With Matt Gaetz, Donald Trump’s Myth Cannot Fail — It Can Only Be Failed

/51 Comments/in , , , /by

Folks, I know this is bad timing, but in about 20 minutes, I’m going to temporarily shut down comments here, as we’re going to do some planned maintenance. Hopefully it won’t take too long.

I keep thinking back to this June 2023 exchange between Matt Gaetz and John Durham.

It came at the end of Durham’s testimony after delivering his report, in which Durham said a lot of inflammatory things, but ultimately concluded that the allegations of Russian interference should have been investigated, but should have been opened at a lower level of investigation.

After four years, Durham blamed Hillary Clinton for things Russians (like those suspected of filling the Christopher Steele dossier with disinformation) had done. But he hadn’t done the one thing Republicans needed him to do: assert that the Russian investigation was a hoax.

At the end of it, Jim Jordan adopted a tactic he has come to use in his hearings. He took a break for votes, giving staffers a half hour to prepare a rebuttal. And then three Republican members took turns, including Matt Gaetz for his second turn, unrebutted by any Democratic member.

He came prepared.

Gaetz cued up video from Robert Mueller’s July 2019 testimony, showing Jim Jordan grilling Mueller about Joseph Mifsud. Jordan asserted that Bill Barr and John Durham were trying to find out what Mifsud was doing. After Durham responded that they did try to pursue that angle, Gaetz asserted that Durham’s investigation was “an op.”

You had years to find out the answer to what Mr. Jordan said was the seminal question, and you don’t have it. It just begs the question whether or not you were really trying to find that out. Because it’s one thing to criticize the FBI for their FISA violations, to write a report. They’ve been criticized in plenty of reports. Some have referred to your work as just a repackaging and regurgitation of what the Inspector General already told us. So if you weren’t going to do what Mr. Jordan said you were going to do in that video, and give us the basis for all of it, what’s this all been about?

Now, in point of fact, who Mifsud really was was never the seminal question. Or rather, he only ever became a question via conspiracy theories Jordan and Mark Meadows laundered through a sham Congressional appearance from George Papadopoulos. Under their direction, the Coffee Boy provided no primary documentation with which staffers could hold him to account. Instead, Papadopoulos laundered conspiracy theories first posted in right wing propaganda outlets.

Q Okay. So, and Mifsud, he presented himself as what? Who did he tell you he was?

A So looking back in my memory of this person, this is a mid-50’s person, describes himself as a former diplomat who is connected to the world, essentially. I remember he was even telling me that, you know, the Vietnamese prime minister is a good friend of mine. I mean, you have to understand this is the type of personality he was portraying himself as.

And, you know, I guess I took the bait because, you know, usually somebody who — at least in Washington, when somebody portrays themselves in a specific way and has credentials to back it, you believe them. But that’s how he portrayed himself. And then I can’t remember exactly the next thing that happened until he decided to introduce me to Putin’s fake niece in London, which we later found out is some sort of student. But I could get into those details of how that all started.

Q And what’s your — just to kind of jump way ahead, what’s your current understanding of who Mifsud is?

A My current understanding?

Q Yeah. A You know, I don’t want to espouse conspiracy theories because, you know, it’s horrifying to really think that they might be true, but just yesterday, there was a report in the Daily Caller from his own lawyer that he was working with the FBI when he approached me. And when he was working me, I guess — I don’t know if that’s a fact, and I’m not saying it’s a fact — I’m just relaying what the Daily Caller reported yesterday, with Chuck Ross, and it stated in a categorical fashion that Stephan Roh, who is Joseph Mifsud’s, I believe his President’s counsel, or PR person, said that Mifsud was never a Russian agent.

In fact, he’s a tremendous friend of western intelligence, which makes sense considering I met him at a western spying school in Rome. And all his interactions — this is just me trying to repeat the report, these are not my words — and when he met with me, he was working as some sort of asset of the FBI. I don’t know if that’s true or not. I’m just reporting what my current understanding is of this individual based on reports from journalists.

[snip]

Q And then at what point did you learn that, you know, he’s not who he said he was?

A Like I said, I don’t have the concrete proof of who this person is. I’m just going with reports. And all I can say is that I believe the day I was, my name was publicly released and Papadopoulos became this person that everyone now knows, Mifsud gave an interview to an Italian newspaper. And in this newspaper, he basically said, I’m not a Russian agent. I’m a Clinton supporter. I’m a Clinton Foundation donor, and that — something along those lines. I mean, don’t quote me exactly, you could look up the article yourself. It is in La Republica. And then all of a sudden, after that, he disappears off the face of the planet, which I always found as odd.

[snip]

I guess the overwhelming evidence, from what I’ve read, just in reports, nothing classified, of course, because I’m not privy to anything like that, and considering his own lawyer is saying it, Stephan Roh, that Mifsud is a western intelligence source. And, I guess, according to reports yesterday, he was working with the FBI. [my emphasis]

And that’s what led Barr and Durham to jump on a plane together and chase Papadopoulos’ conspiracy theories — without ever interviewing Papadopoulos directly. Mifsud’s own lawyer — the one who couldn’t help Durham figure out how to subpoena him — who started the conspiracy theory that Mifsud worked for Western, not Russian, spies.

Durham and Barr did more than just chase Papadopoulos’ conspiracy theories together. Durham fabricated a key part of the theory of his case. He ignored key events — most notably, Trump’s invitation for Russia to hack his opponent — that made all the actions of Hillary’s people make sense. He relied on a Twitter account as the foundation of his indictment against Igor Danchenko, then whined when such communications were deemed inadmissible without a witness to introduce them.

Yet ultimately, the rules of criminal procedure and some very very good defense attorneys (no doubt paid with life savings) managed to thwart Durham’s efforts to spin from his own fevered imaginations a conspiracy implicating Hillary Clinton.

For that, Matt Gaetz accused Durham of “inoculating” the FBI.

Your report seems to be less an indictment of the FBI and more of an inoculation — lower case I, of course. And like many inoculations, it may have worse consequences down the road. It’s just hard to pretend as though this was a sincere effort. When you don’t get to the fundamental thing that started the whole deal.

Because reality ultimately debunked Durham’s conspiracy theories, Gaetz deemed him to be part of the Deep State.

I get that Matt Gaetz’ nomination is one of the most likely to be rejected by the Senate. I get that there’s still a chance this guy — the guy who proclaims even a fellow conspiracist part of the Deep State if he permits himself to discover that reality doesn’t back his fever dreams — won’t be Attorney General.

But this is what it means that Trump wants to take a hammer to DOJ and FBI: not just that they’ll avoid any investigations implicating Trump or his allies, but they will find a way to meld reality to their own myth.

As it was, Bill Barr’s DOJ added post-it notes to evidence in ways that happened to feed Trump’s myth of grievance. They claimed travel records of the informant with something akin to a Let’s go Brandon cap matched his claims about Joe Biden accepting a bribe when, purportedly, the opposite is true.

Bill Barr’s DOJ already made shit up to feed Trump’s myth.

Since then, a Trump judge admitted a laptop full of evidence at a criminal trial with little more validation than an access to an iCloud account to which multiple outsiders had access, and an email sent to a publicly available email address.

But whoever Trump installs atop DOJ will take all this one step further. No longer will it be a select crony US Attorneys who forget to remove post-it notes with erroneous but convenient dates or claim travel records say the opposite of what they actually say. It will be the litmus test from the top: Donald Trump’s myths cannot fail, they can only be failed.

Update: Gaetz has withdrawn from consideration.

David Weiss Dons His “Let’s Go Brandon” Frame

/13 Comments/in , , , /by

In a bid to defeat a motion in limine from Alexander Smirnov prohibiting mention of his nine lawfully owned guns, David Weiss’ prosecutors revealed that they only want to use the guns, if necessary, to prove ownership of other things found in a search of Smirnov’s home, including an anti-Biden hat.

On February 21, 2024, after securing a search warrant signed by United States Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler, FBI agents executed a search of the defendant’s residence in Las Vegas. During the search, agents found nine firearms. Agents also found other items, including electronic devices, and other evidence, such as a hat emblazoned with an anti-Public Official 1 euphemism. These items are directly relevant to the charges in this case. For example, the government plans to introduce communications found on the defendant’s electronic devices that similarly evidence bias again Public Official 1. And the hat seized from his residence demonstrate the same bias, which bears on the defendant’s motive in providing the FBI with false derogatory information about Public Official 1, who was a candidate for President of the United States, in the months leading up to the 2020 election.

On one level, by all means, show us Alexander Smirnov’s Let’s Go Brandon hat! It’ll work wonders in Los Angeles!

On another level, I can’t help but think that David Weiss’ team has just given Smirnov (who might well get a pardon anyway after Trump is inaugurated) a case for selective prosecution.

Smirnov, recall, is accused of lying to the FBI and in so doing causing the filing of a false report.

But these very same prosecutors — Derek Hines and Leo Wise — were in the last year faced with witnesses with an anti-Biden bias, the guy who sold Hunter Biden a gun in 2018 and the Delaware cop who first spoke to the gun shop owners, the former of whom (according to a filing from Abbe Lowell) similarly caused a false document to be filed, the gun purchase form to which his staffer belatedly added a claim that Hunter had provided a second form of ID when he purchased the gun. Hines and Wise have not charged those people, even though they reportedly sent WhatsApp texts during the 2020 election in an effort to publicize the gun purchase, the same kind of biased messages that Hines and Wise intend to submit to prove their case against Smirnov.

It also reveals a now-exposed attempt by the gun store to fabricate a false narrative about the gun sale. Palimere said the addition of the seller transaction serial number (“5,653”) may have been added on October 26, 2018. (TAB 4, Palimere FD-302 at 4). He said the vehicle registration reference was added in 2021. Yet, the government provided WhatsApp communications from October 2020 and February 2021 between Palimere, friends of his, and then-Delaware state trooper Vincent Clemons3 (see TABs 6 – 6C), all of which refer to the form, a plan to send it to others, needing to get their stories straight about what occurred in 2020, and wanting the gun sale issue and the form exposed during the Presidential campaign.

3 Not to be lost is the fact that Clemons was the Delaware State Police officer who first arrived at Janssens’ grocery store on October 23, 2018 when Hallie Biden threw a bag containing the handgun into a trash can in front of the store. It was Clemons who took statements about the handgun from both Hallie and Hunter Biden and was part of filling out an official police report on the issue. Two years later, he is in the communications with Palimere about the Form 4473, one of which states: “Yep your side is simple – Hunter bought a gun from you, he filled out the proper forms and the Feds approved him for a purchase.” (emphasis added). Palimere later responded, “I’ll keep it short and sweet as well: Hunter bought a gun. The police visited me asking for verification of the purchase and that’s all I can recall from that day. It was over 2 years ago.” (TAB 6B, 10/26/20 Palimere-Clemons Texts at 4, 6.) The reference to filling out the “proper forms” is not lost on defense counsel given what transpired thereafter. And, despite the importance of Clemons (e.g., the person who actually took the statements), the Special Counsel is foregoing him as a witness to call two other Delaware officers instead.

