Prelim thoughts as ppl inevitably compare tonight to Mueller Report: 1) there's no Bill Barr systematic disinfo discrediting J6 in advance; 2) there's likely a strong bipartisan face in Liz Cheney & 3) J6 needs to make strong statement of crime up front - unlike Mueller /2
Time to go check the committee website to see which depositions are being released! #documents /3
Leading off by comparing January 6 to the Civil War is pretty strong framing if you ask me... ooh, we're going to lead off with Bill Barr??!? /4
So the very first piece of evidence is that Bill Barr left as AG... "you can't live in a world where the incumbent administration stays in power after they lose" ... claims of fraud are "bullshit." I CANNOT WAIT TO READ BARR'S DEPO TRANSCRIPT /5
Well, so much for my point #3: Thompson says "any legalese you hear is shorthand for an attempted coup; the violence was not an accident." /6
...and let's be honest, this is where the hearing begins, with Liz Cheney, the daughter of the last Republican Vice-President, telling us how Trump orchestrated a criminal conspiracy, "a violent mob Trump refused to call off." /7
This is a classic opening statement (not argument) - Cheney is telling us the evidence that the J6 Committee will introduce, including half-dozen former WH staffers who will testify Trump said "Mike Pence deserves it" to calls to hang him. /8
🚨🚨 Cheney is talking in terms of crimes. The second hearing is going to focus on how Trump KNEW he lost, which listeners know is THE key element to bringing any charges. These are key Trump advisers - this is what we told you the J6 committee needed to have. /9
IF you were worried the J6 Committee was going to get mired in the legal weeds, or wind up with a final report that failed to make clear recommendations, you have to be feeling pretty damn good right now. This is unambiguous charging Trump with criminal seditious conspiracy /10
OOOOH OA LISTENERS KNEW ABOUT THIS! Hearing #3 will be about the effort to name environmental lawyer Jeff Clark corrupt AG - find out about Clark & Richard Donoghue here openargs.com/oa574-1-6-comm… /11
The fourth hearing will be driven by the testimony of unlikely hero Greg Jacob (VP Pence's chief lawyer) & Marc Short (Pence COS) - again we tell you all about Greg Jacob in Episode 574 - openargs.com/oa574-1-6-comm… /12
Hearing #4 is also when Liz Cheney will walk us through all of @DrJohnEastman's crimes live on national television. /13
December 18 is when Cheney says that Giuliani/Powell/Flynn & others met at the WH to wargame the insurrection; interestingly, Document No. 30032 in the Eastman production shows December *16* as the date for a meeting for "GROUND GAME following Nov 4 Election Results" /14
"The White House Staff knew President Trump was too dangerous to be left alone until he left office." - Sean Hannity (?!?) warning that impeachment & replacement (25th Amdt) were on the table /15
🚨Liz Cheney to her fellow Republicans "defending the indefensible": "There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonesty will remain." /16
Now we're watching the video of the coordination by the Proud Boys. Again, I get that this is probably NOT new to OA listeners, but your average voter does not know who the Proud Boys are & how they served as Trump's private mercenary army on J6. /17
I think this video is really effective, and I'm glad that it's coming AFTER the narrative presentation, after we've learned that the important thing is that Trump coordinated this. Watching Proud Boy read aloud the Trump tweet was pretty powerful. /18
There's already a nitwit in the livethread trotting out the talking point that this was a "protest," so yeah, I think it is important to remind the American people this was a well-coordinated violent insurrection. /19
This is pretty traumatizing to watch. You can see how terrified the Capitol police are, you can see the pure hatred on the faces of this crowd whipped into an insane frenzy, you can watch individual decision-making just...collapsing in the face of the mob /20
...and now we intersperse aspects of Trump's gaslighting over the video at the end. ("They were peaceful people," Trump lies.) - and then we get a 10-minute recess. Will continue on this thread. /21
