Rolling Stone article?

[Dirty Socialist]

The Rolling Stone article about the Jan. 6 insurrection, implicating numerous GOP representatives, is the most damning report since All The President’s Men”, IMO. A real bombshell. Did anyone catch any MSM reports on the article?

[NJCher]

1. I watched most of the news

And analysis shows mon night and didn’t hear a reference to it. When articles like this appear, the writer will often be interviewed on New York public radio. I’ll be listening for it if I’m not too busy bailing water out of my basement.

Going to check to see if the article is available online or through my library.

Link

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/exclusive-jan-6-organizers-met-congress-white-house-1245289/

[Rhiannon12866]

2. Rep. Swalwell on with Lawrence O'Donnell - and Malcolm Nance:

Rep. Swalwell: New Details Show Jan. 6 Attack Was 'Anything But' Impromptu Rally - The Last Word - MSNBC
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017689559

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) says new reporting about the actions of Trump allies in the days before the Capitol attack show organization, premeditation, and “a purposefulness in what they were doing.” Rep. Swalwell tells Lawrence O’Donnell he expects Donald Trump to fight a potential subpoena, adding that “the reason he won’t come forward is because he’s guilty.” Aired on 10/25/2021.


Rep. Cori Bush: House Members Allegedly Linked To Jan. 6 'Need To Be Investigated' - The ReidOut - MSNBC
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017689547

House members allegedly linked to the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection “need to be investigated,” Rep. Cori Bush tells Joy Reid. MSNBC analyst Malcolm Nance also joins The ReidOut with his expert analysis of a new Rolling Stone report alleging close contact between GOP members of Congress and planning that fueled Jan. 6, reporting that has not been confirmed by NBC News. Aired on 10/25/2021.

[gab13by13]

8. I watched the show,

and my key takeaway was something Malcolm Nance said, he said that he hopes that DOJ has been investigating the insurrection because time is of the essence. He also said there is no indication either way whether DOJ is on this. Waiting for referrals from the select committee will not get it done.

Let's just look at the low hanging fruit, Steve Bannon, not a member of Trump's administration. When does anyone think that Bannon will go to trial? My guess is 6 months and I am optimistic.

[Evolve Dammit]

9. Time is of the essence and all involved must realize that. Crunch time.

[Rhiannon12866]

20. I know, it's getting extremely aggravating, I know they want to be thorough, but so far they only have

Bannon, and we know he's only the beginning! How many years is this going to take?? Meanwhile, the Republicans in Congress who participated are still guilty and doing more damage every day!

[Joinfortmill]

3. It was a coup attempt.

The GOP can rot in hell.

[Champp]

6. Fuggin lowlife G.O.P. attacked America

Republican traitors have earned jail time. Bigly.

[lastlib]

12. Hell is too good for some evil bastards.

Satan doesn't want the competition.

[Rhiannon12866]

4. And Rep. Mondaire Jones on with Chris Hayes:

Rep. Jones: 'Expulsion Has To Be On The Table' For Lawmakers Involved In Jan. 6 - All In - MSNBC
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017689508

“Expulsion has to be on the table. It is one of the most severe consequences if not the most serious consequence that congress can engage in. And it is, I think, appropriate in such an instance,” says Rep. Mondaire Jones on members of Congress’ potential involvement in January 6. Aired on 10/25/2021.

[jimfields33]

18. I read it takes 2/3rds of the house to expel.

Tough road.

[Rhiannon12866]

22. Their actions were a clear violation of the 14th Amendment, Section Three:

14th Amendment – Section Three

Section Three of the amendment, gave Congress the authority to bar public officials, who took an oath of allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, from holding office if they "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the Constitution. The intent was to prevent the president from allowing former leaders of the Confederacy to regain power within the U.S. government after securing a presidential pardon. It states that a two-thirds majority vote in Congress is required to allow public officials who had engaged in rebellion to regain the rights of American citizenship and hold government or military office.

It states that: "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

[lagomorph777]

37. The only mention of 2/3 in the 14th Amendment is that it takes 2/3 to allow a traitor back in.

I don't think 2/3 is needed at all.

