January 6 Select Committee

User avatar
Luke
Posts: 5701
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:21 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

Re: January 6 Commission

#426

Post by Luke »

More on Amy's pal Amy Kremer... is she a rat?

Ron Filipkowski @RonFilipkowski 23h
Replying to @pierodicero
I have to believe some of the organizers are going to be charged. And it seems from the story the likely cooperator is Amy Kremer. If so, that is a very good person to have because she is connected to everyone both up and down the chain. Patience!

Nancy Levine @nancylevine Oct 25
While we can't know if the anonymous source for Rolling Stone bombshell is Amy Kremer, she is chair of Women for America First, permit-holder for Jan 6 rally. Kremer would have first-hand knowledge of meetings with Trump's White House and @GOP accomplices.

Nancy Levine @nancylevine Oct 25
A Dec. 27 text from Amy Kremer obtained by @ProPublica, planning Jan 6: “The WH and team Trump are aware of the situation with [Stop the Steal organizers] Ali and Cindy,” Kremer wrote. “I need to be the one to handle both.”
June story: https://www.propublica.org/article/new- ... et-chaotic

You'll be stunned -- Amy is a birther.
This mother-daughter duo planned the Jan. 6 rally. Now the House committee wants to hear from them, too.
Erin Mansfield, Donovan Slack and Savannah Behrmann, USA TODAY
Sun, October 24, 2021, 6:00 AM

The morning after the 2020 presidential election, the mother-daughter duo of Amy and Kylie Jane Kremer formed a viral Facebook group urging "boots on the ground" to thwart an alleged effort to steal the election from Donald Trump. The "Stop the Steal" group's membership ballooned to more than 350,000 before Facebook shut it down, citing a risk of violence. Undaunted, the two Trump loyalists rebranded an existing Facebook group, calling it “March for Trump, and organized a bus tour. The effort culminated in Washington on Jan. 6 when the Kremers’ Women for America First Save America rally became a prelude for the deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.

Now, the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack has subpoenaed the Kremers to give sworn testimony in depositions on Friday. What they say could help Congress understand how much organizers knew about impending violence and who funded the group's postelection events that helped to amplify Trump's false claims of election fraud. The Kremers disavowed violence in the aftermath of the attack but have continued to promote the lie that the election was stolen. They have not been charged with any crimes connected to the Jan. 6 insurrection. In conversations with five members of the House Select committee, lawmakers said they want to know about any premeditated plans for violence at the Capitol and how dark money flowed to pay for the rally and to encourage people to show up in Washington. The lawmakers declined to give specifics on what questions they planned to ask the Kremers. “It's pretty evident that some of that was used to entice people to come to DC to promote the events and so understanding who was behind that who organized it is really critical and understanding the events that led up to that day,” said Rep. Elaine Luria, D-Va. Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., noted that the committee has a "very broad investigative portfolio.” "We have to get to the bottom of the organizing, the funding, the coordination of the violent elements with the inside political coup, and then all of the cover-up operations that took place,” Raskin told USA TODAY. "There are people out there who clearly view January 6 as a dress rehearsal for future political violence to destabilize or overthrow American democracy," Raskin said, adding that finding the facts and holding people accountable is as much about the future as it is about the past.

USA TODAY left messages with Amy Kremer, Kylie Jane Kremer, and Women for America First that were not returned. In written statements, Amy Kremer has denounced Republican Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois for participating in what she called a ‘sham’ committee. In a July statement, she said she “would gladly testify before any commission.” Amy Kremer describes herself as one of the founding mothers of the Tea Party movement a decade ago. She blogged for years calling herself a ‘Southern belle’ and spreading the ‘birther’ lie that claimed President Barack Obama was foreign-born. She wrote in 2009, in a post first unearthed by Mother Jones, that she was disillusioned after Congress certified the election of President Barack Obama. “As a matter of fact, I never even heard Vice President Cheney ask if there were any objections,” she wrote.
► Show Spoiler

https://news.yahoo.com/mother-daughter- ... 42724.html
Lt Root Beer of the Mighty 699th. Fogbow 💙s titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot! Fogbow's Theme Song™ Edith Massey's "I Got The Evidence!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jDHZd0JAg
User avatar
MN-Skeptic
Posts: 3111
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:03 pm
Location: Twin Cities

