Donald Trump Is Engaging In Witness Tampering And Obstruction Of Congress In Plain Site

by

The Select House Committee to Investigate January 6 issued more subpoenas on Thursday, even before hearing from witnesses next week previously subpoenaed. The committee is now focusing heavily on the organizers of the January 6 insurrection, which brings us a step closer to the Republican members of Congress involved in planning and promoting the January 6 insurrection. It will be historic when these traitorous assholes are subpoenaed to testify before the committee.

Donald Trump has already told subpoenaed witnesses not to cooperate with the committee – witness tampering and obstruction of Congress – asserting “executive privilege” as if he is still president. The privilege is not his to assert, it belongs to the incumbent president, who has already indicated he is disinclined to invoke the privilege, as I have previously explained. Trump’s Coup D’Etat Co-Conspirators Subpoenaed To Testify Before Congress About January 6 Insurrection.

Advertisement

It should be noted that there can be no executive privilege recognized for the high crimes of sedition, insurrection and treason against the United States.

The Washington Post reports House Jan. 6 committee issues subpoenas for more ‘Stop the Steal’ rally organizers, including Ali Alexander:

The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection issued its third round of subpoenas on Thursday, this time targeting additional organizers of the “Stop the Steal” rally that preceded the violent Capitol insurrection.

The committee already issued subpoenas to 11 individuals affiliated with the planning of pro-Trump rallies before the attack and are now seeking information from right-wing provocateur Ali Alexander, the leader of Stop the Steal, and Nathan Martin, who said he is affiliated with Stop the Steal and is listed as the representative for “One Nation Under God” on a permit application to rally on Capitol grounds.

Weeks before the Jan. 6 insurrection, Alexander said in a since-deleted video on Periscope that he had planned to put “maximum pressure on Congress” during the vote to certify the electoral college votes, claiming he had help from three GOP lawmakers, Reps. Andy Biggs (Ariz.), Mo Brooks (Ala.) and Paul A. Gosar (Ariz.). Biggs and Brooks have previously denied aiding Alexander with planning the rally. Gosar did not respond to previous requests for comment on the matter.

The plan was to “change the hearts and the minds of Republicans who were in that body, hearing our loud roar from outside,” Alexander said in the video. Alexander reportedly suggested the possibility of violence at the Jan. 6 rally, the committee noted in a news release, and led a crowd in chants of “victory or death” at a Jan. 5 rally.

Martin, who serves on as a city councilman in Shelby, Ohio, told BuzzFeed News in an interview earlier this year that he was affiliated with Stop the Steal and One Nation Under God but did not provide an explanation for why his name was listed on the permit. The permit also did not disclose a connection between the rally event and Stop the Steal.

* * *

“The rally on the Capitol grounds on January 6th, like the rally near the White House that day, immediately preceded the violent attack on the seat of our democracy,” select committee Chairman Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.) said in a statement. “Over the course of that day, demonstrations escalated to violence and protestors became rioters. The Select Committee needs to understand all the details about the events that came before the attack, including who was involved in planning and funding them. We expect these witnesses to cooperate fully with our probe.”

The committee also issued a subpoena seeking documents and testimony from Stop the Steal LLC, a political nonprofit that was set up weeks before the 2020 election. The letter transmitting the request is addressed to George B. Coleman, the registered agent for the entity. Coleman is a member of the law firm that represents Alexander, according to the letter. Coleman did not respond to a request for comment.

The subpoenas require that records be produced by Oct. 21 and also request [a subpoena is a demand] that Martin and Alexander testify at depositions at the end of the month.

Politico reports, Trump tells 4 former aides to defy Jan. 6 committee’s subpoena:

Former President Donald Trump is directing a group of his former aides to ignore a subpoena from the House committee probing the Jan. 6 Capitol attack and signaling he will go to court to block their testimony to the investigators.

The committee has subpoenaed documents and testimony from four Trump administration alumni: former social media czar Dan Scavino, former Defense Department official Kash Patel, former chief of staff Mark Meadows, and former White House adviser Steve Bannon. The four men were ordered to turn over documents related to Jan. 6 by Thursday and to sit for interviews with investigators next week.

But Trump is saying otherwise. In a letter that POLITICO viewed, a Trump lawyer tells them not to cooperate with the probe.

The letter stated the committee is seeking materials that are covered by executive privilege, as well as other privileges.

“President Trump is prepared to defend these fundamental privileges in court,” the letter said.

Then the letter directed its recipient to hold back any documents about his White House work and to refuse to testify about his official duties.

By no stretch of the imagination is neo-fascist white supremacist Steve Bannon covered by any fanciful assertion of executive privilege. (He left the White House in 2017). Huffington Post reported, Law Expert Wonders Why A Grand Jury Isn’t Mulling Sedition Charges Against Steve Bannon:

Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe is wondering why the Department of Justice isn’t convening a grand jury to consider sedition charges against Donald Trump ally and former White House strategist Steve Bannon.

