"Hand written" notes by the X-President on the Jan. 6th planning to overturn the 2000 election ... really?
hahahaha!
New filing also reveals that John Eastman regularly communicated with Trump in the lead-up to the Jan. 6 insurrection
news.yahoo.com
John Eastman, the right-wing lawyer close to former President
Donald Trump who authored a memo outlining how to overturn the 2020 election, is seeking to shield from the House
Jan. 6 committee two “hand-written notes” from Trump about “information that he thought might be useful” for an anticipated court battle over the election results.
Politico first
reported the news Friday, citing a court filing.
That
filing also reveals that Eastman regularly communicated with Trump in the lead-up to the Jan. 6 insurrection This occurred either “directly with President Trump by phone and by email through his assistant or attorney agents,” or through one of “six conduits to or agents of” the then-president.
Eastman invoking attorney-client privilege is nothing new. Since last November — when he
was issued a subpoena —
Eastman has regularly sought to slow-roll the process for turning over the more than 94,000 documents that the committee has requested. In December, for instance,
he complained about the committee taking testimony in “secret proceedings” — a standard procedure. In a court filing two months later in which he attempted to shield 11,000 emails,
the committee was concerned that the vague labels he attached to the emails he refused to hand over made it difficult for it to challenge his privilege claims.
Oh NOOO, not handwritten notes, not married 3 times and he cheated on all three, shame on him.
The events of Jan. 6, 2021, are misunderstood, and the failure to correct the record could be damaging to both America’s future and its justice system. Words have to have meaning, and the continuous mislabeling of the U.S. Capitol breach as an “insurrection” is an example of how a false narrative can gain currency and cause dangerous injustice.
Many crimes undoubtedly took place at the Capitol that day. Demonstrators rioted, destroyed government property and in some instances engaged in acts of violence. Many are charged with violating 18 U.S.C. 371, which makes it a crime “to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States,” and with underlying charges of civil disorder, disorderly conduct, entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds, destruction of government property, and obstruction of an official proceeding.
These are important criminal charges that shouldn’t go unaddressed. But of the hundreds of “
Capitol Breach Cases” listed at the Justice Department’s prosecution page, not one defendant is charged with insurrection under 18 U.S.C. 2383. That’s because insurrection is a legal term with specific elements. No prosecutor would dare mislabel negligent homicide or manslaughter a *******, because they are totally distinct crimes. The media has no legal or moral basis to do otherwise.
The events of Jan. 6 also fail to meet the dictionary definition of insurrection, which Merriam-Webster defines as “an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.” A usage note adds that the term implies “an armed uprising that quickly fails or succeeds.” A closely related term, “insurgency,” is “a condition of revolt against a government that is less than an organized revolution and that is not recognized as a belligerency.”
Other near synonyms include “rebellion,” “revolution,” “uprising,” “revolt” and “mutiny.” All require two elements, neither of which was present in the Jan. 6 breach—the organized use of violent ******* and the aim of replacing one government or political system with another.
A real insurrection would have required the armed forces to quell an armed resistance. Actual insurrections—apart from the Civil War—include Shays’ Rebellion in 1787, in which thousands of insurrectionists tried to seize weapons from a Massachusetts armory after months of planning to overthrow the new revolutionary government, and the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, in which 500 armed men attacked the home of a U.S. tax inspector in Western Pennsylvania. Both events required President Washington to quell the insurrections with thousands of armed troops, who killed several resistors.
The demonstrators who unlawfully entered the Capitol during the Electoral College count were unarmed and had no intention of overthrowing the U.S. constitutional system or engaging in a conspiracy “against the United States, or to defraud the United States.” On the contrary, many of them believed—however erroneously—that the U.S. constitutional system was in jeopardy from voter fraud, and they desperately lashed out in a dangerous, reckless hysteria to protect that system.
The media’s mischaracterization of these events created a moral panic that unfairly stigmatized Trump supporters across the nation as white supremacists conspiring to overthrow the U.S. government, resulting in the unnecessary mobilization of armed U.S. troops in Washington.
Those who violated the law inside the U.S. Capitol should be prosecuted and, if convicted, sentenced accordingly. But dramatizing a riot as an organized, racist, armed insurrection is false reporting and dangerous political gaslighting.
The misuse of words, especially involving criminal accusations, can easily result in overreaching enforcement of the law and a chilling effect on free speech, all of which have already happened—and in this case, endanger the very system the rioters’ accusers purport to protect.
Mr. Shapiro served as an assistant attorney general for the District of Columbia, 2007-09 and a senior adviser to the U.S. Agency for Global Media, 2017-21.
www.axios.com
....‘Oh what a tangled web we weave/When first we practice to deceive’
www.newsweek.com
www.bbc.com