Re: January 6 Commission

#427

Post by MN-Skeptic »

I wonder how many people will agree to testify just to get their own version on record, especially if initial testimonies paint them in a bad light.
User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 6638
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:15 am
Location: Too close to trump
Occupation: Hats. I do hats.
Verified:

Re: January 6 Commission

#428

Post by Slim Cognito »

Just a WAG, but I bet the trickle will turn to a downpour once testifying people start pointing fingers at not-yet-testifying people.
My Crested Yorkie, Gilda and her amazing hair.


ImageImageImage x4
User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 5084
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

Re: January 6 Commission

#429

Post by p0rtia »

Slim Cognito wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:32 pm Just a WAG, but I bet the trickle will turn to a downpour once testifying people start pointing fingers at not-yet-testifying people.
Not if the DOJ is giving a pass to TFG's coup.

Several ex DOJ lawyers saying on MSNBC yesterday that there is no hint of investigation; and that no hint means it is not happening.

So I know it's against DOJ policy to talk about a case they're investigating, but am I right in also thinking that it is against DOJ policy to talk about a case they are _not_ investigating? I.e., that they won't say, "we have no interest here"?
User avatar
sugar magnolia
Posts: 3290
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:54 pm

Re: January 6 Commission

#430

Post by sugar magnolia »

p0rtia wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:30 pm
Slim Cognito wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:32 pm Just a WAG, but I bet the trickle will turn to a downpour once testifying people start pointing fingers at not-yet-testifying people.
Not if the DOJ is giving a pass to TFG's coup.

Several ex DOJ lawyers saying on MSNBC yesterday that there is no hint of investigation; and that no hint means it is not happening.

So I know it's against DOJ policy to talk about a case they're investigating, but am I right in also thinking that it is against DOJ policy to talk about a case they are _not_ investigating? I.e., that they won't say, "we have no interest here"?
Yes, the feds typically refuse to confirm or deny any on-going investigation.

And were the ex-DOJ lawyers from Trump's regime?
User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 5084
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

Re: January 6 Commission

#431

Post by p0rtia »

sugar magnolia wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:52 pm
p0rtia wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:30 pm
Slim Cognito wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:32 pm Just a WAG, but I bet the trickle will turn to a downpour once testifying people start pointing fingers at not-yet-testifying people.
Not if the DOJ is giving a pass to TFG's coup.

Several ex DOJ lawyers saying on MSNBC yesterday that there is no hint of investigation; and that no hint means it is not happening.

So I know it's against DOJ policy to talk about a case they're investigating, but am I right in also thinking that it is against DOJ policy to talk about a case they are _not_ investigating? I.e., that they won't say, "we have no interest here"?
Yes, the feds typically refuse to confirm or deny any on-going investigation.

And were the ex-DOJ lawyers from Trump's regime?
No. One was Daniel Goldman.

My question remains: If there is _not_ an on-going investigation, what is to prevent the DOJ from saying "there is _not_ an ongoing investigation?
User avatar
sugar magnolia
Posts: 3290
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:54 pm

Re: January 6 Commission

#432

Post by sugar magnolia »

p0rtia wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 6:14 pm
sugar magnolia wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:52 pm
p0rtia wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:30 pm

Not if the DOJ is giving a pass to TFG's coup.

Several ex DOJ lawyers saying on MSNBC yesterday that there is no hint of investigation; and that no hint means it is not happening.

So I know it's against DOJ policy to talk about a case they're investigating, but am I right in also thinking that it is against DOJ policy to talk about a case they are _not_ investigating? I.e., that they won't say, "we have no interest here"?
Yes, the feds typically refuse to confirm or deny any on-going investigation.

