January 6 Insurrection Archives - Page 5 of 77

Machine for Fascism: The Two Stephens

October 13, 2024/56 Comments/in 2020 Presidential Election, 2024 Presidential Election, emptywheel, January 6 Insurrection /by emptywheel

When I saw the news that Trump is planning a rally at Madison Square Garden — as the Nazis did in 1939 — I checked the date to see whether that was before or after Steve Bannon gets out of prison.

Bannon is due to get out on October 29; the rally is two days earlier, on October 27. On the current schedule, Bannon will be released nine days before the election, but not soon enough to attend what will undoubtedly be a larger version of the Nazi rant that Trump put on in Aurora the other day. Unless something disrupts it, Bannon will start trial for defrauding Trump supporters on December 9, days before the states certify the electoral vote.

This is the kind of timing I can’t get out of my head. According to FiveThirtyEight, Kamala Harris currently has a 53% chance of winning the electoral college. That’s bleak enough. But based on everything I know about January 6, I’d say that if Trump loses, there’s at least a 10% chance Trump’s fuckery in response will have a major impact on the transfer of power.

Experts on right wing extremism are suggesting the same thing. Here’s an interview Rick Perlstein did with David Neiwert back in August on the political violence he expects. Here’s a report from someone who infiltrated the 3 Percenters, predicting they would engage in vigilanteism.

Will Jack Smith unveil charges about inciting violence amid election violence?

As I wrote in this post, I suspect that Jack Smith considered, but did not, add charges when he decided to supersede Trump’s January 6 indictment. As I wrote, there is negative space in Smith’s immunity filing where charges on Trump’s funding for January 6 (and subsequent suspected misuse of those funds) might otherwise be.

More tellingly, there are four things that indicate Jack Smith envisioned — but did not yet include — charges relating to ginning up violence. As Smith did in a 404(b) filing submitted in December, he treated Mike Roman as a co-conspirator when he exhorted a colleague, “Make them riot” and “Do it!!!” Newly in the immunity filing, he treated Bannon as a co-conspirator, providing a way to introduce Steve Bannon’s prediction, “All Hell is going to break loose tomorrow!” shortly after speaking with Trump on January 5. But Smith didn’t revise the indictment to describe Roman and Bannon as CC7 and CC8; that is, he did not formally include these efforts to gin up violence in this indictment. What appears to be the same source for the Mike Roman detail (which could be Roman’s phone, which was seized in September 2022; in several cases it has taken a year to exploit phones seized in the January 6 investigation) also described that Trump adopted the same tactic in Philadelphia.

The defendant’s Campaign operatives and supporters used similar tactics at other tabulation centers, including in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,21 and the defendant sometimes used the resulting confrontations to falsely claim that his election observers were being denied proper access, thus serving as a predicate to the defendant’s claim that fraud must have occurred in the observers’ absence.22

Even more notably, after saying (in that same December 404(b) filing) that he wanted to include Trump’s endorsement and later ratification of the Proud Boys’ attack on the country to “demonstrate[] the defendant’s encouragement of violence,” Smith didn’t include them in the immunity filing whatsoever — not even in the section where the immunity filing described Trump’s endorsement of men who assaulted cops. If I’m right that Smith held stuff back because SCOTUS delayed his work so long it butted into the election season, it would mean he believes he has the ability to prove that Trump deliberately stoked violence targeting efforts to count the vote at both the state and federal level, but could not lay that out until after November 5, after which Trump may be in a position to dismiss the case entirely.

And the two Stephens — Bannon, whose War Room podcast would serve to show that Trump intended to loose all Hell on January 6, and Miller, who added the finishing touches to Trump’s speech making Mike Pence a target for that violence — appear to have a plan to do just that, working in concert with Elon Musk.

The two Stephens say Trump must be able to stoke violence with false claims as part of his campaign

As I laid out in June, just as Bannon was reporting to prison, both Stephens were arguing that they had a right to make false claims that had the effect of fostering violence.

Bannon filed an emergency appeal aiming to stay out of prison arguing he had to remain out so he could “speak[] on important issues.”

There is also a strong public interest in Mr. Bannon remaining free during the run-up to the 2024 presidential election. The government seeks to imprison him for the four-month period immediately preceding the November election—giving an appearance that the government is trying to prevent Mr. Bannon from fully assisting with the campaign and speaking out on important issues, and also ensuring the government exacts its pound of flesh before the possible end of the Biden Administration.

No one can dispute that Mr. Bannon remains a significant figure. He is a top advisor to the President Trump campaign, and millions of Americans look to him for information on matters important to the ongoing presidential campaign. Yet from prison, Mr. Bannon’s ability to participate in the campaign and comment on important matters of policy would be drastically curtailed, if not eliminated. There is no reason to force that outcome in a case that presents substantial legal issues.

That claim came just after he had given a “Victory or Death” speech at a Turning Point conference.

In the same period, Stephen Miller attempted to intervene in Jack Smith’s efforts to prevent Trump from making false claims that the FBI tried to assassinate him when they did a search of his home governed by a standard use-of-force policy, knowing full well he was gone. (Aileen Cannon rejected Miller’s effort before she dismissed the case entirely.)

Miller argued that the type of speech that Smith wanted to limit — false claims that have already inspired a violent attack on the FBI — as speech central to Trump’s campaign for President.

The Supreme Court has accordingly treated political speech—discussion on the topics of government and civil life—as a foundational area of protection. This principle, above all else, is the “fixed star in our constitutional constellation[:] that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics[ or] nationalism . . . or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943) (Jackson, J.). Therefore, “[d]iscussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates” are considered “integral” to the functioning of our way of government and are afforded the “broadest protection.” Buckley, 424 U.S. at 14.

Because “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open” debate enables “the citizenry to make informed choices among candidates for office,” “the constitutional guarantee has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office.” Id. at 14-15 (citations omitted). Within this core protection for political discourse, the candidates’ own speech—undoubtedly the purest source of information for the voter about that candidate—must take even further primacy. Cf. Eu v. S.F. Cnty. Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214, 222-24 (1989) (explaining that political speech by political parties is especially favored). This must be especially true when, as here, the candidate engages in a “pure form of expression involving free speech alone rather than expression mixed with particular conduct.” Buckley, 424 U.S. at 17 (cleaned up) (contrasting picketing and parading with newspaper comments or telegrams). These principles layer together to strongly shield candidates for national office from restrictions on their speech.

Miller called Trump’s false attack on the FBI peaceful political discourse.

Importantly, Miller dodged an argument Smith made — that Trump intended that his false claims would go viral. He intended for people like Bannon to repeat his false claims. In disclaiming any intent to incite imminent action, Miller ignored the exhibit showing Bannon parroting Trump’s false claim on his War Room podcast.

It cannot be said that by merely criticizing—or, even as some may argue, mischaracterizing—the government’s actions and intentions in executing a search warrant at his residence, President Trump is advocating for violence or lawlessness, let alone inciting imminent action. The government’s own exhibits prove the point. See generally ECF Nos. 592-1, 592-2. 592-3, 592-5.

Note, Bannon did this with Mike Davis, a leading candidate for a senior DOJ position under Trump, possibly even Attorney General, who has vowed to instill a reign of terror in that position.

But that was the point — Jack Smith argued — of including an exhibit showing Bannon doing just that.

Predictably and as he certainly intended, others have amplified Trump’s misleading statements, falsely characterizing the inclusion of the entirely standard use-of-force policy as an effort to “assassinate” Trump. See Exhibit 4.

Back in June, Bannon said he had to remain out of prison because he played a key role in Trump’s campaign. And Miller said that even if Bannon deliberately parroted Trump’s false incendiary claims, that was protected political speech as part of Trump’s campaign.

Miller helps eliminate checks on disinformation and Nazis on Xitter

But this effort has been going on for years.

A report that American Sunlight released this week describing how systematically the right wing turned to dismantling the moderation processes set up in the wake of the 2016 election points to Miller’s America First Legal’s role in spinning moderation by private actors as censorship. Miller started fundraising for his effort in 2021.

[F]ormer Trump Senior Advisor Stephen Miller[] founded America First Legal (AFL). 6 An unflinchingly partisan organization, the home page of AFL’s website claims its mission is to “[fight] back against lawless executive actions and the Radical Left,” 7 which it accomplishes through litigation. AFL has, to date, engaged in dozens of efforts to silence disinformation research through frivolous lawsuits and collaboration with Jordan and the House Judiciary Committee’s harassment of researchers. In a digital age where social media is more prevalent than ever and social media platforms have more power than ever, AFL’s efforts to politicize legitimate efforts to combat disinformation – by social media platforms and independent private-citizen researchers – have significantly damaged the information environment. To fully realize these efforts and their impacts, we explore the founding and operations of AFL.

[snip]

After its launch in early 2022, AFL began its line of litigation with a series of FOIA requests relating to the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC) and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). These requests marked a noticeable uptick in conservative claims about censorship. AFL’s FOIA requests alleged these government agencies improperly partnered with social media platforms and asked for content around Hunter Biden’s laptop to be removed. 22 In its FOIA request to CISA, AFL writes 23 :

On March 17, 2022, the New York Times revealed that “[Hunter] Biden’s laptop was indeed authentic, more than a year after … much of the media dismissed the New York Post’s reporting as Russian disinformation.” When the story was first accused of being disinformation, X/Twitter suspended the New York Post’s account for seven days, and Facebook “’reduc[ed]’ the story’s distribution on its platform while waiting for third-party fact checkers to verify it.” This was just one of many instances where social media companies censored politically controversial information under the pretext of combatting MDM even when the information later became verified.

