2020 Election: Predictions, Results and Reactions

[RoseMorninStar]

The Daily Beast has new reporting about how Kanye West's 2020 presidential campaign was secretly a Republican effort intended to help Donald Trump win reelection, although by having used intermediaries they may be able to avoid legal jeopardy.

I think that was pretty obvious with the shenanigans they pulled in Wisconsin.



As for Trumps mobster comment

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I took another look at the wording of the per curium judgment issued by the D.C. Circuit panel in the case in which Trump is trying to keep the National Archives from providing the Select Committee with documents, and it actually reads " The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate pending disposition of any motion for injunction filed in the Supreme Court." So that explains why Trump's legal team hasn't filed yet. Because all they need to do is file the petition for review and for a motion for an injunction before the 14 days expired, and the documents will continue to be withheld until the high court takes some action (as opposed to the other way around where the documents would be released unless the SCOTUS takes some action).

[N.E. Brigand]

It was Rick Perry, the Governor of Texas from 2000 to 2015 and the U.S. Secretary of Energy under President Trump from 2017 to 2019, who texted White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows with the suggestion, on Nov. 4, 2020 (before the closest states had finished counting), that Trump convince the Republican-controlled legislatures in Georgia, Pennsylvania, and other states to simply declare that Trump had won those states.

And per new reporting tonight, it was Scott Perry, a U.S. Congressman from Pennsylvania, who texted Meadows with a request that Meadows "check your Signal," which is a reference to an encrypted app that government officials probably shouldn't be using -- particular when, like Perry, they had criticized Hillary Clinton for using non-governmental email service for official business. Scott Perry also played a role in Trump's aborted plan to name conspiracy-driven lawyer Jeffrey Clark as his Attorney General in Dec. 2020.

The Jan. 6 Select Committee has asked Scott Perry to voluntarily appear for an interview. He is the first member of Congress to get such a request.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

As expected, Trump waited until the last day and then filing his petition for a writ of certiorari and an application for an emergency stay with the SCOTUS to block the delivery of the 1/6 papers from the National Archives to the Select Committee. Now we wait and see how long the court just sits on it and does nothing (spoiler alert: probably a long time).

ETA: The attorneys representing the Select Committee have already filed a motion requesting an expedited consideration of the petition. We'll see if that makes any difference.

[N.E. Brigand]

This is a valuable essay both for its insights into the self-deception that was popularizing the conspiracy theories that led to the Insurrection and for noting how people in Trump's orbit were recycling specific conspiracy theories:

From Election Day to Jan 6: Inside the MAGA Mind

By mid-December, the idea of Trump using the Insurrection Act to carry out a coup was becoming popular. Local GOP officials were openly urging martial law to ‘fix the election’ and talking about the Rubicon. In a heated meeting [on Sat. Dec. 18, 2020] in the Oval Office, Michael Flynn, Sidney Powell and Patrick Byrne pressed Trump to send in troops to seize voting machines, appoint Powell Special Counsel and invoke special national security authority. The meeting went on all evening and all night, ending in a screaming match. It finished after midnight with no final decisions made.

A few minutes later, Donald Trump tweeted for the first time about a big rally on January 6. “Be there, will be wild!”

And his followers believed they were being called to a sacred duty. The author notes how on "The Donald," a pro-Trump forum, there were posts a few days before Jan. 6th in which people were writing things like this:

"Today I had the very difficult conversation with my children, that daddy might not come home from D.C. As a Veteran this is always something you are prepared to discuss, but it never comes easy."

[N.E. Brigand]

Trump aide Peter Navarro recently published a memoir titled In Trump Time: My Journal of America's Plague Year. The Daily Beast interviewed him about passages pertaining to the events of January 6. He seems to be using the portions of the book concerning Trump's post-election scheming as a way to reduce the Trump team's responsibility for the events of the insurrection. Sure, he says, they wanted to overturn the events of the election, but not through violence. Rather, they hoped to force 24 hours of televised debate (two in the Senate, two in the House for each of six states whose slate of electors they found objectionable) in the hopes of getting claims of fraud squarely into the public view and pressuring Mike Pence to reject the certification of Biden's victory.

- - - - - - - - - - -
Meanwhile, Talking Points Memo reports that the House Select Committee has obtained evidence about was a second rally planned for January 6 by the same people who organized Trump's speech that day. The second rally was to be held in front of the Supreme Court, which is directly across the street from the Capitol, and it was to start at 2 p.m., just after the first rally was supposed to end. Permits had been obtained, a stage was set up, and security guards were on hand, but they found at first that the event had been delayed and then that their services weren't needed at all.

