House January 6 Committee: Public Hearings – Day 2 [UPDATE-1]

This post and comment thread are dedicated to the House January 6 Committee hearings scheduled to continue today June 13, 2022 at 10:30 a.m. ET.

Please take all comments unrelated to the hearings to a different thread. Updates will appear at the bottom of this post.

This week’s hearings are expected to tackle these topics:

Monday, June 13 – Trump’s Big Lie
Wednesday, June 15 – The Department of Justice’s role
Thursday, June 16 – Campaign to pressure Mike Pence into breaking election law

The hearings will stream on:

House J6 Committee’s website:

House J6 Committee’s YouTube page:

C-SPAN’s House J6 hearing page:

C-SPAN’s YouTube page:

Check PBS for your local affiliate’s stream: (see upper right corner)

Twitter is carrying multiple live streams (NBC, PBS, Washington Post, Reuters, CSPAN, Bloomberg):

MSNBC will carry coverage on their cable network; special coverage has already begun with their Morning Joe program on

ABC, NBC, CBS will carry the hearings live on broadcast and CNN will carry on its cable network.

Twitter accounts live tweeting today’s hearing (subject to change):

Marcy’s thread:

Brandi Buchman-DailyKos:

Scott MacFarlane-CBS:

Jennifer Taub:

Laura Rozen:

JustSecurity’s team live tweeting: (check their feed, they don’t live tweet as frequently or thoroughly as others)

Check also these Twitter accounts for coverage (no live tweet thread established yet):

Jordan Fischer:
Aaron Rupar:

If you know of any other credible source tweeting the coverage, please share a link in comments.

The original agenda for this hearing:

Shortly after 9:00 a.m. this morning the agenda and hearing timing was changed to reflect Stepien’s omission from the witness lineup due to a family emergency. The hearing’s start time was pushed back a half-hour to 10:30 a.m.; Stepien’s attorney is expected to make a statement.

~ ~ ~

Any updates will appear at the bottom of this post; please bear with any content burps as this page may be edited as the hearing progresses.

Again, this post is dedicated to the House January 6 Committee  and topics addressed in testimony and evidence produced during the hearing.

All other discussion should be in threads under the appropriate post with open discussion under the most recent Trash Talk.

To new readers and commenters: welcome to emptywheel. New commenters, please use a unique name to differentiate yourself; use the same username each time you comment.

Comment policy

Community guidelines

If you are leaving a comment, please be concise; 100 words is the optimum length.

If you are sharing active links your comment may be delayed by auto-moderation.

If contributors and moderators seem slow, it’s because they’re dealing with higher than usual volume of comments including trolling.

Caution: moderators will have much lower tolerance for trolling.

~ ~ ~

ADDER — 10:02 A.M. ET —

Not really an update since the hearing hasn’t started. The Senate Jucidiary Committee Dems have posted a Twitter thread about former US Attorney BJay Pak’s testimony before their committee regarding the demands made to investigate “irregularities” in Atlanta’s 2020 handling of ballots and vote counting.

Excellent prep work to read before Pak’s testimony today.

~ ~ ~

UPDATE — 12:30 P.M. ET —

Ben Ginsberg, a Republican election law lawyer, has been added as a witness appearing in person before the committee along with the rest of the second panel (i.e., Pak and Schmidt after a 10-minute break).

232 replies
      • Rayne says:

        No tongue-in-cheek here, please.

        Having been induced, it would be irresponsible to handle a term pregnancy that way unless there were complications. I’d never risk an induction unless past term and labor had stopped or wasn’t progressing.

        I think the committee is using recorded testimony quite ably in the absence of Stepien. He may yet be able to avoid appearing in person.

          • Charles Wolf says:

            The hearings are very important.
            You are a pathetic curmudgeon with all your pathetic negativity.
            Ban me if you will… or better yet, attack me with one of your bitter comebacks.

                • Rayne says:

                  I think highly of Lucian, but we don’t live in 1974 nor do we live in 1950. We live in a time when scandal upon scandal during one administration failed to move the Senate to convict a twice-impeached POTUS for repeated abuses of power though we had traditional congressional hearings in both houses of Congress.

                  The likes of Trump as well as Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz, Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Greene can be elected and re-elected because media is wholly different than it was in 1974 when I was a teenager. Their obnoxiousness has been both-sidesed to be seen as legitimate, whether the blind-to-sexual-abuses like Jordan, human trafficking like Gaetz, loose with campaign finance like Boebert, or outrageously and obnoxiously bigoted like MTG. If media today assured they’d be electable, it won’t provide the “moments of majesty and drama that attach to a really good hearing on Capitol Hill” which Lucian feels certain will come from traditional hearings related to one of the largest investigations ever undertaken by the House and the DOJ.

                  The entirety of US politics is different from 1974 when a POTUS would still be smart enough to resign rather than embarrass himself and his party by being impeached and convicted.

                  If anything the Democratic Party’s congressional caucus hasn’t moved fast enough into the future; they are still the same party Teddy Kennedy represented in 1980 yet they need to compete against criminals enabled by massive data theft by Cambridge Analytica, microtargeted across Facebook, repeatedly refined by swaths of corporate-collected and unlawfully-collected data to ensure the persons who might be moved by glacially-paced hearings will never opt to watch them because they’ve been brainwashed to believe it’s crap like vaccines and wearing masks.

                  I think this is one of those issues which points to a generational shift between someone like bmaz who is less than a handful of years older than me and a Boomer, and me who is a vanguard Gen X. At some point we need to acknowledge “the moving finger writes; and, having writ, moves on…” leaving us in a much changed world.

                  ADDER: Fuck me. I wrote a post, didn’t I. ~sigh~

                  • Alan Charbonneau says:

                    I think Lucian was making the point that bmaz was making, i.e. that a traditional hearing would be good and a media-driven hearing is bad.

                    I didn’t want to ask bmaz for clarification since he seemed to be a bit testy (though it’s almost always hard to tell!) 😄

                    • Rayne says:

                      And as I noted, we’ve had traditional hearings which failed to achieve constructive outcomes.

                      You know what else we didn’t have in 1950 or 1974? Rapid polling to check public opinion just before, during, and immediately after a hearing. That too shapes the conduct of a series of hearings.

                      Nor did we have +1000 witnesses, thousands of hours of video and terabytes of electronic communications to be distilled in order to present them to witnesses to achieve an outcome.

                      When a traditional hearing would be good given all these other parameters: if Trump were willing to get on the stand for the very last hearing of the series. But that’s not going to happen.

                    • bmaz says:

                      Oh, hell yes, these pissant infomercials are just SOOOO powerful. Just another joke from the Democratic House.

                    • bmaz says:

                      That is a detestable response. Not everybody thinks this infomercial bullshit is all that. It is the same old lame House Dem song and dance, my friend. But, of course Pelosi would never permit anything but truncated garbage that is useless for the purpose intended. It is literally her relentless MO. It is a joke.

                    • Rayne says:

                      Hey boo, you’ve been having one long temper tantrum since June 9 about the hearings’ format which isn’t at all demoralizing or setting a bad example for the community.

                    • bmaz says:

                      It is still garbage. The truth counts. There is nothing more compelling in these infomercials that there ever was in Failed Impeachment 1 and Failed Impeachment 2. This all the Dems have to offer though.

