February 8, 2021

Page 7 of Trump's Trial Memorandum concedes the very fact upon which I've said his guilt hinges.

Here's a PDF of the document. From page 7: 
Law Enforcement Had Reports Of A Potential Attack On The Capitol Several Days Before President Trump's Speech.

Despite going to great lengths to include information regarding Mr. Trump's comments dating back to August 2020 and various postings on social media, the House Managers are silent on one very chilling fact. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has confirmed that the breach at the Capitol was planned several days in advance of the rally, and therefore had nothing to do with the President's speech on January 6th at the Ellipse. According to investigative reports all released after January 6, 2021, "The Capitol Police, the NYPD and the FBI all had prior warning that there was going to be an attack on the Capitol."

Obviously, Trump's lawyers think it's exculpatory that there was an advance plan. But I have been saying the opposite. Here's my January 10th post

If Trump knew there was a plan to storm the Capitol building, then his speech to the crowd was an incitement, even though he never told the crowd to commit any act of violence. 

2 days ago, I read Trump's [January 6th] speech looking for any language that could support the claim that he incited the crowd to storm the Capitol. I wrote a post listing the 7 most violence-inducing statements. They're about fighting and showing strength and never giving up, but they're all consistent with an idea of having a big, traditional street protest — with lots of people marching and displaying their passion for the cause through big numbers, determined-looking faces, and lots [of] words on signs and in chants and speeches. 

But what if Trump knew there was a plan to storm the Capitol? Then all those words are transformed! They become an incitement to the violence, especially if the people in the crowd know he knows. The avoidance of references to violence would be part of a shared understanding — like winking. We know what we're going to do. 

Now, at this point, I don't even know that there was a plan....

But now Trump's trial memo asserts that there was a plan.  

Was there a plan or wasn't there? If there was a plan, when did it develop and who knew about it? If it was talked about on social media, the record exists. Wouldn't the FBI have seen it in advance and communicated to the President about it?... ... I want to see... all the evidence of a plan, and what law enforcement knew about this plan, whether Trump was informed, and why there wasn't better protection of the Capitol. 

I have held off from believing that Trump incited the crowd to breach the Capitol. You can see that in my 7 statements post. But if he was informed of a plan, then I will read all of those statements as an incitement.... 

228 comments:

1 – 200 of 228   Newer›   Newest»
Achilles said...


"Page 7 of Trump's Trial Memorandum concedes the very fact upon which I've said his guilt hinges."

That is just dumb.

The best part is that these people probably think the Capitol Police or FBI would tell Trump of such things.

Or that the FBI hadn't already been caught repeatedly lying to Trump about investigations and conspiracies.

Howard said...

It was Antifas plan and Trump fired up his loyal ragtag band of INCELs to squash the interlopers. Congress should be giving Donald the metal of honor for saving AOC from the radical leftist insurrectionists

Achilles said...

I have held off from believing that Trump incited the crowd to breach the Capitol. You can see that in my 7 statements post. But if he was informed of a plan, then I will read all of those statements as an incitement....

The FBI has already been caught trying to frame Trump.

The FBI was caught lying to Trump about investigations so it could leak those investigations to CNN.

Now Ann wants to take the FBI at face value?

Mike Sylwester said...

Judging from his words, Trump intended for his crowd -- the people listening to his speech -- to walk toward the Capitol building in a peaceful protest.

rhhardin said...

Violence would work against Trump and he would know that. So you can infer that he didn't expect violence. He expected a crowd petitioning their grievances, and cleaning up after itself, as his crowds do.

This isn't hard.

rehajm said...

Predicting Trump's 'guilt' in this 'trial' is like picking the Globetrotters to beat the Generals.

We know who is writing the fables and we know the endings they like to those fables.

rhhardin said...

Forget grab them by the pussy, is my advice. Women can't deal with stuff when there's other stuff bothering them.

Oso Negro said...

The DOJ was too busy fast-tracking Executive Orders for Biden to sign on Day 1 to have time to inform Trump of anything.

Humperdink said...

Trump should haul a pet kangaroo into the proceedings.

The FBI? They have about as much credibility as carnival barkers.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Trump's speech was tame compared to years of elites D's fomenting hate and violence on their side -and antifa following their orders.

Richard Aubrey said...

This would only work if it was Trump's idea to short the security arrangements.

Achilles said...

Despite going to great lengths to include information regarding Mr. Trump's comments dating back to August 2020 and various postings on social media, the House Managers are silent on one very chilling fact. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has confirmed that the breach at the Capitol was planned several days in advance of the rally, and therefore had nothing to do with the President's speech on January 6th at the Ellipse. According to investigative reports all released after January 6, 2021, "The Capitol Police, the NYPD and the FBI all had prior warning that there was going to be an attack on the Capitol."


This directly supports the most likely projection of events given what happened and who benefits analysis.