Tribe was referring Thursday to Bannon’s boast the previous day on his “War Room” podcast that “we told” Trump before the Jan. 6 insurrection: “You need to kill this administration in the crib.”

Bannon also had a “war-room-type meeting” with Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s former personal attorney, and others in Washington on the eve of the insurrection [this is the meeting of conspirators the committee wants to know about. See, January 5 Meeting at Trump International Hotel Could Hold the Key to the January 6 Insurrection, and Team Trump Had a Second Pre-Insurrection War Room], Washington Post journalists Bob Woodward and Robert Costa reported in their new book, “Peril.” They also reported on Bannon’s comment that night about killing the Biden presidency “in the crib.”

Bannon played a clip on his podcast of an MSNBC interview with Woodward and Costa discussing Bannon’s role, and he didn’t deny it.

Tribe tweeted Wednesday after Bannon’s podcast that it was “mounting evidence of a criminal conspiracy to commit sedition against the US Government and to give aid and comfort to an insurrection.”

According to an account in “Peril,” it was Bannon who persuaded Trump, who’d been at Mar-a-Lago in Florida, to return to Washington to prepare for Jan. 6.

“You’ve got to return to Washington and make a dramatic return today,” Bannon said to Trump, according to the book. “You’ve got to call [Vice President Mike] Pence off the fucking slopes and get him back here today.”

He added, according to “Peril”: “We’re going to bury Biden on January 6th, fucking bury him.”

Politico continues:

It remains to be seen if the former Trump officials will follow Trump’s directions.

The Trump letter kicks off the first major political and legal test for the select committee, which is probing Trump supporters’ violent attack on the Capitol. It’s unclear how the committee will try to enforce the subpoenas of the Trump-allied foursome, but members of the panel — which includes seven Democrats and two anti-Trump Republicans — have said they [will make a criminal referral and] ask the Justice Department to prosecute witnesses who refuse to comply.

If witnesses are convicted of criminal contempt of Congress, they could face a year in prison and a fine of up to $100,000.

[T]rump’s move could also create a dilemma for the Biden administration. Most presidents are loath to weaken executive privilege, the vaguely defined right for presidents to have conversations with their advisers without worrying those conversations may someday become public.

The White House clarified its stance on assertion of executive privilege regarding the Jan. 6 committee’s requests last month after press secretary Jen Psaki said a decision was made to not shield any Trump-era records. Following that Psaki comment, a White House spokesperson said the Biden administration would actually make those calls on a “case-by-case” basis.

Nonetheless, experts previously told POLITICO that they suspect Biden’s White House counsel’s office may assert privilege on Trump’s behalf in some cases. That’s because weakening executive privilege broadly could create problems for Biden down the road. The subpoena of Meadows is particularly sensitive; the idea of congressional investigators from the opposing party grilling a White House chief of staff is a nightmare scenario for most presidents.

At the same time, Meadows likely has detailed knowledge of Trump’s behavior before and during the Jan. 6 attack and was backstage at the #StopTheSteal rally on the National Mall where Trump spoke before the Capitol siege.

Experts are divided over the question of how former presidents can wield executive privilege. David Rivkin, formerly a lawyer for the Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations, told POLITICO that only sitting presidents can assert executive privilege.

“He can ask the assertion of privilege to be made by the sitting president,” Rivkin added of Trump.

And Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), a member of the select committee, has also weighed in on this issue. “There’s no such thing as a former president’s executive privilege,” he told The Washington Post. “That’s extremely dilute and not really relevant.”

But that’s not a consensus. Saikrishna Prakash, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, said this conflict enters legally uncharted territory and that the Supreme Court has found that former presidents do enjoy executive privilege, at least to some extent [in NIXON v. ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES.]

See my explanation in Trump’s Coup D’Etat Co-Conspirators Subpoenaed To Testify Before Congress About January 6 Insurrection.

Trump can only delay the inevitable, because these witnesses will either be compelled to testify or convicted of criminal contempt of Congress by the courts.

The broader question is what is the Department of Justice going to do about Donald Trump’s witness tampering and obstruction of Congress in plain site?

If there is an open DOJ investigation of this third rate mafia “Don,” what the hell is taking them so damn long to bring an indictment? Are we a country of laws, or not? Trump does not get a pass just because he is an ex-president. No man is above the law.





Advertisement

Discover more from Blog for Arizona

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

3 thoughts on “Donald Trump Is Engaging In Witness Tampering And Obstruction Of Congress In Plain Site”

  1. NBC News reports, “Biden declines Trump request to withhold White House records from Jan. 6 committee”, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-declines-trump-request-withhold-white-house-records-jan-6-n1281120

    The White House on Friday formally blocked an attempt by former President Donald Trump to withhold documents from Congress related to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, setting up a legal showdown between the current and former presidents over executive privilege.

    In a letter to the National Archives obtained by NBC News, White House Counsel Dana Remus rejected an attempt by Trump’s attorneys to withhold documents requested by the House Select Committee regarding the then-president’s activities on Jan. 6, writing that “President Biden has determined that an assertion of executive privilege is not in the best interests of the United States, and therefore is not justified as to any of the documents.”

