2020 Election: Predictions, Results and Reactions

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Maggie Haberman of the New York Times writes: "The Jan 6 committee has testimony that [former White House Chief of Staff Mark] Meadows told colleagues [that President Donald] Trump said something to the effect of maybe [Vice President Mike] Pence should be hung".

Edited to add text from the Times article:

Shortly after hundreds of rioters at the Capitol started chanting “Hang Mike Pence!” on Jan. 6, 2021, the White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, left the dining room off the Oval Office, walked into his own office and told colleagues that President Donald J. Trump was complaining that the vice president was being whisked to safety.

Mr. Meadows, according to an account provided to the House committee investigating Jan. 6, then told the colleagues that Mr. Trump had said something to the effect of, maybe Mr. Pence should be hung.

It is not clear what tone Mr. Trump was said to have used. But the reported remark was further evidence of how extreme the rupture between the president and his vice president had become, and of how Mr. Trump not only failed to take action to call off the rioters but appeared to identify with their sentiments about Mr. Pence — whom he had unsuccessfully pressured to block certification of the Electoral College results that day — as a reflection of his own frustration at being unable to reverse his loss.

I'm curious to know what you think the significance (other than the shock value) of this is?

[N.E. Brigand]

Maggie Haberman of the New York Times writes: "The Jan 6 committee has testimony that [former White House Chief of Staff Mark] Meadows told colleagues [that President Donald] Trump said something to the effect of maybe [Vice President Mike] Pence should be hung".

Edited to add text from the Times article:

Shortly after hundreds of rioters at the Capitol started chanting “Hang Mike Pence!” on Jan. 6, 2021, the White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, left the dining room off the Oval Office, walked into his own office and told colleagues that President Donald J. Trump was complaining that the vice president was being whisked to safety.

Mr. Meadows, according to an account provided to the House committee investigating Jan. 6, then told the colleagues that Mr. Trump had said something to the effect of, maybe Mr. Pence should be hung.

It is not clear what tone Mr. Trump was said to have used. But the reported remark was further evidence of how extreme the rupture between the president and his vice president had become, and of how Mr. Trump not only failed to take action to call off the rioters but appeared to identify with their sentiments about Mr. Pence — whom he had unsuccessfully pressured to block certification of the Electoral College results that day — as a reflection of his own frustration at being unable to reverse his loss.

I'm curious to know what you think the significance (other than the shock value) of this is?

I'll take any opportunity to link to a Roger Miller song. Also I think it goes to Donald Trump's state of mind. He was upset that Pence was safe and agreed with the rioters that Pence should be hanged. Will his state of mind ever be legally relevant? He's being sued by various parties for abetting the violence against them on January 6th, so maybe it will.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I would add that not only has he been sued, but it is in a case where the judge has demonstrated a willingness to dismiss the claims against each and every one of the other defendants, but still felt confident in not dismissing the claims against Trump. And while obviously the likelihood is not high, there is still a chance that Trump could be criminally charged.

Of course, Trump's state of mind is only relevant to the extent that it can reflect on some act or omission that he took that aided or abetted a criminal act. In this case, I would say that the statement could help prove that he intentionally failed to take action to call off the insurrectionists before they caused more harm.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

This is extraordinary, if true.

Mark Meadows burned documents after meeting with GOP congressman, former aide testifies to Jan. 6 committee: report

How this could not constitute unlawful conduct, I cannot imagine.

[N.E. Brigand]

This is extraordinary, if true.

Mark Meadows burned documents after meeting with GOP congressman, former aide testifies to Jan. 6 committee: report

How this could not constitute unlawful conduct, I cannot imagine.

Is it any worse than President Trump eating official documents or flushing them down the toilet?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In the meantime, it only took 77 years, but they finally got this guy:



Kidding! That's not actually Adolf. It's a January 6th insurrectionist:

Timothy Hale-Cusanelli, who previously dressed as Hitler, was convicted on all five counts he faced, including a felony charge of obstruction of an official proceeding. (NBC)

Earlier this week in his trial, Hale-Cusanelli testified that he was so ignorant he didn't even realize he was in the Capitol that the Capitol was where the House of Representatives and Senate were located.