Some here like to cite unrelated clauses, such as

Article I, Section 5, Clause 2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

But we're talking insurrection, not mere disorderly behaviour. 14th applies, not Article 1.

[gordianot]

5. When you see aerticles like this people are talking and worried.

To exactly whom is not clear. No matter how disgusting illegal or even treasonous it is our new norm and to be expected. There will probably be numerous tell all book deals.

[jaxexpat]

7. Are media folks waiting for these guys to actually confess?

That would get ratings. What a scoop, "politicians admit what everybody already knows despite us".

[gab13by13]

13. Thank god for reporters uncovering this evidence,

All of the big scoops have come from reporters. Where is our DOJ?

[multigraincracker]

10. Going to buy 5 copies for my mother

when I get my picture on the cover of the RollingStone.

?w=816&h=9999

[larwdem]

15. got my

poor old gray haired daddy driving my limousine LOL

[ancianita]

11. Yeah, but the sources are anonymous, and are probably trying to cut an immunity deal.

I mean, come on, "Organizer" and "Planner"? Seriously?

I like the info but can't trust the sources, who are likely gently guiding media away from the Trump input of that seditious insurrection. That would be a strategy by the Republican congress, wouldn't it. A bombshell of unconfirmed stuff doesn't constitute a bombshell, imo.

Don't get me wrong; anything that can caste a shadow on Republicans is good. Expulsion talk is good.

Only the Jan 6 committee can reveal the sources, so I'll wait for that and file the RS story until there are confirmations and not just an echo chamber. Just sayin'.

[gab13by13]

14. Where are your sources

that dispute Rolling Stone? The Rolling Stone article does not guide the media away from any Trump input, it does the opposite.

The anonymous sources are known individuals. If 2 people see someone rob a bank and report it, should we wait for other people to verify that the 2 people actually saw the robbery or should law enforcement investigate the information?

[multigraincracker]

16. Nail, meet hammer.

[ancianita]

17. That's my point. No one can. But that doesn't make a single publisher of anonymous sources right.

The anonymous sources are known individuals, sure. Then who are they. You want to believe them, fine, but that doesn't at all put the onus of contradictory sources on me.

If you want to say it's like a bank robbery, I'm saying these two were lookouts who now want to get off scott free for the bank robbery by turning states' evidence. When this is a national security issue subject to solid evidence gathering, yes, there has to be eventual confirmations about them as sources, which I said will have to come from the Jan 6 committee if not other journalism sources.

No one gets convicted by anonymous sources in journalism reportage.
You want to link cases where they did? Because democracy, not bank money, is what's on the line.

[gab13by13]

19. Because they were maybe "look outs"

does not necessarily make what they said inaccurate. These 2 sources should be investigated by the FBI today, they shouldn't have to go through a select committee when, as you rightly put it, this is a national security issue. The FBI should investigate the veracity of these sources, not Rolling Stone, not the select committee, not you or I.

[ancianita]

30. I'm not claiming what you say I'm claiming. So don't put words in my mouth.

Yeah, investigate. Glad you got that.

[gab13by13]

33. I'm really only arguing over one tiny point,

you don't trust the sources and I have no opinion on the sources because they are anonymous, for now. As far as looking for a plea deal. I'm all for that if they have information on bigger fish.

[ancianita]

35. Cool.

[DallasNE]

23. The Article Names Names

If this data is incorrect then Rolling Stone faces a huge defamation payout so you can bet that this is solid. Katrina Pierson places the planning directly in the Whitehouse too. This is a bombshell report. They seem quite upset over being lied to about getting a "blanket pardon" too and that is the motive for talking as they now face jail time. Keep in mind too that Liz Cheney has come right out and said that Trump was personally involved in the planning of the attack on the Capitol so you know she has laid eyes on documents or heard testimony implicating Trump himself.

[uponit7771]

25. +1,

[ancianita]

28. It names Katrina Pierson who, like planner and organizer, wants to pass the buck to the White House.

Of course they're upset about the blanket pardon take-back and of course they don't want jail time. Fine about Liz Cheney, who seems to be the attack dog for Democrats.

