Mark Meadows Promised the Kind of National Guard Protection that Proud Boy Charles Donohoe Seemed to Expect

I argued last week that any contempt report for Mark Meadows will serve as much as a draft warrant affidavit for the FBI as it would the basis for a criminal contempt indictment.

The committee released their report last night and, as I expected, it describes some of the more damning evidence already obtained regarding Meadows. It includes 12 bullet points (included below), many derived from documents already turned over, describing Meadows’ role in sowing disinformation about the election and his early knowledge of the violence that might result.

As Politico reported, one of those bullets described Meadows emailing someone and saying that the National Guard would “protect pro Trump people.”

Mr. Meadows sent an email to an individual about the events on January 6 and said that the National Guard would be present to ‘‘protect pro Trump people’’ and that many more would be available on standby.

Former Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller told Congress that’s what Trump ordered him to do on January 3. But if Meadows passed on that privileged order the President gave to Miller, either directly or indirectly, to people involved in the riot, it might have helped them to plan.

And that’s interesting, because when Proud Boy Charles Donohoe saw a public report about the Guard being called in at 3:45 PM of on the day of the riot (these texts reflect the Washington State time zone in which Ethan Nordean’s phone was seized), he responded with surprise that the Guard would “attack … Trump supporters.”

If Meadows had a hand in alerting the Proud Boys that they would not face any response from the Guard, it would go a long way to explaining how they planned their operation in the way they did.

It also might explain why, minutes after Donohoe had just reported, minutes earlier, that “we are regrouping with a second force,” that second assault was abandoned.

As some of the bullets make clear, Mark Meadows had advance warning from organizers that things would get violent on January 6. And as the riot developed, he was in constant communication with Kash Patel, the Chief of Staff at the Defense Department that proved unwilling to deploy to protect the Capitol.

And it’s just possible he shared information that was central to the expectations of and plans by the militia that organized the assault.

Mr. Meadows was one of a relatively small group of people who witnessed the events of January 6 in the White House and with then-President Trump. Mr. Meadows was with or in the vicinity of then-President Trump on January 6 as he learned about the attack on the U.S. Capitol and decided whether to issue a statement that could stop the rioters.28 In fact, as the violence at the Capitol unfolded, Mr. Meadows received many messages encouraging him to have Mr. Trump issue a statement that could end the violence, and one former White House employee reportedly contacted Mr. Meadows several times and told him, ‘‘[y]ou guys have to say something. Even if the president’s not willing to put out a statement, you should go to the [cameras] and say, ‘We condemn this. Please stand down.’ If you don’t, people are going to die.’’29

Moreover, Mr. Meadows reportedly spoke with Kashyap Patel, who was then the chief of staff to former Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller, ‘‘nonstop’’ throughout the day of January 6.30 And, among other things, Mr. Meadows apparently knows if and when Mr. Trump was engaged in discussions regarding the National Guard’s response to the Capitol riot, a point that is contested but about which Mr. Meadows provided documents to the Select Committee and spoke publicly on national television after President Trump left office.31

Beyond those matters, the Select Committee seeks information from Mr. Meadows about issues including the following:

  • Mr. Meadows exchanged text messages with, and provided guidance to, an organizer of the January 6th rally on the Ellipse after the organizer told him that ‘‘[t]hings have gotten crazy and I desperately need some direction. Please.’’32
  • Mr. Meadows sent an email to an individual about the events on January 6 and said that the National Guard would be present to ‘‘protect pro Trump people’’ and that many more would be available on standby.33
  • Mr. Meadows received text messages and emails regarding apparent efforts to encourage Republican legislators in certain States to send alternate slates of electors to Congress, a plan which one Member of Congress acknowledged was ‘‘highly controversial’’ and to which Mr. Meadows responded, ‘‘I love it.’’ Mr. Meadows responded to a similar message by saying ‘‘[w]e are’’ and another such message by saying ‘‘Yes. Have a team on it.’’34
  • Mr. Meadows forwarded claims of election fraud to the Acting leadership of DOJ for further investigation, some of which he may have received using a private email account and at least one of which he had received directly from people associated with Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign.35
  • He also reportedly introduced Mr. Trump to then-DOJ official Jeffrey Clark.36 Mr. Clark went on to recommend to Mr. Trump that he be installed as Acting Attorney General and that DOJ should send a letter to State officials urging them to take certain actions that could affect the outcome of the November 2020 election by, among other things, appointing alternate slates of electors to cast electoral votes for Mr. Trump rather than now-President Biden.37
  • Mr. Meadows participated in meetings and calls during which the participants reportedly discussed the need to ‘‘fight’’ back against ‘‘mounting evidence’’ of purported voter fraud after courts had considered and overwhelmingly rejected Trump campaign claims of voter fraud and other election irregularities. He participated in one such meeting in the Oval Office with Mr. Trump and Members of Congress, which he publicly tweeted about from his personal Twitter account shortly after.38 He participated in another such call just days before the January 6 attack with Mr. Trump, Members of Congress, attorneys for the Trump re-election campaign, and ‘‘some 300’’ State and local officials to discuss the goal of overturning certain States’ electoral college results on January 6, 2021.39
  • Mr. Meadows traveled to Georgia to observe an audit of the votes days after then-President Trump complained that the audit had been moving too slowly and claimed that the signature-match system was rife with fraud.40 That trip precipitated Mr. Trump’s calls to Georgia’s Deputy secretary of state and, later, secretary of state.41 In the call with Georgia’s secretary of state, which Mr. Meadows and an attorney working with the campaign also joined, Mr. Trump pressed his unsupported claims of widespread election fraud, including claims related to deceased people voting, forged signatures, out-of-State voters, shredded ballots, triple-counted ballots, Dominion voting machines, and suitcase ballots, before telling the secretary of state that he wanted to find enough votes to ensure his victory.42 At one point during the call, Mr. Meadows asked ‘‘in the spirit of cooperation and compromise, is there something that we can at least have a discussion to look at some of these allegations to find a path forward that’s less litigious?’’43 At that point, Mr. Trump had filed two lawsuits in his personal capacity and on behalf of the campaign in Georgia, but the United States had not filed—and never did file—any. Mr. Meadows used a personal account in his attempts to reach the secretary of state before.44
  • Mr. Meadows was chief of staff during the post-election period when other White House staff, including the press secretary, advanced claims of election fraud. In one press conference, the press secretary claimed that there were ‘‘very real claims’’ of fraud that the Trump re-election campaign was pursuing and said that mail-in voting was one that ‘‘we have identified as being particularly prone to fraud.’’45

29Documents on file with the Select Committee (Meadows production); Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker, I Alone Can Fix It, (New York: Penguin, 2021), p. 476.

30 Adam Ciralsky, ‘‘‘The President Threw Us Under the Bus’: Embedding with Pentagon Leadership in Trump’s Chaotic Last Week,’’ Vanity Fair, (Jan. 22, 2021), available at https://

31Documents on file with the Select Committee (Meadows production); Transcript, ‘‘The Ingraham Angle,’’ Fox News, (Feb. 11, 2021), available at biden-warns-china-could-eat-our-lunch-after-phone-call-with-xi; Transcript, ‘‘Hannity,’’ Fox News, (Feb. 12, 2021), available at; Testimony of Hon. Christopher C. Miller, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Reform, (May 12, 2021), available at

32Documents on file with the Select Committee (Meadows production).

33Documents on file with the Select Committee (Meadows production).

34Documents on file with the Select Committee (Meadows production).

35Documents on file with the Select Committee.

36Michael Bender, Frankly, We Did Win This Election: The Inside Story of How Trump Lost, (New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2021), p. 369.

37Documents on file with the Select Committee.

38Marissa Schultz, ‘‘Trump meets with members of Congress plotting Electoral College objections on Jan. 6,’’ Fox News, (Dec. 21, 2021), available at; Tweet, @MarkMeadows, (Dec. 21, 2020 at 6:03 p.m.) (‘‘Several members of Congress just finished a meeting in the Oval Office with President @realDonaldTrump, preparing to fight back against mounting evidence of voter fraud. Stay tuned.’’).

39 Caitlin McFall, ‘‘Trump, House Republicans held call to discuss Electoral College rejection: Brooks,’’ Fox News, (Jan. 2, 2021), available at; Tweet, @RepMoBrooks, (Jan. 2, 2021 at 7:17 p.m.) (‘‘Our fight for honest & accurate elections gains momentum! @JimlJordan & I co-lead conference call w 50+ Congressmen who join & fight for America’s Republic! . . . President Trump & CoS Mark Meadows speaking. Morale is HIGH! FIGHT!’’); Paul Bedard, ‘‘Exclusive: Trump urges state legislators to reject electoral votes, ‘You are the real power’,’’ Washington Examiner, (Jan. 3, 2021), available at

40Linda So, ‘‘Trump’s chief of staff could face scrutiny in Georgia criminal probe,’’ Reuters, (March 19, 2021), available at

41 Id.

42 ‘‘AP FACT CHECK: Trump’s made-up claims of fake Georgia votes,’’ Associated Press, (Jan. 3, 2021),; ‘‘Here’s the full transcript and audio of the call between Trump and Raffensperger, Washington Post, (Jan. 2, 2021), 322644d82356—story.html.

