2020 Election: Predictions, Results and Reactions

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Raskin teases Jan. 6 committee to reveal new information about Roger Stone

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[Sunsilver]

Also, some agents were not “forthcoming” with the committee

Quel supris...NOT!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Wait, what?

This seems to be much ado about nothing. More about someone trying to capitalize than actual information.

[RoseMorninStar]

There's an article in WaPo regarding this. Ex-staffer’s unauthorized book about Jan. 6 committee rankles members

Evidently he lied to the committee about using material to publish a book on the subject.

Former Rep. Denver Riggleman is set to publish his book Tuesday, just one day before the final public hearing of the Jan. 6 panel
By Jacqueline Alemany and Josh Dawsey

News that a former adviser to the committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection is publishing a book billed as a “behind-the-scenes” look at the committee’s work came as a shock to most lawmakers and committee staff when it was announced last week.

Denver Riggleman, a former Republican congressman, is set to publish “The Breach” on Tuesday, just one day before the final public hearing of the Jan. 6 panel, which has gone to extraordinary lengths to prevent unauthorized leaks, as well as keep its sources and methods of investigation under wraps.

Riggleman’s book announcement came in the form of a tweet touting his upcoming appearance Sunday on “60 Minutes” as his first time speaking publicly about the book. Lawmakers and committee staff were largely unaware that the former staffer had spent the months since leaving the committee writing a book about his limited work on staff — or that it would be published before the conclusion of the committee’s investigation, according to people familiar with the matter who, like others interviewed by The Washington Post, spoke on the condition of anonymity to detail private conversations.

Senior staff previously confronted Riggleman after rumors circulated that he was working on a book about his work for the committee, according to a person close to the panel. In one exchange, Riggleman told colleagues he was writing a book on a topic unrelated to his committee work. In a later conversation, before his departure from the committee staff, Riggleman said he had been approached about writing a book related to the committee but that it would not be published before the end of this year.

The ex-congressman gave notice in April after assisting the panel for eight months, saying he was leaving to work at an unspecified nonprofit related to Ukraine. Riggleman and his book agent did not respond to requests for comment.

Riggleman also bragged about the committee’s work publicly and gave interviews — an unusual move for a congressional staffer. Earlier this year, he told a crowd of “Never Trump” Republicans at the National Press Club that he would show through his committee work that the effort to overturn the election was “all about money,” and mocked several of the people under investigation.

He stood outside with a range of Trump critics and told them he had just gotten new phone records and that they would be “explosive.” He declined to say what they were, but his comments tantalized those around him.

“I wish I could tell you about it,” he said of the data he was reviewing for the committee. “If I did, you’d be more shocked than you could imagine.”

“It’s all about the money,” he said. “I’m going to rip apart their ecosystem.”

The appearances rattled others who worked with the committee, and Riggleman eventually drew some anger from Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), who had initially pushed for his hiring, according to people familiar with the matter.

Riggleman, who split his time between Washington and rural Virginia, where he owned a distillery, has described himself as being in charge of the committee’s work analyzing call records, texts and online activities of those involved in the attack on the U.S. Capitol. But people familiar with his role note that the phone records were just one small piece of the sprawling and comprehensive investigation. “The work of the committee is not built on the bedrock of Denver’s efforts,” said a person familiar with his role.

Committee staff members were infuriated by Riggleman’s cable news tour earlier this summer during which he revealed private details about the staff’s work, according to people involved with the investigation. In a committee-wide email, staff director David Buckley wrote that he was “deeply disappointed” in Riggleman’s decision to publicly discuss their work and that his appearance was “in direct contravention to his employment agreement.” “His specific discussion about the content of subpoenaed records, our contracts, contractors and methodologies, and your hard work is unnerving,” Buckley wrote at the time.

In one of his appearances on CNN, Riggleman detailed his team’s work to link names and numbers after receiving a cache of text messages from former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows. Calling the messages “a road map,” he contended the data obtained from the messages allowed the committee to “structure the investigation.” The cache of Meadows’s texts was obtained by CNN earlier this spring.

Macmillan Publishers’ description of his forthcoming book, which Riggleman co-authored with journalist Hunter Walker, teases “previously unpublished texts from key political leaders,” along with “shocking details about the Trump White House’s links to militant extremist groups.”

In an excerpt released ahead of his interview on “60 Minutes,” Riggleman revealed that the White House switchboard connected a phone call to a Capitol rioter on Jan. 6, 2021. “You get a real aha moment when you see that the White House switchboard had connected to a rioter’s phone while it’s happening,” Riggleman told “60 Minutes.” “That’s a big, pretty big aha moment.”

Riggleman also addressed claims he made in the book that he pleaded with the committee to push harder to obtain specific White House phone numbers. “I was one of those individuals, sadly, at the beginning, you know, where I was very, very aggressive about these linked connections, getting those White House phone numbers,” said Riggleman.

