JD Vance Asserts that He and Trump Cannot Win Legitimately

There’s a fetish in the traditional media for asking Republicans to disavow crazy things Trump has said or done. This involves Tom Cotton so frequently I’m thinking of naming the phenomenon “Cotton swabs.” Marco Rubio and — since he became Speaker — Mike Johnson are other frequent participants in “Cotton swabbing.”

Perhaps Manu Raju confronts the person in the halls of Congress, perhaps they get invited to a Sunday show. And then the reporter asks them to be outraged about something outrageous that Trump said. Rather than disavowing it, the Republican blurts out some kind of propaganda instead.

Instead of serving as an opportunity to get Republicans to distance themselves from Trump, Republicans exploit the “Cotton swab” to perform obeisance to Trump’s fascism and air propaganda on the mainstream media.

It works every single time.

Yet journalists keep trying it, never varying their method.

Because he’s a smooth and shameless liar, JD Vance is especially adept at exploiting “Cotton swabs.”

In the past week, JD’s “Cotton swabs” have involved questions about whether JD would have certified Joe Biden’s victory. It started when NYT’s Lulu Garcia-Navarro asked JD the question five times.

Last few questions. In the debate, you were asked to clarify if you believe Trump lost the 2020 election. Do you believe he lost the 2020 election? I think that Donald Trump and I have both raised a number of issues with the 2020 election, but we’re focused on the future. I think there’s an obsession here with focusing on 2020. I’m much more worried about what happened after 2020, which is a wide-open border, groceries that are unaffordable. And look, Lulu —

Senator, yes or no. Did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election? Let me ask you a question. Is it OK that big technology companies censored the Hunter Biden laptop story, which independent analysis have said cost Donald Trump millions of votes?

Senator Vance, I’m going to ask you again. Did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election? Did big technology companies censor a story that independent studies have suggested would have cost Trump millions of votes? I think that’s the question.

Senator Vance, I’m going to ask you again. Did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election? And I’ve answered your question with another question. You answer my question and I’ll answer yours.

I have asked this question repeatedly. It is something that is very important for the American people to know. There is no proof, legal or otherwise, that Donald Trump did not lose the 2020 election. But you’re repeating a slogan rather than engaging with what I’m saying, which is that when our own technology firms engage in industrial-scale censorship — by the way, backed up by the federal government — in a way that independent studies suggest affect the votes. I’m worried about Americans who feel like there were problems in 2020. I’m not worried about this slogan that people throw: Well, every court case went this way. I’m talking about something very discrete, a problem of censorship in this country that I do think affected things in 2020. And more importantly, that led to Kamala Harris’s governance, which has screwed this country up in a big way.

Senator, would you have certified the election in 2020? Yes or no? I’ve said that I would have voted against certification because of the concern that I just raised. I think that when you have technology companies —

The answer is no. When you have technology companies censoring Americans at a mass scale in a way that, again, independent studies have suggested affect the vote. I think that it’s right to protest against that, to criticize that, and that’s a totally reasonable thing.

Two other journalists imagined they could do better. After letting JD claim that Trump’s lies about Aurora have some truth to them and insisting that he knows better about disparate assistance in North Carolina, for example, Martha Raddatz again gave JD a chance to claim that the two-day delay of letting people see Hunter Biden’s dick pics swung the 2020 election, and utterly predictably, he took the opportunity to falsely claim that “big tech” had “censored” Hunter Biden’s dick pics and that that was cause enough to declare the 2020 election invalid.

RADDATZ: Senator, we’re just about out of time here. We’re just about out of time here. And I want to end with this — in interview after interview, question after question, and in the debate, you refused to say that Donald Trump lost the 2020 election.

So I’m just going to assume that if I ask you 50 times whether he lost the election, you would not acknowledge that he did. Is that correct?

VANCE: Martha, you’ve — you asked this question, I’ve been asked this question 10 times in the past couple of weeks. Of course, Donald Trump and I believe there were problems in 2020. You haven’t asked about inflation, the —

(CROSSTALK)

RADDATZ: No, I’m sorry, let’s stick to this. I know — I know —

VANCE: The American people want us to talk about how to make their lives better. They don’t want us to —

RADDATZ: Why won’t you say that? Why won’t you say that?

VANCE: Because — because, Martha, I believe that in 2020, when big tech firms were censoring American citizens, that created very serious problems. And by the way, Martha, you’re — you’re a journalist. You represent the American media.

Look at the polling on this. A lot of Americans feel like they were silenced in the run-up to the 2020 election. That is such a bigger issue. That fundamental problem —

(CROSSTALK)

RADDATZ: If you — I just want to —

VANCE: — that me and Donald Trump talking about it, and unfortunately, Martha —

RADDATZ: But I don’t understand why you want to say that you believe it?

