Archive for the ‘Mike Pence’ Category

Former Trump White House counsel appears before grand jury probing Jan. 6 – Devdiscourse

Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel during the Trump administration, appeared at federal court on Friday to testify before a grand jury probing events surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Cipollone and his attorney Michael Purpura were greeted in the hallway by Thomas Windom, the lead prosecutor investigating a failed bid by former President Donald Trump's allies to overturn the results of the 2020 election by submitting alternative slates of fake electors to the U.S. National Archives. They proceeded to the third floor, where the grand jury meets, according to a Reuters witness.

Former White House Deputy Counsel Pat Philbin also was expected at the federal courthouse in Washington later on Friday. He and Cipollone were subpoenaed earlier this year to appear as witnesses. The two men are the two most high-profile witnesses to date to appear before the grand jury. Others who have appeared to testify include former Vice President Mike Pence's chief of staff, Marc Short, and Greg Jacob, who was Pence's top counsel.

The grand jury, which convenes each Friday in the federal courthouse in Washington, is known to be specifically probing the fake electors plot. Electors are people chosen to formally cast a state's electoral votes in the U.S. Electoral College system used in presidential elections.

The fake elector plot has featured prominently in multiple hearings of the Democratic-led House of Representatives committee probing the attack on the U.S. Capitol. Rusty Bowers, the Arizona state House Republican speaker, told the panel that Trump and his close aides, including his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and adviser John Eastman, urged him to reject the election results. Bowers refused their request.

The Justice Department has since seized Eastman's phone and searched its contents, as part of the ongoing probe. It has also seized the phones of Republican congressman Scott Perry, a Trump ally, and Jeffrey Clark, a former top Justice Department lawyer who also tried to promote a plan which entailed urging Georgia state lawmakers to convene a new session and submit alternate slates of electors on the false premise of voter fraud.

In recent months, the Justice Department has delivered grand jury subpoenas to numerous individuals who may have knowledge about the bid to submit the phony slates, as well as some of the individuals who signed the bogus certificates themselves. The subpoenas ask for copies of documents related to "any effort, plan or attempt to serve as an elector in favor of Donald J. Trump and/or Mike R. Pence."

They are also seeking copies of communications between would-be electors and any federal government employees or any employees or agents of Trump, as well as communications with a long list of people including Giuliani, who promoted Trump's bogus claims of election fraud, and Eastman.

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Original post:
Former Trump White House counsel appears before grand jury probing Jan. 6 - Devdiscourse

Transcript: Rep. Jamie Raskin on "Face the Nation," Sept. 4, 2022 – CBS News

The following is the transcript of an interview with Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland that aired Sunday, Sept. 4, 2022, on "Face the Nation."

MAJOR GARRETT: We're joined now by Maryland Congressman Jamie Raskin, a Democratic member of the January 6, select committee. Congressman, good to see you. Good morning.

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Thanks so much for having me Major.

MAJOR GARRETT: So, former President Trump says that MAGA Republicans are trying to save democracy, they want to be taken seriously on this issue. So let's review what the former president said this week earlier. He said the 2020 election should be rerun, or he should be reinstated in office, and that if reelected in 2024, he would provide apologies and full pardons to those charged and or convicted for storming the Capitol on January 6, evaluate that.

REP. RASKIN: Well, first, if he's saying that the election should be rerun, which is something he's been asserting from the beginning, that's totally outside of the Constitution. There is no procedure for the military just to seize the election machinery and run a new election, which is one of the things that his disgraced former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was pushing and we know was part of the January 6 plot. And look, more than 60 courts rejected every claim of electoral fraud and corruption which Donald Trump advanced. He's had the benefit of more than 60 courts, including eight courts, where he appointed the judges to office, look at all those claims and they were all rejected. It was rejected in the states and he lost the election. Two of the hallmarks of a fascist political party are one, they don't accept the results of elections that don't go their way and two, they embrace political violence. And I think that's why President Biden was right to sound the alarm this week about these continuing attacks on our constitutional order from the outside by Donald Trump and his movement.

MAJOR GARRETT: Let's talk about the January 6 committee. There is conversation about having Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House come in. He has described this committee as a "Stalinist show trial'' earlier this year, he said under a Republican led Congress, members of this committee might be arrested. How do you respond to that remark- those remarks? And what would be the value of him coming in talking to the committee?

