2020 Election Fallout 15: More Information Is Being Revealed About The Big Lie

[fraurosena]

The line up for tomorrow:

 

[Cartmann99]

 

[Cartmann99]

If you're seeing this after it ended, the hearing didn't start until 10:45am ET. You'll need to advance the slider unless you want to watch people milling around for a while.

Edited June 13, 2022 by Cartmann99

[fraurosena]

For those of you who, like me, can't watch live right now, here's a live twitter thread instead:

"Apparently inebriated Rudy Gouliani"

[Cartmann99]

 

[Cartmann99]

 

[Cartmann99]

 

[47of74]

Barr isn't one to be talking about reality either.

[Dandruff]

1 hour ago, Cartmann99 said:

 

I found this segment especially powerful and to the point.  They're letting Trump's followers publicly know that they've been played.  They've been added to the list of victims.  There has been no apparent value returned for their $$s and I'm pretty sure they don't enjoy looking like pathetic chumps.  0-2.

I expect that a bunch will stick around for whatever passes for principle in their world, but maybe some of the rest will consider what they have(n't) gained and refuse to give any more.

[Cartmann99]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

[GreyhoundFan]

"4 takeaways from the second Jan. 6 committee hearing"

Quote

The Jan. 6 committee used its second hearing to lay out evidence that Donald Trump must have known better: that he was repeatedly informed that his claims of widespread voter fraud were bogus and that he had lost the 2020 election — and he pressed forward in trying to overturn the result regardless.

The question is crucial when it comes to determining whether Trump’s effort meets the legal definition of acting “corruptly.”

Below, some takeaways from the hearing.

1. Trump was told, but he didn’t care

Last week, it was an open question as to just how often Trump was actually told that what he was saying was false. Monday’s hearing indicated the answer: plenty of times.

Former attorney general William P. Barr was featured prominently. We already knew Barr had testified that he told Trump that allegations of widespread voter fraud were “bullshit.” And on Monday, they played video of Barr saying he had debunked specific allegations to Trump.

He said he examined the allegations of vote “dumps” in Detroit on election night in such detail that he knew how many precincts there were in the city. He said he told Trump that there was nothing there — that the boxes being brought to the TCF Center merely reflected that the ballot counting was being done centrally, unlike in other parts of the state.

“I said … ‘did all the people complaining about it point out to you, you actually did better in Detroit than you did last time?’ ” Barr added. “I mean, there’s no indication of fraud in Detroit. And I told him that the stuff that his people were shoveling out to the public was bullshit.”

The committee showed video of Trump then citing the very same debunked conspiracy theory on Dec. 2.

Barr also referenced a claim about there supposedly being more votes than voters in Philadelphia, which was easily debunked (it compared primary data to general election data) but which Trump continued to promote. Barr says he thought he had brought this up with Trump as well.

Former deputy attorney general Richard Donoghue also ran through a litany of allegations in significant detail, saying he informed Trump that there was nothing to them. He specifically cited a popular theory — elevated by Trump — about a “suitcase” of votes in Georgia which wasn’t actually a suitcase. He said he told Trump that “was not true.”

“I tried to, again, put this in perspective and to try to put it in very clear terms to the president,” Donoghue said. “And I said something to the effect of, ‘Sir, we’ve done dozens of investigations, hundreds of interviews. The major allegations are not supported by the evidence developed. We’ve looked in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nevada. We’re doing our job. Much of the info you’re getting is false.’ ”

From there, the question is whether Trump understood or agreed. But both Barr and Donoghue indicated that Trump wasn’t much interested in his claims being debunked or actually delving into details.

“I was somewhat demoralized because I thought, ‘Boy, if he really believes this stuff, he has … become detached from reality,’ ” Barr said. “On the other hand, you know, when I went into this and would, you know, tell them how crazy some of these allegations were, there was never an indication of interest in what the actual facts were.”

Donoghue added that “there were so many of these allegations that when you gave him a very direct answer on one of them, he wouldn’t fight us on it, but he would move to another allegation.”