Congress, the Media, the FBI, and other DC swamp agencies planned to insert Antifa instigators into the peaceful protest and to cause a Reichstag Fire event.

Then they planned to use this opportunity to censor Trump and all Trump supporters across all media and social media platforms.

The FBI and the DC media have already been caught colluding in similar schemes to lie about Trump and their political opponents.

And Ann runs off with this kind of foolishness to be a Good Little German.

Sad.

DeepRunner said...

Sorry Althouse. Timelines don't match. The logical extension of what you're saying is that fact doesn't matter. He knew it was going to happen, so all he was doing during his speech was killing time to allow the insurrectionists to take action, only to exculpate himself with a professed plea for peace.

Molly Ball approves though...

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

The collective left spend years lying about what Trump said at Charlottesville.

Leaving out important context on the cutting room floor.


tim in vermont said...

"The FBI has already been caught trying to frame Trump. “

Exactly.

Did Nancy know about these plans? Did she take them seriously? We obviously need a trial here with witnesses and cross examination.

Mikey NTH said...

Did he do anything in furtherance of the plan?

tim in vermont said...

"Good Little German.”

No, she wants to be a ‘Good American’ because this time the fascists are going to get it right.

Mike Sylwester said...

Robert "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller's Special Counsel team essentially was part of the FBI.

FBI Director James leaked documents for the purpose of creating a Special Counsel.

When the Special Counsel position was created, it was filled by former FBI Director Mueller.

Mueller then staffed his team with Trump-hating FBI officials.

A main purpose of the Special Counsel was to white-wash the FBI and to get rid of evidence incriminating the FBI.

The Special Counsel team (i.e. the FBI) spent years trying to trap President Trump's relatives, supporters and associates into process crimes, for the purpose of compelling them to snitch or compose against Trump.

The Special Counsel team (i.e. the FBI) framed Trump's foreign-policy advisor George Papadopoulos in order to imprison him and give him a felony record.

The Special Counsel team (i.e. the FBI) spent years trying to lure President Trump into an obstruction-of-justice situation that would enable Congress to impeach and remove Trump from his elected office.

The FBI used devious methods to remove Trump's first National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn.

The FBI refused to investigate massive fraud in the recent election.

We are supposed to trust the FBI?

It's likely that the FBI still is trying to frame, incriminate and persecute Trump.

Achilles said...

I hope they throw Trump in jail.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

If the same FBI who will never look into Biden family corruption - (and it's a joke and a lie that the FBI are interested in Hunter's laptop) and the same FBI who gave Hillary's private server a pass - are required to tell Trump about planned violence -

I'd say -the FBI and company kept it quiet because they wanted to hurt Trump.

320Busdriver said...

Who in America will feel better about living life if the bad orange man is disqualified from ever holding the office again?

320Busdriver said...

The process is the punishment.

Achilles said...

320Busdriver said...

Who in America will feel better about living life if the bad orange man is disqualified from ever holding the office again?

Me.

Trump was too nice to the Swamp People.

langford peel said...

You truly are an evil person.

Mike of Snoqualmie said...

What did Nancy know and when did she know it?

rhhardin said...

I remember, visiting gf, if there's anything bothering her - work, anything - it meant no sex. That's just how things are, but it makes women unserious when they're serious. Too many feelings and no tag on each to say where it comes from. All feelings apply to everything.

Ann Althouse said...

I didn’t say the memo concedes that Trump was informed of a plan. I still have that question.

Achilles said...

Ann Althouse said...

I didn’t say the memo concedes that Trump was informed of a plan. I still have that question.

And when the FBI comes out and says they briefed Trump telling him about these "threats" are you going to believe them?

Rick said...

If the plan was well known enough for Trump to be reasonably believed to be acting on it why did DC and Capitol Police not prevent it? The only reasonable conclusion to all the facts is that the plan was little more than talk and was expected to be contained by normal police presence. You can't grant this presumption to Bowser & Pelosi without also granting it to Trump.

Mary Beth said...

They started breaching the Capitol building 20 minutes before Trump finished talking. Even if they left during the speech, how long does it take to walk from where he was to the Capitol building? What did he say before that time that might have encouraged people to go from peaceful protest to breaking into a building?

jaydub said...

How many of Trump's rallies over the past four years have produced riots and mayhem? Oh yeah, that's right - none of them. Yet, Trump was supposed to think this one would result in a "storming of the Capitol?" Ain't buying it. This one would have been no different from the dozens before if Antifa hadn't been involved. Occam's Razor definitely applies.

Mark said...

The fact upon which his guilt hinges.

That's just embarrassing for someone who actually was responsible for the formation of lawyers today.

In order to be guilty, in order for the Senate to even have jurisdiction, he NEEDS TO BE IN OFFICE.

Trump is a private citizen. END OF CASE. No other facts necessary.

Achilles said...

