January 6th legal proceedings and investigations megathread

[Torie]

I call them as I see them. But you have a point, LBJer, which is that it probably is annoying. The only reason I made the post is that I think that bit of evidence moved the ball. I had the other day opined that I was quite confident that Garland would not indict based on Trump telling the Georgia SOS to find him some more votes, without more.

Btw, you need not say you respect me, to disagree with me. I do disagree that I am trying to salvage Trump. I would be delighted if Trump becomes a felon.  But my motives really don't matter here, nor really my opinion other than to the extent it gives others more information.

Time will tell better what the lay of the land is, and who does what.

[Torie]

A double standard of justice is of course wrong. The rest is a matter of what the criminal law provides, and how it operates, and standards of proof. And I admit I am not a criminal lawyer. So sure, perhaps I have it wrong. Time will tell.

[Torie]

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1539354793063456769

Steve Bannon baby (it is just so wrong that we share the same first name), to speak to you in your own dysutopian universe language, when you lose Fox News, you have lost America.

[Torie]

If you submitted a novel with a plot line that state political parties were pretending that their party's losing candidate had won in their state, and submitting fake electors with the idea that their fake votes would actually count, I would have rejected it as utterly implausible. I mean why would they do anything so clownish that had a zero probability of success, and potentially subject them to vote fraud liability? Come on. That would just not happen in the real world, and nobody is going to suspend their disbelief for that one. The critics will pan the novel, and it will be a money loser.

[Torie]

Some legal experts have argued that Trump's best defense is arguing that he relied on lawyers he thought knew what they were doing and/or that he was detached from reality.  Apart from the fact that critical holes have now appeared in that defense (particularly Eastman telling Trump that violating the Electoral Count Act, as he wanted Pence to do, was illegal, and Trump pressuring Pence to do it anyway), the main problem with this approach is that if Trump was going to go that route, he'd have to effectively admit that the election was NOT stolen.  He'd have to abandon the "Big Lie" that he continues to preach.  I don't think he'd be willing to do that, even if doing so was the only possible route to an acquittal. 

Again Eastman's theory was that the Electoral Count Act was itself Unconstitutional, so that act was void.

[Torie]

Some legal experts have argued that Trump's best defense is arguing that he relied on lawyers he thought knew what they were doing and/or that he was detached from reality.  Apart from the fact that critical holes have now appeared in that defense (particularly Eastman telling Trump that violating the Electoral Count Act, as he wanted Pence to do, was illegal, and Trump pressuring Pence to do it anyway), the main problem with this approach is that if Trump was going to go that route, he'd have to effectively admit that the election was NOT stolen.  He'd have to abandon the "Big Lie" that he continues to preach.  I don't think he'd be willing to do that, even if doing so was the only possible route to an acquittal.  

Again Eastman's theory was that the Electoral Count Act was itself Unconstitutional, so that act was void.

Believing a law is unconstitutional isn't a legal defense for breaking it, even if the belief is sincere and well-founded (and Eastman's was neither).  Such a belief entitles you to seek redress in court.  That's not what Trump and Eastman did.  The legal way of doing it would have been to go to court first, not tell Pence to break the law and, as they were planning on doing, only argue their theory when someone else challenged what they did in court.  

If the belief turns out to be right, of course it is. If the belief turns out to be wrong, it isn't, and one bears the consequences of being wrong. Laws are often deliberately broken in order to test their validity in court. That is what happened to the anti-sodomy law in Texas. Two guys did it, and told the cops in advance, so they could watch and then arrest them. The rest is history.

[Torie]

Some legal experts have argued that Trump's best defense is arguing that he relied on lawyers he thought knew what they were doing and/or that he was detached from reality.  Apart from the fact that critical holes have now appeared in that defense (particularly Eastman telling Trump that violating the Electoral Count Act, as he wanted Pence to do, was illegal, and Trump pressuring Pence to do it anyway), the main problem with this approach is that if Trump was going to go that route, he'd have to effectively admit that the election was NOT stolen.  He'd have to abandon the "Big Lie" that he continues to preach.  I don't think he'd be willing to do that, even if doing so was the only possible route to an acquittal.  

Again Eastman's theory was that the Electoral Count Act was itself Unconstitutional, so that act was void.

Believing a law is unconstitutional isn't a legal defense for breaking it, even if the belief is sincere and well-founded (and Eastman's was neither).  Such a belief entitles you to seek redress in court.  That's not what Trump and Eastman did.  The legal way of doing it would have been to go to court first, not tell Pence to break the law and, as they were planning on doing, only argue their theory when someone else challenged what they did in court.  

If the belief turns out to be right, of course it is. If the belief turns out to be wrong, it isn't, and one bears the consequences of being wrong. Laws are often deliberately broken in order to test their validity in court. That is what happened to the anti-sodomy law in Texas. Two guys did it, and told the cops in advance, so they could watch and then arrest them. The rest is history.

