January 6 2021

[ponchi101]

When you are violent, you are violent in everything. It is not a partitioned trait.

[ti-amie]

New details emerge of Oval Office confrontation three days before Jan. 6
Jeffrey Clark, a mid-level Justice Department official, wanted Trump to name him attorney general in a plan aimed at potentially overturning the election
By Michael Kranish
June 14, 2022 at 6:00 a.m. EDT


Jeffrey Clark, assistant attorney general for the environment and natural resources division, speaks during a news conference, flanked by Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler, left, and Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, right, in September 2020. (Susan Walsh/Pool/AP)

Three days before Congress was slated to certify the 2020 presidential election, a little-known Justice Department official named Jeffrey Clark rushed to meet President Donald Trump in the Oval Office to discuss a last-ditch attempt to reverse the results.

Clark, an environmental lawyer by trade, had outlined a plan in a letter he wanted to send to the leaders of key states Joe Biden won. It said that the Justice Department had “identified significant concerns” about the vote and that the states should consider sending “a separate slate of electors supporting Donald J. Trump” for Congress to approve.

In fact, Clark’s bosses had warned there was not evidence to overturn the election and had rejected his letter days earlier. Now they learned Clark was about to meet with Trump. Acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen tracked down his deputy, Richard Donoghue, who had been walking on the Mall in muddy jeans and an Army T-shirt. There was no time to change. They raced to the Oval Office.

As Rosen and Donoghue listened, Clark told Trump that he would send the letter if the president named him attorney general.

As Rosen and Donoghue listened, Clark told Trump that he would send the letter if the president named him attorney general.

“History is calling,” Clark told the president, according to a deposition from Donoghue excerpted in a recent court filing. “This is our opportunity. We can get this done.”

Donoghue urged Trump not to put Clark in charge, calling him “not competent” and warning of “mass resignations” by Justice Department officials if he became the nation’s top law enforcement official, according to Donoghue’s account.

“What happens if, within 48 hours, we have hundreds of resignations from your Justice Department because of your actions?” Donoghue said he asked Trump. “What does that say about your leadership?”

Clark’s letter and his Oval Office meeting set off one of the tensest chapters during Trump’s effort to overturn the election, which culminated three days later with rioters storming the U.S. Capitol. His plan could have decapitated the Justice Department leadership and could have overturned the election.

Clark’s actions have been the focus of a Senate Judiciary Committee investigation and an ongoing probe by the Justice Department’s inspector general, and now are expected to be closely examined during June hearings by the House committee investigating the insurrection of Jan. 6, 2021.

(...)

A reconstruction of the events by The Washington Post, based on the court filings, depositions, Senate and House reports, previously undisclosed emails, and interviews with knowledgeable government officials, shows how close the country came to crisis three days before the insurrection.

(...)

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who participated in the Judiciary Committee’s investigation, said investigators should key in on whether Clark was working on behalf of others not yet identified.

“It certainly could be a symptom of a much larger and more coherent plan than has currently been disclosed,” Whitehouse said. Clark “does not appear to have elections expertise or experience, which raises the question, did he really sit down at his computer and type it out or does somebody produce it for him?”

Clark, who attended Harvard and got his law degree from Georgetown, built a career focused on environmental law at the Washington law firm of Kirkland & Ellis and served in the George W. Bush administration’s Justice Department.

Clark arrived at Trump’s Justice Department in 2018 to head an office that enforces environmental laws and regulations, and then in September 2020 became acting head of the department’s civil division.

(...)

Clark would soon emerge as someone interested in pursuing Trump’s claims. He found a key ally in Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), one of the earliest proponents of Trump’s voter fraud claims. Perry later told radio station WITF that he had worked with Clark on “various legislative matters” over the previous four years. When Perry called Donoghue in late December to complain that the Justice Department hadn’t sufficiently investigated the election, he mentioned Clark as someone “who could really get in there and do something about this,” according to the Senate Judiciary Committee majority report.

Shortly before Christmas, Clark and Perry met, according to the Senate report. Perry told WITF that “when President Trump asked if I would make an introduction, I obliged.” A Perry spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.

Clark then met with Trump in the Oval Office, according to the Senate report. When Rosen found out Clark had talked privately with Trump, he was livid, telling Clark in a Dec. 26 phone call that, “You didn’t tell me about it in advance. You didn’t get authorization. You didn’t tell me about it after the fact. This can’t happen,” according to Rosen’s interview with the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Clark was “somewhat apologetic” and promised he wouldn’t do it again without permission, according to Rosen. But Clark had already made an impression on the president. The next day, Trump told Rosen in a phone call that “people are very mad with the Justice Department” not investigating voter fraud and referred to having met with Clark.

