Trump Lied and Mike Pence Almost Died
In the wake of yesterday’s indictment, apologists for Donald Trump are out there claiming that he will be able to prove that he really believed he won the election, and therefore sponsoring fraudulent documents and launching an insurrection is totally cool.
It is for this moment that I have been linking so often to the Findings of Fact that Reagan-appointed Judge Royce Lamberth wrote in the Alan Hostetter case. As he wrote, on the same headline charge with which Trump has been charged, 18 USC 1512(c)(2), obstruction, it didn’t matter that Hostetter believed Trump really won the election, because the means Hostetter used to vindicate an election he believed was stolen was unlawful.
Even if Mr. Hostetter sincerely believed–which it appears he did–that the election was fraudulent, that President Trump was the rightful winner, and that public officials committed treason, as a former policy chief, he still must have known that it was unlawful to vindicate that perceived injustice by engaging in mob violence to obstruct Congress.
And with Trump, it will be still easier to prove corrupt purpose since his goal had the most lucrative and corrupt personal benefit imaginable, remaining President after being fired by voters.
More importantly, Trump didn’t just lie about the election results. He also lied about Mike Pence.
Trump told two kinds of lies about Pence: first, that Pence had the authority to reject the votes.
96. That same day, the Defendant encouraged supporters to travel to Washington on January 6, and he set the false expectation that the Vice President had the authority to and might use his ceremonial role at the certification proceeding to reverse the election outcome in the Defendant’s favor, including issuing the following Tweets:
a. At 11:06 a.m., “The Vice President has the power to reject fraudulently chosen electors.” This was within 40 minutes of the Defendant’s earlier reminder, “See you in D.C.”
[snip]
100. On January 6, starting in the early morning hours, the Defendant again turned to knowingly false statements aimed at pressuring the Vice President to fraudulently alter the election outcome, and raised publicly the false expectation that the Vice President might do so:
a. At 1:00 a.m., the Defendant issued a Tweet that falsely claimed, “If Vice President @Mike_Pence comes through for us, we will win the Presidency. Many States want to decertify the mistake they made in certifying incorrect & even fraudulent numbers in a process NOT approved by their State Legislatures (which it must be). Mike can send it back!”
b. At 8:17 a.m., the Defendant issued a Tweet that falsely stated, “States want to correct their votes, which they now know were based on irregularities and fraud, plus corrupt process never received legislative approval. AH Mike Pence has to do is send them back to the States, AND WE WIN. Do it Mike, this is a time for extreme courage.
Trump may well claim he believed this to be true — though Pence and two other witnesses have testified that Eastman admitted in a meeting with all of them that this was not lawful.
92. On January 4, the Defendant held a meeting with Co-Conspirator 2, the Vice President, the Vice President’s Chief of Staff, and the Vice President’s Counsel for the purpose of convincing the Vice President, based on the Defendant’s knowingly false claims of election fraud, that the Vice President should reject or send to the states Biden’s legitimate electoral votes, rather than count them. The Defendant deliberately excluded his White House Counsel from the meeting because the White House Counsel previously had pushed back on the Defendant’s false claims of election fraud.
93. During the meeting, as reflected in the Vice President’s contemporaneous notes, the Defendant made knowingly false claims of election fraud, including, “Bottom line-won every state by 100,000s of votes” and “We won every state,” and asked-regarding a claim his senior Justice Department officials previously had told him was false, including as recently as the night before-“What about 205,000 votes more in PA than voters?” The Defendant and Co Conspirator 2 then asked the Vice President to either unilaterally reject the legitimate electors from the seven targeted states, or send the question of which slate was legitimate to the targeted states’ legislatures. When the Vice President challenged Co-Conspirator 2 on whether the proposal to return the question to the states was defensible, Co-Conspirator 2 responded, “Well, nobody’s tested it before.” The Vice President then told the Defendant, “Did you hear that? Even your own counsel is not saying I have that authority.” The Defendant responded, “That’s okay, I prefer the other suggestion” of the Vice President rejecting the electors unilaterally. [my emphasis]
Certainly Eastman knew this was false (and we know there is documentary evidence to back this). He not only admitted this to Greg Jacob, but Jacob also explicitly told Eastman making this false claim would lead to violence.
94. Also on January 4, when Co-Conspirator 2 acknowledged to the Defendant’s Senior Advisor that no court would support his proposal, the Senior Advisor told Co-Conspirator 2, “[Y]ou’re going to cause riots in the streets.” [Eastman] responded that there had previously been points in the nation’s history where violence was necessary to protect the republic. After that conversation, the Senior Advisor notified the Defendant that Co-Conspirator 2 had conceded that his plan was “not going to work.”
