#jan 6 hearings ongoing

[mythoflight]

we’ve all lived an entire verse’s worth of We Didn’t Start The Fire in like, the past three days

[six-costume-refs]

Hey so I’m a lil confused on what happened with the West End Alts situation, all I know is that because they reduced from 9 to 8 shows a week, the alts no longer consistently have at least one day a week on right? But then I hear about how there’s something up with the alt costumes too? Is it possible that you can summarise bc all I’m seeing is fallout across various instas

Hey! So...there's a whole lot. Quick note that I've been on hiatus the last few weeks so apologies for taking so long to reply to you (and I know I have many more unanswered asks on this to get to as well, so apologies to y'all and will do so when I have time).

I did briefly hop in from hiatus to post this, which I would suggest reading. I was light on details because I simply did not have time to go into it more, but it gives a base for a lot of what I'll say here. First things first, the show schedule. Most West End shows perform eight shows a week: 6 days of shows with 1 day off, and 2 of the days have an extra matinee added. It's meant to be optimal for tourist audiences and families. But Six is a much shorter show with an unconventional format that originally wasn't really trying to appeal to those traditional musical theatre audiences, and so a lot of their marketing promoted them more as a fun night out pop show rather than a West End musical. With that and the shorter show in mind, they operated a nine show per week schedule (they've also had some similarly unique scheduling and marketing in the US, particularly for Broadway and the Vegas run). However, the way that pay is set up under the UK actor's union (Equity) is based on the more conventional West End schedules, with actors contracted for either eight show weeks or twelve show weeks. So Six has had all their actors on eight show week contracts, and covered the one show disparity between eight-show-contract and nine-show-schedule by requiring that all actors have to have one show off per week. This meant that each role would have to have a cover perform for at least one show per week. Hence, the West End alternate system was born! But it's been almost five years now, and the outlook for Six is very different. The West End production is very successful, very established, much more polished, and hugely appealing to a more conventional tourist audience. They don't need to focus on setting themselves apart like they originally did; they've long since established themselves as a tenet and huge force of the West End, and much of their marketing now focuses on that status. (A really good comparison for anyone who is from the US and was into theatre about ten years ago is how Hamilton shifted their marketing - they started out as another unconventional, "risky" show that really leaned into those features as part of their marketing, but as the show became more popular and mainstream they've long since started to focus on ongoing success and tourism.) So, yes, right now, they are trialing an eight-show-per-week schedule. Without the ninth performance, they do not need scheduled alternate shows and so they are temporarily not happening during this trial period. Which sucks, but the switch to eight shows is a good thing and is one of many examples of how they're shifting their operations for that longevity by optimizing financials. It's also much more sustainable for everyone involved with the show, because Six is very intense and overuse injuries are rampant. But, again, they are promoting this as a trial period. It gives them time to see how it works financially and to see how the cast functions with this performance schedule (including if more covers could be needed in the future). They'll re-assess, probably in Jan/Feb, and see what happens then. I'm personally expecting that they will keep an eight week schedule, but it's also wholly in the realm of possibility that they might do so and still re-introduce some level of scheduled alternate system, depending on what needs/concerns they find. (Right now the UK Tour principals each have a show off every other week with alts scheduled for their first covers on alternating weeks, while Broadway/NCL swings out each principal for one show every few months, so there are definitely systems for some scheduled swing-ons that are significantly reduced from the weekly alt system. And of course the alts will be on for any injuries/illness/vacations, of which there have already been many). It's also worth noting that because this is a shorter trial period, the contracts will likely have to be renegotiated in some form. So....the costumes.

