Posts

Dan Scavino, Alone with Trump, Had Access to the Attempted Murder Weapon

/96 Comments/in , /by

Since DC District unsealed Jack Smith’s warrant to obtain Trump’s Twitter account, I have described that one of the most important things prosecutors were seeking was attribution: to learn, before conducting an Executive Privilege-waived interview with Dan Scavino, whether Trump or Scavino wielded the murder weapon, Trump’s Twitter account, that almost got Mike Pence killed three years ago.

Donald Trump nearly killed his Vice President by tweet — the tweet he sent at 2:24PM on January 6, 2021.

111. At 2:24 p.m., after advisors had left the Defendant alone in his dining room, the Defendant issued a Tweet intended to further delay and obstruct the certification: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!”

112. One minute later, at 2:25 p.m., the United States Secret Service was forced to evacuate the Vice President to a secure location.

113. At the Capitol, throughout the afternoon, members of the crowd chanted, “Hang Mike Pence!”; “Where is Pence? Bring him out!”; and “Traitor Pence!”

114. The Defendant repeatedly refused to approve a message directing rioters to leave the Capitol, as urged by his most senior advisors-including the White House Counsel, a Deputy White House Counsel, the Chief of Staff, a Deputy Chief of Staff, and a Senior Advisor.

As the indictment tells it, at the time Trump sent his potentially lethal tweet, inciting the mob bearing down on Mike Pence, Pence’s spouse, and daughter, Donald Trump was alone in his dining room with the murder weapon: an unknown phone, and his Twitter account.

But when DOJ served a warrant on Twitter for Trump’s Twitter account on January 17, they couldn’t be sure who was holding the murder weapon. They also wouldn’t know whether triggering the murder weapon was coordinated with other events.

That explains why, as Thomas Windom described in a February 9 hearing, metadata from Trump’s Twitter account showing any other account associated with his own may have been just as important for the investigation as any DMs obtained with the warrant.

MR. HOLTZBLATT: Well, Your Honor, we don’t — the issue, Your Honor — there isn’t a category of “associated account information”; that’s not information that Twitter stores.

What we are doing right now is manually attempting to ascertain links between accounts. But the ascertainment of links between accounts on the basis of machine, cookie, IP address, email address, or other account or device identifier is not information that Twitter possesses, it would be information that Twitter needs to create. So that’s the reason why we had not previously produced it because it’s not a category of information that we actually possess.

[snip]

MR. WINDOM: It is, as explained more fully in the warrant — but for these purposes, it is a useful tool in identifying what other accounts are being used by the same user or by the same device that has access to the account is oftentimes in any number of cases, user attribution is important. And if there are other accounts that a user is using, that is very important to the government’s investigation.

[snip]

MR. HOLTZBLATT: That’s right. If the records — if the linkage between accounts, which is what we understand this category to be referring to, is not itself a piece of information that we keep, then it’s not a business record that we would ordinarily produce.

What I understand the government to be asking is for us to analyze our data, as opposed to produce existing data. And we are trying to work with the government in that respect, but that is the reason that it is not something that — that is a different category of information. [my emphasis]

By that point, DOJ would have had Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony describing what she saw sitting outside Trump’s dining room door (and once, going in to pass off Mark Meadows’ phone). They would have had two grand jury appearances from the two Pats, Cipollone and Philbin, the White House Counsel and Deputy Counsel described in the passage. They would have had at least one interview with Eric Herschmann — the Senior Advisor trying to calm him down.

They did not yet have privilege waived testimony from the Chief of Staff — Mark Meadows — or the Deputy Chief of Staff — Dan Scavino.

And Dan Scavino was the most likely other person to know about that near murder by tweet, because Dan Scavino was in his position, the Deputy Chief of Staff, first and foremost because he had masterminded Trump’s own mastery of Twitter going back to 2016.

So one thing DOJ needed to know before they conducted an interview that took place after Beryl Howell rejected yet another frivolous Executive Privilege claim in March was how Dan Scavino accessed Trump’s Twitter account when he did, from what device.

Who else had access to Trump’s Twitter account, one part of the murder weapon?

ABC News reported details from several of the interviews that took place after Jack Smith got that Twitter warrant, including extensive details about what Scavino told prosecutors. Sure enough, he claimed that he had nothing to do with the Tweet that almost got Pence killed — that instead, he had left Trump alone with the murder weapon. He claimed — as the indictment made it clear he must have — that he wasn’t in the room.

According to what sources said Scavino told Smith’s team, Trump was “very angry” that day — not angry at what his supporters were doing to a pillar of American democracy, but steaming that the election was allegedly stolen from him and his supporters, who were “angry on his behalf.” Scavino described it all as “very unsettling,” sources said.

At times, Trump just sat silently at the head of the table, with his arms folded and his eyes locked on the TV, Scavino recounted, sources said.

After unsuccessfully trying for up to 20 minutes to persuade Trump to release some sort of calming statement, Scavino and others walked out of the dining room, leaving Trump alone, sources said. That’s when, according to sources, Trump posted a message on his Twitter account saying that Pence “didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done.”

Trump’s aides told investigators they were shocked by the post. Aside from Trump, Scavino was the only other person with access to Trump’s Twitter account, and he was often the one actually posting messages to it, so when the message about Pence popped up, Cipollone and another White House attorney raced to find Scavino, demanding to know why he would post that in the midst of such a precarious situation, sources said.

Scavino said he was as blindsided by the post as they were, insisting to them, “I didn’t do it,” according to the sources. [my emphasis]

Why would Pat Cipollone confront Scavino about the Tweet if “Scavino and others walked out of the dining room” — implicitly, walked out together — “leaving Trump alone”? Cipollone would only confront Scavino if he had believed that Scavino were still there with Trump, as his testimony describes he had been until just before Trump sent the Tweet.

The warrant on Twitter, which would have shown whether it is really true that Scavino was the only other person with access to Trump’s Twitter account, is not the only way Jack Smith tested this claim, knew the answer to this claim before interviewing Scavino.

As an expert witness notice revealed last month, Smith will call a witness at Trump’s trial to describe what they found on Trump’s White House phone and that of one other person — which might be Scavino, Nick Luna (whose testimony is also described in detail in the ABC piece), or one of several other people. That witness will explain when Trump’s phone was unlocked and using Twitter on January 6.