95. On the morning of January 5, at the Defendant’s direction, the Vice President’s Chief of Staff and the Vice President’s Counsel met again with Co-Conspirator 2. Co-Conspirator 2 now advocated that the Vice President do what the Defendant had said he preferred the day before: unilaterally reject electors from the targeted states. During this meeting, Co-Conspirator 2 privately acknowledged to the Vice President’s Counsel that he hoped to prevent judicial review of his proposal because he understood that it would be unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court. The Vice President’s Counsel expressed to Co-Conspirator 2 that following through with the proposal would result in a “disastrous situation” where the election might “have to be decided in the streets.”
But that’s not the only lie Trump told about Pence. Trump also falsely claimed that Pence was willing to reject the lawful votes.
7. Also on January 5, the Defendant met alone with the Vice President. When the Vice President refused to agree to the Defendant’s request that he obstruct the certification, the Defendant grew frustrated and told the Vice President that the Defendant would have to publicly criticize him. Upon learning of this, the Vice President’s Chief of Staff was concerned for the Vice President’s safety and alerted the head of the Vice President’s Secret Service detail.
98. As crowds began to gather in Washington and were audible from the Oval Office, the Defendant remarked to advisors that the crowd the following day on January 6 was going to be “angry.”
99. That night, the Defendant approved and caused the Defendant’s Campaign to issue a public statement that the Defendant knew, from his meeting with the Vice President only hours earlier, was false: “The Vice President and I are in total agreement that the Vice President has the power to act.”
[snip]
102. At 11:15 a.m., the Defendant called the Vice President and again pressured him to fraudulently reject or return Biden’s legitimate electoral votes. The Vice President again refused. Immediately after the call, the Defendant decided to single out the Vice President in public remarks he would make within the hour, reinserting language that he had personally drafted earlier that morning-falsely claiming that the Vice President had authority to send electoral votes to the states-but that advisors had previously successfully advocated be remove. [my emphasis]
Pence told Trump he wouldn’t reject the votes. Then Trump went out to his mob and claimed Pence had agreed he would.
And there are witnesses. Jack Smith has Pence on the record telling this story. He also has Marc Short learning about it in real time and taking action in response — so Pence’s Secret Service detail will also be able to testify they were alerted to what turned out to be a very real risk to Pence’s life.
And ultimately, this lie, about Pence, was easily one of the most dangerous.
DOJ has statements from dozens — possibly hundreds — of January 6 defendants (including Hostetter) describing that they responded to this lie by targeting the Capitol. This is what led rioters to threaten to hang Pence. It’s what led Jacob Chansley to leave a written threat for Pence on the dais.
This is the lie that almost got Mike Pence, his wife, and daughter killed.
And it’s not a matter of some interpretation of the numbers of mail-in ballots that were counted late on November 3. It’s a matter of his Vice President, repeatedly, telling Trump he refused take this unlawful act.
Jack Smith spent a lot of time in the indictment emphasizing that Trump knowingly lied, including proving that Trump had been told he didn’t win. That will undoubtedly help prove his case. But what he’s doing is showing that the great con man knew how to use lies to achieve a particular result.
And that particular result involved threatening the life of his own Vice President in an attempt to force him to steal the election.
This might be why the latest indictment was so narrow with respect to topic and defendant. There are lot of erstwhile delaying tactics now off the table, and the prosecution straightforward. IIRC, these charges are pretty clearcut in their elements for proof (but I’m OK to be corrected).
Brilliant analysis. It is maddeningly difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a liar lied intentionally, rather than in a genuine mistaken belief. All the more difficult when the liar is a shameless bullshitter. But this nails it.
Jack collected the receipts.
” It’s what led Jacob Chansley to leave a written threat for Pence on the dais.” I have not heard this before. Thank you for clarifying all this damning evidence. IMO, Trump must go to prison.
I hope he gets at least 5 years. It is my understanding that if he gets 5 years or longer, he is taken into custody while he appeals.
Don’t forget he tried to kill Biden with Covid by yelling through the whole debate, knowing that’s how it was passed and knowing he had it
Yep, he Chris Christie was hospitalized around the same time and 100% blames Trump for infecting him.
BINGO!!
The first use of a bioweapon by a political candidate against his opposition. It’s why Trump’s retinue made a big show of not masking-up during the debate. IMHO, it made it an attempted assassination with the cover of “plausible deniability”.
Another explanation for Trump’s conduct at that debate, was that his aggressive yelling was an attempt to stress Biden, causing him to start stuttering.
