January 6 Insurrection Archives - Page 4 of 77

Trump Sold Grievance and America Liked What He Was Selling

November 6, 2024/257 Comments/in 2016 Presidential Election, 2020 Presidential Election, 2024 Presidential Election, January 6 Insurrection, Mueller Probe /by emptywheel

Once Trump got everyone hooked on his grievance drug, Merrick Garland was never going to make a difference.

I have tried, over and over, to explain how the investigation into Trump and his co-conspirators proceeded. More recently, I’ve explained how you couldn’t have charged Trump with insurrection — the only thing that would have disqualified him from running — until after May 2023, and had Jack Smith done so, it would have ended up exactly where we are here, with John Roberts delaying everything until after the election.

No effort to explain the process — the two years of exploiting phones, the months of January 6 Committee delay, the ten months of privilege fights, the month Elon Musk stole, or the eight months John Roberts bought Trump — none of that has mattered, of course. People needed an explanation for their own helplessness and Merrick Garland was the sparkle pony they hoped would save them.

But nothing Merrick Garland would have done would have mattered anyway.

That’s because since January 2017, since Trump learned that Mike Flynn had been caught undermining sanctions on the phone with Sergey Kislyak, Trump has used every effort to hold him accountable as a vehicle to sell grievance.

This is the core premise of the Ball of Thread podcast I’ve been doing with LOLGOP.

Rather than being grateful when learning that FBI was investigating four of his close campaign advisors had monetized their access to him — rather than imagining himself as the victim of the men who snuck off and met with Russian spies — Trump made himself the victim of the FBI. He invented a claim he was wiretapped, and then kept inventing more and more such false claims. And then he (possibly on the advice of Paul Manafort, whose associate Oleg Deripaska funded HUMINT before the Democrats did) used the dossier as stand-in for the real Russian investigation. It wasn’t the Coffee Boy yapping him mouth that led to the investigation into those trying to monetize access, this false story tells, it was the dossier Russia filled with disinformation, a guaranteed way to discredit the investigation. Once you convince people of the lie that the FBI really did investigate a candidate based off such a flimsy dossier, it becomes easy to target all those involved, along the way gutting the Russian expertise at FBI.

Then Bill Barr came in and used the authority of the Attorney General to lie about what the investigation found; almost no media outlets have revisited the findings once it became clear that Barr didn’t even bother learning what the report said. While trying to kill Zombie Mueller — the parts of the investigation that remained after Mueller finished — Barr’s DOJ literally altered documents in an attempt to put Joe Biden at the genesis of the investigation into Donald Trump, yet another attempt to replace the actual investigation, the Coffee Boy and campaign manager and National Security Advisor and personal lawyer and rat-fucker who were found to have lied to cover up the 2016 Russian operation, with a storytale in which Democrats are the villains.

John Durham never bothered to learn what the report actually said either. Had he done so, it would have been far harder to criminalize Hillary Clinton for being a victim of a hack-and-leak operation, along the way taking out still more expertise on Russia.

And while Barr was criminalizing people, he followed Rudy’s chase for dick pics in an effort to criminalize Hunter Biden and his father.

Do you see the genius of this con, Donald Trump’s most successful reality TV show ever?

Vast swaths of America, including at least half the Supreme Court, and millions of working class voters, really believe that he — the guy who asked Russia to hack his opponent some more — was the victim.

And that’s how a billionaire grifter earns the trust of the working guy.

For the most part, the press just played along, repeating Trump’s claims of victimhood as if they were true.

It’s also the problem in thinking that if only Trump faces legal consequences, he’ll go away, he’ll be neutralized.

We saw this every time he faced justice. The first impeachment. The second one. The New York trials. Each time, his grievance became a loyalty oath. Each time, he sucked more and more Republicans into the con. Each time he made them complicit.

The hatred of and for Trump by Rule of Law is what made him strong, because he used it to — ridiculously!! — place himself into the role of the little guy, the target of those mean elites.

We’ll have decades, maybe, to understand why Trump resoundingly won yesterday. Some of it is inflation (and the unrebutted claims it is bigger than it is), which makes working people angry at the elites, people they might imagine are the same people persecuting Trump.

For many, though, it’s the appeal of vengeance.

Trump has spent nine years spinning a tale that he has reason to wreak vengeance on Rule of Law. The greatest con he ever pulled.

So even if DOJ had charged Trump, two months before Merrick Garland was confirmed (though all three of the charges people imagine would be easy — incitement, the call to Brad Raffensperger, and the fake electors plot — have been unsuccessful in other legal venues), even if DOJ had convicted Trump along with the earliest crime scene defendant in March 2022, even if Trump hadn’t used the very same means of delay he used successfully, which would have still stalled the case past yesterday’s election, it still wouldn’t have disqualified him from running.

It still would be the centerpiece of his manufactured tale of grievance.

It still would be one of the elements he uses to make working people think he’s just like them.

You will only defeat Trumpism by destroying that facade of victimhood. And you will not achieve meaningful legal victories until you do that first.

I know we all need an easy way to explain this — an easy culprit for why this happened.

But it’s not Merrick Garland, because years before he came on the scene, Trump had already convinced everyone that any attempt to hold him accountable was just another attempt by corrupt powers to take him down.

Trump sold the country on grievance and victimhood. And in the process he made half the country hate Rule of Law.

Update: This is a good summary of how Trump lures in people attracted to grievance.

The Republican Party has been the party of the Low-Trust voter for a very long time. It’s the party that wants to get rid of institutions, of any of the bonds that connect us all together. The Democratic Party is the party of institutions, the party of Good Governance. It’s the party of trusting other Americans to make good choices for you. There is very little that the Democrats can do to appeal to the Low-Trust voter, and you saw what that means for the future of our politics last night. I would go so far as to say that we’re seeing the effects of a realignment of what partisanship is. The GOP is the party of the perpetual outsider and the Low-Trust voter, the people calling for things to be torn down. The Democrats are the insiders, the institutionalists. That’s why you saw realignment of people like Liz Cheney and Vermont Governor Phil Scott, people who still think the government matters even if they disagree on how it should be doing things.

I don’t know what you can do to win back the Low-Trust voters.

[snip]

I don’t know how you build back trust in the government. Things like FEMA in disasters are supposed to be able to do that, but the post-hurricane situation in North Carolina, where outside agitators went in to try to destroy that trust, and people on the Internet went out of their way to spread lies about how the Federal government had abandoned Asheville, are just examples of how everything can be used to pop out more Low-Trust voters.

