Forty Feet: Trump Sicced a Murder Weapon on Mike Pence

Harry Litman observed after yesterday’s January 6 Committee hearing that you might be able to charge Trump with the attempted murder of Mike Pence.

This was not new news yesterday though.

I reported on the DOJ and the Committee’s mutual focus on the targeting of Pence on January 5. In a piece that described that Marc Short had not yet agreed to cooperate and Pence might never cooperate, NYT reported on the same focus of DOJ filings days later. Though, as sometimes happens, NYT got the timeline wrong; Gina Bisignano swore to her focus on Pence in August (and has not reneged on that point even as she attempts to withdraw her guilty plea), and Josiah Colt described how he and two co-conspirators responded to news that Pence would not stop the vote count by breaching the Senate in July 2021, almost a year ago.

DOJ has been focused on the effect of Trump’s targeting of Pence for over a year. In fact, to substantiate the seriousness of the threat facing Pence that day, the Committee cited witness testimony that has been public since January 13, 2021, in Proud Boy Dominic Pezzola’s original arrest affidavit.

W-1 further stated that members of this group, which included “Spaz,” said that they would have killed [Vice President] Mike Pence if given the chance. According to W-1, the group said it would be returning on the “20th,” which your affiant takes to mean the Presidential Inauguration scheduled for January 20, 2021, and that they plan to kill every single “m-fer” they can.

The allegation actually doesn’t show up in the Proud Boy sedition indictment, though Proud Boy Matthew Greene’s plea allocution talked about how the militia swarmed the Capitol with the intent of adding pressure to Pence.

To be sure, yesterday’s hearing laid out the following additional pieces of proof that Trump was specifically targeting Pence:

  • Jason Miller and Greg Jacob’s description of Trump’s deliberate misrepresentation, overnight on January 5, falsely claiming Pence agreed with him about the vote count
  • Descriptions about Trump calling Pence on around 11 on January 6 and calling him a whimp and a pussy, a call that distressed Ivanka because, “It was a different tone than I’ve heard him take with the Vice President before”
  • Trump’s addition references to Mike Pence in his January 6 speech, both in the prepared script and ad-libbed along the way
  • Details from White House aides confirming that Mark Meadows had informed Trump about the violence at the Capitol and how, instead of a tweet calling for calm, Trump instead “pour[ed] gasoline on the fire” (as Former White House Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Matthews described it) by calling out Pence again in a tweet at 2:24 the day of the insurrection
  • Greg Jacob’s testimony about tensions with the Secret Service about evacuating the Capitol
  • Marc Short’s description of conversations with Kevin McCarthy expressing frustration that Trump wasn’t taking the circumstances seriously
  • Reconfirmation that Trump never called Pence to check on the Vice President’s safety
  • Tracking of Jacob’s “Thanks to your bullshit we are now under siege,” to events at the Capitol

Committee member Congressperson Pete Aguilar explained that at the moment Pence was evacuated from his ceremonial office, he and the mob were just forty feet apart.

The Committee looked at the threat posed by the Proud Boys to Pence.

It doesn’t look at something far more substantive, though potentially far more complex. Immediately after Trump’s tweet, the Oath Keepers indictment describes communications between Roger Stone associate Kelly Meggs and Stewart Rhodes, followed by a conference call involving those two and operational lead Mike Simmons. The Oath Keepers converged, and then the first Stack and the second (made up of men who had been providing security to Roger Stone that morning) breached the East doors, along with Joe Biggs and the mob brought by Alex Jones.

Once inside, the first Stack broke up, with Meggs and others heading towards Speaker Pelosi’s office to hunt her down.

103. Shortly thereafter, WATKINS and other members ofStack One exited the Rotunda through the northbound hallway toward the Senate Chamber.

104. Around this time, a member of Stack One yelled “the fight’ s not over” and waved !rioters down the hallways toward the Senate Chamber.

105. At 2:45 p.m. and afterward, WATKINS and other Stack One members joined the imob in pushing against a line of law enforcement officers guarding the hallway connecting the Rotunda to the Senate Chamber, as WATKINS commanded those around her to “push, push, !push,” and to, “get in there, get in there,” while exclaiming, “they can’t hold us.” When officers responded by deploying a chemical spray, the mob-including WATKINS and other Stack One members-retreated.

106. At 2:45 p.m., MEGGS, HARRELSON, HACKETT, MOERSCHEL, and other Stack One members walked southbound out of the Rotunda and toward the House of Representatives in search of Speaker Pelosi. They did not find Speaker Pelosi.

The others attempted to get to the Senate, whence Mike Pence had, minutes earlier, been evacuated.

As I’ve noted, with the sedition indictments, DOJ also added 18 USC 372 charges, conspiracy “to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person … from discharging any duties thereof.”

DOJ may never show that Trump and the mob he sicced on his Vice President conspired to kill him, or even that Trump’s 2:24PM tweet aided and abetted the attempts to find and assassinate Pence — though the judge presiding over the Oath Keepers case has deemed the possibility Trump could be held accountable for aiding and abetting to be plausible, at least for a lower civil standard. But there’s little doubt that Trump, his lawyers, two militias, and the mob entered into a common effort to prevent Pence from doing his duty that day. And with the militias, you can draw a line between Trump, his rat-fucker, Alex Jones, and the men at the Capitol to the threat and intimidation Trump sicced on his Vice President.

175 replies
    • obsessed says:

      Wimp has become the dominant spelling for sure, but it comes from “whimperer”. Speaking of wich, wy do whe think Pence is taking the whimpier route of wefusing to testify? [In Spanish, none of this happens. Every spelling is phonetic.]

    • Troutwaxer says:

      Also, “imob” should simply be “mob” unless Apple sells a device for attacking congresspeople.

  1. Bobby Gladd says:

    “there’s little doubt that Trump, his lawyers, two militias, and the mob entered into a common effort to prevent Pence from doing his duty that day.”

    I am thoroughly persuaded, but how “little” will suffice to surmount “beyond a reasonable doubt?”

    Thanks for all of your tremendous work.

  2. Tom says:

    At the risk of stating the obvious, it seems to me that Trump’s intent in issuing his January 5th statement falsely claiming that he and Pence were both in agreement as to the VP’s authority to block the certification of a Presidential election was not just to put additional public pressure on Pence to submit to his (Trump’s) coup attempt, but also to further inflame the anger of the mob (that Trump knew would be at the Capitol the next day) against Pence in the event that the VP followed through on his plan to carry out his constitutional duty, contrary to Trump’s illegal demands.

  3. Frank Wilhoit says:

    Trump is too old to have grown up with video games, but he has in common with those who did that he seems to think that any/all real-world consequences can be ignored, or indefinitely postponed, or redefined. If he were ever pinned to the wall about this, no doubt he would say that he had no such intent — but, unlike anyone else in the same situation, he would mean it and believe it. (Contrast today’s story about the freshly-minted Republican nominee for the Attorney-Generalship of the Great State of Nevada, who clearly does not believe her own excuses.) This is actually worse than mens rea.