That sounds a lot more like a guy who is looking for a pretext to overturn an election than one who is legitimately worried about election integrity. We might never find that Trump knew the truth — Barr suggested that it’s possible the former president actually believed these far-fetched and widely debunked notions — but the fact that he was told in such detail is important.

2. More evidence that almost everyone knew Trump had lost

Last week’s hearing featured evidence that those around Trump knew that he had lost and that there wasn’t sufficient fraud to overturn the result. And Monday’s added more to that record.

Early in the hearing, the committee played testimony from White House lawyer Eric Herschmann saying that he “never saw any evidence whatsoever” to support Trump’s claims about voting machines being used to overturn the election.

They also showed Trump campaign general counsel Matt Morgan saying that any evidence of wrongdoing was “not sufficient to be outcome-determinant” — a conclusion he said was shared by two key advisers to Vice President Mike Pence, Marc Short and Greg Jacob.

The committee also played clips of Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien and campaign aide Jason Miller saying they advised against Trump declaring victory that night — as Trump ultimately did — because votes were still coming in and the outcome was indeed in doubt. And it played video of Barr confirming that he knew in advance that Democrats would gain substantial ground as mail votes were counted, especially in urban areas. (Trump would later baselessly claim that such gains were suspicious.)

All this testimony furthered the idea that the effort to overturn the election was being undertaken despite smart people in the room — the people who actually understood the evidence, which Trump had no regard for.

3. Giuliani’s time in the barrel

This brings us to the question of who was delivering the counterprogramming to Trump. As Monday’s hearing wore on, it became abundantly clear how little regard Trump aides had for the man who filled the vacuum: Rudy Giuliani.

Early in the hearing, the committee played video of Miller confirming that Giuliani was inebriated on election night — including when he was seeking to influence Trump’s actions. Miller said Giuliani was “definitely intoxicated.”

As the hearing progressed, the witnesses painted a picture of this man — one who was intoxicated on such an important night — essentially hijacking Trump’s campaign apparatus. Stepien said he was happy to be disassociated from what was happening.

“I didn’t mind being characterized as part of ‘Team Normal,’ ” Stepien said, contrasting that with Giuliani’s team.

Both Stepien and Herschmann could barely hide their disdain for various theories being floated by Trump and his allies, including Sidney Powell.

“What they were proposing, I thought, was nuts,” Herschmann said.

And Morgan said that the campaign struggled to find lawyers because of the types of baseless and wild allegations being lodged.

“Law firms were not comfortable making the arguments that Rudy Giuliani was making publicly,” Morgan said, adding that he had a “similar conversation with most all of them.”

At another point, the committee played audio of Trump’s son-in-law and White House adviser Jared Kushner saying he told Trump that listening to Rudy Giuliani was “not the approach I would take if I was you.”

4. A new crime floated

As its investigation has unfolded, the committee has floated a number of laws Trump might have broken, including obstruction of an official proceeding and witness tampering.

But on Monday, the committee gestured at a new one: fundraising fraud.

In a video played at the end of the hearing, committee investigator Amanda Wick detailed Trump’s fundraising practices. She said he raised $250 million after the election, while pushing for donors to support something called his “Official Election Defense Fund.”

But she disclosed that Trump aides Hanna Allred and Gary Coby said no fund technically existed. She also noted that most of the money went to Trump’s Save America PAC, and very little was used for challenging the election results.

The clear implication was that this was, at the very least, a highly deceptive fundraising ploy — deceptive because it relied on lies about voter fraud, but also because the money wasn’t going to what people believed it did.

Asked after the hearing whether this broke the law, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) told CNN: “We’re a legislative committee. And it’s clear that he intentionally misled his donors, asked them to donate to a fund that didn’t exist and used the money raised for something other than what it said.”

We’ll see how much the committee presses on this matter.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

The rest of the week is shaping up to be interesting:

[GreyhoundFan]

"Why the 25th Amendment and pardons loom large for Jan. 6 committee"

Quote

Few talking points have been as politically fruitful for Donald Trump as calling every attempt to scrutinize him a “witch hunt.” It’s a convenient way to gloss over all the evidence of dubious and even potentially illegal activity. And it has worked even when a supposed “witch hunt” led to multiple criminal convictions, with watchdogs concluding there had been wrongdoing and — as notably as anything — lots of people close to Trump confirming they witnessed the sorcery firsthand.