(CROSSTALK)

VANCE: She’s — well, won’t just say what, that I think the 2020 election had some problems? I’ve said that repeatedly.

RADDATZ: Did Donald Trump lose? That’s the question, and you know that’s the question.

VANCE: Martha, I’ve said repeatedly I think the election had problems. You want to say rigged. You want to say he won. Use whatever vocabulary term you want — I want to focus on the fact that we had big technology firms censoring our fellow citizens in a way that violated our fundamental rights.

Thankfully, Phil Bump laid out the absurdity behind JD’s answer so I don’t have to. What JD claims was a question about censorship was, in fact, a question about whether, if the hard drive that right wingers claim is a laptop yielded information about China that Congress never managed to find in two years of trying, would it have changed their vote.

It is not the case that tech companies censoring a story — specifically, a New York Post story about an email attributed to a laptop owned by Joe Biden’s son Hunter — cost Trump the election.

This, too, has been explored at length in the past, but it should immediately fail the smell test anyway. The 2020 election was a referendum on Trump, on his presidency and particularly on his handling of the coronavirus pandemic. It is ridiculous to suggest that this would have changed had Twitter (as it was then known) not briefly limited the sharing of a New York Post story about how one of Hunter Biden’s business partners sent him an email thanking him for getting him in the room with his father.

The “independent studies” which Vance mentioned presumably refer to one poll conducted on behalf of the right-wing Media Research Center after the election. It presented respondents with a sweeping claim linking Biden to foreign business interests, asking whether awareness of that purported link would have led people to reconsider their votes. A chunk of self-reported Biden voters said they would have.

Setting aside the vast inaccuracies inherent in having people assess what they would have done had the conditions of their decision-making been slightly different, the question didn’t even center on the New York Post story! It was about purported Chinese investors and used the same “Biden family” framing on which the failed Republican impeachment probe depended.

Even ignoring all the other false premises — that the hard drive he claims was a laptop was “censored,” that the right wing poll is accurate — not even the laptop itself, in federal hands, has substantiated illegal conduct beyond a known crack addiction and a gun purchase.

I would add that, in his answer to NYT, JD justifies a claim about what he would have done in 2021 with a partisan poll not taken until two years later. His answer is based on false premiise after false premise and a time machine.

But, as Bump also lays out, this answer is especially ridiculous given the confirmation that Trump’s campaign has done what JD falsely insinuates the Biden campaign did in 2020: Ask a tech company (probably all tech companies) to censor data.

As Ken Klippenstein described when declaring victory, Elon Musk personally made the decision to reverse his permanent suspension when NYT exposed the Trump campaign’s involvement.

Late last night, X (née Twitter) reinstated my account after banning me on September 26 for publishing the J.D. Vance dossier. Elon Musk personally intervened, in the name of “free speech principles,” according to correspondence I’ve seen. Musk had previously declared me “evil” before X suspended me in a move we now know was coordinated with the Trump campaign.

“I’ve asked X Safety to unsuspend him, even though I think he is an awful human being,” Musk told political commentator Brian Krassenstein (and frequent doppelgänger of mine) on October 11. “Important to stay true to free speech principles.”

The reinstatement of my account later that day reversed what X had previously informed me was a “permanent” suspension. The only explanation I’ve received from X came in an email from Twitter Support last night. The email reiterated my alleged violation of X’s policy on posting private information, but also said that the incident may have been a mistake on my part, for which reason I was being un-suspended.

Note, Klippenstein’s account is back. The links to the JD dossier are not. Xitter is still doing what Elon Musk claims is an affront to free speech, suppressing true information.

It is a testament to the voluntary impotence of the press that they don’t make JD pay a price for these ridiculous claims.

After all, if he believes his premise — that the throttling of content based on stolen information is such a severe abuse that it makes the entire election illegitimate — then he has already conceded that he and Trump cannot score a legitimate victory. If it is the case that “big tech” “censorship” can delegitimize an entire election — even ignoring that Trump’s campaign made demands and Biden’s campaign only asked for non-consensual dick pics to be taken down — then he has conceded all legitimacy.

To be sure, I’m not saying this. I think Vance and Trump might still win this, fair and square.

But Vance, based on his comments, has already stated that if Trump wins, Trump’s victory will be illegitimate based on his success at censoring the JD Vance dossier.