    • massappeal says:

      Thanks for your comment. Not that either of us (or at least, me) is in a position where what we think about Trump’s state of mind makes any difference, but I don’t find that a helpful way to think about Trump’s state of mind.

      I think Trump does what he thinks is best for Trump at any given moment. If he “thinks” it would be best for him to say he meant to have Mike Pence killed, he’d say that. If he “thinks” at another given moment that it would be best for him to say he had no such intent, he’d say that. Heck, Trump’s probably capable of “thinking” both those thoughts in the same deposition.

      • bmaz says:

        If you read the depo transcript in Tim O’Brien’s case nearly 15 years ago, Trump really does think in a duality like that.

        • MB says:

          Cognitive dissonance is problematic only for wusses with a conscience…apparently. “Stable genius” territory.

      • Doctor My Eyes says:

        I think Trump’s primary identification when it comes to power is as a mafia boss. The (too-often replayed) videos of Trump saying things like he “wouldn’t like Pence very much” while hitting the side of the rostrum feel totally out of the Mafia playbook. I don’t even think in hims mind that it’s a matter of lying or covering up–it’s just how mafia bosses conduct business. Even the “nice” talk and “love” talk is 100% bully, 100% mob boss. The underlying assumption is that raw power will sort it all out in the end. I doubt Trump even has a tentative grasp on concepts like the rule of law.

        • wetzel says:

          Trump has had two mentors. Back in the Atlantic City, USFL days, the first mentor was Roy Cohn, the legal architect of McCarthyism. The second mentor, obviously for Donald Trump, who has also compromised him, was Vladimir Putin. I think this is obvious by now, so Trump, I believe Trump went into this plot with more of a Mussolini mindset than mafia. There was a hint of this in Eastman’s acceptance of a violent outcome, and certainly in the Proud Boy / Oath Keeper rhetoric, a palpable willingness to settle the constitutional crisis with hangings in the square.

  4. Hoping4Better_Times says:

    At the end of the hearing yesterday, Benny Thompson made a blanket plea for others (unknown) to “come forward” and give evidence to the Committee. Was that a less-than-subtle invitation to Pence to testify? Pence has “come out” against trump in a recent speech, disavowing the power of the VP to reject slates of Electors. Pete Aquilar made a point to Greg Jacob that Pence was in mortal danger on January 6. If Greg Jacob did not know that, perhaps Pence did not know that as well….until yesterday.

    • Pete T says:

      Realizing the mid terms and 2024 big election is at stake the, some Republicans have a choice to be made.

      How many are there that would prefer Trump and his supporters, both elected and not, simply go away or be shunned into oblivion and essentially take back their party?

      But the risk is that loses all collective Republicans the House, Senate, and /or Presidency over the next two cycles.

      I don’t see the Democrats mounting a viable effort to retain Congressional majorities nor likely the 2024 Presidency given their current efforts. Granted a lot of what Biden/Dems is being blamed for such as inflation, supply chain (related) is not of their doing or ability to really influence, but the messaging stinks anyway.


  5. Makeitso says:

    We know Eastman and Trump were working together. That much is clear. And we know Eastman knew he was committing a crime; hence the pardon inquiry. We also know so many were acting to disrupt the certification and somehow we are to believe Trump knew NOTHING? He was there- like Chauncey?

    Not buying it. The circumstantial evidence is too great. And yes you can convict on circumstantial evidence alone.

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      And notably, Trump did not grant Eastman’s pardon request. I assume he realized (or more likely was told) that doing so would implicate himself–that is, Eastman’s crime had not been a solo effort. Not pardoning it was one more way of erasing the fact that it happened.

  6. Willis Warren says:

    Don’t forget, Trump knew he had covid and knew the number one way to spread covid was loud talking. He then proceeded to yell at Joe Biden during the debate.

    • Ravenclaw says:

      At least he didn’t sing.

      But yeah, I’ve always thought of that performance as a kind of deniable murder attempt…

    • icelanterns says:

      This point should be driven home often–is it a stretch to think Trump could have introduced chaos into Dems bid for POTUS intentionally??????

      • grennan says:

        re intentional chaos seeding:

        It’s what several Nixon operatives — notably Donald Segretti — attempted in 1972, with some nasty tricks aimed at Sen. Edmund Muskie.

        Youtube may have footage of Muskie’s press conference in New Hampshire and his emotional response.

  7. Savage Librarian says:

    Eastman, Heist Man

    Eastman, heist man,
    Someone’s going down,
    The sot sang. Now suppose Trump
    has fallen on his crown.

    Guys and gals together,
    I think they popped this cork,
    They tripped the right fanatics
    from the towers of New York.

    “The Sidewalks of New York”

  8. PieIsDamnGood says:

    If anyone else had forgotten what Trump tweeted at 2:24pm on Jan 6th

    Donald J. Trump
    Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!

    Jan 6th 2021 – 2:24:22 PM EST

    Found here:

  9. Athena says:

    Thank you for this, it really hit me yesterday how truly dark this all is. I was thinking the same and you always say it so well.

  10. Super Dave says:

    Bmaz, I respect your legal knowledge, so am asking your opinion. I’ve read speculation whether Trump could be charged with attempted murder for inciting the attacks on Pence. It seems a stretch to me, but it also seems pretty clear that if Pence had been killed, Trump would have been just fine with it. Thoughts?

    • bmaz says:

      I was stunned when Harry Litman said that. There is not a chance in hell Trump would ever be prosecuted for attempted murder, neither DOJ nor Karl Racine are ever going to do that. Heck, I don’t think DOJ is even going to charge him with anything, but attempted murder is far beyond wild eyed.

      • Super Dave says:

        I agree that he may never be charged with anything. But if not for the politics, what, if anything, do you think he should be charged with?

        • bmaz says:

          Obstruction as to 1/6 and various tax offenses not related to 1/6 (though probably not the slush fund that is the topic de jour, SCOTUS has all but approved that kind of grifting).

        • Thomas says:

          I would like to see Trump charged with wire fraud, conspiracy and racketeering along with everyone else involved in the $250 million “stolen election defense fund,” just to test if it will be thrown out with the whole country and the whole world watching.
          And I would LOVE IT if it was specifically pointed out that everyone else gets away with it, but not Trump. Just to rub his face in that kind of unfairness because he has a lifetime of karma in that realm.
          What can I say? I’m a poetic justice kind of guy.

  11. Lemoco says:

    If Trump were to manage a comeback in 2024, he’ll want revenge, and he’ll turn his “treasonous” ex-V.P into public enemy #1. Testifying before the Jan, 6 Committee, and putting the finishing nails in the coffin of Trump’s authoritarian aspirations, is the only way he can avoid the violence that little big dick will surely send his way post 2024.