REP. RASKIN: Well, we're inviting in only people who have relevant evidence and testimony

MAJOR GARRETT: What's his relevant evidence and testimony?

REP. RASKIN: Well, he- he has appeared at numerous times in- throughout the investigation about the attempt to propound "the big lie", and to keep things going long after the election had been settled. But it's interesting that he invoked Stalinism, when all of the Stalinists are on Donald Trump's side, like Vladimir Putin, the former head of the KGB who said that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century, or the dictator of North Korea who Donald Trump writes love letters to. The Stalinist are on their side, and they should keep them on that side of the aisle because our side is fighting for democracy in America.

MAJOR GARRETT: Does the committee still have interest in obtaining testimony from Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas?

REP. RASKIN: Look, what we're interested in getting testimony from anyone who has relevant evidence about the attempt to overthrow the 2020 election. Let's not lose sight of what we're talking about here

MAJOR GARRETT: There were disclosures this week that she was in email conversation with people in Wisconsin about that topic.

REP. RASKIN: I, speaking as one member and only as one member, I would say she has a relevant testimony to render, and she should come forward and give it. I don't want to overstate her role. We've talked to more than 1000 people. But we'd like to hear from Gingrich and we'd like to hear from her too.

MAJOR GARRETT: What is the probability former Vice President Pence testifies?

REP. RASKIN: Well, look, Vice President Pence was the target of Donald Trump's wrath and fury and effort to overthrow the election on January 6, the whole idea was to get Pence to step outside his constitutional role, and then to declare unilateral lawless powers to reject Electoral College votes from the states. So I think he has a lot of relevant evidence, and I would hope he would come forward and testify about what happened

MAJOR GARRETT: Voluntarily or view- via subpoena?

REP. RASKIN:

Well, we're trying to get everybody to come forward voluntarily

MAJOR GARRETT: But the subpoena's not out of question?

REP RASKIN: In no one's case is a subpoena out of question, but I would assume he's going to come forward and testify voluntarily, the way the vast majority of people have.

MAJOR GARRETT: One of the mandates of this committee is to create legislation. 10 Republicans on the Senate side have signed on to an Electoral Count Act revision. Is there a bill on the House side? Will there be and do you expect this to be updated and resolved legislatively, either before the midterms or in the lame duck session?

REP. RASKIN: Well, we want to take a much broader view, I think. I mean, the narrowest thing you could say is, well, the vice president doesn't have the power to unilaterally rebuff Electoral College votes from the state

MAJOR GARRETT: Clarify that.

REP. RASKIN: But yeah, but if that's all we do, in a certain sense, it's validating Donald Trump's argument that there was any ambiguity about it in the first place, which there was not. No vice president had ever tried to reject Electoral College votes and Mike Pence and his team ultimately said it was ridiculous. So I think we need to take a much broader view about Donald Trump's attack on the entire electoral college process and the entire Democratic process from the counties and the towns and the cities through the states all the way up to the federal government. So I think we got to defend the right to vote in democracy itself.

MAJOR GARRETT: Does that mean the Senate bill would be unacceptable in the house?

REP. RASKIN: No, I think it's a- it's a good first start. It's a good first offer. But I think we need to look far more systematically at what Donald Trump was trying to do. And we've seen, for example, when he called Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, and said, just find me 11,781 votes, when they tried to intimidate election officers. This was a far more sweeping plot than just what happened in the last couple of hours there.

MAJOR GARRETT: We have less than a minute, one of your colleagues on the committee, Adam Kinzinger, said the next step for the committee is to look into the money behind and the money being made off of the big lie. True?

REP. RASKIN: That was an important degree, an important dimension of everything that was happening. This was a Donald Trump operation. So it was always an effort to

MAJOR GARRETT: But, will that be brought in the public presentation of that committee coming forward.

REP. RASKIN: It will undoubtedly be part of our report and whether, you know, it comes up again in the hearings. I can't say yet because we're still working all of that out.

MAJOR GARRETT: There is much anticipation in the nation's capital, possibly across the country in the report propounded by the committee. When can the country expect to see that?

