January 6 Select Committee

[filly]

Difficult to believe that Judge Carter acted without consulting Orly Tai- ... or wait, maybe behind the scenes he brought in the expert ...

Hopefully his law clerk worked for Perkins Coie and/or Marc Elias.

[Gregg]

No they're fucking not and he fucking knows it. Its irresponsible for him to go on Fake Gnews and toss out red meat to the rubes every Sunday and someone ought to say something about it.

[filly]

Lots of threats from the GQP.

[bob]

However, I don't think that a prosecutor can "bootstrap" the allegation that the lawyer is involved in a crime by saying "if we get the information we have subpoenaed, it will prove the lawyer was part of a crime", can they? IOW, the prosecutors would need probable cause SEPARATE FROM THE SUBPOENAED INFORMATION wouldn't they?

A search warrant and a subpoena are different animals.

For a search warrant, a prosecutor must present, to a judge, evidence of probable cause that a crime has occurred. Belief that documents contain incriminating evidence could be probable cause, depending on the factual bases for that belief.

Whereas the standard for a subpoena is extremely low: the issuer believes it is relevant to the inquiry, even if not likely to produce admissible evidence.


And the J6 committee, of course, is not a prosecutor, and is not executing a search warrant. Nor is its inquiry a court case. (It can go to court, however, to advance and defend its functions.)

So the civil-case dance is being done: subpoena issued; no compliance; go to court to compel compliance. The judge here likely will end up reviewing the documents and disclosing those that are not privileged.

* * *

Difficult to believe that Judge Carter acted without consulting Orly Tai- ... or wait, maybe behind the scenes he brought in the expert ...

Hopefully his law clerk worked for Perkins Coie and/or Marc Elias.

Shirley the same Perkie Coie shipping clerk has been Carter's chambers all along!

[Slim Cognito]

Is that Earth I or Earth II?

[AndyinPA]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va ... s-removal/

Virginia’s new Republican attorney general has fired University of Virginia’s counsel, who was on leave from the job to work as the top investigator for U.S. House of Representatives panel investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol, the attorney and university said.

Tim Heaphy, who had worked at the state’s flagship university for about three years, was among roughly 30 staffers whom were let go by Jason S. Miyares shortly before he took office a little over a week ago. Democrats have questioned the firings and how they were carried out.

Victoria LaCivita, a Miyares spokeswoman, said the attorney general’s office had also fired the counsel for George Mason University, Brian Walther, but offered no explanation for why he was let go. Both Heaphy and Walther are Democrats.

LaCivita did not respond to a question about whether any other counsels at Virginia’s more than three dozen public colleges and universities had been let go.

[pipistrelle]

Leave the children alone!

[raison de arizona]

Please! Think of the children!

[MN-Skeptic]

Unless their first name is Hunter.

[p0rtia]

[noblepa]

No they're fucking not and he fucking knows it. Its irresponsible for him to go on Fake Gnews and toss out red meat to the rubes every Sunday and someone ought to say something about it.

Actually, if the QOP retakes Congress in the 2022 midterm elections, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they tried to issue criminal referrals to the DOJ about all the Democrats on the committee. You know that emptygee, Cawthorne, Gomert and Gaetz will introduce bills to do so. The party is being taken over by fascists, who think that the Constitution guarantees the Republican party control of the government and that ONLY they are the guardians of all that is right and holy in this country.

Fortunately, the DOJ will still be in Merrick Garland's hands at that time. The q-tips will have to wait until at least 2025 (and pray that they hold congress and retake the WH) before they have a prayer of actually having their political opponents arrested. Of course, Newt and all the other fascists know that they can't have them arrested, but it plays well with the base.

[raison de arizona]

Raise your hand if they should try Ivanka as an adult!

[Kendra]

A former Speaker of the House is threatening jail time for members of Congress who are investigating the violent January 6 attack on our Capitol and our Constitution.

This is what it looks like when the rule of law unravels.

[noblepa]

However, I don't think that a prosecutor can "bootstrap" the allegation that the lawyer is involved in a crime by saying "if we get the information we have subpoenaed, it will prove the lawyer was part of a crime", can they? IOW, the prosecutors would need probable cause SEPARATE FROM THE SUBPOENAED INFORMATION wouldn't they?

A search warrant and a subpoena are different animals.

For a search warrant, a prosecutor must present, to a judge, evidence of probable cause that a crime has occurred. Belief that documents contain incriminating evidence could be probable cause, depending on the factual bases for that belief.

Whereas the standard for a subpoena is extremely low: the issuer believes it is relevant to the inquiry, even if not likely to produce admissible evidence.


And the J6 committee, of course, is not a prosecutor, and is not executing a search warrant. Nor is its inquiry a court case. (It can go to court, however, to advance and defend its functions.)

So the civil-case dance is being done: subpoena issued; no compliance; go to court to compel compliance. The judge here likely will end up reviewing the documents and disclosing those that are not privileged.

* * *

Difficult to believe that Judge Carter acted without consulting Orly Tai- ... or wait, maybe behind the scenes he brought in the expert ...

Hopefully his law clerk worked for Perkins Coie and/or Marc Elias.