  12. Doctor My Eyes says:

    There was also testimony about fear that Trump would “lash out” leading to a discussion with the head of Trump’s security detail, apparently for the express purpose of discussing some unspecified danger Pence might face from Trump.

    • skua says:

      Would the head of Trump’s security detail have control over Pence’s exact location being supplied to Trump?

  13. Peterr says:

    The request yesterday from the DOJ to the J6 committee for deposition transcripts got a polite “we’ll get to it when we have time” response from Bennie Thompson. This suggests to me a lot of behind the scenes tension between the staffers in both places. It also makes me read Marcy’s post here a little bit differently than I would have last week.

    Marcy is quoting from DOJ filings, and wondering why the J6 committee didn’t go in that direction in yesterday’s hearing. Could it be that they have asked for DOJ background materials to support those filings, and been rebuffed? That is, just because DOJ says something, we can’t presume the J6 committee has the same materials at hand to use.

    • bmaz says:

      The request yesterday was not the only one Thompson shined on, it has been going on back to April. And the ability of the two parties to disclose is nowhere near the same. DOJ has strict Rule 6 prohibitions from disclosing their work, the Committee does not have squat. They are just being self serving petulant jerks. And they are quite likely doing real damage to their self proclaimed goal of accountability.

      • Peterr says:

        I know that this isn’t the only one. But speak to my point about Marcy’s post.

        Could it be that the J6 committee does not have the same Oathkeepers info that DOJ has, and thus is reluctant to speak to their role in the hearing yesterday as a result? Even if DOJ puts a sliver of their stuff into a filing, might the J6 committee still lack the ability to use it effectively?

        • bmaz says:

          Who cares what they “think”? They are supposedly about accountability, and yet are standing as a roadblock to that.

        • Peterr says:

          Separate issue, bmaz.

          I’m trying to get my head around the question posed in Marcy’s post – why the J6 committee isn’t hitting the Oath Keepers angle as much as they did the Proud Boys – and I’m curious if the lack of information sharing is at least part of the reason.

        • bmaz says:

          That is the Committee’s problem. They are being straight up jackasses, and for no apparent other reason than to fluff their own ratings. Accountability? Not so much. What a joke.

          Anybody that professes to care about accountability, all the way up to possibly against Trump and his inner orbit, should be literally screaming about this stance by the Committee. It is pathetic. And, no, it is not a separate issue.

        • Peterr says:

          I give up. If you don’t want to engage the post, I can’t help you.

          (And in other news, the committee just announced they are sending info to the DOJ.)

        • bmaz says:

          NO, they did not. It was another fuck you from Bennie Thompson. The committee will get to it when they get to it, integrity of criminal prosecutions be damned. What worthless assholes.

        • Peterr says:

          According to the NYT at 2:43 ET, they’re getting to it now, with docs to follow in short order:

          WASHINGTON — The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack could start sharing some transcripts of witness interviews with federal prosecutors as early as next month as Justice Department officials ratchet up public pressure on the panel to turn over the documents.

          Negotiations between Justice Department officials and Timothy J. Heaphy, the lead investigator for the House panel and a former federal prosecutor, have intensified in recent days, as the two sides wrangle over the timing and content of the material to be turned over, according to several people familiar with the talks but not authorized to publicly discuss the matter.

          Prosecutors have previously said that the committee planned to publicly release the documents requested in September.

          “The select committee is engaged in a cooperative process to address the needs of the Department of Justice,” said a spokesman for the committee, Tim Mulvey. “We are not inclined to share the details of that publicly. We believe accountability is important and won’t be an obstacle to the department’s prosecutions.”. . .

        • bmaz says:

          What a load of shit. “Some” transcripts by “as early as next month”. But, hey, screw the only real path to accountability in the meantime while we knob job ourselves. That is the Committee “compliance”.

          Thanks for proving my point. The high holy Committee is literally hindering and obstructing key prosecutions.

        • bmaz says:

          Adding, Bennie Thompson is a lying dolt. He said that “if we attempt to copy DOJ, it would cause our important work to come to a standstill”. What a lying piece of shit. It could be done in a couple of hours of having a staff member copying the material to a hard drive and giving it to DOJ.

        • WilliamOckham says:

          From a technical perspective, the public and off the record statements attributed to the committee are just bullshit. We’re talking about a bunch of electronic files. Sending them to the DOJ is not quite just hitting send, but damn near that simple. There’s no need for that to impede the committee’s work. I don’t know what is really going on, but the line they feed the NYT just doesn’t wash. If they have a good reason to NOT cooperate with the DOJ, they need to be honest about it.

          The committee has made bits and pieces of many transcripts public in their court filings. What possible excuse can they have for not sending those these evening?

        • pdaly says:

          CNN had Zoe Lofgren on Friday afternoon similarly claiming legislative vs. executive turf issues, and DOJ ‘misunderstanding that info DOJ does not have does NOT need to be shared with defendants.’

          Lofgren made no mention about whether differing witness statements could negatively impact J6 cases.

          Wondering: even if witnesses gave word-for-word identical answers at DOJ’s grand jury and at the J6 committee depositions, cannot DoJ’s cases be imperiled (by a judge) just for process reasons, i.e., DoJ not sharing Congress’ records in a timely manner with defendants?

        • Eureka says:

          …”why the J6 committee isn’t hitting the Oath Keepers angle as much as they did the Proud Boys”…

          A couple of thoughts I had here:

          (1) Maybe this is some version of deconfliction (harmony!)

          (2) [In another direction] Maybe they don’t want to get into it because OKs lead in more “obvious” ways to Stone and also everyone else at the Willard.

          While Marcy has repeatedly noted that pundits have over-emphasized the Willard over better evidence wrt esp. Trump’s culpability [–>Pence], it would be kind of weird to bring up the OKs and not get into the folks closer to Trump who help unite them along with some of the other coup plotters. Looks to me like J6C [Cheney, at least; perhaps others] prefers more surgical targeting of bad-bad-GOPers rather than the whole lot of them. Possibly related to that last point:

          (2.5) Recall those conflicting reports the week before last re: whether J6C would be getting into Roger Stone. Someone may have better memory and sources for this but as I recall it, Hugo Lowell (Guardian) said J6C couldn’t tie-in Stone / he or others said J6C wouldn’t be getting into Stone, then the next day Thompson came out and ~ denied that that was the case, told CNN they’d link the militias to Trump’s inner circle.

          (3) [And there are ways that 1 and 2 could be compatible, too]

          (4) Maybe there is some genuine ‘order of battle’ reason for this wrt their presentations and they have every intention of doing so

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          I sure hope Liz Cheney has trained her gimlet eye on Stone. As I see it, without pinning him down (as Mueller did), you’re left with the proverbial hole in the bottom of your pocket.

      • Barb says:

        To be exact, it was April 20, 2022 that DOJ first requested transcripts and it was May 17th that the public first learned of it. (I was deleting old photos/videos on my phone today and came across one I filmed on May 17th of Lawrence O’Donnell reporting this story.) Just an fyi.