I like how Ann completely ignores all of the videos of the "Capitol Police" leading "protestors" through the halls of Congress during the "insurrection."

Or the video of the Agent shooting the unarmed Ashlii Babbit from about 10 feet away in the back.

You are being worse than gullible Ann.

I'm Not Sure said...

"But what if Trump knew there was a plan to storm the Capitol? Then all those words are transformed! They become an incitement to the violence, especially if the people in the crowd know he knows."

If Trump knows and he knows that the people in the crowd know that he knows and he knows that the people in the crowd are the people who know what the plan is and they know when to implement it even though they know he's not telling them to...

It's dog whistles all the way down.

tim in vermont said...

There should be a criminal trial with sufficient time, rights of discovery, standards of proof, and cross examination of witnesses rather than this show trial if what Congress is alleging is true, it should be dealt with according to the law.

Masscon said...

But what if Trump knew there was a plan to storm the Capitol? Then all those words are transformed! They become an incitement to the violence, especially if the people in the crowd know he knows. The avoidance of references to violence would be part of a shared understanding — like winking. We know what we're going to do.

Sorry, I ain't buying...what if he knew indeed. Have any proof or indication of that? Until very recently, no one else, other than the few who may have planned it, seemed to know there was a plan to storm the Capital but somehow the crowd knew he knew of it? C'mon man!

Mark said...

Go ahead and charge Trump criminally if you think you can prove a charge of inciting a riot, much less inciting insurrection, or conspiracy to do so.

Immanuel Rant said...

I will bet - giving decent odds - that there is internet chatter and leads showing potential "threats" and possible rioting before almost each and every rally or speech.

Holding this up as evidence of *anything* is akin to those 9/11 truther who point at the vague warnings of "some type of terrorist activity" prior to 9/11 and state that clearly the vent should have been stopped.

Trump was not in charge of the Capitol Police. If these so-called threats and leads were known about before-hand, then why weren't the police on high alert? Because they ALWAYS have chatter, and every other time - when it was a Trump rally - nothing happened.

This is just a form of the sharpshooter fallacy. After the bullet hole is made, here comes everyone with a paint can to draw circles around it and declare how nopw - after the fact - it is clearly significant and everyone "must have known."

BS. and not even grade "A" BS, either.

Achilles said...

Does one of us have to come out alive?

It is funny when Kamala Harris says it.

ha. ha. ha.

Democrats are just evil people.

People that support this farce are just evil people.

I'm Not Sure said...

"If Trump knew there was a plan to storm the Capitol building, then his speech to the crowd was an incitement, even though he never told the crowd to commit any act of violence."

Part II

I'm so old, I remember when there was such a thing as the presumption of innocence.

Achilles said...

Listen to Kamala's cackle after she jokes about killing people.

Go ahead Ann.

Listen to it.

rhhardin said...

The actual story is that Trump was outfoxed by the opposition.

Known Unknown said...

"10 feet away in the back"

Huh? She was shot in the neck as she climbed through the window.

rhhardin said...

The odds are that somebody so insensitive as to say grab them by the pussy would incite a riot. End of story.

Mattman26 said...

If there was a plan, then Trump’s “incitement” would have been superfluous, no?

Achilles said...

MSNBC talks about droning MAGA supporters.

You want to talk about inciting violence?

rhhardin said...

All that legal structure is still working and channeling feelings, but the feelings are so strong that there's tunneling.

Achilles said...

Known Unknown said...

"10 feet away in the back"

Huh? She was shot in the neck as she climbed through the window.

You are a lying piece of shit.

She was standing outside the door. She was not climbing through.

You want to say the back of the kneck? Fine.

She was shot from behind. Not by someone inside the broken window. Someone outside in the same area she was.

We know why people like you have to lie about this.

tim in vermont said...

That’s an interesting clip Achilles, especially the part where Ellen and Harris clap and laugh at the joke about killing Trump and Pence.

Michael P said...

From Althouse's earlier post: "If Trump knew there was a plan to storm the Capitol building, then his speech to the crowd was an incitement, even though he never told the crowd to commit any act of violence."

The memo asserts there was a plan, but does not say that Trump had any knowledge of the plan. As far as I can tell, that means the headline of this post is wrong, and the memo does not concede "the very fact upon which [Althouse has] said his guilt hinges."

I mean, even at the time of the earlier post, we had indications that some of the rioting was planned in advance. The whole point of that earlier post was that Trump's speech would only count (at least for Althouse) as incitement if he knew of such a plan. Now we know that various law enforcement bodies, including the leaders of the Capitol police, knew of such planning -- and they did not respond as if it was a serious threat. This tends to exculpate Trump even if he was briefed on the plan: if the law enforcement professionals did not think it was a credible threat, why should the President?

n.n said...