Rosen told Trump that the Justice Department could not “flip a switch and change the election,” according to notes of the conversation cited by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“I don’t expect you to do that,” Trump responded, according to the notes. “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.” The president urged Rosen to “just have a press conference.”

Rosen refused. “We don’t see that,” he told Trump. “We’re not going to have a press conference.”

A top Clark associate, meanwhile, prepared to send him a draft of the letter to state legislatures.

(...)

Kenneth Klukowski had arrived at the Justice Department just two weeks before the Oval Office meeting to become legal counsel to the civil division overseen by Clark.

At 4:20 p.m. on Dec. 28, 2020, he sent an email that has been a central mystery in the Clark episode. The email to Clark, obtained by The Post, has the subject line, “email to you,” and an attachment titled “Draft Letter JBC 12 28 20.docx.” The email text simply said “Attached.” The attached letter, which has been previously released, was titled “Pre-Decisional & Deliberative/Attorney-Client or Legal Work Product – Georgia Proof of Concept.”

The House committee has sought to determine if Klukowski wrote the letter and whether he did so alone. Klukowski is cooperating with the committee, according to two people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a closed-door session.

(...)

Twenty minutes after Klukowski sent the document, Clark sent Rosen and Donoghue an email with the subject line “Two Urgent Action Items.” One was an attachment of the letter that Klukowski had just sent to him. At the bottom of the letter was a place for it to be signed by Rosen, Donoghue and Clark.

“I set it up for signature by the three of us,” Clark wrote. “I think we should get it out as soon as possible.”

The second item was Clark’s request for an intelligence briefing about an allegation that the Chinese were controlling U.S.-based voting machines via internet-connected smart thermostats, a theory that the Justice Department had dismissed as not credible.

Donoghue said in his deposition that he found Clark’s proposed letter to state leaders and request for the intelligence briefing to be “very strange” and “completely inconsistent with the department’s role ...[and] with what our investigations to date, had revealed.”

“There’s no chance I would sign this letter or anything remotely like this,” Donoghue emailed Clark on the afternoon of Dec. 28, 2020. He stressed that the Justice Department investigations into possible fraud were so small that they “would simply not impact the outcome of the election.” Donoghue told Clark that asking the states to reconsider their certified election results “would be a grave step for the Department to take and could have tremendous constitutional, political, and social ramifications for the country.”

Rosen was stunned. He had known Clark for years and once had worked with him at Kirkland & Ellis. Rosen told the Senate committee that he wondered “what’s going on with Jeff Clark. That this is inconsistent with how I perceived him in the past.” At several points, Clark asked that the word “acting” be removed from his title as head of the civil division, which Rosen said he declined.

(...)

With the meeting concluded, Rosen and Donoghue thought Clark’s effort was over. Clark told them, “I think they are good ideas. You don’t like them. Okay. Then, I guess we won’t do it,” according to Rosen’s Senate committee interview.

But Clark’s effort to woo Trump with his ideas was just beginning.

(...)

Several days later, Rosen learned that Clark had once again met with Trump — and once again without informing him in advance, Rosen told the Senate committee. Clark told Rosen that Trump wanted him to consider becoming attorney general. Rosen was livid. “He says he won’t do it again. He did it again,” Rosen recalled. But Rosen said he did not have the authority to fire Clark, as he would have liked to do, because Clark was a presidential appointee.

Shortly after the clash between Clark and the senior Justice Department officials, Clark told Rosen that if he reversed his position and signed the letter to the Georgia legislature, then Rosen could remain attorney general, Rosen told the Senate committee. Rosen refused. Donoghue told Clark that “you went behind your boss’s back, and you’re proposing things that are outside your domain and you don’t know what you’re talking about,” Rosen told the Senate committee.

The following day, Jan. 3, 2021, Clark told Rosen that he had just talked with Trump and that “the president had decided to offer him the position, and he had decided to take it. So that I would be replaced that Sunday, and the department would chart a different path,” Rosen told the Senate committee.

“I don’t get to be fired by someone who works for me,” Rosen said he told Clark. Rosen then called and asked to meet with Trump.

(...)

A meeting in the Oval Office was quickly arranged with Clark, Rosen, and other Justice Department and White House lawyers. Rosen found Trump sitting behind the Resolute Desk, while other White House and Justice Department officials took their seats. Donoghue, still in his muddy jeans and T-shirt, remained outside. The Post had just broken the news that Trump had a day earlier pressured Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, to find enough votes to win the state. Raffensperger had told Trump his allegations of fraud that could overturn the election were baseless.