Share this entry

Machine for Fascism: The Two Stephens

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

NYT “Censors” Elon Musk’s Jokes about Assassinating the Vice President and His “Censorship” of JD Vance Dossier

As journalists who focus on social media-enabled disinformation grow overwhelmed by the extent to which broad swathes of Americans have become detached from reality…

The truth is, it’s getting harder to describe the extent to which a meaningful percentage of Americans have dissociated from reality. As Hurricane Milton churned across the Gulf of Mexico last night, I saw an onslaught of outright conspiracy theorizing and utter nonsense racking up millions of views across the internet. The posts would be laughable if they weren’t taken by many people as gospel. Among them: Infowars’ Alex Jones, who claimed that Hurricanes Milton and Helene were “weather weapons” unleashed on the East Coast by the U.S. government, and “truth seeker” accounts on X that posted photos of condensation trails in the sky to baselessly allege that the government was “spraying Florida ahead of Hurricane Milton” in order to ensure maximum rainfall, “just like they did over Asheville!”

As Milton made landfall, causing a series of tornados, a verified account on X reposted a TikTok video of a massive funnel cloud with the caption “WHAT IS HAPPENING TO FLORIDA?!” The clip, which was eventually removed but had been viewed 662,000 times as of yesterday evening, turned out to be from a video of a CGI tornado that was originally published months ago. Scrolling through these platforms, watching them fill with false information, harebrained theories, and doctored images—all while panicked residents boarded up their houses, struggled to evacuate, and prayed that their worldly possessions wouldn’t be obliterated overnight—offered a portrait of American discourse almost too bleak to reckon with head-on.

… NYT decided to do a puff piece on Elon Musk’s support for Trump.

Done as anything else than a corruption (which the piece largely ignores) or GOTV story, such a piece is in exceedingly bad taste.

All the more so given the way the NYT buries some of the most scandalous parts of the story.

In paragraph 23, for example, NYT cites two sources confirming that the Trump campaign intervened to get Xitter to take down links to the JD Vance dossier that Ken Klippenstein posted; it neither explains what was in the dossier nor names Klippenstein (indeed, aside from a photo caption, the article as a whole ignores JD Vance’s role in the Musk-Trump bromance).

The relationship has proved significant in other ways. After a reporter’s publication of hacked Trump campaign information last month, the campaign connected with X to prevent the circulation of links to the material on the platform, according to two people with knowledge of the events. X eventually blocked links to the material and suspended the reporter’s account.

Donald Trump and top Republicans have spent years complaining that Twitter throttled, for two days, a NY Post story on the hard drive of Hunter Biden’s personal data that Trump’s personal attorney was disseminating. Elon Musk allowed propagandists to sort through Xitter’s internal discussions, and when Matty Taibbi misrepresented a reference to the takedown of dick pics, some of which Guo Wengui had altered, Musk outraged, “If this isn’t a violation of the Constitution’s First Amendment, what is?”

Congress has held hearings! Trump still whines about the throttling of the NY Post story in his campaign rallies. That’s the excuse he uses for dodging the 60 Minutes interview.

This has been a central theme of right wing grievance for years. The Hunter Biden “laptop” is the founding myth in a far right reconceptualization of “free speech.” And when NYT catches Trump and Musk doing what they complain about, NYT buried that in paragraph 23.

More dangerous still is the way NYT misrepresents Elon Musk’s dangerous disinformation.

In the very last section of the 2,200 word story, starting around paragraph 33, NYT purports to describe Musk’s “misinformation,” suggesting he’s dumb, not deliberate.

If America PAC is the most ambitious and costly manifestation of Mr. Musk’s support for Mr. Trump, nowhere has his cheerleading been more evident than on X.

Since publicly endorsing the former president in July, he has posted at least 109 times about Mr. Trump and the election. And while he has said in the past that the platform should be “politically neutral,” he has used it to advance election misinformation and the baseless claim that Democrats are engaging in “deliberate voter importation” and “fast-tracking” immigrants to citizenship to gain control over the electorate.

One post with that claim this month has garnered nearly 34 million views, according to X’s own metrics, underscoring the scale of attention that Mr. Musk, owner of the platform’s most followed account, can command.

“Unless Trump wins and we get rid of the mountain of smothering regulations (that have nothing to do with safety!), humanity will never reach Mars,” Mr. Musk wrote this month in a post that has gained nearly 18 million views. “This is existential.”

Online, Mr. Musk has painted a dark picture of what would happen if Mr. Trump lost, a circumstance that could hurt Mr. Musk personally. In an interview with the former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, he acknowledged “trashing Kamala nonstop” and being all in for Mr. Trump.

If Mr. Trump loses, he joked, “how long do you think my prison sentence is going to be?”