                • bmaz says:

                  Actual hearings where evidence, both documentary and testimonial, is given foundation and admissibility through live witnesses and examination of them. As opposed to slickly edited two hour infomercials that require so much selective editing that the Committee can not even stay on schedule with it because the editing is so complicated. And allow as much time as it takes naturally instead of limiting it to a mandated minimal number of hours.

            • Tracy Lynn says:

              These hearings are important — if only for the historic record. Although we don’t know how or if the information will be used, at the very least the public will have a sense of the timeline of the events of Jan 6. I think the J6 committee is doing a very good job of creating a timeline and telling the story, which will help people understand better the motivations of the various enablers of the insurrection.

        • Rugger9 says:

          Induced labor is still labor (with all of its attendant risks) but worse, since one is hooked up to the IV for the oxytocin and a fetal monitor. That means no walking around. Both of my kids were induced, and as it happened the oxy kicked in with a wham. Not good for my beloved.

          • Rayne says:

            As I indicated, I’ve had induced labor. It’s not easy or fun or something one can schedule and obtain a result in a guaranteed X number of hours/minutes. It’s utterly laughable to think this route inflicted on a mother+infant would be a spiffy method for a father to avoid a testifying.

            Back to the topic, please.

  1. Rugger9 says:

    I saw this list and while I would prefer to see Stepien in the hot seat today, we’ll see what his lawyer says. Is it a statement still under oath? EW noted that Ben Ginsberg might be our most interesting witness, but for me I want to hear from BJay Pak, especially if he’s gotten more angry. Remember Pak was the USA in GA that was ‘cut loose’ when he refused to pretend that there was rampant voter fraud and ‘resigned’ which later became a quiet admission that he had been fired. This was all part of the 11,800 votes plan that was thankfully recorded leading to a lot of our current discussion. Maybe we’ll get a final answer along with the synopsis of how we got there.

    • TeeWhy says:

      I suspect the 30 minute delay is an attempts to get Stepien’s previous interviews done under oath ready to show with the statement.

      • Rayne says:

        No. Pay attention and don’t drop speculation in here.

        ADDER: Do NOT drop crap in this thread like your passive-aggressive commentary. You have no cred with us based on your handful of comments to date.

        • TeeWhy says:

          Have you ever considered acting like you want everyone else to act?

          Was that too passive, or too direct?

          All this drama for a comment that was more a statement of the obvious than speculation. But hey, I’m sure moderating the forum by treating folks like a douche day after day really gives you lots of time to flex that righteous indignation. Well done.

          You just made the forum one tiny bit better for yourself.

          [Oh my. Let me liberate you from this oppressive moderation, about which you and all other commenters here were warned with regard to this dedicated thread. Have a nice life. / ~Rayne]

          • bmaz says:

            Eh, that is not an advisable position, don’t do that. We work our asses off here, and very much do not need condescension from an eight time commenter nubie.

  2. harpie says:

    re: MEADOWS
    9:40 AM · Jun 13, 2022

    2/ Keep an ear out for mention of Mark Meadows’ name during hearings on the Big Lie.

    Likely even more evidence to show the chief of staff knew they’d lost the election. He has very significant criminal exposure playing a central role in 5 of 7 Trump schemes.

    DOJ could flip him.

    • TeeWhy says:

      I don’t think it’s worth flipping someone so high up in the chain.

      I mean, what, he negotiates down from execution?

      • Rugger9 says:

        Way too soon to speculate about Meadows, of whom it was reported that there are first hand witnesses to document destruction. But, if Meadows flips I really can’t see him getting a free skate from DoJ (though he’ll push for it) and the MAGA cult will be enraged about the cooperation with all the consequences that arise.

        Meadows was the guy who briefed the boss and then watched the boss nod. Getting him would finish off Individual-1 IMHO. I’d say it’s a 50-50 chance at best.

        • TeeWhy says:

          Yeah, I just don’t see an upside for him.

          While Trump appears to be the head of the snake, he’s really no more relevant to the plot than he was to the success of The Apprentice. I don’t want to give the brains behind the insurrection a free pass, or even a lesser sentence, because they helped jail the ceremonial head of the coup.

          • PieIsDamnGood says:

            Are you really arguing that the primary beneficiary of the insurrection was irrelevant to the insurrection?!?

        • Rayne says:

          I can’t help think Meadows needs to *look* as if he’s being forced to dump on Trump in order to protect his butt from the Trump mob. He’s released some documents as subpoenaed; why wouldn’t he have resisted releasing them just as he’s resisting testimony?

    • Tom Marney says:

      In case there’s anyone here who doesn’t know about this:

      But the Ginni Thomas texts were not the most alarming aspect of Woodward and Costa’s story. There was a text in the chain that disturbed me more than anything Ginni Thomas wrote. It came from Meadows, and here’s what it said:

      This is a fight of good versus evil . . . Evil always looks like the victor until the King of Kings triumphs. Do not grow weary in well doing. The fight continues. I have staked my career on it. Well at least my time in DC on it.

  3. Leoghann says:

    This is the first time I can remember getting up at 0630 to watch television since I was 6. I was surprised to discover Arizona PBS is running their usual morning cartoons. I’ve substituted CBS, just because of Scott MacFarlane.

    • Rayne says:

      MacFarlane is NBC’s biggest lost; he’s going to be the saving of long-stagnant CBS. His coverage of the January 6 perps while he was with the NBC local affiliate was always snappy, concise, authentic, and so lean on production — just him and a cellphone. I just hope CBS doesn’t pull him off onto too much other non-Jan 6 coverage or weight him down with too much production.

    • Dizz says:

      I channel surf to watch commentary during the break(s) and briefly afterwards.
      Having Chris Wallace doing commentary on CNN is quite the burn for Fox.

  4. klynn says:

    Ugh. NPR streaming is disappointing. The “passing time” broadcast of “what if thinking” instead of “thinking” is irresponsible.

    • Leoghann says:

      I’m not a fan of speculation, in any area but real estate. But I’m pretty good at tuning out blather.

    • bmaz says:

      Now that was a great line by Lofgren. Also true.

      I still think the gabby format of this “hearing” is garbage.

      Wait, they are going to have a real witness?

      • Peterr says:

        Did you read the post?

        The Jan. 6 Committee witness list was just announced for 10AM tomorrow:

        • Bill Stepien, Ex-Trump Campaign Manager
        • Chris Stirewalt, Ex-Fox Political Editor
        • BJay Pak, Ex-U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia
        • Al Schmidt, Ex-City Commissioner of Philadelphia

        *heading for the corner*

            • bmaz says:

              There is not one single person in this country that will be swayed by this garbage. It is beyond useless. The Committee would have been better served by issuing a comprehensive report. These are not “hearings”, and they are dumb beyond belief.

                  • Rayne says:

                    Example to the contrary: “Oh, those pants make your ass look huge, honey.”

                    Come on. We get it, we heard your truth last week repeatedly these hearings aren’t being conducted to your preference. So it’s not about you, let it go.

                    • bmaz says:

                      Except it is lame shit with democracy in the lurch. It is pathetic garbage. Absolutely nobody will be swayed by this staged production. It is beyond useless.