Expert 3 has knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education beyond the ordinary lay person regarding the analysis of cellular phone data, including the use of Twitter and other applications on cell phones. The Government expects that Expert 3 will testify that he/she: (1) extracted and processed data from the White House cell phones used by the defendant and one other individual (Individual 1); (2) reviewed and analyzed data on the defendant’s phone and on Individual 1’s phone, including analyzing images found on the phones and websites visited; (3) determined the usage of these phones throughout the post-election period, including on and around January 6, 2021; and (4) specifically identified the periods of time during which the defendant’s phone was unlocked and the Twitter application was open on January 6.

So whether it is true that Scavino was blindsided by the Tweet, as he told Jack Smith he told Cipollone, Jack Smith has Scavino’s testimony that he wasn’t present (again, as I said he must), Cipollone’s testimony that Scavino said he wasn’t present, and metadata consistent with Trump sending the Tweet himself.

As you read the rest of the ABC piece, keep two things in mind. This leaked testimony concentrates on other aspects of the claims made to Jack Smith about how Twitter was used that day, such as this description of Luna’s testimony, describing that he warned Trump before the then-President sent a Tweet making him look “culpable” the day of the attack.

According to the sources, shortly before 6 p.m. on Jan. 6, Trump showed Luna a draft of a Twitter message he was thinking about posting: “These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously and viciously stripped away from great patriots. … Remember this day for forever!” it read.

The message echoed what Trump had allegedly been saying privately all day.

Sources said Luna told Trump that it made him sound “culpable” for the violence, perhaps even as if he may have somehow been involved in “directing” it, sources said.

Still, at 6:01 p.m., Trump posted the message anyway.

That testimony — that Luna warned Trump the Tweet would make him look like he was responsible for the violence — will only strengthen the extent to which this Tweet was already going to be used to prove that Trump ratified the violence, effectively showing that Trump remained in a conspiracy with those who violently attacked the Capitol even after watching them do so.

Which brings me to the second point. Multiple people who gave this testimony — and probably the person or persons who shared it with ABC — claim to believe that they witnessed that Trump almost murdered his Vice President, someone who had been just as (or in Scavino’s case, almost as) loyal as they had been.

Again, there has to be a bunch of metadata that is consistent with the stories told to Jack Smith, so it’s not so much I doubt Scavino’s claim that he was not in the room when that Tweet was sent out. It’s that this testimony came from people who chose to stick around — some of whom, including Scavino, continue to stick around — knowing that if Trump ever turns on them he wouldn’t stop short of using his mob to get them killed.

This Poll Is as Important as a Trump Trial

/51 Comments/in , /by

Tomorrow marks the 3rd anniversary of Trump’s attack on the Capitol. People have used the opportunity to revisit their conspiracy theories about things that Merrick Garland didn’t do, all of which ignore the overt steps taken against Trump’s co-conspirators in 2021s.

Hopefully, I’ll complete a post on options Jack Smith would have if DC Circuit Judge Karen Henderson finds a way and the will to continue to delay Trump’s trial after Tuesday’s hearing on his Absolute Immunity claim.

For now, though, I want to argue that this poll, showing that an outright majority of Americans (still) believe a series of things that equate to January 6 being an attack on democracy. For example, 56% of all US adults think Trump is guilty of conspiring to steal the election.

After three years of concerted propaganda effort, thin majorities still believe:

  • January 6ers were “mostly violent” (50%)
  • Punishments for Jan6ers have been fair or not harsh enough (73%)
  • Trump bears responsibility for January 6 (53%)
  • DOJ is treating Trump like anyone else (57%)
  • Trump telling his mob to march to the Capitol threatened democracy (51%)
  • The mob entering the Capitol threatened democracy (58%)
  • Congress voting against certifying the election threatened democracy (53%)
  • The attack on the Capitol should never be forgotten (55%)
  • There is no solid evidence of widespread voter fraud (63%)

Only on whether Trump’s role disqualifies him for the presidency (or Republican members of Congress who voted to disqualify votes) did less than a majority vote for democracy (46%).

These aren’t great numbers — and they have slipped over time.

But there are about 7% of Republicans who recognize that Trump was in the wrong. Most independents agree with Democratic views on January 6, not Republicans.

The propaganda is working … but thus far it hasn’t won.

If 7% of Republicans reject Trump’s party of fascism, it could swing the election.

Trying and convicting Donald Trump for his January 6 crimes is necessary, but not sufficient, to reverse the tide of fascism in the United States. Just as important is defeating the Republicans who empowered Trump’s fascism, to punish them for doing his bidding for the last three years. Just as important is affirming the importance of democracy, is ensuring that Americans choose to protect democracy. A Trump trial should help convince swing voters; indeed, prosecutors plan to tie Trump directly to the violence that Republicans reject here.

But that effort must go hand-in-hand with defending democracy, defending the process of trying and prosecuting January 6ers, crime scene and not.

And that’s a political fight that everyone can engage. That’s a political discussion about what it takes to preserve democracy.

What Jack Smith Didn’t Say in His Double Jeopardy Response

/63 Comments/in , , /by

Jack Smith just submitted his response to Trump’s immunity claims before the DC Circuit.

While most attention will be on the absolute immunity claims, given the disqualification of Trump in Colorado and Maine, I’m more interested in Smith’s response to Trump’s claim that his impeachment acquittal precludes these charges.

That’s because, depending on how this appeal goes, Jack Smith could make the question of Trump’s (dis)qualification much easier by superseding this indictment with an insurrection charge.

Most of the response argues that impeachment and criminal charges are different things. That argument is likely to prevail by itself.

In addition, though, the response repeated a passage, almost verbatim, that appeared in Smith’s response before Chutkan. In it, Smith said that the elements of offense currently charged do not overlap with the elements of offense for an insurrection charge.