While Donoghue was watching television coverage about The Post’s report, a White House official emerged and said, “The president wants you in this meeting.”

Around the time Donoghue entered, Clark was telling Trump that if he became attorney general he would “conduct real investigations that would, in his view, uncover widespread fraud,” Donoghue said in his House deposition. Clark vowed to send the letter he drafted to Georgia and other states and said that “this was a last opportunity to sort of set things straight with this defective election, and that he could do it, and he had the intelligence and the will and the desire to pursue these matters in the way that the president thought most appropriate.”

Everyone else in the room told Trump they opposed Clark, Donoghue said.

(...)

Donoghue then told Trump that Clark had no qualification to be attorney general: “He’s never been a criminal attorney. He’s never conducted a criminal investigation in his life. He’s never been in front of a grand jury, much less a trial jury.”

Clark objected.

“Well, I’ve done a lot of very complicated appeals and civil litigation, environmental litigation, and things like that,” Clark said, according to Donoghue’s deposition.

“That’s right,” Donoghue said he responded. “You’re an environmental lawyer. How about you go back to your office, and we’ll call you when there’s an oil spill.”

Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel, told Trump that Clark’s proposed letter was “a murder-suicide pact,” according to Donoghue’s deposition. “It’s going to damage everyone who touches it. And we should have nothing to do with that letter. I don’t ever want to see that letter again.” Cipollone declined to comment.

Trump made his decision and turned to Clark.

(...)

Clark had yet another idea. He asked whether Engel could provide a formal opinion about what authority Vice President Mike Pence had “when it comes to opening the votes” of the electoral college result on Jan. 6, according to an excerpt of Engel’s deposition in a recent court filing.

“That’s an absurd idea,” Engel said he responded, asserting it wasn’t the job of the Justice Department and noting only three days remained before Pence would perform his role. Trump interjected that he didn’t want anyone attending the meeting to talk to Pence about what to do on Jan. 6.

“Nobody should be talking to the vice president here,” Trump said, according to Engel. Instead, Trump would soon do that himself in an attempt to convince the vice president not to certify Biden’s election.

As the Justice Department officials filed out of the White House that night, one grave threat to American democracy had passed.

Three days later, after the president falsely said at a rally that “we won this election, and we won it by a landslide,” a pro-Trump mob broke into the Capitol.

Alice Crites contributed to this report.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... ore-jan-6/

[ti-amie]

I would've fired the guy for insubordination the first time he went behind my back but that's just me.

Ponchi always says we were "this close" to becoming a dictatorship.

[ponchi101]

You still are. Very close, because if he wins in 2024, and he has a very good chance, this time he won't leave.
Just see Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua.

[ponchi101]

Found this today:
Poll: Half of Americans now predict U.S. may 'cease to be a democracy' someday

[ti-amie]

So this is happening:

[ti-amie]

P1

[ti-amie]

P2

[ti-amie]

P3/L

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

[ponchi101]

And these are the people that claim to love America...

[ti-amie]

Proud Boy Accused of Seditious Conspiracy Reveals ‘1776 Returns’ Plan to ‘Fill’ Buildings with ‘Patriots’—But Denies It Was a Jan. 6 Blueprint
MARISA SARNOFFJun 15th, 2022, 5:27 pm

A document known as “1776 Returns” purported to lay out a plan for breaching legislative buildings surrounding the U.S. Capitol, as well as the Supreme Court and CNN.

Long discussed in court filings but never before made public, the document came to light on Wednesday in support of a motion from Zachary Rehl, a member of the Proud Boys extremist group. Rehl now shares an indictment with Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio. Both stand accused of seditious conspiracy in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

Prosecutors say that Tarrio received the “1776 Returns” file with a message from an unidentified individual: “The revolution is important than anything.”

However, Rehl’s attorney, Carmen Hernandez, claims that the document does not reflect plans to attack the Capitol.

“The 9-page document that was allegedly sent to Mr. Tarrio was not a plan to attack the Capitol and in any event, Tarrio did not share or discuss the document with Mr. Rehl or the other defendants,” Hernandez wrote, adding that her client “had no knowledge” of the document.

“1776 Returns,” Hernandez wrote, “is not a plan to attack the Capitol and does not even mention the Capitol. It refers to occupying Congressional office buildings.”

Hernandez doesn’t reveal the identity of the person who allegedly sent the document, although she does acknowledge that the sender is a “female acquaintance” of Tarrio.