I’m at a loss to imagine how Hines and Wise would distinguish the doctored gun form from the FD-1023 from Smirnov they claim is false. Both were an effort to criminalize the Biden family during the 2020 election. If anything, the retroactively doctored gun purchase form was more dangerous. And yet Hines and Wise charged Smirnov but didn’t charge the gun shop owner. Indeed, they successfully buried precisely the kind of texts showing bias they want to use against Smirnov.

This apparent double standard regarding doctored forms comes even as prosecutors are trying to prevent Smirnov from invoking Hunter’s failed plea hearing to claim (falsely) that Hunter got a sweetheart plea deal. In a filing signed by Wise, prosecutors claim that Smirnov was not mentioned at Hunter’s failed plea hearing, and so he would have no evidentiary reason to rely on the transcript.

[C]ontrary to the defendant’s representation, in the 110 pages of transcript attached to his motion, there is not a single reference to (1) the defendant or this prosecution, (2) “the sitting President,” (3) any accusations against the defendant, (4) the defendant’s “loyal service” to the FBI, or (5) that the defendant was a “Russian Spy.”

I asked Weiss’ spox whether Leo Wise was really claiming that Smirnov went unmentioned. “We will decline to comment beyond our statements and filings in court,” he replied.

But when Leo Wise responded to Judge Maryellen Noreika that, yes, even though Hunter Biden had been assured a month earlier there was no ongoing investigation, that there was in fact was an ongoing investigation,

THE COURT: All right. So you said there might be additional charges. Are you at liberty to tell us what you’re thinking those might be or is that just a hypothetical that there might be?

MR. WISE: It was a hypothetical response to your question.

THE COURT: Is there an ongoing investigation here?

MR. WISE: There is.

THE COURT: May I ask then why if there is we’re doing this piecemeal?

MR. WISE: Your Honor may ask, but I’m not in a position where I can say.

And then said he could still charge FARA violations,

MR. WISE: So I can tell you what I think we can’t charge. I can’t tell you what the ongoing investigation is. So, for instance, I think based on the terms of the agreement, we cannot bring tax evasion charges for the years described in the factual statement to the Plea Agreement. And I think we cannot bring for the firearms charges based on the firearm identified in the factual statement to the Diversion Agreement.

THE COURT: All right. So there are references to foreign companies, for example, in the facts section. Could the government bring a charge under the Foreign Agents Registration Act?

MR. WISE: Yes.

And then got Special Counsel status that would only be required if Weiss were pursuing something implicating Joe Biden — like Smirnov’s bribery claim — he almost certainly was invoking Alexander Smirnov.

Wise made that claim even while Smirnov was still fighting to obtain material on David Weiss’ decision to chase the Smirnov allegation (there was a hearing on this yesterday, but nothing is docketed on it yet).

The Defendant requested communication related to the request that U.S. Attorney David Weiss’s team “assist” with “an investigation of allegations” related to the FD-1023. The government refuses to produce this material and ignores that fact that the government chose to include the following language in the Indictment: “In July 2023, the FBI requested that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Delaware assist the FBI in an investigation of allegations related to the 2020 1023. At that time, the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Delaware was handling an investigation and prosecution of Businessperson 1.” Accordingly, not only did the government, in its Indictment, place the communications at issue, it is clear that the communication are relevant and discoverable. This request has been outstanding since March 5, 2024.

And the apparent double standard comes as Smirnov is attempting to put the conduct of Smirnov’s FBI handler — the guy who didn’t take alarm when Smirnov sent him already debunked Fox News disinformation — at issue.

The dispute over the handler’s conduct is taking two forms. First, prosecutors are trying to exclude Smirnov’s expert witness Gregory Scott Rogers, a former FBI agent who would testify to errors that Smirnov’s handler made. They’re also trying to exclude the content of three reports on the handling of Smirnov.

It has, predictably, declined into a display of prosecutorial dickishness.

In their motion to exclude Rogers, for example, the same prosecutorial team who claimed sawdust was cocaine made much of the that Smirnov’s expert witness said “upmost” instead of “utmost.”

Next, the disclosure states, “A CHS providing the type and amount of information provided by Smirnov should be handled with the upmost [sic.] diligence.” Disclosure at 5. According to Merriam-Webster, “upmost is frequently used as a mistaken spelling of utmost in its adjective and noun forms.” https://www.merriamwebster.com/grammar/utmost-vs-upmostdifference#:~:text=In%20its%20dictionary%20sense%2C%20upmost,its%20adjective% 20and%20noun%20forms (last viewed by author on November 1, 2024). The government assumes that Rogers meant to say “utmost,” but the fact that he can’t even produce an error free disclosure speaks to the quality of his proposed testimony. In any event, like his opinion that the defendant was “poorly handled,” his opinion that the defendant should have been handled with the “upmost diligence” is also undefined. So what does “upmost diligence” mean? The disclosure doesn’t tell us.

Of course, these prosecutors aren’t above making their own typos, as when a filing signed by Leo Wise uses “again” instead of “against.”

For example, the government plans to introduce communications found on the defendant’s electronic devices that similarly evidence bias again Public Official 1.

Yet they want to treat far more significant errors made by Smirnov’s handler as “essentially ministerial errors.”

Among the errors documented in the Source Reports include getting Smirnov’s name and birth country wrong.

The reports are also critical to the defense, including based on the anticipated testimony of the Defendant’s noticed expert. For example, in the February 13,2013, Field Office Annual Source Report, FOASR, the following deficiencies were noted:

1. The Handler failed to give the CHS extraterritorial travel admonishments;

2. The Handler allowed the CHS to conduct otherwise illegal activity, OIA, outside of approved time periods;

3. The Handler documented the CHS’s true name in the wrong CHS subfile;

4. The Handler placed an unrelated CHS’s NCIC record in this CHS’s file;

5. The Handler identified the wrong country of birth for this CHS in his file;

6. The Handler failed to document appropriate receipts for payments to the CHS;

7. CHS was allowed to conduct personal international travel without appropriate approval and documentation in his file.

In a later Standard Validation Report covering 2013-2021 it was noted:

1. HA continued to fail to appropriately obtain approval and document CHS’s international travel;

2. Derogatory information reported about the CHS and more unreported/undocumented otherwise illegal activity, OIA.

In the Source Validation Report for the period March, 2021-November, 2023 FBIHQ recommended that FBI Seattle, the office where the HA had transferred to from FBI San Francisco in 2019 and brought Smirnov’s file with him, stop operating the CHS noting that they believed that the CHS was no longer fully under the HA’s control, may be committing unauthorized illegal activity, UIA, and concern that the media’s reporting of the CHS’s information concerning the Biden family’s influence peddling in Ukraine would vitiate his ability to continue to function as a CHS. In that same document, it was recommended that CHS be polygraphed. Based upon the records provided by the government, it does not appear that a polygraph of Mr. Smirnov was ever scheduled or conducted.

Smirnov claims he can prove that he said and did things with his handler that did not get documented. If he can prove that, then it’s going to be hard for prosecutors to prove that Smirnov’s claims are lies rather than that the FBI agent fucked up.

That said, there’s something more interesting about the validation reports on Smirnov: They go through November 2023 and still treat him as a viable informant. November is when, on November 7, David Weiss said the Brady side channel would only appear in his final report. November is when, on November 15, Abbe Lowell asked for discovery on the side channel. And November is when, on November 16, CNN reported that the FBI had dropped its pursuit of FARA and bribery allegations.

Smirnov’s lawyers are right there’s a tie between how Hunter Biden was treated and why he was charged. But they’ve got the emphasis wrong.

All the evidence suggests that prosecutors had to charge him or risk their Hunter Biden case too.

Filings

September 26: Smirnov motion to continue

September 27: Weiss response on motion to continue

October 14: Smirnov warns of motion to compel

October 15: Judge Otis Wright denies continuance

October 28: Government response to discovery

October 31: Smirnov reply on discovery

October 31: Smirnov motions in limine

November 1: Government motions in limine

November 4: Renewed bid to continue trial based on delayed discovery

November 5: Motion to dismiss for discovery violations

November 5: Opposition to renewed bid to continue

November 8: Judge Wright denies motion to compel

November 12: Response to motion to dismiss on discovery violations

November 15: Defense response to motions in limine

October 31: Government response to motions in limine

Special Counsel Reports Include Declination Decisions

/48 Comments/in , , , , /by

In this appearance on BradCast last week, I scoffed a bit at this Devlin Barrett/Glenn Thrush piece. The headline news — that Jack Smith will step down before Trump comes in — was fairly obvious from Smith’s request for three weeks to figure out what to do. The focus on Smith’s obligatory report is something I made clear a week earlier. To be sure, the piece relies on interviews to confirm that Smith (and his staff) will resign, that only outside decisions could thwart their effort to finish up, that Smith has encouraged those who don’t have to stick around to move on.

It’s this section, which aside from the assertion that most of the classification vetting has already been done, is not attributed to the anonymous sources for the story (but which could rely on background sources), that I find odd.

Justice Department regulations require a special counsel’s report to explain why the prosecutor decided to file the charges they did, and why they decided not to file any other charges they considered.

But like much of Mr. Smith’s work involving Mr. Trump, this step is fraught with both technical and practical challenges that could make the report significantly different — and shorter — from the lengthy tomes produced by other recent special counsels. It also unlikely to contain much in the way of new or revelatory disclosures.

Mr. Smith, who has been the subject of round-the-clock protection after receiving death threats since taking over, has already described much of the evidence and legal theories behind the election obstruction indictment. Since he filed two separate and lengthy indictments last year against Mr. Trump, he has supplemented that record with scores of court filings elaborating on the allegations.

One potential wrinkle for the filing and release of Mr. Smith’s report is that it may have to undergo a careful review by U.S. intelligence agencies for any classified information. That can be a lengthy process. Intelligence agencies took weeks to review Mr. Hur’s report.

But in the case of Mr. Smith’s final report, most of that vetting has already been done, so officials expect that step to take little time.

It correctly describes that Special Counsel regulations require them to report on why they filed particular charges … but also why they didn’t file other charges, their declination decisions, but then suggests we’ve already seen what there is to see.