Any double-jeopardy claim here would founder in light of these principles. Without support, the defendant asserts that his Senate acquittal and the indictment in this case involve “the same or closely related conduct.” Br.52. Not so. The single article of impeachment alleged a violation of “Incitement of Insurrection,” H.R. Res. 24, 117th Cong. at 2 (Jan. 11, 2021) (capitalization altered), and charged that the defendant had “incit[ed] violence against the Government of the United States,” id. at 3. The most analogous federal statute is 18 U.S.C. § 2383, which prohibits “incit[ing] . . . any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof.” A violation of Section 2383 would therefore require proof that the violence at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, constituted an “insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof” and that the defendant incited that insurrection. Incitement, in turn, requires proof that the speaker’s words were both directed to “producing imminent lawless action” and “likely to incite or produce such action.” Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969) (per curiam); NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 927-28 (1982). None of the offenses charged here—18 U.S.C. § 371, 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) and (k), and 18 U.S.C. § 241—has as an element any of the required elements for an incitement offense. And the elements of the charged offenses—e.g., conspiring to defeat a federal governmental function through deceit under Section 371, obstruct an “official proceeding” under Section 1512, and deprive persons of rights under Section 241—are nowhere to be found in the elements of a violation of Section 2383 or any other potential incitement offense. The mere fact that some of the conduct on which the impeachment resolution relied is related to conduct alleged in the indictment does not implicate the Double Jeopardy Clause or its principles. See Dixon, 509 U.S. at 696.

This doesn’t mean that Smith will supersede Trump, if this appeal succeeds. There are a lot of reasons not to do so (including that Trump would get to file a motion to dismiss that charge).

That said, Smith might have another reason to do so if SCOTUS significantly narrowed the obstruction charge in the Fischer appeal, because the obstruction charge is how Smith is presenting the evidence that Trump caused the attack on the Capitol.

In my view, this language keeps options open.

Jonathan Chait’s Rube-Con Lets SCOTUS Off Easy

/118 Comments/in , /by

Congratulations to Jonathan Chait, whose stupid column arguing against excluding Trump from the ballot won him recognition from the alleged insurrectionist himself.

To be sure, there are sound arguments against the Colorado ruling, even sounder ones against immediate SCOTUS action upholding or overturning it.

Chait — who boasts that Trump once labeled him a “no-talent illiterate hack” — does not make such an argument.

Chait abdicates any responsibility for reading the opinions at issue because, he says, he’s not competent, lacking the talent and literacy to read legal documents.

I am not a lawyer, and I won’t comment on the legal merits of the case.

Then, having declared himself incompetent to comment on the legal merits of the case, Chait proceeds to comment on the legal merits (or maybe he considers these mere political merits?) of labeling Trump an insurrectionist.

The argument for disqualification is quite simple. The Constitution bars officeholders who engaged in insurrection; on January 6, 2021, Trump engaged in insurrection; therefore, Trump is ineligible to hold office.

The weak point in this argument is the finding that Trump’s behavior constitutes “insurrection.” This is a defensible shorthand for January 6, one I’ve used frequently myself. But it’s not the most precise term. When I have the chance to use a longer description, I generally say that Trump attempted to secure an unelected second term in office.

Trump’s plan was to mobilize a mob to intimidate Congress into following his scheme to ignore the election results. His use of violent threats to secure power is obviously unforgivable, authoritarian, and very likely criminal. But there is at least some grounds to question whether it was an “insurrection” in the meaning intended by the 14th Amendment. Trump was not trying to seize and hold the Capitol nor declare a breakaway republic. [my emphasis]

Whether or not Trump is an insurrectionist under the meaning of the 14th Amendment, and Trump’s own failure to define insurrection in a way that excludes January 6, is something addressed in the opinions Chait has excused himself from reading.

For example, here’s some of how the Colorado Supreme Court — after a trial, after Trump mounted a defense — came to rule that January 6 qualified as an insurrection.

¶183 Finally, we note that at oral argument, President Trump’s counsel, while not providing a specific definition, argued that an insurrection is more than a riot but less than a rebellion.

[snip]

¶185 The question thus becomes whether the evidence before the district court sufficiently established that the events of January 6 constituted a concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish the peaceful transfer of power in this country. We have little difficulty concluding that substantial evidence in the record supported each of these elements and that, as the district court found, the events of January 6 constituted an insurrection.

¶186 It is undisputed that a large group of people forcibly entered the Capitol and that this action was so formidable that the law enforcement officers onsite could not control it. Moreover, contrary to President Trump’s assertion that no evidence in the record showed that the mob was armed with deadly weapons or that it attacked law enforcement officers in a manner consistent with a violent insurrection, the district court found—and millions of people saw on live television, recordings of which were introduced into evidence in this case—that the mob was armed with a wide array of weapons. See Anderson, ¶ 155. The court also found that many in the mob stole objects from the Capitol’s premises or from law enforcement officers to use as weapons, including metal bars from the police barricades and officers’ batons and riot shields and that throughout the day, the mob repeatedly and violently assaulted police officers who were trying to defend the Capitol. Id. at ¶¶ 156–57. The fact that actual and threatened force was used that day cannot reasonably be denied.

¶187 Substantial evidence in the record further established that this use of force was concerted and public. As the district court found, with ample record support, “The mob was coordinated and demonstrated a unity of purpose . . . . They marched through the [Capitol] building chanting in a manner that made clear they were seeking to inflict violence against members of Congress and Vice President Pence.” Id. at ¶ 243. And upon breaching the Capitol, the mob immediately pursued its intended target—the certification of the presidential election—and reached the House and Senate chambers within minutes of entering the building. Id. at ¶ 153

¶188 Finally, substantial evidence in the record showed that the mob’s unified purpose was to hinder or prevent Congress from counting the electoral votes as required by the Twelfth Amendment and from certifying the 2020 presidential election; that is, to preclude Congress from taking the actions necessary to accomplish a peaceful transfer of power. As noted above, soon after breaching the Capitol, the mob reached the House and Senate chambers, where the certification process was ongoing. Id. This breach caused both the House and the Senate to adjourn, halting the electoral certification process. In addition, much of the mob’s ire—which included threats of physical violence—was directed at Vice President Pence, who, in his role as President of the Senate, was constitutionally tasked with carrying out the electoral count. Id. at ¶¶ 163, 179–80; see U.S. Const. art. I, § 3, cl. 4; id. at art. II, § 1, cl. 3. As discussed more fully below, these actions were the product of President Trump’s conduct in singling out Vice President Pence for refusing President Trump’s demand that the Vice President decline to carry out his constitutional duties. Anderson, ¶¶ 148, 170, 172–73

¶189 In short, the record amply established that the events of January 6 constituted a concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish the peaceful transfer of power in this country. Under any viable definition, this constituted an insurrection, and thus we will proceed to consider whether President Trump “engaged in” this insurrection.