Share this entry

What It Would Take to Charge Donald Trump with Inciting Insurrection

November 4, 2024/76 Comments/in 2020 Presidential Election, 2024 Presidential Election, emptywheel, January 6 Insurrection /by emptywheel

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.

Share this entry

Secret Documents! The Ten Month Privilege Fight Whingers Claim Didn’t Happen

October 29, 2024/53 Comments/in 2020 Presidential Election, 2024 Presidential Election, January 6 Insurrection /by emptywheel

As always happens when people who don’t bother to check the public record get afraid, folks are complaining about Merrick Garland again, both that they didn’t notice the number of times Garland explained publicly that back in June 2021 DOJ had set up a special Election Task Force to prepare for this moment, and to complain that (they say) Garland hasn’t charged Donald Trump.

I was working on a timeline already when Politico’s two year effort to get the DC District Court to unseal grand jury proceedings bore fruit yesterday. Kyle Cheney has a story describing how the documents he liberated show both Beryl Howell and her successor as Chief Judge, James Boasberg, kept swatting back at Trump’s efforts to delay precisely because of the upcoming election.

More than 18 months ago, as Donald Trump sought to delay several high-profile witness’ testimony to a grand jury investigating his effort to subvert the 2020 election, Washington’s top federal district judge sensed a potential calamity.

“The special counsel’s investigation is moving quickly. There is an imperative that it moves quickly particularly so as not to interfere with the 2024 election cycle,” Chief Judge James Boasberg said on April 3, 2023, according to a newly unsealed transcript of the secret proceeding. “So when the former President’s pleading says that there will be a nominal impact from a delay, I think that is a vast understatement, that there would be a serious and deleterious impact from a delay.”

Boasberg’s warning in the early stages of special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation of the former president now rings prescient. A series of delays engineered by Trump, most notably an eight-month freeze while the Supreme Court considered his claim to be immune from the charges altogether, have caused the criminal proceedings to collide with the 2024 election cycle — and made it impossible for Trump to stand trial on the most serious charges he faces before Election Day.

The documents also confirm dates that, just yesterday, anti-Garland whingers claimed I made up. The fight over executive privilege started with a June 15, 2022 subpoena (probably to Greg Jacob and Marc Short) and continued through the next April, when Jack Smith — having come on after the precedents on executive privilege had already been set — got Mike Pence’s testimony on April 27.

Here’s the timeline mapped by the documents Politico liberated:

June 15, 2022: Subpoena to two officials (possibly Jacob and Short)

September 28, 2022: Order and opinion requiring testimony from two officials (possibly Jacob and Short)

October 6, 2022: Order and opinion denying stay of decision

November 19, 2022: Order and opinion requiring testimony (probably the two Pats, Cipollone and Philbin)

December 18, 2022: Order and opinion denying stay

January 23, 2022: Order and opinion extending appeal

December 9, 2022: Order and opinion requiring testimony (possibly Eric Hershmann, given description of his emails demanding written instructions)

January 10, 2023: Order and opinion denying stay

March 15, 2023: Order and opinion requiring testimony (this is the omnibus order covering eight people — see redacted list on page 2 — including Mark Meadows, Stephen Miller, and Dan Scavino)

March 25, 2023: Opinion requiring testimony, probably involving Mike Pence

April 3, 2023: Transcript of hearing, probably involving Mike Pence

April 10, 2023: Transcript of hearing, probably involving Mike Pence

Share this entry

Jack Smith’s Delicate Treatment of BadgerPundit Kenneth Chesebro

October 28, 2024/38 Comments/in 2020 Presidential Election, January 6 Insurrection /by emptywheel

As I’ve said a few times, when I was hunting for Lee Chatfield, I found Kenneth Chesebro.

There is a transcript in the mostly sealed Appendix I to Jack Smith’s immunity brief that must be Chesebro’s. Several passages describing events in which Chesebro was involved cite a transcript, spanning from roughly GA 97 to GA 103, that appears between Lee Chatfield and probable Pat Cipollone transcripts (GA 55-56 is someone whose name appears alphabetically between Bowers and Cannon; this may be Trump campaign staffer Michael Brown).

On December 16, [Chesebro] traveled to Washington with a group of private attorneys who had done work for the defendant’s Campaign in Wisconsin for a photo opportunity with the defendant in the Oval Office.315

[snip]

Later that morning, [Chesebro] worked with another attorney for the defendant, who contacted a U.S. Senator to ask him to obtain the fraudulent Wisconsin and Michigan documents from the U.S. Representative’s office and hand-deliver them to the Vice President.408

315 Documentary evidence, Presidential Daily Diary, GA 100-101

408 Documentary evidence, GA 55-56, GA 102-103, Chris Hodgson [Compare to full transcript]

That would mean that this section, which suggests the co-conspirators deliberately lied to fake electors, is sourced partly to Chesebro too (GA 517-518 is part of an at least 6-page section describing the fake elector involvement of someone whose name appears alphabetically between Raffensperger and Scavino, which hypothetically could be Mike Roman, but nothing marks it as necessarily him).

In practice, the fraudulent elector plan played out somewhat differently in each targeted state. In general, the co-conspirators deceived the defendant’s elector nominees in the same way that the defendant and [Eastman] deceived [Ronna McDaniel] by falsely claiming that their electoral votes would be used only if ongoing litigation were resolved in the defendant’s favor.282

282 Documentary evidence, GA 97-98, GA 517-518.

It’s not terribly surprising that Jack Smith got an interview with Chesebro. After all, Chesebro made a great show of cooperating in various state investigations — at a minimum, Georgia, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Michigan, as CNN laid out last December. But as CNN also reported, the veracity of his testimony came into question by February, when CNN caught Chesebro covering up a Twitter account he had.

So Jack Smith appears to have gotten an interview with Chesebro, but Chesebro may not be terribly reliable.

Perhaps for that reason, there are a great many things involving Chesebro that are not sourced to that transcript. Chesebro’s plotting about the fake electors plot, for example, is always sourced to the documents themselves.

More interestingly, this passage — describing that Chesebro followed Trump’s public instructions to go to DC, but also describing that he collected copies of the fake Michigan and Wisconsin elector certificates and handed them off to Congressman Mike Kelly — is sourced entirely to documentary evidence.

