2020 Election: Predictions, Results and Reactions

[Voronwë the Faithful]

A law professor who testified on Donald Trump's behalf in the first House impeachment hearings thinks he's identified the real problem:

Even Jonathan Turley has been converted by the Select Committee.

‘Breathtaking’: Fox News analyst says latest Jan 6 hearing ‘should shock everyone’

Fox News legal analyst Jonathan Turley said that the seventh hearing of the January 6 committee was “breathtaking”.

Mr Turley shared his sense of shock at the revelations concerning former President Donald Trump and his December 18 2020 meeting at the White House discussing how to overturn the election with his allies.

“It’s ... damaging,” Mr Turley said in reaction to the pre-recorded deposition with Trump White House Counsel Pat Cipollone. “The account of that meeting in the [Oval] Office is really breathtaking. It’s very disturbing.”

“At one point, there was a suggestion that there might be fisticuffs,” he noted. “It’s almost like this is Dr Strangelove and the president is saying there is no fighting in the war room. It was just a bizarre moment.”

“You’re in the Oval Office and people seem to be actually chest pounding. So this is very disturbing. All of these details should disturb everyone,” Mr Turley said.

[River]

Trump kept himself surrounded by yes-men and yes-women. As his inability to concede to the reality of the election results took hold, he had only two choices: listen to the rational voices or swap them with voices that agreed with him. He took the latter approach. The narcissistic injury was and is too great. He lost. He's a loser. And rather than face that truth, he turned to lies. I'm not sure who it was within his circle that cooked up the Big Lie that the election was stolen. Maybe it was him, maybe it was one of his pet sycophants. But once he got that in his head, he constructed a feedback loop for himself and those of his fanbase that would buy anything he sold them. And he still controls donor lists, PACs, and a noisy mob that sends death threat to elected officials, which puts him in that abusive relationship he's got with the RNC and Republican party in general right now. I wish they'd rid themselves of him and his influence. We need two healthy parties, not just the Democrats and the Trump personality cult.

[N.E. Brigand]

Lawyers for U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, argue that Graham cannot be compelled to testify to a Georgia special grand jury about his phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger because he is protected by the Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution.

This is not a completely ridiculous argument. The judge in Steve Bannon's case ruled this week that Bannon could not compel members of Congress to testify; Bannon wanted to ask Speaker Nancy Pelosi how the January 6th Committee was created. But it's not a slam dunk for Graham. The Speech and Debate Clause has been interpreted very broadly, but it's not absolute. Raffensperger has testified that Graham asked if he would void certain ballots (doing so would help Trump win in Georgia). Graham claims that the purpose of his call was to determine whether new elections laws were necessary. Without knowing what Graham actually said, it's not clear whether or not his speech is protected. Perhaps a judge can assign a taint team or special master to determine this?

[N.E. Brigand]

Just in the past week, (1) Donald Trump said on his social media platform about the 2020 results that it's still possible to "turn over the Election to the actual winner," and (2) one of his lawyers, Christina Bobb, said in an interview that there are active measures in three state legislatures to make that happen, so that Trump might become the president in 2023.

Utterly deranged.

But there you have it: they're still plotting their 2020 coup.

[Sunsilver]

I know two people who are still convinced Trump won. And one of them is well-educated, and someone I used to regard as a friend.

The other is your typical red-neck, right wing, gun-loving Trump supporter. I think he lives in Texas, to make it even more stereotypical!

[N.E. Brigand]

CNN: "Secret Service erased text messages from January 5 and 6, 2021 -- after oversight officials asked for them, watchdog says."

Maybe not intentionally, but obviously this is a problem.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I don't think there is a chance in hell that it wasn't intentional, but I doubt that can be proven.

[N.E. Brigand]

I have yet to read most of this 72 pp. examination of the 2020 vote in six swing states authored by eight prominent conservatives, among whom are two former U.S. Senators, three retired federal judges and a former U.S. Solicitor General, but it appears to be a useful document:

Lost, Not Stolen: The Conservative Case that Trump Lost and Biden Won the 2020 Presidential Election (pdf)

Each section includes an addendum listing the court cases that (in all but one minor case) the Trump campaign lost.