In a column claiming to defend the interests of democracy, Chait substitutes his own self-confessed incompetent opinion — the “longer description” he sometimes uses instead of “shorthand,” when he uses “insurrection” — for that of duly appointed judges applying the laws of a specific state.

He does so while expressing another legal opinion: that Trump’s actions on January 6 were “very likely criminal.”

This is where Chait’s column turns into word salad — perhaps demonstrating that Trump was right about his literacy. First, there’s this bit about timing.

[T]he timing of the court’s ruling makes it more imperative that its reasoning be unassailable. And the conclusion that Trump’s attempt to secure an unelected second term was “insurrection” isn’t solid enough to bear the weight of the outcome it supports.

To deny the voters the chance to elect the candidate of their choice is a Rubicon-crossing event for the judiciary. It would be seen forever by tens of millions of Americans as a negation of democracy. It is not enough that their belief is plausibly wrong or likely wrong. It must be incontrovertibly wrong to support such a momentous step.

Chait argues that the Colorado ruling — the one he has excused himself from addressing, one he seems to believe he is incompetent to address — “isn’t solid enough” for kicking Trump off the ballot. But this bit seems to confuse who is wrong.

It is not enough that their belief is plausibly wrong or likely wrong. It must be incontrovertibly wrong to support such a momentous step.

Is he talking about the Colorado Supreme Court? Wouldn’t he then mean their decision must be “incontrovertibly right,” not wrong, to support booting Trump off the ballot?

It’s an important distinction, because how we adjudicate things to be incontrovertibly right in the US is a legal issue.

Even before he gets there, though, Chait spews some other word salad.

The timing of this decision is important context to its democratic legitimacy. If this ruling had come a year earlier, the Republican Party would have had time to organize a campaign built on the assumption Trump would be ineligible. But a month away from the first primary is late to change the rules of the game.

I am not arguing the timing rules out legal intervention. Trump is obviously facing several potentially adverse legal rulings. But most of those crimes are unambiguous, and the timing was determined by Trump himself, who deliberately set out to drag out the legal process as long as possible, specifically in order to force the rulings into the presidential campaign so that he could call it illegitimate.

First the substance, best as I understand it. Chait says that the timing of kicking Trump off the ballot is the problem here, but then admits that Trump himself has “drag[ged] out” “potentially adverse legal rulings,” so “he could call [the legal process] illegitimate.”

So far, I think this means that Chait says decisions have to appear fair for people who want to vote for Trump. He admits Trump is stalling … something … so as to be able to make false claims about that something to be unfair. Chait doesn’t weigh the equity of Trump’s stall against the interests of those who want to vote for Trump.

Chait only considers the interests of those who want to vote for Trump, not the interests of those who want to uphold rule of law, including the Constitution and the premise that the legal opinions of duly appointed judges who are competent to weigh in should probably carry more weight than the equivocations of a guy who confesses he’s not competent to do so.

And I can’t really be sure because Chait gets awfully vague when he talks about those things that Trump is dragging out: the potentially adverse legal decisions. But I think those things are trials. Including his federal trial on charges tied to January 6. I think that Chait is admitting here that Trump is dragging out the trial that would subject Trump’s actions on January 6 to a jury of American citizens, even while arguing that it’s not fair to people who want to vote for Trump to boot him from the ballot just before the primary.

He may not realize it, but if I’m translating this word salad correctly, Chait has just admitted the problem here: that Trump himself has stalled the best way to decide whether he should be disqualified from running, a far better way than having Colorado judges decide: A trial.

In an ideal world, SCOTUS, with the assistance of the DC Circuit, could resolve this issue in the most just way: Forestall any decision on the Colorado decision (Trump will be on the primary ballot as soon as he appeals the decision, so any delay will do nothing to change the status quo), but ensure that a January 6 trial happens before general election ballots are printed.

The just legal thing would be to prevent Trump from holding up criminal legal accountability while he also claims he can’t be legally accountable via other means. And heck, if SCOTUS believes they’re going to rewrite the 18 USC 1512(c)(2) statute with which Trump and hundreds of other January 6ers have been charged, they should do that quickly, too, so Jack Smith can supersede Trump, formally, with insurrection, so a jury of American citizens can weigh in on the question of whether January 6 was an insurrection or not.

The smart political stance — since Chait disclaims any competence to weigh in on legal issues — would be to deprive Trump and his supporters of claiming there’s a problem with the timing of Colorado’s action while Trump at the same time is depriving not just Trump opponents, but even Republican primary voters who should get to know whether their favorite candidate is even eligible to be President before they vote in the primary, of the most legitimate means to decide this issue, a trial.

Having Trump’s eligibility be determined state-by-state, by duly appointed judges, is less than ideal. I agree that Trump supporters would hate that.

But that makes the better way of determining his eligibility, a trial, all the more important.

I don’t care who you are, whether you’re competent to weigh in on the legal opinion or not, whether you’re illiterate or not. If you believe Trump’s eligibility should not be decided by unelected judges, then the only defensible position — Republican or Democrat, literate or no — is to ensure that Trump stands trial before general election ballots get printed, so a jury can weigh in on Trump’s actions on January 6.

Ensuring that happens is absolutely among the choices the Supreme Court faces. Making that choice clear is a far smarter political choice than whatever it is that Chait engaged in.

Google Kills the Geofence Capability that Will Show ~30,000 Trump Supporters Swarmed the Capitol on Trump’s Orders

/51 Comments/in , /by

At Trump’s trial, prosecutors will use Google Location data to show how Trump’s mobs responded to his order to march to the Capitol by doing just that: swarming the Capitol. That data will show that roughly a quarter of the people at the Ellipse, around 30,000 people, entered the restricted grounds outside the Capitol, committing at least trespassing on Trump’s instruction, of which 11,500 would be identified by their Google Location data.

Jack Smith’s prosecutors revealed that they will do this on Monday in an expert notice filing.

On Wednesday, Google announced that it will soon change the way Google Location works to make such analysis impossible in the future.

If you’re among the subset of users who have chosen to turn Location History on (it’s off by default), soon your Timeline will be saved right on your device — giving you even more control over your data. Just like before, you can delete all or part of your information at any time or disable the setting entirely.