Jack Smith’s declination decisions are one place where a report might get interesting. Just as one example, the search warrant for Mar-a-Lago listed three suspected crimes: 18 USC 793(e) (retaining national defense information) and 18 USC 1519 (concealing a document to obstruct an investigation), both of which were charged. But it also listed 18 USC 2071 (removal of documents). That crime was not charged, even though the indictment describes that Trump personally oversaw the process of packing up boxes (that a witness described Trump knew) containing classified documents to send to Mar-a-Lago.

In January 2021, as he was preparing to leave the White House, TRUMP and his White House staff, including NAUTA, packed items, including some of TRUMP’s boxes. TRUMP was personally involved in this process. TRUMP caused his boxes, containing hundreds of classified documents, to be transported from the White House to The Mar-a-Lago Club.

Since the warrant was made public, there has been a pretty heated discussion about 2071, not least because Republicans claimed that Smith had considered charging it, which carries a light three year maximum sentence but also disqualifies someone from holding office again, as a way to disqualify Trump from running for President.

There are at least two obvious explanations for why Smith didn’t charge 2071. Perhaps it would be impossible to charge a President under 2071, given that until noon on January 20, 2021, he had authority to do whatever he wanted with those classified documents, sending them off while he was still President. Or perhaps Smith thought he could have charged it, but first needed the testimony of one of the key people involved in the packing process: Walt Nauta.

The reasons behind that prosecutorial decision not to charge Trump for intentionally taking classified documents with him are interesting for another reason. Among the classified documents discovered at Mar-a-Lago that weren’t charged is a “compilation” that mixed communications with “a book author, a religious leader, and a pollster” with some kind of classified information.

This document is a compilation that includes three documents that post-date Plaintiff’s term in office and two classified cover sheets, one SECRET and the other CONFIDENTIAL. Because Plaintiff can only have received the documents bearing classification markings in his capacity as President, the entire mixed document is a Presidential record.

Besides the classified cover sheets, which were inserted by the FBI in lieu of the actual documents, none of the remaining communications in the document are confidential presidential communications that might be subject to a claim of executive privilege. Three communications are from a book author, a religious leader, and a pollster. The first two cannot be characterized as presidential advisers and all three are either dated or by content occurred after Plaintiff’s administration ended. [my emphasis]

These documents are nowhere near as sensitive as the ones actually charged against Trump; prosecutors probably prioritized documents that it would be easy to convince a jury they were “national defense information” for the indictment, an explanation that also may appear in the report. But the compilation of classified information with a pollster’s message also suggest that Trump not only took classified documents home, but he used them as part of his campaign to get elected again (it would be particularly interesting if this document pertained to something like Israel).

And note NYT’s description that “most of that vetting has already been done”? In discovery communications, prosecutors have described that some of the classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago have since been declassified; for others, prosecutors would have been working on substitutions they might use in case of trial. So for less sensitive documents, prosecutors may be able to describe precisely what Trump took.

Another classified document, classified Secret, found at Mar-a-Lago but not charged is the very first classified document the FBI found, something pertaining to Emmanuel Macron and associated, in some way, with an Executive Grant of Clemency for Roger Stone stashed (unlike all the other pardon packages found in the search) in Trump’s own desk drawer. I’ll admit that, given my understanding of the Stone investigation, I’m particularly interested in this file, but here’s to hoping that prosecutors will satisfy my curiosity about the document.

There are similarly important declination decisions on the January 6 side of the investigation.

The most obvious of those is why Jack Smith never indicted any of the eight people variously treated as co-conspirators: Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Sidney Powell, Jeffrey Clark (who was removed in the superseding indictment pursuant to SCOTUS’ immunity ruling), Ken Chesebro, Boris Ephsteyn, and — treated as co-conspirators in the immunity brief but not the superseding indictment — Steve Bannon and Mike Roman. It might be as simple as a decision, given the course of the Mueller investigation, to ensure that Trump couldn’t pardon these co-conspirators before charging any of them.

But prosecutors might also explain why Bannon and Roman only belatedly got included as co-conspirators. I have speculated that it may have to do with delays in exploiting the phones of Roman and Epshteyn. If that’s true in the case of Ephsteyn, those delays would likely have arisen from post-hoc privilege claims tied to Epshteyn’s claim to be Trump’s lawyer. And if that is true, it would mean Trump’s nominee for Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche, was the one who fought for the delay.

In any case, any discussion of Trump’s co-conspirators may prove useful to the extent that state prosecutors are able to sustain their cases against the co-conspirators.

Finally, though, there is perhaps the most important declination decision: the decision — after Congress impeached Trump and the January 6 Committee referred for prosecution — not to charge 18 USC 2383, inciting insurrection, the single charge that (per SCOTUS’ decision in the Colorado case) could have disqualified Trump from the Presidency under the Fourteenth Amendment. The reasoning here might be fairly prosaic: Perhaps Smith feared precisely the immunity challenge, tied to impeachment acquittal, that Trump launched anyway. Perhaps Smith was not able to substantiate that case until he received evidence and testimony that post-dated the delay John Roberts caused, and so could charge insurrection now, but could not have done so in August 2023, when he first indicted Trump.

If Smith were to explain why he declined that charge, however, he would — as Robert Hur did in his 388-declination report — describe the evidence that would have supported such a charge.

NYT suggests Smith’s report will be short; again, it’s not clear whether that reflects information received on background, or just speculation. Smith has had an eternity to consider the possibility Trump would be elected, and he managed to write up the 165-page immunity brief in the same three weeks he gave himself in asking for an extension until December 2.

Even assuming we’ve already seen the evidence Smith has — Smith’s decision to exclude mention of the Proud Boys and Trump’s January 6 fundraising from the immunity brief suggests there may be stuff we have not seen — the declination decisions, themselves, may provide important answers to questions about whether it ever was possible to disqualify Trump from becoming president again.

And it’s a marker in the sand. The report presumably will, at least, lay out some of the consequences of what John Roberts has wreaked. Republicans won’t care. But that lays out what they own going forward.

Go Stare at the Ocean

/143 Comments/in , /by

If you follow me on Bluesky (which has really taken off, thanks to the fascists, so consider signing up if you haven’t already), you’ll know that I have been at the ocean in County Clare.

I am staring at the ocean.

If there’s one thing I recommend to you right now, is to take some time, however long you can, to go stare at the ocean. Or the sky. Or a meadow or mountain or river. Or even a swarming city street.

Go stare at something and just stare.

Oh, and also, breathe. If you need to, do something that will help you breathe: yoga, walking, swimming, singing, playing the tuba.

And after you’ve stared for a while, sit down and think about how you’re going to pick yourself back up again. I’m not asking you to pick yourself back up again.

Yet.

Just asking you to make a plan about how you’ll do so.

As Nicholas Grossman explained, authoritarians want you to quit. Figure out how you’ll defy them.

My plan, for example, includes something several other people’s plans do, too: A change in my media diet. I was always planning to change the way I used Xitter after the election; I was deliberately swimming in the toxicity of the site. I may explain why one of these days. But everything — Musk’s juncture with the government, the change in Terms of Service that go into effect tomorrow, the insanity — demand clearer limits on its use, at least for me. I’m also imposing (attempting to self-impose) a budget on my social media time, just like mothers give their children screen time limits. So far, out here by the ocean, I’ve mostly succeeded, though the post-Matt Gaetz insomnia made it tough.

I’ve got a stack of reading that will fill the time — a stack of reading that will help me think about what we can do to fight this. So far, this week, I’ve finished How to Win an Information War, and started Opus, along with a reading list on Viktor Orbán. I’ve been wondering if folks would like to do a periodical book discussion around here?

Trump succeeds when he hijacks attention and rationality. I know that and yet have also succumbed, even while I was trying to persuade others not to be distracted. Figure out what parts of your media diet make you easy to distract. And purge them, to the extent you’re able.

And while you’re changing your media diet, make sure you invest in the outlets that are providing important content, because they’re likely to face new obstacles and even new opportunities. Such as The Onion, buying InfoWars!

I’m also going to try to change the emotions with which I approach this fight. I’m not sure I’m ready to explain that yet — let me go stare at the ocean some more before I try.

But I need to — I think we all need to — target our outrage. There’s plenty to be angry at top Democrats, at each other, for. With some exceptions (like Gaza), most of those things are less important than the reasons to be angry at the fascists.

Make sure you limit your rage and focus it where it belongs. Or better yet, channel that energy.

Something else to consider: first, make a list of those personal habits or new hobbies you’ve been meaning to adopt and lay out some steps to get there. Make sure you have something else to sustain you, for when you can’t stare at the ocean. Do something so often — this week, for me, it is yoga — that makes you feel noticeably stronger. Replace some of the time you’ve been fighting with self care.

And sustain or build your networks. Not just your political networks, the folks with whom you’ve worked to try to elect Kamala Harris or restore reproductive rights. But your other networks, too. Sometimes, after fascists break political networks, it’s the choirs or the knitting clubs where civic discourse can regrow.

The very first thing authoritarians try to break are the networks of civil society, because isolated people are easier to terrify. So make sure yours are as strong as they can be before the wrecking crew comes.

Go stare at the ocean.

Go take the time. Prepare to pick yourself back up again.

Russia Attempts to Collect Its Winnings

/79 Comments/in , , , /by

Russia has been engaged in a good deal of dick-wagging with Trump since the election.

After Trump won, Russia did not call to congratulate — at least as far as we know (though Viktor Orbán seems to be Trump’s handler and he did).

Putin did, on Thursday, butter up Trump, calling his response to being shot courageous and claiming interest in a deal.  Putin did what he always does with Trump: he played to his narcissism.

On Friday, though, one of the most popular TV shows in Russia used a different approach (as made available by Julia Davis’ Russian Media Monitor) — airing Melania’s nude photos in the guise of noting that she was years ago photographed with a US seal, as if someone knew she would be First Lady.

 

Monday morning, WaPo published an exclusive claiming that in his first call with Putin, Trump warned Putin not to escalate in Ukraine.

During the call, which Trump took from his resort in Florida, he advised the Russian president not to escalate the war in Ukraine and reminded him of Washington’s sizable military presence in Europe, said a person familiar with the call, who, like others interviewed for this story, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter.

The two men discussed the goal of peace on the European continent and Trump expressed an interest in follow-up conversations to discuss “the resolution of Ukraine’s war soon,” one of the people said.

In the aftermath of the claimed call, Russia escalated strikes.

Russia has also deployed 50,000 troops, including some from North Korea, to attempt to expel Ukraine from Kursk.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Monday Russia has deployed nearly 50,000 troops to Kursk, the southern Russian region where Kyiv launched its surprise counteroffensive in the summer.