We've seen some pretty clear evidence for them in the theater, starting in tech week. Naomi and Hannah both posted their makeup; both of them got glitter eyeshadows for both of their principals plus a third glitter that matches the color of an alternate costume (Naomi orange, Hannah light pink). They also both got palettes that were inclusive of both their queens colors' and those alternate colors: for Hannah it's a pink palette that some other Howards have used in the past, but for Naomi the dominant color is oranges and it's a very blatant departure from what makeup they've given Cleves principals/alts in recent years so I really don't find there to be an easily argued alternative explanation. And Hannah got three lipsticks, in the exact same shades that they normally assign for Howard, Parr, and pink alt. We've also seen blue, orange, and pink alternate costumes in the theater, but weeks after the previous' cast's costumes were loaded out and stored in one of their maintenance areas. I've posted about all of that a fair bit in this thread, although note that it hasn't been updated in about a month and is now out of date. But starting about two weeks into this current cast's performances, there have been a couple messages/statements about both alt costumes and covers that seem to imply they don't exist, which I think is what you saw. However...I think they've all been worded oddly and far too carefully, plus the very tangible evidence of alt makeup, plus the existence of alt costumes was also denied in 2021, so I've been incredibly skeptical. But earlier today on live Hannah said they aren't contracted to have second covers for the moment, which is pretty clear but with a providence that that may not always be the case. That also ties in with a theory I've been forming over the last few weeks: that Six is still undecided on whether these alternates will have additional covers, but has had the costume team make all the provisions necessary so that covers can be very quickly added when those decisions are made. This also allows the costume team to move on - most of them are working on Starlight Express these next few months and likely wouldn't be able to return to Six at the drop of a hat for all the prep needed to alt costumes later on. Setting everything up in advance for that possibility is just more efficient for everybody and would allow the alts to quickly learn/debut new tracks if needed. To me, those plans most likely mean: - That the alternates were fit with pre-existing alternate costumes that are now altered for them and stored in the theater - That the alternates were given makeup for all three queens, such as the glitters/palettes/lipsticks that I talked about above - That the alternates were given wigs/hairstyles that intentionally have more versatility in their rigging/cuts to be repurposed for a wide variety of queens if needed (which does seem to be the case, and is not how they'd be set up if they were purely intended to be worn as we've seen them used so far for their first covers) (Also noting that if they're not formally contracted for any additional covers, they cannot be formally rehearsing them; that's why I expect that if they were to add any additional covers it would be finalized and contracted when the performance schedule is for convenience's sake) However...again, this is purely a speculation/theory of mine based on what I've seen and some of the very careful wording (but does seem supported by Hannah's). And even if I'm correct, Six preparing for the possibility of second covers/alternate costumes does not necessarily mean that that will actually wind up in use. Once again, Six is moving to a longer-term focus and in some trial periods to see how they can maintain the show going forward, so some of the production management will still be in flux in the coming weeks/months.

[ridenwithbiden]

("It's Your Money" Not His) "Since leaving office in 2021, former President Donald J. Trump has spent more than $100 million on lawyers and other costs related to fending off various investigations, indictments and his coming criminal trials, according to a New York Times review of federal records.

The remarkable sum means that Mr. Trump has averaged more than $90,000 a day in legal-related costs for more than three years — none of it paid for with his own money.

Instead, the former president has relied almost entirely on donations made in an attempt to fight the results of the 2020 election.

Now, those accounts are nearly drained, and Mr. Trump faces a choice: begin to pay his own substantial legal fees or find another way to finance them.

November 2020 to Early 2021

Mr. Trump raised a staggering $254 million online from Nov. 4, 2020, the day after the election, to President Biden’s inauguration on Jan. 20, 2021, as he urged supporters to fuel an “election defense fund.”

The contributions came so quickly that on Nov. 9, Mr. Trump formed a new political action committee, Save America, to store all the cash.

Only a fraction of the money, however, went toward recounts and other legal challenges to the election. Some went to Mr. Trump’s lawyers during his second impeachment, related to the Jan. 6 riot.

But Mr. Trump banked much of the cash.

Rest of 2021

Mr. Trump started to use the money to fund his post-presidential political operation and what would eventually become his sprawling legal teams. In February, Trump renamed his 2020 committee to “MAGA PAC.”