If you’re getting a new phone or are worried about losing your existing one, you can always choose to back up your data to the cloud so it doesn’t get lost. We’ll automatically encrypt your backed-up data so no one can read it, including Google.

Additionally, when you first turn on Location History, the auto-delete control will be set to three months by default, which means that any data older than that will be automatically deleted. Previously this option was set to 18 months. If you want to save memories to your Timeline for a longer period, don’t worry — you can always choose to extend the period or turn off auto-delete controls altogether.

These changes will gradually roll out through the next year on Android and iOS, and you’ll receive a notification when this update comes to your account.

Orin Kerr first identified the significance of the change to surveillance capabilities: that it will make Google geofence warrants all but impossible. Forbes confirmed that Google is making the change with the intent of making it impossible to respond to geofence warrants.

But they missed one aspect of the timing. The announcement — of a change Google is implementing prospectively, a change that will take a year to implement — came days after prosecutors revealed they had obtained a Google warrant showing the movement of people from the Ellipse to the Capitol.

Expert 1

Expert 1 has knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education beyond the ordinary lay person regarding the interpretation and visual representation of geographic location data. The Government expects that Expert 1 will testify about his/her use of ArcGIS (Geographic Information Systems) software to create a map of the Google location history data produced in response to a search warrant. Specifically, Expert 1 plotted the location history data for Google accounts and devices associated with individuals who moved, on January 6, 2021, from an area at or near the Ellipse to an area encompassing the United States Capitol building. His/her testimony will describe and explain the resulting graphical representations of that data, and it will aid the jury in understanding the movements of individuals toward the Capitol area during and after the defendant’s speech at the Ellipse. [my emphasis]

We had known that the FBI used Google geofence warrants — which identify all the people using Google Location services in a given geographic area — to identify individual January 6 suspects.

Challenges to the geofence — first by trespasser David Rhine and then by cop-sprayer Isreal Easterday — revealed that the FBI had gotten two geofence warrants (and had done three sets of de-anonymization of the data obtained): the first, on January 13, 2021, for just the Capitol building itself, and then the second, for the entire restricted area outside the Capitol, on May 21, 2021.

The warrant described in Tuesday’s expert notice must be a third warrant, one building off the May 2021 one. Perhaps the FBI asked Google for all the selectors found in the May 2021 warrant (who, with the important exception of journalists, were either victims, first responders, or trespassers), that also showed up in a geofence at the Ellipse while Trump was speaking.

There would be no need to de-anonymize these selectors. Those of investigative interest for their own actions at the Capitol would have been de-anonymized with one of the earlier warrants. This warrant is about capturing the effect of Trump’s speech, measuring how many people who attended the speech itself — Trump claims 120,000 did so — then moved to the Capitol.

Of those who moved, only a third or less would trigger the geofence (and fewer among Apple users). But it would include most of the 11,500 people who had already been identified and de-anoymized. altogether, that’s consistent with 30,000 people being at the Capitol.

Trump is claiming that just 1% of those who heard his incitement went on to join the insurrection. This expert witness will show it’s closer to a quarter of the total.

There were, undoubtedly, a range of reasons why Google made the decision to end its ability to respond to geofence requests. As Forbes noted, the Fourth Circuit also heard the government’s appeal of Okello Chatrie’s successful challenge of a geofence this week. Early next year the DC Circuit will review Rhine’s appeal of its use with him. The Easterday challenge made it clear that Google geofences work best on Android devices — meaning Google was making it easier for law enforcement to investigate its customers over Apple’s.

But Google announced this decision — of prospective changes — months ahead of the time when a geofence will be used to prove the crimes of Donald Trump.

It’s likely at least partly an attempt to pre-empt the blowback that is bound to result.

Update: To clarify some responses I’m getting to this. Killing the geofence capability won’t affect the evidence against Trump at all. Prosecutors already got the warrant and did the analysis on the results. This will only prospectively make Google geofence warrants impossible, and not even immediately.

Easterday challenge

une 30, 2023: Motion to Compel, Declaration

August 22, 2023: Opposition Motion to Compel

September 26, 2023: Motion to Suppress Geofence

October 10, 2023: Opposition Motion to Suppress

October 17, 2023: Reply Motion to Suppress

October 26, 2023: Guilty Verdict

November 25, 2023: Supplement Opposition Motion to Suppress

Jack Smith (and Michael Dreeben) Go to SCOTUS

/127 Comments/in , /by

Jack Smith just skipped the DC Circuit to ask for cert on Trump’s absolutely immunity claim.

Here’s the argument Smith gives for taking the case directly:

A cornerstone of our constitutional order is that no person is above the law. The force of that principle is at its zenith where, as here, a grand jury has accused a former President of committing federal crimes to subvert the peaceful transfer of power to his lawfully elected successor. Nothing could be more vital to our democracy than that a President who abuses the electoral system to remain in office is held accountable for criminal conduct. Yet respondent has asserted that the Constitution accords him absolute immunity from prosecution. The Constitution’s text, structure, and history lend no support to that novel claim. This Court has accorded civil immunity for a President’s actions within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities, see Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982), and the Executive Branch has long held the view that a sitting President cannot be indicted while in office. But those principles cannot be extended to provide the absolute shield from criminal liability that respondent, a former President, asserts. Neither the separation of powers nor respondent’s acquittal in impeachment proceedings lifts him above the reach of federal criminal law. Like other citizens, he is accountable for criminal conduct.

[snip]

The United States recognizes that this is an extraordinary request. This is an extraordinary case. The Court should grant certiorari and set a briefing schedule that would permit this case to be argued and resolved as promptly as possible.

Posting this here for now. I’ll update in a bit.

An interesting detail: Michael Dreeben somehow snuck into Jack Smith’s office. He was Mueller’s appellate guy.

Judge Chutkan Denies Trump’s Bid to Disavow His Mob

/65 Comments/in , /by

In a short order, Judge Tanya Chutkan denied Trump’s motion to strike all the language about his mob in his indictment. Her order was so short for two reasons: first, Trump hadn’t really addressed the issue of prejudice he was invoking, and second, the only means by which the indictment itself would introduce prejudice — in the jury room — won’t happen because Judge Chutkan never provides the indictment to they jury.