43 ‘‘Here’s the full transcript and audio of the call between Trump and Raffensperger, Washington Post, (Jan. 2, 2021),—story.html.

44Documents on file with the Select Committee.

45Transcript of November 20, 2020, White House Press Conference, available at https://

71 replies
  1. Mister_Sterling says:

    Marcy, you will be taking over this investigation next year when the GOP sweeps into the House, right? And the Democrats will scan and fly all documents to a warehouse in Ireland to protect them from the right wing gangs? You need to take this over, because the Democrats have just 10 months of peace left.

      • J. H. Frank says:

        They’ve got something like a 2-point advantage on the generic ballot at the moment, which historically has always resulted in taking the majority in Congress.

        The hyperbole about Marcy taking up the investigation herself may be unwarranted, but the reminder that this investigation has a hard time limit is not.

  2. greenbird says:

    And it’s just possible -information- he shared information that was central to the expectations of and plans by the militia that organized the assault.

    too many ‘information’ s ?

  3. JohnForde says:

    I have long wondered about the communications late in that day. Did Kash somehow have a channel to inform the paramilitaries he could no longer hold off reinforcements? Was Trump aware of a signal from Kash to paramilitaries and did it play a part in Trump’s agreeing to make the “We love you-go home” video?

    • Rugger9 says:

      It depends upon the channel used, and how traceable it is. Even though Kash Patel is an arrogant know-it-all, I’m pretty sure he didn’t use anything but a burner device. Then again, KP was Dunning-Krueger enough to believe in his plot’s success. The Committee may already have this info.

  4. CoolDogFalstaff says:

    Ok… so the National Guard were expected to “protect Trump people.” Did Meadows expect/hope for anti-Trump protests at this shindig? Is this why they all kept trying to blame the carnage at the Capital building on everyone BUT “Trump people” – BLM, Antifa, outside agitators, yadda yadda – even though it was painfully obvious they weren’t there?

    • matt fischer says:

      Chatter from far-right groups in the lead-up to Jan. 6 indicated they were counting on a large “antifa”/counterprotester presence. Enrique Tarrio even directed the Proud Boys to go “incognito” and dress “all BLACK” to blend in with “antifa”:

      We are going to smell like you, move like you, and look like you. The only thing we’ll do that’s us is think like us! Jan 6th is gonna be epic.

      But the counterdemonstration never happened. From Time:

      Much to their surprise, the thousands who answered [Trump’s] call were met by virtually no counterdemonstrators. To preserve safety and ensure they couldn’t be blamed for any mayhem, the activist left was “strenuously discouraging counter activity,” Podhorzer texted me the morning of Jan. 6, with a crossed-fingers emoji.”

      • Lady4real says:

        There was never going to be any counter demonstration. Everyone knew about this huge ‘protest’ and that it was going to be bloody violent. Only those of a rabid mind would be in attendance. That’s not a description I’ve ever heard used to describe the counter protestors.

        • Chris Perkins says:

          Many of the most dedicated “counter protesters” here in Portland OR are just people looking for a fight. Their reaction is why the various right wing patriot groups would hold their frequent rallies here – to get a big donnybrook going.

    • Rugger9 says:

      The J6 seditionists wanted a replay of Portland Oregon. BLM and the rest of so-called “Antifa” had no reason to be at the Capitol for a “Stop the Steal” rally since that wasn’t their issue like extrajudicial killings of Black men.

      These aren’t the most logical types in the RWNJ world, and they have a tendency to project what they would do on their opposition. That kind of looks like what we have here.

      • matt fischer says:

        “Antifa” had plenty of reason to be there on J6, but knew to avoid it lest they be scapegoated for the inevitable shitshow.

        • bmaz says:

          And, yet, the only people who called the counterprotestors “Antifa” were the idiot Trump goons. Antifa does not exist except in their twisted minds.