Silence is violence. Wasn't that the prosecutorial basis for hunting a secretary to the Nazi regime? So, Democrat's affirmative action, JournoListic braying, and affiliate incorporated "non-profit" rackets, over a multi-trimester period were an actual incitement... nay, normalization of violence.

Or the video of the Agent shooting the unarmed Ashli Babbitt from about 10 feet away in the back.

Who and why did they shoot to abort her with a novel apology for self-defense? They should have known, right? And prepared to greet several dozen protesters who may and were not "Trump supporters", most who were escorted into and through the building. The People's representatives, rather than luring people into their nest to be exploited in a media spectacle, should have opened the doors and invited a delegation to be heard.

#HumanRightsBullshit #CivilRightsBullshit #LawEthicsAsQuasiReligion

320Busdriver said...

Or the video of the Agent shooting the unarmed Ashlii Babbit from about 10 feet away in the back.

Do you have a link?

Francisco D said...

Althouse, give us the words that Trump used to presumably incite rioters.

News accounts don't work. The actual words are important. Don't leave out words that would disprove incitement.

If you are unable or unwilling to do that, I can only presume that you are extremely weak on Free Speech or much more partisan than you let on.

Mikio said...

Indeed, Professor, it's not the speech on Jan. 6th itself -- context is key.

Everybody knew full well the dangerous rumblings, including Trump, his having fomented them early on, after all, behind in the polls (first debate: "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by!"). As Dear Leader, he could've gotten on Twitter, or more presidentially, called a press conference on Jan. 5th and nipped it in the bud, urging peace in no ambiguous, eye-winking terms. He didn't do that. He did the opposite. His fiery speech on the 6th was only more riling up, culminating on the fateful D-day ("Be there, it'll be wild"), and the formal go-ahead.

Note, too - the legal defense of the rioters themselves: "He sent us! He told us to do it!"

Achilles said...

Trump repeatedly offered NG assistance to the Capitol Police to insure January 6th was peaceful.

If Ann has any intellectual honesty she will deal with this.

It is obvious there was a plan to instigate violence by the same people who are using this Reichstag Fire to impeach Trump and censor his supporters.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

A President should be held to a known or should have known standard. That’s the misdemeanor aspect of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Ken B said...

I don’t see that Trump has conceded your “central fact”, which would be his foreknowledge. We only have evidence that someone else knew. There is no reason to suppose Trump was briefed by, for example, the New York police. Your argument seems to amount to the assertion that if anyone had foreknowledge then Trump is guilty.

Achilles said...

Mikio said...

Indeed, Professor, it's not the speech on Jan. 6th itself -- context is key.

Everybody knew full well the dangerous rumblings, including Trump, his having fomented them early on, after all, behind in the polls (first debate: "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by!"). As Dear Leader, he could've gotten on Twitter, or more presidentially, called a press conference on Jan. 5th and nipped it in the bud, urging peace in no ambiguous, eye-winking terms. He didn't do that. He did the opposite. His fiery speech on the 6th was only more riling up, culminating on the fateful D-day ("Be there, it'll be wild"), and the formal go-ahead.

Note, too - the legal defense of the rioters themselves: "He sent us! He told us to do it!"


Bullshit from a Bad German.

You are not a real person. We see you people. We see what you are doing.

People like "Mikio" are following the Nazi circa 1933 template perfectly. He offers not a single fact. Pure bullshit.

And it is all meant to justify the censorship of and the upcoming violence against his political opponents.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

That’s what was wrong with “what did the President know and when did he know it?” It was an attempt to raise the bar on impeachment above the “should have known” territory.

TickTock said...

I rather suspect that if the FBI and the Capital Police had communicated to Trump that there was a plan to breach the capital, he would have expected them to do something about it, and thus not factored it into his plans or his speech.

Ken B said...


Blogger Ann Althouse said...
I didn’t say the memo concedes that Trump was informed of a plan. I still have that question.
======

And yet whether he knew — not if there was a plan but whether he knew of any plan — was what your previous post called the central question.
Your post here is dreadfully sloppy unless you are trying to insinuate guilt without explicitly saying so.

Achilles said...

Left Bank of the Charles said...

A President should be held to a known or should have known standard. That’s the misdemeanor aspect of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Kamala joked about killing Trump.

No person could have missed her intent.

She said she would kill him in an elevator if they were together.

Yet this standard doesn't apply to Biden when he explicitly said he would take Trump behind the woodshed and beat him up.

You are a fascist in any definition that the word is normally used.

exhelodrvr1 said...

When will the FBI personnel that were aware of the plans and did nothing to stop them be put on trial?

exhelodrvr1 said...

So people who were not at his speech were taking a pre-planned action and his speech is considered incitement? Interesting logic.

Achilles said...

Left Bank of the Charles said...

That’s what was wrong with “what did the President know and when did he know it?” It was an attempt to raise the bar on impeachment above the “should have known” territory.