Then, as now, AFL offered no evidence to support its claim that any federal agency coerced, pressured, or mandated that social media platforms remove any such laptop-related content. As this report will cover in depth, social media platforms have their own, robust content moderation policies in regards to false and misleading content; as private companies, they implement these policies as they see fit.

The American Sunlight report describes how some of the key donations to AFL were laundered so as to hide the original donors (and other of its donations came from entities that had received the funds Trump raised in advance of January 6).

But as WSJ recently reported, Musk started dumping tens of millions into Miller’s racist and transphobic ads no later than June 2022.

In the fall of 2022, more than $50 million of Musk’s money funded a series of advertising campaigns by a group called Citizens for Sanity, according to people familiar with his involvement and tax filings for the group. The bulk of the ads ran in battleground states days before the midterm elections and attacked Democrats on controversial issues such as medical care for transgender children and illegal immigration.

Citizens for Sanity was incorporated in Delaware in June 2022, with salaried employees from Miller’s nonprofit legal group listed as its directors and officers.

There are questions of whether Miller grew close to Musk even before that.

In the lead-up to Musk’s purchase of Xitter, someone — there’s reason to believe it might be Stephen Miller — texted Musk personally to raise the sensitivities of restoring Trump, whom the person called, “the boss,” to Xitter.

And one of Musk’s phone contacts appears to bring Trump up. However, unlike others in the filings, this individual’s information is redacted.

“It will be a delicate game of letting right wingers back on Twitter and how to navigate that (especially the boss himself, if you’re up for that),” the sender texted to Musk, referencing conservative personalities who have been banned for violating Twitter’s rules.

Whoever this was — and people were guessing it was Miller in real time — someone close enough to Elon to influence his purchase of Xitter was thinking of the purchase in terms of bringing back “right wingers,” including Trump.

Yesterday, the NYT reported on how the far right accounts that Musk brought back from bannings have enjoyed expanded reach since being reinstated. Some of the most popular accounts have laid the groundwork for attacking the election.

As the election nears, some of the high-profile reinstated accounts have begun to pre-emptively cast doubt on the results. Much of the commentary is reminiscent of the conspiracy theories that swirled after the 2020 election and in the lead-up to the Jan. 6 riot.

Since being welcomed back to the platform, roughly 80 percent of the accounts have discussed the idea of stolen elections, with most making some variation of the claim that Democrats were engaged in questionable voting schemes. Across at least 1,800 posts on the subject, the users drew more than 13 million likes, shares and other reactions.

Some prominent accounts shared a misleading video linked to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, that used shaky evidence to claim widespread voter registration of noncitizens. One of the posts received more than 750,000 views; Mr. Musk later circulated the video himself.

But it’s more than just disinformation. Xitter has played a key role in stoking anti-migrant violence across the world. In Ireland, for example, Alex Jones’ magnification of Tommy Robinson’s tweets helped stoke an attack on a shelter for migrants.

As with mentions of Newtownmountkennedy, users outside of Ireland authored the most posts on X mentioning this hashtag, according to the data obtained by Sky News. 57% were posted by accounts based in the United States, 24.7% by Irish users. A further 8.8% were attributed to users based in the United Kingdom.

While four of the top five accounts attracting the most engagement on posts mentioning this hashtag were based in Ireland, the fifth belongs to Alex Jones, an American media personality and conspiracy theorist. Jones’s posts using this hashtag were engaged with 10,700 times.

Jones continued to platform Robinson as he stoked riots in the UK.

Several high-profile characters known for their far-right views have provided vocal commentary on social media in recent days and have been condemned by the government for aggravating tensions via their posts.

Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, who operates under the alias Tommy Robinson, has long been one of Britain’s most foremost far-right and anti-Muslim activists and founded the now-defunct English Defence League (EDL) in 2009.

According to the Daily Mail, Robinson is currently in a hotel in Cyprus, from where he has been posting a flurry of videos to social media. Each post has been viewed hundreds of thousands of times, and shared by right-wing figures across the world including United States InfoWars founder Alex Jones.

And Elon Musk himself famously helped stoke the violence, not just declaring civil war to be “inevitable,” but also adopting Nigel Farage’s attacks on Keir Starmer.

On Monday, a spokesperson for UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer addressed Musk’s comment, telling reporters “there’s no justification for that.”

But Musk is digging his heels in. On Tuesday, he labeled Starmer #TwoTierKier in an apparent reference to a debunked claim spread by conspiracy theorists and populist politicians such as Nigel Farage that “two-tier policing” means right-wing protests are dealt with more forcefully than those organized by the left. He also likened Britain to the Soviet Union for attempting to restrict offensive speech on social media.

In the UK, such incitement is illegal. But it is virtually impossible to prosecute in the United States. So if Elon ever deliberately stoked political violence in the US, it would be extremely difficult to stop him, even ignoring the years of propaganda about censorship and the critical role some of Musk’s companies play in US national security.

Bannon’s international fascist network

The ties to Nigel Farage go further than Xitter networks.

In a pre-prison interview with David Brooks (in which Brooks didn’t mention how Bannon stands accused of defrauding Trump’s supporters in his New York case), Bannon bragged about turning international fascists into rocks stars.

STEVE BANNON: Well, I think it’s very simple: that the ruling elites of the West lost confidence in themselves. The elites have lost their faith in their countries. They’ve lost faith in the Westphalian system, the nation-state. They are more and more detached from the lived experience of their people.

On our show “War Room,” I probably spend at least 20 percent of our time talking about international elements in our movement. So we’ve made Nigel a rock star, Giorgia Meloni a rock star. Marine Le Pen is a rock star. Geert is a rock star. We talk about these people all the time.

And in August, Bannon’s top aide, Alexandra Preate, registered as a foreign agent for Nigel Farage. She cited arranging his participation in:

A March 2023 CPAC speech
Discussions, as early as August 2023, about a Farage speech at RNC
A January 2024 pitch for Farage to speak at a Liberty University CEO Summit that was held last month
Talks at “Sovereignty Summits” in April through July
April arrangements for a May 1 talk at Stovall House in Tampa, Florida
Discussions in May about addressing CPAC in September
May 2024 media appearances on the Charlie Kirk Show, Fox Business Larry Kudlow show, Bannon’s War Room, Seb Gorka Show, Newsmax, WABC radio
More discussions about Farage’s attendance at the RNC
Early August discussions about an upcoming trip to the US

That is, Preate retroactively registered as Farage’s agent after a period (July to August) when he was spreading false claims that stoked riots in his own country.

Preate also updated her registration for the authoritarian Salvadoran President, Nayib Bukele (which makes you wonder whether she had a role in this fawning profile of Bukele).

Miller serves as opening act for Trump’s Operation Aurora

Before Trump’s speech in Aurora, CO the other day — at which he spoke of using the Alien and Sedition Act against what he deemed to be migrants — Stephen Miller served as his opening act, using the mug shots of three undocumented immigrants who have committed violent crimes against American women to rile up the crowd, part of a years-long campaign to falsely suggest that migrants are even as corrupt as violent as white supremacists.

Stephen Miller started laying the infrastructure to improve on January 6 from shortly after the failed coup attempt (and he did so, according to the American Sunlight report, with funds that Trump may have raised with his Big Lie). In recent weeks, Trump — with Miller’s help — has undermined the success of towns in Ohio and Colorado with racial division and has led his own supporters hard hit by hurricanes to forgo aid to which they’re entitled with false claims that Democrats are withholding that aid.

By targeting people like North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper and Kamala Harris, Trump is targeting not just Democrats, but also people who play a key role in certifying the election.

If Cooper and Harris were incapacitated before they played their role in certifying the election, they would be replaced by Mark Robinson and whatever president pro tempore a Senate that is expected to have a GOP majority after January 4 chooses, if such a choice could be negotiated in a close Senate in a few days.

And all the while, the richest man in the world, who claims that he, like Steve Bannon and Donald Trump, might face prison if Vice President Harris wins the election, keeps joking about assassination attempts targeting Harris.

We have just over three weeks to try to affect the outcome on November 5 — to try to make it clear that Trump will do for America what he has done in Springfield, Aurora, and Western North Carolina, deliberately made things worse for his own personal benefit. But at the same time, we need to be aware of how those efforts to make things worse are about creating a problem that Trump can demand emergency powers to solve.

Share this entry

Trump Demands Emergency Appendix Surgery

October 10, 2024/69 Comments/in 2020 Presidential Election, 2024 Presidential Election, January 6 Insurrection /by emptywheel

Today was the deadline Judge Chutkan set for Trump to object to any of the specific redactions Jack Smith had proposed in the appendix to his motion on immunity.

MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: The Clerk of the Court is directed to file on the public docket the Government’s “Motion for Leave to File Unredacted Motion Under Seal, and to File Redacted Motion on Public Docket,” ECF No. 245. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant shall file under seal any objections to the proposed redactions in the Government’s Motion for Immunity Determinations by 12:00 PM on October 1, 2024, and shall file under seal any objections to the proposed redactions in the Appendix to that Motion by 5:00 PM on October 10, 2024. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/27/2024. (zcll)

Rather than object, Trump filed another whining complaint about the election. Predictably, he cited the ill-informed rants of Elie Honig and Jack Goldsmith.

