House and Senate committees are getting a clearer picture of the depth and breadth of former President Trump’s campaign to enlist the Justice Department in his effort to overturn the results of last year’s election.
He later added that he “disagreed with things that President Trump suggested the Justice Department do with regard to the election. So we did not do them.”
As far as Trump’s ultimate criminal culpability in all this, we’re going to see “We did not do them” as his last line of defense. Sure, he suggested, cajoled, maybe even ordered criminal acts. But they weren’t performed, he was thwarted, everyone stood up to him and said no. The no harm, no foul defense.
“The president was persistent with his inquiries, and I would have strongly preferred that he had chosen a different focus in the last month of his presidency,” Rosen reportedly said in his opening statement.
I cannot fully express how much I fucking hate this type of polite, institution-esque equivocation. You know what he did, Rosen. You know what he is. For the sake of the country, cannot you not just speak plainly?
This Jeffrey Clark fellow seems to have crawled out from under a Trumpian rock and wormed his way into the highest echelon of the DOJ. The “Peter Principle” operates in every large organization, but it is distressing that a cockroach like this could rise so high in so vital a department of the government. Of course, this country did elect the worst possible person to its highest office, so I guess this is but another example of American exceptionalism.
In one Dec. 7 email, FBI second-in-command David Bowditch referenced the change in policy, telling Donoghue in the message: “Everyone understood that before the election we should not do these types of inquiries, but we are in a place right now in this election cycle in which these types of allegations are important to vet out, particularly when ‘many’ (my edit) in the ‘country’ (my edit) are still ‘questioning’ (my edit) the ‘results’ (my edit).”
Seems like sufficient probable cause to subpoena all the documentary evidence needed, as well as records from cell providers, TFG’s burner phones, etc. BTW, what is the current state of executive privilege with regard to the Executive using burner phones? ETA: Does use of a burner phone help to establish mens rea?
Haul Jeffrey Clark before the committee and put him under oath. He will lie his head off which will get his law license revoked and then throw his ass in jail.
Just how many more alarms have to sound before all Senate Democrats vote for a filibuster carve-out for legislation to protect voting rights and election results?