  14. Andy Kayton says:

    If Trump were to be charged as a co-conspirator in the seditious conspiracy on which indictments have already been issued, and if one of the ancillary crimes of the conspiracy was, as some evidence seems to support, a concerted attempt by co-conspirators to seize and lynch both the Vice President and the Speaker of the House as means of preventing and/or obstructing certification of the electoral vote count, then it seems Trump could be held culpable for all of the fruits of that conspiracy, including attempted homicide of Pence and Pelosi. As emptywheel has pointed out repeatedly, a conspiracy charge has its own distinct proof requirements that do not include proving a conspirator’s specific intent to commit, or to have co-conspirators commit, every ancillary offense.

    In President Trump’s Jan. 6 speech exhorting rioters to march on the Capitol, he issued (one time) the magic words “peacefully and patriotically march” in his instructions. That was his typical gratuitous attempt to erect a magic shield to prevent proof of criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt and to, somehow, negate all of the many coded and loaded words (including, specifically, “patriotically”) used by Trump otherwise to clearly signal his true polar-opposite wants to his supporters.

    For all of the 10 year old child’s level of legal sophistication in Trump’s methods, they have proven sufficient to fend off convictions upon impeachment and, up until now, indictment. Perhaps they will finally and deservedly come up short for him.

    It’s a big “if” to many of us whether DOJ will conclude there’s sufficient evidence to establish beyond a reasonable Trump’s agreement to and participation in the seditious conspiracy. But if the core conspiracy charge alone can be proven on its merits, evidence that’s emerging showing Trump’s inaction and private statements made after learning Pence’s safety was in jeopardy will be very compelling and damning.

  15. pdaly says:

    I missed the second (Third!) J6C hearing. Was wondering if the inactive key cards came up when discussing how VP Pence, his family members and his security team were trying to find safety in the U.S. Capitol on Jan 6.

  16. Tom Marney says:

    I’ll probably regret asking this, but…

    What was to be gained by killing Pence and/or Pelosi, AOC, whoever?

    • Rayne says:

      How about we stick with just Pence and Pelosi, which would mean removal of the next two in line of presidential succession leaving that weak sauce Grassley as the successor to Trump?

      AOC would just be a bonus to folks who detest women of color who are smart and have opinions on the internet.

      • Tom Marney says:

        Fair enough. Anyone other than those two would have no value that I can see other than fantasy fulfillment and terroristic impact. Then again, I don’t see the value of killing Pence, either.

        • Rayne says:

          The one person mentioned in the Constitution having a specific duty during the certification of the electoral votes is the VP. It may be nothing more than opening the envelopes, but what’s the backup plan if the VP is eliminated? The process is likely contested, it goes to SCOTUS, Plan B is implemented and by then the alternate/fake electors and their votes have been introduced.

          That’s my guess on what could have happened if the VP was eliminated.

        • Peterr says:

          When the Secret Service hustled Pence off the dais on January 6th, Grassley took over the Senate as the presiding officer, and in short order he called a recess to the proceedings.

          Constitutionally speaking, the Senate President Pro Tempore takes over when the VP is unavailable, and we’ve had numerous elections where there was no VP to open the envelopes. Most recently, in 1948 when Truman ran against Dewey there was no VP, and the same was true when LBJ ran against Goldwater in 1964. It wasn’t until 1967 that the 25th Amendment was passed, creating a process for filling a vacancy in the office of VP. There is no way simply eliminating the VP shuts down the process, or dumps anything in the courts.

          Now, if Grassley had taken over and done what Pence refused to do, *that* would have pushed it to the courts, but that’s a whole ‘nuther thing.

      • grennan says:

        As the (awful) premise to declare martial law and or shut down Congress completely for at least a while. .

        Some of the Wash. Post’s coverage of the PB has touched upon what they thought their (weird) role would be during the declaration of martial law. ,,

        The VP and the Speaker are the only constitutional officers of the legislative branch (back when he was VP, Cheney said in more than one interview that the officeholder is an employee of the legislative, not executive, branch. He cited his paycheck being issued from congress exactly as it had when he’d been in the House. But not like the ones he got working in the administration).

    • bmaz says:

      I don’t know either. But something highly dubious is going on. And the Committee is lying as to what it is. Until I hear a better explanation, am going to assume it is just the Committee (and Pelosi) trying to keep people interested in their infomercials.

      • timbo says:

        I think that both DOJ and J6 Committee are handling Stone with kid gloves for some reason.

        There’s also the issue of the bomber that seems to be missing completely from the J6 hearings so far as well. You’d think the committee might be interested in the who, what, and why of the bomber for legislative purposes but so far >zilch<; guess the J6
        bomber has been determined by the J6 Committee to already covered by existing laws and no further legislation there is necessary…

    • Michael Schmitt says:

      The Secret Service protecting Pence was equipped with automatic long guns and other deadly defensive weapons. Any attack on Pence would have resulted in a bloodbath, many insurrectionists killed and wounded.

      • Raven Eye says:

        Without going into specifics; yes, the Secret Service is well armed…

        But what has bothered me since I saw those first videos of Pence and his associates (along with the military aide carrying the “football”) being hustled down the staircase was that it didn’t seem like the insurrectionists fully understood that they would have been walking into a deadly situation.

        When it comes to federal protection priorities, at the top of the pyramid sits POTUS and the nukes and their associated command and control systems — which actually overlap.

        The Pence detail would have had very little time to spend on warnings, and it might have been almost impossible for the lead insurrectionists to halt, if their followers couldn’t see the situation unfolding. It would have been horrific.

        • bmaz says:

          It is kind of miraculous in a way that more 1/6 insurrectionists were not killed. It really could have been a bloodbath.

        • Drew says:

          Kind of miraculous, but somehow in line with what happens with White Supremacist mass killers (Dylan Roof & the Buffalo shooter) who are taken into custody without a scratch or a bruise.

          Most of these folk aren’t suicidal and won’t enter any confrontation where they don’t think they’ll prevail, big heroic talk notwithstanding.

          Note that the one who was shot was 1) a woman 2) with military training. Gender might not make a decisive difference in all this, except that the Dylan Roofs and those that really talk big about physical their own physical courage do tend to be men. And the military training does involve going into harm’s way when the objective is worth it and achievable–had the mob not been cowed by the shooting (and the SWAT team been coming up the stairs) it’s unlikely that a lone armed guard could withstand the crowd pouring in. In the case of Pence’s security detail, it was a different matter–and the rest of the mob behind Ashli Babbit was also not ready to risk it.

        • skua says:

          A bloodbath that if livestreamed could give Trump justification to use the Executive Emergency powers?

        • skua says:

          Finding unique preparation to use Executive Emergency powers on Jan6 would weigh heavy against the planners.