    [I reiterate, the courts cannot recognize an executive privilege for the high crimes of sedition, insurrection and treason.]

    “These are unique and extraordinary circumstances,” Remus added. “Congress is examining an assault on our Constitution and democratic institutions provoked and fanned by those sworn to protect them, and the conduct under investigation extends far beyond typical deliberations concerning the proper discharge of the President’s constitutional responsibilities. The constitutional protections of executive privilege should not be used to shield, from Congress or the public, information that reflects a clear and apparent effort to subvert the Constitution itself.”

    [T]he White House now is authorizing the National Archives to turn over an initial batch of documents that fell under a broad category requested by the committee, covering Trump’s actions and communications on Jan. 6, including his rally at The Ellipse on White House grounds, and subsequent meetings and communications throughout the day.

    That request sought everything from Twitter messages, phone and visitor logs, and any videos and photos of events he participated in. It also included documents and communications related to then-Vice President Mike Pence’s movements and security, and broadly any other documents referring to the rally at The Ellipse and the subsequent violent riot at the Capitol, as well as to planning around the ceremonial event of counting of electoral votes during a joint session of Congress.

    According to a source familiar with the matter, the National Archives immediately began scouring records in its possession for items responsive to the committee’s request issued in August. It has been producing relevant documents both to Trump’s legal representatives and the Biden White House on a regular basis since then. The specific batch of documents in question were initially produced to both parties on Sept. 8.

    A White House official could not characterize what specific documents are included in that set, beyond saying that they will shed light on certain events within the White House on Jan. 6. They said Trump’s representatives concluded that executive privilege should be asserted on some, but not all of the documents. But Biden has concluded privilege does not pertain to any of the records.

    Remus says in her letter that the White House is continuing to review other materials the archives have provided since then, and will respond “at an appropriate time.”

    [T]rump’s next step would be filing a lawsuit against the archives, but he faces long legal odds.

    The courts have never definitively said how much authority former presidents have to assert the privilege once they’re out of office. But as a practical matter, the views of the current president carry considerable weight. The Supreme Court ruled in 1977 that the incumbent president “is in the best position to assess the present and future needs of the Executive Branch.”

    What’s more, the privilege is not absolute. Courts apply a balancing test in deciding whether it should apply.

    The Supreme Court also said the privilege is limited to communications “in performance of [a president’s] responsibilities,” which might not cover discussions of how to get the Justice Department to undermine confidence in the election results.

    • Or conspire for a coup d’etat insurrection.

  2. Throw this fascist sonuvabitch into a dank prison cell in solitary confinement with no outside contact to the world, and leave him there until the end of his miserable life. “Steve Bannon Defies Jan. 6 Committee Subpoena As Trump Instructed”, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/steve-bannon-defies-jan-6-committee-subpoena_n_6160786de4b024dc5280c658

    Steve Bannon, a former adviser to President Donald Trump, is refusing to comply with a subpoena issued by the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack.

    Bannon’s letter to the committee cited Trump’s assertion of executive privilege ― the concept that presidents have the right to withhold information and communications that might be of interest to the public or Congress.

    “We must accept his direction and honor his invocation of executive privilege,” read Bannon’s letter. “As such, until these issues are resolved, we are unable to respond to your request for documents and testimony.”

    [As I explained above, there is NO executive privilege which could conceivably apply to Steve Bannon, and the courts cannot recognize an executive privilege for the high crimes of sedition, insurrection and treason.]

    UPDATE: Bannon’s letter also invokes attorney-client privilege as a justification for not obeying the subpoena. Neither Steve Bannon or Donald Trump is an attorney. There is No attorney-client relationship, and even if they had a conversation together with an attorney [Rudy Giulliani?], the privilege is waived when there is another person present. The committee is interested in the “war room” coup plotting meetings in which several co-conspirators were present.

    Meadows and another witness, former Defense Department official and House Intelligence Committee aide Kash Patel, are “engaging” with the committee, according to a joint statement from committee chair Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and vice chair Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) on Friday.

    The statement did not mention the fourth witness, Dan Scavino, who served as the Trump White House’s social media chief. [The committee has been unable to find him to serve the subpoena. He has gone underground.] It remains unclear whether he plans to cooperate or follow in Bannon’s footsteps.

    “The Select Committee fully expects all of these witnesses to comply with our demands for both documents and deposition testimony,” Thompson and Cheney said.

    Thompson previously threatened to pursue legal action against any witnesses who choose not to cooperate and echoed that sentiment Friday. “{W]e will not allow any witness to defy a lawful subpoena or attempt to run out the clock, and we will swiftly consider advancing a criminal contempt of Congress referral,” the statement read.

    It concluded: “We thank those many patriotic Americans who are coming forward voluntarily to participate in our inquiry. The Committee is making rapid progress and will not be deterred by those who seek to obstruct our efforts.”

Comments are closed.