This passage ignores Musk’s most important disinformation — things like his misrepresentation of hurricane response and his magnification of the most dehumanizing propaganda about migrants (including Haitians in Springfield, OH). NYT stupidly parroted Trump’s claim that they would replace normal turnout by sowing disinformation about this stuff, yet now they soft pedal how Musk is doing things that might get people killed.

Crazier still, NYT chooses not to mention Musk’s personal role in stoking far right anti-migrant violence in the UK, including his Tweet asserting that Civil War is inevitable. (NYT also doesn’t mention Musk’s attempt — with a legal fight all the way to the Supreme Court — to thwart Jack Smith’s investigation into Trump and his intransigence in the face of Brazilian legal requests as part of its response to a coup attempt.)

Musk has become a transnational vector for far right political violence.

NYT doesn’t mention that.

And finally, most insane of all, NYT doesn’t mention that Elon Musk has, more than once, joked about assassination and Kamala Harris.

After the Secret Service reached out to him the first time, Musk repeated the claim in the last week, joking with Tucker Carlson.

NYT calls this — repeated “jokes” about assassinating Kamala Harris — “insult[ing the Democratic Party’s] candidate, Vice President Kamala Harris.”

Elon Musk isn’t helping Trump get elected, NYT’s excuse for posting this puff piece. He’s helping Trump stoke fascism.

And rather than explaining the risk, NYT simply buries it.

Share this entry

Trump Demands Emergency Appendix Surgery

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

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

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

As Russia Overtly Helps Trump Get Elected, Trump Continues to Check in with Vladimir Putin

According to CNN, Bob Woodward’s latest book reveals that Trump has spoken to Vladimir Putin as many as seven times since leaving the Presidency.

In one scene, Woodward recounts a moment at Mar-a-Lago where Trump tells a senior aide to leave the room so “he could have what he said was a private phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin.”

“According to Trump’s aide, there have been multiple phone calls between Trump and Putin, maybe as many as seven in the period since Trump left the White House in 2021,” Woodward writes.

Woodward asked Trump aide Jason Miller whether Trump and Putin had spoken since he left the White House. “Um, ah, not that, ah, not that I’m aware of,” Miller told Woodward.

“I have not heard that they’re talking, so I’d push back on that,” Miller added.

Woodward writes that Biden’s Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines “carefully hedged” when asked about whether there were any post-presidency Trump-Putin calls.

“I would not purport to be aware of all contacts with Putin. I wouldn’t purport to speak to what President Trump may or may not have done,” Haines said, according to Woodward.

According to WaPo’s version of the Woodward story the incident where Trump asked an aide to leave the room happened in early 2024.

This is unsurprising. After all, Trump has repeatedly described speaking to Putin in advance of the Ukraine invasion, including fairly explicitly during the debate with Joe Biden.

When Putin saw that, he said, you know what? I think we’re going to go in and maybe take my – this was his dream. I talked to him about it, his dream. The difference is he never would have invaded Ukraine. Never.

But the confirmation that Trump keeps speaking to Putin is important for several other reasons.

We still don’t know where all the stolen documents are

If Trump was speaking to Putin before the Ukraine investigation and at least as recently as earlier this year, he was speaking to him during the investigation into his stolen documents, during the period when Trump was hiding boxes from his attorney to make sure he could steal documents.

Trump was going back and referring to some of these documents during the period he worked with Putin.

And perhaps most importantly, there were presumably classified documents loaded onto his plane on June 3, 2022 that got flown back to Bedminster, and probably some remained hidden at Mar-a-Lago (the FBI failed to search a room off Trump’s suite).

The FBI has never found the missing classified documents.

Trump was charged with hoarding some of America’s most secret documents in his basement. And during that entire period, he was checking in regularly with the leader of a hostile foreign country, the one who keeps helping him get elected.

Russian staged another operation to help defeat Joe Biden

Last month, Guardian revealed details of an information operation involving George Papadopoulos and Simona Mangiante, one for which she published an interview she did with sanctioned Russian agent Andrii Derkach. Relatedly, they rolled out yet more propaganda about Hunter Biden.

Working alongside contributors for Kremlin state media, the former Donald Trump policy aide George Papadopoulos, his wife, Simona Mangiante, and others have become editorial board members of the website Intelligencer, which is increasingly becoming a source of news for those in the rightwing ecosystem.

The growth of the website, which has not been reported on before, comes at a time when the US is seeking to crack down on Russian influence ahead of the 2024 election. Recently, the justice department charged two members of RT (formerly known as Russia Today) with violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act and money laundering for payments they allegedly made to “recruit unwitting American influencers”. It also placed sanctions on RT’s editor-in-chief, Margarita Simonyan, and nine other employees.