  17. sixsmith says:

    Some strong feelings here about J6 interactions with DOJ. My primary concern, which is obviously not everyone’s here, is J6 testimony actually contaminating DOJ proceedings because not obtained under the same restrictions. Yes, lying to Congress and lying to FBI are both crimes but they are not *the same* crime, and could that not be a cause of mischief if DOJ were to rely on J6 testimony? Inefficient as it may seem, I think I prefer J6 and DOJ on separate tracks and *not* sharing, at least for the time being. Love to hear opposing arguments.

    • bmaz says:

      Baloney. The Committee ought to be cooperating fully with the DOJ because DOJ is the only one that can actually accomplish accountability. The Committee cannot do squat in that regard; heck they are incapable of even enforcing their own subpoenas. If they will not work toward that goal, they are nothing but a petty self serving political vanity project. So, yes, they ought be cooperating.

        • bmaz says:

          Meh, the Committee, and the Dem House generally, have been far beyond lame and WAY behind the curve. They truly suck.

  18. hollywood says:

    Who is going to be the John Dean who cracks this open? Pence? Eastman? Rudy? Meadows? Surely there is someone with some ethics who also wants to save his/her skin.

  19. harpie says:

    Via nycsouthpaw:
    8:56 AM · Jun 18, 2022

    People, this isn’t merely entertaining, it’s an insightful take on Trump’s “I don’t want to be your friend” comment to Pence, which, as @MichaelCohen212 points out, was less a 5 yr old thing than it was a Mafia boss thing. Highly suggest you take 5 minutes sometime to watch. [link]

    Links to:
    7:30 PM · Jun 17, 2022

    Michael Cohen DECODES Trump’s Mob-Style Threats Against Pence. An episode of @MichaelCohen212 reacts you must see. […][VIDEO][link to YouTube]

    From the embedded VIDEO:

    COHEN: If anyone knows how Donald Trump speaks in code, it’s me. So lemme break it downfuhyou […]

    • harpie says:

      COHEN: If anyone knows how Donald Trump speaks in code, it’s me. So lemme break it downfuhyou […]

      COHEN: [3:20] Here is an actual wiretap of John GOTTI. […] [3:47] Just replace La Cosa Nostra with MAGA, and it sounds like almost the same person. I mean, the message Donald Trump is conveying to Pence when he’s saying you’re not my friend any more, is that you are my enemy. You’re either my friend, or you are my enemy, and that by disappointing me as your [my?] enemy, you will be hurt. […]

      [4:20] So like with the Mafia, a hit or a threat can be messaged in very few words. You are not my friend. You have not made me happy. So, I will tell you with certainty that when Trump told Mike Pence that you’re not my friend, Pence knew exactly what he meant.

      Now remember, weeks before [12/12/20], Enrique Tarrio, the chairman of the Proud Boys, was hanging out in the White House and posting photos on social media.

      Now these are not idle threats by Trump. On January 6th, because Pence was no longer Trump’s friend, and was now his enemy, the Trump mob led by Proud Boys and Oath Keepers and other terrorist groups tried to kill Mike Pence and Trump just came out and said Mike Pence deserved it. Trump then sent out a tweet on January 6th targeting Pence and saying that he didn’t have the courage to help Trump.

      [5:13] So, these are the tactics, and the code of Mafia Boss. These are the tactics and the code of Donald J. Trump. And that’s now decoded for you by someone who knows a thing or two about Donald.

      12/12/20 [8:47 AM] TRUMP tweets: WE HAVE JUST BEGUN TO FIGHT!!!
      12/12/20 [approx. 9AM] TARRIO [as “WarTime Tarrio”], posts on Parler that he’s at the WHITE HOUSE
      12/12/20: [9:59 AM] TRUMP tweets: Wow! Thousands of people forming in Washington (D.C.) for Stop the Steal. Didn’t know about this, but I’ll be seeing them! #MAGA.

  20. Marika says:

    Question for the constitutional scholars out there: Under the Constitution, how was Pence able to bypass Trump and call the Defense Dept. to order the National Guard? Wouldn’t it have been necessary to invoke the 25th Amendment first? Do we just pretend this didn’t happen?

    • bmaz says:

      No, he notified the DOD. That was fine. The VP is followed with a “football” so he is not out of the loop vis a vis DOD.

      • Marika says:

        I did a little more research and found this
        Supervision and control of D.C. National Guard was delegated by the president to the defense secretary pursuant to Executive Order 10030, 26 January 1949 with authority to designate National Military Establishment officials to administer affairs of the D.C. National Guard. Thus Pence did not order the National guard, he asked the DOD to do what was in their control. Now my question is, why did the DOD wait? Could they have acted without Pence or Trump?

        • bmaz says:

          Yep, those are the questions. Unilaterally on their own? Don’t think so as military ought always be under civilian control. But why the delay? My guess is Trump, but not sure.

        • Marika says:

          Do you think this is something that will be examined for the future or just ignored with the assumption something like this won’t happen again? If Congress is under attack and no one in the Executive branch was interested in calling in the guard, could anyone else? Should this contingency be considered? I understand the question of civilian control of the military, but who would have thought Jan 6 could happen?

        • Peterr says:

          The Secretary of Defense *is* the civilian atop the military command structure. He is the one who ought to be carefully questioned under oath about that delay.

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          Me too. Patel seems to me like the DoD analogue of Jeffrey Bossert Clarke at DOJ–installed to insure that the orders of the rogue king got operationalized.

        • Rayne says:

          I can’t find now where I read the the VP along with the Speaker, Senate Leader, some portion of the cabinet could tell the SecDef that POTUS was unable to discharge his duty and then authorize SecDef to dispatch National Guard — something shy of the 25th Amendment which would remove Trump from power. I need to look further for this.

          In any case, Christopher Miller “was triggered” somehow into deploying the National Guard; he was evasive about this when questioned by the House Oversight Committee’s chair during a May 12, 2021 hearing.

          Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. And I now recognize myself for questions. On January 6, Congress was fulfilling its constitutional duty to certify the results of the Presidential election when Vice President Pence, Speaker Pelosi, and other Members of Congress had to be quickly evacuated because a violent mob had breached the Capitol.

          Mr. Miller, you were the Acting Secretary of Defense on January 6. Did President Trump, as the commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, call you during the January 6 attack to ensure the Capitol was being secured? Mr. Miller?

          Mr. Miller. No, I had all the authority I needed from the President to fulfill my constitutional duties.

          Chairwoman Maloney. Did you speak with President Trump at all as the attack was unfolding?

          Mr. Miller. On January 6?

          Chairwoman Maloney. Yes.

          Mr. Miller. No, I did not. I didn’t need to. I had all the authority I needed and knew what had to–I knew what had to happen.

          Chairwoman Maloney. Did you speak with Vice President Pence during the attack, yes or no?

          Mr. Miller. Yes.

          Chairwoman Maloney. According to a Defense Department timeline, it was Vice President Pence, and not President Trump, who called during the siege to say the Capitol was not secure and to give you the direction to “clear the Capitol.” What specifically did Vice President Pence say to you that day?

