ago, suds said:

I can see your point.  But it's ok for someone (like Pelosi) who was directly involved with security that day to choose the members of the commission???  Maybe she should have chosen to recluse herself?  She could have been called in for questioning just as easily as Jordan. How would that have looked?  Or was that part of the plan so that she wasn't going to get called in? Business as usual, the whole thing stinks.

Not to mention if there is indeed funny business with the voting machines, which is in the realm of possibility, Crazy Dentures Lady Nancy Pelosi would have likely been involved

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, suds said:

Instead of labeling me names which i'm not, why not try offering evidence that this particular 'congressional committee' was something other than a kangaroo court? Or would that be beyond your capabilities?

You're right, I should not characterize you until I have better evidence of your political bent.  

Other than only democrats and the wrong republicans participated, what proof do you have that they didn't do their job correctly and fairly.

[suds]

25 minutes ago, dialamah said:

You're right, I should not characterize you until I have better evidence of your political bent.  

Other than only democrats and the wrong republicans participated, what proof do you have that they didn't do their job correctly and fairly.

I classify myself as right of centre, vote conservative but do not consider myself a conservative.  I can bend either way on things that sound reasonable.  As for proof, the composition of the committee should be proof enough, but also Pelosi was never called in to testify concerning the breach in security. It appears she was 'off limits'. 

[Nationalist]

5 hours ago, Hodad said:

I don't envy the DOJ. On the one hand, Trump and his motley crew are indisputably guilty of several of those charges, and no one should be above the law. 

On the other hand, if they do try to hold Trump accountable for what he actually did, then there will be no end to the wailing and gnashing of teeth about witch hunts and politicization etc. 

It's crazy that, as a population, we've gotten to the point where the DOJ will be pilloried if they don't give a free pass to high-profile criminals.

"indisputably guilty" eh?

You have a batting average of ZERO.

BYE...

 

[Infidel Dog]

Then there's the other side of the story:

"

The Trump campaign pre-empted the findings with the release of its own Jan. 6 "un-select committee fact sheet."

The fact sheet says the House panel is a "hoax upon the American people" conducted by "liberal Democrats, Never Trumpers," and the mainstream media with the purpose of preventing Trump from running again for president.

Trump last month officially kicked off his campaign for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination.

"The January 6th un-Select Committee held show trials by Never Trump partisans who are a stain on this country's history," the campaign statement said. "This Kangaroo court has been nothing more than a vanity project that insults Americans' intelligence and makes a mockery of our democracy."

The Trump campaign said that even the bipartisan advocacy group No Labels condemned the Jan. 6 House panel as "compromised and divisive."

"Despite an early attempt at bipartisanship, the January 6 Committee's work has become a partisan exercise about which the public is skeptical," No Labels tweeted on May 18.

After Pelosi refused to allow Reps. Jim Banks, R-Ind., and Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, to sit on the panel, Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., withdrew all his choices for the committee.

The campaign's fact sheet also slammed the Jan. 6 committee for spending a projected $8 million in taxpayer dollars, and cited:

• That the committee "confessed to digitally altering" a text message between Jordan and then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, and also played "played a deceptively edited video" of the attack.
• The hearings were produced by a former ABC News to "create salacious made-for-TV moments."
• The former chief of U.S. Capitol Police said that House and Senate security rebuffed Trump's early requests to call in the National Guard ahead of Jan. 6.

The former president and his supporters have consistently noted that his Jan. 6^th speech made on the ellipse urged his followers to protest peacefully.

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard," Trump said in his speech.

Also, in the speech Trump encouraged his supporters to "walk down to the Capitol" to "cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women."

In revelations made by the House Committee so far, based on an almost two-year and exhaustive probe, no evidence has been provided to the public that indicated Trump or his top aides orchestrated or encouraged the protests at the Capitol.

But significant evidence, including text messages from top White House officials, Trump family members, and other close supporters, showed that the protests caught the president and his inner circle completely by surprised."

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/donald-trump-jan-6-committee-2020-election/2022/12/19/id/1101119/