        • matt fischer says:

          The pipe/fever dream seems to have been something along the lines of chaos erupting from the clash between RWNJ’s and “antifa” would be so great that Trump would declare a national emergency, call in the DC National Guard to crush “antifa”, invoke the Insurrection Act, impose martial law, shutter The Capitol, and, as a result, remain Dear Leader in perpetuity.

          • Benton says:

            It must infuriate them to no end that there isn’t an “antifa” organization. Such an organization could have been infiltrated with agents provocateurs ensuring suitable clashes.

      • rip says:

        Using the RW term “antifa” is part of their playbook. Please don’t reinforce it.

        I think what actually happened is that the trumpie-types actually started to believe the crap that their paid acolytes were spewing. It’s one thing to set up a propaganda operation to deceive the others, it’s another to actually start to think those words/concepts are “real”.

        Imagine the inner circle of the trumpy loyalists actually starting to believe Powell, Ellis, Wood, Stone, etc. That’s when they entered the realm of the circular firing squad (one can hope).

    • Leoghann says:

      “They” are almost never there. It has suited the needs of the right wing for many years to have a scapegoat du jour, from the socialists of the Twenties and Thirties, to the Communists of the Fifties and Sixties, and on and on. In the Seventies, it was Spiro Agnew’s “radicalibs” and “effete snobs.” In the mid-Nineties it became the Muslims, who are an actual religio-ethnic group, but not to be universally feared. After the Shrub tanked the economy, using the same financial prowess that George HW and Barbara had rescued him from for 30 years, an Occupy Wall Street protest was held, and protesters camped out in NYC for weeks. But Rush Limbaugh carried on about Occupy Wall Street as though it was an international organization of terror. Black Lives Matter was originally just a poster used by protesters, but then it became a slogan used at protests nation-wide. BLM didn’t become a movement until the RWNJs started to describe “it” as a huge, national organization, with a membership devoted to Destroying Our Society. And although some chapters of BLM were started in a few urban centers, it has never been even close to what the Faux Friends described. And now we have Antifa, which is as illusory as BLM was in its first couple of years. The process of maintaining a boogey man is very similar to preachers who, when the collection plates are light, begin preaching about The End Times.

      • matt fischer says:

        Speaking of right-wing bugaboos, I like how Mehdi Hasan put it:

        Critical race theory
        Cancel culture

        Words and phrases that Republicans should not be allowed to utter on air without first being asked to define them clearly and substantively.

  5. GKJames says:

    With respect to Kash Patel, it’s interesting that his name appears nowhere in the DOD Inspector General’s “Review of DOD’s Role [in connection with the January 6] Protest and its Aftermath…”.

    • rip says:

      Thanks for the link. Haven’t processed it but it does seem digestible. Smart people in Congress and the DOJ are there for us – I hope!!!

  6. Benton says:

    Thank you for identifying the Proud Boy connections and for your reporting. Meadow’s comment raises more questions about possible White House influence on the National Guard’s Quick Reaction Force (QRF) deployment requirements and restrictions on movement between traffic control points.

    Beyond the Jan 3 Trump/Miller conversation, Miller also testified that:

    “On the afternoon of January 5, I received a call from the President in connection with a
    rally by his supporters that day at Freedom Plaza. The President asked if I was watching the
    event on television. I replied that I had seen coverage of the event. He then commented that
    “they” were going to need 10,000 troops the following day.”

    Was the QRF “concept of operation” requirement established to make deployment contingent on whether it would “protect pro Trump people” or not?

    Recall Gen Walker’s testimony before the Senate Homeland Security Committee:

    “The Secretary of the Army’s Jan. 5th letter withheld authority for me to employ the Quick Reaction Force. In addition, the Secretary of the Army’s memorandum to me required that a
    “concept of operation” (CONOP) be submitted to him before any employment of the QRF. I found that requirement to be unusual…”

    • timbo says:

      So the Guard was not to be positioned to defend the Congress in the Capitol as a default…as per one of its primary missions already. Doesn’t Walker’s CoS/aide Matthews complain about this in his recent editorial/letter as well? Seems like Walker is not going along quietly on this one!

