SENATE REPORT: TRUMP's SCHEME to PRESSURE DoJ and OVERTURN the 2020 ELECTION

Author: oromagi

Posts

Total: 15
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
OCTOBER 07, 2021

Following 8 Month Investigation, Senate Judiciary Committee Releases Report on Donald Trump's Scheme to Pressure DOJ & Overturn the 2020 Election

WASHINGTON – Following an eight-month investigation, the Senate Judiciary Committee today released new testimony and a staff report,

“Subverting Justice: How the Former President and his Allies Pressured DOJ to Overturn the 2020 Election.”

The report and testimony reveal that we were only a half-step away from a full blown constitutional crisis as President Donald Trump and his loyalists threatened a wholesale takeover of the Department of Justice (DOJ). They also reveal how former Acting Civil Division Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Clark became Trump’s Big Lie Lawyer, pressuring his colleagues in DOJ to force an overturn of the 2020 election.

The report sheds new light on Trump’s relentless efforts to coopt DOJ into overturning the 2020 election and Clark’s efforts to aid Trump.  The Committee’s interim report is the first comprehensive accounting of those efforts, which were even more expansive and troubling than previously reported. 

Based on findings from the investigation so far, the Committee has asked the D.C. Bar to open an investigation into Jeffrey Clark’s compliance with applicable rules of professional conduct.  These rules include Rule 1.2, which prohibits attorneys from assisting or counseling clients in criminal or fraudulent conduct, and Rule 8.4, which among other things prohibits conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice. The Committee is withholding potential findings and recommendations about criminal culpability until the investigation is complete.

U.S. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released the following statement on today’s report release:

Today’s report shows the American people just how close we came to a constitutional crisis.  Thanks to a number of upstanding Americans in the Department of Justice, Donald Trump was unable to bend the Department to his will.  But it was not due to a lack of effort.  Donald Trump would have shredded the Constitution to stay in power.  We must never allow this unprecedented abuse of power to happen again.

Key takeaways from the Committee’s investigation include:
  • Previously-unreleased transcripts of the Committee’s closed-door interviews with three key former senior DOJ officials: former Acting Attorney General Jeff Rosen, former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue, and former U.S. Attorney BJay Pak. These witnesses cooperated with the Committee, and although their testimony was not under oath, they were obligated by 18 U.S.C. § 1001 to tell the truth.
  • New details of Donald Trump’s relentless, direct pressure on DOJ’s leadership. This includes at least nine calls and meetings with Rosen and/or Donoghue starting the day former Attorney General Bill Barr announced his resignation and continuing almost until the January 6 insurrection—including near-daily outreach once Barr left DOJ on December 23. 
  • New details of then-Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Division Jeffrey Clark’s misconduct, including his attempt to induce Rosen into helping Trump’s election subversion scheme by telling Rosen he would decline Trump’s offer to install him in Rosen’s place if Rosen agreed to aid that scheme.
  • New details around Trump forcing the resignation of U.S. Attorney Pak because he believed Pak was not doing enough to support his false claims of election fraud in Georgia—and then went outside the line of succession to appoint Bobby Christine as Acting U.S. Attorney because he believed Christine would “do something” about his election fraud claims.
  • New details of how, at Barr’s direction, DOJ deviated from decades-long practice meant to avoid inserting DOJ itself as an issue in the election—and instead aggressively pursued false claims of election fraud before votes were certified. 
  • Confirmation that Mark Meadows asked Rosen to initiate election fraud investigations on multiple occasions, violating longstanding restrictions on White House intervention in DOJ law enforcement matters—and new details about these requests, including that Meadows asked Rosen to meet with Trump’s outside lawyer Rudy Giuliani.
Based on these findings, the interim report makes the following recommendations:
  • Congress should strengthen longstanding DOJ and White House policies restricting the circumstances under which DOJ and White House officials can communicate with one another about specific law enforcement matters.
  • DOJ should strengthen its longstanding election non-interference policy, which is meant to avoid inserting DOJ as an issue into a pending election.
  • The D.C. Bar should scrutinize Clark’s compliance with applicable bar rules.
  • The Committee is withholding potential recommendations about criminal culpability and criminal referrals until the investigation is complete.
In January 2021, following a report from The New York Times that detailed a plot between Trump and Clark to use DOJ to further Trump’s efforts to subvert the results of the 2020 presidential election, Durbin led the Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee in a letter to then-Acting Attorney General Monty Wilkinson calling on him to preserve and produce all relevant materials in the DOJ’s possession, custody, or control related to this plot.  This kicked off the Committee’s eight-month investigation.  The Committee continues to seek records requested from the National Archives and Records Administration, which have not yet been supplied, and continues to pursue interviews with relevant individuals as part of this ongoing investigation.

A link to today’s report is available here.

949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@oromagi
A link to today’s report is available here.
Just a few curiosities:
1. Although the report announces the Committee initially launched this investigation on 1/23/21, in the official committee calendar https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings?mode=calendar    there is not a single reference from January to  current October, 2021, of any committee meetings to conduct alleged interviews as stated in the report, nor is there any mention of the investigation at all. Why?

2. Throughout the report, there are key phrases like, "to endorse his false claims that the election was stolen..."  He also arguably violated the criminal provisions of the Hatch Act..."  "various discredited claims of election fraud..."  "false claims of 'signature match anomalies...'”  "Subverting justice," [the subtitle]
These statements hang as if verifiable, but nothing in the report substantiates the claims of "false," "violated," etc. Why?