“The document was never shared or otherwise discussed with Mr. Rehl,” Hernandez writes in the filing. “1776 Returns was sent to Mr. Tarrio by a female acquaintance. Mr. Rehl does not know the woman who sent the document and has not had any conversations with her.”

According to Hernandez, prosecutors have said that Tarrio did not forward “1776 Returns” to Rehl or the other defendants, nor did he discuss the document or its contents with them.”

“We Need As Many People As Possible Inside These Buildings.”

The first item in the document’s brief table of contents: “Storm the Winter Palace.”

Included in the “Overall Goal” section of the document:

Fill the buildings with patriots and communicate our demands.

To maintain control over a select few, but crucial buildings in the DC area for a set period of time, presenting our demands in unity. (see attached list of demands in “Patriot Plan” section).

We need many people as possible inside these buildings. These are OUR buildings, they are just renting space. We must show our politicians We the People are in charge.

A list of “Targeted Buildings” included office buildings dedicated to members of both the Senate and House of Representatives, along with the Supreme Court. Three of those Capitol complex office buildings—Raymond, Longworth and Cannon—were the site of a tour by Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) on Jan. 5, 2021, the day before the siege, according to the Jan. 6th Committee.


This map is included in the “1776 Returns” document at the bottom of the story.

Also on the targeted buildings list: “CNN – at least egg doorway,” the document said.

The third page of the document laid out “Manpower Needs,” with five distinct roles for each of the targeted buildings.

A “Covert Sleeper,” was tasked with setting up a “fake appointment” and was “expected to spend the day as our insider and let people inside the building.” This person had a backup, who “will also need to make a fake appointment.”

Each building would have a dedicated “Hypeman” to lead chants and “maintain energy/presence,” while a “Recruiter” was supposed to lead “gathering patriots” to the “starting point” for each building and “spread the word” about the plan.

As for “patriots” themselves, the plan called for at least 50 in each building, “or it’s a no go for that building.”

A note under the “preparation” to take place from Jan. 1 through Jan. 5 included the suggested to “se Covid to your advantage. Pack huge facemasks and face shields, protect your identity.”

“Do Not Look Tactical At All.”

The document instructed people to prepare for Jan. 6 as the “execution day.” They were told to “drive around buildings and areas before daylight to check on any roadblocks and update plans accordingly.”

The rest of the day was to follow five steps.

The first step, “Infiltrate,” as to have “leads and seconds” stay inside the building “until called upon execution time.” They were told to “e dressed in suits and unsuspecting, do not look tactical at all.”

During the next step, “Execution,” the people planted inside the buildings were to open the doors to the gathering crowd.

“This might include causing trouble near the front doors to distract guards who may be holding the doors off,” the document says. It also suggested pulling fire alarms, presumably allowing the exits to open.

Part three of the plan was to cause distractions “if necessary.”

“Distract law enforcement in the area by pulling other fire alarms around the city,” the document instructed. “This is ONLY to be done at the right time and if _______ makes the call.”

The name of the person who was expected to make the call was not included in the document.

Part four, “Occupy,” instructed rioters to “present our list of demands,” including such slogans as “Liberty or Death,” No Trump, No America,” and “We are watching.”

The final step, “Sit In,” appears unfinished. After instructing people to target offices of specific senators (none of whom are named at this point), a note in all caps reads: “WHATS [sic] THE ENDING POINT FOR THIS? Does everyone just leave at a certain time? WHO DOES GOV RESPOND TO?”

The second-to-last page was a form with blank spaces for each of the “Man Power” assignments.

The final page of instructions—and the only one intended to be publicly distributed—detailed the plan’s logistics for the day.

“You are the revolution,” the document said. “Be a part of history & fight for this country so our children don’t have to. It’s all or nothing Patriots, boldness and bravery is necessary.”

It appears that the “1776 Returns” plan included a handout detailing a demand for a “new election” to be held on Jan. 20. That “election” would be held using only paper ballots, would require each voter to present identification, and would be “[m]onitored by National Guard.”

Notably, a “Special Mention” at the bottom of the demands page issued a warning to some top-level GOP officials—Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), and then-Vice President Mike Pence—as well as Microsoft founder Bill Gates.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, however, received no such warnings.

“We the people love you,” the document said.

“1776 Returns” was initially referenced in court filings when Tarrio was first indicted in March. He has since been charged in a superseding indictment with seditious conspiracy.

https://lawandcrime.com/u-s-capitol-bre ... blueprint/

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]