          Mr. Miller. The Vice President is not in the chain of command. He did not direct me to clear the Capitol. I discussed very briefly with him the situation. He provided insights based on his presence there, and I notified him or I informed him that by that point, the District of Columbia National Guard was being fully mobilized, and it was in coordination with local and Federal law enforcement to assist in clearing the Capitol.

          Chairwoman Maloney. According to the DOD timeline, the Vice President’s call to you occurred at 4:08 p.m., more than two hours after the Capitol had been breached. Yet according to this timeline, it was not until after your call with the Vice President at 4:32 p.m. that you authorized D.C. National Guard troops to deploy to the Capitol. Did you issue your order in response to the Vice President’s call?

          Mr. Miller. No. I issued the order to mobilize the District of Columbia National Guard and provide all necessary support to civilian and local and Federal law enforcement at 3–I gave approval at 3 p.m., and the order was issued at 3:04 p.m.

          Chairwoman Maloney. Well, Mr. Miller, your order to deploy came only 24 minutes after the Vice President called you, and your testimony is that they are unrelated. Do I have that right?

          Mr. Miller. I’m sorry. You’re going to have to say that again.

          Chairwoman Maloney. That is hard for me to believe, but I am going to move on.

          Mr. Miller. No, I–what’s the question, ma’am?

          Chairwoman Maloney. Mr. Rosen, let me–excuse me. Mr. Rosen, let me now turn to you. You were the Acting Attorney General on January 6, and you reported directly to the President. Did you speak to President Trump at all on January 6?

          Mr. Rosen. No, I did not. I did not require any authorities that the Department didn’t already have.

          Chairwoman Maloney. Well, I think that the lack of direct communication from President Trump speaks volumes. President Trump swore an oath to protect the Constitution and to faithfully execute his duties as commander-in-chief. But when his supporters attacked our Nation’s Capitol, the President was nowhere to be found, leaving it to others to scramble to respond.

          I suspect Pence was informed by someone he could “remind” the acting SecDef he had the authority to mobilize based on his role as acting SecDef.

        • Marika says:

          This Q&A seems to indicate the Sec Def would not need anyone else to tell him what to do. That is interesting. What is more interesting is no one is questioning it further. What if there were a rogue Sec of Def? Seems like there must be some check and balance here. I’m intrigued by the possibility of something short of the 25th Amendment…

        • Rayne says:

          The possibility of a future rogue SecDef or a deliberate countermand by a rogue executive may explain why there was evasion — or Miller understood he was a target of a mob boss once he authorized deployment of National Guard and is/was unwilling to deal with the necessary pushback to protect his own backside. Neither is a pretty picture nor are they mutually exclusive, but I do wonder if there was classification invoked during whatever may have triggered Miller’s NatGuard deployment which explains his evasiveness. Trump alone might be the only person who could override the classification if VP was the authority.

          ADDER: Still thinking on this…classification by VP in performance of executive duties makes sense if Trump has been declared temporarily incapable of performing his duties and the VP has the nuclear football in an undisclosed location for evacuation with Secret Service and other personnel whose loyalties may not be consistent.

        • fm says:

          Normal delays or planned delays?
          “The Army major general testified that the day before the insurrection, he received a letter with an “unusual” restriction on deploying any quick-reaction force service members unless granted explicit approval by then-Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy.”
          “Walker said he “immediately” alerted Army senior leadership of the request. He was not informed of the required approval from then-acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller until 5:08 p.m., he said — “3 hours and 19 minutes later.”

        • Molly Pitcher says:

          This has to be investigated. This is a venue by which we could be in more trouble in the future.

      • Ginevra diBenci says:

        Absolutely! A critical subset of the category Let’s Not Forget About Mike Flynn.

  21. Bay State Librul says:

    In Re: J6 Commitee

    Bmaz will you stop acting like Jim Jordan.
    Their work should be applauded.

    • bmaz says:

      No, I will say what I think. And if the Committee cannot liaise with DOJ appropriately, they are useless. As are their “hearings”.

      • Al Ostello says:

        “! Respect My Authority !” — Bmaz

        [I’m going to tell you this once to knock it off. You’re on the verge of booting for your poking moderation. /~Rayne]

      • Troutwaxer says:

        My suspicion is that the Committee wants to keep this before the public for as long as possible, in particular until the 2022 Elections in November. Remember, as you consider this that the Committee only has until January 2022 to make and release their record, while the DOJ has until January of 2024 to finish their prosecutions. So FIRST the Committee will put on their show, which will affect some voters. THEN they will begin loud, public negotiations with the DOJ to turn over evidence, which will also affect some voters. THEN they will release their findings… and so on, making sure they stay in the news until at least November 8th. (Or whatever the schedule might be…)

        I can see why, as a defense attorney, this really pisses you off, (and you’re definitely not wrong, except maybe-kinda in that your focus is a little narrow,) but the Committee’s role is to have a four-month long window, leading up to the elections, where they attempt to educate the American people, who, BTW, desperately need to be educated, about exactly how evil and toxic the Trumps and their politically-connected supporters happen to be. This is not the way I’d have wanted things to go, but I don’t set the agenda.

        I’ll also note a couple more things: First, did the Committee promise various witnesses that they won’t turn records over to the DOJ? Second, remember that the Committee is having its hearings a couple months later than they’d hoped to, which means that whatever schedule they might (or might not have) had for turning evidence over to the DOJ may have been affected.

  22. BillR says:

    Looking back at the proud boy question to Trump at the debate, it sounds more and more scripted. He was just waiting for an opportunity to give them their marching orders

  23. Xboxershorts says:

    I made this observation in a twitter thread of Dr Wheeler’s the other day. I’d like to share it here
    I would like to point out that what was done to the Capitol of the United States, Inciting a mob to riot, then embedding trained militants with a specific mission, inside that mob…

    Mirrors very closely, that which took place in Bengazzi in 2012.

  24. Rayne says:


    You have already been asked THREE TIMES to use a more differentiated username when you comment because we have several community members named “Frank” or “Franklin.”

    As you have been told THREE TIMES, your comments will not clear until this request has been met. /~Rayne

  25. Douglas Erhard says:

    What I think the DOJ should do:

    Charge Trump with multiple crimes (he’s apparently committed at least four), and then if he is acquitted of one or two, the main story will still be: “First US President to be Convicted of Felony in Nation’s History”

    And everyone will promptly forget the ones he was acquitted of.

    You can’t lose.

    • Rayne says:

      Yeah, well, he already has the distinction of being the First US President to be Impeached Twice and his base hasn’t blinked.

      What needs to happen is for DOJ to follow the facts, present them if they’ve found what they believe to be a crime to a grand jury, allow the grand jury to indict if they so find, and allow him to be tried by a jury of his peers — fellow American citizens — according to our system of laws.

