On May 7, 2022, Ms. Sidney Powell (a former DoJ prosecutor) gave a deposition to the “House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol pursuant to House Resolution 503.” Mainstream media has not covered it; it does not suit the official narrative.
And why hasn’t Ms. Powell tried to spread the word? She signed an agreement to be gagged as part of a plea deal (which I think has to do with Jan 6, not sure).
I’ve chosen only a small portion to print here (I downloaded a copy months ago – it’s about 50,000 words). If you wish to see the rest, you can contact me.
So, is there any conflict of interest by me (Mary Maxwell) in publishing this, given that I am currently a candidate for the January 23 Republican presidential primary in New Hampshire? There is a prejudice on my part to believe Sidney Powell. She totally won me over with her 2014 book “Licensed To Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice.” She is my hero of the 2020 affair.
Editing.
I have not “edited” this thing. The usual sign for elision, three dots, was used by me to indicate that a small portion was deleted, to spare the reader from non-essential chatter: I use “&&&” to imply a substantial omission, but in fact, most of the deposition is not here as you can guess from my presenting only 2.6k out of 50K words. As for the italicized headings, I made them up to lure you in.
[‘Grok] – reformatted to make it easier to read, but no other edits from us.
We want to thank Dr. Mary Maxwell for this Contribution – Please direct yours to Steve@GraniteGrok.com.
You can review our ‘Op-Ed Guidelines‘ on the FAQ Page.
SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE JANUARY 6TH ATTACK ON THE U.S. CAPITOL, … DEPOSITION OF SIDNEY POWELL
Saturday, May 7, 2022, Washington, D.C. [Greatly abridged, otherwise no alteration — MM]
Good morning, Ms. Powell. My name’s ____ I’m senior investigative counsel.
A Good Morning. You’re too young to be senior investigative counsel.
Q I think you’re gonna actually make me blush, ma’am. &&& I believe you were involved at some point in trying to get an executive order signed that would allow for the seizure and inspection of voting machines; is that correct?
Litigation was a means of getting to the truth I had hoped. I mean, that’s the way our court should have functioned.
A We were looking at the possibility, and I drafted the foreign interference findings if I remember correctly or at least had a hand in writing those, to support the use of Executive Order 13848 on cyber security to secure the voting machines hopefully in three to five cities where the voting irregularities were the worst, and then have them imaged by a bipartisan professional group that understood what they were doing. We even suggested the use of it being videoed if I remember correctly so that we could get the evidence of whatever happened and lay all this to rest.
And one of the things I really appreciated about — most of this was discussed on the December 18th, that meeting is one I have more recollection of than any others because it was the most pointed. A. … I didn’t have a broader strategy than getting the information I needed for the litigation other than like I said, my primary goal was to get to the truth. Litigation was a means of getting to the truth I had hoped. I mean, that’s the way our court should have functioned.
It wasn’t going to work for me to do anything with campaign people because they were politicians.
Q but did you have meetings with campaign staff in the time shortly after the election?
A I had one very short meeting with some campaign folks right after the election. That was kind of along in the timeframe where I realized it wasn’t going to work for me to do anything with campaign people because they were politicians.
[I] was gonna follow the truth and the law wherever it led, including on any Republicans.
Q Tell me what you can remember about that meeting that you just eluded to where you realized they were politicians and they weren’t really going to be of assistance to you?
A I don’t remember much about it other than it was very short. And I mean, they didn’t even want to look at me when I walked in the room.
Q Were they — were you able to at least share your perspective and your views on things?
A I don’t recall being able to do that.
Q Had you been invited to that meeting?
A Only by Mr. Giuliani, and he wasn’t much more welcome there than I was. Yeah. I was definitely persona non grata. Q. Do you have any idea what that was based on?
Well, I mean, part of it was I was the only female in the room. And part of it was that they know I wasn’t impressed with them and didn’t bow and scrape to them and was gonna follow the truth and the law wherever it led, including on any Republicans.
Threw the president under the bus…
A No. White House counsel was not there.
Q Was Jared Kushner there? 20 The Witness. Yes. Jared was there. Was Jason Miller there? Do you know that name? He might have been. I don’t know. You mentioned some meetings with Pat Cipollone. Earlier, you said that one of the reasons you felt like you weren’t welcome there was that the people in that meeting knew that you weren’t impressed by them. Why was that? Why weren’t you impressed by them?