(Edited to add and correct note about his testimony.)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

In another sign that the Justice Department is quietly still investigating the causes of the 1/6 insurrection, former Trump adviser Peter Navarro claims he is going to file a lawsuit in which he revealed that he was subpoenaed by a grand jury to testify about the insurrection. Interestingly, Navarro, who is not an attorney, indicates that he plans to represent himself in this lawsuit in which he claims that only Emperor former president Trump can authorize him to testify.

Former Trump advisor Peter Navarro reveals he's been served a federal grand jury subpoena over the Jan. 6 riot

[RoseMorninStar]

My fears are that a certain segment of the population is so radicalized, so brainwashed, that it won't matter even if Trump would come out & admit he wanted/intends to make himself king.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I should add that at least as of now, there is no record of a lawsuit being filed by Peter Navarro in the D.C. District Court (where the draft says it is to be filed).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Now it has been filed. With (I kid you not) handwritten addresses written onto the complaint under the names of each of the defendants (Pelosi, the members of the 1/6 Select Committee, the Select Committee itself, the House of Representatives as a whole, and the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, who issued the subpoena). I can't figure out why the addresses would be written on there. It is amazingly bizarre. Even more bizarre is that the Complaint doesn't actually have Causes of Action, just a long list of vaguely described pseudo-legal theories. Then he has the wrong date on the last page, crossed and with the right date handwritten in. [ETA: The case is assigned to Judge Randolph Moss, an Obama appointee.]

Navarro complaint page 1.jpg (96.91 KiB) Viewed 2852 times

Navarro complaint page 2.jpg (111.12 KiB) Viewed 2852 times

Navarro complaint page 78.jpg (58.1 KiB) Viewed 2852 times

[RoseMorninStar]

Can stuff like that just be thrown out?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Just thrown out? No, it can't. It needs to go through a legal process to get dismissed. But I note that the subpoena that he has been issued by the Justice Department calls for him to appear before the grand jury on June 2, in two days. Unless he is able to get the court to issue a temporary restraining order before then, he is legally obligated to appear before the grand jury. I doubt he even has any idea how to go about getting a temporary restraining order issued.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Just checked the docket for the case and there is still nothing other than the complaint and the summons issued by the court. No indication that he has even attempted to serve the defendants, let alone apply for a TRO (temporary restraining order). So, it will be interesting to see if he shows up to his appearance at the grand jury that is scheduled today or brings the requested documents. Of course, grand juries are typically secretive, so we may not know right away.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Meanwhile, in another grand jury in Georgia, there is less of a question mark about what will happen today.

Trump election probe grand jury to hear from Raffensperger

[Voronwë the Faithful]

CNN Exclusive: Republicans who texted Meadows with urgent pleas on January 6 say Trump could have stopped the violence

Within minutes of the US Capitol breach on January 6, 2021, messages began pouring into the cell phone of White House chief of staff Mark Meadows. Among those texting were Republican members of Congress, former members of the Trump administration, GOP activists, Fox personalities -- even the President's son. Their texts all carried the same urgent plea: President Donald Trump needed to immediately denounce the violence and tell the mob to go home.

"He's got to condem (sic) this shit. Asap," Donald Trump Jr. texted at 2:53 p.m.
"POTUS needs to calm this shit down," GOP Rep. Jeff Duncan of South Carolina wrote at 3:04 p.m.
"TELL THEM TO GO HOME !!!" former White House chief of staff Reince Priebus messaged at 3:09 p.m.

"POTUS should go on air and defuse this. Extremely important," Tom Price, former Trump health and human services secretary and a former GOP representative from Georgia, texted at 3:13 p.m.

"Fix this now," wrote GOP Rep. Chip Roy of Texas at 3:15 p.m.

One of the key questions the January 6 House committee is expected to raise in its June hearings is why Trump failed to publicly condemn the attack for hours, and whether that failure is proof of "dereliction of duty" and evidence that Trump tried to obstruct Congress' certification of the election.

The Meadows texts show that even those closest to the former President believed he had the power to stop the violence in real time.

CNN obtained the 2,319 text messages that Meadows selectively handed over to the January 6 committee in December before he stopped cooperating with the investigation. According to a source familiar with the committee's investigation, the texts provide a valuable "road map" and show how Meadows was an enabler of Trump, despite being told there was no widespread election fraud.