All of which is to say: No matter what the Jan. 6 committee proves, it won’t be enough for certain people.

But looking the other way and pretending this is all one big nothingburger would certainly become much more difficult if the committee can demonstrate two things it played up in its first hearing last week:

1. That members of Congress involved in trying to overturn the election sought pardons.
2. That multiple members of Trump’s Cabinet considered invoking the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office.

Though the committee has hinted that these questions will feature heavily in the coming days and weeks, the extent of its findings remains something of a black box. But if we learn that those involved in the election-overturning effort felt they had criminal liability, and that those closest to Trump considered such an extraordinary move, you simply cannot say this wasn’t worth a healthy and extraordinary investigation.

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) promised at Thursday’s hearing that evidence would soon be presented on both fronts.

On pardons, Cheney said: “As you will see, Representative [Scott] Perry [of Pennsylvania] contacted the White House in the weeks after January 6th to seek a presidential pardon. Multiple other Republican congressmen also sought presidential pardons for their roles in attempting to overturn the 2020 election.” (Perry has called this an “absolute, shameless and soulless lie.”)

On the 25th Amendment, Cheney said: “You will hear about members of the Trump Cabinet discussing the possibility of invoking the 25th Amendment and replacing the president of the United States.”

What we do know about these aspects of the investigation is piecemeal. As the New York Times recapped last week on the 25th Amendment, ABC News’s Jonathan Karl reported in his book that both Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin discussed it. Pompeo denied having such a conversation, while Mnuchin has declined to comment.

But last week, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos confirmed that she, at least, was involved in such discussions. Per USA Today:

This was a major reason that before resigning, DeVos first wanted to know whether invoking the 25th Amendment to remove Trump was a viable option. That Jan. 7, she spoke with other Cabinet members to gauge their thoughts — and she also talked to [Vice President Mike] Pence, who’d have to be on board to remove the president.

“I spoke with the vice president and just let him know I was there to do whatever he wanted and needed me to do or help with, and he made it very clear that he was not going to go in that direction or that path,” DeVos says. “I spoke with colleagues. I wanted to get a better understanding of the law itself and see if it was applicable in this case. There were more than a few people who had those conversations internally.”

Once she understood that removing the president was pretty much impossible, DeVos resigned later in the day.

DeVos’s comments were overshadowed by the committee’s hearing that night, but right there is confirmation that some close to Trump were speaking in these terms. (And that’s on top of GOP House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy having said he would ask Trump to resign.) We’ll find out more about how seriously the 25th Amendment was discussed, but the fact that it was discussed at all — and that DeVos has decided to disclose that, even belatedly — underscores the severity of the situation and how those closest to Trump at the highest levels interpreted it.

As for pardons, we know even less. The committee in a letter last month obliquely said that evidence from “former White House personnel has identified an effort by certain House Republicans after January 6th to seek a presidential pardon” for actions related to overturning the election. The committee cited Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) as “a potential participant in that effort.” (Biggs declined to comment.)

The committee didn’t allude to such an effort in its letter late last year, seeking Perry’s testimony, but that letter came early in its investigation. And Perry is the one Cheney chose to single out at Thursday’s hearing. That might suggest the committee sees evidence involving him as being particularly compelling, or it could reflect that Perry was more central to the plot to overturn the election. (He has certainly figured more prominently in the known evidence, including in efforts to install Jeffrey Clark as acting attorney general.)

Ultimately, what we have are two crucial questions — which become more crucial given the denials by Pompeo and Perry. If these things happened and they falsely denied it, that would only reinforce the sense that a coverup occurred.

If the committee backs up its assertions — as DeVos now has in the case of the 25th Amendment — it would reinforce a conclusion that those involved in the effort to overturn the election knew that what they were up to might be illegal, and that those around the president knew his actions were as dangerous and anti-democratic as they appeared.

What would be the defense then? Perhaps it will be that these Cabinet officials were acting as part of the “deep state.” Perhaps it would be that the lawmakers were only trying to insulate themselves from being implicated in the next “witch hunt.” But at some point, the fact that this kind of thing has happened repeatedly might point in a different direction.