A My impression was that they didn’t want to do anything, that they had thrown the President under the bus, that they had told him they were prepared for whatever post-litigation activity was needed, and they hadn’t done squat. And they knew they were gonna lose, and they were moving on to their careers on K Street or whatever big deals they’d made.
They were all looking at their next job, which they probably lined up before the end of the campaign.
MS. MURPHY: Why do you think these people thought they had lost?
A I think they — in retrospect, I think they knew they were gonna lose.
Q They knew they were gonna lose, but you didn’t believe the President was
going to lose; is that correct?
A I don’t think he did lose.
Q So the schism — the difference between you and this group of people is that they believed he was going to lose, but you did not believe that he had lost?
A I would call it more of they were acting in their self interest as opposed to the interest of the country or the voters. It was a very self-interested bunch.
Q They were self interested because they were accepting a loss that you didn’t believe was a real loss, or — can you explain a little bit more why you think they acted in a self-interested way?
I definitely think some Republicans had a role in getting rid of President Trump.
Q And you believe that plan was executed by some of these people who were Republicans as well as who else?
A I don’t know that those people in the room had any part in executing the plan, but I think they had realized that what was going to come down. And I definitely think some Republicans had a role in getting rid of President Trump.
I’ve been on the criminal justice reform kick since I wrote “License to Lie.”
Ms. Murphy. Great. Thank you so much, Ms. Powell, for clarifying that for me, with that I yield back. Ms. Powell, I want to ask about your interactions, if any, with Members of Congress in connection with the — with your election challenge efforts. Can you identify the Members you’ve had interactions with Yes. between November 3rd and January 6th with respect to the election challenge efforts?
A … I guess by way of background, I should tell you that I’ve been to the Hill a number of times. I’ve talked with a lot of them about different things related to Flynn. I’ve talked to them about criminal justice reform. I supported the act — whatever the second step act was or first step act to, you know, promote criminal justice reform. I’ve been on the criminal justice reform kick since I wrote “License to Lie,” and realize that we over criminalize, over incarcerate, and that falls predominantly on the minority communities when we do that, and there’s nothing good about it. …
President of the United States couldn’t get what he wanted in his own house.
Q Understood. I’m focused — or I’m really interested only in your conversations with Members regarding the challenges to the 2020 election.&&& . Was that the December 21st meeting at the White House? A Probably. Q I think we have some emails from you about — well, let me try and put it in some context so maybe it will refresh your recollection. …You were invited to the White House, you went to the White House, and then you were blocked from seeing the President?
A That sounds right. There were a number of times something like that happened.
Q Oh, it happened more than once?
A Oh, yeah. Uh-huh. Yeah. Q How did it — I think we’ve seen in your documents WAVES authorization for the 21st, and maybe communications with White House ushers or someone else, telling you you were cleared. A Yes. I was cleared to come into the White House, and then I was not allowed to go into the meeting with the Congress people.
Who told you you couldn’t join the meeting?
A. …Mark Meadows steered me off in another direction. And did he specifically tell you that you were dis-invited from that meeting? Essentially, yes. I don’t remember the exact words, but it was very clear. Okay. Tell me what you remember about that interaction. …
A One of the things that was very obvious and very upsetting to me as a citizen of the United States of America is that the President of the United States couldn’t get what he wanted in his own house.
I was showing him things he hadn’t seen before, and he was pissed.
Q Were there instances in which the President specifically reached out to you to set something up and then his aides blocked you from — or someone blocked you from actually going forward with the meeting? A Yes, siree.I think there were at least three times when he was expecting me, and I was not allowed to go through….
Q If we scroll down a little bit to the first-in-time email which is dated December 20th at 9:51 p.m. — do you see that? A Yes.
Q So this seems to describe an incident where you came to the White House to provide information to and brief the President and that you were blocked. You said you were, again, blocked from seeing the President. Do you see that? 20th? A Yeah. Yep, yep, yep.
Q Okay. So this wasn’t the first time that happened, it sounds like, December..&&&
Q — an email. And you see Mr. Meadows says: I was not aware that a meeting had been set up with POTUS — A Yeah. That was kind of the point of the meeting, I think.