I went carefully through all 45 pages of the indictment. You are spot on, imagine my surprise. “The government calls Mike Pence.“
🤣
Bring out the gimp
I don’t appreciate your pejorative. And I doubt he’d be called; he’s unable to articulate on the fly and prone to dissemble when confronted.
Flies are able to articulate on him, though.
LOL
Very well played!
I was so impressed with how Kamala Harris maintained her composure during that part of the debate. It must have taken quite a bit of willpower.
Ha! I’m just now getting the brilliance in the number of 45 pages in the indictment.
45 for ole 45!
When Trump said to Pence “I don’t want to be your friend any more” and “I’m going to criticise you in public” this was Mob speak for “I’m going to have you killed tomorrow”.
Then in 2022 Jonathan Karl released audio of a Trump interview. Karl asked Trump about the near hanging of Mike Pence. Trump replied “that’s what happens when you have a rigged election…”
This was Mob speak for “if I’m ever re-re-elected, Pence will be whacked.”
Yet we have Republicans queueing up to be the VP on Trump’s 2024 ticket, knowing that he still wants to kill the last one.
They’re cynically doing it so they can succeed Defendant-1 when he doesn’t finish his term, one way or another.
I’m wondering if Trump has a case against Fox News:
1. Trump is highly litigious.
2. In fall of 2020, Fox executives initiated a ratings drive to boost flagging viewership by calling the 2020 election stolen and fraudulent. By doing so, Fox hoped to regain credibility with people who Fox executives considered dumb and violent “cousin-fucking terrorists”.
3. Donald Trump was known to watch Fox News for 16-20 hours a day according to many estimates, and often live-tweeted commentary about Fox programs.
4. Donald Trump has been noted to be dumb and violent.
Anyways if I’m Trump here, my defense is that Rupert Murdoch and Tucker Carlson promoted “vote fraud” so completely and overtly, while I watched their programs all day, that they literally separated me from reality.
The former guy was starting the “rigged election” talk even before the election. Where do you think Fox got it from?
So Fox need only prove that Trump is a “dumb and violent “cousin-fucking terrorist” to defend this, right? I like their odds.
The whole thing was an ouroboros. Fox blames Trump, Trump blames Fox.
Have you ever seen one half of an ouroboros sue the other half?
Not yet.
I believe that is called an ourotortos.
I once worked for a company that sued it’s own founder for attempting to divert away from that company to a different venture started later by said founder.
Gotta love those go-go 90s.
You mean Tesla?
Pleased to say that I have never worked for Elon. This was a much smaller company, a CLEC (Competitive Local Exchange Carrier) in the Pacific Northwest.
The far more simple explanation is that trump and fox were getting their scripts from the same source.
Probably the same source(s) that are writing the scripts for the (r)epuglicons in congress, the SCOTUS RW justices, the states (r) parties.
Well we know that Sidney Powell was a source for Fox, based on the and the Trump Campaign made a very loud point of telling everyone that Powell wasn’t associated with the Campaign. It looks like Powell tricked Fox News, who then duped Trump. Who then re-duped Fox, etc.
Well, per the Dominion defamation lawsuit, more like Fox management enthusiasticly leveraged Powell’s fantasies while trying to maintain viewership.
Which leads back my point that Trump watched Fox for 16 hrs a day, even TiVoing segments that mention “voter fraud”. Trump is perhaps America’s most hardcore Fox viewer. Rupert Murdoch hatches a scheme to boost his network’s audience (during a period where the audience is expected to fall off) by promoting crazy lies about voter fraud by a rogue lawyer named Sydney Powell. Now Donald Trump, he’s no angel, he eats this up. He’s deluded by his heavy ingestion of vote fraud conspiracies, convinced that the only way to save the USA government is to get his most devoted patriots and some Nazis who are antifa false flags to stop the vote in Congress. It’s a very simple case of Fox News billionaire Rupert Murdoch pulling the strings.
Except that during the election overturn attempt, he switched much of his viewing to OAN and Newsmax. For evidence of that, check his tweets.
Also check the Dominion vs. Fox lawsuit, which claims credibly that Fox’s election-night call of Arizona for Biden angered Trump such that he successfully stimulated a “race to the bottom” among FOX, OAN, and Newsmax; meaning that the networks were competing with one another for pro-Trump viewers by promoting vigorously the “stolen election” theme including the many bizarre voter fraud allegations. And Trump encouraged this competition through his twitter feed, which often promoted OAN and Newsmax and indicated he was watching those channels.
Is that a Steely Dan reference in the post’s title? Or am I just pathetically seeking to relive my wasted youth?
Excellent Katy and Trump lied and for sure Trump is “on the other side of no tomorrow.” I hope I am thinking what you were Ginevcra. EW writes so well I let a great reference go right by me.