I love Rolling Stone, too, and have subscribed to it since the 70's, but I still say that none of their words are actionable until they enter their words under oath so that it not only adds to the Jan 6 effort of breaking the dam of silence, but helps make credible committee referrals to the DOJ. That will be a good thing. What qualifies as bombshell are charges made against congressional people and Trump.

Thanks for your post.

[Johnny2X2X]

21. It's going to take a smoking gun

And I'm not sure a smoking gun exists. They could have planned the march, planned the march going to the Capitol, none of that is illegal. It's going to take audio or text messages of Congress people telling the rioters where to go once they breeched the Capitol for this to amount to anything illegal.

[gab13by13]

24. I keep hearing that a lot,

but we have, in writing, the blueprint for a coup, for an overthrow of our government. A Trump loyal lawyer, John Eastman, laid out their plans in writing and people actually followed those plans until Mike Pence stopped the coup.

Also we do have the technology to investigate cell phone conversations.

[uponit7771]

27. Yep, the ATTEMPT is illegal .... 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383

[ancianita]

29. That is good. The effect being greater than the sum of its parts hasn't usually been how each

individual participant has been treated, however.

If there is conspiracy proven among even just a few, that will be enough to make the rest who have been hiding, silent, or made excuses, now stand as accessories after the fact, 18 US Code § 3 - Accessory after the fact. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/accessory_after_the_fact

[ancianita]

32. ... we have, in writing, the blueprint for a coup...

for an overthrow of our government. A Trump loyal lawyer, John Eastman, laid out their plans in writing and people actually followed those plans until Mike Pence stopped the coup.

Maybe. Eastman and others who know of it haven't testified yet. But at this point we have to know if Pierson, "planner" and "organizer" got that memo. That adds more smoke. But I doubt they got it.

After that, the commitee has to have proof that Trump read and approved the memo, or acted as if he followed it, which might indicate the same thing even if he denies seeing the memo. Then we've likely made the case. He had a lot of moving parts all around him. Connections between him and them? Not yet.

[uponit7771]

26. The march into the capital .. WAS... illegal. It was trespassing at the least

[Whiskeytide]

31. Hardly a bombshell. Three things occurred ...

… on 1/6.

1). A Rally;
2). A mob attack on the capitol; and
3). An effort to subvert the election results.

The only thing the RS investigation reveals is that some MOCs and the Whitehouse participated in planning THE RALLY. As far as I know, there’s not anything illegal about that. Picking out the colors for the stage decorations is a pretty far cry from planning how to gain entry into the building and hunt down political enemies.

There is plenty of evidence that they planned to subvert the vote. (The Eastman memo is exhibit 1). Hopefully that’s being investigated. But it was not the focus of the RS article.

Maybe evidence will surface that some of Тяцмр‘s surrogates did plan the breach or at least aided it. But that’s not in the article. I’m not sure why everyone seems to think it is.

[uponit7771]

36. The planning to subvert the vote is text book insurrection or an attempt at it, that's illegal

We don't have to complicate this, just put those in jail based of laws that are on the books.

They made their will known up front

Eastman memo links a LOT in the white house to the planning of the coup

[Whiskeytide]

38. I agree. The Eastman memo is...

… damn clear evidence that they were planning a political coup based on exploiting the rules and traditions of our democracy. Certainly anti-democratic and against the very foundations this Country was built upon. But - technically - was it illegal? I’m not really sure.

We have laws against interfering in elections. But what Тяцмр was attempting, while not completely unprecedented, was still pretty novel. Those laws really don’t fit the circumstances, at least not cleanly.

Whatever the DOJ is investigating, they are most certainly doing it with an eye on whether they can get a conviction on the law as it is presently written. This is especially so where charging Тяцмр would be a political bombshell that could blow up in 10 different ways, and would undoubtedly further divide the country. And just imagine for a moment what an acquittal would do for him and his ilk.

It’s just not as simple as some here want it to be. I wish being a soulless, bloviating, anti-Democratic orange fool bent on subverting our government to satisfy his narcissistic cravings for attention was a crime.

[uponit7771]

39. Telling people to commit a crime if trespassing was NOT legal, deaths from that are on the person wh

.... Provoked the incident in this context ... That was Putin's whore himself

Make him go through a trial ... There's enough evidence already

[budkin]

40. Not on Fox News, obviously