      • harpie says:

        Yes. From page 14 of Matthews’ report:

        […] If COL Matthews had been interviewed [by the DOD IG] he would have characterized the Army Staff witness’s comment as an absolute lie. The addition of the restriction withholding QRF employment authority from MG Walker was not discussed with the general during the meeting with Secretary McCarthy and the Army Staff which occurred during the afternoon of 4 January. The specific withholding QRF approval authority to Secretary McCarthy’s level was inserted by Army Staff officers late on the evening of 4 January. Matthews, if interviewed, would have stated that neither McCarthy, Walker nor Matthews knew about the restriction before it was added. […]

        • Benton says:

          Thank you harpie! I was holding that ready in case someone responded. You beat me to it. I’m a little hung up on the differing dates given by Gen. Walker vs Col. Matthews. Perhaps Walker was referring to Jan 5 being the time when he received the final written orders.

        • Benton says:

          Gen. Walker’s testimony was correct. SECARMY McCarthy’s letter to Walker is stamped as Jan 5.

          From this letter: “I withhold authority to approve employment of the DCNG Quick Reaction Force (QRF) and will do so only as a last resort, in response to a request from an appropriate civil authority. I will require a concept of operation prior to authorizing employment of the QRF. If the QRF is employed, DCNG personnel will be clearly marked and/or distinguished from civilian law enforcement personnel. You will notify me immediately of any requests for QFR employment.”

          This is found in Appendix C of the DODIG report: (152 pages)

        • Benton says:

          Meadow’s “protect pro Trump people” remark also raises more questions about the “optics” controversy. Gen Walker testified that Gen Flynn and Gen Piatt said that it would not be a good optic to have uniformed Guards members at the Capitol. He is referring to the J6 2:30 call between Gen Walker, civilian leaders, and the Pentagon.

          In the hearing, Robert Salesses, representing the Pentagon, stated: “General Piatt told me yesterday that he didn’t say anything about optics… Gen. Piatt told me yesterday, Senator, that he did not use the word “optics”.

          Bolstering the overall credibility of Gen Walker is the DODIG report. Chief of Police Sund and two Army witnesses stated that LTG Piatt did raise the issue of “optics” on the phone call. LTG Piatt said that optics were a concern but that he did not recall saying that on the call. (See page 53 of the DODIG report)

          What was the hang-up over optics? The optics of Guardsmen assisting with riot control on Capitol grounds? Or the optics of Guardsmen confronting Trump supporters delaying the election certification?

          Gen Walker testimony:

        • Benton says:

          Regarding MG Walker finding the “concept of operation” (CONOP) requirement for QRF deployment to be “unusual”.

          The DODIG report concluded that SECARMY McCarthy “acted within his authority when he required MG Walker to develop a CONOPS before authorizing MG Walker to employ the QRF at the Capitol”. McCarthy’s reasoning for the requirement is on page 37. It revolves around the history of putting soldiers on the streets during Martin Luther King riots and events during the May 31-June 7 George Floyd protests in DC.

          There is no analysis that I found regarding whether a CONOP requirement is consistent with a QRF already placed on standby. Note MG Walker’s description in his written testimony:

          “A standard component of such support is the stand up of an offsite Quick Reaction Force (QRF), an element of guardsmen held in reserve equipped with civil disturbance response equipment (helmets, shields, batons, etc..) and postured to quickly respond to an urgent and immediate need for assistance by civilian authorities.”

          An interesting line appears on page 38: “The DCNG [redacted] told us that in his 15 years of experience with the DCNG, he had never seen a document that showed the guidance that was as descriptive, with so many constraints and restrictions, as the employment guidance for the January 5 and 6, 2021 mission.”

        • Benton says:

          Very sorry, this will be my last post. Notice in harpie’s post the statement about the insertion of QRF approval authority by Army Staff officers and whether McCarthy knew about this. This is very different than the impression given in the DODIG report.

  7. JohnJ says:

    It looks an awful lot like the failure of anything even remotely resembling the vaporous Antifa to show up was the biggest failure of a lot of plans. When that didn’t happen, a lot fell apart. So much seem to be setup to look like the insurgents were simply defending themselves, including plans to send in the National Guard.

    Without the false visuals of being under attack, the National Guard would have been expected by the planners to attack the police to guard the insurgents? I doubt even with the corruption of our forces by MAGAts infiltration, you could get enough to join that attack.

    • Benton says:

      Gov. Jay Inslee just quoted by CNN:
      “I don’t think you can be overly concerned about this. The American psyche has not recognized we were one vice president away from a coup.”

    • timbo says:

      Not at all. Right wing rioters and related bully boys in this country are always justifying coming to protests “locked-and-loaded” because there will be counter-protestors. They play up the likelihood of this happening to 1) gain sympathy with right wingers in the political and LEO circles in this country while 2) justifying their carrying of weapons to rw events so as to 3) cow others to not counter-protest they’re fascist and/or racist agendas.