Meanwhile, [Chesebro] who had traveled to Washington as directed by the defendant’s public messages, obtained duplicate originals of the fraudulent certificates signed by the defendant’s fraudulent electors in Michigan and Wisconsin, which they believed had not been delivered by mail to the President of the Senate or Archivist.389 [Chesebro] received these duplicates from Campaign staff and surrogates, who flew them to Washington at private expense.390 He then hand-delivered them to staffers for a U.S. Representative at the Capitol as part of a plan to deliver them to Pence for use in the certification proceeding.391

Similarly, the description of Chesebro’s participation in the mob is sourced exclusively to documentary evidence.

Among these was [Chesebro] who had attended the defendant’s speech from the Washington Monument, marched with the crowd to the Capitol, and breached the restricted area surrounding the building.449

There’s a problem with Chesebro’s testimony on this point, of course: If he ferried fake elector certificates, then he wasn’t responding to Trump’s public tweeting about January 6. He was responding to the instructions of other plotters.

Which makes the way Smith sourced this passage, describing a December 16 meeting with Trump that Reince Priebus also attended, more interesting.

On December 16, [Chesebro] traveled to Washington with a group of private attorneys who had done work for the defendant’s Campaign in Wisconsin for a photo opportunity with the defendant in the Oval Office.315 During the encounter, the defendant complained about Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice [Brian Hagedorn] who two days earlier had cast the deciding vote in rejecting the defendant’s election challenge in the state.316 As the group was leaving, the defendant spoke directly—and privately—to [Chesebro]. 317 As late as early January, the conspirators attempted to keep the full nature of the fraudulent elector plan secret. On January 3, for instance, in a private text message exchange, [Boris Epshteyn] wrote to [Chesebro] “Careful with your texts on text groups. No reason to text things about electors to anyone but [Eastman] and me.” [Chesebro] responded, “K,” and followed up, “I’m probably a bit paranoid haha.” [Epshteyn] wrote, “A valuable trait!”318

315 Documentary evidence plus Chesebro

316 Probably Reince Priebus

317 Probably Reince Priebus

318 Documentary evidence

That is, Smith relies on Chesebro for the claim that this meeting was a photo op. But he doesn’t include Chesebro’s claims about what he said privately to Trump; he relies solely on what is likely Reince Priebus witnessing, but not participating in, that conversation.

Rather than describing what Chesebro claimed he and Trump said to each other, Smith relies on what Chesebro told another lawyer (likely Jim Troupis), afterwards. As soon as Chesebro saw Trump’s tweet announcing the January 6 rally, he texted someone else and boasted that “we” had a “unique understanding” of Trump’s December 19 Tweet calling people to DC.

The defendant first publicly turned his sights toward January 6 in the early morning hours of December 19. At 1:42 a.m., the defendant posted on Twitter a copy of a report falsely alleging fraud and wrote, ““. . . Statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 Election. Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”319 When [Chesebro] learned about the Tweet, he sent a link about it to another of the Wisconsin attorneys who had met with the defendant in the Oval Office on December 16 and wrote, “Wow. Based on 3 days ago, I think we have unique understanding of this.”320

319 Trump tweet

320 Documentary evidence

Chesebro has testified about the December 16 meeting. TPM got his testimony to Michigan prosecutors. He described to them that he told Trump that the real deadline for certification was January 6.

Chesebro traveled to Washington to meet with Trump on Dec. 16 alongside a coterie of other Trump campaign attorneys.

Three years later, in the interview with Michigan prosecutors, Chesebro recalled the meeting with Trump: “The marching orders were, don’t say anything that would make [Trump] feel more positive than he did at the beginning of the meeting.”

He did not follow that advice. Chesebro told prosecutors that he began to speak with Trump after listening to the President talk on speakerphone with Newt Gingrich about something to do with Georgia voting machines. Then, the conversation turned to Trump’s chances in Arizona.

Chesebro did exactly what he had been told not to do: give Trump a sense of hope. He recalled telling Trump that the “real deadline” was Jan. 6. He was later admonished by former White House chief of staff Reince Preibus because, as Chesebro put it later to prosecutors, “the vibe that I had given him was some ground for optimism.”

Chesebro himself compared the meeting to a widely reported and infamous late-night encounter, two days later on Dec. 18, between Trump, Sidney Powell, former Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne, and the White House counsel’s office, saying that it was “sort of unauthorized.”

If Chesebro reliably told Jack Smith the same thing, it might strengthen the obstruction case. As it is, Jack Smith argues that the riot happened, Trump did nothing to stop it, and then he opportunistically targeted Mike Pence as his mob was hunting him down. He stops well short of saying he summoned the mob to overrun Congress.

Chesebro’s apparent unreliability may be preventing Jack Smith from taking the next step, showing that Trump heard from Chesebro on December 16 that there was still one more step to certification on January 6, which led him — less than three days later — to summon his mob. But if Chesebro’s testimony were more reliable, then he would not simultaneously be explaining that he ferried a second set of fake Michigan and Wisconsin certificates to DC but also simply showed up on January 6 in response to Trump’s Tweets. And it might change the import of the way he shadowed Alex Jones.

Still, as it is, Chesebro is central to the continued viability of 18 USC 1512(c)(2) and (k) charges. Under Fischer, there must be an evidentiary component to the obstruction charge. And in Chesebro, you have the sole member of the conspiracy who joined the mob on January 6 having earlier ferried fake elector certificates to members of Congress in hopes that Mike Pence would use the certificates to throw out Joe Biden’s votes.

If this ever goes to trial, Chesebro’s role — and possible testimony — may be key. But thus far, at least, it doesn’t appear that his testimony is reliable enough to build the case on.

Share this entry

So Help Me God: Lawyers, Encryption, and Insurrection

October 22, 2024/6 Comments/in 2020 Presidential Election, 2024 Presidential Election, January 6 Insurrection /by emptywheel

I still owe you a longer post on what I gleaned from my deep dive into the mostly sealed immunity appendix over the weekend. Here’s my evolving understanding of the appendix so far.

Volume I:

GA 1 through around GA 660: Interview transcripts

Around GA 661 to GA 722: Material justifying treating Eric Herschmann as unofficial role

Volume II:

GA 723 through GA 771: Presidential Daily Diaries

GA 772 through GA 965: Social media

Volume III GA 968 through GA 1503: State-related documentary evidence

Volume IV:

GA 1503 through around GA 1684: Pence and January 6-related documentary evidence

GA 1685 though GA 1885: Material justifying treatment of Trump’s statements as unofficial conduct

But for now, I want to share a hypothesis: that Mike Roman and Boris Epshteyn used technical (in the case of Roman) or legal (in the case of Epshteyn) delays to stall the exploitation of their phones.

Again, this is all speculative.