Defendant’s sixteen-page Reply In Support of the Motion, despite making numerous inflammatory and unsupported accusations of its own, see, e.g., ECF No. 156 at 7 (“President Biden directed the Department of Justice to prosecute his leading opponent for the presidency through a calculated leak to the New York Times.”), devotes only a single paragraph to the prejudice requirement. His sole argument is that even if the jury does not receive a copy of the indictment, “[v]oluminous evidence exists here that the jury pool has been, and continues to be, exposed to the Indictment and its inflammatory and prejudicial allegations, through media coverage relating to the case.” Id. at 16. But Defendant fails to cite even one example of that evidence.

Her reference to Trump’s own inflammatory comments called out something that is apparent in reading his reply brief to overturn her gag before the DC Circuit (which largely rehashes the same tired arguments). There, he argues that he has a First Amendment right to say whatever he wants — about Joe Biden, about the trial, about anyone else, including Chutkan, the death threat against whom Trump disclaims any role.

The prosecution describes President Trump’s statement, “If you go after me, I’m coming after you,” as a “public threat,” Resp.Br.4 (citing J.A.79). However, this statement made no reference to this case, and his campaign explained that it was made “in response to … special interest groups and Super PACs.” App.Br.15 n.7. The prosecution ignores this explanation—the only evidence of what the statement was actually referring to—and relies instead on naked speculation.

The prosecution implies that this statement caused a random person to threaten the district judge on August 5, 2023. Resp.Br. 5-6. Again, this is pure speculation, and wrong to boot. As noted above, President Trump’s statements criticizing the district judge came after the August 5 incident. J.A.79-80. The prosecution also cites no evidence that this random individual was inspired to act by President Trump’s August 4th social-media post, which did not even reference this case.

For what it’s worth, while he didn’t mention Trump, the father of Abigail Jo Shry, the woman who called Judge Chutkan’s chambers and threatened her, described that Shry’s threats were always responses to watching the news.

Defendant’s father, Mark Shry testified at the detention hearing. Mr. Shry believes that Defendant is a non-violent alcoholic. He testified that she sits on her couch daily watching the news while drinking too many beers. She then becomes agitated by the news and starts calling people and threatening them. Mr. Shry stated that his daughter never leaves her residence and therefore would not act upon her threats.

Even in his reply brief, though, Trump made new threats, attacking Jack Smith’s spouse because she exercised her political rights to donate to Joe Biden.

Judge Chutkan didn’t quite say it: But Donald Trump is simultaneously claiming he has the right to make any threats he wants, but no one else has the right to describe the way his threats lead to violence.

She didn’t quite say it.

But she did make it quite clear that Trump is trying to have a protected privilege to make inflammatory threats, while gagging others about the effect of them.

Trump Continues to Disavow the Mob that Sacrificed Their Lives for Him

/65 Comments/in , /by

As I have shown, Trump’s collective motions to dismiss his January 6 indictment selectively treat the five means alleged in the indictment (pressuring states, the fake elector plot, using Jeffrey Clark, pressuring Pence, and exploiting the mob), never actually dealing with all five as charged.

Rather than addressing the fifth, Mob (“directing supporters to the Capitol to obstruct the proceeding, id. at ¶¶ 86-105; and exploiting the violence and chaos that transpired at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021”), he instead filed a motion to strike all references to the mob.

Poof! It is a legalistic way to deny the very same mobsters (DOJ noted in their response) Trump has sung with and promised to pardon, and in so doing simply wish away the abundant evidence that Trump obstructed the vote certification.

It is the stuff of magic wands.

Trump’s reply uses a series of gimmicks to attempt to wish away parts of the indictment against him.

In one lengthy section that might invite a request to file a sur-reply by DOJ, Trump cites some of the greatest hits of articles by journalists who knew little about the investigation to claim that none of the investigation of the mob related to Trump.

12 Mark Hosenball and Sarah N. Lynch, Exclusive: FBI finds scant evidence U.S. Capitol attack was coordinated – sources, REUTERS (Aug. 20, 2021), at https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-fbi-finds-scant-evidence-us-capitol-attack-wascoordinated-sources-2021-08-20/.

13 William M. Arkin, Donald Trump Didn’t Run the January 6 Riot. So Why Did It Happen?, NEWSWEEK (Jan. 6, 2022), at https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-didnt-run-january-6-riotso-why-did-it-happen-1661335.

14 Carol D. Leonnig and Aaron C. Davis, FBI resisted opening probe into Trump’s role in Jan. 6 for more than a year, THE WASHINGTON POST (June 19, 2023), at https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/06/19/fbi-resisted-opening-probe-intotrumps-role-jan-6-more-than-year/.

Trump also uses outdated and invented crowd numbers to claim that just a fraction of his mob was part of the mob, focusing just on the mob that entered the Capitol and not the one that besieged it, another part of this motion that might invite sur-reply.

In another place, Trump promises a motion in limine to eliminate all reference to the violence committed in his name, because the sheer violence of it will distract the jury.

For instance, the prosecution claims protesters were “extraordinarily violent and destructive.” Doc. 140, at 11. Even if marginally relevant, which it is emphatically not, the danger of “unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, [or] misleading the jury,” would far outweigh any probative value. F.R.E. 403. The fact that the prosecution even suggests that such inflammatory claims could have an appropriate place in the trial of President Trump only underscores the unfair and malicious way the Special Counsel is pursuing this case on behalf of the Biden Administration against its leading political opponent, President Trump.

In another paragraph of gibberish, Trump says that DOJ can’t include the actions (including of Couy Griffith, who had met with Trump personally) of people who weren’t charged with the same crimes he was and also says that because Merrick Garland generally defined Jack Smith’s mandate to crimes committed by those who weren’t at the Capitol, it means any crimes committed by people at the Capitol must be excluded.