What did Biden know about lying to the FISA court and when did he know it?

What did Biden know about the FBI trying to frame Trump and his cabinet and when did he know it?

What did Biden know about Ukrainian prosecutors getting fired and when did he know it?

What id Biden know about his son getting foot jobs from 14 year old asian sex slaves and when did he know it?

Francisco D said...

Left Bank of the Charles said...A President should be held to a known or should have known standard. That’s the misdemeanor aspect of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Jaywalking is also a misdemeanor.

exhelodrvr1 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Clyde said...

Obviously there wasn't credible evidence of a planned attack on the Capitol or the relevant law enforcement agencies would have taken appropriate action and headed it off. Hearing chatter is one thing, having a credible attack plan out there is something else. This is like saying that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance. He may have known that Muslim terrorist groups hated America and wanted to do something, but he didn't know about the hijackers plans to fly planes into buildings.

And if they DID have credible evidence of a planned attack on the Capitol, then those same law enforcement agencies are at least as complicit as Trump might be for their negligence to prepare for it.

Charlie Eklund said...

The country has become a madhouse. If you, Althouse, want to join in, I say more power to you. As for me? I’ll pass, thanks.

Churchy LaFemme: said...

"a plan".

It's a big country. At any given time, there's probably 'a plan' by some group or other to do any cockamayme thing.

Mikey NTH said...

If there is a conspiracy to attack the Capitol, and Trump is not part of the conspiracy, how can his words incite the conspirators? They have already determined to act, anything Trump says is superfluous. It would be impossible for him to incite people who, by entering into a conspiracy, have shown they need no incitement.

steve uhr said...

Too bad Trump refuses to testify about his knowledge and state of mind.

Mark said...

This kind of drivel displays a mind incapable of reason, much less considering the actual facts.

Donald Trump, January 6, 2021:
All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened radical-left Democrats, which is what they’re doing. And stolen by the fake news media. That’s what they’ve done and what they’re doing. We will never give up, we will never concede....Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore and that’s what this is all about....We will not let them silence your voices. We’re not going to let it happen, I’m not going to let it happen....

The military, the secret service. And we want to thank you and the police law enforcement. Great. You’re doing a great job....They’ll knock out Lincoln too, by the way. They’ve been taking his statue down. But then we signed a little law. You hurt our monuments, you hurt our heroes, you go to jail for 10 years, and everything stopped. You notice that? It stopped. It all stopped....

If this happened to the Democrats, there’d be hell all over the country going on. There’d be hell all over the country. But just remember this: You’re stronger, you’re smarter, you’ve got more going than anybody. And they try and demean everybody having to do with us. And you’re the real people, you’re the people that built this nation. You’re not the people that tore down our nation....

Now, it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this, we’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you, we’re going to walk down, we’re going to walk down. Anyone you want, but I think right here, we’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.

Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard....

This is not just a matter of domestic politics, this is a matter of national security. So today, in addition to challenging the certification of the election, I’m calling on Congress and the state legislatures to quickly pass sweeping election reforms, and you better do it before we have no country left....

As this enormous crowd shows, we have truth and justice on our side. We have a deep and enduring love for America in our hearts. We love our country. We have overwhelming pride in this great country and we have it deep in our souls. Together, we are determined to defend and preserve government of the people, by the people and for the people.


This is the stuff of insurrection and incitement to insurrection? Peaceably making your voices heard? Calling on the legislative process? Preserving government of the people, by the people and for the people? THIS IS INCITEMENT TO INSURRECTION??

WHERE? WHERE IS IT?

Gospace said...

There’s terrorist chatter about attacks at every Super Bowl game. Chatter about violence at every Olympics. Chatter about violence at every US holiday public event. At parades. At rallies. Yet- life goes on and the events aren’t canceled. Trump’s rally was planned well in advance. Wouldn’t be surprised if the “threat” came from FBI informants planted into various groups. Also note: they, the media, the FBI, Democrat officials, none of them has actually identified any groups or individuals who supposedly made these threats. And already several of the actually identified violence instigators have proved to be Democrat party allies.

Maybe there’s some logic why Trump, alone among all people and organizations in the entire world, must cancel a planned rally because some nobodies on the internet are threatening violence. To say so is to support the heckler veto of speech.

And of course, there’s another unanswered really big question. If the FBI and other 3 letter agencies and various law enforcement agencies all identified genuine threats- they KNEW who was involved. Where’s the before the big event arrests for conspiracy to commit terrorism?

MSM in a vast conspiracy with the FBI and Democrats are laying down smoke screens to hide what really.

Who shot Ashli Babbitt? Look at the fog hiding that simple known fact. Who shot Ashli Babb? Was it an officer with social media postings saying he wanted to kill a Trump supporter? If so we’re looking at slam dunk first degree murder. Is that why the public alone doesn’t know? Tell me Ann, do you honestly believe CNN and the rest of the MSM cabal are ignorant of his identity? Why are they protecting him instead of jealously guarding the public’s right to know?