REP. RASKIN: Well, certainly by the end of the year, because, you know, we're like Cinderella, at midnight, our license runs out at the end of the year. But under House Resolution 503, that's a significant part of our responsibility to report to the American people about how to prevent coups, insurrections, political violence and attacks on our democratic process going forward.

MAJOR GARRETT: Maryland Congressman Jamie Raskin, thanks so much.

REP. RASKIN: Thanks for having me Major.

MAJOR GARRETT: Face The Nation will be back in just one moment. Please stay with us.

Trending News

More here:
Transcript: Rep. Jamie Raskin on "Face the Nation," Sept. 4, 2022 - CBS News

Mike Pence Jan. 6 Testimony Could Finally Disclose Secret … – Newsweek

The House Select Committee investigating the events of January 6, 2021 may soon seek testimony from former Vice President Mike Pence, according to Republican Representative Adam Kinzinger.

Pence's potential testimony could shed light on issues surrounding the former vice president's interaction with the Secret Service during the Capitol riot and in particular suggestions that Pence believed there was a coup attempt.

Kinzinger, one of two Republicans sitting on the committee, told The Wall Street Journal on Thursday that the select committee is considering asking Pence to appear before them for an interview.

As a major figure in former President Donald Trump's administration, Pence could provide key answers on a number of questions concerning January 6 and efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

Pence was present at the U.S. Capitol when the riot began and he may be able to answer lingering questions about the role his Secret Service detail played on the day.

During the riot, Pence refused to get into an armored limousine manned by Secret Service agents and he has so far offered no explanation about that decision.

In April, Democratic Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who sits on the select committee, suggested that Pence had refused to get into the vehicle because he felt it was part of an attempted coup.

"He knew exactly what this inside coup they had planned for was going to do," Raskin said. "It was a coup directed by the president against the vice president and against the Congress."

Some have theorized that the intention of Pence's Secret Service detail was to drive the then vice president away from the Capitol in order to prevent him from carrying out his role in certifying the 2020 Electoral College votes.

This theory has not been proven but it is highly likely Pence will be asked about his interactions with the Secret Service if he appears before the committee.

Pence's former chief of staff, Marc Short, and chief legal counsel, Greg Jacob, have already appeared before the committee.

Trump had publicly pressured Pence to intervene on January 6 and prevent the certification of Electoral College votes in order to kick the election back to the states in the hope that then president's defeat could be reversed.

Pence refused to do so and following the riot, he fulfilled his largely ceremonial constitutional role by overseeing the certification of slates of electors.

While Pence has distanced himself from Trump and his false claims about the 2020 election, he has not spoken publicly about efforts to overturn the election or how he was treated by Trump in the closing days of the administration.

If Pence appears, the committee is likely to grill him on a wide variety of matters, including claims from a former White House aide that Trump approved of those chanting "Hang Mike Pence" on January 6.

Read this article:
Mike Pence Jan. 6 Testimony Could Finally Disclose Secret ... - Newsweek

Editorial: Its too early to count out Pence in 24 – The Republic

Joe Bidens presidential hopes are finished. This is over.

Those are the words of CNBC political commentator Jake Novak. They were published on Feb. 12, 2020, after then-candidate Biden placed fifth with 8% of the vote in the New Hampshire Democratic primary. So much for foresight.

Biden, a former vice president at the time, foresaw a more favorable path ahead after getting clobbered in the opening presidential nominating contests. He never minded the naysayers and went on to win the 2020 presidential election, despite the delusions of former President Donald Trump and a disturbing number of his followers.

Which brings us to another former vice president with presidential aspirations, Columbus native Mike Pence.

Mike Pence is not going to be elected president of the United States.

Those are the words of Roll Call commentator Nathan Gonzales. They were published July 22, 2022, after a fresh Morning Consult survey found Pence had 7% support among Republicans expressing a view of who they favored as the partys nominee in 2024.

Former President Donald Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis are far out in front of third-place Pence in the poll. But anyone who puts stock in what polls say more than two years ahead of an election should refrain from wagering.

Meager as Pences numbers are in the most recent poll, theyre climbing from the low single digits where hed been in prior polls. Further, Pence is ensured of a bright, likely sympathetic national spotlight when his memoir, So Help Me God is published in November.