Ukrainian troops “continue to hold back” the “nearly 50,000-strong enemy group” in Kursk, Zelensky said in a post on Telegram after receiving a briefing from General Oleksandr Syrskyi, the Commander-in-Chief of Ukraine’s Armed Forces.

Kyiv launched its incursion into Russia’s Kursk region in August, taking by surprise not just Moscow, but also its allies. It said at the time, that the operation was necessary, because Russia had been planning to launch a new attack on Ukraine from the region. It said it was aiming to create a “buffer zone” to prevent future cross-border attacks.

The Kursk offensive, the first ground invasion of Russia by a foreign power since World War II, caught Moscow completely unprepared.

Meanwhile, Russia denied WaPo’s report. There was no call, Putin’s spox said. Putin has no plan to call.

“It is completely untrue. It is pure fiction; it is simply false information,” the Kremlin spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, said when asked about the call. “There was no conversation.

“This is the most obvious example of the quality of the information that is being published now, sometimes even in fairly reputable publications.”

Peskov added that Putin had no specific plans to speak to Trump.

Peskov is probably lying. But the US can’t debunk him because (according to WaPo) Trump is, once again, going it alone.

Trump’s initial calls with world leaders are not being conducted with the support of the State Department and U.S. government interpreters. The Trump transition team has yet to sign an agreement with the General Services Administration, a standard procedure for presidential transitions. Trump and his aides are distrustful of career government officials following the leaked transcripts of presidential calls during his first term. “They are just calling [Trump] directly,” one of the people familiar with the calls said.

Later in the day, Nicholay Patrushev implied that Trump had made commitments to get elected — commitments he was obliged to keep.

In his future policies, including those on the Russian track US President-elect Donald Trump will rely on the commitments to the forces that brought him to power, rather than on election pledges, Russian presidential aide Nikolay Patrushev told the daily Kommersant in an interview.

“The election campaign is over,” Patrushev noted. “To achieve success in the election, Donald Trump relied on certain forces to which he has corresponding obligations. As a responsible person, he will be obliged to fulfill them.”

He agreed that Trump, when he was still a candidate, “made many statements critical of the destructive foreign and domestic policies pursued by the current administration.”

“But very often election pledges in the United States can [d]iverge from subsequent actions,” he recalled.

Republican Donald Trump outperformed the candidate from the ruling Democratic Party, Vice President Kamala Harris, in the US elections held on November 5. Trump will take office on January 20, 2025. During the election campaign Trump mentioned his peace-oriented, pragmatic intentions, including in relations with Russia.

Trump is going to be a tool of Russia. In one of his first personnel moves, he humiliatingly killed Mike Pompeo’s bid to be Defense Secretary; Pompeo, like Nikki Haley, supports Ukraine. Reportedly Trump made that decision with the counsel of Don Jr — Trump’s soft-underbelly — and Tucker Carlson.

My guess is their primary concern is when he will do that.

He promised to deliver peace on Day One. Seven days later, he hasn’t delivered, nor said he would. The shape of the capitulation Trump is discussing — basically a freeze of the status quo and a withdrawal of funding for Ukraine — is far less ambitious than what Russia intends, which is to conquer all of Ukraine.

While Trump has appointed white nationalists — Tom Homan and Stephen Miller — to run his mass deportation program, his national security appointments, thus far, were once normal people before they capitulated to Trump: Elise Stefanik at UN Ambassador, Mike Waltz at National Security Adviser, Marco Rubio at Secretary of State, and Kristi Noem at Homeland Security (it’s unclear who thinks will manage the House as it awaits special elections to replace two newly elected members; the GOP will win the majority but with a thinner margin than they had).

But Patrushev is correct: Russia did, overtly, help Trump win, and there may have been far more useful covert assistance we don’t know. Early in the year, they set up yet another attack on Hunter Biden as a way to attack his father. They released a series of videos targeting Harris and manufacturing claims about migrants voting. Those videos likely involved John Mark Dougan, a former Palm Beach sheriff who fled to Russia in 2016. While it’s not yet clear whether bomb threats to Springfield, OH and on voting locations were from Russia, they were routed via a Russian email domain.

A far bigger question is whether the decision by a bunch of tech oligarchs, most notably Elon Musk, to support Trump came with the involvement of someone either formally working for or just actin as an epic useful idiot of Russia. Did Trump install JD Vance as part of a deal for support from Elon? And what should we take from all the Russophile nutjobs that Trump plans to install in his administration?

To a great degree, Trump will be opening up his Administration to Russia, and doing so via wildly ignorant or crazy people. Russia will get what it wants under a Trump Administration. It just might take awhile.

So why the dick-wagging?

Probably, Russia is engaging in this game for two reasons. First, while the infusion of North Korean soldiers has helped its cause and it is making advances in Ukraine, it is doing so at great cost. And Ukraine still manages some attacks deeper in Russia.

An average of around 1,500 Russian soldiers were killed or injured per day in October — Russia’s worst month for casualties since the beginning of the invasion, according to Britain’s Chief of the Defense Staff Tony Radakin.

“Russia is about to suffer 700,000 people killed or wounded — the enormous pain and suffering that the Russian nation is having to bear because of [President Vladimir] Putin’s ambition,” Radakin told the BBC on November 10.

Moscow does not reveal the number of its war casualties.

Radakin claimed Moscow was spending more than 40 percent of public expenditure on defense and security, putting “an enormous strain” on the country.

Meanwhile, the Russian Defense Ministry claimed on November 10 that its forces had captured the town of Voltchenka in Ukraine’s eastern Donetsk region, where Russian forces have been making advances in recent weeks.

Ukraine launched dozens of drones targeting Moscow, forcing the temporary closure of three of the capital’s airports, Russian officials said on November 10.

With Trump’s victory, Russia is in a strong position, but it faces immediate challenges. So it would prefer, I’m sure, immediate action.

More importantly, Russia has a history with Trump, where he deferred action until he was inaugurated, and then failed to deliver.

Robert Mueller never charged Trump with entering into a quid pro quo in 2016. It may have happened, but would have required the cooperation of people Trump later pardoned to prove it. But Russia had every reason to expect that Trump might end sanctions and recognize Crimea after he was elected with their help the first time. During that transition, Russia did reach out to Trump, first with a congratulatory Putin call, and then with discussions via Mike Flynn.

On December 29, 2016, Flynn reached out to Sergey Kislyak and asked Russia to do no more than match Barack Obama’s sanction, so as not to set off an escalation. At that point, Russia undoubtedly had every expectation they’d see sanctions removed. Instead, over the course of the Administration, more were imposed, with Biden adding an entire new sanctions regime in the wake of the Ukraine invasion.

That is, Trump has a history of making commitments to Russia he didn’t deliver, couldn’t deliver after installing grown-ups in his Administration.

So Russia appears to be doing what every other entity that helped Trump get elected is doing, as they try to collect on their support: exerting what levers of pressure they have to get their objectives.

It turns out they likely have more levers of pressure — some of which are more powerful now, before Trump’s win is certified — and larger demands than most of the people who helped Trump get elected.

Trump proved unreliable in 2016. Russia has good reason to want to demand better this time around.

Things the Legacy Media Found Less Important than Joe Biden’s Apostrophe

/37 Comments/in , /by

If Kamala Harris loses today, America’s media ecosystem will bear a great deal of the blame.

As I’ve said before, part of that is the hermetically sealed Trump propaganda industry, starting with Fox News. About 35% to 40% of American voters live in that world and believe Trump’s false claims of grievance. With Pete Buttigieg leading the way and a bunch of ad buys, Harris cracked that world just enough to elicit squeals about betrayal from Trump.

Part of that is the disinformation industry, led by Elon Musk. As more of America becomes a news desert, voters’ window on the world is often mediated by the algorithms of people, like Musk, who have a stake in debasing reason.

But a big part of it is the legacy media, which has gotten so addicted to horse race that it has lost interest in the reality of politics’ effects on ordinary people’s lives.

In an interview with Margaret Sullivan, Jay Rosen describes how reporters chose to chase Joe Biden’s alleged attack on Trump supporters rather than things that mattered to voters.

“But the horse race is too easy, too available — it has all these advantages,” he said.

How does this play out? This is my example, not Jay’s, but consider how the New York Times and the Washington Post, along with others in national media, gave such huge emphasis last week to the story about Biden’s verbal gaffe in which he used the word “garbage.” (He says he was describing the demonization of Puerto Rican people that was depicted at Trump’s appalling Madison Square Garden rally; others — especially on the right — heard Biden’s words as a description of Trump’s followers.)

If coverage is based around the horse race, this is a big story because it remind people of how Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign was damaged after she described some Trump fans as a “basket of deplorables.” And indeed, that’s how they played it — both major newspapers led their home pages with that story, framing it as how Kamala Harris was being forced to distance herself from Biden and how it was giving “grist” to her opponents. Both papers also put the story above the fold on their Thursday front pages.

Huge, in other words. As Greg Sargent of the New Republic put it in a smart X thread: “The news hook is literally that it provided ‘grist’ to Republicans,” and this in effect “outsources the judgment about the newsworthiness of the event to bad-faith actors.” He’s right. It’s also classic false equivalence — as Trump devolves into simulating oral sex with a microphone, there must be something bad to say about Harris’s campaign, right?

If media coverage had been centered around the potential loss of American democracy, or really, anything other than horse race coverage, this Biden screwup wouldn’t have mattered much. Biden’s not the candidate, after all. There’s no actual consequence to this story.

But if your organizing principle is the horse race — neck and neck going into the home stretch! — Harris’s response is a much bigger deal. So the emphasis tells us a lot.

In a piece reminding that Rick Perlstein this childish practice of chasing bogus scandals has a long history — did you know that the press shamed John McCain for fighting back against Karl Rove’s black baby smear? — he also notes that sometimes voters just won’t play along.

Breaking en masse for Kamala Harris, Puerto Ricans just might be the ones who end up confounding that elite media’s desperation to end this race in a photo finish. If they do, they will have proved once and for all that the most malodorous garbage during this campaign was the stuff those elite journalists kept trying to shovel in our face.

Indeed, as Daniel Marans described, some Puerto Rican voters took renewed offense from Trump’s stunt of renting a garbage truck.

Nilsa Vega and Neidel Pacheco of Hellertown, a borough south of Bethlehem, both said they had never voted before, but Hinchcliffe’s remarks were the reason they planned to vote for Harris on Tuesday.

“That hit the spot right there,” Vega said. “They keep saying, ‘Oh, he’s only a comedian.’ It still hurts.”

Pacheco saw Trump’s decision to pose in a garbage truck at a campaign stop in Wisconsin the following day as an additional insult. “If he didn’t have nothing to do with it, what’s he doing in the garbage truck?” Pacheco asked.