Indeed, the January 6 cases relied on by the prosecution do not support its contention that “actions at the Capitol are relevant and probative evidence” of the charged conduct. Doc. 140, at 2. Several of the cases did not involve any of the charges brought against President Trump, rendering any relevance analysis inapplicable to this case. See, e.g., United States v. Griffith, No. CR 21-244-2, 2023 WL 2043223, at *1 (D.D.C. Feb. 16, 2023) (charges under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1752(a)(1), 1752(a)(2); 40 U.S.C. §§ 5104(e)(2)(D), 5104(e)(2)(G)); United States v. MacAndrew, No. CR 21-730, 2022 WL 17961247, at *1 (D.D.C. Dec. 27, 2022) (same). Those cases that did include at least one charge brought against President Trump (as well as charges not brought against him) all involved defendants who were personally present at the Capitol. Those are the types of cases that the Attorney General specifically carved out of the Special Counsel’s authority in Order No. 5559-2022: “This authorization does not apply to . . . future investigations and prosecutions of individuals for offenses they committed while physically present on the Capitol grounds on January 6, 2021.” Actual presence has been emphasized as an important factor in the relevance analysis. See, e.g., United States v. Stedman, No. CR 21-383 (BAH), 2023 WL 3303818, at *2 (D.D.C. May 8, 2023) (“defendant’s knowing joinder of a broader crowd is probative of his participation in a venture that interfered with a congressional proceeding”).

In yet another tactic, Trump falsely claims that a passage about how Trump’s manipulation of the mob demonstrates his motive pertains exclusively to his tweet attacking Mike Pence.

Despite three pages of narrative, the prosecution only suggests that one of the paragraphs that is subject to the Motion to Strike is appropriate for this purpose: paragraph 111, which relates to a social media post by President Trump concerning Mike Pence. Paragraph 111 does not show motive or intent as it relates to the actions at the Capitol.

In doing so, Trump ignores references to four other paragraphs explicitly cited in DOJ’s response.

As set forth in the indictment, on the morning of January 6, the defendant knew that the crowd that he had gathered in Washington for the certification “was going to be ‘angry.’” ECF No. 1 at ¶ 98. Despite this knowledge—or perhaps because of it—in his remarks to supporters, the defendant told knowing lies about the Vice President’s role in the congressional certification, stoked the crowd’s anger, and directed them to march to the Capitol and “fight.”

[snip]

Although the defendant knew that the certification proceedings had been interrupted and suspended, he rejected multiple entreaties to calm the rioters and instead provoked them by publicly attacking the Vice President. ECF No. 1 at ¶111. And instead of decrying the rioters’ violence, he embraced them, issuing a video message telling them that they were “very special” and that “we love you.” Id. at ¶ 116. Finally, while the violent riot effectively suspended the proceedings over which the Vice President had been presiding, the defendant and his coconspirators sought to shore up efforts to overturn the election by securing further delay through knowing lies. Id. at ¶¶ 119, 120.

Trump here ignores the warning from his aides that the mob was angry, Trump’s video declaring “we love you” to his mob, and Trump’s renewed efforts to prevent the vote certification even after the mob left.

And in two different ways, Trump tries, again, to simply wish away the evidence that Trump corruptly tried to obstruct the vote certification, two of the charges against him. In one, Trump claims that the certification of the election at the Capitol provides no context to charges that he obstructed the certification of the election at the Capitol.

As a final, futile, attempt to establish relevance, the prosecution argues that the actions at the Capitol on January 6 provide “necessary context for all the charged conduct.” Doc. 140, at 12. Nevertheless, again, the prosecution did not charge President Trump with any crime relating to the actions at the Capitol, such as insurrection or incitement. Actions by others—whom the prosecution does not claim were part of any of the alleged conspiracies—do not provide any context for the actions based on which President Trump is charged.

And then, two paragraphs later, Trump points to the paragraph delimitation in just one charge — the conspiracy to defraud the vote certification — that doesn’t exist for the other three charges, to say that DOJ has excluded the actions described in the paragraphs about the mob.

The challenged allegations’ lack of relevance to the charges against President Trump is further demonstrated by the Indictment itself. The Indictment claims that President Trump “and his co-conspirators committed one or more of the acts to effect the object of the conspiracy alleged” in a list of paragraphs. Doc. 1, ¶ 124. The Indictment omits Paragraphs 10(d), 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, or 113 from this list. Thus, the prosecution does not claim that the actions at the Capitol on January 6 were “acts to effect the object of the conspiracy,” an admission that these paragraphs lack relevance to the charged conduct.

Compare the list of paragraphs cited in the 18 USC 371 charge with paragraphs in the other three charges that cite paragraphs 8 through 123.

The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 4 and 8 through 123 of this Indictment are re-alleged and fully incorporated here by reference.

Not just his motion to strike, the promised motion in limine, and all his other efforts to, like the Apostle Peter, deny the mob he has made his religion are gimmicks, just efforts to wish away abundant evidence against him.

It all comes off as rather desperate.

And as you consider the flop sweat coming off Trump’s motion to strike, consider this: DOJ must have provided, in discovery, the evidence they plan to use to show what Trump’s mob did and that they did it because of him and his lies. DOJ has repeatedly said they’ve provided the evidence they plan to use at trial. Among the things Trump must have in his possession are the videos that show Danny Rodriguez went directly from hearing Trump’s speech to almost murdering Michael Fanone, and others responded to Trump’s Pence tweet by serving a critical role in opening a second front of the attack on the Capitol and breaching the Senate.

Trump has — must have!! — seen the evidence about his mob DOJ intends to use at trial. And his response is this blubbering effort to wish his mob away.

John Lauro’s DC Delay Tactics Backfire in Florida

/193 Comments/in , , , /by

As I noted, right after Judge Aileen Cannon suggested, during a hearing on November 1, that conflicting trial schedules in DC and Florida meant she’d likely delay the stolen documents trial scheduled for May 20, Trump’s lawyers in DC filed to stay their DC trial. DOJ notified Judge Cannon right away that Trump had done that — basically proving the contention they made in the hearing that Trump was just stalling.

Having secured that delay, Trump turned to delaying his DC trial, with a motion to stay all other DC proceedings until his absolute immunity claim is decided, a 3-page motion Trump could have but did not submit when he was asking for a delay before submitting his other motions. Everything he points to in that 3-page motion, the completed briefing on the absolute immunity bid, was already in place on October 26. But he waited until he first got Cannon to move her trial schedule.

As I laid out the other day, Trump is not making legal arguments sufficient to win this case — certainly not yet. He is making a tactical argument, attempting to run out the clock so he can pardon himself.

Update: LOL. Trump filed the DC motion too soon, giving DOJ a chance to notice the cynical ploy in DC before Aileen Cannon issues her order.