[snip]

Mangiante, his wife, has written several posts for the site about debunked conspiracy theories involving the Bidens and Ukraine. In January, she posted an interview with a former Ukrainian lawmaker, Andrii Derkach, who repeated false claims of bribery about the Biden family in Ukraine. In 2020, the US placed sanctions on Derkach, calling him an active Russian agent; Derkach, who now is running for political office in Russia, previously met with Rudy Giuliani and purported to offer evidence of corruption against the Bidens.

“Intelligencer appears to be one of several [Russia-friendly] operations targeting the upcoming US elections, leveraging a network of far-right figures and disinformation tactics,” Olga Lautman, a senior fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, said.

Mangiante, along with fellow board member Igor Lopatonok, appears to have parlayed this work into a new documentary about the Hunter Biden laptop saga called Hunter’s Laptop: Requiem for Ukraine. According to social media posts, the documentary premiered on 5 September at the Trump International hotel in Chicago. Eliason wrote the script, which was filmed by Lopatonok, who has frequently collaborated with Oliver Stone on prior anti-Ukrainian documentaries and fawning films of dictators.

Since Biden dropped out, I haven’t really dug into this as much as I might. It can wait. But suffice it to say these links are interesting beyond the most obvious ones. I believe that this ongoing effort targeting Hunter Biden is among the reasons Trump was so sad that Joe Biden dropped out: because Russia had already reloaded the ongoing information operation to work against Joe Biden.

But that’s not the only ongoing Russian operation. As part of the RT operation, for example, Russia was allegedly paying money to Lauren Chen, who also had a role at Turning Point America, the group that was supposed to lead Trump’s turnout operation.

In a warning about Russia’s plan to interfere issued in July, ODNI described that Russia was using “influential US voices” to push Russian support for Trump (and according to a new warning today, also for members of Congress who’ll abandon Ukraine).

“We are beginning to see Russia target specific voter demographics, promote divisive narratives and denigrate specific politicians. Moscow seeks to shape electoral outcomes, undermine electoral integrity and amplify domestic divisions,” the ODNI official said.

“To accomplish this, Moscow is using a variety of approaches to bolster its messaging and lend an air of authenticity to its efforts. This includes outsourcing its efforts to commercial firms to hide its hand and laundering narratives through influential U.S. voices,” the official said.

An influential US voice also mentioned in the RT indictment is Tucker Carlson, fresh off his visit to Vladimir Putin.

American media critics have made themselves tools of Russian disinformation

As it happens, just yesterday, the publisher of the Steele dossier that gave Republicans a way to claim the Russian story was something other than it was, Ben Smith, claimed that the Trump-Russia story is nothing more than “an embarrassment.”

The Trump-Russia story is at this point an embarrassment to everyone. Democrats couldn’t prove the most extensive allegations of plotting or that Russian Facebook ads swung the election. Republicans couldn’t deny that Russia was trying to help Trump, or prove their own more conspiratorial claims that the whole thing was a Hillary Clinton-made “Russia hoax.” At some point, American politics mostly moved on.

What the Russian investigation found is that Trump’s coffee boy, his campaign manager, his National Security Adviser, his personal lawyer, and his rat-fucker all lied to cover up the truth of what happened with Russia in 2016.

And yet because Trump successfully pardoned himself out of legal trouble, people like Ben yawn and say it’s over. And Trump’s successful pushback on the Russian story — assisted by the self-imagined savvy of people like Ben — means that no one has investigated the follow-on in 2020 and this year.

Vladimir Putin’s puppet makes house calls

And that has led the mainstream press to give just passing coverage of critical stories about Trump’s negotiations with Russia and its proxies.

Days before Biden dropped out of the race, I included Viktor Orbán’s trip to Mar-a-Lago among the stories getting ignored as everyone chased Joe Biden old stories.

Now, however, Trump no longer hides that he’s willing to let Putin dismember Ukraine. He welcomed Viktor Orbán’s pitch of a plan to do just that — but there has been no readout from Trump’s side of what happened. Orbán, however, has told other EU nations that Trump will moved for “peace” immediately after being elected — a replay of what Flynn lied to cover up in 2017 — largely by withdrawing US support for Ukraine.

In the past, Trump has gone even further than this, suggesting he’ll do nothing as Putin invades NATO states.

Meanwhile, JD Vance is, if anything, even more pro-Russian than Trump, as are some of the Silicon Valley oligarchs who now back Trump’s campaign since the Vance pick.

Trump’s plan of capitulation to Russia will go a long way to ending the Western rules-based order, the greatest wish of Putin and Xi Jinpeng.

