cover art for Day 5, House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack

Lawfare No Bull

Day 5, House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack

More episodes

View all episodes

  • Judge McAfee Orders Separate Trial for Chesebro and Powell

    On Sept. 14, in a hearing in Fulton County, Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee granted an expedited trial schedule for former Trump lawyers Kenneth Chesebro and Sidney Powell, separate from their 17 other co-defendants in the Georgia election interference case. The hearing also covered the defendants’ motion to unseal transcripts of witness testimony before the special purpose grand jury. During the hearing, the prosecution handed over a list of names of the 30 unindicted co-conspirators to the defendants’ lawyers.
  • The House Judiciary Committee on the Durham Report

    On June 21, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing to discuss Special Counsel John Durham’s recently released report that examined the origins and conduct surrounding the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation into allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. The committee heard testimony from Durham.
  • House Energy and Commerce Committee Talks TikTok

    On March 23, the House Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing to discuss TikTok and the social media company’s association with the Chinese government. TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew testified about the Chinese Communist Party’s access to American user data, misinformation on the platform, TikTok’s “Project Texas,” and more.
  • Senate Judiciary Committee Talks Justice Department Oversight

    On March 1, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing to examine Oversight of the Department of Justice. The committee heard from attorney general Merrick Garland, who discussed topics ranging from Section 230 reform to climate change to FISA’s Section 702 and more.
  • D.C. Circuit Hears Oral Arguments in Scott Perry Case

    On Feb. 23, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard oral arguments in a case concerning the Justice Department’s efforts to access Representative Scott Perry’s phone. This is part of the department’s investigation into efforts by former President Trump and his allies to overturn the 2020 election. The government is trying to access the phone amid congressional probes that claim Perry was an important ally to Trump in the weeks leading up to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. The arguments abruptly ended as the court switched into sealed arguments.
  • Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Twitter Inc. v. Taamneh

    On Feb. 22, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Twitter v. Taamneh, a case that deals with the liability of platforms that host or promote terrorist material. This case addresses the scope of the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, arguing that Twitter aided and abetted ISIS by hosting and promoting its content on its platform.
  • Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Gonzalez, et al. v. Google

    On Feb. 21, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Gonzalez v. Google, a case challenging the scope of protections provided by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The Gonzalez complaint argues that YouTube’s recommendation algorithm provides assistance to ISIS by amplifying its content as well as allowing it to recruit new members by sharing materials on the platform.
  • The Final Meeting of the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack

    On Dec. 19, the House Select Committee to Investigate the Jan. 6 Attack on the Capitol held its final public meeting to summarize its findings from its investigation. In the meeting, the committee also voted on criminal referrals and the release of its final report. The executive summary of the report was publicly released following the meeting.
  • The Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Moore v. Harper

    On Dec. 7, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Moore v. Harper, addressing the issue of the North Carolina state legislature’s heavily gerrymandered congressional districts. The state legislature argues that the state Supreme Court lacks the legal authority to review this issue, as that authority is given to the legislature itself, according to the Constitution’s elections clause.