[N.E. Brigand]

Meanhile, independent journalist Hunter Walker (who has been published by Yahoo and Rolling Stone, among others), reports that he heard two months ago from a law enforcement source that "D.C. Metropolitan Police officers affiliated with the presidential motorcade shared a story of Trump demanding to be driven to the Capitol and getting into an altercation with Secret Service on January 6." Walker was unable to obtain independent confirmation of the story at the time and didn't publish. But I think this shows that whether the story is true or not (and as has been noted here several times, these particular details are at most of secondary importance), Hutchinson didn't make it up.

Update: from CNN:



Now to be sure, I think these people should testify under oath, just like I think those disputing this story should do so!

CNN reported tonight that:

A Washington, DC, police officer has corroborated to the House select committee investigating January 6, 2021, details regarding a heated exchange former President Donald Trump had with his Secret Service detail when he was told he could not go to the US Capitol after his rally, a source familiar with the matter tells CNN.

The officer with the Metropolitan Police Department was in the motorcade with the Secret Service for Trump on January 6 and recounted what was seen to committee investigators, according to the source.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I just saw that and was going on to post it here under the headline:

Corroboration!

[N.E. Brigand]

Marjorie Taylor Greene's most recent Federal Elections Commission filing notes that she loaned her campaign $450,000 in 2019 and 2020 that she had not disclosed in previous FEC filings (although the loans were previously reported in the media, I believe).

[N.E. Brigand]

This would be a notable step:

[Voronwë the Faithful]

But did she send a target letter to Trump? Not so far as I know. Ridiculous to indict "prominent Georgia Republicans" if you are not going to indict the person who engaged in the most obvious illegal conduct. Maybe she will, but I guess she will pretend like she is doing the do by indicting local people without going after the real target.

[N.E. Brigand]

"Among the recipients of the target letters, the sources said, are GOP state Sen. Burt Jones, Gov. Brian Kemp’s running mate for lieutenant governor, David Shafer, the chairman of the Georgia Republican Party, and state Sen. Brandon Beach."

Can Willis tie the fake electors scheme directly to Trump? I don't know. If Trump was involved, can she use pressure on the "electors" to get them to flip on him?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I doubt the fake elector scheme can be directly tied to Trump, but it certainly could to some of his 'advisors' including Giuliani. But the fake elector scheme was only part of the illegal conspiracy going on. I'm guessing that Willis is focusing on that part, and will ignore the rest.

[N.E. Brigand]

Guy Reffitt is a member of the Three Percenter militia group. He was the first Jan. 6th insurrectionist to be convicted by a jury; that happened in March. He brought two guns to D.C. and per this CNN article, he was convicted of "carrying a firearm on Capitol grounds, interfering with Capitol Police, and obstructing an official proceeding" (as well as obstruction of justice for threatening his children to dissuade them from reporting him to the FBI). He'll be sentenced next week.

The new article notes that prosecutors have asked the judge to apply a terrorism enhancement, which increases the maximum possible sentence from 11 years to 15 years. (But remember, it's unusual for someone to get the maximum.) Prosecutors argue that Reffitt was guiding the mob -- they say that, "initiated by the most fervent smaller groups and individuals within the crowd — individuals like Reffitt — and using the mob itself as a cloak for their actions, each blow helped the crowd penetrate further into the United States Capitol Police's defenses until the building itself was accessible and its occupants were at risk" -- and they note that he plotted more violence while in jail following that day's events.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Part of the Jan. 6th Committee hearing earlier this week concerned a bizarre meeting on the evening of Dec. 18, 2020 in which President Trump apparently appointed "Kraken" lawyer as a Special Prosecutor to investigate the election results -- but the regular White House legal team, led by Pat Cipollone, decided to ignore that appointment until Trump put it in writing, which it seems he never did. Also at that meeting were Rudy Giuliani, Michael Flynn, and the former CEO of Overstock.com, Patrick Byrne, who is also known for having been the lover of Russian spy Maria Butina.