And were the ex-DOJ lawyers from Trump's regime?
No. One was Daniel Goldman.

My question remains: If there is _not_ an on-going investigation, what is to prevent the DOJ from saying "there is _not_ an ongoing investigation?
Nothing to prevent it, they just don't generally do it.
User avatar
sad-cafe
Posts: 2003
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:17 am
Location: Kansas aka Red State Hell

Re: January 6 Commission

#433

Post by sad-cafe »

UM---

REMEMBER THIS????



Grassley tweeted Jan 5 that he'd be filling in for Pence during certification of electors since Pence was not expected to be there. His office quickly announced that he meant IF Pence wasn't able to be there, but I wonder if the first version wasn't more accurate. Could that be how they planned to get around Pence's refusal to cooperate? Just have him taken somewhere else for a while? Sounds crazy, but then recall the story that came out about Pence not leaving the Capitol that day because he didn't trust the driver?

Note: this is speculation, but I wonder if Grassley didn't unintentionally give away something here ... And I think this could all have been much worse than it turned out! But we need to discover and deal with the truth about what happened in order to be prepared for what might come next.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5549
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: January 6 Commission

#434

Post by bob »

sad-cafe wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 7:38 pmNote: this is speculation, but I wonder if Grassley didn't unintentionally give away something here ... And I think this could all have been much worse than it turned out!
Your speculation is reasonable, and worthy of more investigation.

To give credit where it is due, I believe Pence was (or became) aware of how history would judge him, and concluded he had to preside over Biden's certification. Delegating to Grassley would have been seen as weak (or worse).
Image ImageImage
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5766
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: January 6 Commission

#435

Post by northland10 »

sugar magnolia wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:52 pm
p0rtia wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:30 pm
Slim Cognito wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:32 pm Just a WAG, but I bet the trickle will turn to a downpour once testifying people start pointing fingers at not-yet-testifying people.
Not if the DOJ is giving a pass to TFG's coup.

Several ex DOJ lawyers saying on MSNBC yesterday that there is no hint of investigation; and that no hint means it is not happening.

So I know it's against DOJ policy to talk about a case they're investigating, but am I right in also thinking that it is against DOJ policy to talk about a case they are _not_ investigating? I.e., that they won't say, "we have no interest here"?
Yes, the feds typically refuse to confirm or deny any on-going investigation.

And were the ex-DOJ lawyers from Trump's regime?
Quickest way to turn an investigation into a political sideshow is to announce it is happening. In addition, once they do that, if it does not pan out for whatever reason, there will be great screaming and anger of the lack of vengeance, um justice. Even to make an announcement that they are investigating will instantly cause screaming about it being politically motivated, even by those who may not be the crazy right. It's about perception, and quite simply, it is and will always be a factor especially if the subject is a well-known political figure.

Any case against Trump, especially for actions while he was President, is a huge minefield. They have to have so much evidence that is locked down and so solid that they very nearly can't lose with a jury (which itself is already hard).

I know it is frustrating to have to consider political issues when dealing with potential justice, but that is simply the way things are. DOJ can try to remain above the fray, but as long as it exists in our world, well, there are limitations.

On a side note, Trump could easily find ways to knock down a case with plausible deniability. Remember, whether we think he has it does not matter. Is there enough that a jury can be convinced is what matters. Winding up the crowd is not enough. They would need hard evidence of planning, beyond trying to get Pence to invalidate elections (asking Pence to do something, even unconstitutional is not necessarily against the law).
101010 :towel:
User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 5084
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

Re: January 6 Commission

#436

Post by p0rtia »

My point remains: There is a mounting consensus that Garland is not investigating any of TFG's crimes. Zip nada. Yes, this is a negative, but IMO this is information that would be useful for citizens to know.