The question remains: if the text messages that he did give them are this damning, how bad are the ones that he removed to provide?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Well that was interesting! I just went to Pacer to check the docket on Navarro's case. But instead of coming up with just the one case, it came up with two others, showing him as a criminal defendant. He has been charged with criminal contempt for failing to testify in response to the Select Committee's subpoena. So far as I can tell, he has not been charged with failing to testify in response to the grand jury subpoena, but I suspect that will be added eventually. I have not seen this reported anywhere yet, but I'm sure it will be soon.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Meanwhile in the lawsuit that Navarro filed, the judged has issued the following order:

Plaintiff’s complaint in this action seeks various forms of relief, including a declaration that the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol was improperly constituted and that the subpoena it issued to Plaintiff was unlawful; a declaration that President Biden lacks legal authority to waive any claim of executive privilege invoked by his predecessor; and—as relevant for present purposes—an injunction “enjoining [the Attorney General] from enforcing” a purported grand jury subpoena. Dkt. 1 at 77–78 (Compl., Prayer for Relief).

• Local Criminal Rule 6.1 governs applications relating to matters occurring before a grand jury and provides as follows:
  A motion or application filed in connection with a grand jury subpoena or other matter occurring before a grand jury, all other papers filed in support of or in opposition to such a motion or application, and all orders entered by the Court in connection therewith, shall be filed under seal. Such a motion or application shall be assigned a Grand Jury (GJ) case number and be assigned to the Chief Judge. All hearings on matters affecting a grand jury proceeding shall be closed, except for contempt proceedings in which the alleged contemnor requests a public hearing. Papers, orders and transcripts of hearings subject to this Rule, or portions thereof, may be made public by the Court on its own motion or on motion of any person upon a finding that continued secrecy is not necessary to prevent disclosure of matters occurring before the grand jury.

LCrR 6.1; see also LCrR 57.14(b) (including, among the Chief Judge’s duties, “empanel[ing] the grand jury and hear[ing] and determin[ing] all matters relating to proceedings before the grand jury”). Thus, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to challenge a purported grand jury subpoena or grand jury proceeding, he must do so in an application that is “assigned a Grand Jury . . . case number,” that is referred to the Chief Judge for resolution, and that is filed under seal. It is unclear from Plaintiff’s complaint, however, whether all or only some of his claims for relief are “in connection with” matters purportedly occurring before a grand jury.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that to the extent Plaintiff seeks relief in connection with a purported grand jury subpoena or proceeding, he shall on or before June 17, 2022, file any such application with the Chief Judge, consistent with the requirements of Local Criminal Rule 6.1;
and it is further ORDERED that to the extent that Plaintiff seeks relief not in connection with a purported grand jury subpoena or proceeding, Plaintiff shall on or before June 17, 2022, file an amended complaint setting forth the basis or bases for any such unrelated claim or claims.

Failure to comply with this Order may result in dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint.
SO ORDERED.

I particularly liked this part: "It is unclear from Plaintiff’s complaint, however, whether all or only some of his claims for relief are “in connection with” matters purportedly occurring before a grand jury."

Really not a good idea to try to represent yourself, when you don't know what you are doing.

[RoseMorninStar]

I can't imagine the hubris of someone (especially someone uneducated in law) representing themselves in such a case.

[N.E. Brigand]

The funny story (first noted a while ago in Vanity Fair) of how Peter Navarro, was was indicted and arrested today, became a White House advisor: during the 2016 campaign, Donald Trump asked his son-in-law Jared Kushner to research China so that Trump could say more about that country in his speeches. Kushner went onto Amazon, saw that Navarro, whom he didn't know, had written a book titled Death by China, and called Navarro to ask if he'd like to join the Trump campaign as their economics advisor.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Navarro indicated at his arraignment today that he wanted to represent himself in the criminal case as well. The judge expressed concern over that and indicated that he would appoint counsel.