Meanwhile, here’s a story about the Syracuse student who got one of the most impactful stories in a key swing district: whether Republicans will cut off job-creating funding from the CHIPS Act.

Back on July 17 — four days before Biden dropped out — I made a list of stories that the press was ignoring by instead focusing on Joe Biden Old. They were:

  • Is Trump a Saudi Foreign Agent?
  • What deals has Trump made with Putin and/or Orbán?
  • What happened to the missing classified documents?

I’d add a few more:

  • What is the state of Trump’s health and is he suffering ongoing symptoms from the shooting attempt?
  • Who are the other business partners and backers behind the various means Trump has established, like Truth Social, to launder payments?

We are hours away from polls closing, and Eric Lipton is one of the few journalists (along with Forbes, which reported on a new loan Trump got in 2016 today) who has shown much curiosity about who actually owns Trump.

We literally don’t know the precise nature of the business relationship between the Saudis and Emiratis — to say nothing of Russia or Egypt — and the Republican candidate for President.

Instead, we know that Republicans were able to bait the press into chasing an apostrophe for several of the last days of this campaign.

What It Would Take to Charge Donald Trump with Inciting Insurrection

/76 Comments/in , , , /by

I’ve been thinking a lot about Donald Trump’s second impeachment.

As we approach the election with Trump still facing a decent (though declining) chance of winning, a lot of justifiably worried people are again choosing to spend their time whinging about Merrick Garland rather than doing something constructive to help defeat Trump.

There remains a belief that it was Garland’s job — and that Garland had the power — to disqualify Trump from running this race.

A remarkable instance is Rachel Bitecofer, a PoliSci professor who has written on negative partisanship, the way in which people vote against something rather than necessarily for something.

That Bitecofer is spending days in advance of the election doing PR for John Roberts is especially inexcusable because her using partisan anger to get them to vote.

Days before the election, she falsely told voters to be mad about Merrick Garland rather than mad about John Roberts, the guy who is directly responsible for eight months of delay, or Mitch McConnell, the guy with primary responsibility for disqualifying Trump.

She’s breaking her own rule.

That’s one reason I’ve been thinking about the January 6 impeachment: because, in fact, it was McConnell’s job to disqualify Trump from running this race, and McConnell chickened out. Oh, I think there are things that might have altered the outcome of impeachment. Most notably, I think Nancy Pelosi made a mistake in not appointing Liz Cheney to the prosecution team. That would have given Cheney an earlier opportunity to play the formidable leadership role that she later played on the January 6 Committee. Cheney, as a member of GOP leadership, was witness to conversations involving Mike Johnson and Kevin McCarthy that might have tipped the decision to call witnesses. And as her support for Kamala Harris’ campaign has shown, she has the stature to persuade Republicans to put country over party.

But I’m also thinking about why that impeachment failed. Republicans offered two kinds of excuses, one procedural and one evidentiary. Procedurally, McConnell and others argued, they didn’t have the authority to impeach Trump after he left office.

It was a cop out, but — as we’ll see — one that played a role in the immunity decision.

Trump also made some evidentiary arguments against the claim that Trump incited the attack. Trump argued, for example, that rioters planned their attack in advance, and so couldn’t have been incited by Trump.

Despite going to great lengths to include irrelevant information regarding Mr. Trump’s comments dating back to August 2020 and various postings on social media, the House Managers are silent on one very chilling fact. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has confirmed that the breach at the Capitol was planned several days in advance of the rally, and therefore had nothing to do with the President’s speech on January 6th at the Ellipse. According to investigative reports all released after January 6, 2021, “the Capitol Police, the NYPD and the FBI all had prior warning there was going to be an attack on the Capitol…” 14

14 Ian Schwartz, John Solomon: Capitol Riot Was A “planned Attack,” Can’t Blame Trump; What Did Pelosi and McConnell Know?, Real Clear Politics (Jan. 13, 2021), https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/01/13/john_solomon_capitol_riot_was_a_planned_attack_c ant_blame_trump_what_did_pelosi_mcconnell_know.html

Leaning almost entirely on the presence of provocateur John Sullivan at the riot, Trump argued that because rioters had motives other than to support Trump, Trump couldn’t have been responsible.

The real truth is that the people who criminally breached the Capitol did so of their own accord17 and for their own reasons, and they are being criminally prosecuted. 18

17 Some anti-Trump, some ani-government. See, e.g., Alicia Powe, Exclusive: “Boogaloo Boi” Leader Who Aligns with Black Lives Matter, Gateway Pundit, (Jan. 17, 2021), https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/01/boogaloo-boi-leader-aligns-black-lives-matter-boastedorganizing-armed-insurrection-us-capitol/. “The goal of swarming the home of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate is “to revel in the breach of security while mocking the defenses that protect tyrants…whether that be Trump or others.” See also Robert Mackey, John Sullivan, Who Filmed Shooting of Ashli Babbitt, The Intercept (Jan. 14, 2021), https://theintercept.com/2021/01/14/capitol-riot-john-sullivan-ashli-babbitt/ (“The rapper, who later retweeted a brief video clip of himself and Sullivan inside the Rotunda that was broadcast live on CNN, told me in an Instagram message … “I’m far from a Trump supporter…I really don’t even get into politics at all. It was an experience for me and that’s really the only reason I was there.”)

18 See, e.g., Tom Jackman, Marissa J. Lank, Jon Swaine, Man who shot video of fatal Capitol shooting is arrested, remains focus of political storm, Washington Post (Jan. 16, 2021), https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/01/16/sullivan-video-arrested/.

Trump repeatedly treated his use of the word “fight” as figurative.

Of the over 10,000 words spoken, Mr. Trump used the word “fight” a little more than a handful of times and each time in the figurative sense that has long been accepted in public discourse when urging people to stand and use their voices to be heard on matters important to them; it was not and could not be construed to encourage acts of violence Notably absent from his speech was any reference to or encouragement of an insurrection, a riot, criminal action, or any acts of physical violence whatsoever. The only reference to force was in taking pride in his administration’s creation of the Space Force. Mr. Trump never made any express or implied mention of weapons, the need for weapons, or anything of the sort. Instead, he simply called on those gathered to peacefully and patriotically use their voices. [emphasis original]

Most crucially, Trump noted that the attack on the Capitol started before he finished speaking.

A simple timeline of events demonstrates conclusively that the riots were not inspired by the President’s speech at the Ellipse. “The Capitol is 1.6 miles away from Ellipse Park which is near the White House. This is approximately a 30-33 minute walk. Trump began addressing the crowd at 11:58 AM and made his final remarks at 1:12 PM… Protesters, activists and rioters had already breached Capitol Grounds a mile away 19 minutes prior to the end of President Trump’s speech.”20

Trump also complained that the House Democrats used news reports of the rioters’ actions, rather than legal documents.

Some of these excuses are flimsy. Most rely on a rupture between the law prohibiting incitement, which prohibits both inciting an insurrection but also “set[ting] on foot, assist[ing], or engag[ing]” in insurrection, and the holding in Brandenburg, which limited incitement to those stoking imminent illegal action. Those who claim that Trump committed a crime in plain sight would have to rebut these defenses.

In the January 6 Committee’s incitement referral, the argument shifted away from arguing that Trump incited insurrection with just his speech, focusing more on Trump’s failure to stop the riot. They argued:

  • Trump summoned a mob and then further provoked the already rioting mob with his Tweet targeting Mike Pence.
  • Two of the rioters described their actions in terms of Trump’s orders.
  • After the riot was already started, Trump refused to take action to protect the Capitol.
  • Trump told close aides that Mike Pence deserved the chants threatening to hang him.
  • Trump has since — starting as early as September 2022, before either sedition trial — promised to pardon the rioters.

J6C did good work, but this insurrection referral was just as thin as their obstruction one. Their citation to January 6ers still relied on press reports rather than court records. And rather than relying on Oath Keeper Kelly Meggs’ hunt for Nancy Pelosi — Meggs had been convicted of sedition a few weeks earlier — the report relies on Cleveland Meredith, who never made the insurrection. They don’t incorporate the excellent work J6C did to reconstruct how Trump ordered language targeting Mike Pence back into his speech after Pence refused the President’s entreaties to steal the election.

To be sure, at that point in December 2022, prosecutors were still working on the case that Trump incited the mob. The Proud Boy leaders’ trial — which J6C’s decision to withhold their transcripts had delayed three months — wouldn’t start until early the next month and wouldn’t conclude until May 2023. And it would take another five months, until April 2023, for DOJ to present their best evidence that Trump incited someone at his speech — Danny Rodriguez — to go attack the Capitol and tase Michael Fanone; in the wake of Fischer, however, the sentences of Rodriguez’ co-conspirators have been sharply reduced. People complain that DOJ focused on the crime scene, but before you could even consider incitement, you’d have to account for the Proud Boys and people like Rodriguez.

Before SCOTUS started rewriting the laws applying to January 6, prosecutors were prepared to show specifics about Trump’s culpability for the attack. This is how Jack Smith’s team described Trump’s responsibility for his mob almost exactly a year ago.

Ultimately, the defendant’s three conspiracies culminated and converged when, on January 6, the defendant attempted to obstruct and prevent the congressional certification at the Capitol. One of the ways that the defendant did so, as alleged in the indictment, was to direct an angry crowd of his supporters to the Capitol and to continue to stoke their anger while they were rioting and obstructing the certification.

At trial, the Government will prove these allegations with evidence that the defendant’s supporters took obstructive actions at the Capitol at the defendant’s direction and on his behalf. This evidence will include video evidence demonstrating that on the morning of January 6, the defendant encouraged the crowd to go to the Capitol throughout his speech, giving the earliest such instruction roughly 15 minutes into his remarks; testimony, video, photographic, and geolocation evidence establishing that many of the defendant’s supporters responded to his direction and moved from his speech at the Ellipse to the Capitol; and testimony, video, and photographic evidence that specific individuals who were at the Ellipse when the defendant exhorted them to “fight” at the Capitol then violently attacked law enforcement and breached the Capitol.

The indictment also alleges, and the Government will prove at trial, that the defendant used the angry crowd at the Capitol as a tool in his pressure campaign on the Vice President and to obstruct the congressional certification. Through testimony and video evidence, the Government will establish that rioters were singularly focused on entering the Capitol building, and once inside sought out where lawmakers were conducting the certification proceeding and where the electoral votes were being counted. And in particular, the Government will establish through testimony and video evidence that after the defendant repeatedly and publicly pressured and attacked the Vice President, the rioting crowd at the Capitol turned their anger toward the Vice President when they learned he would not halt the certification, asking where the Vice President was and chanting that they would hang him. [my emphasis]

A year ago, prosecutors promised to prove that Trump sent his mob to the Capitol, where many of the people Trump had told to “fight” assaulted cops. They have argued for over a year that the mob was the tool that Trump used to obstruct the vote certification.

Last month, subsequent to Fischer, Jack Smith’s argument changed a bit. He relied more on an aid and abet theory of Trump’s liability for his mob’s actions.

Contrary to the defendant’s claim (ECF No. 255 at 7) that he bears no factual or legal responsibility for the “events on January 6,” the superseding indictment plainly alleges that the defendant willfully caused his supporters to obstruct and attempt to obstruct the proceeding by summoning them to Washington, D.C., and then directing them to march to the Capitol to pressure the Vice President and legislators to reject the legitimate certificates and instead rely on the fraudulent electoral certificates. See, e.g., ECF No. 226 at ¶¶ 68, 79, 82, 86-87, 94. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2(b), a defendant is criminally liable when he “willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be” a federal offense. See, e.g., United States v. Hsia, 176 F.3d 517, 522 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (upholding a conviction for willfully causing a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001).

One way or another, however, as charged Jack Smith is relying on the 18 USC 1512(c)(2) charges to tie Trump to his mob. DOJ needs to sustain at least some of the obstruction charges against crime scene defendants to make this stick. And an opinion from Beryl Howell, freeing two Proud Boys from prison based on her judgment that nothing they did at the Capitol impaired the availability or integrity of the electoral certificates, will make that harder to do.

But let’s go back to whether Merrick Garland — or DOJ prosecutors who spent 30 months showing that Trump incited people like Danny Rodriguez to go nearly murder Michael Fanone, or Jack Smith — could then prove that Trump incited an insurrection.

In August 2023, when Smith indicted Trump, it was not clear he could do that. At the least, he faced the likelihood that Trump would argue his acquittal immunized him from being charged criminally. Indeed, even though Smith didn’t charge Trump with inciting an insurrection, he nevertheless sustained that argument all the way to the Supreme Court, causing precisely the delay that people like Bitecofer blame on Garland.

But in the last year, SCOTUS did three things to clarify the issue. As noted, SCOTUS interpreted 18 USC 1512(c)(2) in a way that may imperil Smith’s ability to tie Trump to the actions the mob took via his obstruction charge.

Even before that, on March 4, a unanimous Supreme Court held that the only way Merrick Garland could disqualify Trump from taking office — and technically he still could — would be to convict him 18 USC 2383.

Instead, it is Congress that has long given effect to Section 3 with respect to would-be or existing federal officeholders. Shortly after ratification of the Amendment, Congress enacted the Enforcement Act of 1870. That Act authorized federal district attorneys to bring civil actions in federal court to remove anyone holding nonlegislative office—federal or state—in violation of Section 3, and made holding or attempting to hold office in violation of Section 3 a federal crime. §§14, 15, 16 Stat. 143–144 (repealed, 35 Stat. 1153–1154, 62 Stat. 992–993). In the years following ratification, the House and Senate exercised their unique powers under Article I to adjudicate challenges contending that certain prospective or sitting Members could not take or retain their seats due to Section 3. See Art. I, §5, cls. 1, 2; 1 A. Hinds, Precedents of the House of Representatives §§459–463, pp. 470–486 (1907). And the Confiscation Act of 1862, which predated Section 3, effectively provided an additional procedure for enforcing disqualification. That law made engaging in insurrection or rebellion, among other acts, a federal crime punishable by disqualification from holding office under the United States. See §§2, 3, 12 Stat. 590. A successor to those provisions remains on the books today. See 18 U. S. C. §2383.

And thanks to Trump’s own argument about impeachment, SCOTUS has clarified that he can be charged with 18 USC 2383. Sonia Sotomayor cited Mitch McConnell’s cop out in her dissent in the impeachment case.

Indeed, Trump’s own lawyers during his second impeachment trial assured Senators that declining to impeach Trump for his conduct related to January 6 would not leave him “in any way above the law.” 2 Proceedings of the U. S. Senate in the Impeachment Trial of Donald John Trump, S. Doc. 117–2, p. 144 (2021). They insisted that a former President “is like any other citizen and can be tried in a court of law.” Ibid.; see also 1 id., S. Doc. 117–3, at 339 (Trump’s impeachment counsel stating that “no former officeholder is immune” from the judicial process “for investigation, prosecution, and punishment”); id., at 322–323 (Trump’s impeachment counsel stating: “If my colleagues on this side of the Chamber actually think that President Trump committed a criminal offense . . . [a]fter he is out of office, you go and arrest him”). Now that Trump is facing criminal charges for those acts, though, the tune has changed. Being treated “like any other citizen” no longer seems so appealing. In sum, the majority today endorses an expansive vision of Presidential immunity that was never recognized by the Founders, any sitting President, the Executive Branch, or even President Trump’s lawyers, until now. Settled understandings of the Constitution are of little use to the majority in this case, and so it ignores them.

John Roberts didn’t address the cop out in his majority opinion, but he did say that if the political process of impeachment failed for whatever reason — including failing to “muster the political will to impeach” (which sure sounds like why McConnell failed) — the criminal process remained open.

The implication of Trump’s theory is that a President who evades impeachment for one reason or another during his term in office can never be held accountable for his criminal acts in the ordinary course of law. So if a President manages to conceal certain crimes throughout his Presidency, or if Congress is unable to muster the political will to impeach the President for his crimes, then they must forever remain impervious to prosecution.

Impeachment is a political process by which Congress can remove a President who has committed “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Art. II, §4. Transforming that political process into a necessary step in the enforcement of criminal law finds little support in the text of the Constitution or the structure of our Government

Whatever else SCOTUS did, on July 1, 2024, almost a full year after Smith charged Trump, John Roberts clarified that Smith could charge Trump with insurrection.

If Jack Smith had charged Trump with inciting insurrection on August 2023, the case still would have gone to SCOTUS. Given what a hack John Roberts is, he might have fought harder to avoid creating the following set of rules covering Trump. But between the three opinions this year, Roberts has held that:

  • Obstruction may be a reach for January 6, particular a conspiracy between Trump and his mob to obstruct the vote certification
  • Insurrection remains good law and the law disqualifies someone from serving as President
  • Trump’s acquittal on insurrection does not preclude him being charged with it

The legal questions about whether Merrick Garland could disqualify Trump from running were not resolved until August 7, and the evidentiary questions will not be decided for months yet.

More importantly, those claiming that DOJ could have charged Trump right away are missing a great many steps that had to happen first:

  • DOJ had to prosecute all the crime scene defendants — people like Danny Rodriguez — it will use to prove that Trump incited rioters; with Rodriguez, that was held up by COVID, the evidentiary challenges, and his own legal challenges to using his own confession against him. In the case of Rodriguez’ co-conspirator, that took until April 2023.
  • DOJ had to resolve the Proud Boy leaders’ case to explain Trump’s relationship to the riot that kicked off even as he was still speaking, which — even though Tarrio’s phone was seized before January 6 — took until May 2023.
  • DOJ had to obtain Executive Privilege-waived testimony from (at a minimum) Greg Jacob (who predicted violence), Stephen Miller (to get his testimony regarding the speech), Dan Scavino (to confirm details about the Tweet targeting Pence), and Mike Pence himself. Those challenges started when DOJ subpoenaed Jacob on June 15, 2022, and necessarily proceeded by steps, until Smith obtained Pence’s testimony on April 27, 2023.
  • DOJ had to exploit the phone used by Trump on January 6; it’s unclear when that happened.
  • DOJ had to force Elon Musk’s Twitter to comply with a warrant for Trump’s Twitter account. He stalled for 23 days in January and February 2023.
  • DOJ would probably need the contents of Mike Roman’s phone, which show him egging on a colleague to “Make them riot” at the TCF counting center in Detroit, and Boris Epshteyn’s phone, which implicates Steve Bannon in the conspiracy and through him makes Bannon’s prediction that “All Hell is going to break loose tomorrow” part of the conspiracy. Those phones were seized in September 2022, but I have argued that Roman and Bannon’s belated treatment as conspirators may suggest it took longer than 11 months to exploit those phones (which was known to happen with Enrique Tarrio and Scott Perry’s phones).

As I keep laying out, we know how long the investigation took. We know it took 14 months before the first crime scene defendants could be tried. We know it took over a year to exploit Tarrio’s phone. We know J6C caused at least three months of delay by withholding transcripts. We know it took ten months to get privilege-waived testimony from necessary witnesses.

And we know that John Roberts chose to delay the legal questions from December 2023 until August 2024, eight months.

Merrick Garland might yet charge Trump with insurrection. He might need to, to sustain the tie between Trump and his mob. But we have a pretty clear understanding of why that didn’t happen, couldn’t have happened, before tomorrow’s election.

Elon Musk’s Machine for Fascism: A One-Stop Shop for Disinformation and Violence

/65 Comments/in , /by

Just over a year ago, I described how Twitter had been used as a way to sow false claims in support of Trump in 2016 and 2020.

I described how, in 2016, trolls professionalized their efforts, with the early contribution of Daily Stormer webmaster Andrew “Weev” Auernheimer. I quoted testimony from Microchip, a key cooperating co-conspirator at Douglass Mackey’s trial, describing how he took unoffensive content stolen from John Podesta and turned it into a controversy that would underming Hillary Clinton’s chances.

Q What was it about Podesta’s emails that you were sharing?

A That’s a good question.

So Podesta ‘s emails didn’t, in my opinion, have anything in particularly weird or strange about them, but my talent is to make things weird and strange so that there is a controversy. So I would take those emails and spin off other stories about the emails for the sole purpose of disparaging Hillary Clinton.

T[y]ing John Podesta to those emails, coming up with stories that had nothing to do with the emails but, you know, maybe had something to do with conspiracies of the day, and then his reputation would bleed over to Hillary Clinton, and then, because he was working for a campaign, Hillary Clinton would be disparaged.

Q So you’re essentially creating the appearance of some controversy or conspiracy associated with his emails and sharing that far and wide.

A That’s right.

Q Did you believe that what you were tweeting was true?

A No, and I didn’t care.

Q Did you fact-check any of it?

A No.

Q And so what was the ultimate purpose of that? What was your goal?

A To cause as much chaos as possible so that that would bleed over to Hillary Clinton and diminish her chance of winning.

After Trump won, the trolls turned immediately to replicating their efforts.

Microchip — a key part of professionalizing this effort — declared, “We are making history,” before he immediately started pitching the idea of flipping a European election (as far right trolls attempted with Emmanuel Macron’s race in 2017) and winning the 2020 election.

They did replicate the effort. That same post described how, in 2020, Trump’s role in the bullshit disinformation was overt.

Trump, his sons, and his top influencers were all among a list of the twenty most efficient disseminators of false claims about the election compiled by the Election Integrity Project after the fact.

While some of the false claims Trump and his supporters were throttled in real time, almost none of them were taken down.

But the effort to throttle generally ended after the election, and Stop the Steal groups on Facebook proliferated in advance of January 6.

To this day, I’m not sure what would have happened had not the social media companies shut down Donald Trump.

And then, shortly thereafter, the idea was born for the richest man in the world to buy Twitter. Even his early discussions focused on eliminating the kind of moderation that served as a break in 2020. During that process, someone suspected of being Stephen Miller started pitching Elon Musk on how to bring back the far right, including “the boss,” understood to be Trump.

Musk started dumping money into Miller’s xeno- and transphobic political efforts.

Once Musk did take over Xitter, NGOs run by far right operatives, Republicans in Congress, and useful idiots coordinated to undercut any kind of systematic moderation.

As I laid out last year, the end result seemed to leave us with the professionalization and reach of 2020 but without the moderation. Allies of Donald Trump made a concerted effort to ensure there was little to hold back a flood of false claims undermining democracy.

Meanwhile, the far right, including Elon, started using the Nazi bar that Elon cultivated to stoke right wing violence here on my side of the pond, first with targeted Irish anti-migrant actions, then with the riots that started in Southport. I’ve been tracing those efforts for some time, but Rolling Stone put a new report on it out, yesterday.

Throughout, the main forum where right-wing pundits and influencers stoked public anger was X. But a key driver of the unrest was the platform’s owner himself, Elon Musk. He would link the riots to mass immigration, at one point posting that “civil war” in the U.K. was inevitable. He trolled the newly elected British prime minister, Keir Starmer — whose Labour Party won power in July after 14 years of Conservative rule — for supposedly being biased against right-wing “protesters.” After Nigel Farage, the leader of radical-right party Reform U.K. and Trump ally, posted on X that, “Keir Starmer poses the biggest threat to free speech we’ve seen in our history,” Musk replied: “True.”

Anything Musk even slightly interacted with during the days of violence received a huge boost, due to the way he has reportedly tinkered with X’s algorithm and thanks to his 200 million followers, the largest following on X. “He’s the curator-in-chief — he’s the man with the Midas touch,” says Marc Owen Jones, an expert on far-right disinformation and associate professor at Northwestern University in Qatar. “He boosted accounts that were contributing to the narratives of disinformation and anti-Muslim hate speech that were fueling these riots.”

Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, one of Trump’s most gleeful supporters, someone with troubling links to both China and Russia, has set up a one-stop shop: Joining false claims about the election with networks of fascists who’ll take to the streets.

With that in mind, I want to point to a number of reports on how disinformation has run rampant on Xitter.

The Center for Countering Digital Hate (one of the groups that Elon unsuccessfully sued) released a report showing that even where volunteers mark disinformation on Xitter, those Community Notes often never get shown to users.

Despite a dedicated group of X users producing accurate, well-sourced notes, a significant portion never reaches public view. In this report we found that 74% of accurate Community Notes on false or misleading claims about US elections never get shown to users. This allows misleading posts about voter fraud, election integrity, and political candidates to spread and be viewed millions of times. Posts without Community Notes promoting false narratives about US politics have garnered billions of views, outpacing the reach of their fact-checked counterparts by 13 times.

NBC described Elon’s personal role in magnifying false claims.

In three instances in the last month, Musk’s posts highlighting election misinformation have been viewed over 200 times more than fact-checking posts correcting those claims that have been published on X by government officials or accounts.

Musk frequently boosts false claims about voting in the U.S., and rarely, if ever, offers corrections when caught sharing them. False claims he has posted this month routinely receive tens of millions of views, by X’s metrics, while rebuttals from election officials usually receive only tens or hundreds of thousands.

Musk, who declared his full-throated support for Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in July, is facing at least 11 lawsuits and regulatory battles under the Biden administration related to his various companies.

And CNN described how efforts from election administrators to counter this flood of disinformation have been overwhelmed.

Elon Musk’s misinformation megaphone has created a “huge problem” for election officials in key battleground states who told CNN they’re struggling to combat the wave of falsehoods coming from the tech billionaire and spreading wildly on his X platform.

Election officials in pivotal battleground states including Pennsylvania, Michigan and Arizona have all tried – and largely failed – to fact-check Musk in real time. At least one has tried passing along personal notes asking he stop spreading baseless claims likely to mislead voters.

“I’ve had my friends hand-deliver stuff to him,” said Stephen Richer, a top election official in Arizona’s Maricopa County, a Republican who has faced violent threats for saying the 2020 election was secure.

“We’ve pulled out more stops than most people have available to try to put accurate information in front of (Musk),” Richer added. “It has been unsuccessful.”

Ever since former President Donald Trump and his allies trumpeted bogus claims of election fraud to try to overturn his loss to Joe Biden in 2020, debunking election misinformation has become akin to a second full-time job for election officials, alongside administering actual elections. But Musk – with his ownership of the X platform, prominent backing of Trump and penchant for spreading false claims – has presented a unique challenge.

“The bottom line is it’s really disappointing that someone with as many resources and as big of a platform as he clearly has would use those resources and allow that platform to be misused to spread misinformation,” Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson told CNN, “when he could help us restore and ensure people can have rightly placed faith in our election outcomes, whatever they may be.”

Finally, Wired explained how, last week, Elon’s PAC made it worse, by setting up a group of 50,000 people stoking conspiracy theories.

For months, billionaire and X owner Elon Musk has used his platform to share election conspiracy theories that could undermine faith in the outcome of the 2024 election. Last week, the political action committee (PAC) Musk backs took it a step further, launching a group on X called the Election Integrity Community. The group has nearly 50,000 members and says that it is meant to be a place where users can “share potential incidents of voter fraud or irregularities you see while voting in the 2024 election.”

In practice, it is a cesspool of election conspiracy theories, alleging everything from unauthorized immigrants voting to misspelled candidate names on ballots. “It’s just an election denier jamboree,” says Paul Barrett, deputy director of the Center for Business and Human Rights at New York University, who authored a recent report on how social media facilitates political violence.

[snip]

Inside the group, multiple accounts shared a viral video of a person ripping up ballots, allegedly from Bucks County, Pennsylvania, which US intelligence agencies have said is fake. Another account shared a video from conspiracy theorist Alex Jones alleging that unauthorized immigrants were being bussed to polling locations to vote. One video shared multiple times, and also purportedly from Buck County, shows a voter confronting a woman with a “voter protection” tag on a lanyard who tells the woman filming that she is there for “early vote monitoring” and asks not to be recorded. Text in the accompanying post says that there were “long lines and early cut offs” and alleges election interference. That post has been viewed more than 1 million times.

Some accounts merely retweet local news stories, or right-wing influencers like Lara Loomer and Jack Posobiec, rather than sharing their own personal experiences.

One account merely reshared a post from Sidney Powell, the disgraced lawyer who attempted to help Trump overturn the 2020 election, in which she says that voting machines in Wisconsin connect to the internet, and therefore could be tampered with. In actuality, voting machines are difficult to hack. Many of the accounts reference issues in swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

This latter network includes all the same elements we saw behind the riots in the UK — Alex Jones, Trump’s fascist trolls, Russian spies (except Tommy Robinson, who just got jailed on contempt charges).

Now, in my piece last year, I suggested that Elon has diminished the effectiveness of this machine for fascism by driving so many people off of it.

The one thing that may save us is that this Machine for Fascism has destroyed Xitter’s core value to aspiring fascists: it has destroyed Xitter’s role as a public square, from which normal people might find valuable news. In the process, Elmo has destroyed Twitter’s key role in bridging from the far right to mainstream readers.

Maybe that’s true? Or maybe by driving off so many journalists Elon has only ensured that journalists have to go look to find this stuff — and to be utterly clear, this kind of journalism is some of the most important work being done right now.

But with successful tests runs stoking far right violence in Ireland and the UK, that may not matter. Effectively, Elon has made Xitter a massive version of Gab, a one-stop shop from which he can both sow disinformation and stoke violence.

On a near daily basis, DOJ issues warnings that some of this — not the false claims about fraud and not much of the violent rhetoric, but definitely those who try to confuse voters about how or when to vote — is illegal.

NBC describes that election officials are keeping records of the corrections they’ve issued, which would be useful in case of legal cases later. What we don’t know is whether DOJ is issuing notices of illegal speech to Xitter (they certainly did in 2020 — it’s one of the things Matt Taibbi wildly misrepresented), and if so, what they’re doing about it.

I am, as I have been for some time, gravely alarmed by all this. The US has far fewer protections against this kind of incitement than the UK or the EU. Much of this is not illegal.

Kamala Harris does have — and is using — one important tool against this. Her campaign has made a record number of contacts directly with voters. She is, effectively, sidestepping this wash of disinformation by using her massive network of volunteers to speak directly to people.

If that works, if Harris can continue to do what she seems to be doing in key swing states (though maybe not Nevada): getting more of her voters to the polls, then all this will come to a head in the aftermath, as I suspect other things may come to a head in the transition period, assuming Harris can win this thing. In a period when DOJ can and might act, the big question is whether American democracy can take action to shut down a machine that has been fine-tuned for years for this moment.

American law and years of effort to privilege Nazi speech have created the opportunity to build a machine for fascism. And I really don’t know how it’ll work out.

Update: Thus far there have been three known Russian disinformation attempts: a false claim of sexual abuse targeted at Tim Walz, a fake video showing votes in Bucks County being destroyed, and now a false claim that a Haitian migrant was voting illegally in Georgia.

This statement from Raffensperger, publicly asking Musk to take it down, may provide some kind of legal basis to take further steps. That’s the kind of thing that is needed to get this under control.

Update: I meant to include the Atlantic’s contribution to the reporting on Musk’s “Election Integrity Community;” it’s a good thing so many people are focused on Elon’s efforts.

Nothing better encapsulates X’s ability to sow informational chaos than the Election Integrity Community—a feed on the platform where users are instructed to subscribe and “share potential incidents of voter fraud or irregularities you see while voting in the 2024 election.” The community, which was launched last week by Musk’s America PAC, has more than 34,000 members; roughly 20,000 have joined since Musk promoted the feed last night. It is jammed with examples of terrified speculation and clearly false rumors about fraud. Its top post yesterday morning was a long rant from a “Q Patriot.” His complaint was that when he went to vote early in Philadelphia, election workers directed him to fill out a mail-in ballot and place it in a secure drop box, a process he described as “VERY SKETCHY!” But this is, in fact, just how things work: Pennsylvania’s early-voting system functions via on-demand mail-in ballots, which are filled in at polling locations. The Q Patriot’s post, which has been viewed more than 62,000 times, is representative of the type of fearmongering present in the feed and a sterling example of a phenomenon recently articulated by the technology writer Mike Masnick, where “everything is a conspiracy theory when you don’t bother to educate yourself.”