But "turns out to be right" in this context means "if a court rules that you are correct."  If that never happens, then your belief never becomes a defense for breaking the law.  No court ever ruled that Trump and Eastman were right about this.  So they can't use their (insincere) argument that it is unconstitutional as a defense for telling Pence to break it.

And two guys having consensual sex is hardly the same as a vice-president throwing out electoral votes for no valid reason and overruling the American people as to who will be president (and vice-president).  

Well, as we go round in circles here, we agree really. If Pence is found wrong in agreeing with Eastman in this hypo, he broke the law, and bears the consequences. If the nation goes up in flames, until SCOTUS rules, that is yes, far more consequential than consensual sex. And yes, Eastman's theory is frivolous, but has not been specifically  ruled upon by a court.  

The only relevance of all of this is the business of whether Trump has committed a crime. On that one, we don't agree, at least based on what I know so far. The opinion of Garland on the matter, is the opinion that really matters. We, on the other hand, are just pounding the keyboard.  

[Torie]

The statement by Trump to the AG guys over whom he had authority that they should just say there is fraud (in other words lie and violate their oath of office) after they told him there was no fraud and I will take it from there is the best evidence I have heard so far that Trump committed a crime on this matter.

[Torie]

Asked for patrons:

Matt Gaetz
Scott Perry
Mo Brooks


I feel like I missed one…

Goemert, Biggs and I think I heard Gosar. And Greene's name popped up. It is eerie. When you think of the list of the real out there Pub amoral crazies, it turns out that the list that asked for pardons is almost identical.

[Torie]

I am quite confident that if the evidence makes it clear without much ambiguity that Trump committed a crime here, he will be indicted. As I said before, I am no criminal lawyer, but it seems to me, that it is quite likely that there is enough evidence for that now per today's hearing.

Hopefully, those who are experts opine on this matter who are out there on the internets. So far, there really hasn't been that much from those whom one could consider sober minded experts.

For what it is worth, on CNN just now, Jeff Toobin, a former US attorney and CNN's legal analyst, honed in on the exact testimony of Rosen under oath to which I referred to above, when Trump said just lie, and I will take it from there.

[Torie]

The raid on Clark's home most likely got direct sign off from Garland.

Yes.

[Torie]

The raid on Clark's home most likely got direct sign off from Garland.

Yes.

Are you agreeing or you have heard news confirming this? Just curious.

I am agreeing with the speculation, and otherwise know as much as you do on the matter, or less.

[Torie]

One wonders what Hutchinson said pre lawyer change or refused to say that she started saying post lawyer change. Was she previously claiming executive privilege or something that she claiming? It is strange because her testimony on video from her deposition has already been shared by the committee.

[Torie]

From a criminal standpoint, in my opinion the two standouts are:

1. Witness tampering. I assume we will learn more about that. If Trump was behind it, that seems to me to be a pretty clean case.

2. Trump disliking the idea that his crowd was having their guns taken away because he wanted them to March to the Capitol from the site of his speech, and "ordering" the metal detectors be removed. That combined with his text at 2:30 pm that Pence was a fail and incited the mob to attack the Capitol and then refusing to call them off creates a very disturbing set of dots. Why did Trump want them to have their guns if he had no anticipation that they would attack the Capitol? Was it even legal to carry guns in DC at the time?

[Torie]

Let's be honest, why would she make this up? And in turn, why would he make this up to tell her this story?

It's more likely that any SS agents are likely trying to cover up for Trump.

Why would she make this up and make herself a target for the worst elements of society?

Yes, there is no motive for her to lie under oath on this matter as to just what the hearsay was that she was told. Trump trying to grab the wheel and grab the driver is not that an important a fact, given that his irrational all consuming rage and insane idea of entering the capitol to confront those counting the ballots is well documented from other evidence.

[Torie]

It's entirely possible that both sides are telling the truth here.  

Hutchinson did not testify that Trump *did* these things; she testifed that she was *told* he did these things.  This is the definition of hearsay, and yes, that part of her testimony *was* hearsay.  (Most of the rest of her testimony was not; testifying to discussions that an individual took part in or directly observed is by definition *not* hearsay.)

The statements from the USSS so far have been to the effect that the agents are willing to testify that Trump didn't do these things.  This is not incompatible with what Hutchinson testified.  It's entirely possible that Trump did not in fact do these things, or did something minor, and the agent embellished the story to Hutchinson.  The agents need to answer under oath not only whether Trump did those things, but whether the agent told Hutchinson they did.

The bolded part.

Grumps, read that dude. Then read it again.

If you want him indicted, this isn't the kind of testimony that's going to get you there.  "Someone told me" doesn't cut it.  Haul in the people who witnessed it.  Now I do believe he whipped some dinner plates around, but that's not a crime.  Using ketchup is.