As I laid out here, the superseding indictment does not name either Roman or Steve Bannon as co-conspirators using the designator “CC.” But the immunity filing treats both as co-conspirators, as least for the purpose of admitting their speech via a hearsay exception. In that post, I posited that Jack Smith considered a more substantive superseding indictment, adding charges based (in part) on their actions, but did not do so, possibly because of the timing in advance of the election. I further developed that hypothesis in this post, in which I suggested additional charges might pertain to inciting violence.

It is possible that SCOTUS’ decisions — not just Fischer and the Immunity ones, but also the 14th Amendment one — made Smith reconsider his charging decisions; see this post for how those rulings changed the legal landscape around Trump’s actions, and those of his co-conspirators.

But it may also be that a delay in accessing evidence meant that Smith could not yet consider such charges when he first charged Trump.

The mostly-sealed immunity appendix suggests there are fairly key texts obtained from the phones of Roman and Boris Epshteyn.

Much of the first 50 pages of Volume III, from GA 968 through GA 1014 (right up to the unsealed beginning of Pence’s book), are likely texts from Roman or Epshteyn’s phones. GA 968 to 996 are the texts in which Roman encourages a colleague at the TCF counting center in Detroit to “Make them riot.” The next three pages describe similar efforts in Philadelphia. It’s not clear where those came from, but Roman is from Philly, so it’s likely he’d be involved in any fuckery there.

Then, starting at GA 1004 (after three pages of unsealed transcripts showing Trump conceding in an AZ suit), there are what appear to be 11 pages of texts from Epshteyn’s phone. The texts start with the ones describing Steve Bannon telling Boris that Trump had just fired Justin Clark, he (Boris) would report to Rudy, and that Bannon, “had made a recommendation directly that if [Rudy] was not in charge this thing is over Trump is in to the end.” The apparent Epshteyn texts include his efforts to set up meetings to pressure Pence, ending with texts from January 5 where Epshteyn reported back to Bannon that Mike Pence’s counsel, Greg Jacob, had refused their last entreaty to just throw out all the Biden votes, in response to which Bannon said, “Fuck his lawyer.”

“So help me god,” Mike Pence says via the title page of his book on the very next page of the appendix.

It would probably make a dramatic narrative arc if we could read it in sequence.

These texts are (along with the transcript showing Trump’s campaign team conceding a legal case) the first pieces of documentary evidence presented to Judge Chutkan, to support the section of the immunity brief describing, “Formation of the Conspiracies.” But neither the specifics of the communications nor the treatment of Roman and Bannon as co-conspirators show up in the original and therefore the supseseding indictment.

I’ve been suspecting that Smith first obtained the Roman texts, from a phone seized in September 2022, sometime between August 1, 2023 (the date of the original indictment) and December 5, 2023, when Smith asked to submit the “Make them riot” texts in a 404(b) filing, the same filing that asked to present evidence of Trump ratifying the Proud Boys’s sedition that is entirely absent from this brief. That is, I suspect that in the four months after obtaining the original indictment, Jack Smith grew confident he had evidence to prove more than he had originally charged, but by that point, Trump had already secured his eight months of delay, putting the first chance to charge anything more in the pre-election window.

Mike Roman is technically sophisticated. It would be unsurprising if his phone were protected with the kinds of security that could cause a year long delay breaking into it. The reason I suspect there was a delay in getting these texts is that incredibly damning language that should otherwise merit treating Roman, from the start, as a co-conspirator, language that Smith now uses to open the start of his brief, only appeared in the public record in December 2023.

The reasons and means via which I think Epshteyn may have delayed access to texts that, like the Roman ones, don’t appear in the original indictment are different. These are the texts that got Bannon treated as a co-conspirator in the brief, that provided basis for Smith to use Bannon’s public commentary on his podcast — “all hell will break loose” on January 6– as a reflection of Trump’s own views.

Epshteyn’s phone, like Roman’s, was seized in September 2022. Starting in the months before the phone was seized, Epshteyn expanded his consigliere role for Trump, orchestrating Trump’s legal team that would help to hide stolen documents. It’s not entirely certain whether Jack Smith treats Epshteyn’s role as that of a lawyer in his stolen documents court filings. It was not until some months later that Epshteyn started billing his time as a lawyer. But Epshteyn got the press to describe him as serving in a legal role earlier than that.

According to someone who appears to be Eric Herschmann, Ephsteyn took on this lawyer role in order to obtain cover for his own earlier actions. In a November 2, 2022 interview, someone with Herschmann’s potty mouth and access [Person 16] described how a “total moron” who looked like Epshteyn [Person 5] was, at that time, trying to give himself legal cover for previous activities.

According to Person 16, he “believed [Person 5] was now trying to create [redacted] to cover [him] for previous activities. [Person 16] believed [Person 49’s] records may reflect recent [redacted] that did not reflect what actually transpired.”

And it’s not just January 6 related crimes that Epshteyn might have been obscuring; prosecutors were also investigating a cryptocurrency scheme that Epshteyn and Bannon used to bilk Trump supporters.

To the extent that Epshteyn could claim there was attorney-client privileged material on the phone seized over three months after Epshteyn was involved in recruiting Christina Bobb to sign a declaration on June 3, it would create real obstacles in accessing material from the phone. And since 2023, Epshteyn’s lawyer, Todd Blanche, has also represented Trump, creating all sorts of complexities regarding the protective order.

It took nine months (April 2021 to January 2022), with the involvement of a Special Master, to exploit Rudy’s phones. It took far longer than that to exploit Scott Perry’s. Prosecutors only recently obtained content from James O’Keefe’s phone seized almost three years ago. It would be unsurprising if Epshteyn’s effort to retroactively create a privilege covering his phone extended how much time it took to access his content. And that might explain why details, like Bannon informing Epshteyn he was reporting to Rudy and Bannon’s treatment as a co-conspirator, would not be substantiated in time for the original indictment.

Again, this is all speculation based on what we see in the immunity brief that we didn’t see in August 2023 in the first indictment. But a delay in accessing the texts that have now become the opening act in Jack Smith’s documentation of Trump’s conspiracy might explain the shifted focus.

Share this entry

How to Read the Immunity Appendix

October 20, 2024/36 Comments/in 2020 Presidential Election, 2024 Presidential Election, January 6 Insurrection /by emptywheel

I’m still working through a deeper dive of the appendix to his immunity brief that Jack Smith released on Friday.

But I thought I’d share how I’m reading it, as I’ll need to refer back to that when I write up some of the interesting things I’ve found.