A statement from the committee underscored Riggleman’s “limited knowledge” of the investigation and threw cold water on Riggleman’s suggestion that the committee was not pursuing evidence aggressively enough.

“He departed from the staff in April prior to our hearings and much of our most important investigative work,” wrote committee spokesman Tim Mulvey. “Since his departure, the Committee has run down all the leads and digested and analyzed all the information that arose from his work. We will be presenting additional evidence to the public in our next hearing this coming Wednesday, and a thorough report will be published by the end of the year.”

Committee member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said on Sunday that the committee was “aware” of the call but could not say anything specific about it. “We are aware of lots of contacts between people in the White House and different people that were involved obviously in the coup attempt and the insurrection,” Raskin said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “And that’s really what all of our hearings have been about. You know, we’ve had more than 20 hours explaining that this was an organized, coordinated attempt to subvert the electoral process.”

The committee has yet to reveal the topic of its final hearing but is expected to reveal new information after resuming investigative efforts during August recess. The upcoming proceeding follows eight hearings held over June and July that laid out a gripping and detailed account of efforts by Trump and his allies to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

“Some of the information we have found to various issues we’ll be presenting to the public for the first time in the hearing coming up,” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday. “It will be the usual mix of information in the public domain and new information woven together to tell the story about one key thematic element of Donald Trump’s effort to overturn the election.”

Lawmakers on the panel had previously said they hoped to unearth more information around the Secret Service and Defense Department’s response to the Jan. 6 attack after the committee learned that the two agencies wiped communications from phones of former and current officials.

Investigators also interviewed some of Trump’s Cabinet secretaries — including Mike Pompeo, Steven Mnuchin, Robert O’Brien and Elaine Chao — regarding internal conversations following the insurrection about invoking the 25th Amendment, which provides for the removal of a president on grounds of incapacitation, mental health or physical fitness.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[N.E. Brigand]

That Guardian piece is Lowell's review of The Breach, the new book by Denver Riggleman, the former Congressman and former advisor to the Jan. 6th Committee, whose claims, as lately noted in this thread, have been are subject to some criticism from the Committee.

Multiple outlets today identified the recipient of the White House call on January 6 as Anton Lunyk of New York. He has shared at least one violent text about Nancy Pelosi, and he was in the Capitol on January 6, but only for a short time, and he left an hour before he got a nine-second call from the White House.

So he's unlikely to be one of the rioters in touch with the White House as mentioned by CNN reporter Jim Acosta that day. Lunyk did get a relatively minor sentence for his actions that day, and this call wasn't mentioned in his sentencing documents.

And yet I agree with others here that there's no way he was accidentally called. Someone in the White House knows him. Marcy Wheeler speculates that the call was a warning for him to get out before the National Guard arrived from someone who didn't know he had already left. And that someone may be a low level staffer of no importance. But at this time, we just don't know.

[N.E. Brigand]

More from Riggleman's book (which he co-authored with journalist Hunter Walker) here from NBC:

Oath Keeper charged in Jan. 6 attack texted with Andrew Giuliani about election.

The Oath Keeper is Kellye SoRelle, the Oath Keepers lawyer who was lately charged with conspiracy, and she acknowledged to NBC that she was in touch with White House staffer Andrew Giuliani in the period between the 2020 Election and January 6th.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The funniest part is that she "tried to text" the White House switchboard, but it wouldn't go through because it is (of course) a landline. I'm not sure which state or states she is a member of the bar (I know she unsuccessfully ran for office in Texas, so probably there), but I would like to think that someone that dumb would not be able to pass the famously difficult California bar.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I believe that this video will be played at tomorrow's hearing.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Meanwhile, as the Oathkeepers seditious conspiracy trial gets started today, there are two more guilty verdicts for other insurrectionists.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[Voronwë the Faithful]

ABJ is Amy Berman Jackson.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[RoseMorninStar]

[Dave_LF]

I didn't realize they were planning to hold the hearings in Tampa

[RoseMorninStar]

I didn't realize they were planning to hold the hearings in Tampa

I think the concern is that people will be (understandably) glued to the weather updates (especially perhaps those on FOX news?) and not watch the hearings.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I think that they understandably did not want to hold the hearing while millions of people were under threat of losing their homes or worse.

[RoseMorninStar]

I think that they understandably did not want to hold the hearing while millions of people were under threat of losing their homes or worse.

Yes, I assumed that was a given.

I have a nephew in the Ft. Meyers area. I've been keeping an eye on it myself.

[N.E. Brigand]

There has been a lot of talk in conservative circles, including Republican member of Congress, about a supposed whistleblower in the FBI who would reveal that the January 6th prosecutions were politically motivated. Not so much.