We the citizens who witnessed the crimes are waiting for the DOJ to do its job. Should we wait forever? Should we trust the DOJ to do it's job? At this point, the answer to both question is hell no. cf Mueller and the complicit DOJ under TFG.

These are not normal circumstances.

Democracy dies in silence.


PS. And just because a classic literary passage always makes me feel better:
Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): “Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
Holmes: “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
Gregory: “The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
Holmes: “That was the curious incident.”
User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7734
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
Location: Rescue Pets Land
Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting

Re: January 6 Commission

#437

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

Biden, when selecting Garland, may have told him to wait for whatever the J6 Commission decides and to focus on the individuals, aka fools, who splashed their pictures all over the interwebs.
"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
User avatar
AndyinPA
Posts: 10074
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:42 am
Location: Pittsburgh
Verified:

Re: January 6 Commission

#438

Post by AndyinPA »

I remember cheering when Garland was appointed, and someone on here sort of booed. I'm tending to agree with him/her now. I've seen a little more of his background, but one of these days I'm going to do a deep dive into it.

If the former guy can't be investigated, I'd say he wasn't really president. He was a king. :mad:
"Choose your leaders with wisdom and forethought. To be led by a coward is to be controlled by all that the coward fears… To be led by a liar is to ask to be told lies." -Octavia E. Butler
User avatar
filly
Posts: 1724
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:02 am

Re: January 6 Commission

#439

Post by filly »

1. I fully agree that the DOJ should be investigating and in fact have a Grand Jury going yesterday;

2. I heard the interview with Dan Goldman. He was "speculating" this is not happening because, he said, nothing has leaked about it and there have been leaks in the past. He went on to say there should be no leaks. In sum, he was speculating there is no ongoing investigation because nobody knows about it, which is the way it should be!

3. So it's highly possible there is no investigation, unless the DOJ is running in a professional manner now.

I suppose we will eventually find out.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5549
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: January 6 Commission

#440

Post by bob »


:popcorn:
Image ImageImage
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5766
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: January 6 Commission

#441

Post by northland10 »

I said it before and will say it again. I would much rather have a thorough, unrushed, and professional investigation that crosses all their t's and dots most of their i's instead of a public political circus that would follow if they admitted they were investigating. This would most certainly result in losing any case they might have had. I don't want them to make points about 'protecting democracy"' I want them to win and if that means I am in the dark on whether or not they are investigating, so be it.

Announcing anything now makes him a martyr to his followers and boosts his cred. It could get them all wound up again and cause more threats to democracy. I am watching them lose interest as his followers are wont to do, and are causing future headaches for the rest of the party (which most of them, including Trump, are only Republicans come lately). Without him in the limelight, his base will wander off.

Yes, it would be extremely disappointing if they were doing nothing but don't see how announcing an investigation now, which may lead to the right winning 2022, protects democracy.

We do tend to over-worry things. America has been through rough times before and will again. If everything thing is the end to Democracy, we would not have made it 20 years. We need to back up and look with calm eyes and not just our anger and disappointment.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 5084
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

Re: January 6 Commission

#442

Post by p0rtia »

northland10 wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 2:28 pm I said it before and will say it again. I would much rather have a thorough, unrushed, and professional investigation that crosses all their t's and dots most of their i's instead of a public political circus that would follow if they admitted they were investigating. This would most certainly result in losing any case they might have had. I don't want them to make points about 'protecting democracy"' I want them to win and if that means I am in the dark on whether or not they are investigating, so be it.

Announcing anything now makes him a martyr to his followers and boosts his cred. It could get them all wound up again and cause more threats to democracy. I am watching them lose interest as his followers are wont to do, and are causing future headaches for the rest of the party (which most of them, including Trump, are only Republicans come lately). Without him in the limelight, his base will wander off.

Yes, it would be extremely disappointing if they were doing nothing but don't see how announcing an investigation now, which may lead to the right winning 2022, protects democracy.