 

[Howl]

Remarkable to watch Barr's testimony, including how he thought Trump was becoming "detached from reality,"

@47of74, a tweeter noted that this exact language could be used to claim that Trump really was "detached from reality" and is therefore not responsible for his actions. Barr is sly that way. 

OTOH, re: the Trump Official Election Defense Fund -- that generated a LOT of cash, and when you fraudulently rip people off, you gotta launder some money.  This could well be everybody's undoing. One can only hope.  This may just be the tip of the iceberg of Trump-related fraudulent fundraising. The emails, texts and mailer solicitations were pretty much non stop. Remember that theTrumps are 100% corrupt -- it's the only thing they know.  And there are such things as forensic accountants who can spot that shit (money laundering and other financial skull duggery) a mile away.  Also, real estate transactions are frequently used to launder money and guess who has a lot of real estate?

And on yet another hand, John Eastwood has outed himself as a Flat Earth nincompoop. 

[Howl]

Thinking back to the Jan. 6 Committee.  Putting the committee together, Dems didn't back down on not allowing Gaetz and Greene and the other alt reich shitheads on the committee.  This allows the current format -- structured, reasoned, calm and presenting specific visual and audio clips to make clear points, NO, actually to back up and PROVE specific points.  The testimony of Trump adjacent people is very powerful. 

Yes, Fox and all other talking heads will refute it all, but too many people are seeing it.  The information about Trump's official election grifting to rip off gullible MAGA is especially important. 

If you'll recall other hearings and the impeachment, there was so much idiotic acting out -- Louie Gohmert, Gaetz, Kennedy et al. -- it was a damn circus.  This is different. 

Edited June 14, 2022 by Howl

[fraurosena]

Loudermilk is in deep doo-doo.

I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s one of those who asked for preemptive pardons.

[fraurosena]

 

[fraurosena]

 

[AlmostSavedAtTacoBell]

39 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

 

I really wish with all my heart the Trumpets could understand what was being said here. It is being spelled out so clearly to anyone who isn’t steeped in the off-brand orange Kook-Aid (typo and it stays.) The silver lining is that it reminds me why I have cut certain family out of my life. 

[47of74]

Yeah sure Benito

Quote

Rudy Giuliani denied Tuesday that he was drunk when he urged former President Donald Trump to declare victory on election night as votes were still being counted, and said he was "disgusted" by a Trump aide who'd testified otherwise before the Jan. 6 committee.

"I REFUSED all alcohol that evening," Giuliani wrote in a pair of tweets that were later deleted.

In videotaped testimony played at the Jan. 6 committee hearing Monday, Jason Miller and Bill Stepien, said the former New York City mayor demanded to speak to the then-president as the returns were coming in on election night and told Trump to declare victory.

"I think the mayor was definitely intoxicated," Miller said.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

From conservative columnist Max Boot: "I thought the Jan. 6 committee wouldn’t matter. I was wrong."

Quote

I admit to having been skeptical, ahead of time, of the hearings planned by the House select committee investigating the events of Jan. 6, 2021. What more is there to be said, I wondered? The evidence of Donald Trump’s guilt in inciting an insurrection was already so obvious that it was hard to imagine that the committee would have much to add. This was not, after all, a situation such as Watergate, where the scandal happened behind closed doors. The entire nation saw Trump’s incendiary remarks and tweets, and the riot that followed, on national television.

I am happy to say I was wrong. The committee’s hearings are exceeding expectations, because it is not behaving like a typical congressional committee. There is no grandstanding and no preening. There are no petty partisan squabbles. There is not even the disjointedness that normally occurs when a bunch of politicians are each given five minutes to question each witness. There is only the relentless march of evidence, all of it deeply incriminating to a certain former president who keeps insisting that he was robbed of his rightful election victory.

The committee’s recent hearings — there have been two in the past week, with more planned — have been organized like carefully choreographed television productions, and I mean that as a compliment. The committee has been focused on doing what all good television productions, whether factual or fictional, do: telling a story that enthralls the viewer.