Ken B said...

Clyde makes a key point. We know now, ex post, that there was a plan and that the plan predated Trump's speech. We do not know that anyone in authority believed there was a plan. There is always chatter, always rumors. That no one took explicit action is evidence that no one was convinced by the hints. Which is strong evidence that they didn’t rush to tell ... the president of the United States.

walter said...

So..the Dems liked the speech timeline dependent version until that no longer worked.
Now it's about Trump inexorably marching his troops with wrong-speak beginning November 4th...and perhaps even ignoring security reports.
Now..if he was warned of a credible threat, wouldn't some elements of law enforcement have, per Andrew Cuomo, blown the bugle to a greater audience and/or pushed for increased protection regardless? I remember talk of significant Nat Guard pretty close to the calendaring of the rally. What happened in the interim? Other reports suggest upper level Capitol security wanted to avoid uncomfortable "optics".
And it ought to go without saying that the fallout from violence attributable to MAGA folks is predictable enough to be highly undesirable to Trump's perhaps last chance to get election integrity concerns into a formal record.
But then..there's lots that can't be said these days.
Roberts doesn't even want his ears in the room.
It's icky!

Mark said...

What Trump actually said, what Trump actually did, what actually happened -- we all know that all of that is irrelevant. Because Trump.

Because who the fuck cares about truth when it is Trump. The actual charge as actually laid out in the article of impeachment doesn't matter. The law doesn't matter, the Constitution doesn't matter, facts don't matter, truth doesn't matter.

Why? Because Trump.

Shouting Thomas said...

This is a rather terrifying post by Althouse, and I’m struggling to comprehend what’s going on.

Althouse knows her head is on the block. Hell, Scott Adams is far richer, far more influential and far more powerful than Althouse and he knows his head is on the block.

The pressure to hang Trump and to ID and punish every one of his supporters is building behind the scenes, and the ultimate source of that pressure is the CCP.

And, now, I think, I’ll observe radio silence for a while.

Nicholas said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Achilles said...

steve uhr said...

Too bad Trump refuses to testify about his knowledge and state of mind.

Too bad Biden refuses to testify about telling the FBI to spy on Trump.

He must surely be guilty.

Therefore we must censor all disagreeing opinions right?

You are an evil person doing evil things with evil allies.

Nicholas said...

Ann, you are missing the significance of ,"According to investigative reports all released after January 6, 2021". All you say about that is the indirect comment that if the FBI knew of this, it would have warned Trump. Why? The consistent pattern of FBI behaviour over the last 5 years has been to damage Trump at every possible opportunity (sending a squad of agents to look at rope door pulls in the pit lane of a race track is one absurd stunt that comes to mind from 2020).

If Trump had been warned by an offical source, he would either have called off the rally or, if his ego refused to cancel this massive show of support as a final hurrah in DC, would have turned it to his advantage by warning the crowd of agitators within and the need to avoid and disavow violence. Someome with serious TDS (which is certainly not you) might just about believe Trump knew of a plan to attack the Capitol, but unless he knew this from a secret Ouija board session communing with Proud Boys, Trump would know that others knew that he knew, and that therefore he was being set up to take the fall. Anyone not infected with TDS would realise that if Trump had known, by whatever means, of a plan to attack the Capitol, he would also know it would be used against him.

Mikey NTH said...

Pity he wasn't impeached under misprison of a felony.

effinayright said...

Left Bank said:

"A President should be held to a known or should have known standard. That’s the misdemeanor aspect of high crimes and misdemeanors."
***************

Riiiight. None of that "presumption of innocence" bullshit. Trump knew or should have known everything the FBI knew. Call it "the omniscience" standard".

Then Obama knew or should have known all about the machinations of Comey, et al to spy on and bring down Trump, right? He knew about "Fast and Furious". He knew about Lois Lerner persecuting the Tea Party groups.

Right?





Mark said...

Trump specifically tells the crowd that if you attack the monument of our democracy, you will go to prison -- "we signed a little law. You hurt our monuments, you hurt our heroes, you go to jail for 10 years" -- and somehow that is "incitement to violence."

Trump specifically tells the crowd not to be like the leftists who burned and looted the cities -- "If this happened to the Democrats, there’d be hell all over the country going on. There’d be hell all over the country. But just remember this: You’re stronger, you’re smarter, you’ve got more going than anybody....you’re the people that built this nation. You’re not the people that tore down our nation" -- and somehow that is "incitement to violence."

Trump specifically tells the crowd to go and support members of Congress -- "we’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women" -- and somehow that is "incitement to insurrection" against Congress.

Trump specifically tells the crowd to be peaceful -- "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard" -- and somehow that call to peace is "incitement to violence."