Q What do you mean? A I mean, the President wanted to talk to me by himself. I don’t think he felt like he needed his hand held by Mark Meadows all the time.
Q Did he tell you that, the President? A No. Q So why do you say that was the point of the meeting, that Mr. Meadows would not know about it?
A Because it was supposed to be just me and the President. … Q And did you share with the President that you didn’t think he was getting your unvarnished or complete information because of people around him? Yes.
Q How did he respond when you said that?
A I don’t remember his specific response other than he was — well, like, for
example, the night of the 18th, I can give you that example because the night of the 18th, I was showing him things he hadn’t seen before, and he was pissed.
[Trump] was extremely frustrated with the lack of, I would call it, law enforcement by any of the government agencies that are supposed to act to protect the rule of law in our Republic.
Q Yeah. And definitely we’re going to talk about the 18th. I’m just wondering if you ever had a private conversation with him in which you shared your frustration that you weren’t able to… A Well, while I can’t remember any specific words, my impression was he was certainly fine with that, he was — he was, you know, comfortable with me and trusted me. That much was very clear. But I don’t remember specific words.
A I don’t remember. Somehow I knew about a meeting with Rudy and the President about the machines and the general issues obviously, but I don’t remember how I came by that.
Q Do you remember what the issue was that was creating the urgency for you to meet with the President face-to-face? A It was whatever the status of the evidence was at that time with respect to the machine fraud and getting access to the machines to — to image them. I mean, time was going by, and I don’t know whether Dominion had already come out with its Trusted Build problem — program by then or not.
So there was evidence at risk of being destroyed, and frankly everywhere there was any evidence at all by any voting machine company.
But, for example, in Georgia, they were already trying to wipe the machines and, quote, get them ready for another election. So there was evidence at risk of being destroyed, and frankly everywhere there was any evidence at all by any voting machine company. …So my concern was that we needed to get lawful access to machines and have a professional, nonpartisan or bipartisan group do them — do the images while they’re being videotaped, so there could be no question about the integrity of the process, and collect the evidence.
Q I note for the record that Mr. Schiff has joined the deposition.
Ms. Powell, the reason I’m curious on this is that you had had a very lengthy meeting with the President face-to-face on the night of the — or well into the night on the 18th, correct?
A Correct…. A Well, I know on Friday he had asked me to be special counsel to address the election issues and to collect evidence, and he was extremely frustrated with the lack of, I would call it, law enforcement by any of the government agencies that are supposed to act to protect the rule of law in our Republic.
I was fricking outraged and appalled that anyone could tell the President of the United States that what he directed was not going to happen…
A. if we were going to access the machines, time was a-wasting, and we needed to get after it.
Q And so, on Monday morning, on the 21st, you said to Mr. Meadows: It’s imperative I be included in the meetings scheduled today with you, Rudy, and with the President, about the machines and any of these issues. &&&
Q When you left the White House on the night of the 18th, do you understand that there was sort of a plan or strategy in place; had the issues that you had come to talk about been resolved? A Yes and no. Q Okay. Why do you say that?
A I was clear on what the President wanted, but — he wanted the same thing I wanted; he wanted the truth. Whether it meant he needed to walk to the helicopter, as he put it, with his head held high and know that he had lost fair and square, or whether he needed to fight for the preservation of the Republic in what I would call a Lincoln-esque fashion. So — but when I left, I knew from what Cipollone and Herschmann, and whoever the third guy from White House Counsel’s office…, had said, I mean, they flat out told the President he could name me anything he wanted to name me and no one was going to pay any attention to it.
Q Okay. And so how did the — so how were things left?
A So it was left that, from my perspective, nothing was really resolved. … I made a call to Mark Meadows the next morning, saying: Hey, I’d like my key and my White House pass. And his response was: Well, that’s just not going to happen. And that was pretty much the end of that conversation.
But I knew at the same time that the President still had his concerns, and as a citizen and an American, I was fricking outraged and appalled that anyone could tell the President of the United States that what he directed was not going to happen, or that he could do that and no one would pay any attention to it.
[M Maxwell’s comment: See?]
P.S. Remember, I too am “gagged” — by Disquis and so cannot reply in the Comments section.