A former White House attorney in the administration of Donald Trump is predicting that the failed ex-president will soon be indicted by the U.S. Department of Justice for crimes connected to the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the Capitol.
Ty Cobb told CNN’s Erin Burnett, “I believe it’s about to happen.”
“I think what is called the Jan. 6 case, which really encompasses all the attempts to cling to power and prevent the peaceful transfer of government, I think that has been a very important matter to the special prosecutor,” Cobb added. “I think he has gone about it very deliberately, I think they have moved heaven and earth to do it in a timely way.”
Former Trump White House Lawyer Ty Cobb explains to CNN's @ErinBurnett why he believes an indictment around the January 6th case is coming. Watch: pic.twitter.com/MXSU4vyakT
Cobb also told Burnett, “I think they are ready to go. I don’t think there are many i’s to dot or t’s to cross yet, but I do think there are some difficult decisions.”
Trump is facing other charges related to the 2020 election in the state of Georgia, where Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis seated two grand juries on Tuesday that will consider whether or to indict the ex-president for his role in attempting to overturn balloting in the Peach State so that he could be declared the winner even though he lost to President Joe Biden by nearly 12,000 votes. Those ballots were counted and recounted and always showed that Trump lost Georgia’s 16 electoral votes.
John Pierce is an attorney for one of the rioters who attacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, and his attempts to mansplain what transpired on that day to CNN host Abby Phillip got him fact-checked on real time during a Thursday appearance on the network.
Pierce was combative from the get-go, chastising Phillip for her introduction.
“I would actually take some issue with the language in some of your lead up about, you know, folks storming the Capitol,” he remarked. “January 6 was a very complex event. There were a lot of people who engaged in various kinds of conduct.”
Phillip asked Pierce if his client was “remorseful about his actions on January 6.”
The attorney replied:
“I think there are certain things that he wish had happened differently, but you know, the trial laid out very clearly that he was there to have his voice be heard, he was there to protect other people. There is very clear evidence that there was excessive force by police officers and he was trying to assist an elderly person who was being beaten by batons when he was on the ground.”
That led Phillip to interject, “Look, I have to stop you there because, honestly, we watched what happened on January 6, okay? And you can make sort of legalistic arguments about what exactly your client was convicted of and what he was not, [but] there’s no question that there was violence at the Capitol, that officers were assaulted on that day. There’s no question about that. There’s also no question that your client was participated in pushing back against law enforcement officers who were doing their jobs.”
Pierce: “The narrative that, with all due respect to your network, sometimes has been pushed, that this was a, you know, just a violent event that—there was violence on both sides.”
The host countered, “No, no, no. It was a violent event. Look, it was a violent event. Police officers were there doing their jobs.”
Instead of conceding the point, Pierce continued to push his lies:
“Trust me Abby, some of the police officers were not doing their jobs. Some of the police officers were going way beyond doing their jobs, including unjustified lethal force, okay? January 6 is not as simple…”
Phillip held her ground, telling the attorney, “John, a mob was attacking the Capitol. They were trying to break into the chamber. Some of them were armed. Many of them assaulted police officers to the point of permanent, long-term injury.”
And that’s when Pierce became a condescending jerk.
“You have to let me finish. The vast majority… I know this stuff better than you, with all due respect. Way better. The vast majority of individuals who were on the Capitol grounds were there and they were peaceful.”
Pierce: The narrative that sometimes has been pushed that this was a just a violent event that, there was violence on both sides.
Phillip: No, no. It was a violent event. Look, it was a violent event. Police officers were there doing their jobs pic.twitter.com/4zi9tPfAME
Twitter users hailed Phillip for refusing to let Pierce gaslight viewers.
Abby, thank you for holding John Pierce’s feet to the fire. He repeatedly lied and tried to gaslight you and we as viewers. He also was rude and disrespectful. You handled him beautifully. His clients are in so much trouble, not only because of their actions, but poor legal work.
— Stephen Simpson 🇺🇸 🇺🇦 🇮🇱 ProperGander (@BamaStephen) July 7, 2023
"I know more than you do."
That ole chestnut.
Good on Phillip for bringing the focus back on the people who were doing their jobs. There were eyeballs gone, lives lost, things shit on….. January 6th wasn't a both sides event. And his client is going to prison.
A New York man convicted for taking part in the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol could soon be facing a long time in prison as the result of an angry tirade he directed at federal prosecutors after he was convicted.
Frank Giustino was originally sentenced to three weeks incarceration for actions, but is now likely to get four months because he couldn’t keep his big mouth shut.
Scott MacFarlane of CBS News reports that Giustino showed “no remorse for his conduct on January 6” and instead presented “himself as the victim,” all the while referring to “the prosecution as a ‘clown show’ and a ‘nuisance.'”