There should be no further disclosures at this time of the so-called “evidence” that the Special Counsel’s Office has unlawfully cherry-picked and mischaracterized—during early voting in the 2024 Presidential election—in connection with an improper Presidential immunity filing that has no basis in criminal procedure or judicial precedent. President Trump maintains his objections, see ECF No. 248, based on overt and inappropriate election interference, violations of longstanding DOJ policy, the Office’s previous safety-related representations in this District and the Southern District of Florida, grand jury secrecy, and the influence on potential witnesses and jurors of prejudicial pretrial publicity—which predictably followed from the filing of the redacted “Motion for Immunity Determinations.”2

2 See, e.g., Ellie Honig, Jack Smith’s October Cheap Shot, N.Y. Magazine (Oct. 3, 2024), https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/jack-smith-october-surprise-donald-trump.html; see also Jack Goldsmith, Jack Smith Owes Us an Explanation, N.Y. Times (Oct. 9, 2024), https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/09/opinion/jack-smith-trump-biden.html.

Given that she again got no specific objections to the redactions Jack Smith opposed, Judge Chutkan approved the posting of the appendix (which must be about 1500 pages).

Defendant has now filed an opposition objecting to unsealing any part of the Appendix. ECF No. 259. As in his previous filing, he identifies no specific substantive objections to particular proposed redactions. Instead, Defendant “maintains his objections” to any “further disclosures at this time” for the same reasons he opposed unsealing the Motion, and he requests that “[i]f the Court decides to release additional information relating to the Office’s filing, in the Appendix or otherwise, . . . that the Court stay that determination for a reasonable period of time so that [he] can evaluate litigation options relating to the decision.” Id. at 1–2. For the same reasons set forth in its decision with respect to the Motion, ECF No. 251, the court determines that the Government’s proposed redactions to the Appendix are appropriate, and that Defendant’s blanket objections to further unsealing are without merit. As the court has stated previously, “Defendant’s concern with the political consequences of these proceedings” is not a cognizable legal prejudice. Id. at 4–5.

Accordingly, the Government’s Motion for Leave to File to Unredacted Motion Under Seal, and to File Redacted Motion on Public Docket, ECF No. 246, is GRANTED with respect to the Government’s proposed redacted version of the Appendix to the Government’s Motion for Immunity Determinations.

But she gave Trump a week to — as he described — “evaluate litigation options.”

The court will grant Defendant’s request for a stay so that he can “evaluate litigation options,” ECF No. 259 at 2, and hereby STAYS this decision for seven days.

I await the opinion of smart lawyers. But Judge Chutkan seems to be engaged in a bit of judicial rope-a-dope. The most obvious legal option Trump has is an Emergency Temporary Restraining Order against posting the appendix, but he has just foregone two opportunities to make specific objections. He would face an even bigger problem if he tried to get a writ of mandamus against Judge Chutkan, partly because he did have alternative recourse (specific objections) and partly because she’s literally doing what SCOTUS told her to do.

We shall see. For the moment, though, Trump seems poised to draw more attention to what was largely a restatement of what we already knew.

Share this entry

More on Jack Smith’s Immunity Filing

October 10, 2024/23 Comments/in 2020 Presidential Election, January 6 Insurrection /by emptywheel

Harry Litman was kind enough to invite me onto Talking Feds yesterday to go over Jack Smith’s immunity document.

Share this entry

Bombshell “New[s]:” Jack Smith DID Consult about Timing before Adopting Post-SCOTUS Path

October 9, 2024/56 Comments/in 2020 Presidential Election, 2024 Presidential Election, January 6 Insurrection /by emptywheel

After I wrote this post laying out that Elie Honig was not only wrong about Jack Smith’s immunity briefing, but that it was very likely DOJ had decided not to take certain steps in August because of the election, I thought about sending the post to Jack Goldsmith, because he tends to make claims about Jack Smith violating DOJ guidelines with little understanding of the facts.

Oops. Too late.

Whereas Honig dedicated just one paragraph to asserting that the problem here lay in “new” disclosures,

The immediate takeaway lies in the revelations contained in Smith’s oversize brief. (He asked the judge for, and received, permission to file a brief that was 180 pages long, four times the normal maximum.) We now have damning new details on Trump’s effort to pressure Vice-President Mike Pence to throw the election his way, Trump’s phone use and use of Twitter as the riot unfolded, and his conversations with family members about efforts to contest his electoral loss. The story’s structure is the same as we’ve long known, but the new details lend depth and dimension.

Goldsmith repeated his claim that there were “new” disclosures in Jack Smith’s immunity filing four times, starting in the lead paragraph.

Last week a judge unsealed a 165-page legal brief with damaging new revelations about President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

[snip]

The brief he filed last week sought to show that the election prosecution can continue despite the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling. It laid out the government’s case against Mr. Trump with what many media reports described as “bombshell” new details about his wrongdoing. The filing is in clear tension with the Justice Department’s 60-day rule, which the department inspector general has described as a “longstanding department practice of delaying overt investigative steps or disclosures that could impact an election” within 60 days of an election. However, the “rule” is unwritten and, as the inspector general made clear, has an uncertain scope.

[snip]

Perhaps the department thinks the new disclosures are marginal and won’t affect the election, or that the rule does not apply to litigation steps in previously indicted cases, even if they would affect the election.

[snip]

Because it didn’t need to disclose the new details now, and because it was foreseeable that the disclosures would cause approximately half the country to suspect the department’s motives, it is hard to understand any reason to go forward this close to the election other than to influence it — a motive that would clearly violate department policy.

New new new new.

Bombshell!

I’ll note, I was not among the allegedly “many media reports” that declared I had found “‘bombshell’ new details.” Nor was Brandi Buchman, in her new gig at HuffPo. Nor were Politico’s Kyle Cheney and Josh Gerstein. While a subhed of the WaPo story on the brief promised “new” details, the story itself describes that we knew most of this before.

Much of the evidence against Trump in the case had already become public, either through previous filings, news reports or an extensive congressional investigation into the events of Jan. 6.

Tellingly, while NYT devoted a section of their four takeaways piece to “new” evidence, they specifically said none of this was “game-changing.”

The prosecutor revealed new evidence.

The brief contained far more detail than the indictment and included many specific allegations that were not previously part of the public record of the events leading up to the attack on the Capitol by a mob of Trump supporters on Jan. 6, 2021.

None of the new details were game-changing revelations, but they add further texture to the available history. For example, part of the brief focuses on a social media post that Mr. Trump sent on the afternoon of the attack on the Capitol, telling supporters that Vice President Mike Pence had let them all down.

Mr. Trump was sitting alone in the dining room off the Oval Office at the time. According to the brief, forensic data shows he was using the Twitter app on his phone and watching Fox News. Fox had just interviewed a man who was frustrated that Mr. Pence was not blocking the certification and then reported that a police officer may have been injured and the protesters had breached the Capitol.

Mr. Trump posted to Twitter that Mr. Pence had lacked the “courage” to do what was right. The mob became enraged at the vice president, and the Secret Service took him to a secure location. An aide to Mr. Trump rushed in to alert him to the peril Mr. Pence was in, but Mr. Trump looked at the aide and said only, “So what?” according to the brief. [my emphasis]

And much of this isn’t new.

We learned prosecutors were going to rely on forensic data from an expert notice submitted in December. The original indictment revealed that Trump was alone in his dining room when he sent the Tweet targeting Mike Pence. The superseding indictment added to the existing description in the original indictment that Trump was “watch[ing] events unfold” that his TV was showing “live coverage.” If you couldn’t already guess that meant he was watching Fox News, the January 6 Committee told us that in hearings and their final report. The actual content shown on Fox News at that moment is new to court filings, but it is publicly available. The Tweet itself, of course, has been discussed in detail starting from Trump’s impeachment. The Nick Luna comment, “So what?”, is new, but simply a better sourced version of Cassidy Hutchinson’s far more damning hearsay testimony of Mark Meadows telling Pat Cipollone that Trump thought Pence “deserves it” even as his supporters chanted “hang Mike Pence.”

The CNN piece that Honig linked to substantiate his claim this was new described that the filing provided “fullest picture yet of [Jack Smith’s] 2020 election case,” not that these were bombshells. It described “new” details to include:

Trump’s frayed relationship with former Vice President Mike Pence; FBI evidence of Trump’s phone usage on January 6, 2021, when rioters overtook the US Capitol; and conversations with family members and others where the then-president was fighting his loss to Joe Biden.

Those details of Trump’s phone usage — as I noted above — were actually covered in earlier filings and even the indictments. The one new attribution to a conversation with Trump’s family members — the “fight like hell” claim — is important mostly because it echoed the very public exhortation in the January 6 speech we all saw four years ago. And virtually all the references in the brief about Trump’s frayed relationship with Pence are parallel sourced to Mike Pence’s book, published years ago.

What Goldsmith cites instead of the NYT, where his op-ed was published (which, many people complained, didn’t play up the brief enough), was this ABC story. It promises stuff that is new, but then lists a bunch of stuff we knew already.

Special counsel Jack Smith has outlined new details of former President Donald Trump and his allies’ sweeping and “increasingly desperate” efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, in a blockbuster court filing Wednesday aimed at defending Smith’s prosecution of Trump following the Supreme Court’s July immunity ruling.

Trump intentionally lied to the public, state election officials, and his own vice president in an effort to cling to power after losing the election, while privately describing some of the claims of election fraud as “crazy,” prosecutors alleged in the 165-page filing.

And it doesn’t substantiate its claims that this stuff is new.

For example, the immunity filing explains how prosecutors know that Trump called Sidney Powell “crazy:” after Tucker Carlson ripped her to shreds, Trump let Dan Scavino and P7 — who may be Hope Hicks — listen to a conversation with Powell on speakerphone while he mocked her. That he called her crazy was included in the original indictment’s description of Powell.

One other thing some blow-ins to this story claimed was new — Mike Roman’s instruction to “Make them riot” — was also something already revealed in a December filing.

