Posted on 10/14/2022 3:01:51 PM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
WASHINGTON — Former President Donald J. Trump responded on Friday to a promised subpoena from the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 assault with a lengthy, rambling letter that attacked the panel’s work, reiterated false claims of widespread voting fraud and presaged a potentially bruising battle over whether he would be compelled to testify about his role in the riot and his efforts to subvert the 2020 election.
In a 14-page missive that did not address whether he would comply with the subpoena, Mr. Trump perpetuated the same lies that had fueled the attack and boasted about the size of the crowd that amassed to hear him speak before marching to the Capitol and staging a violent siege.
The former president has indicated privately to aides that he would be willing to testify to the House panel but would like to do so live, according to a person close to him, a prospect that would prevent video of him from being clipped or edited in a manner he dislikes. The letter he released on Friday — a conspiracy theory-filled rehash of his many grievances and false assertions — underscored the risks for the committee of giving Mr. Trump an unfettered public platform.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
The nyt knows all about LIES.
The nyt is a left wing biased democrat media organization.
VOTE DEMOCRATS OUT.
DONT BUY THE NYT.
The nyt knows all about LIES.
The nyt is a left wing biased democrat media organization.
VOTE DEMOCRATS OUT.
DONT BUY THE NYT.
This House committee is raking a big risk “inviting” President Trump to testify.
Investigative political journalists at the NYT deliver yet another incisive analysis against President Trump, deftly wielding the classic “I’m Rubber You’re Glue” debate strategy.
Bump
Not this late in the game.
The committee seeks only to embarrass and compromise Trump and likewise Trump seeks to embarrass the committee and awaken the voters by fully broadcasting the facts.
A bit late for that. Both sides have their position and nothing is going to change them.
Fortunately, it is for Trump and his legal team to make that determination; if it is regarded as unworkable then it could be one of the stipulations.
Either Trump would be sworn in or he wouldn't. If he insists on being sworn in then any attorney Trump hired would refuse to agree to it. Trump is a perjury trap waiting to happen and the committee would love to have him walk right into it.
For the moment, the R's should be making every effort to get the letter in its entirety before the public, it ought to be 90% of what they are talking about.
Trump published it yesterday, didn't he? Absolutely nothing new in it.
This “committee” will not permit Trump to to testify. They want him in the chair to sit quietly and listen for hours while being chastised and accused relentlessly. You would see red-faced screeching “RECLAIMING MY TIME” and a pounding gavel requiring the “witness” to suspend.
Trump doesn't want to testify. Big Kabuki game.
Agreed. They may vote on a subpoena and gain substantial press about it, but it is highly doubtful they will serve the subpoena. If by chance they do serve him, they will almost certainly will run out the clock or find some other way to not convene a hearing.
As for Lower Deck above, unlike you and me, his statements suggest he has inside info as to exactly what Trump wants and does not want; he must also be in very close touch with Trump's legal team re its developing game plan. It would appear any contrary view we may have based on mere opinion can be rejected out of hand.
NY Times: Nothing to see here! The party says there is nothing to see here. So there is nothing to see here. This is not doublethink. We are objective, truth-seeking journalists. That is not doublethink, either.
I’ve been thinking about this. It seems like a smart plan for Trump would reply in writing, on the last day of the current House. A brief response denying the legitimacy of the committee, painstakingly itemizing graft and malfeasance on the part of each committee member, and the partisan nature of the drama, would put on record, an official refutation. The best part is the democrat committee will have gone away without an ability to reply, Republicans in the new House could receive the statement as a statement of fact without objection. It would remain as officially received testimony to a “legitimate” Congressional committee and serve as a record of fact in future acrimonious interactions.
The election was stolen. There are too many factual examples for them to seriously act like it wasn't. The influence of bad actors at our intelligence agencies, portraying lies about Trump as truth and truth against the Bidens as lies.
The $650 million dollars Zuckerberg poured into the takeover of state election agencies.
The videos of people transporting ballots illegally and counting them repeatedly.
Google altering searches to bury any Republica messaging or fundraising while pushing the Democrats lies as truth.
The election was stolen is truth and calling that a lie is lying.
Trump would be responding to a subpoena under oath being questioned by the committee No reply in writing.
See #51
Trump’s reply could find its way into the record either as an exhibit or by being read in. It is not clear, at least to me, whether Pelosi has the procedural devices to adversely interfere with that. We do know she was not at all hesitant to fly in the face of tradition when she as Speaker cherry-picked the R reps for the committee.
Key, of course, beyond value in the record, is whether the response will be widely and accurately reported by the MSM and talking heads. For instance, all that most of the public has read to date is that that Trump’s October letter was a “rant” full of “baseless claims”.
The dems are presently arguing that they expect Trump will resist the subpoena or simply not appear. Their definition of “resist” is almost certainly that Trump will impose conditions that will move the hearing to an open exchange rather than an interrogation designed to obtain incriminating evidence and generally cast doubt as to Trump’s credibility.
One wonders whether the committee has taken factual evidence, as opposed to opinions and hearsay, from a witness not under oath?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.