The appendix was released in four volumes:

Volume I: GA 1 through GA 722

Volume II: GA 723 through GA 965

Volume III GA 968 through GA 1503

Volume IV: GA 1503 through GA 1885

There are also a bunch of GA 1900 references in the immunity brief; those are to video and other multimedia, but we don’t get them.

But what we’ve got may be better understood in sections:

GA 1 through at least GA 653: Most of Volume I consists of interview transcripts arranged in alphabetical order, Barr to Wren, in what is visible. Once you understand that that section is in alpha order, it helps to substantiate whether citations in the immunity brief are to one or another person. For example, it seems highly likely that the GA 97 to 102 range is Kenneth Chesebro, because citations to those pages describe stuff he was involved with, and those pages appear between the visible Rusty Bowers and Justin Clark sections, and after material that must be from Georgia Attorney General Christopher Carr and former MI House Speaker Lee Chatfield. I’ll return to both Chesebro and Chatfield tomorrow.

These transcripts are generally truncated, including just the pages necessary to substantiate the material in the brief — though there are transcripts in there, such as that of Ronna Not-Romney McDaniel in the GA 323 to GA 342 range, that cover the full range of activities in which she played a part.

There are people, like former MI Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey, whose only citations are to January 6 transcripts (and so are visible). There are far more people (like Chatfield, Chesebro, and McDaniel) whose only citations are to DOJ interviews, so are sealed. But some people, starting from Bill Barr, have citations to both J6C and DOJ transcripts. In general, the DOJ transcripts appear to come after the J6C ones (though I’m not sure that’s the case with Jason Miller).

GA 654 through GA 722: The balance of the first volume may also be transcripts, but it’s not in obvious order. Although one or several Eric Herschmann interviews appear from around GA 190 through GA 238 in the alpha order section, a great deal of GA 654 through GA 722 is also Herschmann-related material (including the blacked out pages starting at GA 709). There’s a lot of Herschmann in this brief, and I thought prosecutors did a less compelling job of explaining why those were unofficial than the Mike Pence material.

I had considered whether this section consists of more sensitive files, and it may. But it’s not the sensitivity I first considered: that of Executive Privilege (or grand jury versus interview transcripts). Mike Pence’s interviews appear starting at least by GA 413, between the visible Jason Miller and Katrina Pierson transcripts.

GA 723 through GA 771: The first 50 pages of Volume II are from the President’s Daily Diary, which documents all of the President’s calls and meetings. That the section tracked calls involving Trump was already evident from this footnote, which substantiates Steve Bannon’s near-daily phone calls with Trump resuming in mid-December:

And footnote 546 identifies GA 742 as PDD explicitly.

GA 772 to GA 965: The rest of that volume is Tweets and other social media, by Trump and by others. One interesting aspect of this volume is the type of Tweet. For example, it appears prosecutors attempted to include both the legal process version and the screen cap of all of Trump’s Tweets, but they don’t always do that. Trump’s RTs, in particular, appear to have been difficult to reproduce; remember that, because Trump’s account was suspended, there were some difficulties in reconstituting parts of it. There’s a bunch obtained from the Trump Twitter archive, suggesting they may not have been preserved at Twitter. There’s also just the text of the Mike Pence courage Tweet and his “sacred landslide” Tweet, which may come from a dump of the phone (and serve to substantiate that it was written with that phone). And there are a bunch of what appear to be text versions of Trump’s Tweets or Team Trump disseminations of them, the latter of which prosecutors point to to substantiate their argument that these are campaign, as opposed to Presidential, Tweets. If this ever goes to trial, how these got used will often say as much as the actual content included.

The other two volumes provide all the other kinds of backup to the immunity brief, largely documentary evidence.

This documentation generally follows the structure of the immunity brief itself, though obviously there’s a lot of overlap, particularly between Trump’s pressure on state parties and his fake elector plot. That may explain why prosecutors broke the Volumes where they did.

In addition to some random stuff (not included in my table), Volume III has the state-focused evidence.

GA 966 to GA 999: Forming the conspiracy

GA 1000 to GA 1236: Pressuring states to help deceive

GA 1245 to GA 1502: Fake Electors plot

Volume IV picks up from the effort to pressure Pence to throw out the votes and includes January 6. But it also includes a bunch of things — like campaign advertising and funding records — in there to substantiate an argument that Trump was acting in his role as a candidate, not as President.

GA 1503 to GA1663: Pressure Pence

GA 1664 to GA 1684: January 6

GA 1685 to GA 1869: Prove this is Unofficial

So Volume III and IV both have the same type of evidence: documentary backup. But rather than showing what happened, there’s a part of Volume IV that aspires to show that what happened amounted to campaign activity.

With that as a framework, one can figure out almost all of what is in the appendix in sealed form, based off the footnotes. And while none of the good stuff — the dickish comments Mike Roman made while on a conference call trying to tamp down a revolt from Pennsylvania’s fake electors, for example — are unsealed in the appendix, those two pages of text messages that appear at GA 1407 and 1408 do appear in the text itself.

We can’t see most of what’s in the appendix. But understanding how it works does provide some insight about the investigation.

Update: Corrected post to reflect beginning of Volume II as entries from the Presidential Daily Diary.

Witnesses

Update: Here’s a list of my best guesses for the interviews included in Volume I. I’m fairly certain about the identity of the people listed here; I’m fair less certain about where they begin and end. I’ve bolded the people I’m pretty certain have both sealed and unsealed content. I’ve italicized the people who, I think, have only unsealed content. The rest have just sealed content.

This is very rough!!!

GA 2-6: A cop who will testify about the riot.

GA 7-13: Bill Barr, sealed and unsealed.

GA 15: A Chapman/Shirkey related witness.

GA 20: Rusty Bowers.

GA 55-56: A lawyer who worked with Chesebro to deliver fake certificates.

GA 58-59: Probably Alex Cannon, testifying to the quasi campaign role Herschmann had.

GA 62-67: GA Attorney General Christopher Carr.

GA 70-82: Former MI Speaker of the House Lee Chatfield.

GA 97-103: Kenneth Chesebro.

GA 105-122: Pat Cipollone, testifying about things he wasn’t involved in, as well as efforts to get Trump to do something on January 6.

GA 126-?: Justin Clark has both sealed and sealed content. His testimony may extend to where Kellyanne Conway’s begins.

GA 160: Kellyanne Conway. [May be an unsealed only.]

GA 164-5: A fake elector.

GA 166: White House valet.

GA 170: Ruby Freeman.

GA 173: Details of the targeting of PA electors.

GA 175: Details of the riot; possibly Pence’s Secret Service.