                    • P J Evans says:

                      Thanks, Rayne!
                      It doesn’t help at all when the resident lawyer keeps complaining because they’re not doing it *his* way.

              • Troutwaxer says:

                The nice thing is that they can ALSO issue a comprehensive report – and I suspect they will.

              • Doris Allen says:

                There will be a report in early fall. And all depo transcripts released. I was looking forward to these comments; did not realize it would be a pointless pie fight.

                • bmaz says:

                  Sorry to disappoint you. Neither the second, much less the first, impeachment was “flawless”. They were both artificially stunted bullshit that failed to use the actual impeachment authority to obtain and present facts and, instead, to ASAP rush back to regular legislative basis oversight instead of using the far higher impeachment basis.

                  Both among the biggest legislative failures ever. All due to Nancy Pelosi being concerned about protecting the bluest of blue dogs. Instead, she will have “masterminded” a soul crushing defeat for Dems in the midterms, and quite likely 2024 Presidential election. It is beyond pathetic.

                  And the current scripted and staged infomercials, which appear to be limited to a flat 14 hours, 2 hours a piece, are no different. If this is what the Dems have to offer, they deserve the slaughter they are going to receive in the midterms.

                  This is NOT a “pie fight”, it is the health and soul of democracy itself in the lurch, and far too many people are latching onto this fake hearing garbage as something that will save it. It will not. Time would be MUCH better expended registering voters and making sure they turn out. Because this little “Real Representatives of the Democratic Party” will never get the job done.

            • skua says:

              A glass of water with a tsp of powdered neem leaf is a bitter addition to the day. But the sensation protects against flights of fancy and promotes awareness of the work to hand.

    • TXphysicist says:

      Stirewalt is like a Wall Street quant who got fired for correctly predicting his own company’s downturn.

      I wish Stepien could have been there in-person today, but I’m impressed someone had already edited the relevant audio/video footage as a contingency plan.

      • Troutwaxer says:

        Not really hard to arrange.

        “I might not be there. My wife is due.”

        “Thanks for letting us know. We can always use the video from your previous testimony. I’ll make sure it’s ready to go.”

          • Doris Allen says:

            I do not understand the underestimation people have. The second impeachment hearing was impeccable. Folks got fooled by always watching Repug nimrods. Dems are smart.

  5. rattlemullet says:

    Watching C-Span live reading EW live. I think the police offers testimony will be particularly effective. Their voices have rarely been heard in such a coherent form. After all it all about the media and the narrative they present to their viewers. We need to dispel forever the notion that it was just a protest and not a coordinated attack.

  6. harpie says:

    BARR: Avalanche of allegations of fraud whack a mole

    11:40 AM 11/23/20 MEADOWS CIPILLONE, TRUMP meeting at WH

  7. WilliamOckham says:

    Stepien really seems not to have been in on the plot. Unlike Barr, who is trying to rehabilitate his reputation.

    • Peterr says:

      Barr’s reputation will still have to come to grips with the fact that while Barr can say he said all these things to Trump and his team back in November 2020, Barr said nothing to the public at all.

      If Barr was truly seeking to uphold and defend the constitution, he might have mentioned to the public his advice to the president and his conclusions about the fairness of the election in something closer to real time.

      At best, this was a CYA move from Barr. “Don’t lump me in with the conspirators.” But unless he can explain why he couldn’t say publicly what he told the J6 committee in a private deposition, he still fits the role of an enabler of insurrection. That may not be a criminal act, but he remains guilty of letting the big lie fester, grow, and spread.

      • Ryan says:

        Barr said publicly in Dec. 2020 that there was no evidence of significant vote fraud.

        If your measuring statements based on BMaz’s standard, their ability to change the minds of the insurrection-curious, few had a bigger impact than Barr. If that rally had 20,000 more people, they might have succeeded. Barr has much to answer for, but his statement about the integrity of the election was incredibly valuable at a very difficult time. Few other GOPs did as much.

  8. Rayne says:

    Wow wow wow…Trump referring to himself in third person to Barr. That’s so fucking creepy, like he’s aware he’s nothing more than an empty suit and a brand name.

      • grennan says:

        way before that…after losing ’62 CA governor election was his most famous pre-Watergate line: “you won’t have Nixon to kick around any more”

    • Rugger9 says:

      We might be able to see a self-immolation induced by those superior genes brain waves (stop laughing and work with me here…) which I consider to be a real possibility when Individual-1 just referred to Bill Barr as a ‘Marxist’.

      • Rugger9 says:

        Well, the official spox did anyway. One of the interesting items was the attention paid to the ripoff of the contributors to the legal funds. This is not going to resonate at all with the Faux News hounds which were allowed to watch today on the network.

      • Rayne says:

        Wait, wait, wait…he WHAT?! I went offline for a bit and what?! I missed the bit where the former orange git called “Coverup-General Barr” a Marxist.

        Oh, plausible deniability invoked by using a spokesperson.

        Jesus, I gotta’ start day drinking. Tea isn’t cutting it.

        • Purple Martin says:

          Though to be precise, Harrington did try for plausible deniability in saying Barr is only *shilling* for evil.

          Hmmm…exactly as she could put forward for her own future defense.

        • P J Evans says:

          Spokesweasel because she hasn’t been suspended by Twitter. Yet. (She should be, though, since all she does is post the former guy’s drivel.)

    • xbronx says:

      Re: Trump referring to himself in third person to Barr. He will always be “nothing more than an empty suit and a brand name” and a Rickey Henderson wannabe, the world’s champion of 3rd person usage. – (from Rickey’s wiki – Later on in his career, Rickey supposedly called the Padres GM and left the following voicemail: “Kevin, this is Rickey, calling on behalf of Rickey. Rickey wants to play baseball.)

      • RMD says:

        TFG deflects from the pointed interpersonal discomfort—and uses this ‘other’ removing himself personally….to where “we’re talking here!” referring to an impersonal ‘Trump™’ the one getting criticized

        You don’t buy the Trump™ brand anymore?

    • Rwood says:

      Addressing himself in the third person is just more proof that he wears a mask in public. “Trump” is just a character he plays to con the masses and launch grift after grift to fill his pockets.

      He’s been doing it for so long I doubt even he can tell the difference anymore.

  9. ExpatR&RDino-sour says:

    First post. I’ve been monitoring EW for quite awhile now and find the posters and postings interesting and intriguing. I’ve been alive a long time. I don’t want to poke the bear, but this hearing is very important in my view. The American public… ok, the sympathetic public, is hearing the words, under oath, from the various horses mouths that seem to me to document that TFG and close supporters knew exactly what he was doing throughout the campaign, the election, and January 6th. He’s a disrupter.

    I’m hopeful that at the least the undecided voters will become aware that through these words, under oath, and pictures that this man must NEVER be allowed to run for office again and the only way to achieve that is for him and his party to be defeated at the polls decisively. I can only hope that conviction in a court of law occurs in the future but I’m not holding my breath.

  10. harpie says:

    11:54 AM NAVARRO called LYONS an “agent of the deep state working with KREBS against the President.”