What Honig and Goldsmith are all worked up about is not new news, but editors who, trying to hype stories about this filing, felt the need to oversell the amount of new news in it.

Their concern arises out of click-bait, not the substance of the immunity filing itself.

And from that, Goldsmith scolds that Smith should have justified filing this brief in response to an order from Judge Chutkan.

[T]he department has not publicly justified its actions in the election prosecution, and its failure to do so in this highest-of-stakes context is a mistake.

Only, even Goldsmith’s claim that the department didn’t justify its actions is not entirely accurate.

Jack Smith hasn’t told us what internal DOJ deliberations were. But he did publicly reveal that before he did anything in the wake of the SCOTUS remand, he spent most of a month “consult[ing] with other Department of Justice components” regarding DOJ “rules, regulations … and policies” about “the most appropriate schedule” moving forward.

The Government continues to assess the new precedent set forth last month in the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 2312 (2024), including through consultation with other Department of Justice components. See 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a) (“A Special Counsel shall comply with the rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies of the Department of Justice,” including “consult[ing] with appropriate offices within the Department for guidance with respect to established practices, policies and procedures of the Department . . . .”). Although those consultations are well underway, the Government has not finalized its position on the most appropriate schedule for the parties to brief issues related to the decision.

DOJ is never going to reveal these deliberations (and Jack Goldsmith knows that better than most, given the number of far more important internal deliberations involving Goldsmith himself, dating to two decades ago, that we’ve never been allowed to and won’t ever be allowed to see).

But they did tell us they engaged in them. Jack Smith literally told us that he was spending weeks consulting about how to comply with DOJ policies regarding timing even before he superseded the indictment.

Only that detail — the one that they keep harping about — appears to be news to Honig and Goldsmith.

So chalk this up to yet another instance where the people complaining about what Jack Smith did, instead, only reveal they don’t know what Jack Smith did.

Update: Trump submitted, under seal, another request not to have any evidence released before the election. It cites both Honig and Goldsmith. Neither, of course, address the point Trump claims to be making.

President Trump maintains his objections, see ECF No. 248, based on overt and inappropriate election interference, violations of longstanding DOJ policy, the Office’s previous safety-related representations in this District and the Southern District of Florida, grand jury secrecy, and the influence on potential witnesses and jurors of prejudicial pretrial publicity—which predictably followed from the filing of the redacted “Motion for Immunity Determinations.”2

2 See, e.g., Ellie Honig, Jack Smith’s October Cheap Shot, N.Y. Magazine (Oct. 3, 2024), https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/jack-smith-october-surprise-donald-trump.html; see also Jack Goldsmith, Jack Smith Owes Us an Explanation, N.Y. Times (Oct. 9, 2024), https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/09/opinion/jack-smith-trump-biden.html.

Trump’s deadline to submit objections to Jack Smith’s proposed redactions is today at 5PM ET. Last time, when Trump made no substantive suggestions, Judge Chutkan released the file.

Share this entry

All Hell Is Going to Break Loose: Maybe Jack Smith Did Precisely What Elie Honig Claims He Didn’t

October 6, 2024/58 Comments/in 2020 Presidential Election, 2024 Presidential Election, emptywheel, January 6 Insurrection /by emptywheel

There are a number of laugh-in-his-face funny things about Elie Honig’s column bitching that Jack Smith submitted his immunity filing before the election. First, for years Honig whined and moaned that the January 6 investigation would never reach the Willard Hotel, which was, in the opinion he formed without examining much of the evidence, the only way it would reach Trump.

Well, now the court filings have incorporated the Willard, yet Honig seems not to have noticed (but then, he has never exhibited much awareness of what’s actually in court filings).

More importantly, I strongly suspect that this filing does reflect the impact of DOJ policy prohibiting major actions in the three months leading up to an election.

That is, I suspect that Jack Smith considered making more substantive tweaks to the superseding indictment against Trump, but did not because of the DOJ prohibition. This is, to be clear, speculation. But the speculation rests, in part, on what we see in the court filings.

Start with this detail: When Jack Smith asked for a three week extension to submit a status report on August 8 — three weeks that he predictably used to supersede the indictment — he didn’t say he needed the time to present the case to a new grand jury. Rather, he said he needed the time to consult with other parts of DOJ.

The Government continues to assess the new precedent set forth last month in the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 2312 (2024), including through consultation with other Department of Justice components. See 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a) (“A Special Counsel shall comply with the rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies of the Department of Justice,” including “consult[ing] with appropriate offices within the Department for guidance with respect to established practices, policies and procedures of the Department . . . .”). Although those consultations are well underway, the Government has not finalized its position on the most appropriate schedule for the parties to brief issues related to the decision.

And while I think it likely that Smith did consult with OLC, the Solicitor General, and the prosecutors at DC USAO who are superseding other accused January 6 criminals charged with 18 USC 1512(c)(2) about the content of his indictment, that’s not even what he said he was consulting about.

He said he was consulting about “the most appropriate schedule” to brief certain issues regarding the decision. He said he was consulting about DOJ rules, regulations, and policies.

The one DOJ policy pertaining to timing is precisely the one Honig is so upset about: the one prohibiting criminal charges or statements that might give an advantage or disadvantage to a particular candidate.

9-85.500 Actions that May Have an Impact on an Election

Federal prosecutors and agents may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party. Such a purpose is inconsistent with the Department’s mission and with the Principles of Federal Prosecution. See § 9-27.260. Any action likely to raise an issue or the perception of an issue under this provision requires consultation with the Public Integrity Section, and such action shall not be taken if the Public Integrity Section advises that further consultation is required with the Deputy Attorney General or Attorney General.

But as many people rebutted Honig, this pertains to stuff DOJ controls, like indictments, not to things a judge controls, like the briefing Judge Chutkan ordered, briefing about an indictment charged 14 months ago.

Tellingly, Honig didn’t bitch when Jack Smith superseded the indictment against Trump less than 90 days before the election. That’s probably because the indictment involved minor changes, mostly subtractions. Smith eliminated Jeffrey Clark’s conduct entirely, added language to emphasize Mike Pence’s role as Trump’s running-mate, and focused more closely on the fraudulent vote certifications Trump and his co-conspirators created. Honig didn’t opine that that more limited indictment would have required DOJ approval or violated pre-election rules.

The other reason I suspect that Smith considered, but did not, make more substantive changes to the indictment is what appears and doesn’t appear in the immunity filing.

First, as I alluded to the other day, there’s an asymmetry in how DOJ discusses Trump’s January 4 speech in Georgia and his January 6 speech. Regarding the former, prosecutors spend an entire paragraph laying out the fundraising emails Trump sent in advance of the Georgia speech, using those emails to argue that the speech was a campaign event.

Moreover, the defendant’s Campaign sent numerous fundraising emails before, during, and after the speech, confirming the event’s private nature. In a January 4 email around 3:00 p.m., the Campaign sent a fundraising email with the subject line “EPIC Rally in 6 HOURS,” that began, “President Trump is heading to GEORGIA for a RALLY with Senators [Loeffler] and [Perdue]. This rally is going to be EPIC and will show the Nation that REAL Americans, like YOU, are fired up and ready to FIGHT to keep our Republican Senate Majority. The Senate Runoff Election is TOMORROW, and it’s going to take the support of Patriots from all around the Nation if we’re going to WIN BIG and SAVE America from the Radical Left.”570 Later, at 9:21 p.m., the Campaign sent a fundraising email (in the name of the defendant’s son) that began, “My father is on stage RIGHT NOW in Georgia rallying with Senators [Loeffler] and [Perdue] to DEFEND our Senate Republican Majority. Are YOU watching?”571 The email reminded voters that “The Senate Runoff Election is TOMORROW and YOU are the only one who can stop [“‘the Left”] from taking over.”572 Another email at 10:41 p.m. (sent in the name of the defendant) began, “I just stepped off stage after speaking at an EPIC Victory Rally in Georgia with Senators [Loeffler] and [Perdue]. The energy of the American People was UNMATCHED and I know we’re going to WIN BIG tomorrow.”573?

It’s far more important to persuade Judge Chutkan that the January 6 speech was a campaign event. Yet, even though the filing spends three pages describing the “significant similarities” between the Georgia speech and the January 6 one, there’s no parallel argument that Trump fundraised off the January 6 speech. Indeed, there’s no other discussion of fundraising whatsoever in this filing, which is rather surprising given how Trump used his fundraising emails to cement The Big Lie. And we know that there was fundraising directly tied to the January 6 speech. As the January 6 Committee noted, the last email went out just as rioters breached the Capitol. J6C dedicated an appendix to both the legally sanctionable claims Trump made in fundraising emails and to ways Trump used the money raised to pay other bills, things other than what he told his rubes he would spend it on.

The easiest way to hold Trump accountable for January 6 in such a way that doesn’t remotely implicate presidential immunity would be to charge him for fundraising fraud, adopting the same model SDNY used to charge Steve Bannon and his co-conspirators for fundraising off the wall Trump never built. But there’s not a hint of that in the indictment currently before Judge Chutkan. The fact that prosecutors didn’t include the fundraising directly tied to January 6, even though it would help ensure they got to use the January 6 speech at trial, suggests they may be withholding it to use in some other way.

A still more obvious thing missing from the immunity filing is the Proud Boys.

Back in December, in the last filing Jack Smith submitted before Trump’s lawyers got Judge Chutkan to prohibit such things, Smith said he wanted to introduce Trump’s encouragement of the Proud Boys as 404(b) evidence.