CNN reports that Byrne testified to the Jan. 6th Committee for almost eight hours today.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Jan. 6th Committee also met with the Inspector General for the Dept. of Homeland Security to learn more about his findings concerning the Secret Service and Jan. 6th.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

John Eastman loses emergency request to protect his phone data from DOJ investigators

Former Trump White House trade adviser Peter Navarro rejects plea deal in contempt of Congress case

[RoseMorninStar]

Isn't executive privilege the right of the current president (to protect the office) and not the right of those no longer in office to protect themselves?

[N.E. Brigand]

Last night the Jan. 6th Committee subpoenaed the Secret Service for the missing text messages and other materials. The Committee points out that multiple House committees first asked the Department of Homeland Security (of which the Secret Service operates) for all relevant documents on January 16, 2021, just ten days after the attempted insurrection. Two days ago, the Secret Service issued a statement claiming that they've been fully responsive, but it appears they were playing games with that letter: it says that the systems upgrade (which may have resulted in texts being deleted) was initiated "in January 2021" and that "DHS OIG requested electronic communications for the first time on Feb. 26, 2021, after the migration was under way" (emphasis original).

As others have noted, that's clearly b.s. meant to deceive. When exactly in January 2021 did the project start? Was it before or after the Congressional request on Jan. 16? Why is that request not mentioned?

Oh, and just in the past hour the Guardian reported that the DHS Inspector General yesterday told the Jan. 6th Committee that "the Secret Service’s explanation for the 'erased' texts kept shifting".

At this point, I think the big question will be: did Donald Trump order the text messages to be destroyed or did Tony Ornato come up with the idea on his own?

- - - - - - - - - -
On another 2020 election subject, a former FBI counterintelligence agent discusses the national security risks inherent in the now-infamous December 18, 2020 meeting that was a focus of this week's Jan. 6th Committee hearing. Yesterday I thought it might be gratuitous of me to have mentioned that attendee Patrick Byrne (who has just testified to the Committee) had been the paramour of a Russian spy (who says Byrne provided her with financial assistance after she was deported back to Russia). As as noted at the link, the other attendees included Mike Flynn,* who was a highly-paid unregistered agent of Turkey and is now being sued by the military for having failed to disclose payments he received from Russian state television, and Rudy Giuliani, who was already then implicated in the foreign influence schemes for which Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman have since pleaded guilty.

*By the way, Steve Bannon says that he thinks Flynn will be Donald Trump's 2024 running mate, or that if Trump doesn't run, that Flynn himself will run for president.

- - - - - - - - - - -
Edited to add: I think the writers screwed up by having characters named both Kurt Olsen and William Olson, both of whom are lawyers, and one of whom (Olson) encouraged Donald Trump to hire the other (Olsen).

Couldn't they at least do follow the example of Ralph Bakshi and Peter Beagle when they changed Saruman to Aruman?

[N.E. Brigand]

Isn't executive privilege the right of the current president (to protect the office) and not the right of those no longer in office to protect themselves?

Broadly speaking, yes. The current Dept. of Justice position, as explained in their "Statement of Interest" on whether Mark Meadows can be compelled to testify, is that:

• longstanding DOJ guidance is that "Congress may not compel current and former immediate advisors to a sitting President to testify about their official duties";

• but DOJ (until this statement) had not issued an opinion about former immediate advisors of a former President;

• in the case of a former President, "the relevant constitutional concerns are lessened ... [but] continue to have force";

• i.e., Presidents wouldn't be able to speak freely with advisors if Congress could make those conversations public after the President left office; and

• therefore, such testimony is covered by immunity "unless Congress has made a sufficient showing of need or the immunity has been waived".

The Statement goes on to say that in this case, the need is sufficient (the investigation is important and the information that Meadows could provide is relevant and not available from other sources), and President Biden has waived immunity: DOJ thinks Meadows should be forced to testify. I think the court is likely to agree. If he appeals, I think he'd lose, even in the Republican-controlled Supreme Court, but it would drag the process out, probably until next year, when Republicans may very well control the House and close the investigation. Will Meadows appeal? Almost certainly. (Unless, as some are speculating, he's already cooperating with the Dept. of Justice.)