  11. Ravenclaw says:

    “Detached from reality.” Almost as if Billy B. is laying groundwork for some kind of “temporary insanity” defense should The Rump be brought to trial. (Unlikely I know! And politically damaging in the extreme unless “involuntary intoxication” due to prescribed medications was invoked as the cause.) But it is striking to hear one of the acolytes raising the possibility that their messiah was non compos mentis.

    • Rayne says:

      Yeah, with Barr’s quote by Trump referring to himself in third person, it sure feels like attempted construction of an exit.

      • Ravenclaw says:

        People I think of who refer to themselves in the third person: LeBron James, Bob Dole, Major Bagstock (fictional, in Dickens). Apparently it has a name: illeism. I think it’s an open question how pathological this is. The phenomenon definitely occurs more frequently among self-involved (not to say narcissistic) people, but according to research by Ethan Kross (a pretty good psychologist) it mainly serves a defensive function, reducing the stress induced by speaking of oneself when trying to solve problems/deal with situations. Which of course may be useful to narcissists! But also to other people. Of my three off-the-cuff examples, Joe Bagstock was definitely a personality disordered type, Bob Dole probably wasn’t, and I don’t really know much about LeBron James – some people seem convinced he’s a narcissist, others that he is just a fine, confident human being. As for The Rump, well, I think his niece settled any remaining question about his status.

        • John Lehman says:

          “ People I think of who refer to themselves in the third person:”….don’t forget Gollum and Sméagol…

        • Ddub says:

          Herschel Walker is also big on referring to himself in the 3rd person, I learned in younger years in a trade that wont be mentioned.

        • Purple Martin says:

          Personally, We are going to start referring to Ourselves only in the 3rd-person plural.

        • xbronx says:

          Rickey Henderson is the all-time world’s champion 3rd person user. Just one of his nuggets – Later on in his career, Rickey supposedly called the Padres GM and left the following voicemail: “Kevin, this is Rickey, calling on behalf of Rickey. Rickey wants to play baseball.”

        • paulumba says:

          Thank you for this new word. I had never encountered ‘illeism’ before. It should be helpful when teaching my students the pronoun ‘ille, illa, illud…’ Gaius Julius Caesar very frequently spoke of himself in the third person.

    • Tom says:

      Hmmmmmm …. no, I think Trump knows what he’s doing all the time. It sounds as if perhaps for the first time in his life Trump was confronting people willing to openly disagree with him.

      I don’t see the Very Stable Genius going for any “Sorry, I was bonkers” defence.

      • Rayne says:

        Oh, I think nearly all of this community agree Trump is crazy like a fox; being a malignant narcissist he’s incapable of saying he has a flaw of any kind because it would destroy his ego to do so.

        Barr appears to be the one building an out. The question is whether enough of the GOP will grab it to say Trump’s too unstable to be the party’s standard bearer and then throw him under the bus rather than burn down the rest of the party to save Trump from consequences.

          • Rayne says:

            Barr built an out for the Special Counsel investigation by big footing Mueller’s report. It didn’t take much to plant the seed.

            The Cover-up General launches an attempted cover up one last time.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Rigid commitment to a strategy is not an irrational belief in the facts purportedly underlying it. It’s a rational belief in the Hail, Mary pass, exemplified in the lawyer’s adage: When the facts are against you, argue the law. When the law’s against you, argue the facts. When both are against you – pound the table.

      Trump’s post-election strategy was to lie, pound the table, and act as if his lies were true. It’s a rational, last gasp effort to avoid unwelcome consequences. It is not evidence that Trump’s sense of reality is insufficient to defend himself in a court of law.

      • P J Evans says:

        He started pushing the “Big Lie ” long before the election. Which Barr conveniently doesn’t mention.

        • Tom says:

          “Bullshit” Barr also failed to mention his own role in spreading the ‘mail-in voting is rife with fraud!’ storyline in the months leading up to the 2020 election.

    • PJB says:

      I kind of think this is why the big lie is a financial fraud evidence is very important. It is one thing to try to defeat criminal intent by claiming you honestly believed (however demented it may be) that the lie was the truth, but another to do so when the lie is a grift. I am not a criminal lawyer but my supposition is that showing a financial motive, while not a required element, is important in obtaining convictions.

      • Phil A says:

        It is also easier getting a financial crime guilty verdict than a criminal guilty verdict.

        And since Trump has already been convicted of financial crimes he is a serial financial criminal. So maybe there would be more than just a financial penalty this time (one can hope).

        OTOH, people have to ask themselves why this supposed billionaire has to steal $250M from people who worship him.

        • bmaz says:

          Can you specify what Trump has been “convicted” of? If you are talking about civil judgements, those are not convictions.

  12. harpie says:
    12:09 PM · Jun 13, 2022

    Key mens rea evidence #January6thCommitteeHearings:

    Barr on Trump: “NEVER AN INDICATION OF INTEREST in what the actual facts were” in assessing fraud allegations.

    Barr later: “After the election [Trump] didn’t seem to be listening” to advisors with facts of no fraud. [link]

    Links to:
    11:55 AM · Jun 13, 2022

    “There was never an indication of interest in what the actual facts were” — Barr on Trump’s state of mind after the election [VIDEO]

  13. harpie says:

    12:32 PM COURTS as venue for challenges WITNESS: GINSBURG analyzed TRUMP camp’s litigation…how is it different from normal?

    Couple of basic problems- 2020 election was not close
    NO court found TRUMP campaign’s allegations credible
    NOURT found credible evidence of fraud produced by Trump camp.

    • harpie says:

      12:38 PM scrolling court statements re: cases

      12:42 PM Additional actions by TRUMP Camp. Related to FUND RAISING [VIDEO]

  14. Ddub says:

    I find Rep. Lofgren’s quick change to video presentation snafu this morning highly impressive considering stakes here. Her communication style is straight forward and convincing, logical and brief.

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      Lofgren also possesses an amazing speaking voice. Mellifluous yet crystal clear, it snagged me from across the apartment. I made a point thereafter of listening to speakers without looking at them, and would recommend this to others as an exercise.

      I’ve planned and performed at many public events, and have been studying how these hearings are being presented, all the implicit choices they represent. I’m really hoping that at some point, maybe after an official report emerges, someone supplies an account of how those decisions got made.

      • Rayne says:

        I’ve been thinking about why Lofgren would have been chosen as the interrogator/presenter today. I suspect it’s because she’s in a Safe/Solid Democratic congressional district even after she had been moved from CA-19 to CA-18 by redistricting. She survived the primary handily. There won’t be any threat to her seat for her public role which might not be the case for other Dems on the committee.

        She’s also not a show horse who’ll draw fire this early in the series of hearings — Schiff, for example, is still a target of MAGA vitriol after the impeachments. He may be in a D+23 district but this hasn’t stopped MAGA trolling.

        • Betcha says:

          I remember hearing a description of the presentation being organized by specific parts of the plot that had been assigned to different teams within the committee, and each would be presented by the people who worked on that facet of the planning or execution. Makes sense. I wouldn’t be surprised if each person gets a bit to present.

    • grennan says:

      Plus, having been a staffer during Watergate, then involved in the Clinton, Trump 1 and Trump 2 impeachments, she has enough of the ‘been there, done that’ in her delivery to make it even more interesting to the listener.