Trump specifically tells the crowd to support the legislative process, the ongoing functioning of government -- "I’m calling on Congress and the state legislatures to quickly pass sweeping election reforms" -- and somehow that is "incitement to insurrection" against lawful government.

Trump specifically tells the crowd to love the country and this democratic republic -- "We love our country...Together, we are determined to defend and preserve government of the people, by the people and for the people" -- and somehow THAT is "incitement to insurrection" against lawful government.

Earlier today, there was a post asking "is there anything more disgusting than...?"

This whole post, this whole argument being advanced that Trump -- now a private citizen -- might be tried and held guilty, is more disgusting.

Robert Cook said...

"The best part is that these people probably think the Capitol Police or FBI would tell Trump of such things."

Shouldn't they?!

gilbar said...

look, let's Face FACTS
Donald Trump has been guilty of Sedition (and Treason!) since 2016
Hilary Clinton was to be our President
Donald Trump CONSPIRED with nearly half the voters in the country, to prevent her Presidency
This OUTRAGE Had to be STOPPED..... By ANY MEANS NECESSARY

Josephbleau said...

There is widespread video of the Capitol police letting some protesters enter. If the FBI told Trump about this vast rightwing conspiracy they should have told the police. So if the police were forewarned why did they act unconcerned? If the FBI told Trump and did not tell the police that is evidence of criminal FBI behavior. Polosi is policywise in charge of defending the Capitol, what was she told about these reports?

More likely this "warning" is just the normal chatter you always get and ignore, but in this case can be recycled to damage Trump.

effinayright said...

Why would any POTUS think for a nanosecond that a tiny number of UNARMED people of numerous political persuasions would have ANY chance of staging an "insurrection"?

Does Miss Ann think Trump would publicly urge on and incite such a motley crowd as we have seen in the videos? Do those people look like the much-feared "militias" that go out into the woods in camo and with AR-15s to engage in war games?

It boggles the mind how TDS can turn people's brains into applesauce.

tim in vermont said...

Turns out that the guy who broke the window just before she was shot was the son of a Federal bureaucrat and a lawyer.

Here he is appearing from behind police lines:

https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1349126030511005698

Guy has an elite education and swamp creature parents. Comes from a Biden +40% district.

effinayright said...

Mikey NTH said...
Pity he wasn't impeached under misprison of a felony.
****************

It's "misprision" of felony, and it involves not reporting knowledge of a felony that has already taken place.

Joe Smith said...

So now AA is a mind-reader...must be a nice skill to have.

Presumption of innocence?

Fuck that, says the law professor.

MikeR said...

Where does any of this indicate that Trump knew about it or took it seriously?

tim in vermont said...

Michigander Shane Trejo witnessed the 3:30 am Biden Ballot Drop that gave Joe Biden an outstanding lift. “There were thousands of ballots in each box,” Trejo says. “There were at least 50 boxes that I saw unloaded at 3:30 am, well after the 8:00 pm deadline for ballots to show up.”

Whatever you do, don’t allow this to get to a court. Don’t allow these facts to be examined. It was just part of “fortifying" the election for Democrats.

Joe Smith said...

"The best part is that these people probably think the Capitol Police or FBI would tell Trump of such things."

The best possible outcome for Pelosi and Dems was a riot and or massacre...they craved it with every fiber of their being.

If the swamp knew about any kind of 'plan,' I am certain that Trump would NOT have been told.

walter said...

At least the security cameras didn't mysteriously crap out.
Will they have Sicknicks casket in the room?
Great tone setter.

Achilles said...

Robert Cook said...

"The best part is that these people probably think the Capitol Police or FBI would tell Trump of such things."

Shouldn't they?!

Of course they should tell him.

And Trump repeatedly offered extra help with security.

And you know they have already lied to the president. And they were caught trying to frame Trump previously in his administration.

And these agencies that knew about these "threats" repeatedly turned down his offers of help.

It is pretty obvious they were all in on creating a Reichstag Fire event.

Amadeus 48 said...

I don't agree, Althouse. You need to think about this some more.

First, if Trump knew there was a plan, so did the city and federal authorities who were charged with maintaining order. We all know that the Capitol police (Pelosi) and the DC police (Bowser) refused to make proper preparations. Did they know there was a plan? If so, shame on them.

Second, this is the same argument the 9/11 truthers make--POTUS (Bush) knew there would be attacks on the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and White House because there were some vague mutterings in the daily intelligence briefings. Do you believe that?

You don't know, I don't know, the House Demmies don't know, what was going through Trump's head, and this stupid post-election "trial" won't show it.

We can all speculate.