This news could be read two ways: either in support of some Trump associates' claims that events unexpectedly got out of hand, or as evidence that the Trump team did plan to bring the mob from the Ellipse by the White House (where Trump spoke) to the Capitol.

[N.E. Brigand]

Some of the people indicted for their activity during the Jan. 6 insurrection have challenged the government's use of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), charging them with obstruction of justice. Here is the relevant law they to which they were objecting:

18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
(c) Whoever corruptly—
(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or

(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

There had been some speculation among experienced court watchers that a judge would agree with defendants' claims that this code didn't apply, for various reasons, including the argument that the certification of electoral votes constitutes an "official proceeding" or that the definition of "corruptly" isn't clear. If that happens, the government might have to bring different and possibly harder to prove charges (perhaps including sedition) against the alleged insurrectionists.

Today, Judge Dabney Friedrich, who was appointed by President Trump, upheld the government's application of this law to these cases. It's possible that other judges in other cases may rule differently, but Friedrich was viewed by many as the likeliest judge to block the government from doing so.

I dropped the berry in a stream
And caught a little silver intangible object.

Federal Judge Dabney Friedrich - a Trump appointee -- has denied a request by two January 6 rioters to throw out the charge of "obstruction of an official proceeding," a major victory for the Justice Department as many January 6 defendants have been charged with that crime and many are trying to challenge it as not being applicable.

Three other federal judges have since followed suit with similar rulings: Amit Mehta, Trevor McFadden, and Timothy Kelly (the last opinion was issued just today).

Also today, Judge McFadden, who like Judges Friedrich and Kelly was appointed by Donald Trump, today ruled against one January 6 defendant's claim that the U.S. government was engaged in selective prosecution by charging him for crimes for which rioters in Portland, OR were not charged.

And Judge Kelly also rejects the argument that the January 6 defendants are being selectively prosecuted for crimes for which protesters against the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh were not charged.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

At least one protestor against the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh is being prosecuted for sending threatening emails to then Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

[N.E. Brigand]

Some of the people indicted for their activity during the Jan. 6 insurrection have challenged the government's use of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), charging them with obstruction of justice. [...] There had been some speculation among experienced court watchers that a judge would agree with defendants' claims that this code didn't apply, for various reasons, including the argument that the certification of electoral votes constitutes an "official proceeding" or that the definition of "corruptly" isn't clear. If that happens, the government might have to bring different and possibly harder to prove charges (perhaps including sedition) against the alleged insurrectionists.

Today, Judge Dabney Friedrich, who was appointed by President Trump, upheld the government's application of this law to these cases. It's possible that other judges in other cases may rule differently, but Friedrich was viewed by many as the likeliest judge to block the government from doing so.

Federal Judge Dabney Friedrich - a Trump appointee -- has denied a request by two January 6 rioters to throw out the charge of "obstruction of an official proceeding," a major victory for the Justice Department as many January 6 defendants have been charged with that crime and many are trying to challenge it as not being applicable.

Three other federal judges have since followed suit with similar rulings: Amit Mehta (appointed by Barack Obama), Trevor McFadden (appointed by Donald Trump), and Timothy Kelly (also a Trump appointee); that last opinion was issued just today.

And then there were five. Judge Randolph Moss, an Obama appointee, has also ruled in favor of the government's use of obstruction charges against January 6 defendants.

All these rulings ought to have the effect of getting some defendants to accept plea deals and cooperate.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

At least one protestor against the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh is being prosecuted for sending threatening emails to then Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Right on cue, the Ninth Circuit has ruled that the charges against the protester can go forward, reversing the District Court judge (who happens to be the brother of Justice Breyer).

9th Circuit rules that California man can be charged with threatening Mitch McConnell

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'll put this here, I guess, though I'm not sure where it belongs, if anywhere.

Alex Jones Claims He’ll ‘Dish All the Dirt’ on Trump in Retaliation for Promoting Vaccines

Don't hold your breath.

[RoseMorninStar]

I'll put this here, I guess, though I'm not sure where it belongs, if anywhere.

Alex Jones Claims He’ll ‘Dish All the Dirt’ on Trump in Retaliation for Promoting Vaccines

Don't hold your breath.

From the link (my bolding)

“It’s not to hurt Trump, it’s so people can know how pathetic he is when you think he is playing 4D chess, going to save you and he’s not! He’s not a bad guy, but he doesn’t know what he’s doing.”

Well, it's not like he's wrong...
(Although Trump uncharacteristically did the right thing promoting the vaccine, possibly in self-interest, but still.)

[N.E. Brigand]

Bernard Kerik was the New York City Police Commissioner on Sep. 11, 2001. Later he was appointed by President Bush the younger as the interim Interior Minister in Iraq following the U.S. invasion of that country. Then in late 2004, Bush nominated Kerik to head the Department of Homeland Security.