  8. punaise says:

    At TPM:

    We have now run up against the limits of using Congress’ investigative power as the sole response to the conspiracy to subvert the 2020 election. That leaves the Justice Department to investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute. But at this point there remains little indication that DOJ is actively pursuing a broader conspiracy case against the instigators of the Jan. 6 attack or against the many actors in the months-long effort to undermine the election and then reverse its results.

    Our great national reckoning with a coup, with the first violence-marred transfer of power in our history, has amounted to relatively modest charges and sentences for the rioters at the Capitol. It’s a meager accountability for an attack on democracy that was directed from the White House by the President and which continues as an ongoing threat to democracy now and into the elections in 2022 and 2024.

    • AlaskaReader says:

      Huh. Tonight Matt Miller said he’s beginning to worry that Garland isn’t doing anything.
      There’s too much in the annals of history proving crime is all too often not even recognized by the powers that be, let alone has justice most often prevailed.
      Yes, the defenders of the practitioners of justice can point to examples when they’ve won cases but of the crimes committed by those highest in the socio/political caste are charged rarely and if so, and even more rarely are they prosecuted to their fullest extent. Those examples are truly few and far between.
      Charging and prosecution of the members of our top branches of government, or concurrently, the top 1% as compared to known crimes committed/discovered?
      No one is going to claim justice is found or been served on a more often than not basis.
      Add in consideration given for speculation about crimes never revealed?
      At the end of all that, yeah, I worry if we don’t need a new AG right now. Maybe a whole raft of new Assistant AG’s too.
      But, eh? What would I know. I’m not a lawyer, …though I have lived through countless decades of watching people like the Bushes, the Cheneys, the Reagans, the Hoovers all skate.

    • matt fischer says:

      To quote Dr. Wheeler (from this post):

      I’m certain, when people assert that if DOJ were investigating Donald Trump, there would be some visible sign, they’re wrong.

      • Lady4real says:

        I agree with Dr. Wheeler. In fact, I think there is a GJ empaneled already hearing evidence.

        Remember, in tfg’s administration there were many crimes. Many different varieties of offenses perpetrated against the United States. I see possible RICO charges involving prominent people. I would be shocked if this doesn’t happen in the future. That type of investigation by DOJ would get the utmost secrecy.

        • AlaskaReader says:

          Were you surprised when Abe Fortas was never charged?
          Bebe Reboza?
          H W Bush?
          John Yoo?
          George Bush?

          I wasn’t.

          Looking back on our history, there were times when DOJ was aggressively prosecuting crimes and times when DOJ was not so much prosecuting crimes.

          My concern is this time. And it’s amply evident that I’m not the only one with those concerns.

    • Dopeyo says:

      What makes my head spin is Meadows’ recent 180 on testifying to the House committee.
      Maybe Meadows has been playing rope-a-dope, but I am hoping that his burner-phone texts to TFG have unexpectedly arrived in Liz Cheney’s in-box. His next logical move would be to stall via the courts, until the hoped-for GOP House majority arrives in 2023.

    • AlaskaReader says:

      I am nonplussed, that’s exactly the kind of thing I’ve come to expect, the Republicans actually doing exactly that which they accuse their betters of.
      My head explodes because so many people seem to think this is something surprising.
      Would they subvert anything and everything to maintain power? Absolutely, …they’ve been doing exactly that for decades.

  9. Eureka says:

    Manu Raju: “A GOP lawmaker texted Meadows on Jan. 7. The lawmaker wrote: “Yesterday was a terrible day. We tried everything we could in our objection to the 6 states. I’m sorry nothing worked,” per Jan. 6 committee. They don’t say who it was”
    7:33 PM · Dec 13, 2021

    ETA: These two are threaded:

    “Don Jr text: “He’s got to condemn this asap. The capitol police tweet is not enough.” Meadows’ response: “I am pushing it hard. I agree.” Don Jr texted again: “We need an Oval Office address. He has to lead now. It has gone too far. And gotten out of hand” – from Cheney’s remarks”

    “Cheney says dozens of texts to Meadows “urged immediate action by the president” on Jan. 6. She says multiple Fox hosts, including Ingraham and Hannity, urged Meadows to get Trump to deter riots. Even Donald Trump Jr. texted Meadows multiple times to get his dad to do something”

    More on Ingraham here:

    • harpie says:

      Via Cheryl Rofer:

      A Couple of Things To Keep In Mind as Mark Meadows Just Desserts Are Being Considered and, Perhaps, Prepared For Him
      Adam Silverman 12/13/21, 8:35 PM

      […] Basically, the House Select Committee on the events of 6 January is running an influence operation on Trump and Trump world. How do I know? This is how I know:

      This contempt hearing is not just intended to hold Meadows in contempt, it is intended to disturb the network around Trump and see what happens without disrupting or taking down that network…. […]

      Reading those tweets during a live broadcast of the committee hearing is intended to incense Trump setting him up to lash out at Kilmeade, Ingraham, Hannity, Meadows, and Jr for insufficient fealty and commitment to him. It is also designed to see what Kilmeade, Ingraham, Hannity, Meadows, Jr, and others do as a result. Panic will be setting in right now about just what, exactly, Meadows turned over to the committee and just who else he implicated before he stopped cooperating. […]

  10. harpie says:

    Stockman and Lawrence
    Two Jan. 6 Organizers Are Coming Forward and Naming Names: ‘We’re Turning It All Over’ After losing faith in Trump, the pair plan to hand over text messages, Instagram direct messages, and other documents related to the planning of the Jan. 6 rally on the Ellipse where Trump spoke
    Hunter Walker DECEMBER 13, 2021 9:59PM


    • harpie says:

      From the new article:

      “We assumed that him sitting with all the access to all the agencies of government and classified information he … had access to vastly more information than we did,” Stockton says. “We trusted when he told us that it was black and white and that there was clear evidence over, and over, and over again. We trusted that it would be there, and it ended up being a bluff, and he finally got caught in it.”
      The couple claim they then went back to their room at the Willard InterContinental […]

      In their telling, the pair had been warning about the potential for violence since the first days after the election. […]

      Both claimed they were among a group who had concerns about an event dubbed the “Wild Protest” organized by far right activist Ali Alexander […]

      Stockton and Lawrence say Kremer said she brought these concerns to Trump’s White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows. They were under the impression Meadows would resolve the issue. A spokesman for Meadows declined to comment. […]

    • Benton says:

      It seems like the emerging picture is one where multiple, disjointed plots were all being pursued at the same time. On the one hand, you have the Ali Alexanders, Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and their potential coordinators like Roger Stone and Alex Jones. On the other hand, you have the palace coup plotters like those operating out of the Willard. This plot may be represented by the PowerPoint plan, which included declaring a national emergency, nullifying electronic votes, and using federalized National Guard/US Marshals to take control of paper ballots. This is the most unnerving plot because it may include officials in various government departments.

      The coup started breaking down when Pence wouldn’t go along. Then members of Congress, potentially on board with the PowerPoint plan, started losing their nerve when the mob broke into chambers. Examples of this change of heart could be Lindsey Graham and Ron Johnson who were initially not going to certify state election outcomes, but then ended up voting for certification.

      If nothing else, this shows just how complex this investigation is, especially if we want any top level conspirators brought to justice. We should pay heed to our host and the moderators here.

  11. harpie says:

    Vice Chair Cheney on Recommending Mark Meadows for Criminal Contempt
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We are here to address a very serious matter: contempt of Congress by a former Chief of Staff to a former President of the United States. We do not do this lightly. And, indeed, we had hoped not to take this step at all. For weeks, as the Chairman noted, we worked with Mr. Meadows counsel to reach an agreement on cooperation. But, shortly before his scheduled deposition, Mr. Meadows walked away from his commitment to appear, and informed us he would no longer cooperate.

    We believe Mr. Meadows is improperly asserting executive and other privileges, but this vote on contempt today, relates principally to Mr. Meadows refusal to testify about text messages and other communications that he admits are not privileged. He has not claimed, and does not have any privilege basis to refuse entirely to testify regarding these topics.

    • harpie says:

      [1:05] Let me give just three examples. First, President Trump’s failure to stop the violence. On January 6th, our Capitol building was attacked and invaded. The mob was summoned to Washington by President Trump. And, as many of those involved have admitted, on video tape and social media, and in Federal District Court, they were provoked to violence by President Trump’s false claims that the election was stolen. The violence was evident to all. It was covered in real time by almost every news channel. But for 187 minutes President Trump refused to act. When action by our President was required, essential and, indeed, compelled by his oath to our Constitution.