      Donald J. Trump needs to be treated not like a king but like a US citizen.

    • bmaz says:

      Suppose he is acquitted or hanged on all four? Then what? I know a lot of incredible criminal defense lawyers, all of which could defend Trump based on the “facts” to date. But the facts are not yet all in, and few, if any, will sign up to represent Trump because he never pays.

      • Raven Eye says:

        As much as I’d like to see Trump in an orange jumpsuit (or perhaps in an orange tennis outfit* at a Federal Prison Camp), it seems like a pretty steep hill to climb. And as vast as the federal prosecutorial resources seem, they still need to be prioritized and focused on what is possible.

        While you wouldn’t want to ignore evidence pointing toward Trump, there is a lot of shovel work that needs to be done on two other fronts: (1) The actual insurrectionists (foot soldiers is a term that has come up, but may be giving most of those individuals too much credit) and their leadership and (2) that coterie of smarmy “advisors” who duct-taped themselves to Trump.

        The first group needs to face justice for their observed criminal acts.

        That second group is more problematic. For the present situation and down the road, they are both the fuel and catalyst for a litany of actual crimes, but also for an erosion of civil rights and democratic (lower case) values. I really want to see these people hammered. I want other people in their political / philosophical orbit to see what happens when you hang onto a narcissistic autocrat’s coat tails, often leveraging this as a way to get sponsorship for your own ideological ambitions.

        To that end, if the J6SC has information that can assist DOJ to get to work on either of those two groups, the J6SC needs get it across town. Sooner rather than later. Group 1 needs to face the music. Group 2 needs to understand that their activities prior to, during, and after January 6, — and into the future — puts their reputations and credibility (choke) at risk; but more importantly, their liberty and livelihoods also at risk.

        Back to Trump: The case against him has to be super-strong and super-winnable. Any lesser outcome is both victory and affirmation for Trump and his followers – and Trump will make it YUGE.

        If a clear winnable case against Trump can’t be developed prior to the 2024 elections, then – perhaps — a preemptive pardon might be in order? (That’s a question, not a statement.)

        *I may need to take that back…The visual, you know.

        • MB says:

          From a psychological POV, a narcissist is always looking for a source of “narcissistic supply” and hence becomes ruthlessly transactional when that supply dries up. For ex: the AG position went from Sessions to Barr to Rosen but was stymied when he tried to install Clark.

          If these mid-level enablers/duct tapers/narcissistic suppliers can be indicted, that might put a crimp in the currently permissive environment that allows so much to still be gotten away with, without actual indictment of the orange one. Of course, he deserves to be indicted, but better to put a serious dent in all the rest who act above the law. One can only hope…

          I’m not up on my history of the Whig party, but they eventually faded into obscurity – don’t know how long that took from start to finish.

        • grennan says:

          Not long at all…after their principled members (those who opposed the fugitive Slave Act) founded the GOP, the Whigs couldn’t even field a presidential candidate and dissolved in 1854ish.

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          Given Trump’s demand for “Equal Time!”, his hypnotic hold over his most entrenched followers, and the mob-boss tactical use he makes of the spotlight (“Stand back and stand by!”–he’s one of those public speakers whose exclamation points are always audible), any/all of these prospects need strategic approaches. I would consult with a forensic psychiatrist or psychoanalyst before anything allowing him a public platform.

  26. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Judge Luttig has publicly commented on his halting delivery at the last J6 hearing. He was being ultra-precise because of the importance of the historical moment. “It was the first time…that I have ever been on national television.” But he was never more “ready, prepared and intellectually focused (I had thought) during Thursday’s hearing than I have ever been for anything in my life.” His face was red, he said, from helping his daughter move on a 90+ degree day.

    The judge’s explanation seems inconsistent with his background and apparent lack of physical fitness. Judge Luttig, for example, graduated from UVa law school, was a White House intern, and clerked at the DC Circuit and Supreme Court. He was an associate at Davis Polk, which competes with Sullivan & Cromwell for the top spot among NYC law firms. He returned to the White House, then became head of the OLC, where he helped to shepherd the Thomas and Souter nominations through the Senate. Luttig served as a judge on the Fourth Circuit for fifteen years, and for another thirteen years as general counsel of the Boeing Co., retiring in 2019, at the same time his CEO was dismissed amidst the Boeing 737 Max scandal.

    Those are extraordinarily demanding jobs. They require extraordinary diligence and intelligence, social networking and social skills, and intellectual and verbal presence of mind. Judge Luttig’s description of his halting delivery seems…incomplete.

    • PeterS says:

      I think you mean “seems ……………………………… incomplete”. I heard a commentator opining that his delivery was deliberate, so that the record showed he said the right things, but his actual performance didn’t help the committee too much. I’ve no idea, but he certainly wasn’t offering up snappy soundbites for media consumption.

      • Makeitso says:

        He CLEARLY tried to prevent the certification. He clearly tried to get GA to overturn its election. He had numerous people working for him to do the same- including members of the republican party. He encouraged his Brownshirts to kill the VP; about whom he is again egging on his cult. He is STILL trying to overturn the election. Still. And that is but a few things…

        He is a traitor to the idea of America and American rule of law. Their is but true law to him: Trump Must Rule. You underestimate the effects he has on his people. I live in red land. They would gladly make him king for life.

        • bmaz says:

          JFC. For the 999th time, Trump is a lot of bad things, and potentially criminal ones, but he has NOT committed treason, and is NOT legally a “traitor”. Spewing that garbage just makes you look really stupid. Furthermore, the criminal justice system is not a feel good salve for you, nor anybody else, whether in red or blue America. And what “you” think is CLEARLY established does not mean squat in an actual jury trial, where actual elements of charged crimes have to be proved beyond a reasonable.

        • civil says:

          You’re interpreting “traitor” in its legal sense, but my guess is that Makeitso was using it “traitor” in its everyday sense.

          Are you familiar with the concept of a linguistic register? If not, it’s a useful concept and refers to ways in which a social or professional group uses language, including specialized vocabulary and (dis)preferred syntactic and rhetorical devices/structures. Examples include formal and informal registers, the medical register, the legal register, the mathematics register. A given claim, such as “Trump is a traitor,” may simultaneously be a valid opinion in one register (everyday English) and false in another register (the legal register). It’s sometimes ambiguous what register someone is using.

        • bmaz says:

          I honestly don’t care. If you are talking about a legal case the legal meaning is what matters, and other bunk is irrelevant and sloppy.

  27. harpie says:

    RAYNE: A few days ago, we were discussing the fact that counter protestors did NOT show up on J6: [Here and further down the comment section]:

    Today, Marcy retweeted the following, with more info about that:
    9:32 PM · Jun 18, 2022

    An unremarked aspect of this fascinating thread is that the non-appearance of antifascists on the scene Jan. 6, played a critical role in the failure of Trump’s coup attempt. 1/ […]

    Also, read the THREAD this comment is responding to.
    TRUMP may not be president any more [for now], BUT he facilitated our lurch toward fascism.