3. I note that the report, while stating in the body of the report that it is from the "Committee," implying the entire committee of both majority Democrats and minority Republicans [and it does include a page listing the committee members of both parties], the report clearly states on the title page that it is a "majority staff report," i.e., Democrats, only. A bit partisan, yeah? Why?

Seems a lot of blather without substance. Nice citation.

Oh, but there are nice photos of Trump and staff in the Oval. At least it is then Oval, and not Biden's media "set," which I wager is in DE, where Biden is usually found, though I doubt he's aware of where he is at any given moment..
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,075
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@949havoc
Oh, but there are nice photos of Trump and staff in the Oval. At least it is then Oval, and not Biden's media "set," which I wager is in DE, where Biden is usually found, though I doubt he's aware of where he is at any given moment..
Immorals like you arent interested in a smoking gun at the scene of abuse.  Your type needs to see people shot and killed ---i.e. not a dangerous dog till it bites---  before you will stop encouraging immorals and their false narrative and chaos to wreak havoc on humanity.

The new motto for trumpeteers is, ...if we go, we're taking all of you moral humans with us.....end-date-for-humanity 2232 { approx. }

949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@ebuc
2232
? Party like its 1999, when your type was all hung-up about Y2K. Meanwhile, I was driving by Mac, which laughed at that nonsense of a broken Windows.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,361
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@oromagi
If this were Obama or Clinton republicans would have absolutely lost their shit and every user here knows that. But it was Trump so they don’t care.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11

1. Although the report announces the Committee initially launched this investigation on 1/23/21, in the official committee calendar https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings?mode=calendar    there is not a single reference from January to  current October, 2021, of any committee meetings to conduct alleged interviews as stated in the report, nor is there any mention of the investigation at all. Why?
The calendar you are relying on is pretty obviously sketchy.  Each hearing does document its own time, date, and place of meeting.  For example, the Committee interviewed Jeffrey Rosen on Aug 7th, beginning 10:00 ET in the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

2. Throughout the report, there are key phrases like, "to endorse his false claims that the election was stolen..."  He also arguably violated the criminal provisions of the Hatch Act..."  "various discredited claims of election fraud..."  "false claims of 'signature match anomalies...'”  "Subverting justice," [the subtitle]
These statements hang as if verifiable, but nothing in the report substantiates the claims of "false," "violated," etc. Why?
Because the outcome of the election is a well-established fact.  No contradicting claims have withstood even preliminary tests of good faith and honest endeavor.  Six of Trump's lawyers have been referred for disbarment based on the dishonesty and bad faith of their conduct whilst manufacturing false evidence about the election.    Senate Committees don't need to substantiate that the Battle of Lexington was in 1775 and they don't need to substantiate that Trump lost the 2020 Election.   The falsity of Trump's claim is now so well understood that most Americans simply refer to it as "The Big Lie."

 I note that the report, while stating in the body of the report that it is from the "Committee," implying the entire committee of both majority Democrats and minority Republicans [and it does include a page listing the committee members of both parties], the report clearly states on the title page that it is a "majority staff report," i.e., Democrats, only. A bit partisan, yeah? Why?
No implications or conspiracy theories, please.  There is a also a minority report on the site, which is also partisan.  Let's note that all the damning facts come from Trump's own men- inner core Trump appointees. These Trump men understood that Trump's intent was criminal so well that they threated to resign en masse if Trump fired Rosen and put his puppet Clark in place.  Clark, a former Assistant General for the US actually refused the Senate's subpoena to testify.  On January 25, 2021, the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General, Michael E. Horowitz, launched "an investigation into whether any former or current DOJ official engaged in an improper attempt to have DOJ seek to alter the outcome of the 2020 Presidential Election."  In early August, Rosen and Donoghue told the inspector general and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that Clark attempted to help Trump subvert the election.

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,185
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Double_R
Absolutely lost their shit.
I admire your brevity.
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,318
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Double_R
If this were Obama or Clinton republicans would have absolutely lost their shit and every user here knows that. But it was Trump so they don’t care.
Why don’t you impeach him again :)
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@oromagi
The calendar you are relying on is pretty obviously sketchy.
Convenience as virtue? Sorry, no sale.

No contradicting claims have withstood even preliminary tests of good faith and honest endeavor. 

just one example.

minority report

Oh, by the way, here is the minority report, which you have managed to avoid posting in your obvious bi-partisan approach, while disputing the very points I touch on, less the calendar.


which actually includes quoted testimony
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@fauxlaw
Convenience as virtue? Sorry, no sale.
absence as evidence? Sorry, no sale

“The Arizona Senate’s report that was released on Friday raises some serious questions regarding the 2020 election,” Brnovich said without detailing any of those questions
So, if the AG actually gets around to making any new claims, we'll see if they meet a preliminary test of good faith and honest endeavor.  Until then, my characterization stands.

which actually includes quoted testimony
Complete testimony was included in my original link

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,288
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Why don’t you impeach him again :)

I admire your brevity.
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,318
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
I admire your brevity.
That debate with him was so much fun. I deadass want to do it again
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,361
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ILikePie5
Pick a topic.
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,318
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Double_R
Pick a topic.
I was referring to impeaching him again. If you want that to be the topic you’re welcome to send a challenge. Though it’s practically impossible for you to defend it. You had somewhat of an argument while he was President. Definitely not now though
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
What is with these conspiracies. I think Pelosi was pushing a conspiracy that he was going to nuke China at the time also, and the Chinese believed her panic so much that it realistically could have set off a nuking of america