I don’t believe it is a Steely Dan reference, but now that Justin Trudeau has announced his separation, Melania may be looking to get a Hatian divorce.
That’s some real pretzel logic you got workin`.
I believe it is more a variation of “Bush Lied, People Died”. But it is always good to relive the album “Katy Lied”….
[Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the same username each time you comment so that community members get to know you. “Big Red” is your second username; it also does not comply with the site’s new 8-letter minimum standard. You commented last as “Unicorndog” which does comply with the standard. Thanks. /~Rayne]
Trump, he lied
And Mike Pence almost died
Now we’re on the other side
Of many tomorrows…
“Biden’s in!”
But the MAGATS said, “It’s a sin!”
So Trump deployed the best militias
He could borrow
Trump, he lies
You can see it in his eyes
But imagine Mike’s surprise
When Don’s coup flew…
Don McLean may have said it better:
“The players tried to take the field
The marching band refused to yield.”
You don’t even have to rewrite the lyrics…
ignorant of correct procedure so kindly assist getting this clip up becase
1) it’s appropo.2) It’s a thing of beauty.
http://youtube/UVACGDA05A
“…and crown thy good with Brotherhood…)
Whoa Phat , philly mummers band, stealing the show at marching band contest. Other bands rocking along
Aw, Vinnie, my PC wouldn’t let me access your link–and you got me so interested in it!
Maybe we could get there with some search terms?
And yes, Katy Lied stays on almost daily replay in my head. It became so much a part of certain memories that it substitutes itself for them. Art!
I recall Pence hammering trump in an interview and saying that trump “endangered my family”.
Yet with all his warnings and the actions of his SS detail, he still took his family to the capitol with him that day?
That doesn’t smell right.
Pence knowingly put his ass on the line in order to do the right thing for the first time in 5 years. Credit where due. And seeing how he rejected a ride from certain members of the SS; I’m going to guess that he believed the safest place for his family was by his side with his own SS detail to keep them safe.
“But what he’s doing is showing that the great con man knew how to use lies to achieve a particular result.
And that particular result involved threatening the life of his own Vice President in an attempt to force him to steal the election.”
Not to go slightly OT, but this last sentence made me think of the Grassley-Pence moment and why so many were trying to find Pelosi on 1/6 – which has stuck with me as a dark moment when thinking about succession of office for VP.
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-sworn-senate-president-pro-tempore
Trump lied and Pence almost died. Trump published Obama’s address. He tried to assemble a mob for the Bragg indictment, and made crazed comments about Bragg and Smith. Comments that remind me of Cohen’s statements of how he motivates. I am probably wrong, I think he is a clear danger to others, and will get more desperate as he gets closer to jail
I agree that he’ll get more dangerous and desperate, especially if his current funding channels for defense attorneys run dry. He’ll have to pull out all the stops with his messaging. I wonder if the cult cycle will ever break under its own weight.
I’m most curious to see which, if any, big contributors donate to his new defense fund. I have no experience in this area so I don’t know if these types of donations have public disclosure requirements.
Don’t count on the MAGA cult collapsing from within. True believers hang in to the bitter end. Think Jim Jones in Guyana. NXIVM. Charlie Manson and his merry band. Warren Jeffs. Cults crumble from external pressure, not internal.
See: “Citizens United”.
He might pull out all the stops but he’ll never pull out his wallet.
Putting 1,000 of his truest most violent believers in jail was a good first step. Having that first indictment in NYC was brilliant-remember MTG and Matt “Venmo” Gaetz trying to stir up shit and NYC not having any of it.
So that begs the question, which I’ve alluded to before, because of Pence (and maybe Fanone and Sicknick, tho they aren’t mentioned in the indictment) does THIS provision of 18 USC 241 come into play?
The emphasis here is “an attempt to kill” and “imprisoned for any term of years”.
If Co-conspirator 6 is 50 year old Mike Roman, that might make him think twice about cooperating with DOJ….. I note that in his wikipedia article, per CNN, he recently decided to proffer something to the special counsel. So not a full cooperation agreement, but gee, if I’m him and I see this indictment, maybe I’m thinking about cooperating now.
While I think you may be right, I would love to see it as Ginni Thomas because her contacting states to throw out the election. We all know this will be appealed to the Supreme Court and if it does, Clarence Thomas will have to recuse himself due to his wife being a party of the case.
Why do you think he would “have to”?
Norms and conventions?
[Thanks for updating your username to meet the 8 letter minimum. /~Rayne]
I have similar questions about Ashli Babbit and the clause stashed behind your ellipses “and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section”. The handful of 18 USC 241 cases that I was able to review where long sentences were handed down there was either explicit discussion of causing harm, other charges that automatically carried no maximum, or both.