By the end of 2021, Save America, which continued to bring in new donations, held a substantial portion of Mr. Trump’s fund-raising: $105 million.

2022

Both Save America and MAGA PAC spent significantly in 2022 on legal bills and other related expenses. The House held its impeachment hearings. The F.B.I. searched Mar-a-Lago for missing classified documents in August. Mr. Trump’s legal fees rose.

Mr. Trump spent about $27.2 million on legal-related costs for the year.

As Mr. Trump prepared to announce his 2024 run late in 2022, he faced a quandary: His PAC could not directly spend money to elect him as president. So Save America transferred $60 million to a pro-Trump super PAC called MAGA Inc.

2023

Save America began 2023 with $18.3 million. But Mr. Trump’s legal expenses were about to soar. He was first indicted in March 2023 in New York. Three other indictments followed.

Mr. Trump spent close to $60 million on legal and investigation-related costs — which included his lawyers, a document-production company and an expert witness in Trump’s New York civil fraud case.

Early last year, Mr. Trump made a change to bring more money into Save America, the PAC that was paying his legal expenses. At first, one cent of every dollar he raised online went to Save America; the rest went to his 2024 campaign. But with Save America short of cash to pay lawyers, he increased that to 10 percent.

It was still not enough. By June 2023, Save America had less than $4 million on hand. In an unusual move, Mr. Trump asked his super PAC for a refund of the $60 million he had given just months earlier, so that Save America could continue paying for his legal expenses.

By the end of 2023, more than $42 million had been returned from his super PAC to Save America.

2024

With his first trial looming — in the New York case related to hush-money payments to a porn star in 2016 — Mr. Trump’s legal costs continued to rise. He spent at least $9.7 million in January and February.

The more than $100 million in legal spending since leaving office does not include spending from Mr. Trump's 2024 campaign, which has not paid for his personal legal bills.

To cover the ongoing legal costs, his super PAC refunded an additional $10 million in January and February. But there is now only $7.75 million left to refund. Save America had less than $4 million at the end of February, when accounting for unpaid debts.

The Trump team has said the Republican National Committee won’t pay his legal bills. But his new shared fund-raising agreement with the party directs a portion of donations to his Save America PAC before the party itself.

Still, the account paying Mr. Trump’s legal bills will most likely be out of money by summer at the current spending pace.

Then, Mr. Trump will have to decide: Whose money will he use to pay his lawyers?"

[bighermie]

Flight Attendant Alaina Trocano Describes the Horrible Abuse She Endured After Jan. 6 and Her Ongoing Lawsuit Against an Unhinged Coworker and American Airlines (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Near the end of the Jan. 6 Committee’s final meeting before the midterm elections, the panel took an historic, unanimous vote on Thursday to subpoena former President Donald Trump, demanding he testify about his failed plot to stay in power after losing the 2020 election.

The subpoena marks the first time a congressional panel has directly targeted the nation’s ex-Commander-in-Chief, and it underscores how high the stakes are in the ongoing investigation of the Jan. 6 insurrection.

“He led an effort to upend American democracy that directly resulted in the violence of January 6th. He tried to take away the voice of American people. He is the one person at the center of the story of what happened… we want to hear from him,” said Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-MS).

“This is a question of accountability to the American people. He is required to answer for his actions, he is required to answer for those police officers who put their lives and bodies on the line,” he added, noting that this was as “serious and extraordinary action.”

Neither Trump’s office nor his top lawyers on these matters responded to a request for comment on Thursday.

Should Trump ignore the subpoena, he faces the same threat of a criminal prosecution for “contempt of Congress” that led to a federal conviction against another MAGA ally: former senior White House adviser Stephen Bannon.

However, consequences for witnesses refusing to testify have been applied unequally. For example, even though Congress held former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows in contempt, the Department of Justice appears uninterested in actually pursuing charges over the House vote. Trump ignoring a subpoena could result in charges, but it also could result in nothing.