A Tale of Two Pennsylvania Lawsuits

/33 Comments/in , /by

Both parties filed at least one lawsuit in Pennsylvania the other day. They suggest that Trump is seeking to create problems, not voters.

Trump and Republicans sued Bucks County for shutting down early voting (which in Pennsylvania amounts to filling out a mail-in ballot in person) three hours early the other day. As a result, the county was ordered to offer three more days of in-person early voting.

a) Declare that the Bucks County’s actions in turning away voters who sought to apply for a mail-in ballot and receive one in person before the deadline of 5:00 p.m. on October 29, 2024 violated the Pennsylvania Election Code,

b) Order the Bucks’ County Board of Elections to permit any persons who wish to apply for and receive a mail-in ballot to appear at the Elections Bureau office and do so during normal business hours before the close of business on October 30, 2024.

As a number of outlets have reported, Trump used this incident to claim voter fraud. But raising concerns and getting accommodations is, instead, how the system works.

Trump hasn’t complained about another problem in the state.

As Democrats allege in a suit against Erie County, one or two fairly major fuck-ups with their sent mail-in ballots, one stemming from their vendor, and another stemming from the postal service, have led to delays in a significant number of Erie voters getting their absentee ballots. The impact is significant: Erie’s 57% early turnout lags every other county save (gulp) Luzerne. And even though Democrats have returned their ballots at a much higher pace than Republicans — over 62% of Democrats as compared to 52% of Republicans, one of the biggest gaps in the state — there are still 9,000 outstanding Democratic ballots and 6,000 Republican ones.

Republicans may not be complaining because the differential still works out to a 3,000 vote advantage for them, in a bellwether county. Or maybe they’re simply not tracking their votes that closely.

Some of the boys purportedly in charge of Trump’s turnout have just discovered that women are voting at much higher rates than men, which has been evident for weeks.

In any case, the local Dems in Erie simply taking this in stride, finding a way to get their votes counted.

During an Oct. 24 public meeting of the Board of Elections, Sam Talarico, the head of the local Democratic Party, said his “only concern is about people who have not received their mail-in ballots yet. I’m one of them.”

In an interview on Wednesday, he said he had finally received his ballot on Monday and returned it the next day.

“I’m a little bit concerned, but I do know the county is doing everything they can to rectify the situation,” he said.

There’s a hearing on the Erie lawsuit today (though the most interesting Pennsylvania hearing will be the hearing in Philadelophia DA Larry Krasner’s effort to enjoin Elon Musk’s million dollar giveaways under Pennsylvania’s lottery law, for which Judge Angelo Foglietta ordered Elon Musk’s personal attendance).

Until then, it appears that Pennsylvania’s Democrats are simply going to work to turn out every single vote.

The Disappearing Cheshire Cat I Found in the Rabbit Hole Where Lee Chatfield Was Hiding

/97 Comments/in , , /by

I first fell into the rabbit hole of the largely invisible appendix looking for Lee Chatfield.

At the time Trump called him and then-Michigan Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey to the White House in November 2020, Chatfield was Michigan’s House Speaker. And one of the first things that I realized about the appendix is that Jack Smith relied on Shirkey’s January 6 interview — exclusively, it seems. But he relied — again, exclusively — on DOJ’s own interview with Chatfield (which appears, in sealed form, at roughly pages GA 70 through GA 82). To confirm that that was Chatfield and try to puzzle through why Smith might rely on J6C interviews for some people but do his own interview for others, I took the trouble to index the identifiable interviews. Among other things, I discovered a third interview pertaining to Michigan, a witness whose name falls between Barr and Bowers (Michigan State Senator Tom Barrett also attended the meeting, but it could also be MI Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson), as well as about 36 pages of interview transcripts, from GA 323 to 359, from Ronna McDaniel.

My original hypothesis about why Smith did his own interview of Chatfield was probably wrong. Chatfield was indicted in Michigan for embezzlement in April, and I figured you’d want to lock in the testimony of someone who is in legal trouble himself. A more likely explanation is that Chatfield’s interview with J6C was considered informal, so Smith had to get more formal testimony.

But one thing it the additional interviews allowed Smith to do was sort through a seeming discrepancy about the meeting. As the January 6 Committee Report noted, Shirkey and Chatfield had slightly different memories of the event, with Shirkey denying that Trump made any precise ask, whereas Chatfield described that he understood Trump’s “directive” about having “backbone” to be a request to overturn the election by naming fake electors.

Although Shirkey says he did not recall the President making any precise “ask,” Chatfield recalled President Trump’s more generic directive for the group to “have some backbone and do the right thing.”157 Chatfield understood that to mean they should investigate claims of fraud and overturn the election by naming electors for President Trump.158 Shirkey told the President that he was not going to do anything that would violate Michigan law.159

157. Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, Informal Interview of Lee Chatfield (Oct. 15, 2021). Leader Shirkey did not remember any specific “ask” from the President during the Oval Office meeting. Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, Transcribed Interview of Michael Shirkey, (June 8, 2022), p. 16 (“One thing I do remember is that he never, ever, to the best of my recollection, ever made a specific ask. It was always just general topics[.]”).

158. Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, Informal Interview of Lee Chatfield (Oct. 15, 2021).

159. Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, Transcribed Interview of Michael Shirkey, (June 8, 2022), p. 57.

As it is, there’s something missing in this telling. The report describes that Rudy Giuliani was on the call. But it makes no mention that, even though she had specifically told Trump she couldn’t be involved in a meeting with legislators because it might amount to lobbying, he had patched Ronna McDaniel into the call.

That detail does appear in Mike Shirkey’s testimony (he claimed that she said nothing of substance). But Shirkey offered the detail of McDaniel’s participation long after Chatfield’s “informal interview” on October 15, 2021 and a week after McDaniel’s own interview on June 1, 2022, in which her participation in the call never came up.

Smith’s brief doesn’t say much about what McDaniel said, though this section does cite to what must be her interview. He did reveal that McDaniel made the initial contact with Shirkey and Chatfield, then got looped into the call after being warned against participating.

On November 20, three days before Michigan’s Governor signed a certificate of ascertainment appointing Biden’s electors based on the popular vote, the defendant met with [Mike Shirkey] and [Lee Chatfield], Michigan’s Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the House, at the Oval Office.148 The defendant initiated the meeting by asking RNC Chairwoman [McDaniel] to reach out to [Chatfield] and gauge his receptivity to a meeting.149 The defendant also asked [McDaniel] to participate in the meeting, but [McDaniel] told him that she had consulted with her attorney and that she could not be involved in a meeting with legislators because it could be perceived as lobbying.150 After [McDaniel] made the first contact, on November 18, the defendant reached out to [Shirkey] and [Chatfield] to extend an invitation.151

Shirkey testified that Trump made no specific ask. But, as noted, Chatfield was more equivocal.

The January 6 Committee described Chatfield’s description of Trump’s calls in the following weeks.

That was not the end, however. Chatfield and Shirkey received numerous calls from the President in the weeks following the election. Chatfield told the Select Committee that he received approximately five to ten phone calls from President Trump after the election, during which the President would usually ask him about various allegations of voter fraud.161 Chatfield said that he repeatedly looked into the President’s claims but never found anything persuasive that could have changed the outcome of the election.162

But it doesn’t provide a detail about follow-up calls included in the immunity brief: That Rudy contacted Chatfield and asked him to throw out the valid votes.

Despite failing to establish any valid fraud claims, [Rudy] followed up with [Shirkey] and [Chatfield] and attempted to pressure them to use the Michigan legislature to overturn the valid election results. On December 4, [Rudy] sent a message to [Chatfield] claiming that Georgia was poised to do so (based on [Rudy’s] and [John Eastman’s] false advocacy there in the December 3 hearing) and asked [Chatfield] for help: “Looks like Georgia may well hold some factual hearings and change the certification under ArtII sec 1 cl 2 of the Constitution. As [Eastman] explained they don’t just have the right to do it but the obligation. . . . Help me get this done in Michigan.”168 On December 7, [Rudy] attempted to send [Shirkey] a message (though failed because he typed the wrong number into his phone): “So I need you to pass a joint resolution from the Michigan legislature that states that, * the election is in dispute, * there’s an ongoing investigation by the Legislature, and * the Electors sent by Governor Whitmer are not the official Electors of the State of Michigan and do not fall within the Safe Harbor deadline of Dec 8 under Michigan law.”169 Campaign operative [Mike Roman] was involved in the drafting of this message with the assistance of [P41] who was associated with the defendant’s Campaign efforts in Michigan.170 The following day, [Rudy] shared the draft with the defendant, sending it to his executive assistant, [Molly Michael], by email.

That’s a far more specific ask than Chatfield admitted to with J6C.

This passage is all sourced to an entirely sealed section of Appendix III, but the type of evidence included there is somewhat obvious. The section relies on:

  • 168: A text to Chatfield
  • 169: Something recording Rudy’s attempt to send a text (to the wrong phone number!) and 10 more pages documenting what message Rudy wanted to send.
  • 170: One page showing some proof that Mike Roman and [P41] were involved in this messaging attempt.
  • 171: Rudy sharing the draft with Trump, via Molly Michael.

It’s possible this evidence doesn’t include evidence obtained from Rudy’s phone in April 2021; for example, Smith could prove that Rudy missent the text via Rudy’s call data and the text to Chatfield, showing a very specific ask, could have come from Chatfield. The text to Shirkey could not have come from Shirkey, though, because he never received the message (which may be why Shirkey was much sketchier about any asks from Trump than Chatfield, because he didn’t receive this shamelessly direct ask).  But, particularly given that the email to Michael is just one page long (when asked, she provided no specifics about communications pertaining to Chatfield and Shirkey in her J6C interview), it may well have partly relied on that phone seizure and may well have been necessary.

If it came from the phone, though, it came from legal steps Lisa Monaco first put into motion on her first day on the job, months before J6C was even formalized.

Wherever it came from, the added detail could be utterly critical to proving the case against Trump. Before you get this additional evidence (from both Rudy’s and, possibly, Roman’s phone, as well as an email sent to Molly Michael), you’ve got Chatfield and Shirkey claiming Trump made no specific ask. After you get the additional evidence (and so long as you reach the bar of proving that Rudy was Trump’s co-conspirator in this nefarious effort), you have a very specific ask to just throw out the legal votes that Rayne and I and millions of other Michiganders cast for Joe Biden in 2020.