      Both Cheney and she have the diction and delivery of really powerful women educators…telling you that you need to hear this, why you need to listen, and what the consequences will be of your action. They don’t need to say ‘foolish action’ because adjectives are for the weak.

  15. Nick Caraway says:

    Ginsberg: Biden’s Arizona lead was [paraphrasing] around 10,000 votes and [direct quote] “you just don’t make up” that difference in recounts.

    In that one sentence he destroys the whole Arizona “forensic audit.” Which he then refers to as “farcical.”

    Just hoping that is the kind of thing will trickle into the consciousness of anyone whose mind is not yet firmly made up. Drip drip drip. Maybe?

    • Leoghann says:

      All but one of my Trumpster neighbors are now pissed about that audit now. The $5M+ price tag bothers some; for others it’s the year of lame excuses.

    • Charles R. Conway says:

      …and the 10,000 in AZ was the slimmest lead Biden had in any of the swing states, according to Ginsberg.

      • Ginevra diBenci says:

        Yeah, I thought instantly of the almost 12K votes Trump wanted Raffensberger to “find” in Georgia.

    • Stephen Calhoun says:

      One aspect of the fake fraud controversy that interests me is how our modern election systems are designed to make large scale ‘gaming’ and subversion of these systems is close to impossible. It might be worthwhile for the committee to spell this out in their report. It is already apparent to me that big lie advocates “dance around” how these systems in practice work.

      The idea that precincts or county BOE’s could be flooded with fraudulent absentee/mail ballots without triggering anything is ridiculous. (Big lie advocates say 2020 election was a ‘perfect crime.’)

      This also joins the point made earlier that the breaking of a law is concrete, and so lawbreaking demands an account of when/where/who/what time/what means, evidence to support these claims, and, which actual law was broken. (ianal)

  16. klynn says:

    Is there potential as well as solid grounds for civil cases to come out of the hearings, J6 court cases, spin off cases by DOJ?

    • Rugger9 says:

      These were all statements taken under oath subject to penalty of perjury. There will doubtless be transcripts as well. So while IANAL either, I think it’s still a gold mine that would be perfectly useful for any type of litigation.

    • Peterr says:

      Civil cases have to be filed by a specific party who can claim a clear and direct way in which they were harmed. Of all the possible folks who might push such a claim around anything in these hearings, Dominion Voting appears to be one of the few who can point to the way in which they were directly harmed by those pushing the Big Lie.

      I suspect that some of these deposition clips were watched with great delight by the team of litigators at Dominion, as they pursue their various civil cases against Fox, Mike Lindell, Rudy, Sidney Powell, and others. Seems to me that Bill Barr’s clips would be devastating for the defendants in Dominion’s lawsuits, especially Rudy and Sidney.

  17. Badger Robert says:

    As I watch I think of how few facts would have to different in order for such an attempt to succeed.
    One simple way to produce a successful coup would be to create enough street violence that state level election officials decide to give the election to the coup leader just to return to peace. It would take just a little bit of that to create a permanent incumbent party.
    But all of you people can probably think of even easier ways to smooth the path to a successful coup.

    • OldTulsaDude says:

      “How Democracies Die” explains how most democracies die from inside out. The terrifying understanding is how dependent we are on “norms”.

    • grennan says:

      Even simpler: have the incumbent declare martial law upon one or more elected officials coming to harm during the insurrection.

      Michael Flynn apparently urged declaring martial law during at least one planning meeting, not necessarily upon that premise, and or use the military to seize voting machines. His brother, an active duty general, was the duty officer at the Pentagon Jan 6.

      There has also been some speculation that the role of one or both of the militia groups that day was tied into the idea.Very creepy.

      We came this close.

      So much of the tangled regs and procedures for U.S. presidential/military interaction in the case of emergencies is premised on a president acting in good faith who doesn’t want to declare martial law.

  18. punaise says:

    @Rayne re top of thread: OK, point taken: triple bank shot fail. I guess “flippant” and “nuanced” don’t pair well ( reference to Peggy Noonan’s famous quote). I’ll clutter this thread no more on the matter.

  19. Eureka says:

    Cued by “You hate Trump” and all the reminiscing lately of prescient warnings: Comedy Central’s The President Show had a special, “The Fall of Trump”, which aired October 22, 2018. It’s available for streaming; just a few misc clips in the wild. Also, it was pretty dead-on funny.

    Here’s Trump being removed from the Oval on Jan. 21, 2021, refusing to concede and calling it a white genocide:

    The President Gets Evicted From The White House – The President Show

  20. harpie says:

    Lawmaker’s Capitol Complex Tour on the Eve of Jan. 6 Was Innocent, Police Say The tour led by Representative Barry Loudermilk of Georgia, which had come under scrutiny by the Jan. 6 committee, was a “visit by constituents,” the Capitol Police chief wrote. June 13, 2022 Updated June 14, 2022, 11:55 a.m.

    Chief Manger said Capitol Police had reviewed surveillance footage of the complex on Jan. 5 and observed Mr. Loudermilk leading a tour of about 15 people, who visited the Rayburn House Office Building and the Cannon House Office Building. […]

    “There is no evidence that Representative Loudermilk entered the U.S. Capitol with his group on Jan. 5, 2021,” Chief Manger wrote.

    RAYBURN and CANNON were two buildings slated for occupation in the “1776 Returns” plan.

  21. grennan says:

    At least one poster has mentioned tfg’s long, long history of financial shenanigans, long preceding his tv and political gigs.

    Google Books has the entire archive of the late, great Spy magazine, his earliest, and enduring, media nemesis, available free. A search produces them all, from first reference to “thick-fingered vulgarian”, the .13 check he cashed, and many, many more:,bkt:m,bkms:1168684103302644736

    • Rayne says:

      Thanks for that link. I’m not going to break it but I want to caution community members the link may contain tracking capability. You can search Google Books for Spy Magazine and Donald Trump to assure there’s no backtracking by Google.

      • grennan says:

        FWIW that’s what I did, and copied the resulting url from the address bar. (I don’t believe in paying for internet stuff with my data, so no logins in or on my system for anything ‘free’, plus several anti-tracker ad-ons for FF.)

        • Rayne says:

          Some browsing generates a unique session ID which I can’t be certain that link contained. No worries.

    • Rayne says:

      -____- <<--- my everlasting surprised face     ADDER: I want to know why anybody working on the House J6 Committee is sharing this information, though. Why are they tipping GT off about these messages Eastman tried to protect rather than sharing it in hearings? Are they trying to tell Clarence to get his shit in order including announcing his intent to recuse? Are they telling Roberts he needs to get off his dead ass and implement a SCOTUS ethics policy, stat? Are they telling GT because they want to encourage her into an unforced error (kind of like Loudermilk's wrt the "Capitol tour")?

      • Eureka says:

        I think someone leaked it to create external pressure because as of now J6 is only ‘mulling’ whether to do a segment on Ginni Thomas’ involvement — and before they were apparently going to omit her entirely.

        Internal strife within J6 Committee: i.e. Liz Cheney owns this show and the GOPers really do _not_ want their red line of precious judges crossed. They don’t want to risk losing Thomas’ seat over all this.