The Government plans to introduce evidence from the period in advance of the charged conspiracies that demonstrates the defendant’s encouragement of violence. For instance, in response to a question during the September 29, 2020, presidential debate asking him to denounce the extremist group the Proud Boys, the defendant instead spoke publicly to them and told them to “stand back and stand by.” Members of the group embraced the defendant’s words as an endorsement and printed merchandise with them as a rallying cry. As discussed below, after the Proud Boys and other extremist groups participated in obstructing the congressional certification on January 6, the defendant made clear that they were acting consistent with his intent and direction in doing so.

[snip]

Of particular note are the specific January 6 offenders whom the defendant has supported— namely, individuals convicted of some of the most serious crimes charged in relation to January 6, such as seditious conspiracy and violent assaults on police officers. During a September 17, 2023, appearance on Meet the Press, for instance, the defendant said regarding Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio—who was convicted of seditious conspiracy—“I want to tell you, he and other people have been treated horribly.” The defendant then criticized the kinds of lengthy sentences received only by defendants who, like Tarrio, committed the most serious crimes on January 6. [my emphasis]

But the Proud Boys don’t appear, at all, in the immunity filing. You can go search for them using this OCR version. Nothing. Jack Smith said he wanted them to be part of the trial, but they’re not in this filing laying out that Smith might mention them at trial.

To be sure, there is a section of the immunity filing that addresses Trump’s fondness for convicted Jan6ers.

In the years after January 6, the defendant has reiterated his support for and allegiance to 39478 39479 rioters who broke into the Capitol, calling them “patriots478 and “hostages,479 providing them financial assistance,480 and reminiscing about January 6 as “a beautiful day.”481 At a rally in Waco, Texas, on March 25, 2023, the defendant started a tradition he has repeated several times—opening the event with a song called “Justice for All,” recorded by a group of charged—and in many cases, convicted—January 6 offenders known as the “January 6 Choir” and who, because of their dangerousness, are held at the District of Columbia jail.482 At the Waco Rally, of the January 6 Choir, the defendant said, “our people love those people, they love those people.”483 The defendant has also stated that if re-elected, he will pardon individuals convicted of crimes on January 6.484

But not only doesn’t it mention the Proud Boys directly (one of them was part of the Jan6 Choir, though not any of the seditionists), it doesn’t include the September 2023 interview in which Trump addressed Enrique Tarrio by name (bolded above).

478 GA 1973 at 16:52 (Video of Waco Rally 03/25/2023); GA 1962 at 48:29 (Video of Trump at Faith and Freedom Coalition 06/17/2022); GA 1971 (Video of Trump Interview 02/01/2022).

479 GA 1935 at 35:50, 01:16:16 (Video of Greensboro Rally 03/02/2024).

480 GA 1966 at 09:30 (Video of Trump Interview 09/01/2022).

481 GA 1967 at 45:18 (Video of Trump Interview 08/23/2023); GA 1692 (Transcript of CNN Town Hall 05/10/2023).

482 GA 1973 at 03:00 (Video of Waco Rally 03/25/2023). See, e.g., United States v. Jordan Robert Mink, 21-cr-25 (D.D.C. 2023); United States v. Ronald Sandlin, 21-cr-88 (D.D.C. 2022); United States v. Barton Shively, 21-cr-151 (D.D.C. 2022); United States v. Julian Khater, 21-cr-222 (D.D.C. 2022); United States v. James McGrew, 21-cr-398 (D.D.C. 2022).

483 GA 1973 at 06:02 (Video of Waco Rally 03/25/2023).

484 GA 1971 at 15:51 (Video of Trump Interview with Schmitt 02/01/2022).

If you’re going to impress SCOTUS with Trump’s outrageous support for convicted rioters, you would include the Proud Boys.

Unless you were holding them in reserve.

The immunity filing does include the other key focus of that December 404(b) filing, though: Mike Roman’s elicitation of a riot at TCF Center in Detroit.

In the immediate post-election period, while the defendant claimed fraud without proof, his private operatives sought to create chaos, rather than seek clarity, at polling places where states were continuing to tabulate votes. For example, on November 4, [Mike Roman]—a Campaign employee, agent, and co-conspirator of the defendant—tried to sow confusion when the ongoing vote count at the TCF Center in Detroit, Michigan, looked unfavorable for the defendant. There, when a colleague at the TCF Center told “We think [a batch of votes heavily in Biden’s favor is] right,”[Roman] responded, “find a reason it isnt,” “give me options to file litigation,” and “even if itbis [sic].”18 When the colleague suggested that there was about to be unrest reminiscent of the Brooks Brothers Riot,19 a violent effort to stop the vote count in Florida after the 2000 presidential election, responded, “Make them riot” and “Do it!!!”20 The defendant’s Campaign operatives and supporters used similar tactics at other tabulation centers, including in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,21 and the defendant sometimes used the resulting confrontations to falsely claim that his election observers were being denied proper access, thus serving as a predicate to the defendant’s claim that fraud must have occurred in the observers’ absence.22 [my emphasis]

Notably, that section of the immunity filing repeats something the 404(b) notice did: it called Roman — like Bannon — an unindicted co-conspirator, even though in the introduction of the immunity filing, it described him as an “agent” along with the other three main campaign operatives.

The Government also plans to introduce evidence of an effort undertaken by an agent (and unindicted co-conspirator) of the defendant who worked for his campaign (“the Campaign Employee”) to, immediately following the election, obstruct the vote count. On November 4, 2020, the Campaign Employee exchanged a series of text messages with an attorney supporting the Campaign’s election day operations at the TCF Center in Detroit, where votes were being counted; in the messages, the Campaign Employee encouraged rioting and other methods of obstruction when he learned that the vote count was trending in favor of the defendant’s opponent.

[seven lines redacted]

The Government will also show that around the time of these messages, an election official at the TCF Center observed that as Biden began to take the lead, a large number of untrained individuals flooded the TCF Center and began making illegitimate and aggressive challenges to the vote count. Thereafter, Trump made repeated false claims regarding election activities at the TCF Center, when in truth his agent was seeking to cause a riot to disrupt the count. This evidence is admissible to demonstrate that the defendant, his co-conspirators, and agents had knowledge that the defendant had lost the election, as well as their intent and motive to obstruct and overturn the legitimate results. [my emphasis]

As it did with Steve Bannon, the immunity filing called Roman a co-conspirator, without giving him a substitution, CC.

They’re both just “persons.”

At least in substitutions used in this filing.

Here’s why that’s especially interesting. As I noted in this post, the only evidentiary reason to describe Bannon as a co-conspirator is to introduce his words via hearsay exception, without requiring him to testify.

Some of what he said (bolded below), he said on texts to Boris Epshteyn, who was already treated as a co-conspirator, so those texts could come in anyway.

October 31: “He’s gonna declare himself a winner.” J6C (Originally sourced to MoJo)
November 13: “Trump just fired.”
December 13: Bannon resumes daily contact.
December 14: Alternate electors. J6C
January 2: “The Vice President’s role is not “ministerial.” J6C
January 2: Trump wanted Pence briefed by Eastman immediately.
January 4: Pre-Pence Willard Hotel meeting, from which Rudy calls Trump.
January 4: Post-Pence Willard Hotel meeting.
January 5: “Fuck his lawyer.”
January 5: Call with Trump before “All hell is going to break loose.” J6C

Others don’t involve Epshteyn (or are important for the way Bannon conveys recent contact with Trump).

One mention of Bannon in the immunity filing is his Halloween prediction that Trump would claim victory. According to Dan Friedman, who first reported on the recording, Bannon’s October 31 prediction that Trump would declare victory was a recording of a meeting he had with Guo Wengwui’s activists.

The pre-election audio comes from a meeting between Bannon and a half dozen supporters of Guo Wengui, an exiled Chinese mogul for whom Bannon has worked. Bannon helped Guo launch a series of pro-Trump Chinese-language news websites that have promoted an array of far-right misinformation, including a video streaming site called GTV. The meeting was intended to help GTV plan its election night coverage.

Though he did not attend, Guo arranged the confab, which was held in the Washington, DC, townhouse where Bannon tapes War Room, according to a person who was present.

Jack Smith chose to use this instance of Bannon’s prediction, which ties to the foreign funding of Bannon’s disinformation, rather than (as Bannon himself noted to Friedman in a comment for that story) any of the other times Bannon made the same prediction, including on his podcast.

[A] Bannon spokesperson argued that Bannon’s statements on the recording are not news. “Nothing on the recording wasn’t already said on War Room or on multiple other shows like The Circus on Showtime,” the spokesperson said. “Bannon gave that lecture multiple times from August to November to counter Mar[c] Elias’ Election Integrity Project.” Elias is a prominent Democratic election lawyer. The spokesperson also said that the January 6 committee “should have the courage to have Mr. Bannon come and testify publicly about these events.”

So one thing Smith does by including Bannon as a co-conspirator is to tie Guo’s funding of Bannon’s disinformation to January 6. Remember: SDNY treated Bannon as a co-conspirator at Guo’s trial (though did not treat it as a foreign influence operation).

But the more important instance where you’d need to treat Bannon as a co-conspirator to introduce his words is Bannon’s later prediction: “All hell is going to break loose.” The immunity filing directly ties the comment to an 11-minute phone call Bannon had with Trump, from 8:57 to 9:08 AM, earlier that morning.

The next morning, on January 5, the defendant spoke on the phone with [Bannon]. Less than two hours later, on his podcast, said in anticipation of the January 6 certification proceeding, “All Hell is going to break loose tomorrow.”376

That is, the immunity filing treats this prediction like three other things it includes on Bannon: his prediction Trump would declare victory, Bannon’s notice to Epshteyn that Trump would soon put Rudy in charge of post-election interference, and his January 2 instruction — given immediately after speaking to Trump — that Trump wanted John Eastman to brief Pence. All four use Bannon like a mirror to get to things (the filing implies) Trump told Bannon.