Only a few of the committee members have spoken so far. Imagine what heroic self-restraint it takes for elected officials to understand that they can make a greater impact with their silence than with noisy blather. The members are allowing their staffers to play an unusually prominent role not only in questioning witnesses on tape but acting as narrators for mini-documentaries laying out what they have found.

The biggest complaint against the committee, heard at ever-increasing decibels from Republicans, is that it is a partisan hit job — and never mind that two prominent Republicans sit on the committee. Rep. Liz Cheney (Wyo.) and Rep. Adam Kinzinger (Ill.) are denigrated as RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) because they had the courage to act on House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s convictions. (McCarthy initially held Trump responsible for the mob attack but voted against impeaching him.)

Accusations of partisanship have been amply refuted by the hearings, which have been entirely factual and notably free of partisan rancor. There have been no anti-Trump, much less anti-Republican, rants. The committee members are focused with forensic, factual intensity on the question of Trump’s responsibility for the events of Jan. 6. They are making a case beyond any reasonable doubt in the court of public opinion, even if it remains to be seen whether there is sufficient evidence to indict Trump in an actual court of law.

The committee’s most potent weapon is the words of Trump’s own aides. One after another, we have heard Trump loyalists say that the election was fair and that Trump has no rational basis for thinking otherwise. Last week’s star witness was Ivanka Trump, who testified that she accepted then-Attorney General William P. Barr’s conclusion that her father lost the election. This led the former president to go on a public rant against his own daughter, claiming that she was “not involved in looking at, or studying, Election results.” The implication is that if only Ivanka had been as deep in the weeds as dear old Dad, she would have been convinced that the vote was the “crime of the century.”

Except that the committee has now heard from many Trump aides who were deeply involved in the vote count, and they also concluded there was no significant fraud. The only people who thought otherwise were weirdos like Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani, who was described by Trump adviser Jason Miller as being “definitely intoxicated” on election night. (Giuliani denies it.) Bill Stepien, Trump’s campaign manager, testified that he was part of “Team Normal” and that Powell, Giuliani, et al., were on the opposite team. Presumably that would be Team Crazy. Guess which team Trump was rooting for?

The most damaging witness for Trump was his own attorney general. Barr described Trump’s election lies as “bulls--t,” “crazy stuff,” “complete nonsense,” and suggested that Trump “has become detached from reality if he really believes this stuff.” Barr said he had tried to set Trump straight, but there was “never an indication of interest in what the actual facts were.”

Barr’s statement was seen by some lawyers as evidence of the “criminal intent” that would be needed to convict Trump of crimes such as sedition. Whether that is accurate or not, Trump’s own aides have made an open-and-shut case that he is not fit to run Mar-a-Lago, much less the United States of America. Either Trump is spectacularly delusional or spectacularly dishonest. Take your choice. Or maybe he’s both? Whichever the case, he has no business returning to the nation’s highest office.

 

[Howl]

23 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Loudermilk is in deep doo-doo.

Yes, there is CCTV footage of a man on that "tour" taking a photos of a stairwell, obviously a recon.  In the background, Loudermilk chats with another person on the "tour."

Keep in mind that there were no Capitol tours allowed during this period of time. 

 

[Howl]

OK, here's a Huffpo article with video embedded: 

New Video Shows Trump Rally Attendees Scoping Out Capitol Day Before Jan. 6 Attack  Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) gave a tour of House office buildings on Jan. 5.

snip: 

WASHINGTON ― New footage released by the committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection shows members of a tour group hosted by a Republican lawmaker [Loudermilk] taking pictures of Capitol complex hallways and making menacing comments about members of Congress.

[Cartmann99]

Before Jan. 6, Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio was given plans to occupy congressional buildings, Supreme Court

Quote

In the week leading up to the Jan. 6 Capitol assault, Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio received a nine-page memo titled "1776 Returns" that laid out detailed plans to occupy congressional office buildings to protest the counting of the Electoral College votes from the 2020 presidential election.

The memo, which was filed in court as part of a recent motion made by one of Tarrio's co-defendants, outlined a goal to "maintain control over as select few, but crucial buildings in the DC area for a set period of time, presenting our demands in unity."