        Adding: briefly saw George Conway on Chris Hayes earlier. You could feel his voice suffocate as he struggled for what to say to sound ‘reasonable’ in response to a Q about GT involvement (implications for CT either stated or implied, wasn’t paying close attention).

        IOW it’s all great for the Never Trumpers to express disdain over J6 but if it creeps towards their precious SCOTUS maj., hands off: that’s their line in catching the fleeting sands of democracy.

        • Eureka says:

          Besides how she functions as a through-line, Ginni’s activities seem to be broadly interesting to the widest variety of people: my gosh she is the archetypal MAGA character, cult background and all. J6 would likely get more eyeballs (for whatever else they want to cover) if they did a Ginni segment. And it’s not like they are limited in how many hearings they can have.

          That would be their “dramatic” Real Housewives episode (cf. bmaz above).

          Another option: maybe they leaked it in agreement, hoping that bit of teaser would pique attention to hearings [Eastman] they already have planned.

          • MB says:

            Interesting trajectory for her re: cults. Taken advantage of by Lifespring, she then goes on an anti-cult crusade because of her experiences there. Then uses her knowledge of being on both sides of a cult to become a leader in the MAGA cult. That means she understands all of the following: 1) victimization, 2) deprogramming and 3) manipulation.

            • Eureka says:

              Not for nothing, the neighborhood maga-flagger (they are at half-staff, currently) (at least the US one sits above) was parented by someone raised in, and equally-successfully “escaped from”, a cult.

              • harpie says:

                Very, VERY interesting theme in all of this!

                I’d definitely be interested in reading more about that. I hope someone knowledgeable delves further.

                …maybe involves the “cult” of the military/police and the indoctrination of a WHOLE GENERATION of post 9-11 young people by Fox/Murdoch et al at EVERY.SINGLE.MILITARY.INSTALLATION
                ALL OVER the WORLD.

                • Eureka says:

                  Rose McGowan, Tulsi Gabbard, …

                  [Among folks who publicly share that they/parents were in a cult]

                  [Area Flagger’s parent is no better off than Flagger, btw.]

                  But as you point, the bigger issue of mass-indoctrination is, uh, terrifying. I’m running out of edit-time to broach cultic religiosity and identity…

        • Rayne says:

          At the same time we’re waiting for the shoe to drop on Roe v Wade which didn’t happen this week so far.

            • harpie says:

              I’m wondering if the esteemed justices are making political calculations about the timing.
              Naaaah! They wouldn’t do that! [CLARENCE said so!]

              Come to think of it…[thinking of the conversation above] there’s a LOT of indoctrination of people into believing that the extrodinarianess of the [conservative only]

    • harpie says: 11:27 PM · Jun 7, 2022

      A federal judge Tuesday ordered John Eastman — the attorney who developed former President Donald Trump’s last-ditch strategy to overturn the election — to disclose a batch of 159 sensitive documents to the Jan. 6 select committee, including another email that the judge said presented evidence of a likely crime. […]

      The most interesting emails that Carter ordered disclosed related to this secretive pro-Trump group that helped him strategize about the appointment of alternate electors. He discussed meeting with the group on Dec. 8, 9 and 16.

      “Dr. Eastman’s actions in these few weeks indicate that his and President Trump’s pressure campaign to stop the electoral count did not end with Vice President Pence— it targeted every tier of federal and state elected officials.”

      Eastman had argued that the group’s First Amendment association rights would be chilled if the emails were disclosed. The judge said his arguments were unconvincing. He also noted that the group has a “high-profile” leader.

      Then there’s this, with a link to the NEW Carter Order, agreeing to RE-classify 10 emails. I read it yesterday, but it’s requiring me now to register, which I don’t want to do. Marcy retweeted the THREAD associated with it. I don’t think anyone else wrote about it.

      I do NOT think the e-mails about the meetings on Dec. 8, 9 and 16, with the “secretive pro-Trump group [with the “high-profile leader”] that helped him strategize about the appointment of alternate electors” are among those that were RE-classified.

      John Eastman Persuades Judge Carter to Reclassify 10 Emails as Protected From Jan. 6 Committee Saturday’s order reduces from 159 to 149 the number of Chapman University emails Eastman was to disclose to the committee, but it does not change the judge’s central findings about the crime-fraud exception. Meghann M. Cuniff June 14, 2022

          • Eureka says:

            LOL. I hadn’t made it down that far on that page yet but as you also raise the “statisticians”, the first I thought of was Douglas Frank & crew; Bobby Piton* [I think there was some guy called Spyder sp./something like that, too. ?] who continued to run the con through summer 2021 at least. e.g.:

            THE HUNT
            Kathy Barnette’s hunt for election fraud has rippled across the American election denial movement and made her a GOP contender for Senate in Pennsylvania.
            by Andrew Seidman Updated Jul 26, 2021

            There’s an inset box in this feature-length article on how wrong Frank is/was.

            *trying to review this article quick for the big names

          • Eureka says:

            [This follows a comment in moderation]

            Frank may have come on the scene after these emails depending on how close they were to the election (do we know the dates/range of these emails?). Piton is definitely a contender well-within that timeframe, he produced his “analyses” immediately [Frank “replicated” (I mean _extra_ lol) Piton’s “results” using a different “methodology”].

            And then there’s also Russell Ramsland et al. [ASOG/members] as possible (highly likely) “statisticians”.

          • Eureka says:


            For the chicken dinner — Or should that be Thanksgiving Turkey?:

            The military-intelligence veterans who helped lead Trump’s campaign of disinformation

            Seth Keshel, a former Army captain who worked in intelligence and who claimed to have developed statistical models that prove the 2020 election results were fraudulent. After the election, Keshel told Reuters he contacted Flynn on LinkedIn and they began collaborating. Keshel in August released an analysis which he claimed showed Trump won seven states that went to Biden. Trump embraced the claim, saying the report came from a “highly respected Army intelligence captain.”

            […] Keshel said he reached out to the general to share his concerns, and the two worked together in the weeks after the election. […]

            Keshel’s work helped fuel calls by Trump followers in many states for audits of the election results. His analysis, which provided no documented evidence of fraud, was discredited by political scientists, statistical experts and Republican and Democratic election officials. In a post on Telegram, Keshel himself described his study as “lenient.”

            His work nonetheless spurred a torrent of emails to election officials in areas where his analysis suggested fraud.[…]

            Wood told Reuters that Flynn and Powell arrived shortly after the election. So did Keshel, then working as a technology salesman. Flynn and Keshel stayed through Thanksgiving, where Flynn carved the turkey.

            In an interview, Keshel said he spent his time “scanning the numbers and helping write affidavits” for lawsuits Powell was preparing. “There wasn’t a lot of sleep going on there,” Keshel said.

            LOL, I had perhaps started with the wrong Byrne affiliates. [Per same Reuters, Keshel is “now a paid consultant for The America Project”, whose “chief executive” is Patrick Byrne.]

    • harpie says:

      Here is the relevant portion of the CARTER’s first [6/7/22] ORDER:

      [pdf21/26] D. First Amendment
      Dr. Eastman claims that the First Amendment protects thirty documents involving a group of “civic minded citizens of a conservative viewpoint who meet semi-regularly to socialize and discuss issues of public concern.”139 Dr. Eastman contends that disclosure would deter people from participating in potentially controversial groups.