The immunity filing suggests that Bannon spoke to Trump, agreed that “all hell is going to break loose tomorrow,” and then shared that detail on his podcast.

Notably, though, like Roman’s elicitation of a riot, that’s not necessary to the charges in the existing indictment. Bannon’s involvement in the fake electors plot is — or is at least useful. Bannon’s conveyance of instructions from Trump, particularly on January 2, is a way to show Trump’s intent regarding the effort to pressure Pence.

But you don’t need violence to prove these charges. Indeed, both the indictment and the immunity filing stop well short of implicating Trump with inciting violence. They describe Trump and his co-conspirators attempting to “exploit” the violence already in progress to cause further delay, but they don’t accuse Trump of anticipating or encouraging that violence.

Steve Bannon and Mike Roman absolutely help prove the conspiracy counts currently charged against Trump; Roman’s communications, in particular, provide key details of how he recruited fake electors.

Where they become far more important as co-conspirators, though, both with the TCF unrest and the violence at the Capitol, is in arguing that Trump conspired to stoke violence, something that Jack Smith has not (yet, at least not publicly) charged, something that would also implicate the missing Proud Boys.

These inclusions and exclusions all suggest that Jack Smith could have approached the superseding indictment differently, but did not.

Again, this is speculation, but I suspect that Jack Smith reserved a number of things for use after the election.

If we get that far.

Share this entry

From the Willard to Danbury Correctional: Steve Bannon Allegedly Joins the Conspiracy

October 4, 2024/77 Comments/in 2020 Presidential Election, January 6 Insurrection /by emptywheel

One of Danbury’s Federal Correctional Institution’s most illustrious residents likely discovered on Wednesday that he had been promoted.

Steve Bannon is now P1, a feature player in Jack Smith’s latest description of Trump’s conspiracies to steal the election.

Bannon’s new prominence in Smith’s description has been noted by others. NYT noted it in a story on yesterday’s front page, cataloging at some length how Bannon’s described role in this has changed. WaPo noted it too, though with far less detail than NYT.

But Smith did more than simply talk about Bannon a lot.

He promoted him: right up into the group Smith says entered into a conspiracy with Trump.

A screen cap using red boxes to show that Steve Bannon, referred to as P1, is included among those referred to as “private co-conspirators.”

There are Rudy Giuliani (CC1), John Eastman (CC2), Sidney Powell (CC3), Ken Chesebro (CC5), Boris Epshteyn (CC6), and Steve Bannon (P1), listed as “private co-conspirators.” By contrast, even Mike Roman (P5), described as a co-conspirator when he was ginning up riots at Michigan’s TCF Center, is described in this introductory paragraph as an “agent,” along with Bill Stepien (P2), Justin Clark (P3), and Jason Miller (P4).

The distinction may be a legalism. The other P-labeled people mentioned in this paragraph were employed by Trump’s campaign, whereas none of the co-conspirators were. To admit the words and actions of those private lawyers and political operatives — the co-conspirators — under a hearsay exception, prosecutors need to persuade Judge Chutkan that they entered into an agreement to commit crimes together. That is, the designation may be about nothing more than making evidence readily admissible without having to call these people as witnesses at some hypothetical trial if SCOTUS ever lets Jack Smith have one.

But it must reflect a change in the way Jack Smith has come to treat Bannon over the last 14 months. The reason why Rudy and the others have “CC” labels, designating them as co-conspirators, is because they did in the original indictment. Those labels were retained with the superseding indictment to minimize confusion; even with Jeffrey Clark (formerly CC4) removed, Chesebro and Epshteyn retained their old numbers, 5 and 6.

Bannon didn’t even make it into the superseding indictment.

But he shows up in the Immunity filing at least nine times (where these incidents show up in the January 6 Report I’ve included links — a number of these details were already known).

October 31: “He’s gonna declare himself a winner.” J6C (Originally sourced to MoJo)
November 13: “Trump just fired.”
December 13: Bannon resumes daily contact.
December 14: Alternate electors. J6C
January 2: “The Vice President’s role is not “ministerial.” J6C
January 4: Pre-Pence Willard Hotel meeting, from which Rudy calls Trump.
January 4: Post-Pence Willard Hotel meeting.
January 5: “Fuck his lawyer.”
January 5: Call with Trump before “All hell is going to break loose.” J6C

Prosecutors added a reference to Bannon’s explanation of the plan to declare victory on October 31. They described that Bannon knew, in real time, that Trump was going to fire his campaign staff and put Rudy in charge. For some reason they suggest Bannon fell out of regular contact for a month (remember that immediately after the election, Bannon — not yet pardoned out of his Build the Wall charges — threatened to put Chris Wray’s head on a pike), only to rejoin again on December 13, just as the fake elector plot was getting up and rolling. There were a number of famous comments that appeared on Bannon’s podcast, including the prediction, on January 5, that “All hell is going to break loose” on January 6.

And then there are two meetings on January 4, both before and after the effort to pressure Pence to throw out Joe Biden’s votes. In the meeting prior to that January 4 meeting with Pence, Rudy called Trump while they were meeting at the Willard. Trump was on the phone with the plotters in the Willard Hotel.

The Trump conspiracy has finally reached the Willard Hotel.

To be clear, none of this means Bannon will be charged. The five remaining co-conspirators have been sitting out there for 14 months without being charged (though it doesn’t make sense to charge anyone until you ensure that Trump wouldn’t just pardon them out of their trouble, like he did the last time and already did once with Bannon).

Bannon’s inclusion as a co-conspirator may mean little more than that his communications are of some import to tell this story — perhaps his prediction that Trump would declare victory, perhaps his involvement in Trump’s decision to replace his campaign team with Rudy (remember that Robert Costello was involved in all this, building off the common purpose with the Hunter Biden “laptop”).

But those details could have come in via Boris Epshteyn. They’re captured in texts between the two (the delay in including Bannon could arise from a delay in reconstructing someone’s phone).

Where you’d need Bannon’s designation as a co-conspirator in particular is his prediction that, “all hell is going to break loose,” after his conversation with Trump.

Still that was all available back in August 2023, when this was first indicted. As noted, it was included in the J6C.

Which raises the question of whether Jack Smith has new information, perhaps about those two meetings at the Willard, bookending the January 4 attempt to pressure Pence. The filing describes that Rudy, Eastman, Epshteyn, and Bannon attended the meeting beforehand, from which Rudy called Trump; Rudy is not described to have attended the meeting afterwards. But that doesn’t rule out someone else attending those meetings, and some possible attendees have entered cooperation agreements in the state conspiracy cases (though Chesebro does not appear to have attended the meetings). Absent someone who attended the meetings cooperating, Smith might have little more from those meetings than business records from the Willard and calendars to prove they were all there (though he did get proffers from Rudy and Epshteyn).

The Federal conspiracy charges against Donald Trump have finally arrived at the Willard Hotel, and they brought along Steve Bannon as a co-conspirator.

Update: Added the screencap showing that Rudy called Trump while the co-conspirators were meeting at the Willard Hotel before the Pence meeting.

Share this entry

The September 26 Brief We’ll Get in the Trump January 6 Case

September 7, 2024/33 Comments/in 2020 Presidential Election, 2024 Presidential Election, emptywheel, January 6 Insurrection /by emptywheel

As I laid out in this thread, Judge Tanya Chutkan has set a deadline of September 26 for Jack Smith’s team to write a brief explaining how the superseding indictment against Trump consists exclusively of private conduct. From news coverage (Anna Bower and Roger Parloff did a typically good write-up of the hearing), it wasn’t entirely clear to me what that brief would entail.

Here’s how Thomas Windom described it in Thursday’s hearing:

MR. WINDOM: So what would our brief and what would our approach look like? What we anticipate filing in an opening brief is a comprehensive discussion and description of both pled and unpled facts. What this would do would be to set the stage so that all parties and the Court know the issues that the Court needs to consider in order to make its fact-bound determinations that the Supreme Court has required.

THE COURT: Your proposal mentions the Government’s briefing would include a proffer about unpled categories of evidence. You just mentioned that. Can you be a little more specific — or is that what you’re getting to? — about what that would look like? I mean, are you talking about not just — not the evidence itself, obviously, but the form it would take, proffered by — in written form? What are we talking about?

MR. WINDOM: Sure. So our initial view on it is this. We didn’t want to get ahead of the Court to lay anything specifically out.

But here’s what we are — what we were thinking and what we wanted to discuss with the Court: We were thinking a comprehensive brief where we would set forth the facts. What we would — that part of the brief would include things that are both in and outside the indictment. We anticipate that the brief would have a substantial number of exhibits. Those exhibits would come in the form of either grand jury transcripts, interview transcripts, 302s, documentary exhibits, things of that nature, things that would allow the Court to consider both the circumstances and the content, form and context, all in the words of the Supreme Court, that the Court needs to have in order to make its determinations.

We also in that brief, in addition to the facts, we would set forth for the Court why we believe that the conduct that is in the brief is private in nature and is not subject to immunity; and then with respect to the allegations in the superseding indictment involving the vice president, that the Supreme Court specifically talked about with respect to a presumption of immunity, why we believe that that presumption of immunity is rebutted.

We would — the benefit of us going first, which is what we are asking for, is that we would have everything in one place. The defense would know what the landscape looks like, as would the Court. And then we think that that would create a cleaner docket both for your determinations and also for any appellate court to review your determinations.