[N.E. Brigand]

Edit: The White House says that the leader of the neofascist Proud Boys, who posted a picture of himself at the White House today [Dec. 12, 2020] and said that he had been invited there, was only there as part of a public tour and was not invited. So I'm deleting the picture (which had been shared by a number of journalists).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Late update: the events continued into the evening, and as we have seen so often with rallies and protests this year, things got worse after dark. A Washington Post reporter writes of the Proud Boys tonight that "hundreds of them are roaming D.C., clashing with anti-Trump protesters -- punching, kicking, wrestling. When one fight ends, another begins." Here you can see video of some Proud Boys stealing a Black Lives Matter from the Asbury United Methodist Church and then setting it on fire. And here a confrontation with a lone counter-protester surrounded by a group of Proud Boys turns violent when one of them knocks him on the head and he then stabs one of them.

So regarding the edited passage above, I may have been too quick to correct myself. Enrique Tarrio, the leader of the Proud Boys, shared a picture Saturday on social media of himself visiting the White House that day. Friends of his said he had been invited. I posted the photo here with some comments about how Donald Trump had declined to condemn the Proud Boys during his first debate with Joe Biden. Instead Trump urged the group to "stand back and stand by" -- a phrase the group then adopted as a motto. But then the White House said that Tarrio was only there as part of a public tour, which anyone can sign up for. So I deleted the photo and most of my comments.

However, Salon reports that you have to sign up for the tour 21 days in advance so that White House security has time to vet potential visitors. People with felony convictions are not permitted to enter "unless a senior member of the administration intervenes." Even former convicts working with the White House on issues like criminal justice reform, even those who have received pardons, have been denied entry in the past. Tarrio has multiple felony convictions. We don't know why he was admitted. It could just be incompetence. But it can't be dismissed as easily as I thought.

At a rally in Texas tonight, Donald Trump said this: "If I run and I win, we will treat those people from January 6 fairly, we will treat them fairly and if it requires pardons, then we will give them pardons because they are being treated so unfairly." This is him repeating what he did regarding the Russia investigation: the message he means to convey is that those people who don't flip on him will be pardoned should he become president again. In other words, he's flirting with obstruction of justice all over again. Stop the Steal organizer Ali Alexander and Proud Boys founder Enrique Tarrio have both already shared Trump's message tonight on social media.

Enrique Tarrio, the founder of the Proud Boys, was charged today with conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. This came in a superseding indictment for five other Proud Boys members who had previously been charged for their role in the January 6th insurrection. Tarrio himself was not at the Capitol. He had been arrested two days earlier, on a charge of destruction of property for having burned a "Black Lives Matter" banner in D.C. on December 12, 2020. He was released on January 5, 2021 with the stipulation that he not return to D.C. He later served five months on that charge.

The indictment alleges that Tarrio and the others began planning for an occupation of federal buildings in late December 2020 and also that Tarrio coordinated with Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the Oath Keepers who was charged last month with seditious conspiracy for his role in the insurrection. The group's plan was to get so many people at the Capitol that police would be overwhelmed. One message in a Proud Boys chat was: "They would do nothing because they can do nothing." Remember that police officers said during the Insurrection that they dare not draw their guns because the crowd would probably kill them if they did.

As noted in the first quoted post above, Tarrio also visited the White House on December 12, 2020. The White House said that he was there as part of a public tour, but other reporting claimed that shouldn't have been possible under normal White House security procedures, because Tarrio was already a convicted felon.

And as noted in the second quoted post above, just six weeks ago, Tarrio was sharing Donald Trump's message that he would pardon the insurrectionists. To me, it appears that Enrique Tarrio and Donald Trump are currently engaged in an ongoing conspiracy. As I see it, Trump is doing with the Proud Boys leadership just what he did with Paul Manafort: he's encouraging them to keep their mouths shut in exchange for a later pardon after their silence helps him win back the presidency. Just because they're dong it in public doesn't mean it's not a crime.

Three months ago, in early March 2022, Enrique Tarrio and four other Proud Boys were indicted for obstruction of an official proceeding for the actions they took on Jan. 6, 2021. Tarrio himself wasn't at the insurrection, because he had been arrested the previous day for violating his bail conditions on the charges he faced for his actions on Dec. 12, 2020 -- after he made a visit, still inadequately explained, to the White House -- but the government alleges he was coordinating the Proud Boys' Jan. 6th activities.

Today a superseding indictment has been issued to add a charge of seditious conspiracy.

Previously members of another militia group named the Oath Keepers had also been charged with seditious conspiracy.