GA 180: Stephanie Grisham.

GA 184-189: WI Supreme Court Judge Hagedorn.

GA 190: Vincent Haley, testifying about adding attacks on Pence back into speech.

GA 194 – ??: Where Eric Herschmann begins and ends is tough to tell, but it’s roughly from GA 194 through GA 238.

GA 246-259: Hope Hicks.

GA 261: Chris Hodgson.

GA 266: Greg Jacob. It’s unclearhow much of this is Jacob, but at least through 283.

GA 295-296: Chris Krebs.

GA 297: Amy Kremer.

GA 310-319: Nick Luna.

GA 320: Tom Marino (he dropped off as a fake elector in PA).

GA 323 through 359: It’s unclear how much of this is Ronna McDaniel, but her testimony covers a range of topics.

GA 361 to 368: Mark Meadows. This may go further.

GA 374 until around 397: Jason Miller.

GA 399-406: The then SAC of the Washington Field Office Secret Service office.

GA 405-406: This may be Stephen Miller (in which case the SAC’s last name is Miller too).

GA 411-467: It’s unclear where Mike Pence begins and ends (and where Pat Philbin begins, but something like this.

GA 476: Pat Philbin.

GA 481: Katrina Pierson.

GA 488-495: Fake elector.

GA 497-501: I think this is Reince Priebus.

GA 513: Brad Raffensperger.

GA 517-523: Fake electors.

GA 525-541: Dan Scavino.

GA 550-551: Al Schmidt.

GA 553-578: Mike Shirkey.

GA 578-588: Marc Short.

GA 600: There may be a senior campaign advisor besides Bill Stepien in here.

GA 609: Bill Stepien. [If there is sealed testimony, it may only be a page.]

GA 616-633: Larry Tabas.

GA 634-642: Ross Worthington.

GA 643: Caroline Wren.

After Wren, there may be someone who was involved in calls to Doug Ducey.

Share this entry

Trump’s GOP Is Running on a Platform of Freeing Seditionists and Cop Assailants

October 18, 2024/68 Comments/in 2020 Presidential Election, 2024 Presidential Election, January 6 Insurrection /by emptywheel

I’m halfway done my first review of the materials Jack Smith released today.

All of us who have followed this have concluded there’s not any new news (though the presentation of it reveals certain things about Smith’s investigation).

So why did Trump’s lawyers wail and wail about releasing these materials before the election?

Just days ago, after all, Trump’s lawyers argued that releasing these materials would alter the election.

It may be this:

As the appendix documents, on March 11, 2024, Trump posted to Truth Social that, along with closing the border and DRILL, BABY, DRILL, his first priority, Day One, was to free the seditionists and cop assailants who had fought for him on January 6.

Prosecutors cited that post to support their argument that Trump ratified the violence that day.

As the Government identified in its Rule 404(b) notice, ECF No. 174-1 at 8-9, the Government will introduce some of the defendant’s numerous statements that post-date his time as President in which he has blamed Pence and approved of the actions of his supporters who breached the Capitol and obstructed the certification proceeding,722 thus providing evidence of his intent on January 6.

The defendant’s endorsement of the violent actions of his supporters on January 6, and his sentiment that they were justified in threatening Pence—all made while the defendant was a private citizen after the end of his term in office—are probative of his intent during the charged conspiracies.

722 See, e.g., GA 1970 at 17:37 (Video of Trump Interview 07/10/2021); GA 1926 at 1:15:30 (Video of Conroe Rally 01/29/2022); GA 1971 at 15:51, 16:42 (Video of Trump Interview 02/01/2022): GA 1962 at 48:29 (Video of Trump at Faith and Freedom Coalition 06/17/2022); GA 1966 at 09:30 (Video of Trump Interview 09/01/2022); GA 1973 at 43:07 (Video of Waco Rally 03/25/2023); GA 1694 (Transcript of CNN Town Hall 05/10/2023); GA 1964 (Video of Trump Campaign Statement 2024); GA 1967 at 45:18 (Video of Trump Interview 08/23/2023); GA 1965 at 56:10, 57:11 (Video of Trump Interview on Meet the Press 09/17/2023); GA 1935 at 35:50, 01:16:16 (Video of Greensboro Rally 03/02/2024); GA 967 (Donald J. Trump Truth Social Post 03/11/2024); Isaac Arnsdorf and Maeve Reston, 7rump claims violence he inspired on Jan. 6 was Pence’s fault, WASH. PostT, (Mar. 13, 2023, 8:09 p-m.), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/03/13/trump-pence-iowa/. [my emphasis]

The GOP candidate for President has a criminal docket. And in that criminal docket, today, the government included a post promising to free seditionists and cop-assailants with the same urgency with which Donald Trump promises to close the border. “My first acts,” the GOP standard-bearer stated, would include freeing the people who assaulted the Capitol on January 6.

This was the proposal back in March, one of the first things Trump did after Nikki Haley conceded. And since that time, the entire GOP has fallen into line behind that plan.

The Republican Party’s candidate for President is running on a platform of freeing cop assailants and seditionists.

There’s nothing new in this appendix. But that post does clarify things considerably.

Share this entry

Jack Smith’s Appendix

October 18, 2024/70 Comments/in 2020 Presidential Election, January 6 Insurrection /by emptywheel

Sorry it has taken me so long to post the appendix to Jack Smith’s immunity briefing. The four sections are here:

There’s virtually nothing new here. Trump’s temper tantrum was little more than a public wail that if people saw already-public documents about his plotting to run fake electors, it would swing the election.

That said, there are a few things we can confirm from the structure of all this, which I’ll write up over the weekend.

Share this entry

Jack Smith Takes Up the Aid and Abet Theory Endorsed by Judge Amit Mehta in 2022

October 16, 2024/72 Comments/in 2020 Presidential Election, January 6 Insurrection /by emptywheel

Back in February 2022, 32 months ago, think I was the only one who made much of Judge Amit Mehta’s ruling that Trump might plausibly be on the hook for abetting the assaults of cops at the Capitol on January 6.

Halberstam v. Welch remains the high-water mark of the D.C. Circuit’s explanation of aiding-and-abetting liability. The court there articulated two particular principles pertinent to this case. It observed that “the fact of encouragement was enough to create joint liability” under an aiding-and-abetting theory, but “[m]ere presence . . . would not be sufficient.” 705 F.2d at 481. It also said that “[s]uggestive words may also be enough to create joint liability when they plant the seeds of action and are spoken by a person in an apparent position of authority.” Id. at 481–82. A “position of authority” gives a “suggestion extra weight.” Id. at 482.