"We must show our politicians We the People are in charge," the memo said. Targeted buildings allegedly included the three Senate and House office buildings, the Supreme Court of the United States, and CNN —to "at least egg doorway," according to the filing.

The demands outlined in the memo included "free and fair elections," "liberty or death" and "No Trump, No America."

In "Storm the Winter Palace," a section marked for internal use and a "Patriot Plan" for outside distribution, the directions called for five teams of individuals per building, ranging from a "covert sleeper" who would spend the day inside the targeted building to a recruiter who would gather a crowd. A group of 50 "patriots" would then occupy each building.

However, nowhere in the document is there a suggestion that violence should be used against police, members of Congress or their staff or other Capitol personnel.

The document includes a page to assign roles for each of the targeted locations and maps of the identified buildings.

Between Jan. 1 - 5, 2021, the memo says, those in charge should recruit members, scope out road closures and set up appointments with various representatives in the buildings.

"Use Covid to your advantage," the document advised. "Pack huge face masks and face shields, protect your identity."

On Jan. 6, 2021, "1776 Returns" directed certain individuals known as "leads" to dress in suits and stay inside the targeted buildings to find entrances and exits. Once a sufficient crowd was recruited, the memo suggests, those already inside should open the doors and allow the group to enter.

"This might include causing trouble near the front doors to distract guards who may be holding the doors off," it said, "The goal is to ensure there is an entry point for the masses to rush the building."

Participants around the city should pull fire alarms at various locations like Walmart, hotels, and museums to distract law enforcement if necessary, according to the document.

Once inside, the entire group would then present its list of demands and perform sit-ins in certain senators' offices, the filing says.

The manual advised readers to use large trucks or a large caravan of cars to block intersections to make traversing the city more difficult. "Now is the time to reach out to truckers or bikers for Trump for these roadblocks," a note reads.

According to the portion of the memo meant for external distribution, participants were to demand a new election be conducted on Jan. 20, 2021, monitored by the National Guard.

"Mitch McConnell, Kevin McCarthy, Mike Pence & Bill Gates," it says, "We the people are watching you.

"Rand Paul & Ron DeSantis...We the people love you."

The existence of the 1776 Returns document was revealed when Tarrio was first indicted earlier this year on conspiracy charges. Prosecutors alleged Tarrio, who has now been charged with seditious conspiracy and pleaded not guilty, was allegedly sent the document by an unknown individual. After sending Tarrio the document, the individual allegedly stated, "The revolution is important than anything," to which investigators say Tarrio replied, "That's what every waking moment consists of...I'm not playing games."

At the same time, Tarrio and other Proud Boys leaders were operating a so-called "Ministry of Self Defense" organization, with Tarrio at the top of the power structure.

"This group was to form the nucleus of leadership in a new chapter of the Proud Boys organization, which Tarrio described as a 'national rally planning' chapter. The first event targeted by the group was the rally in D.C. on January 6," prosecutors allege.

The court filing that the copy of the "1776 Returns" memo accompanied was a request that the judge overseeing the large Proud Boys conspiracy case take another look at the pretrial detention of Tarrio codefendant Zachary Rehl. In the filing, Rehl's legal team argues the memo "is not a plan to attack the Capitol and does not even mention the Capitol. It refers to occupying Congressional office buildings."

The recent indictment of Tarrio and other Proud Boy leaders shows that they used 1776 to refer to themselves on Jan. 6. At 2:57 p.m., during the assault on the Capitol, Tarrio posted a message mentioning 1776 that said "Revolutionaries are now at the Rayburn Building," which the indictment notes was mentioned in the 1776 plan. At 7:44 p.m. one individual sent a text to Tarrio that said, "1776 motherf******."

Tarrio's attorney has not responded to a request for comment.

According to Wednesday's motion, the document was sent to Tarrio by a female acquaintance and not shared with Rehl or other defendants.

"[A] proposal to occupy office buildings is a time-tested protest activity," Rehl's legal team pointed out. "There is no indication that the government has ever charged any protestors who have actually occupied buildings with the felony conspiracies charged in the instant case."

Read the document here: