seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from Netherlands
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Türkiye
seen from Australia
seen from United States
seen from United States
Man pardoned for role in January 6 protest is among those running for congress in Tennessee's upcoming special election.
Former special counsel Jack Smith told lawmakers that the Jan. 6., 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol “does not happen” without Donald Trump.
Eric Tucker at AP, via HuffPost:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Jan. 6., 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol “does not happen” without Donald Trump, former special counsel Jack Smith told lawmakers earlier this month in characterizing the Republican president as the “most culpable and most responsible person” in the criminal conspiracy to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The Republican-led House Judiciary Committee released on Wednesday a transcript and video of a closed-door interview Smith gave about two investigations of Trump. The document shows how Smith during the course of a daylong deposition repeatedly defended the basis for pursuing indictments against Trump and vigorously rejected Republican suggestions that his investigations were politically motivated.
“The evidence here made clear that President Trump was by a large measure the most culpable and most responsible person in this conspiracy. These crimes were committed for his benefit. The attack that happened at the Capitol, part of this case, does not happen without him. The other co-conspirators were doing this for his benefit,” Smith said, bristling at a question about whether his investigations were meant to prevent Trump from reclaiming the presidency in 2024.
“So in terms of why we would pursue a case against him, I entirely disagree with any characterization that our work was in any way meant to hamper him in the presidential election,” he added. The Dec. 17 deposition was conducted privately despite Smith’s request to testify publicly. The release of the transcript and video of the interview, so far Smith’s only appearance on Capitol Hill since leaving his special counsel position last January, adds to the public understanding of the decision-making behind two of the most consequential Justice Department investigations in recent history.
Trump was indicted on charges of conspiring to undo the 2020 election he lost to Democrat Joe Biden, and of willfully retaining classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. Both cases were abandoned after Trump’s 2024 election win, with Smith citing Justice Department policy against the indictment of a sitting president.
Smith repeatedly made clear his belief that the evidence gathered against Trump was strong enough to sustain a conviction. Part of the strength of the Jan. 6 case, Smith said, was the extent to which it relied on the testimony of Trump allies and supporters who cooperated with the investigation.
“We had an elector in Pennsylvania who is a former congressman, who was going to be an elector for President Trump, who said that what they were trying to do was an attempt to overthrow the government and illegal,” Smith said. “Our case was built on, frankly, Republicans who put their allegiance to the country before the party.” Accounts from Republicans willing to stand up against the falsehood that the election had been stolen “even though it could mean trouble for them” created what Smith described as the “most powerful” evidence against Trump.
When it came to the Capitol riot itself, Smith said, the evidence showed that Trump “caused it and that he exploited it and that it was foreseeable to him.”
Asked whether there was evidence that Trump had instructed supporters to riot at the Capitol, Smith said that Trump in the weeks leading to the insurrection got “people to believe fraud claims that weren’t true.”
“He made false statements to state legislatures, to his supporters in all sorts of contexts and was aware in the days leading up to Jan. 6th that his supporters were angry when he invited them and then he directed them to the Capitol,” Smith said. “Now, once they were at the Capitol and once the attack on the Capitol happened, he refused to stop it. He instead issued a tweet that without question in my mind endangered the life of his own vice president,” he added. “And when the violence was going on, he had to be pushed repeatedly by his staff members to do anything to quell it.”
Special Counsel Jack Smith told Congress that Donald Trump was the root cause of the Capitol Insurrection that happened almost 5 years ago. Smith also told the House Judiciary Committee that the charges are strong enough to sustain a conviction against Convicted Felon Trump.
Trump would most certainly be in jail if he isn’t the “President” right now.
See Also:
The Allen Analysis (Brian Allen): What Jack Smith Said Under Oath And What the Deposition Actually Establishes
The Parnas Perspective (Aaron Parnas): BREAKING: Jack Smith Deposition Released Outlining Evidence of Trump's Alleged Crimes 'Beyond a Reasonable Doubt'
The Guardian: Jack Smith told House committee he had ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ in cases against Trump
Poor President Donald Trump. He loves filing lawsuits. Why can’t he just sue the BBC for defamation, demand $10 billion and have them write
Lisa Needham at Daily Kos:
Poor President Donald Trump. He loves filing lawsuits. So fun, so satisfying, so revenge-y! But he often seems to forget that real lawsuits require more than just filing a complaint and demanding a bribe to back down. Why can’t he just sue the BBC for defamation, demand $10 billion and have them write him a check for $10 billion? Who needs all this “discovery” and “proof” anyway? In a very unfun—for Trump, that is—turn of events, the magistrate judge overseeing Trump’s lawsuit just ruled that yes, the BBC can subpoena Trump’s inner circle to talk about Jan. 6, and yes, they can get his financial records.
See, actual lawsuits lead to actual discovery, where the plaintiff actually has to provide things that prove their allegations. To be fair, the cavalcade of U.S. media outlets buckling immediately after Trump sued perhaps gave him the false impression that a lawsuit is simply a demand for a bribe, which is promptly paid. A couple of tiny problems there, just that Trump has to prove, in a defamation lawsuit, that the BBC acted with actual malice, showing that they knew their reporting was false or that they recklessly disregarded the truth.
[...] So, the court ruled that the BBC can subpoena some of Trump’s inner circle to ask about Trump’s state of mind on Jan. 6. Trump’s allegation is that the BBC defamed him by making it look like he was directing the mob to the Capitol and calling for violence, but how very dare they, because his heart is as pure as snow. But of course, if Trump really was intending to get his mob to wreak violence, then it isn’t defamation to say that at all, now is it? So, the BBC gets to chat with Trump officials and minions about his state of mind that day, much to his eternal chagrin. [...]
But neither the BBC nor the court is just supposed to take Trump’s word for that. Proving damages requires coughing up financial data that shows you lost money, missed out on business deals, and the like. Now, Brito is trying to walk back the damages claim, saying he only wants reputational damages and therefore no longer has to show that Trump’s companies were damaged to the tune of $10 billion. This also didn’t fly with the court, which said that Trump has to provide discovery based on the complaint Brito brought, not some future complaint he might bring. Trump can’t rely on his usual thuggery here. The BBC has no broadcast licenses in America that Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr can threaten. The BBC is not seeking government approval to merge with another giant company, approval that could only be achieved with a bribe. The BBC is a giant media company in another country and can afford to defend itself.
Donald Trump once again chickens out of filing a lawsuit, likely because discovery would find about his financial shadiness.
The entity he sued, the BBC, was for a documentary that wasn’t even shown in the USA regarding his Ellipse speech on January 6th, 2021 that served as the major catalyst for the January 6th insurrection.
Some 100 members of Congress, mostly Democrats, have mounted poster board-style replicas of the Jan. 6 plaque outside their office doors.
Some 100 members of Congress, mostly Democrats, have mounted poster board-style replicas of the Jan. 6 plaque outside their office doors.
“We can’t dismiss these as ‘greatest hits,’” TransLash media CEO Imara Jones told The Advocate about Trump’s constant mentions of transgende
The new federal rule formalizes previous threats to hospitals to pull Medicaid funding, and represents a significant legal stretch by this a
Obviously somewhere in the past the timeline skewed into this tangent in which the global elite hoard the world’s wealth, wages and life expectancy is in decline, the earth is ravaged by climate change, and war and famine still rule the day. If only we had flying cars, jackets that dried themselves, cold fusion, hydrating pizzas, and hoverboards. But I am happy to report: the Cubs did win the World Series!
An open letter to the U.S. Congress
January 6 Insurrection
3 so far! Help us get to 5 signers!
Please support a bipartisan commission to investigate the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the Capitol.
In my lifetime, I have never before been so aware of the date the electoral college votes were formally counted to validate a Presidential election.
The day is well-documented — video, photos, sworn testimony of witnesses and rioters, a noose was hung for then Vice President Pence, elected officials barricaded doors and vacated chambers, the Confederate flag was marched into the capitol, the list goes on — 5 people died, $30,000,000 of damage was done. Watching the events unfold that day, I was terrified for our elected officials, terrified for our democracy and horrified by the unhinged insurrectionists. What have we become?
Please do what is right for our democracy and support a bipartisan commission to investigate the January 6 insurrection.
▶ Created on May 19, 2021 by Kathryn
📱 Text SIGN PBYCVZ to 50409
🤯 Liked it? FOLLOW KATE.RESIST
Brazil defended democracy more effectively than the US
Donald Trump and Jair Bolsonaro adopted similar strategies, but Brazil offered a stronger and faster response against threats to presidential election results than the United States.
As presidents, both Donald Trump and Jair Bolsonaro posed a threat to democracy in the US and Brazil respectively. However, analysts agreed that Brazil is far more vulnerable to such a threat than the US. Democratic political institutions of the latter are considered to be more established and stable.
Brazil has experienced several collapses of democratic rule, usually through military intervention. The latest lasted 21 years, from 1964 to 1985, so democracy is still relatively young at 38 years, and political instability was common throughout most of the 20th century.
But after both Trump and Bolsonaro lost their bids for reelection in 2020 and 2022 respectively, Brazil reacted much more quickly and forcefully to Bolsonaro than the US did to Trump.
The two leaders employed similar strategies during their time in office to mobilise their supporters and cast doubt on election results. After they lost elections, both claimed the elections had been rigged.
In the US, a mob of Trump’s supporters stormed the Capitol on 6 January 2021, in an attempt to overturn the Electoral College vote, resulting in five casualties and more than a hundred injured people. Meanwhile, Brazil witnessed a similar event on 8 January 2023, when mobs, donned in the country’s colors, launched an attack on the Supreme Court headquarters, the Presidential palace and Congress in Brasília. Their goal was to violently overthrow the democratically elected President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who had taken office on 1st January. The ensuing chaos resulted in widespread vandalism and the destruction of several historical and artistic works.
The similarities between the two events and the strategies used by Trump and Bolsonaro are not coincidental. Bolsonaro has made no attempt to hide the fact that he deliberately copied Trump’s playbook. However, the consequences of their failed challenges to election results were quite different in the US and Brazil.
Continue reading.