WTF, Ashli Babbit, really? Where exactly did you come from “Captain”?
My first bmaz beatdown.
Followed EW since May 2017 (won’t say it was the 17th, but it was definitely by the 31st), so a relative newcomer I suppose. Your particular brand of community engagement almost single-handedly kept me from contributing for the first 2000 days or so, though I remain thankful for your continued protection of the invaluable resource that is this blog.
I’m well aware you are currently inundated by fools, trolls, and probably worse on the backend. I am at worst the first. If my thought was dumb, school me and be on your way. Someone died during the violence, and it would feel like poetic justice that the death was able to be hung on the heads of the ones who helped incite through harsher sentencing guidelines under 241. But obviously the law is hardly ever poetic.
This fellow fool understands where you’re coming from. Not only Babbit but a few other people also died from the actions put in motion by trump that day.
Punaise’s 6:08 pm post in the Sidney Powell thread demonstrates why this sort of loose talk is a bad idea, imho.
We police our own blog, and do not need your help.
I’ll take that as agreement with my sentiments.
In my first law firm job, we would say that you hadn’t really worked there until you’d been ignored by Bill, called stupid by Andy, and pulled an all-nighter for Michael. Likewise, I feel that you haven’t really been a follower of Emptywheel until you’ve been flamed by bmaz.
So, thanks! This Pinocchio’s a real boy now.
With this case involving a former president and current front runner for the GOP and dire importance requiring it be adjudicated prior to the November 2024 election, could this case have been filed under Original Jurisdiction? I think that the correct term for going directly to the Supreme Court.
No.
“dire importance requiring it be adjudicated prior to the November 2024 election”
Point to any law which stipulates this. Seriously, you’re not paying attention here because this is opinion not fact you pulled out of your backside.
Are you vying with bmaz to see who can be more gratuitously nasty? You’re now ahead in the polls.
Or, maybe, you should just STFU. You have been here for five whole comments. Take a step back “Toaster”.
Trump has always thought he was thspecial. But he’s a common or garden variety former gubmint employee. There are millions of them. His indictment will and should proceed in the ordinary course.
So, assuming that Smith can prove that Trump knowingly told these lies that endangered the life of Pence and his family, what crime did Trump commit? When the jury is deliberating, what criminal statue will Smith say that Trump broke beyond a reasonable with these lies – which were outrageous.
§371 Conspiracy to Defraud the United States.
§1512(k) Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding.
§1512(c2) Obstruction of and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding.
§241 Conspiracy Against Rights.
Could endangering Pence’s life be considered to be an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding? Elsewhere I read that Trump did nothing more that engage in political speech protected by the first amendment and promoting flimsy legal theories and I’m looking for solid legal reasons to reject this hypothesis.
You need to get out more. Trump has been indicted because of what he did, not what he said. And some of what he said explicitly is not protected speech.
Earl and John: Thanks for your replies. This post (Trump lied and Mike Pence Almost Died) can certainly be about the unnecessary danger Trump subjects Pence and his family to, but I’ve had more than 2.5 years to master that subject matter. Today, I’m interested in learning which of Trump actions were allegedly criminal. In the Indictment under Means and Manner (p 5-6), I now see where I should be looking at a)-e). Assuming it can be proven Trump was lying, are these examples of protected political speech or criminal criminal fraud , obstruction or denial of rights.
That is what courts are for, Frank.
I don’t know if you’re trolling, or if this is something like the “legal” argument you’re looking for:
“A defendant can be charged with the defraud prong of the conspiracy statute without any charge of violating a separate substantive statute.”
That’s from a Justice Department Manual on charging criminal conspiracies. A little later in the same document:
“A conspiracy to defraud charge is not unconstitutionally vague when the indictment alleges with particularity ‘the essential nature of the alleged fraud’ and identifies the specific conduct which furthered the conspiracy.”
Another example from the indictment of Trump stating a lie he knew to be false in his attempts to coerce Pence:
Page 33, paragraph 90 (b):
I’m impatient, but I am getting ready to call this game. How can Trump possibly win? He has to prevent any federal case from going to verdict prior to the election and he has to win the election. Then there are the state court cases. Basically, he has to do the equivalent of pitching back to back no hitters. And he is no Johnny vander meer. Go away, Donald. The world has had enough of your crap. You are a loser.
Apologies to Pink Floyd
We don’t need no certification
We don’t need no vote control
No electors from the college
Hey, Mikey, change those votes alone
All in all you’re likely dead if you don’t
That’s one of the better rephrasings I’ve seen lately!