For months, the Committee has publicly presented evidence that Trump engaged in frivolous lawsuits to overturn the election, intimidated state officials to erase Joe Biden’s lead in the 2020 election, ignored evidence that he lost fairly, and knew his loyal mob in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021 was armed and seething when he sent them to march on the Capitol building where they attacked Congress. But throughout the panel’s nine public hearings, one voice has been conspicuously silent: Trump himself.

The closest the panel has come was when it played outtakes from Trump’s video addresses during and after the attack on the Capitol, revealing a President who simply refused to concede and still wanted to rile up his enraged followers.

The decision to subpoena the former President—who will likely ignore it—is an aggressive tactic that could go two very different ways. If the president refuses to show up and the full Congress refers the matter to the Department of Justice, prosecutors could refuse to take up the case and embolden resistant witnesses. Otherwise, Trump faces a prosecution similar to the year-long case that will end next week when a federal judge sentences Bannon.

Thursday’s subpoena came from one of the few Republicans who is furthest removed from the party’s loyalty to Trump’s MAGA movement: Co-Chair Liz Cheney (R-WY).

“We must seek the testimony—under oath—of January 6th’s central player,” she said. “At some point the Department of Justice may well unearth facts these witnesses are concealing. But our duty today is to our country, to our children, and to our Constitution. We are obligated to seek answers directly from the man who set these events in motion.”

[reynard61]

It’s not a secret that Donald Trump is facing some serious legal problems. The former president has already been indicted once, and with multiple criminal investigations still ongoing, no one would be especially surprised if more charges soon follow. What’s more, there are a variety of civil cases pending against the Republican, including the sweeping case brought by the New York Attorney General’s Office, several lawsuits filed by police officers injured during the Jan. 6 attack, and the cases brought by E. Jean Carroll. With this in mind, on CNN’s “State of the Union” yesterday, host Dana Bash asked Rep. Ken Buck a good question: “Would Republicans be better off with a candidate who is not facing multiple criminal investigations?” The Colorado Republican replied: “You know, it’s interesting. I think that the multiple investigations and civil lawsuits that have been brought almost give this presidential candidate and former president credibility. You keep saying that ‘the world is against him’ because he’s trying to make these changes.” In other words, to hear the far-right congressman tell it, Trump isn’t facing legal liabilities because of his own actions; he’s facing troubles because he’s pursuing “changes,” which in Buck’s thesis, sparked a backlash from multiple prosecutors across multiple jurisdictions. This, according to the GOP lawmaker, gives the former president “credibility.”

Question for Congresscritter Buck: Would this same argument work in a court of law if, say, I were to rob a bank and try to defend myself by telling the jury that I'm merely trying to make "changes" to our banking system? 🤔

[arizonaconservativegal]

She heard from other people. More hear say as proof according to the dems

People Staff

Fri, December 30, 2022 at 12:52 PM EST

Alex Wong/Getty Images Stephanie Grisham

While he's since expressed solidarity and support for the mob of rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on his behalf in January 2021, Donald Trump was allegedly concerned with the optics of how his own supporters looked while the riot was ongoing.

That's according to a newly released interview from the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riots, who spoke with former White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham on May 18.

Grisham told the committee that she heard from "several people in the West Wing" that, as the riots began to unfold and footage began to be shared on television, Trump was taking it in from the White House, and making comments "that these people looked very trashy."

"I don't know if he expected them to be wearing full suits of like Roman armor and that would have made them not trashy," she added, "But he did feel they looked trashy, but he loved how they were fighting for him."

RELATED: Former DOJ Officials Are Asked Under Oath If Any of Trump's Election Fraud Claims Were Found Credible: 'No.'

"I heard from several people in the West Wing, more on the military aide or Secret Service side, and then a couple just people, but that he was sitting in the dining room, and he was just watching it all unfold, and that a couple of his comments – some of his comments were that these people looked very trashy, but also look at what fighters they were," Grisham told the committee.