THE COURT: All right. So at this point, you wouldn’t anticipate proffering any actual evidence. It would be written submissions. And then, should I feel that I need further evidence, we would discuss that. Is that what you’re talking about?

MR. WINDOM: That’s right, your Honor.

Particularly given Windom’s reference to grand jury transcripts, that raised the question of how much of these “substantial number of exhibits” we’d get to see. The answer, per Windom, is that the existing protective order would govern.

THE COURT: How much of that information do you anticipate is going to be under seal?

MR. WINDOM: So that’s a good question. We don’t know the specific answer to that.

But I do know this: A year ago, we spent a considerable amount of time going through a protective order and making sure it could stand time. Paragraphs 11 and 12 specifically deal with this situation the defense counsel has raised. It is the Court that will decide what is unsealed from the sensitive discovery. It is not the defense or the Government that will do that.

We anticipate, consistent with the protective order, that any filing of sensitive material would occur first with a motion for leave to file under seal. The parties and the Court can determine thereafter what gets released into the public record in redacted form.

Here’s the operative language from the Protective Order.

11. The parties may include designated Sensitive Materials in any public filing or use designated Sensitive Materials during any hearing or the trial of this matter without leave of court if all sensitive information is redacted, and the parties have previously conferred and agreed to the redactions. No party shall disclose unredacted Sensitive Materials in open court or public filings without prior authorization by the court (except if the defendant chooses to include in a public document Sensitive Materials relating solely and directly to the defendant’s personally identifying information). If a party includes unredacted Sensitive Materials in any filing with the court, they shall be submitted under seal.

12. Any filing under seal must be accompanied by a motion for leave to file under seal as required by Local Rule of Criminal Procedure 49(f)(6)(i), as well as a redacted copy of any included Sensitive Materials for the Clerk of the Court to file on the public docket if the court were to grant the motion for leave to file under seal.

Effectively, then, Windom imagines that many of the exhibits would be submitted under seal, and there would be a fight about what gets released publicly, perhaps not unlike the process that has unfolded before Judge Cannon.

But Judge Chutkan would have the final say.

Share this entry

Trump Will Have to Defend His Attempt to Assassinate Mike Pence Before the Election

September 5, 2024/50 Comments/in 2020 Presidential Election, January 6 Insurrection /by emptywheel

Judge Chutkan has issued her scheduling order for the next developments in Trump’s January 6 trial.

Rather than scheduling Trump’s frivolous attempt to challenge Jack Smith’s Special Counsel appointment first, Chutkan will instead deal with immunity first, with all briefing due a week before the election.

September 19, 2024: Defendant’s Reply briefs in support of his Motion to Compel, ECF No. 167, and Motion for an Order Regarding Scope of the Prosecution Team, ECF No. 166-1. The Reply briefs shall also identify any specific evidence related to Presidential immunity that Defendant believes the Government has improperly withheld.

September 26, 2024: The Government shall file an Opening Brief on Presidential Immunity.

October 3, 2024: Defendant’s Supplement to his Motion to Dismiss Based on Statutory Grounds, ECF No. 114.

October 17, 2024: Defendant’s Response and Renewed Motion to Dismiss Based on Presidential Immunity.

October 17, 2024: The Government’s Response to Trump’s Motion to Dismiss Based on Statutory Grounds.

October 24, 2024: Defendant’s Request for Leave to File a Motion to Dismiss Based on the Appointments and Appropriations Clauses.

October 29, 2024: The Government’s Reply and Opposition. After briefing, the court will determine whether further proceedings are necessary.

October 31, 2024: The Government’s Opposition to renewed challenge to Special Counsel.

November 7, 2024: Defendant’s Reply on renewed challenge to Special Counsel.

It’s not yet clear how much of the briefing on immunity will be unsealed.

But this defeats Trump’s bid to delay explaining how almost getting his Vice President assassinated was an official act until after the election.

Share this entry

Trump Wants to Hide His Attempt to Assassinate Mike Pence from Voters

August 31, 2024/49 Comments/in 2020 Presidential Election, 2024 Presidential Election, emptywheel, January 6 Insurrection /by emptywheel

In 2016, Donald Trump bragged, “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?”

This election, Trump wants to hide from voters details of how he almost killed his Vice President, Mike Pence, and his claim that doing so was an official act protected by presidential immunity.

That’s the primary thing you need to know about the joint status report presented to Judge Tanya Chutkan in Trump’s January prosecution last night.

Jack Smith doesn’t propose a schedule (thereby avoiding any claim he’s trying to push pre-election developments), but he’s ready to get this process started right away. He does want Judge Chutkan to make determinations regarding immunity first and foremost. He cites Chutkan’s own order and SCOTUS’ remand order to justify that.

The Court has indicated that it intends to conduct its determinations related to immunity first and foremost. See, e.g., ECF No. 197 (Order denying without prejudice the defendant’s motion to dismiss the previous indictment on statutory grounds and specifying that he “may file a renewed motion once all issues of immunity have been resolved”). The Government agrees with this approach, both because the Supreme Court directed such a process on remand, see Trump v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 2312, 2340 (2024), and because the Supreme Court has “repeatedly . . . stressed the importance of resolving immunity questions at the earliest possible stage in litigation,” Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 227 (1991) (internal citations omitted).

Trump, by contrast, wants to stall any consideration of immunity until December 13 by first litigating a challenge to Jack Smith’s appointment that Aileen Cannon approved but which conflicts with several binding precedents in the DC Circuit (and which Trump pointedly didn’t try before Chutkan last fall, when he submitted all his other motions to dismiss).

Trump-appointed Judge Mark Scarsi rejected Hunter Biden’s similar attempt to challenge David Weiss’ Special Counsel appointment in the wake of Judge Cannon’s ruling as untimely, and there’s good reason to believe that would be the likely outcome here, even before getting to the binding DC Circuit precedent.

You need look no further than Trump’s description of what he wants to challenge in the superseding indictment to understand why Trump wants to delay this fight until December: As I predicted, he wants to have the Mike Pence allegations thrown out.

In addition, while continuing to strongly maintain that many classes of conduct alleged in the Superseding Indictment are immune—including, but not limited to, Tweets and public statements about the federal 2020 Presidential election, communications with state officials about the federal election, and allegations relating to alternate slates of electors—President Trump may file a motion to dismiss focused specifically on the Special Counsel’s improper use of allegations related to Vice President Pence, along with other potential key threshold motions. Namely, in Trump, the Supreme Court held that President Trump is “at least presumptively immune from prosecution for” all alleged efforts “to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding.” Trump v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 2312, 2336 (2024). These same allegations are foundational to the Superseding Indictment and each of its four counts. See Doc. 226 at ¶¶ 5, 9(b), 11(c)-(d), 14, 51(b), 55, 67–90, 99–100. If the Court determines, as it should, that the Special Counsel cannot rebut the presumption that these acts are immune, binding law requires that the entire indictment be dismissed because the grand jury considered immunized evidence. Trump, 144 S. Ct. 2312, 2340 (2024) (“Presidents . . . cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution.”).

The Special Counsel’s inability to rebut the presumption as to Pence is dispositive to this case. The special counsel will be unable to do so as a matter of law, thus rendering the remainder of the case moot. Trump, 144 S. Ct. 2312, 2337 (2024) (“We therefore remand to the District Court to assess in the first instance, with appropriate input from the parties, whether a prosecution involving Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the Vice President’s oversight of the certification proceeding in his capacity as President of the Senate would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” (emphasis added)).

To be sure, he’s not wrong to challenge the inclusion of the Pence allegations. Nor is he wrong in his view of how central Pence is to this indictment (though he overstates when he claims it would moot all else; the fake electors plot might survive the excision of the Mike Pence allegations).

As I explained, Justice Roberts raised the conversations with Pence specifically. But as I also explained, that is one of the shrewd things Jack Smith did in superseding the indictment: he stripped out all other things that obviously fit under Roberts’ guidelines, leaving only Trump’s efforts to get Pence to throw out the votes of 81 million Biden voters and when Pence refused, Trump’s action — a tweet — that almost got Pence assassinated.

Trump may well succeed in arguing that he can’t be prohibited from asking Pence to overturn the results of the election so the two of them could remain in power because any such prohibition would chill the normal conversations between Presidents and their Vice Presidents. That is simply the absurd logical result of Roberts’ opinion: that a President can order his Vice President to steal an election because any prohibition on doing so would chill the authority of the President.

But if Jack Smith has his way, Trump will have to make that argument — once, probably in a court filing in October — before voters go to the polls in November.

There are a bunch of legal details in this status report. But given the near certainty that if Trump wins, the entire prosecution will go away, the only one that really matters is that, this election, Trump isn’t so sure that he would lose no votes if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue — or if voters learned why and how he almost had his Vice President assassinated in the US Capitol — as he was in 2016.

Trump doesn’t want to tell voters he thinks that as President, he could have Mike Pence shot on the Senate floor — shot as punishment because his Vice President refused an illegal order to steal an election — and be immune from any consequences for doing so.

Share this entry

ABC Treats Kamala’s 21-Year Old Misstatement about Prosecutions as News but Not Trump’s Daily Lies about His Own Crimes

August 29, 2024/99 Comments/in 2016 Presidential Election, 2020 Presidential Election, 2024 Presidential Election, Hunter Biden, January 6 Insurrection, Mueller Probe /by emptywheel

As the mainstream press continues to soil itself like toddlers over Kamala Harris’ interview tonight, I was going to use this CNN piece — suggesting questions about how the VP’s stance on immigration has changed — as an example of the complete collapse of any sense of newsworthiness.