      [CARTER finds that 20 of the 30 of those documents should be protected from disclosure]

      [pdf23/26] However, the Court’s review reveals that the other ten of the thirty documents are more closely tied to the Select Committee’s investigation and present a closer question.147 All of these documents relate to three meetings in the first two weeks of December 2020, which all included presentations on topics related to the election and the group’s broader interests.

      Four documents pertain to a meeting on December 8, 2020: two emails are the group’s high-profile leader inviting Dr. Eastman to speak at the meeting, and two contain the meeting’s agenda.148 Based on the agenda, Dr. Eastman discussed “State legislative actions that can reverse the media-called election for Joe Biden.”149 Another speaker gave an “update on [state] legislature actions regarding electoral votes.”150 […]

      [pdf23/26] fn147 22779; 22780; 23038; 24948; 24950; 25558; 26072; 26091; 26791; 30032. […]

      [pdf25/26] Having considered the parties’ arguments, the Court finds that disclosure of these ten key documents is “narrowly tailored to the government’s asserted interest.”168 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Dr. Eastman to disclose those ten documents.169 Dr. Eastman should redact the names of all participants listed as speakers besides those mentioned by the Court.170

      I don’t think any of those numbers are listed in the new ORDER.

  22. harpie says:

    11:39 PM · Jun 15, 2022

    SCOOP: Eastman relayed in previously undisclosed email that he had awareness of a debate among SCOTUS judges about whether to listen to an election case @lukebroadwater and me

    Another Trump lawyer, Ken Chesebro, suggested the justices may be more inclined to weigh in if they had “fear” of “‘wild’ chaos” on Jan 6. He said it five days after Trump’s “wild” tweet about his Jan 6 rally

    The emails are among a tranche the House select committee has, according to people familiar with their work. The contents were described by two people familiar with the exchange [THREAD]

    Trump Lawyer Cited ‘Heated Fight’ Among Justices Over Election Suits
    In an email weeks after the election, another lawyer advising the Trump campaign responded that the prospect of “‘wild’ chaos” on Jan. 6 could lead the Supreme Court to take up a case.
    Broadwater / Haberman June 15, 2022

    • Rayne says:

      So SCOTUS has already compromised some opinions with/because of this partisan seditionist bullshit.

      Anything they opine upon/decide is compromised — and that smarmy little fuck McConnell thinks we need to worry about additional security for them? That’s the problem, SCOTUS may be threatened though a handful of them have already been fucking the country repeatedly especially Thomas?? AgRh!!!

        • Rayne says:

          Damn. CAVEAT: this is pure speculation. The more I re-read the threads from these hearings, the more I rethink what could have happened. One of the really nice and unexpected resources to come out of coverage of the hearings has been CBS’s 3-D graphics with Scott MacFarlane’s reporting. He reupped the graphic presentation of the attack on the Capitol with emphasis on the Proud Boys going for Pence, seen in this tweet:

          PB’s (and Oath Keepers’ stack*) focus was on the East side of the Capitol (which has been noted a bunch of times in several posts here at ew), which is the same side down through which Pence was evacuated. Had the PB team gotten to Pence they may not have dragged him all the way across/around the Capitol to the west side, but likely out the closest exit on the East side…

          Which is directly across from SCOTUS. Would they have battered and/or executed Pence to make a point to SCOTUS/give cover to right-wing SCOTUS, directly in front of their building? I don’t know about the ‘suspicious package’ but was it part of this same effort?

          Do note the first reply after MacFarlane’s tweet. Someone in one of the threads here also speculated the gallows on West side was intended for Pelosi. Was decimating the presidential succession a fractal portion of an alternative to the Green Bay Sweep?

          Was this why Trump never called up NatGuard, to give PB time to do this, why Trump never checked on Pence because he was waiting for call instead? Did Trump never check on the 3rd in succession as well? /speculation

          *added – MacFarlane’s video points to a PB smashing East side window but doesn’t mention Oath Keepers.

        • harpie says:

          Wow, Rayne! …I don’t don’t why, yet, but I want to put this here:

          1:19 PM · Jun 16, 2022

          [THREAD] 8. Eastman email Dec. 19, 2020 @RepLizCheney quoted.
          Eastman: “Unless those [alternate] electors get a certification from their State Legislators, they will be dead on arrival in Congress.” It’s an admission electors were legally ineffective and bogus [screenshots]

          From: [EASTMAN]
          Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2020 8:49 PM MST
          To: [Redacted]
          Subject: RE: Latest draft
          I have read through it.
          No to martial law as well. I will not be associated with any such effort. And again, I implore you not to advance it either.
          As for the Legislatures – not a one has acted. Electors did in 7 states, but unless those electors get a certificate from their State Legislators, they will be dead on arrival in Congress. With such a certification, we will have a deadline that will invoke sec. 15, but the textual claim that the ‘executive’ certification would prevail in such an instance over the legislature-certified slate is contrary to Article II. And at that point, we might as well have the opportunity for a Supreme Court resolution without the need to trigger the Pelosi scenario.

          Why your comment reminded me of this:
          “Supreme Court resolution”“Pelosi scenario”

          To whom is EASTMAN writing?
          …someone who had brought up / advocated “martial law”?

          • Rayne says:


            Kind of amazing, though, that Eastman had any limits. “Supreme Court resolution,” yes; “Pelosi scenario,” yes, whatever he meant by those terms. But “martial law”? No. Yeesh.

      • P J Evans says:

        They still worry about violence from the left, when there’s clearly a higher probability of it coming from the right.

        • harpie says:

          This is the end of a conversation PENCE Counsel JACOB was having with EASTMAN AS he and PENCE [AND the nuclear football] were being herded out of the Senate Chamber at 2:13 PM on #J6:

          [p216/221] From: JACOB
          To: EASTMAN
          Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2021 12:14 PM
          [MT > 2:14 PM ET]
          Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Pennsylvania letter

          […] I respect your heart here. I share your concern about what Democrats will do once in power. I want election integrity fixed. But I have run down every legal trail placed before me to its conclusion, and I respectfully conclude that as a legal framework, it is a results oriented position that you would never support if attempted by the opposition, and essentially entirely made up.

          And thanks to your bullshit, we are now under siege.

          • harpie says:

            I mean…WHAT does JACOB IMAGINE
            the Dems could POSSIBLY DO that’s WORSE than
            what he himself is commenting on
            at this very moment!?!?!?

            [I’m sorry, but THIS really gets to me…]
            [I guess that’s pretty clear…lol!]
            [I’ll go take a sedative now]

    • harpie says:

      12/24/20 [THOMAS Clerk] EASTMAN to CHESEBRO and TRUMP Campaign Figures:
      “So the odds are not based on the legal merits but an assessment of the justices’ spines, and I understand that there is a heated fight underway” [] “For those willing to do their duty, we should help them by giving them a Wisconsin cert petition to add into the mix.”

      [< CHESEBRO: “odds of action before Jan. 6 will become more favorable if the justices start to fear that there will be ‘wild’ chaos on Jan. 6 unless they rule by then, either way.”]

