Former key Mark Meadows aide claims 'firsthand' knowledge he destroyed documents

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: Raw Story

By Tom Boggioni

During a panel discussion on CNN's "State of the Union" a former key aide to Mark Meadows stunned host Dana Bash by admitting that the former White House chief of staff to Donald Trump destroyed documents after speaking to an associate who also worked for him.

Speaking with the host, Alyssa Farah Griffin stated that it was time that all of the truth come out about what was going on at the White House before and after the Jan 6th insurrection.

"There is testimony Meadows burned papers in his office after he met with [Rep.] Scott Perry, trying to challenge the 2020 election," host Bash prompted. "Do you think Mark Meadows destroyed documents?"

"I've heard it firsthand, I heard it directly from someone with firsthand knowledge so I believe the testimony the committee has," Farah Griffin replied. "I want to note this, related to the two conversations we're having, someone smarter than myself pointed out that in 1974 during Watergate, inflation was 11 percent, yet Congress still investigated the president and was able to work to address inflation and deal with the economy."

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/former-key-mark-meadows-aide-claims-firsthand-knowledge-he-destroyed-documents/ar-AAYnche?li=BBnb7Kz

[dem4decades]

1. Is that a crime?

[Fiendish Thingy]

2. Destruction of documents? In general, it's a form of obstruction, and specifically

It’s a violation of the Presidential Records Act.

[dem4decades]

5. Trump did it for years, nothing was done.

[Canoe52]

18. Flush flush flush...

[dem4decades]

19. Did Biden make a joke about flushing papers in the White House? He's still clever, and that takes

Brains.

[ancianita]

3. Yep. Destroying any federal documents is a crime. It has to be proven thru evidentiary witnesses,

though. So if there's that evidence, he's cooked.

The penalties for the unlawful or accidental removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of Federal records or the attempt to do so, include a fine, imprisonment, or both (18 U.S.C. 641 and 2071).

[dem4decades]

6. Doesn't DOJ have to bring charges? If DOJ does nothing, is it a crime?

[ancianita]

7. Sure, once they have the evidentiary witnesses sworn affadavits. If the DOJ does nothing?

Well, what makes you think it has done nothing so far?

[H2O Man]

8. If a murderer is

never caught, they are still a murderer.

[Tommymac]

12. If a bear craps in the woods did it really crap???? Come on, man.

[Lonestarblue]

4. The point about inflation is an important one.

While no one likes how prices have gone up, in the grand scheme of our history our current rate of inflation is not at a record high as the media would have use believe. They keep reporting how the percentage increase in inflation is higher than in 40 years, but using percentage changes without also giving the context that it’s a change from a number that was very small to start with. That’s a misleading use of statistics. When inflation numbers are given, they also need historical context; e.g., the 11% mentioned when Nixon was president versus the 8.3% we have now. Either the mainstream media is ignorant about how to report economic news (real possibility) or they are doing his deliberately to make the case to help a Republican takeover, which is more likely. I despair of our media. Very little of itnis truly nonpartisan.

[oldsoftie]

11. But as we get deeper into 2022, the Covid low comparisons are going away.

In other words, if this coming October's numbers are 7-8% above Oct 2021, its being compared to a number that was also high.

[paleotn]

24. They won't be for that reason and others....

We've been in a period of extraordinarily low inflation pre-covid. Decades worth. Look at the peaks in '74 and '80 at the Fed link below. Many of us lived through that. Today's perception is based on 40 years of very low inflation. Thus the shock at the grocery store and gas pump. But in historical terms...eh. Then again, it's argued that perceptions drive economics, not reality. That in itself might cool an overheated economy giving supply chains, mangled by covid, time to stabilize and inflation ratchets down significantly.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=rocU#0

I'm probably going to get yelled at for this, but much of the inflationary pain can be placed on covid over stimulation, particularly the last round of relief. Right out of the pandemic, people had money to spend and the will to spend it after being cooped up for a year. Global supply chains, however, can't turn on that same dime. Too much money chasing too few goods and inflation rears its ugly head.

[oldsoftie]

28. Im not going to yell because I agree! The data also agrees.

And it was reported during 2020 that people were saving a lot more; paying off debts; etc. We were told that "pent up demand" was going to be released at some point. But it seems nobody believed it I guess

But getting back to the inflation numbers, go back further than 40 years. Over the last 100 years we've averaged just over 3%. A few high years here and there.

[towerbum]

10. dis-abled the smoke detectors !

[getagrip_already]

13. Do some offices have working fireplaces......

That would be interesting to know.

But they all have confidential disposal bags. And shredders are everywhere......

[towerbum]

14. thank's - didn't know that !

[Cracklin Charlie]

15. Mark go boom

[liberalla]

16. I like where this is going... and especially becoming public knowledge. Woo Hoo!

Also the mention of inflation... thank you Alyssa Farah Griffin!

[Upthevibe]

17. Kick. N/T

[SouthBayDem]

20. A reminder: Alyssa Farah Griffin's dad founded Worldnetdaily

Joseph Farah is one of the biggest promoters of the Big Lie.

https://conwebwatch.tripod.com/blog/index.blog/2379373/the-farah-family-feud-continues/

https://conwebwatch.tripod.com/blog/index.blog/2379661/farahs-money-begs-ramp-up-again-as-wnds-existential-threat-grows/

[orleans]

21. so did the doj not charge meadows for contempt of congress

because they are waiting for this shoe to drop?
or will they excuse him from this shit too?

DOJ declines to charge Meadows and Scavino with contempt of Congress

(CNN)The Department of Justice has informed the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, insurrection that it will not indict two former Trump White House officials found in contempt by the committee.

According to a source familiar with the notification, US Attorney Matt Graves notified Doug Letter, the House general counsel, that the Justice Department had completed its review and had decided it "will not be initiating prosecutions for criminal contempt, as requested in the referral against Messrs Meadows and Scavino."
The New York Times first reported the news that Mark Meadows, former chief of staff to then-President Donald Trump, and Dan Scavino, former deputy chief of staff to Trump, won't be prosecuted.
The decision by the Justice Department is a blow to the House panel's efforts to enforce subpoenas related to its investigation and could embolden other Trump associates facing similar requests to not cooperate. It comes the same day that former White House trade adviser Peter Navarro was indicted for failing to cooperate with the committee.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/03/politics/justice-department-declines-charge-meadows-scavino-january-6/index.html

[paleotn]

25. Lets up the former, not the later.

I just can't believe anyone can get away with something so blatantly illegal. Then again, I've been amazed before.

[Ford_Prefect]

22. If the documents are covered under federal record keeping it is. The penalty is not

minor. It is also likely to be considered destroying evidence of a crime.

[Midnight Writer]

23. Isn't "I heard it directly from someone with firsthand knowledge" secondhand?

[Raven]

26. I believe it's hearsay but I think the J6 Com has the first hand person's testimony.

[Shrike47]

27. It's hearsay and wouldn't be admissible against Meadows.

[genxlib]

31. Yeah

My first thought was that this person doesn’t know what firsthand means

[Blue Owl]

29. Flushing Meadow muffins down tRump's toilet, eh?

[rsdsharp]

32. I don't doubt that this true. That said, she doesn't have "firsthand" knowledge.

“I've heard it firsthand, I heard it directly from someone with firsthand knowledge so I believe the testimony the committee has,"

That is textbook hearsay. This would be an “out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” There is a difference between “I was there, and I saw him do it,” (firsthand knowledge) and “Mary was there, and she told me she saw him do it.” (hearsay).