Shirley the same Perkie Coie shipping clerk has been Carter's chambers all along!

Is it possible that, if the J6 committee goes to court to enforce their subpoena, the court might order a procedure like they did with Rudy's documents; hand them over to a "special master" who will decide if the documents are privileged or not? This would take compliance out Eastman's hands, but prevent disclosure if the documents are found to indeed be privileged?

Isn't there an informal (if not formal), but rebuttable, assumption that all attorney/client communications are privileged unless there is evidence that the attorney is participating in a crime with the client? Isn't the burden of proof on the whoever is requesting that privilege be voided?

[Kendra]

This is a coup in plain sight. History will judge where we stand in this moment. Which side are you on?

#ACoupInPlainSight

[bob]

Is it possible that, if the J6 committee goes to court to enforce their subpoena, the court might order a procedure like they did with Rudy's documents; hand them over to a "special master" who will decide if the documents are privileged or not? This would take compliance out Eastman's hands, but prevent disclosure if the documents are found to indeed be privileged?

Possible, but Carter is a fairly hands-on judge.

Disclosure/compliance is never in the hands of the person with the documents. The subpoena demands compliance; privilege can then be asserted, and documents then may be provisionally withheld; and the resolution of whether the privilege applies is made by the court (or the court's special master) after the documents have been reviewed.

A document holder who says, "NOPE!" and then blanket refuses to comply is looking at some downstream pain. (See, e.g., Klayman, who likes to play similar games.)

In this particular case, it appears Chapman has some relevant documents (because Eastman side-hustled with Chapman's equipment). Chapman is happy to turn over the documents, but the court wants to review them before they are turned over.

Isn't there an informal (if not formal), but rebuttable, assumption that all attorney/client communications are privileged unless there is evidence that the attorney is participating in a crime with the client? Isn't the burden of proof on the whoever is requesting that privilege be voided?

Documents may be provisionally withheld with a naked assertion of privilege. But once the issue starts to get litigated, the person claiming privilege will have to convince a judge that a privilege applies. This is especially so because the person requesting the documents doesn't have sufficient information to know whether the claim of privilege is reasonable.

[noblepa]

Leave the children alone!

First of all, Ivanka is an adult.

Secondly, she was a paid federal employee and advisor to the president, with an office in the WH and access to the president on a daily basis. I believe that it has been established that she was present in the WH on 1/6 and communicated with TFG. In my mind, that makes her fair game for the committee.

[p0rtia]

Hunter Biden says Hi.

[Foggy]

... Carter is a fairly hands-on judge.

When I worked in his court, when he was the gatekeeper for criminal trials in Orange County, CA (state court), he was astoundingly hands-on.

He knew every gang tattoo in the county, and would jump off the bench and march right over to the cage where the defendants in custody were, and he would tell some hulking gang dude, "Roll up your sleeves." He knew what gang you were in, and what territory your gang ran, and I saw him - a few times - offer to split the cost of removing the tattoos out of his own pocket, if the dude was ready to leave the gang.

He was scary and tough, if you came in his court unprepared you could leave with your head in your briefcase. But if you were prepared and stood up to him, he'd be ... creative, sometimes, in handling your case. And he'd remember who was prepared when they walked in, and who wasn't. One of my favorite judges, competent and fair, you can't shouldn't ask for more.

[bob]

Secondly, she was a paid federal employee and advisor to the president, with an office in the WH and access to the president on a daily basis.

"For completeness," Ivanka was never paid. She initially started in a "volunteer" capacity, but later became a federal employee who drew no pay. (The lack of pay presumably was a workaround for anti-nepotism laws.)

Regardless, the notion that a 40-year-old adult who was an official, key advisor to the president shouldn't be subjected to a congressional subpoena is laughably bad politics.

[raison de arizona]

Anyone 'aiding and abetting' Jan. 6 panel won't be eligible for legal fund aiding Trump allies

A legal defense fund set up to help former aides of Donald Trump pay legal bills associated with the congressional inquiry into Jan. 6 is making perfectly clear who will and won't be eligible for assistance.

"We are certainly not going to assist anyone who agrees with the mission of the committee and is aiding and abetting the committee," said Matt Schlapp, who chairs the American Conservative Union and oversees the First Amendment Fund.

According to CNN, Trump has declined to dip into his own funds to help any former aides but is consulting with the defense fund on who to help and who to hang out to dry.

"I am in communication with [Trump's] team about those decisions," Schlapp said, adding that the fund has the unilateral authority "to make decisions over whether someone gets assistance or doesn't."

https://www.alternet.org/2022/01/trump- ... 656471116/

[Foggy]

... Trump has declined to dip into his own funds to help any former aides but is consulting with the defense fund on who to help and who to hang out to dry.

What fun!

He gets to fuck people over without spending any of his own money!

[filly]

Looks like Chapman U is unwilling to resist providing Committee with Eastman’s emails. Because you should always plot a coup in your work emails.

[Slim Cognito]

Kewl.

https://politicalhotwire.com/threads/ea ... se.248700/

[bob]

Chapman's take sounds like it is intended for the peanut gallery; I don't think the judge will find the privilege issue rises or falls on whether Chapman's tech people could have accessed the emails.