      • harpie says:

        A fuller CHESEBRO quote:

        “I think the odds of action before Jan. 6 will become more favorable if the justices start to fear that there will be ‘wild’ chaos on Jan. 6 unless they rule by then, either way” [] “Though that factor could go against us on the merits. Easiest way to quell chaos would be to rule against us — our side would accept that result as legitimate.” [] “You miss 100 percent of the shots you don’t take. A campaign that believes it really won the election would file a petition as long as it’s plausible and the resource constraints aren’t too great.”

        • harpie says:


          “I don’t have the personal insight that John has into the four justices likely to be most upset about what is happening in the various states, who might want to intervene, so I should make it clear that I don’t discount John’s estimate.” [] “getting this on file gives more ammo to the justices fighting for the court to intervene.”

    • harpie says:

      […] The email exchange involving Mr. Eastman and Mr. Chesebro included a request, which appears to have been denied, that the Trump campaign pay for the effort to get another case in front of the Supreme Court. In the emails, Mr. Chesebro made clear that he did not consider the odds of success to be good, but he pressed to try, laying out why he claimed the election was invalid.

      Mr. Eastman said that he and Mr. Chesebro “are of similar” minds and that the legal arguments “are rock solid,” before going on to describe what he said were the divisions among the justices and the benefits of giving them another chance to take up an election case. […]

    • harpie says:

      7:36 AM · Jun 16, 2022

      This is both 1] why there’s reason to doubt Eastman was getting real inside dope and,

      2] in part, why Chesebro’s calculation that the threat of street violence in DC could spur the Court into action is significant. [link]

      Links to Steve Vladeck:
      7:29 AM · Jun 16, 2022

      Quite a headline coming out of the e-mails Eastman was forced to turn over to the @January6thCmte — that he told folks of a “heated fight” behind the scenes at #SCOTUS over whether to intervene in the 2020 election cases. [link]

      Here’s why I think he was lying:

      The story dates the email to 12/24. But #SCOTUS had denied Rep. Kelly’s application for emergency relief in a PA case — over no public dissents — on 12/8. It rejected Texas’s crazy suit on 12/11. And it was just sitting on applications to expedite cert. petitions in other cases.

      In other words, by 12/24, even if there *had been* a fight inside #SCOTUS over whether to intervene, it would almost surely already have happened — and had been settled *against* intervention.

      So at *best,* Eastman was likely distorting the timeline to serve his interests.

      But we already know Eastman was publicly misrepresenting the state of pending cases — including in his remarks at the 1/6 rally. So what’s more likely? That he was being fed inside information about a fight inside #SCOTUS for which there’s no evidence, or that he was lying again?

      I get that it’s easy for folks to believe Eastman *was* being fed inside info given who he clerked for and the emerging details about Ginni Thomas. I just think here, the story doesn’t fit. It was either wishful thinking on Eastman’s part, or distorting *when* the fight happened.

    • harpie says:
      11:17 AM · Jun 16, 2022

      NEW: Jan. 6 Select Committee Chair Bennie Thompson says they will request testimony from Ginni Thomas in light of the Eastman emails.

      “We think it’s time that we, at some point, invite her to come talk to the committee.” [] “We have discovered in those Eastman [emails] some information that refers to Ginni Thomas,” Thompson said.

      The invite, he added, will go out “soon.” [next few weeks]

      • harpie says:

        […] When asked what kinds of events attorneys could stoke in order to get the attention of the justices after being read the Times “chaos” quote, Chesebro waved off the question, saying that of course any lawyer is concerned about how a case will play in public and with judges.

        “Fortunately or unfortunately, it seems like election integrity is another area where politicians will get involved in the messaging. It’s unfortunate that this is such a focus of attention,” Chesebro said. “Hopefully there will be compromises over the next few years and people won’t have to worry about election integrity.”

        When asked why he thought election integrity had become such a high-profile issue, Chesebro told TPM, “I don’t know enough about the field to comment.” […]

        But he JUST “comment[ed] on it”! starting from the thesis that there ARE election integrity issues and hoping for some kind of “compromises [so that] people won’t have to worry about election integrity.”

        The ONLY reason some people are worrying about that
        is because YOU ALL pushed that FICTION!

      • harpie says:

        […] Chesebro’s involvement also brought him back in touch with Eastman, a conservative attorney from the right-wing Claremont Institute who Chesebro worked with on a 2016 Supreme Court amicus brief that described birthright citizenship as a “vestige of feudalism.” Chesebro emphasized to TPM that he had no contact with Eastman from the time of that 2016’s case’s resolution until 2020, when he began to represent Trump, and declined to comment on whether he communicated with Eastman while representing Trump. […]

  23. Eureka says:

    Moving this here for more space:

    I suspect this issue of the statisticians might be related in part to what Herschmann said Eastman was contacting him about on 1/7 (also in part).

    Judge Carter ordered Eastman to produce emails with (I’ll call) different “occasions” of statisticians (not necessarily different people, but perhaps so given they were used for different [potential] litigation).

    One is a batch of 46 documents* re “statistical analysis” for a prospective suit re the Georgia runoff elections. [Eastman called this “perspective [sic] litigation”.]

    In his speech at the Ellipse 1/6, Eastman used a claim of “See!” fraud at the Georgia runoffs to “explain” the big lie. This may have seemed like an underneath point to normal viewers (and then there is all that would come to pass that day), but this Georgia runoffs “fraud” analogy was a big deal in maga-world. In fact, Rudy introduces Eastman for the express purpose that “Professor” Eastman will “easily” explain (“I know this is complicated”, Rudy offers) how the math/fraud works and how it’s “exactly” the same as what happened to Trump (pretty close paraphrase).

    So when Herschmann says he doesn’t really know why Eastman wanted to talk to him 1/7 but that:

    “he started to ask me about something dealing with Georgia, preserving something potentially for appeal.”

    I think of this Ellipse trick and wonder where that aborted conversation was going.

    Beyond never taking off, was this “perspective litigation” substantially delayed because Herschmann, as we now know, told Eastman to STFU about everything but “orderly transition” and to get a good criminal lawyer? [Besides all that other trouble Eastman’s client Trump and “Conference” colleague Cleta was in over the GA call.]

    *These are numbered much higher, 62xxx-es & 63xxx-es; not saying this “statistical analysis” for a GA runoffs suit came at time of 1/6, 1/7, but that the idea (and sig’ce to maga-world) of using it as a foil did.

  24. harpie says:
    9:21 AM · Jun 16, 2022

    May come as a surprise to some. DOJ has criminal investigation into this part of #January6th: false alternate slate of electors.

    Topic to be aired at today’s #January6thHearings. [THREAD]

    Timeline: False Alternate Slate of Electors Scheme, Donald Trump and His Close Associates Goodman 6/16/22

    […] For its part, the Justice Department has apparently opened a multi-state criminal investigation into the false electors scheme. Last month, federal prosecutors reportedly sent grand jury subpoenas to potential witnesses seeking their communications with “any member, employee or agent of Donald J. Trump” as well as their communications with the Trump campaign.

    What follows is a chronological Timeline that provides the most comprehensive factual record to date showing the points of contact between Donald Trump and his close associates and the false alternate slate of electors scheme. […]

Comments are closed.