And thus far we know just one of the things that Russia seems to be doing to help Trump’s campaign: detaining WSJ reporter Evan Gershkovich until Trump gets elected, just as Iran held onto hostages to help Reagan get elected. Avril Haines recently made clear Russia is planning on helping in other ways as well.

That’s how “Russia Russia Russia” has worked. It’s a shameless lie that Mueller found nothing, a lie built off years of propaganda. Indeed, Trump’s willing acceptance — or, in Rudy’s case, outright solicitation — of Russia’s help to get elected has only gotten more brazen. Yet rather than call Don Jr on his “Russia Russia Russia” lie, reporters simply let the pressing question of whether Trump will end the alliance of democracies in a second term go unasked.

Viktor Orbán is an absolutely central player in Republican plans, especially those — like Project 2025 — boosted by the Heritage Foundation. But there has been almost no curiosity about what’s behind that.

Another thing that got largely buried was Paul Manafort’s return to Trump’s campaign, even though since he last worked for Trump, it has been confirmed that his efforts resulted in Russian spies obtaining polling and the campaign’s strategy.

Because Trump has so successfully led journalists to be cowed by his “Russia Russia Russia” bullying, none of this has been a central story.

It needs to become one.

Share this entry

Disaster Disinformation Is This Year’s John Podesta Emails

I’ve already focused on these three paragraphs, but want to return to them. They’re from NYT’s article anticipating how the apparently tied race will roll out in the next 30 (now 28) days.

With polling averages showing all seven battleground states nearly tied, many Democrats believe their biggest advantage may be an extensive ground game operation that their party has spent more than a year building across the country. Mr. Trump’s campaign thinks that recent events — the escalating conflict in the Middle East and deadly hurricanes that have killed more than 200 people across the Southeast — will give them an edge in the final weeks.

[snip]

Their field operation stretches from turning out staunch Democrats to persuading moderate Republicans who supported Mr. Trump in previous races but disapprove of his indictments, impeachments and general conduct since leaving office.

In contrast, Trump aides see recent events as reinforcing their central campaign message that Ms. Harris is unprepared, weak and incapable of restoring the sense of calm that the Biden administration promised when elected four years ago.

The entire article contrasts the extensive Democratic ground game with sketchier GOP infrastructure. Importantly, Republicans do not contest that Democrats are better prepared to turn out their seemingly equal share of voters.

In response, Republicans first claim they’re better positioned on the issues, pointing to immigration and the economy but not abortion.

They believe they are competing in a country that has become more conservative over the past four years — pointing to surveys showing that more voters now identify as Republican — and more likely to side with them on the issues.

As I’ve been tracking, Trump’s one-time lead on the economy has been shrinking. This Cook Political Report podcast provides more nuance, one that explains a great deal of the polling we’re seeing in polls based on different turnout models. Among college-educated people, Harris now does better than Trump by 4% points. Among non-college voters, Trump retains a 10% lead. The trick, though, is that the former are far more likely to turn out than the latter. The differences you’re seeing on this issue may stem from likely voter models.

But that means that GOP certainty that they’re fine because Trump leads on the issue that is most important for the largest number of people — the economy — depends on their ability to turn out low-propensity voters.

Yet they admit they don’t have the GOTV infrastructure in place that Harris has.

Instead, Trumpsters told the NYT (again, Maggie Haberman is on the byline) that their plan to make up for that deficit is Bibi’s war (which works — and it may well work — primarily in MI) and disasters.

On one level, it was an utterly ridiculous claim, though the NYT didn’t blink. It’s a non-sequitur.

On another level, they were telling the truth. They admit they don’t have the ground game necessary to turn out voters who are disproportionately low-turnout voters. But their answer to that is to exploit two devastating hurricanes as a basis to argue, “that Ms. Harris is unprepared, weak and incapable of restoring the sense of calm.”

If NYT were engaged in journalism, they would have noted that even by the time Trump’s people made this claim, the affected GOP governors had already publicly commented on how satisfied they were by the Federal support they were getting.

That is, it is insane for Republicans to assume, as a matter of faith, that disasters will serve a narrative that VP Harris in unprepared. It’s just as likely that some swing voters in North Carolina and Georgia will see in the Biden-Harris Administration a level of responsiveness they wouldn’t otherwise, if they were simply following reporting of an event twelve states away.

But we’ve seen why they said it. Trump and hackish Republicans are treating this in the same way that they treated John Podesta emails and wanted to treat Hunter Biden’s laptop, as an opportunity to distract attention with make believe stories in the weeks before the election. He knew the things he was Tweeting about John Podesta’s emails weren’t true, Microchip testified at Douglass Mackey’s trial, but he didn’t care. He wanted, “To cause as much chaos as possible so that that would bleed over to Hillary Clinton and diminish her chance of winning.” This is precisely what they’re doing by making shit up about the Helene (and soon, the Milton) response.