She continued: "He was kind of reveling in the fact that these people were fighting for him. But he also didn't like how they looked."

Are these stupid hearings still happening? Does anyone care? Will they ever end?

[spade-riddles]

Hey SR! I’m not american but I’m kinda interested in the Jan 6 hearings… Do you think there’s a chance Trump is going down? Will the dems actually dare to do that? And do you think Jared will get implicated too (since he was his right hand man basically) ?

Trump will definitely go down. I am following all of this closely. The J6 committee can only ask the DOJ to prosecute. It is all up to the DOJ. But, the DOJ has recently revealed that it has had a grand jury investigation ongoing for months on these same crimes. So the J6 committee really doesn't need to issue a formal referral to the DOJ. It is happening indirectly in front of everyone's eyes every time they hold a hearing. The proof of the crimes is in the public domain now.

This really is the goal of the J6 committee, in my opinion: to educate the public on what happened, how many crimes were committed, and by whom. Showing this information will hopefully lessen the anger by the republicans and the MAGA filth, so they do not violently protest Trump's arrest. The proof has been shown to them. The J6 committee has used all republicans as witnesses against Trump, so they cannot say these are democrats with a political agenda. Trumps own people are revealing his crimes. It is very smart strategy by the J6 committee.

The DOJ will pounce soon I believe with some high profile arrests. I expect indictments for several republican congressmen/women, as well as Trump, his many lawyers, Stone, Flynn, Trump's kids, etc.

As for Jared, I think he will either be indicted for an array of crimes, or he is cooperating fully and trying to save himself. He is a smug punk so I could see him thinking he can outsmart this. But, I can also see him as a scared weasel who ran to the DOJ right away to confess and help in the investigation. Even if he is cooperating, he will still have to do some time with everything he has done. Most likely he has a secret pardon from Trump. But the DOJ, will fight those as unconstitutional (cannot pardon your co-conspirators), or they will make sure a state gets him on state charges (a President cannot pardon for state crimes).

So to answer your question, I think they are all going down in due time. Even Ivanka.

[yourreddancer]

Tues at 1 PM

[truthbombmemes]

Justice Dept. investigating Trump’s actions in Jan. 6 criminal probe By Carol D. Leonnig, Devlin Barrett, Josh Dawsey and Spencer S. Hsu July 26, 2022 at 7:47 p.m. ET The Justice Department is investigating President Donald Trump’s actions as part of its criminal probe of efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, according to four people familiar with the matter. Prosecutors who are questioning witnesses before a grand jury — including two top aides to Vice President Mike Pence — have asked in recent days about conversations with Trump, his lawyers, and others in his inner circle who sought to substitute Trump allies for certified electors from some states Joe Biden won, according to two people familiar with the matter. Both spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation. The prosecutors have asked hours of detailed questions about meetings Trump led in December 2020 and January 2021; his pressure campaign on Pence to overturn the election; and what instructions Trump gave his lawyers and advisers about fake electors and sending electors back to the states, the people said. Some of the questions focused directly on the extent of Trump’s involvement in the fake-elector effort led by his outside lawyers, including John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani, these people said. In addition, Justice Department investigators in April received phone records of key officials and aides in the Trump administration, including his former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, according to two people familiar with the matter. That effort is another indicator of how expansive the Jan. 6 probe had become, well before the high-profile, televised House hearings in June and July on the subject. Justice Dept. investigating Trump’s actions in Jan. 6 criminal probe https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/07/26/trump-justice-investigation-january-6/ #Trump #electionfraud #trumpismypresident #trump2024 #trumprally https://www.instagram.com/p/Cgf60awjJ3D/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

[newsource21]

Maria Manaura, who's been arrested at least eight times in the six months since she arrived in New York City from Venezuela, is living at the Row NYC hotel, once hailed for its unbeatable Times Square location and front-row view of the theater district. Now it's drug-infested and violent, but still costs taxpayers $500 a night for each of the 1,300 rooms given over to migrants.