Shortly after, Kerik withdrew from consideration from that role, saying that he had, without knowing it, engaged an illegal immigrant as a nanny and housekeeper (something which had previously led to the withdrawal of other high level nominations by Presidents Bush and Clinton). But then it also emerged that Kerik, who was married in 2001, had been carrying on two different extramarital affairs at the time, and used an apartment set aside for 9/11 recovery work to tryst with one of his paramours. And then it came out that Kerik had accepted a $250,000 interest free "loan" from an Israeli billionaire while working in Iraq. And then in 2007, Kerik was indicted on multiple counts of tax fraud apparently in relation to payments he'd received in 2001-03 form a real estate developer (no, not that one). He pleaded guilty in 2009 and served more than three years in prison.

In February 2020, President Trump pardoned him.

Kerik, who had been appointed as police commissioner in 2000 by Mayor Rudy Giuliani, was later involved in Giuliani's efforts to help Donald Trump remain in power by overturning the 2020 election results. Now Politico reports that Kerik has provided some documents to the House Select Committee. He's also withheld some documents, claiming they are "attorney work product" (he himself is not an attorney, so I'm not sure that claim will hold up), but he's provided a list of those documents to the committee. One of them is titled:

"Draft Letter form POTUS to Seize Evidence in the Interest of National Security for the 2020 Elections"

Among the documents Kerik did provide to the committee was one that listed events Trump's team was planning to get the election results changed, including:

"Protests at Local Officials Homes/Offices".

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Attorney work product generally refers to material that reveals an attorney thoughts, strategies, impressions, conclusions, opinions, etc. in the course of - or in preparation for - litigation. So what kind of litigation would a letter regarding seizing evidence in the interest of National Security be relevant to?

[N.E. Brigand]

Is Marcy Wheeler correct that "Trump Breached His Own Privilege by Blabbing to Sean Hannity" and thus "whatever got shared with a journalist has lost its privileged status"?

Tonight, the House Select Committee invited Sean Hannity to testify about the events leading up to the Insurrection, on the basis of multiple text messages from Hannity that the Committee has obtained that appear to show that Hannity, who obviously was not an employee in the Executive Branch, had, as the Committee says, "knowledge of concerns by President Trump’s White House Counsel’s Office regarding the legality of the former President’s plans for January 6th."

The Committee also asks Hannity this question:

"Similarly, on January 5th, the night before the violent riot, you sent and received a stream of texts. You wrote: 'Im very worried about the next 48 hours.' With the counting of electoral votes scheduled for January 6th at 1 p.m., why were you concerned about the next 48 hours?"

That's a good point. What did Hannity think was going to happen on January 7th? Remember CNN reporter Jim Acosta tweeting on January 6th that someone who was in touch with both the White House and the insurrectionists said the hope was for the attackers to remain in the Capitol through the night? I don't think Hannity was that person. But this does add to the appearance that there was some coordinated plan that included the White House.

[N.E. Brigand]

Huh. Donald Trump had been scheduled to hold a press conference on January 6th. This evening he announced it wasn't happening.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Is Marcy Wheeler correct that "Trump Breached His Own Privilege by Blabbing to Sean Hannity" and thus "whatever got shared with a journalist has lost its privileged status"?

My immediate response without clicking on the link was "what privilege?" Then I clicked on the link and the first think that I saw in bold letters was "None of these communications are subject to any kind of privilege,

Are you really surprised that Trump cancelled his 1/6 press conference?

[N.E. Brigand]

George Conway compares Hannity's position to that of CNN host Chris Cuomo, who was deposed by the New York attorney general's office as part of the investigation into sexual harassment and retaliation claims against his brother, Andrew, who was then New York's governor.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Meanwhile, the Committee's chair says they also would like to hear directly from former Vice President Mike Pence.

[RoseMorninStar]

It would be interesting to hear from Mike Pence.

There was an interesting article in Newsweek: Exclusive: Secret Commandos with Shoot-to-Kill Authority Were at the Capitol

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Is Marcy Wheeler correct that "Trump Breached His Own Privilege by Blabbing to Sean Hannity" and thus "whatever got shared with a journalist has lost its privileged status"

Cycling back to this, yes Marcy Wheeler is correct that a very strong argument can be made that by revealing conversations that he had with While House counsel attorneys to Hannity, he waived claims that those communications are protected by the attorney-client privilege, and that therefore those attorneys should be able to be compelled to reveal the substance of those communications, if not by the Select Committee, then by the Justice Department. I doubt it will happen though.