The title revealed last week is a not-too-subtle reference to the final words of the oath Pence swore as vice president, to which he was faithful on Jan. 6 as a mob incited by Trump attacked the Capitol, some chanting, Hang Mike Pence! after Trump tweeted a target on Pences back amid the mayhem.

Publisher Simon & Schuster paid Pence a reported $3 million to $4 million for a two-book deal. That publishing house is in the CBS media family, so expect a 60 Minutes appearance and even more marquee exposure for Pence just after the upcoming mid-term elections. Theyll want a return on their investment. Thats not cynicism, its just how publishing and mega-media works today.

Pence hasnt officially announced hes running yet, but he is. You dont go speak in the places hes going and speaking if youre not running.

Looking back is instructive, too. In 2006, two years before Barack Obama was elected president, someone named John Edwards was the early Democratic favorite. Weve forgotten him for good reason.

Likewise, in 2014, two years before Trump was elected, another former Florida governor led the early Republican presidential primary polls. Anyone remember Jeb! Bush? Anyone?

History shows politics is a long game, and parties most often coalesce around candidates they know, who can make the case to a broad consensus of Americans that they are the right person at the right moment. Point is, Pence has not had his post-Trump moment yet, but hes about to.

We are making no predictions. However, based on history and the swirling vortex of Jan. 6 surrounding Trump, counting Pence out of the 2024 Republican presidential race at this early stage is foolhardy. Pence may never be president, but right now, history and time are on his side.

See more here:
Editorial: Its too early to count out Pence in 24 - The Republic

Littwin: It’s been a tough week for conspiracy theorists. Is Trump next? – The Colorado Sun

Under ordinary circumstances, I would never do this, but I feel I have no choice but to say a few words about Alex Jones, who is now Americas most thoroughly disgraced right-wing grifter and please excuse the language scumbag.

The InfoWars host is not nearly as important a fake conspiracy theorist as say, Donald Trump, the former Grifter in Chief, or Tucker Carlson, who (Im guessing) doesnt believe a single provocative word he says, or even Laura Ingraham or Steve Bannon.

But Jones is an avowed QAnon-level conspiracy theorist, whose Infowars broadcasts are all in, for instance, on the Democratic pedophile conspiracy hoax, and who has a long history of promoting lies hes a longtime COVID anti-vaxxer, of course for profit, money reportedly running into many tens of millions of dollars, even as Jones keeps claiming bankruptcy. But Jones seems to have specialized in suggesting the worst of the many mass shootings in America had been staged. You know, like the moon landing. Thats when he isnt ranting about gay frogs.

In Jones latest trial, he was forced to admit the Sandy Hook massacre was 100% real as every sane person had to know and that he should never have claimed that the school shooting was a false flag operation, with crisis actors pretending to be grieving parents of children who didnt really exist. The fakery was supposedly in the would-be cause of governmental gun grabbing and the trashing of the Second Amendment.

In the Austin trial, Jones was caught lying by the prosecutor, Mark Bankston, who asked Jones if he actually understood what perjury means, and by one of the parents who lost a child at Sandy Hook, who asked him directly, Do you think Im an actor? Jones admitted he didnt. It seems that even someone like Jones can be shamed by a real parent of a real child lost in another senseless shooting or maybe, and this is my guess, it was Jones regret that was faked.

In any case, Jones had to admit it was all a fraud, even though another host on Infowars was busily calling Jones trial rigged and blasting out a video of the judge in flames.

But Jones was hit with a $4 million verdict for compensatory damages to the parents of a Sandy Hook victim. And that was just the beginning. The jury came back the next day to award them $45.2 million in punitive damages. Given the living hell, as one parent put it, that Jones put the Sandy Hook parents through, $452 million would have been better but still not enough. The punitive awards are punishment and a warning. And while the $45.2 million, with more Sandy Hook trials to come, could bury Jones, it wont snuff out the conspiracy theorists. Thanks to the darker places on the internet, and to the millions who visit them, this is never going way.

Still, it was a great moment for Sandy Hook parents there are more trials coming and for the injured parties in other school shootings. And, at minimum, the jury awards and Jones testimony did shine a light on the worst of the hoaxes and the damage they cause.