“Giustino’s behavior in Court further evinces his belief that the attack on the Capitol was righteous… necessitating a sentence that will deter him from similar conduct,” prosecutors argue.
While it’s rare for prosecutors to call for an increase in a sentence, Giustino appears to have given then exactly the proof they need that an enhancement is justified.
Giustino previously proved his complete lack of respect for the law by firing his attorney and demanding that he be allowed to represent himself even though the judge in the case informed him that a lawyer could help him negotiate a lower sentence.
Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor and personal attorney to failed ex-president Donald Trump, gave “voluntary” testimony to federal investigators who are working for Justice Department Special Counsel Jack Smith and looking into efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
NBC News reports that a spokesperson for Giuliani confirmed the former mayor did indeed agreed to talk with prosecutors working for Smith.
“The appearance was entirely voluntary and conducted in a professional manner,” the spokesman, Ted Goodman, said in a statement after CNN first reported on Giuliani’s meeting with investigators.
But why would Giuliani be so cooperative and agree to speak with the special counsel’s office? According to former U.S. attorney and legal expert Harry Litman, it’s a sign that Rudy is ready to roll over on the Donald.
During an appearance on MSNBC’s “Deadline: White House” today, Litman was asked by host Nicolle Wallace, “What does it mean that his folks are saying he went in ‘entirely voluntarily.'”
Litman replied:
“I think it’s dissembling at best.”
He added, “Giuliani is waist deep in everything after the election, but he is neck deep in the false electors.”
“He and Trump together badger (former Arizona House Speaker) Rusty Bowers. He goes down to Georgia and tells a whole pack of lies and he is exactly where Smith is otherwise in the investigation, talking to (Georgia Secretary of State Brad) Raffensperger and the like,” Litman noted.
“Here’s what it means,” Litman said. “(Giuliani) has gone in with a proffer. That means he has given information but under circumstances where they won’t hold it against him. They’ll just evaluate whether they want him, want him for what, and give him immunity or an easy deal.”
“And then what he is giving in exchange has to be information about Donald Trump.”
As for the “voluntarily” part, Litman noted, “So this proffer, yes, he didn’t doesn’t have to do it. You could call it voluntary in that way, but don’t think that he’s like a good citizen just finally getting this off his chest. He’s trying to cut a deal and he knows the time is very short.”
Sounds like Rudy is ready to toss Donnie under the bus to save his own hide.
Even though he’s already on the hook for 37 criminal counts handed down by a grand jury empaneled by Justice Department Special Counsel Jack Smith as a result of his mishandling classified documents, failed former president Donald Trump and those who helped him plan and carry out the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection are also likely to face serious charges for their role in what transpired that day, according to Harvard University Professor Emeritus Laurence Tribe.
Tribe’s comments came a day after a report from the Washington Post that Smith’s team of investigators will be traveling to the state of Georgia on Wednesday to interview Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who was pressured by Trump to “fine” nearly 12,000 votes so he could be declared winner in the Peach State.
“This would be Raffensperger’s first interview with the Justice Department.
“The Justice Department’s investigation of efforts by Donald Trump and his advisers to overturn the 2020 election results is barreling forward on multiple tracks, according to people familiar with the matter, with prosecutors focused on ads and fundraising pitches claiming election fraud as well as plans for ‘fake electors’ that would swing the election to the incumbent president.”
A main focus of Smith’s ongoing investigation, the Post notes, “is the conduct of a handful of lawyers who sought to turn Trump’s defeat into victory by trying to convince state, local, federal and judicial authorities that Joe Biden’s 2020 election win was illegitimate or tainted by fraud.”
The attorneys in question are Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, John Eastman, Kurt Olsen, Kenneth Chesebro, and Jeffrey Clark, according to the Post.
In response to the report and a tweet from New York University School of Law professor of law Ryan Goodman, Tribe wrote, “This tells me Smith is likely to ask a grand jury to indict the whole criminal gang that conspired to overturn the presidential election and overthrow the government. That includes Trump at the wheel’s center and his corrupt fellow seditionists and insurrectionists as its spokes.”
This tells me Smith is likely to ask a grand jury to indict the whole criminal gang that conspired to overturn the presidential election and overthrow the government. That includes Trump at the wheel’s center and his corrupt fellow seditionists and insurrectionists as its spokes: https://t.co/0OJSTcYTbr
It will also be interesting to see if Special Counsel Smith decides to indict any Republican members of Congress who allegedly played a role in Jan. 6. Among those who are known to have been active in the Capitol insurrection are Reps. Andy Biggs of Arizona, Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, and Matt Gaetz of Florida.
Will Smith make a clean sweep and get all of the co-conspirators? If he does, the country would be a hell of a lot safer as a result.