To be fair, because the stakes are life and death, Republicans are getting a lot more pushback on their lies this time around. There have been a slew of Republican local officials calling on other Republicans to stop. A fact check Glenn Kessler did — noting that while Joe Biden hasn’t diverted FEMA money to immigrant detention, Trump did — has gotten a lot of attention (though Trump’s abysmal record on disaster response generally and hurricane response more specifically, such as when Trump threw paper towels at Puerto Rican hurricane survivors, deserves far more systematic attention).

Indeed, Trump’s choice to make disaster response this year’s distraction effort in the month of October presents an opportunity to hold not just Trump, but especially members of Congress, accountable for their refusal to govern.

But make no mistake what he’s doing. A fair assessment of the disaster response, so far, would in no way help Trump; indeed, it creates a topic on which Trump fails any meaningful comparison of outcomes. But that’s not what Trump’s team meant when they said impending disaster creates an opportunity to attack Harris.

They have learned to succeed in recent years by taking packaged up events — John Podesta’s risotto recipe, Hunter Biden’s dick pics, and now deadly hurricanes — as a hook on which to hang disinformation. Holy hell, Senator John Kennedy was wailing about tampons on Hannity!

They are not making a rational argument. They are using disinformation to create distrust and a sense of unease. That’s what the NYT would have said if they were reporting reality rather than spin.

The Republican party is treating deadly hurricanes like they treated John Podesta’s risotto recipe and Hunter Biden’s dick pics in past elections.

Reporters (including the NYT here) too often treat Trump as if his utterances involve truth claims, rather than efforts to use noise to create chaos. But even now, even as a second deadly hurricane bears down on Trump’s own state, Trump is making it clear he intends to use the disasters as another opportunity to create noise.

Share this entry

Trump Pardoned Unindicted Co-Conspirator Steve Bannon for Defrauding Trump’s Supporters

On December 13, [Chesebro] sent [Rudy] a memorandum that envisioned a scenario in which Pence would use the fraudulent slates as a pretext to claim that there were dueling slates of electors from the targeted states and negotiate a solution to defeat Biden.312 On the same day, the defendant resumed almost daily direct contact with [Bannon,] who maintained a podcast that disseminated the defendant’s false fraud claims.313 On December 14, [Bannon’s] podcast focused on spreading lies about the defendant’s fraudulent electors—including the false claim that their votes were merely a contingency in the event the defendant won legal challenges in the targeted states.314 [my emphasis]

Let me make something explicit to serve as background for a post on what fuckery we might expect in the next month or so.

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

Between the period on October 31, 2020, when Steve Bannon was explaining that Trump would declare victory regardless if he won, and the period, starting on December 13, when Bannon started planning events that would lead to “All Hell [Breaking] Loose” on January 6, alleged co-conspirator Bannon had less contact with Trump for a period, then resumed “almost daily direct contact” with him. In that period, Bannon was trying to figure out how to get out of his prosecution for cheating Trump supporters in the Build the Wall scheme (here’s the RECAP docket).

He was arrested on August 20 on Guo Wengui’s yacht (a yacht allegedly acquired through Guo’s separate conspiracy to cheat his supporters, a fraud in which Bannon was also treated as a co-conspirator). That day, Bill Burck — who had successfully gotten Bannon through slowly evolving testimony the Mueller investigation with no charges — represented him at his arraignment, as he did for an initial appearance via Zoom on August 31. Bannon spent some part of the next two months working with Rudy Giuliani, Robert Costello, and Jack Maxey, fiddling with a hard drive copied from a laptop once associated with Hunter Biden’s iCloud account. Meanwhile, Burck delayed the first status hearing in the case — originally scheduled for October 26 and rescheduled for November 9 — based on his own trial schedule.

On November 3, Donald Trump did declare victory before key swing states were counted.

On November 5, Steve Bannon called to put Anthony Fauci and Chris Wray’s heads on pikes.

STEVE BANNON (HOST): Second term kicks off with firing Wray, firing Fauci.

Now I actually want to go a step farther but I realize the president is a kind-hearted man and a good man. I’d actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England, I’d put the heads on pikes, right, I’d put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats. You either get with the program or you’re gone — time to stop playing games. blow it all up, put Ric Grenell today as the interim head of the FBI, that’ll light them up, right.

The day after Bannon threatened the FBI Director, on November 6, Burck asked for a second delay of the initial status hearing, because Bannon was in the process of retaining new counsel. “Mr. Bannon and Quinn Emanuel have mutually and amicably agreed that alternative counsel would be better suited to his defense strategy,” Burck explained later that month when he requested permission to drop off the case.