      [2:00] Mr. Meadows received numerous text messages, which he has produced without any privilege claim, imploring that Mr. Trump take the specific action we all knew his duty required. These text messages leave no doubt the White House knew exactly what was happening here at the Capitol. Members of Congress, the press, and others wrote to Mark Meadows as the attack was underway.

      [2:30] One text Mr. Meadows received said quote: We are under siege here at the Capitol.
      Another, quote: They have breached the Capitol.
      In a third: Mark, protestors are literally storming the Capitol, breaking windows on doors, rushing in. Is Trump going to say something?
      A fourth: There’s an armed standoff at the House Chamber door.
      And another, from someone inside the Capitol: We are all helpless.

      [3:08] Dozens of texts, including from Trump administration officials, urged immediate action by the President.

      Quote: POTUS has to come out firmly and tell the protestors to dissipate. Someone is going to get killed.
      In another: Mark, he needs to stop this now.
      A third, in all caps: TELL THEM TO GO HOME.
      A fourth, and I quote: POTUS needs to calm this shit down.

      [3:44] Indeed, according to the records, multiple FOX News hosts, knew the President needed to act immediately. They texted Mr. Meadows, and he has turned over those texts.

      Quote: Mark, the President needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home. This is hurting all of us. He is destroying his legacy, Laura Ingraham wrote.
      Please, get him on TV. Destroying everything you have accomplished, Brian Kilmeade texted.
      Quote: Can he make a statement, ask people to leave the Captiol?, Sean Hannity urged.

      [4:30] As the violence continued, one of the President’s sons texted Mr. Meadows, quote:

      He’s got to condemn this shit, ASAP. The Capitol Police tweet is not enough, Donald Trump, Jr. texted.

      Meadows responded, quote: I’m pushing it hard. I agree.
      Still, President Trump did not immediately act.
      Donald Trump, Jr. texted again and again, urging action by the President, quote: We need an Oval Office address. He has to lead now. It has gone too far, and gotten out of hand. End quote.

      [5:17] But hours passed without necessary action by the President. These non-privileged texts are further evidence of President Trump’s supreme dereliction of duty during those 187 minutes.

    • harpie says:

      And Mr. Meadows testimony on another key question before this Committee.
      Did Donald Trump, through action or inaction, corruptly seek to obstruct or impede Congress’ official proceedings to count electoral votes?

      Mark Meadows testimony is necessary to inform our legislative judgements. Yet, he has refused to give any testimony at all, even regarding none-privileged topics. He is in contempt of Congress.

      [6:08] Mr Meadows also has knowledge regarding President Trump’s efforts to persuade state officials to alter their official election results. In Georgia, for instance, Mr. Meadows participated on a phone call between President Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger. Meadows was on the phone when President Trump asked the Secretary of State to quote, Find eleven thousand seven hundred and eighty votes, to change the result of the presidential election in Georgia.

      We know from the texts Mr. Meadows has turned over, that at the time of that call, he appears to have been texting other participants on the call. Again, Mr. Meadows has no conceivable privilege basis to refuse to testify on this topic. He is in contempt of Congress.

    • harpie says:

      [7:00] Third, in the weeks before January 6th, President Trump’s appointees at the Justice Department informed him repeatedly that the President’s claims of election fraud were not supported by the evidence, and that the election was not, in fact, stolen. President Trump intended to appoint Jeffrey Clark as Attorney General, in part, so that Mr. Clark could alter the Department of Justice’s conclusions regarding the election.

      Mr. Clark has informed this Committee that he anticipates potential criminal prosecution related to these matters, and intends in upcoming testimony, to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

      As Mr. Meadows’ non-privileged texts reveal, Meadows communicated multiple times with a member of Congress who was working with Mr. Clark. Mr. Meadows has no basis to refuse to testify regarding those communications. He is in contempt.


      [8:03] January 6th was without precedent. There has been no stronger case in our nation’s history for Congressional investigation into the actions of a former President. This investigation is not like other Congressional inquiries. Our Constitution, the structure of our institutions, and the rule of law,
      which are at the heart of what makes America great, are at stake.

      We can not be satisfied with incomplete answers or half-truths. And, we cannot surrender to President Trump’s efforts to hide what happened. We will be persistent, professional and non-partisan. And, we will get to the objective truth, to ensure that January 6th never happens again. I yield back. [8:57]

    • WilliamOckham says:

      Where did you get the transcript? I’m been making do with the crapping YouTube autotranscription.

Comments are closed.