Manaura was busted again Jan. 30 for snatching a woman's cellphone on the No. 6 train. She was charged with grand larceny and resisting arrest, but instead of getting locked up, Judge Jay Weiner granted supervised release, likely in time for her to make it back to the hotel and another prepared meal paid for by you and me. It's sickening.

Migrants like Manaura who rack up clashes with police should be made ineligible for the city's largesse. Handing out hotel rooms and free meals to repeat thugs makes it easier for them to commit crimes and makes us into patsies.

The Democratic Party is turning New York City into a Shangri-La for international theft rings and migrants here to rob and burglarize. Taxpayers foot the bill for the thieves' hotel accommodations, plus three meals a day and a long list of other benefits, even free bus tickets if they have to skip town in a hurry. If you're a criminal, what's not to like?

This stupidity isn't new. For over a year, New York City has coddled criminal migrants with long rap sheets, sheltering and feeding them while they continue their crime spree.

Last year, while announcing the arrests of migrants who stole $12,489 worth of goods from Macy's at Roosevelt Field, Commissioner Patrick Ryder of the Nassau County Police warned about "ongoing organized theft groups that are being sent up here for the purpose to commit crimes here." Two of the men arrested lived at the Watson Hotel on West 57th Street, courtesy of taxpayers.

Fast forward to the migrants who beat down two NYPD officers in Times Square on Jan. 27. This started as a retail crime. That evening, a gang of migrants had just raided the clothing store Aldo, grabbing handbags and running, as they did daily, when they were interrupted by the police.

Many of the seven assailants arrested that night had numerous prior run-ins with the law. According to former NYPD Deputy Commissioner of Intelligence and Terrorism John Miller, they "operated on mopeds and scooters. They were doing organized retail theft."

Here's the kicker: They were living in city shelters. Taxpayers were providing these career criminals with a roof over their heads and meals. We're the suckers.

In 2022, Immigration and Customs Enforcement launched a crackdown on international retail theft rings. But New York's Democratic politicians have vowed never to cooperate with ICE. Too bad for the businesses and citizens here.

In December, Rep. August Pfluger (R-Texas) told a House hearing that international crime rings are exploiting President Joe Biden's open borders and heading to blue states with soft-on-crime policies such as releasing suspects without bail and deeming thefts of less than $1,000 misdemeanors, not felonies.

Miller said retail theft gangs based in Florida come to New York, where the pickings are good and the risk of going to jail is minimal. If they robbed stores in Florida, they'd be locked up.

But no problem robbing stores in Illinois. Last fall, Oak Brook Deputy Chief of Police Reid Foltyniewicz said, "We want everyone to be aware of the increase in criminal activity from the migrant community coming from Chicago."

Even so, nothing matches the sweetheart deal criminally inclined migrants get in the Big Apple. And it's only getting sweeter. Last week, Mayor Eric Adams inked contracts for $137 million more to be spent on hotel rooms for migrants, and announced the city will hand out debit cards -- worth up to $1,000 a month -- allowing migrants to buy food that's culturally appealing. That gives migrants the same purchasing power as low-income New Yorkers who are here legally.

Migrants will have to sign an affidavit stating they will spend the funds only on food and baby supplies. That's a laugh.

But there's nothing funny about an invasion of career criminals posing as asylum seekers. New York has a heart, but it's time New York used its brain and stopped making our city a paradise for the world's thieves.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Former Vice President Mike Pence on Wednesday called on Republicans to stop attacking the nation’s top law enforcement agencies over the F.B.I.’s search of Mar-a-Lago, former President Donald J. Trump’s Palm Beach, Fla., home.

Congressional Republicans, including members of leadership, have reacted with fury to the Aug. 8 search, which is part of an investigation into Mr. Trump’s handling of classified material. Some lawmakers have called to “defund” or “destroy” the F.B.I., even as more moderate voices have chastised their colleagues for their rhetoric.