On November 7, Pennsylvania declared Joe Biden the victor of the state. There would be no second term in which Bannon could impale the FBI Director — at least not one in 2021.

It actually took longer for Bannon to arrange replacement counsel than Burck represented.

On December 11, Robert Costello entered his appearance as Bannon’s new lawyer. At the time, Costello was best known for the allegations from the Mueller Report seeming to offer assurances from “friends in high places” that Michael Cohen would be pardoned if he covered for Trump. But Costello’s role, as a participant as much as counsel, in the Hunter Biden laptop caper would seemingly expand the timeline of his relationship with Bannon.

Two days after Costello entered his appearance for Bannon, according to Jack Smith’s immunity filing, Bannon and Trump resumed near-daily conversations leading up to January 6.

Bannon’s actual pardon would make short work for Costello. On January 19, 2021 — less than two weeks after “All hell [broke] loose” with Bannon as an alleged co-conspirator — Trump pardoned Bannon for cheating Trump’s own supporters. But Trump made it clear with his selectivity that the pardon had nothing to do with a perceived injustice: Trump pardoned none of Bannon’s co-conspirators. His three co-conspirators remain in prison at least through next year.

Trump pardoned Bannon for cheating Trump’s own supporters. He cared more about meeting Bannon’s needs than protecting those who believe in Trump.

When tangential We Build the Wall associates Dustin Stockton and Jennfier Lawrence explained why they provided (unreliable) testimony to the January 6 Committee, they implied it arose, in part, from frustration that Bannon had gotten pardoned but they had not.

Stockton and Lawrence say they subsequently worked with Kremer to plan a rally in Washington on Nov. 14, 2020. That event featured a drive-by from Trump in the presidential motorcade. That night, there were clashes between Trump supporters and counterprotesters. Turnout among the pro-Trump contingent was high enough that Kremer was inspired to launch a nationwide “March for Trump” bus tour with Stockton and Lawrence.

They were also, they say, encouraged by a suggestion that participating in the protests challenging Trump’s election loss could win them Trump’s help with the fallout from the We Build the Wall debacle. In December 2020, as the tour rolled around the country, Stockton and Lawrence say they got a call from Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) and his chief of staff, Thomas Van Flein. According to Stockton, Van Flein claimed he and the congressman had just met with Trump, who was considering giving them a “blanket pardon” to address the “We Build the Wall” investigation.

“We were just in the Oval Office speaking about pardons and your names came up,” Van Flein allegedly said. Van Flein did not respond to a request for comment.

Gosar suggested the bus tour was helping Stockton and Lawrence build support for a pardon from the caucus and Trump. “Keep up the good work,” Gosar said, according to Stockton. “Everybody’s seen what you’re doing.”

While Stockton says Gosar previously supported the wall project and would likely have “moved to get the pardon regardless of what was happening post-election,” the call made clear to him that the protests against the 2020 vote could help get Trump on their side. “Trump was taking interest because of the notoriety of what we were currently doing,” Stockton says.

In the end, Bannon’s short-term resolution of his criminal exposure may not have helped much,

Like his co-conspirators, he’s in prison as we speak, for contemptuously blowing off the January 6 Committee. He’ll be in Danbury prison for several more weeks. Six weeks after that, he faces state trial on the same charges of which his co-conspirators have already been found guilty.

I raise all this for two reasons.

First, John Roberts says none of this matters. The evidence that Donald Trump was using pardons as leverage to associates to help attack democracy doesn’t matter. He doesn’t want to hear any evidence of such official conduct, even if used as part of a quid pro quo.

And more obviously, as Bannon faces his state trial and gets named as an unindicted co-conspirator in Trump’s effort to “break loose all hell” on January 6, he’s in the same position he was four years ago: facing down legal consequences for his past criminal attacks on truth and rule of law.

Trump pardoned Bannon, and only Bannon, for defrauding his own supporters four years ago.

Share this entry

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

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.

  1. October 31: “He’s gonna declare himself a winner.” J6C (Originally sourced to MoJo)
  2. November 13: “Trump just fired.”
  3. December 13: Bannon resumes daily contact.
  4. December 14: Alternate electors. J6C
  5. January 2: “The Vice President’s role is not “ministerial.” J6C
  6. January 2: Trump wanted Pence briefed by Eastman immediately.
  7. January 4: Pre-Pence Willard Hotel meeting, from which Rudy calls Trump.
  8. January 4: Post-Pence Willard Hotel meeting.
  9. January 5: “Fuck his lawyer.”
  10. 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