You called Hutchinson a liar, when all she's guilty of is repeating what someone else told her. That doesn't make her a liar.

And I agree, bring in the Secret Service agents to testify under oath. At this point, her testimony is all we've got. An agent refuting it, not under oath, does not "trump" her testimony.

I did. I appear to be correct.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-white-house-attorney-disputes-cassidy-hutchinsons-testimony/story?id=85898838

https://www.salon.com/2022/06/29/officials-disputed-cassidy-hutchinson-bombshell-testimony-were-trumps-yes-men-report/

[Torie]

It seems there are 3 possibilities to what happened

1. It didn't happen and Ornato lied to Hutchinson that it happened... for some reason.

2. It didn't happen. Ornato never lied to Hutchinson about it happening, and Hutchinson is completely making it up... for some reason... and perjuring herself before Congress at the age of 26.

3. It happened. Ornato told Hutchinson about it. And now Ornato and the secret service agents are lying about it not happening to cover up the incident.

All 3 options involve the people involved to act irrationally and against their own self-interest.

Very weird. I'd like to have Ornato and the agents testify to figure out more.

These two guys were themselves deposed. So were they asked about Trump's wandering hands? If not, that suggests Hutchinson had not yet been deposed. I suppose they could cover it up by now testifying under oath that they lied to Hutchinson to ingratiate themselves with her or something. It just makes no sense at all that Hutchinson made the whole thing up out of whole cloth as to what they told her.

Lying about hearsay is a close to bizarre situation.

The irrelevancy of who wrote the note should be clarified by a handwriting expert looking at the original of the note.

[Torie]

The more I think about it, the more the SUV dustup makes me convinced that the rest of Hutchinson’s testimony is true. If they were so quick to bring people out to testify under oath that Trump didn’t attack Engel, it raises the obvious question of why they haven’t done the same regarding any other part of what she said. Where’s Mark Meadows contradicting the idea that Trump endorsed the “hang Mike Pence” chants? Or the allegations that he knew the protesters were armed and was warned not to direct them to the Capitol?

Meadows would contradict her in the press but refuse to testify?

The weird thing as noted is the contradiction in testimony on minor matters from those who have been deposed. For example on who wrote the note. Once the second person is deposed creating a dispute as to authorship, why wasn't that cleared up right then and there? Are you sure you wrote it rather than the other guy, Eric Herschmann, who says he wrote it? Are you sure it's your handwriting? And so forth. And if Hutchinson is firm about, get back to Eric who was/is a friendly witness.

Addendum. Below is an image of the note. If you had to guess, who do you think wrote it? I know I didn't write it. Non cursive handwriting is way too labor intensive. I have horizontal lines with occasional bumps in them.

[Torie]

Sure the Jan 6 hearings have high production values and cohesion. That would not have been possible if the committee members were not all of one mind. The same story would have been told but with disruption and disputation and leaks and so forth. But given the unanimous point of view, yes the committee made the most of it. The committee is also blessed with skillful presenters who are lawyers. Cheney and Schiff have been particularly good.

[Torie]

https://twitter.com/ZcohenCNN/status/1542546816637468673

There should be a betting pool on who that was. Whomever that was, was dumber than a box of rocks.

[Torie]

So now that video leaked of showing Trump did try to grab the wheel the question is now why did the secret service put on a statement disputing it

Video?

[Torie]

This man is just evil.

https://twitter.com/MikeSington/status/1542866369762316288
https://twitter.com/PatrickW/status/1542865511570198533

OK, I was interested in "fact checking" Trump's claim that Hutchinson after Jan 6 was tweeting and bragging up a storm that she was going to be working for Trump in Florida. So I googled, and found something. If you want to find out just how credible Trump's version of the facts is, you can click on the link.

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-cassidy-hutchinson-record-about-trump-job-after-jan-6-1720587

One thing I am curious about is how the relationship between Meadows and Hutchinson evolved over time. Her testimony did not suggest that there was any tension there, at least as of Jan 6. Maybe that is why Meadows felt emboldened to "tamper" with her via a henchman. He was not aware that she had crossed the Rubicon behind his back.

[Torie]

"Coup" is a tendentious term. What will it take for Republicans to admit that Biden won the election for reasons other than due to vote fraud, and Trump's behavior was wrong. Or what will it take for a majority of Republicans to not want Trump to be renominated again?

[Torie]

Hutchinson's testimony was clearly always going to be the most discussed and circulated in the media. But I think the Trump hacks may have actually given it even more oxygen by prolonging its life in the media cycle with the whole Secret Service-"hearsay" assertions. And now it seems like it may be producing a ripple effect and may just get worse for them and their cult leader.

If that happens, then I will have to revisit my leap of faith into atheism.

[Torie]

It is interesting how the table with the water glass (use it or lose it, that is the question), became some kind of metaphor in the trailer ad for the movie.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/05/trailer-trump-documentary-january-6-committee-holder-00043960