Speaking at a political event in New Hampshire, Mr. Pence said that Republicans could hold the Justice Department and the F.B.I. accountable for their decisions “without attacking the rank-and-file law enforcement personnel.”

“Our party stands with the men and women who stand on the thin blue line at the federal and state and local level, and these attacks on the F.B.I. must stop,” Mr. Pence went on. “Calls to defund the F.B.I. are just as wrong as calls to defund the police.”

The remarks by Mr. Pence, who appears to be positioning himself to run for president, highlight his readiness to separate himself from the wing of the Republican Party most loyal to Mr. Trump. They also illustrate the political dangers in criticizing a law enforcement agency, particularly for a party that purportedly bills itself as defenders of law and order.

The calls for a more cautious tone came as threats emerged against law enforcement. A gunman attacked an F.B.I. office in Cincinnati last week, and the Department of Homeland Security distributed an intelligence bulletin to law enforcement around the country that warned of “an increase in threats and acts of violence” after the Mar-a-Lago search.

Mr. Pence also said on Wednesday that he would consider talking to the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol — the clearest indication to date that he might be willing to participate in the panel’s ongoing efforts. The panel is set to resume public hearings on its findings next month.

Mr. Pence has rarely spoken publicly about how he would respond to a request from the Committee to be interviewed, but his lawyers began talking with the panel as early as last summer, indicating that they were unsure of what Mr. Pence might do.

“If there was an invitation to participate, I would consider it,” Mr. Pence said. But adding a note of caution, Mr. Pence went on to say it would be “unprecedented in history” for a Vice President “to be summoned to testify on Capitol Hill.”

(Vice Presidents have, in fact, testified before Congress but only on rare occasions.)

In recent weeks, the panel has been discussing what to do about some of the more high-profile potential witnesses, like Mr. Pence or Mr. Trump himself, and lawmakers have not reached a conclusion about how to proceed with either man.

The panel had initially believed that both men would fight attempts to get them to testify, and some lawmakers worried that a public battle over getting them under oath would distract from the work of gathering facts about the Jan. 6 attack and the events leading up to it.

Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and the Committee chairman, has previously said that the Committee ruled out a subpoena for Mr. Pence, citing the “significant information” it had received from two of his aides, Marc Short and Greg Jacob, both of whom sat for depositions. Mr. Jacob also testified live during one of the panel’s hearings in June, calling a plan by the lawyer John Eastman to have Mr. Pence single-handedly throw the election to Mr. Trump during a joint session of Congress on Jan. 6, 2021, “certifiably crazy.”

Beyond speaking to the House Committee, Mr. Short and Mr. Jacob have both appeared before a federal grand jury in Washington that is hearing testimony in the Justice Department’s parallel inquiry into Jan. 6. The men were present in the Oval Office for a meeting on Jan. 4, 2021, at which Mr. Trump had Mr. Eastman try to persuade Mr. Pence that he could delay or block congressional certification of Mr. Trump’s Electoral College defeat.

While it remains unclear whether Mr. Pence will speak to the Committee, if he does he could presumably give the panel a fuller picture of the effort by Mr. Trump and Mr. Eastman to strong-arm him into disrupting the traditional democratic process.

A spokesman for the panel declined to comment Wednesday on Mr. Pence’s latest statements.

Another potentially high-profile witness, Virginia Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and a supporter of Mr. Trump’s efforts to stay in power after the 2020 election, is still on the Committee’s list of witnesses to call, even though she has rebuffed attempts to interview her.

[occupyhades]

Here is the growing list of fugitive Jan. 6 rioters running from the FBI: report - Raw Story

Last month’s arrest of Eric Bochene, a Jan. 6 defendant, just over two weeks after he failed to show up for his pretrial hearing in Washington D.C., is part of a new trend in the ongoing prosecutions of those in connection with the attack on the Capitol, CBS News reports.