Applying those principles here, Plaintiffs have plausibly pleaded a common law claim of assault based on an aiding-and-abetting theory of liability. A focus just on the January 6 Rally Speech—without discounting Plaintiffs’ other allegations—gets Plaintiffs there at this stage. President Trump’s January 6 Speech is alleged to have included “suggestive words” that “plant[ed] the seeds of action” and were “spoken by a person in an apparent position of authority.” He was not “merely present.” Additionally, Plaintiffs have plausibly established that had the President not urged rally-goers to march to the Capitol, an assault on the Capitol building would not have occurred, at least not on the scale that it did. That is enough to make out a theory of aiding-and-abetting liability at the pleadings stage.

I noted at the time that Judge Mehta — whose ruling on Trump’s susceptibility to lawsuit for actions taken as a candidate would largely be adopted in the DC Circuit’s opinion on the topic — was presiding over a number of the key assault cases where the since-convicted defendants described being called to DC or ordered to march to the Capitol by Trump before they started beating the shit out of some cops.

He also presided over the Oath Keeper cases.

That’s interesting background to Jack Smith’s response to Trump’s supplement to his motion to dismiss his indictment.

As I expected, Smith noted that Trump’s frivolous supplement didn’t even mention the language in the superseding indictment alleging that Trump willfully created false evidence.

Beyond that critical flaw, the defendant’s supplement ignores entirely that the superseding indictment includes allegations that involve the creation of false evidence. As construed by Fischer, Section 1512(c)(1) covers impairment of records, documents, or objects by altering, destroying, mutilating, or concealing them, and Section 1512(c)(2) covers the impairment (or attempted impairment) of records, documents, and objects by other means—such as by “creating false evidence.” 144 S. Ct. at 2185-86 (citing United States v. Reich, 479 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2007) (Sotomayor, J.)). In Reich, for example, the defendant was convicted under Section 1512(c)(2) after he forged a court order and sent it to an opposing party intending to cause (and in fact causing) that party to withdraw a mandamus petition then pending before an appellate court. 479 F.3d at 183, 185-87. Just as the defendant in Reich violated Section 1512(c)(2) by “inject[ing] a false order into ongoing litigation to which he was a party,” id. at 186, the superseding indictment alleges that the defendant and his co-conspirators created fraudulent electoral certificates that they intended to introduce into the congressional proceeding on January 6 to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election. See ECF No. 226 at ¶¶ 50-66.

That’s the primary reason I didn’t even treat Trump’s filing with much attention: it ignored how differently situated Trump is than the Fischer defendants.

But I’m most interested in the way Smith rebuts Trump’s argument that he bears no responsibility for the riots at the Capitol. He adopts that same aid and abet theory that Judge Mehta endorsed back in 2022.

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). [my emphasis]

Smith then repeats that language of “willfully caus[ing]” people to storm the Capitol.

As described above, the superseding indictment alleges that the defendant willfully caused others to violate Section 1512(c)(2) when he “repeated false claims of election fraud, gave false hope that the Vice President might change the election outcome, and directed the crowd in front of him to go to the Capitol as a means to obstruct the certification,” ECF No. 226 at ¶ 86, by pressuring the Vice President and legislators to accept the fraudulent certificates for certain states in lieu of those states’ legitimate certificates. Those allegations link the defendant’s actions on January 6 directly to his efforts to corruptly obstruct the certification proceeding and establish the elements of a violation of Section 1512(c)(2), which suffices to resolve the defendant’s motion to dismiss on statutory grounds. [my emphasis]

Note that this reliance on an abetting theory of liability for the riot explains DOJ’s effort to sustain some select 1512(c)(2) charges against crime scene defendants. Smith will want to closely tie Trump to the actions of key crime scene defendants.

But that depends on sustaining at least some of those key cases. But they’ve already taken at least some steps to do that. In at least one case, cooperating Oath Keeper Jon Schaffer, they’ve done an addendum to the statement of facts to sustain the plea under Fischer.

Perhaps relatedly, the nature of Schaffer’s cooperation remains redacted in the government sentencing memo asking for probation for Schaffer.

For over a year, Trump’s team has been trying to disavow his mob, and for almost a year, prosecutors have promised to show how Trump obstructed the vote certification through the actions of specific rioters.

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]

As I’ve said, I think Jack Smith may believe he has the evidence to prove Trump more actively incited violence, but was prevented from indicting that before the election. But for now, Smith is making it explicit that he is adopting the theory of liability that Judge Mehta ruled was at least plausible, years ago.

Share this entry

Searching for Jared Wise

October 15, 2024/78 Comments/in 2020 Presidential Election, emptywheel, January 6 Insurrection /by emptywheel

I want to talk about Jared Wise.

Jared Wise is a former counterterrorism FBI Supervisory Special Agent who was arrested for crimes related to January 6 on May 1, 2023; he was indicted on civil disorder, assault, and trespassing charges on May 31, 2023.

In June, Wise moved to suppress a May 5, 2022 AT&T warrant and everything derivative of it, based on the theory that the warrant sought evidence of a conspiracy for which it had not presented probable cause (he is represented by Oregon’s very good FPD office). The same filing moved to suppress a photo obtained in an April 2023 traffic stop that occurred just weeks before a search of his residence. Finally, it aimed to suppress the search of his home based, in part, on staleness grounds. Then last month, Wise supplemented his suppression motion, this time arguing that a tower dump warrant obtained in January 2021 was an unconstitutional geofence warrant under a recent Fifth Circuit decision.

I took the time to read all this because I’ve been tracking the geofence challenges that come out of the January 6 investigation (see here, here, here, here, here, here) and also because I’m fascinated by the former law enforcement types who ended up attacking the Capitol. But between the government’s initial response and the response, submitted yesterday, to his supplement, they provide a fascinating picture of the FBI’s investigation into one of their own.

The government’s response argues this is not about a geofence at all. Rather, the warrant Wise claims was a geofence was instead a tower dump warrant targeting two towers that exclusively serve the interior of the Capitol, basically a search for business records of access to a cell phone tower rather than location data offered up in response to a voluntary Google service.

The filings together present this timeline of the investigation into Wise.