    • Rayne says:

      The Don’t Take The Bait movement was as critical as Pence not giving in to Trump’s demand — but its opposite has yet to be fully fleshed out. There must have been some communications and agreement that if counterprotesters arrived, Trump would invoke martial law.

      My gut tells me there’s a lawyer somewhere who like Eastman and Ellis produced an assurance that Trump could use martial law without repercussions if there was violence between protesters+counterprotesters. I wonder, though, if he would would have done so as POTUS and not candidate Trump that the memo was produced by White House counsel and classified or ‘buried’ in some other way.

      p.s. thanks for sharing that link in thread here so the discussion is tied together.

        • Rayne says:

          This is still niggling at me. I went digging through’s collection of Congressional Research Service reports looking for anything related to declaration of emergency under which POTUS might invoke ‘martial law’.

          I found an uptick in updated reports during the Trump administration; several make sense because of the pandemic, but I’m not certain of the others. The next most recent updated CRS report in relation to ’emergency’ was about communications systems in 2012.

          National Emergency Powers, updated November 19, 2021

          Emergency Authorities Under the National Emergencies Act, Stafford Act, and Public Health Service Act, updated July 14, 2020

          The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use, updated July 14, 2020

          The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Key Facts, updated July 10, 2020

          Definition of National Emergency under the National Emergencies Act, CRS Legal Sidebar, March 1, 2019

          Background: Using Defense Funds for Construction in a National Emergency, briefing slides, February 6, 2019

          Military Construction Funding in the Event of a National Emergency, CRS Insight, updated January 11, 2019

          The military construction funding is interesting because the means to pull military funds is buried in this. Was a border emergency fabricated to allow Team Trump an opportunity to skim military funds?

          I would love to know which members of Congress prompted CRS for updates of these reports. The IEEPA-related reports make sense as does the report related to Stafford+Public Health because they would be associated with the pandemic.

          But this jogs yet another question: did Team Trump (including Kushner) LIHOP the pandemic so as to be able to skim military and other budgets after learning how emergencies worked with the so-called southern border emergency?

        • bmaz says:

          Or MIHOP! Which would beget the question of how? Trump and Kushner, even combined, are not smart enough to chart such a course. Who would have been helping them along the path, if so?

        • Makeitso says:

          Eastman. Cruz. Hawley. Rudy 9/11. Sydney. Jordan. Gaetz. Tuberville….The list is potentially full of republican politicians. And I wouldn’t be at all surprised if other unnamed lawyers helped. This was a much bigger enterprise than some thought. Based on what has happened since, it is pretty clear if Trump had pulled it off, the republican party would have went along.

          In fifty years, when the dust settles, we will see that the coup attempt was much worse than even what we know now.

        • rip says:

          Would it be too much a stretch to imagine that some outside groups are also working on ways to destabilize the US government? After all, isn’t that one of the assumptions on how Trump was elected?

          By “outside groups” I don’t mean to exclude foreign interests and some US-centered organizations. Not necessarily associated with the CNP and its hydra of groups.

        • Rayne says:

          Look at the GOP senators who took advantage of the declaration of pandemic and subsequent emergency to trade on insider information like that short-termer Loeffler. There could well have been people inside the GOP congressional caucus as well as economic advisers formal and informal who suggested playing the emerging pandemic as a massive short opportunity. And why not use PPP funds where possible to do so? or more money raised from profiteering from the so-called border emergency?

          Among Biden’s first executive orders signed the day he was sworn in was an end to that border emergency. I suspect Team Biden knew full well what was up.

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          Tom Barrack still had the ear of both, and understood domestic money hauling too, in addition to his main area of expertise. I think both Trump and, especially, Kushner tapped their donor bros for tips on things like this. Most of those guys remain invisible; only a handful really wanted to parlay their access into the more public and political realm of cabinet secretaries and ambassadors. Too much scrutiny. Look what happened to Betsy DeVos, etc. ad infinitum.

          Here is where we consult Rayne’s superb golf course posts. Buried treasure (very buried) still lies there, waiting for us to really follow the money in the USA.

        • Rayne says:

          I still can’t believe there hasn’t been a means to crack open the golf courses. So frustrating knowing how much money could be laundered through them.

        • rip says:

          I suggest stealth voice recorders in every caddy bag, golf cart, 18th hole. Lots of private and high/low-level conversations going on there.

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          You need to be in the clubhouse. A voluble pro can extract secrets in the shop or the range, but even though a lot of the Christian Mafia don’t drink the mere presence of alcohol brings key connections to light, or into existence.

          But these are moot points for us, Rayne. For all the ballyhoo around Augusta “welcoming” Condi Rice (and, of course, Tiger), this remains a White Men’s realm.

  28. pdaly says:

    Some random findings:
    After seeing the list of potential locations included in the pdf “1776 Returns” that Tarrio was given, I noticed those sites overlapped with the permits to rally 1/5 and 1/6 that Ali Alexander had obtained.

    Just Security published Atlantic Council’s DFRLab’s “Stop the Steal” timeline 2/10/2021.

    One of the graphics in the Jan 2021 portion of the timeline is taken from the website The Donald dot Win entitled Surround the Swamp. It includes color coded lines (primary colors yellow, red and blue) surrounding the U.S. Capitol. The map of the US is included in the graphic. It has been divided into 3 regions coded yellow, red and blue and apparently directs people from those regions where to join the U.S. Capitol.

    It seems those primary colors were borrowed from a MAGA_Cavalry graphic (see earlier in the timeline: Dec 22, 2020) that was circulating among conspiracy theory communities and illegal militia groups. The colors represent rally points where people can join the caravan to DC, with planned arrival in DC on 1/5/21.
    What is curious is that the 3 regions of the US are labeled
    Cowboy (yellow region, most of the midwest and far west),
    Rebel (red region, mostly Texas and the southeast states), and
    Minuteman (blue, the northeast states).

    I wondered if the naming system could be boiled down to an acronym.
    When I looked up CRM I found “Customer Relationship Management.”

    My superficial understanding is that ‘CRM’ is a strategy businesses use to court potential customers and eventually make a sale. Of course, I immediately think ‘is this how to manage the ‘normies’?”

    CRM also happens to be the ticker symbol for a large CRM company, Salesforce.
    Coincidentally, the Republican National Committee sued Salesforce in March 2022 in an effort to block release of information that could be relevant to the 1/6/21 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

    • rip says:

      Interesting juxtaposition of lots of words that make an acronym. No, I don’t think CRM in this context means a customer-relationship management system or Salesforce as used by the RNC (and many other organizations.)

      Still, an interesting link to JustSecurity from 2021.

      • pdaly says:

        Yes, the timeline is informative.
        I’m just surprised I could fall down a conspiracy wormhole and still arrive back to 1/6 by the end. ;-)

Comments are closed.