We do tend to over-worry things. America has been through rough times before and will again. If everything thing is the end to Democracy, we would not have made it 20 years. We need to back up and look with calm eyes and not just our anger and disappointment.
If the DOJ is not investigating Trump's crimes, from Ukraine to Election Interference to attempted coup--none of it--do you think they (DOJ) should say so? That continues to be my point. Is silence okay with you?
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 18501
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Re: January 6 Commission

#443

Post by raison de arizona »

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:48 am Biden, when selecting Garland, may have told him to wait for whatever the J6 Commission decides and to focus on the individuals, aka fools, who splashed their pictures all over the interwebs.
Did the Biden admin not make a big deal out of that they were not telling Garland what to investigate, and were in fact staying out of AG business? 'Cause that's how I remember it.

Which isn't to say that Garland isn't doing exactly that, no idea, just not at the direction of Biden.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 5084
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

Re: January 6 Commission

#444

Post by p0rtia »

:yeahthat:

I would be shocked to hear that Biden had told Garland anything at all about how to handle TFG.

...I wish he had...
User avatar
June bug
Posts: 734
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 7:34 am

Re: January 6 Commission

#445

Post by June bug »

I don’t. No matter how much I want to see justice done on Trump, I fear yet more rounds of presidential interference in th DOJ more.
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5766
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: January 6 Commission

#446

Post by northland10 »

If we want an investigation to pour light on wrongdoing, that is a job of an independent counsel or Congress, not the DOJ. The DOJ's role is to investigate possible wrongdoing, and if they find it, prosecute. If they destroy the ability to prosecute by making the investigation public, they have failed in their misson to bring justice. A competent DOJ would only announce or leak information about an investigation if they felt it might shake out possible sources or more evidence.

This is about a former President with a large base. It is a huge minefield. Quietly is the only way to proceed without destroying it all.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 5084
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

Re: January 6 Commission

#447

Post by p0rtia »

northland10 wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 9:10 pm If we want an investigation to pour light on wrongdoing, that is a job of an independent counsel or Congress, not the DOJ. The DOJ's role is to investigate possible wrongdoing, and if they find it, prosecute. If they destroy the ability to prosecute by making the investigation public, they have failed in their misson to bring justice. A competent DOJ would only announce or leak information about an investigation if they felt it might shake out possible sources or more evidence.

This is about a former President with a large base. It is a huge minefield. Quietly is the only way to proceed without destroying it all.
I appreciate your responses and pretty much agree, from my IANAL or someone who has studied the DOJ.

I'm fine with quiet. I'd just like to know how the victims in the case (me, you, and the USA) are supposed to know the difference between "quietly" and "not gonna go there."
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5549
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: January 6 Commission

#448

Post by bob »

northland10 wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 9:10 pm If we want an investigation to pour light on wrongdoing, that is a job of an independent counsel or Congress, not the DOJ.
An interesting thread on this topic:
Image ImageImage
User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 5084
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

Re: January 6 Commission

#449

Post by p0rtia »

It is the AG's job to appoint a Special Prosecutor, right? And he leads the DOJ, right? So the fact that a SP hasn't been appointed is at least one piece of evidence that there is no investigation of TFG's crimes. This silence at least has only one explanation.
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5766
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: January 6 Commission

#450

Post by northland10 »

p0rtia wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 9:15 pm ...supposed to know the difference between "quietly" and "not gonna go there."
Yeah, that's where it falls apart. I don't have a good, useful, or even crappy response for that. It ends up being one of the places where I decide I need to worry about that which I can change.

In my day job, during a move to a new system, they ended up making a change I have been calmly pushing for over 10 years. This tends to reinforce my thinking that progress is sometimes best made methodically, and calmly. Granted, in this case, unlike Trump, I am in the position to spend 10 years dropping hints and suggestions (worked on other things when I was teaching).
101010 :towel:
Post Reply

Return to “The January 6 Insurrection, including Criminal Cases”