Here's my summary of the first hour of the J6 hearings - if you listened to OA574, you know that the single biggest hole I identified is how you prove intent - and the committee has focused like a laser on showing Trump KNEW he lost & these args were bullshit. That's intent. /22
Hour 2 opens with the testimony of Caroline Edwards, a member of the Capitol police who was severely injured on 1/6. /23
Proud Boy membership TRIPLED after Trump's "Stand back and stand by" comment during the debate??? JFC. /24
Again, I get that OA listeners (& @MuellerSheWrote & @aisle45pod) all know who the Oath Keepers/PB/3%ers are - but the American public doesn't. This info is all in Tarrio/Rhodes indictments but this video is doing a nice job of breaking that down for the public /25
Reminder, "Stack One" of the Oath Keepers are the guys with those stupid GI JOE codenames /26
This is actually a pretty effective way of getting out testimony - it's easy to get bogged down in all the Proud Boy stuff but the key takeaway is that they left to go case the Capitol BEFORE Trump even spoke /27
Now Liz Cheney is going to ask questions of Ofc. Edwards, and again, she begins with a video clip. /28
Even knowing what was coming, that was brutal to watch. Idiots chanting "USA!" as five Capitol police tried to hold back the surging Proud Boys - including Joseph Biggs - and you can watch them just overpower the police and shove them backwards against a stairwell /29
More new evidence: Biggs started interrogating Capitol police - "you didn't miss a paycheck during the pandemic?" - Ofc. Edwards: "I know when I'm being turned into the villain." Jesus. /30
"I wasn't under any pretense that I could hold them off for very long." -- Ofc. Caroline Edwards. This is powerful, moving stuff that you can't just brush aside. /31
And now we have the montage of insurrectionists: "Trump asked us to come." /32
..and that's it. Two hours, prime-time, with sufficient new evidence to hopefully start this conversation with the American people. If the reactions of the pro-Trump trolls on our feed is any indication, they're worried... and they should be. /33 of 33
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
So, here's the summary: it may not look like it, but this is DEVASTATING for Eastman so far. Judge is going methodically through all the reasons why no atty-client relationship may exist AT ALL, which would enable him to skip the crime/fraud stuff AND would bulletproof .. /1 of x
..the opinion on appeal even from the hackiest of right-wing activists. Right now we have a tough set of questions pending for Chapman Univ regarding the fact that Eastman represented W in 2000 election litigation & was commended for it - that seems to contradict the arg now ../2
...that Eastman's rep of Trump would violate university policies. If Chapman U comes back with a good answer here - and it's hard to imagine they haven't thought through this - this could be over on no expectation of privacy. If they can't, THEN Judge Carter will look at ... /3
This will be the formal live-tweeting of the @DrJohnEastman Privilege hearing with replies below. 111 documents at issue. Hearing begins with #Eastman lawyer trying to clean up issues that should be clear (i.e., was there attorney-client relationship with Trump)
#Eastman begins with argument that the 111 docs are all basically work product & the standard for wp waiver is higher than just bare communication - key case here is US v Sanmina, 968 F.3d 1107 scholar.google.com/scholar_case?c…
After wp doctrine, now we're getting into crime/fraud exception, which #Eastman notes is why we're all here
Here is what I can tell about the DFEH/EEOC dustup over the settlement we discussed in Episode 530. Buckle up! /1 openargs.com/oa530-andrew-t…
Two days ago, the DFEH moved to intervene (and to shorten time for consideration of that motion) in the case in order to object to the settlement on the grounds that it was inequitable. So I went to see if the EEOC intends to object to that intervention... /2
Turns out: YES, the EEOC filed their objection yesterday, under seal, and for VERY different reasons than I suspected. The EEOC has argued that the two main California state DFEH lawyers were former EEOC lawyers... /3
I think I've just caught the government lying in its brief opposing en banc reconsideration in the Flynn case. Their arg on p.15 is to a supposed 1996 amendment to FRAP 35(b) that DOES NOT EXIST. It DID NOT HAPPEN. (The FRAP 21(a) cite is also bogus.) Pls share; links follow.