January 22, 2021 tower dump warrant

April 18, 2021 query of tower dump returns

October 2021 final conversation between Wise and tipster

January 10, 2022 public tip regarding Wise

January 26, 2022 interview in which tipster reveals Wise told him he was at the Capitol

May 5, 2022 AT&T warrant for 1752 and 5104 from November 1, 2020 through February 1, 2021: Disclosed Wise made 62 calls and sent 46 text messages on January 6

November 23, 2022 AT&T warrant for 1752 and 5104 from November 3, 2020 through January 31, 2021: Shows Wise still using phone

April 2, 2023 traffic stop on suspicion of altered VIN

April 12 and 13, 2023 warrant, issued in CAED but never executed

April 18 warrant shows Wise still using phone

April 24, 2023 warrant for Wise’s house, car, and person for 1752, 5104, 1512(c)(2), 111, 231, 371, 372: On May 1, FBI seizes:

Apple iPhone
Apple MacBook Pro
Burner LG Phoenix 5 (unopened)
Clothing from riot

His phone number was collected in the tower dump, but he attracted no individualized attention until someone narced him out in January 2022, at which point they found the cell phone records that he had been in the building during the 2PM hour on January 6.

At first, the FBI only obtained information to support the two trespassing charges, 1752 and 5104, used with all January 6 suspects. But the affiant of that warrant described that a search might find “help identify co-conspirators or victims,” which is why Wise claimed that this warrant was, “a fishing expedition, hoping to find some evidence of conspiracy when there is no probable cause to believe that one exists.” But, the government noted in response, at that point “the warrant authorized the seizure only of evidence related to the noted offenses.” While the second warrant, dated November 23, 2022, remained focused on the trespassing charges, it noted that,

I know that many persons who came to the Capitol on January 6, 2021, engaged in planning between the time of the November 2020 election and January 6, 2021, and that they communicated with other like-minded individuals about their purpose in coming to the Capitol using their smartphones.

Things got more interesting when — at least as described — a California Highway Patrol officer stopped Wise in April 2023, weeks before a warrant would be issued for his arrest, because the color on his registration did not match the color of the vehicle and, partly because of Wise’s Texas plates, the officer suspected VIN swapping.

The officer decided to make a traffic enforcement stop of the vehicle based on the registration return, which indicated the car’s color was blue, rather than what the officer observed to be grey. The officer knew, based on his training and experience, that there are many vehicles in the state of California that have had their Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) switched in Texas.

Wise undoubtedly believed this was a pretext stop — a stop invented solely to collect information from a suspect. As a former CT officer, he would know how they are used. And so after the officer freed him to leave, Wise got out of his car and started filming the officer.

But after he was told he was free to leave, the defendant became verbally aggressive and irritated with the officer. The defendant insisted he was stopped unlawfully and said there was another reason why the officer made the traffic stop. The officer continued to advise the defendant of the reason for the stop and told him multiple times the stop was over and that he was “free to leave.” As the officer returned to his patrol vehicle, the defendant exited his vehicle, carrying his cell phone, and appeared to be recording the officer and his vehicle. The defendant approached the officer in a slightly aggressive manner and continued to appear upset that he was stopped. The defendant requested the officer’s name and badge number, which the officer then provided. The officer again advised the defendant that the traffic stop was over and he was free to leave. After approximately two minutes, the defendant returned to his vehicle and departed.

That’s when the officer got the picture of Wise’s car, which was used in the affidavit to search Wise’s house, car, and person.

But even if the defendant’s traffic stop was improper, there was no seizure at the time the relevant photograph of the defendant was taken. Indeed, the opposite was true. The traffic stop was conducted, the defendant’s license and registration were checked and returned, and the defendant was told he was free to leave. It was over. See Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 333 (2009) (“Normally, the stop ends when the police have no further need to control the scene, and inform the driver and passengers they are free to leave.”); United States v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544, 553 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (holding that the seizure of the defendant was over after the defendant’s license and registration was returned and he was told he was free to leave), aff’d in part sub nom. United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012). But the defendant did not leave. Instead, after being repeatedly told he was free to leave, the defendant—who has, in other filings, opined that he is in a “unique position to admonish law enforcement,” ECF No. 33 at 32 n.8—chose to exit his vehicle, pull out his cell phone, and start recording the officer who had stopped him. It was then that the photograph subsequently used in the search warrant—seen below—was taken. In other words, the defendant voluntarily remained to reprimand a police officer, and now complains when the officer happened to document the scene using a police-issued cruiser camera.

The traffic stop’s inclusion in these suppression motions is, legally, superfluous. The government compellingly argues that they got the probable cause information to search the vehicle via other means, including surveillance of Wise and a different picture of his vehicle.

The April 2023 affidavit recites facts tying the vehicle to the defendant: it identifies the vehicle as being registered to the defendant, see Exhibit D at ¶ 2, and it cites surveillance confirming the vehicle’s presence at the defendant’s residence, see Exhibit D at ¶ 56. But the affidavit never even mentions the April 2, 2024 traffic stop. See generally Exhibit D. Instead, the pertinent photograph appears as part of an attachment identifying the vehicle to be searched. See Exhibit D at Attachment A. That attachment states “[t]he Vehicle is depicted below” and includes two photographs—only one of which is from the traffic stop.

More importantly, nothing was seized from Wise’s car; there are no fruits of a search to suppress.

On the Fourth Amendment question, this dispute appears to arise from confusion about different technologies and therefore different probable cause formulas. Some of the confusion stems from temporal lapses between the execution of a warrant and queries of data obtained from it.

But what really appears to be going on is that a very paranoid former FBI guy, one who called cops “Nazis” on January 6, believes the FBI is or was investigating him more broadly. He believed in real time and still believes (and he may be right) that when a cop stopped him during his trip to California in April 2023, it was a pretext stop designed to collect more information; there are a good number of other January 6 defendants in which such stops were used.

Ultimately, Wise came to believe “they” were out to get him, “they” were out to investigate a larger conspiracy.

In the end, they were! The search of his house included two conspiracy charges, 371 and 372, among the suspect crimes.

But instead, he’s facing two civil disorder charges for his own actions, allegedly attacking cops.

Share this entry

Trump Sold Grievance and America Liked What He Was Selling

What It Would Take to Charge Donald Trump with Inciting Insurrection

Secret Documents! The Ten Month Privilege Fight Whingers Claim Didn’t Happen

Jack Smith’s Delicate Treatment of BadgerPundit Kenneth Chesebro

So Help Me God: Lawyers, Encryption, and Insurrection

How to Read the Immunity Appendix

Witnesses

Trump’s GOP Is Running on a Platform of Freeing Seditionists and Cop Assailants

Jack Smith’s Appendix

Jack Smith Takes Up the Aid and Abet Theory Endorsed by Judge Amit Mehta in 2022

Searching for Jared Wise

Interesting links

Pages