Yesterday, the Court conducted a hearing on the defendants’ motion to adjourn trial, in which defendant Trump claimed that trial in this matter should be delayed in part because “[t]he March 4, 2024 trial date in the District of Columbia, and the underlying schedule in that case, currently require President Trump and his lawyers to be in two places at once.” ECF 167 at 1. Defendant Trump’s counsel reiterated that argument during the hearing yesterday. However, defendant Trump’s counsel failed to disclose at the hearing that they were planning to file – and yesterday evening did file – the attached motion to stay the proceedings in the District of Columbia until their motion to dismiss the indictment based on presidential immunity is “fully resolved.” See United States v. Donald J. Trump, No. 23-cr-257-TSC, ECF No. 128 at 1 (D.D.C. Nov. 1, 2023), attached as Exhibit 1. As the Government argued to the Court yesterday, the trial date in the District of Columbia case should not be a determinative factor in the Court’s decision whether to modify the dates in this matter. Defendant Trump’s actions in the hours following the hearing in this case illustrate the point and confirm his overriding interest in delaying both trials at any cost. This Court should [sic] allow itself to be manipulated in this fashion.

Judge Cannon hates to be embarrassed and probably was particularly perturbed that DOJ suggested she was allowing herself to be manipulated. She filed an order basically telling them never to do that again.

The parties are hereby reminded of the requirements of Local Rule 7.8 on Notices of Supplemental Authority. Except as authorized by Court order, the substantive content of any such notice (or response) may not exceed 200 words and may not be used as a surreply absent leave of Court. Future non-compliant notices or unauthorized filings will be stricken without further notice. Signed by Judge Aileen M. Cannon on 11/3/2023.

But it worked, at least for now. Judge Cannon has issued an order revising pretrial deadlines, some of which (such as a December response to a government motion already filed) don’t make sense at all. But she has not delayed the May 20 trial date and won’t consider it until March 1, at which point it will be clear whether the DC case will go forward that month.

Following review, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows. Defendants’ Motions to Continue Pre-Trial Deadlines are GRANTED IN PART for the reasons stated below. Defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial, currently set for the two-week period commencing on May 20, 2024, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, to be considered at a scheduling conference on March 1, 2024, following the initial set of pre-trial and CIPA steps in this proceeding as outlined below.

This increases the chances that at least one of these trials will go foward before the election.

How Ryan Nichols Responded to Trump’s Mike Pence Tweet

/25 Comments/in , /by

A number of you have noted that dumbass James Comer has subpoenaed Hunter Biden and others (but asked only for voluntary testimony from Tony Bobulinski). And Trump has filed his appeal of Judge Tanya Chutkan’s gag order.

I’ll get to both of those.

For now, I’m more interested in the details of Ryan Nichols’ plea. Nichols is a former Marine who drove from Texas to DC, with four guns in his truck, with a buddy. He carried a crowbar to the Capitol. As he was marching to the Capitol from the Ellipse, he heard about Trump’s tweet targeting Mike Pence. In response, he gave a long, recorded speech responding to Trump’s news that Pence was not going to overturn the election by promising to drag politicians in the streets.

I’m hearing that Pence just caved. I’m hearing reports that Pence caved. I’m telling you if Pence caved, we’re gonna drag motherfuckers through the streets. You fucking politicians are going to get fucking drug through the streets. Because we’re not going to have our fucking shit stolen. We’re not going to have our election or our country stolen. If we find out you politicians voted for it, we’re going to drag your fucking ass through the streets. Because it’s the second fucking revolution and we’re fucking done. I’m telling you right now, Ryan Nichols said it. If you voted for fucking treason, we’re going to drag your fucking ass through the streets. So let us find out, let the patriots find out that you fucking treasoned this country. We’re gonna drag your fucking ass through the street. You think we’re here for no reason? You think we patriots are here for no reason? You think we came just to fucking watch you run over us? No. You want to take it from us, motherfucker we’ll take it back from you.

Later, at the Capitol, he pepper sprayed cops guarding the Tunnel, then called others to take up weapons. “If you have a weapon, you need to get your weapon,” chanting, “Pedo Pence.”

At the end of the day, he again recorded himself, explaining how the mob had listened to Trump, learned Pence “did the wrong thing, and so they stopped the vote.”

I watched patriots gather and on the way down Pennsylvania Avenue after we listened to President Trump speak, we heard that Pence did the wrong thing. And as we got [sic] the Capitol building the consensus across the board was the same, that if Pence did the wrong thing and sold us out, then we have to fight.

[snip]

They showed where Pennsylvania said yesterday, “hey, we screwed up. We want to change this,” but Pence did the wrong thing and allowed them to continue with the vote. So we stormed the Capitol building, and they stopped the vote. And went down in to the tunnels and hid, like the fucking cowards they are.

Instead of coming out there and addressing “we the people,” they ran. Because they knew they were doing the wrong thing. So we clashed with Capitol Police.

After engaging in the most committed kind of conspiracy theorizing about the January 6 investigation for years, Nichols pled guilty the other to assault and obstruction.

His guidelines sentence is 78 to 97 months.

Congressman Clay Higgins, who is nothing short of batshit, wrote a letter calling on Judge Lamberth to sentence Nichols to time served, less than two years, rather than the guidelines upwards of 6.5 years.

Because Nichols recorded much of what he did with a GoPro and/or on his phone, this is precisely the kind of evidence that prosecutors may use to show how Trump mobilized a mob against Congress, and Mike Pence in particular, to obstruct the vote certification on January 6.

As I noted the other day, Jack Smith has promised to prove Trump’s role in mobilizing the mob — both those who attacked cops and those who threatened to attack Mike Pence — at trial.

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

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

Already, DOJ has collected evidence to show that rioters who engaged in some of the most consequential actions on January 6 were directly responding to Trump’s incitement. The guys who first breached the Senate chamber and helped open a second major breach at the East door, for example, took GoPro video of themselves specifically looking for Pence. The guy who almost murdered Michael Fanone was caught on camera responding to Trump’s incitement by promising to slit Joe Biden’s throat. His buddy, who helped Ryan Nichols incite the crowd, also tied storming Congress to targeting Mike Pence.

“Pence did the wrong thing … So we stormed the Capitol, and they stopped the vote,” Nichols explained his actions that day.

These kinds of statements, mobsters explaining how they responded to Trump’s statements by taking violent action to stop the voter certification, happened over and over.

That’s what Trump wants to keep out of his trial.