When Jones has to admit under oath that hes a giant fraud, hes basically saying under oath that a long list of his conspiracy theorist pals are also fraudulent.

Most in the MAGA community, including Trump himself, had little to nothing to say about Jones, although Marjorie Taylor Greene she of Jewish space laser infamy did tweet support for him for his testimony trying to link the Clintons with Jeffrey Epstein. Of course she did.

And it was Trump, of course, who years after Jones lies about Sandy Hook, told the renowned fabulist, Your reputation is amazing.

Yes, he did. Just as he once told the Proud Boys to stand back and stand by.

Want to get early access to Mikes columns? Click here to become a premium member of The Sun.

And guess what Jones said back to Trump in that infamous 2015 radio interview: What youre doing is epic. Its George Washington level.

What makes this Jones humiliation especially satisfying is that the trial was happening at the same time that Big Lie conspiracist or maybe shes a Big Lie dupe Tina Peters was paying $255,000 for a recount of her decisive loss in the GOP primary race to be the partys secretary of state nominee.

In the recount of a race the Mesa County clerk lost by 88,000 votes, she picked up 13 votes. Thats it. And the 13 votes were coincidentally the exact number picked up by Pam Anderson, the actual winner. Peters is still claiming fraud what else? but youd have to hope that at least some believers might now have doubts. I mean, do you really think the Chinese had any interest in Tina Peters or even know who she is?

Youd also think that at least some of the suckers who contributed as much as $500,000 to Peters after her loss were, at minimum, embarrassed by their navet. Maybe not, but the rest of the country had to notice what was happening in Austin and in Colorado.

Read more of Mike Littwins columns.

Ive got a feeling that Peters coming days in court on 10 election-related charges, seven of them felonies, might not turn out any better for her than this latest day in court did for Jones.

Im not suggesting that this is a new day. In the recent Arizona primary election, Republican Big Lie proponents swept the major offices. People are keeping score in how Trump-backed candidates do in the primaries, and hes definitely holding his own.

Political grifters have a long history in America, dating back at least to Mark Twains famous line in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn in which he has the fraudulent King telling the fraudulent Duke, Haint we got all the fools in town on our side? And aint that a big enough majority in any town?

Well, it wasnt a big enough majority for Peters or for Jones. Thats progress. And now were left to wonder where that leaves the House January 6 select committee, which has laid out, in one hearing after another, compelling evidence that Trumps Big Lie was an even bigger lie than we knew.

It now looks as if the hearings, which are scheduled to resume in September, have put enough heat on Merrick Garland and the Department of Justice to do a genuine inquiry into Trumps more-than-obvious attempt to steal the 2020 election, not to mention to incite a riot at the nations Capitol, putting Mike Pence and others in real danger and, well, I could go on. And on.

Meanwhile, in Georgia, it seems that theres an excellent chance a grand jury will indict Trump for various crimes - it seems they havent forgotten Trumps coercive phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, asking him to find 11,000 votes against democracy.

Trump is, of course, a serial liar. The Washington Post, which kept score, put the number of lies during his four years as president as 30,573. His path to the presidency began with his full commitment to the Obama birther conspiracy. That was also a Big Lie but not as big as the one weve been dealing with since Trump began scheming to overturn his 2020 defeat.

The cynical view which, sadly, may prove to be true is that Trump will never have to pay for his misdeeds. But lets hope, at least, that there comes a day when a prosecutor gets to ask Trump if he knows what perjury is.

Mike Littwin has been a columnist for too many years to count. He has covered Dr. J, four presidential inaugurations, six national conventions and countless brain-numbing speeches in the New Hampshire and Iowa snow

The Colorado Sun is a nonpartisan news organization, and the opinions of columnists and editorial writers do not reflect the opinions of the newsroom.Read our ethics policy for more on The Suns opinion policyand submit columns, suggest writers or give feedback at opinion@coloradosun.com.

We believe vital information needs to be seen by the people impacted, whether its a public health crisis, investigative reporting or keeping lawmakers accountable. This reporting depends on support from readers like you.

Here is the original post:
Littwin: It's been a tough week for conspiracy theorists. Is Trump next? - The Colorado Sun