After all, Donald Trump has still never been asked, much less answered, how he plans to fulfill his promise of mass deportations, something that might be impossible without dramatic escalation of police force against both citizens and not. He hasn’t been asked how he’ll pay for it, which would be prohibitively expensive. He hasn’t asked who will do the jobs, such as in agriculture, that keep America’s cost of living relatively low. He hasn’t been asked if he’ll separate families, especially marriages empowered by Obergefell.

Trump hasn’t been asked the most basic questions about one of his only policy promises.

CNN’s Eva McKend has really good questions about immigration policy. In another place and time they’d be totally valid questions!

But given the failure by the entire press corps to ask Trump about a policy promise that would serve as — and assuredly is intended to serve as — a bridge to fascism, it is the height of irresponsibility to waste time on the shifts in Harris’ immigration views, because they don’t matter in the face of Trump’s promises to sic cops on American families in pursuit of brown people.

So that was going to be my exemplar of how completely the press corps has lost any sense of proportionality regarding what counts as news.

Then I read this piece from ABC, which makes a big deal out of the fact that in 2003 — 21 years ago!!! — some Kamala Harris campaign fliers said she prosecuted over a hundred cases, when she should have said she was involved in that many.

But during a debate held in the runup to Election Day 2003 on KGO Radio, Harris’ then-opponent, veteran criminal defense attorney Bill Fazio, accused her of misleading voters about her record as a prosecutor and deputy district attorney in California’s Alameda County.

“How many cases have you tried? Can you tell us how many serious felonies you have tried? Can you tell us one?” Fazio asked Harris, according to audio ABC News obtained of the debate, which also included then-current San Francisco District Attorney Terence Hallinan.

“I’ve tried about 50 cases, Mr. Fazio, and it’s about leadership,” Harris responded.

Fazio then pointed out campaign literature where Harris had been claiming a more extensive prosecutorial record.

“Ms. Harris, why does your information, which is still published, say that you tried hundreds of serious felonies? I think that’s misleading. I think that’s disingenuous. I think that shows that you are incapable of leadership and you’re not to be trusted,” Fazio said. “You continue to put out information which says you have tried hundreds of serious felonies.”

[snip]

Asked this week about Harris’ prosecutorial experience before she became district attorney, a spokesperson for Harris’ presidential campaign used slightly different language to describe her record — saying she was “involved in” hundreds of cases.

This is insane!! Having prosecuted 50 felonies is a lot, for an entire career! To make a stink about this 21-year old misstatement would be unbelievable on its face.

But it is just contemptible, given the amount of lies Donald Trump tells about his own crimes that ABC lets go unmentioned.

Just as one example, check out how ABC covered Donald Trump’s August 8 Mar-a-Lago presser. In that presser, Trump seems to have falsely claimed he did oversee a peaceful transfer of power (the only lie NYT called out in its coverage of this presser). He lied about the four people who were killed that day. He lied about his role in sending his mob to the Capitol. He lied about what those mobsters chanting “Hang Mike Pence” were seeking to do. He lied about how Jan6 defendants are being treated. [All emphasis here and elsewhere my own.]

QUESTION: Mr. President, you were – you just said that it was a peaceful transfer of power last time when you left office. You didn’t (inaudible) …

TRUMP: What – what’s your question?

QUESTION: My question is you can’t (inaudible) the last time it was a peaceful transfer of power when you left office?

The second one (ph) …

TRUMP: No, I think the people that – if you look at January 6th, which a lot of people aren’t talking about very much, I think those people were treated very harshly when you compare them to other things that took place in this country where a lot of people were killed. Nobody was killed on January 6th.

But I think that the people of January 6th were treated very unfairly. And they – where – they were there to complain not through me. They were there to complain about an election. And, you know, it’s very interesting. The biggest crowd I’ve ever spoken to, and I said peacefully and patriotically, which nobody wants to say, but I said peacefully and patriotically.

Trump made a misleading crack meant to suggest that Arthur Engoron undervalued Mar-a-Lago.

TRUMP: It’s a hard room because it’s very big, if you don’t …

(LAUGHTER)

… this is worth $18 million.

Trump lied that the prosecutions against him — all of them — are politically motivated. He lied that “they” have weaponized government against him. He lied that the Florida case, in which he was investigated for the same crime as Joe Biden, was weaponized. He falsely claimed that the NY cases are controlled by DOJ.

TRUMP: Because other people have done far bigger things in see a ban [ph] and sure, it’s politically motivated. I think it’s a horrible thing they did. Look, they’ve weaponized government against me. Look at the Florida case. It was a totally weaponized case. All of these cases.

By the way, the New York cases are totally controlled out of the Department of Justice. They sent their top person to the various places. They went to the AG’s office, got that one going. Then he went to the DA’s office, got that one going, ran through it.

No, no, this is all politics, and it’s a disgrace. Never happened in this country. It’s very common that it happens, but not in our country. It happens in banana republics and third-world countries, and that’s what we’re becoming.

Trump claimed he wouldn’t have wanted to put Hillary in jail when, on his orders, DOJ investigated the Clinton Foundation for the entirety of his term and then John Durham tried to trump up conspiracy charges against her (and did bring a frivolous case against her campaign lawyer). Trump also lied about calming, rather than stoking, the “Lock her up” chants at rallies. Trump lied about what files Hillary destroyed after receiving a subpoena (and who destroyed them).

TRUMP: I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to talk about it. I think it’s a tragic story, if you want to know the truth. And I felt that with Hillary Clinton, too. You know, with Hillary Clinton, I could have done things to her that would have made your head spin. I thought it was a very bad thing, take the wife of a President of the United States and put her in jail. And then I see the way they treat me. That’s the way it goes.

But I was very protective of her. Nobody would understand that, but I was. I think my people understand it. They used to say “lock her up, lock her up,” and I’d say “just relax, please.” We won the election. I think it would be very – I think – I think it would have been horrible for our country if I – and we had her between the hammering of all of the files.

And don’t forget, she got a subpoena from the United States Congress, and then after getting the subpoena, she destroyed everything that she was supposed to get. I – I – I could – it – I didn’t think – I thought it was so bad to take her and put her in jail, the wife of a President of the United States. And then when it’s my turn, nobody thinks that way. I thought it was a very terrible thing. And she did a lot of very bad things. I’ll tell you what, she was – she was pretty evil.

But in terms of the country and in terms of unifying the country, bringing it back, to have taken her and to have put her in jail – and I think you know the things as well as I do. They were some pretty bad acts that she did.

Depending on how you count, that’s around twelve lies in one hour-long press conference. They’re proof of Trump’s abuse of the presidency, his refusal to cooperate with an investigation like Joe Biden had, his lifelong habits of fraud, and his assault on democracy.

And these are only the lies about his own (and his eponymous corporation’s) crimes! They don’t include the lies about abortion or gun laws and shootings, other lies about the law he told in that presser.

And yet ABC covered none of those lies, focusing instead on Trump’s false claims about crowd size.

Crowd size.

These aren’t the only lies about justice Trump routinely tells. He routinely lies that he “won” the documents case, that he was declared innocent or that Biden was only not prosecuted because he was too old. They don’t include the lies Trump has told about the Hunter Biden case, the Russian investigation, his actual actions in the Ukraine impeachment. Trump continues to lie about whether he sexually assaulted E Jean Carroll. He lies about his Administration’s jailing of Michael Cohen to shut him up.

Then there are Trump’s renewed false claims, in the last day, about the superseding indictment against him.

Trump lies all the time. He lies about the cases against him, about his own crime. He lies with a goal: to present rule of law as a personal grievance. Those lies go to his core unfitness to be President.

And yet, aside from some good reporting (particularly from Katherine Faulders) on these crimes, ABC never bothers to fact check Donald Trump’s lies about rule of law, not even his own prosecutions.

It is the height of irresponsibility to adopt this double standard — to ignore Trump’s corruption of rule of law while chasing a campaign exaggeration made two decades ago. It was bad enough that the press corps sits there, docilely, as Trump corrupts rule of law every time he opens his mouth. But to then try to make a campaign issue about whether Kamala Harris was involved in or prosecuted 50 cases decades ago?

ABC claims that Kamala Harris made misstatements. But their own failure to report on Trump’s false claims is a far, far greater misrepresentation of the truth, and it’s a misrepresentation of the truth they repeat every day.

Share this entry

Machine for Fascism: The Two Stephens

Will Jack Smith unveil charges about inciting violence amid election violence?

The two Stephens say Trump must be able to stoke violence with false claims as part of his campaign

Miller helps eliminate checks on disinformation and Nazis on Xitter

Bannon’s international fascist network

Miller serves as opening act for Trump’s Operation Aurora

Trump Demands Emergency Appendix Surgery

More on Jack Smith’s Immunity Filing

Bombshell “New[s]:” Jack Smith DID Consult about Timing before Adopting Post-SCOTUS Path

The prosecutor revealed new evidence.

All Hell Is Going to Break Loose: Maybe Jack Smith Did Precisely What Elie Honig Claims He Didn’t

9-85.500 Actions that May Have an Impact on an Election

From the Willard to Danbury Correctional: Steve Bannon Allegedly Joins the Conspiracy

The September 26 Brief We’ll Get in the Trump January 6 Case

Trump Will Have to Defend His Attempt to Assassinate Mike Pence Before the Election

Trump Wants to Hide His Attempt to Assassinate Mike Pence from Voters

ABC Treats Kamala’s 21-Year Old Misstatement about Prosecutions as News but Not Trump’s Daily Lies about His Own Crimes

Interesting links

Pages