Personally, notwithstanding the failure of any street protest to change anything since the civil rights movement of the 1960s, I think Trump had some stupid show-biz idea that the presence of the crowd/mob would outside the Capitol would be a spectacular demonstration of popular will that would cause people inside the Capitol to take a further look at the various state electoral returns...or a least show his supporters that he tried. It was stupid and dangerous, mostly because Trump had no idea who was in that crowd. There were lots of agendas. And that Capitol policeman fired into the mob with no warning? I wonder if he will be reprimanded? And we still have no idea how that Capitol policeman died. I bet that story will will join the Durham report in Never-never land.

If we can let the FBI/CIA/Judge Sullivan/James Comey/Brennan/McCabe/Clinesmith/Mueller-Weissman nonsense go, we can let this fiasco go.

This stupid trial is going to put off reconciliation for years. And Mad Maxine Waters and Ilhan Omar are goners the next time the GOP gets a majority in the House.

Howard said...

Don't worry my sweet Trumpkins, the Senate won't convict. There are two many of you brainwashed voters and the esteemed legeslaters love their jobs. Isn't democracy grand!

deepelemblues said...

Utter fucking nonsense, professor. An un-American, anti-American standard of speech that one must stay silent because a group of people may react with violence, and thus, to speak is incitement.

mandrewa said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
buster said...

Althouse's read assumes (1) the FBI and NYPD's supposed advance knowledge was detailed enough to know precisely when, where, and how the demonstration would proceed, and (2) the FBI told Trump about it. Neither assumption is obviously true.

StephenFearby said...


Hanlon's razor

Never attribute to malice [or conspiracy] that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

The quotation is attributed to Robert J. Hanlon of Scranton, Pennsylvania, US. According to his friend Joseph Bigler, Hanlon first used it as part of something he wrote for a compilation of various jokes related to Murphy's law. The compilation book was published in 1980 titled Murphy's Law Book Two, More Reasons Why Things Go Wrong.[1] The name was inspired by Occam's razor.[2]

There are many similar sayings. One example is "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence", which has been attributed to science fiction author Robert Heinlein’s short story "Logic of Empire" in 1941 and erroneously to Napoleon Bonaparte.[3]

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor


Earlier attributions to the idea go back to at least the 18th century.[11] First published in German (1774), Johann Wolfgang von Goethe wrote in The Sorrows of Young Werther (as translated):[11]

Misunderstandings and lethargy perhaps produce more wrong in the world than deceit and malice do. At least the latter two are certainly rarer.[12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

Certainly appropriate in this instance:

Previous reports indicate that the Capitol Police received information about the planned attack by both the FBI and the NYC police department:

'...The union representing U.S. Capitol Police officers says the force's leadership failed to relay the known threat of violence adequately ahead of the Jan. 6 deadly riot, calling the acting chief's recent admission of prior knowledge of the threat to Congress "a disclosure that has angered and shocked the rank-and-file officers."

The statement Wednesday from the Capitol Police Labor Committee comes a day after acting Chief Yogananda Pittman testified to Congress, saying in prepared remarks:

By January 4th, the Department knew that the January 6th event would not be like any of the previous protests held in 2020. We knew that militia groups and white supremacists organizations would be attending. We also knew that some of these participants were intending to bring firearms and other weapons to the event. We knew that there was a strong potential for violence and that Congress was the target.

Pittman, who apologized in her testimony for her department's "failings" during the insurrection, told Congress that the former police chief, Steven Sund, had asked the Capitol Police Board, a three-member oversight body, on Jan. 4 to declare a state of emergency for Jan. 6 and to request National Guard assistance.

Pittman said the board denied both requests...'

'..."The disclosure that the entire executive team ... knew what was coming but did not better prepare us for potential violence, including the possible use of firearms against us, is unconscionable," [union Chair Gus] Papathanasiou said. "The entire executive team failed us, and they must be held accountable. Their inaction cost lives."...'

https://www.npr.org/sections/insurrection-at-the-capitol/2021/01/27/961268306/unconscionable-capitol-police-union-says-leadership-failed-officers-in-riot

mandrewa said...

"The Capitol Police, the NYPD and the FBI all had prior warning that there was going to be an attack on the Capitol."

Or in other words, the FBI and the Capitol Police, and probably others like the left-wing mayor of DC, collaborated to make this happen. These were civilians, not terrorists, not looters or the kind of people that burn down businesses. Although of course there were a few people there like that. They were far the most part conservatives or libertarians, and nothing like the people who burned down or looted businesses in the Antifa or BLM riots. These people broke into the Capital building for several reasons but, among other things, because it was so easy to do. Or to make a particularly relevant comparison, there was an amazing absence of police compared to what had been there during the BLM or Antifa riots.

It had little to do with Trump, as logic would suggest this was absolutely counter to Trump's interest. It was arranged and reported on by Trump's enemies. No, I'm not saying that the people that went into the Capitol Building were not real Trump supporters. Almost all of them were.

But Trump's enemies knew that this would happen if they made it easy enough. Or as someone who was there said, it was like a runway going down the street towards the Capitol Building with people being waved being into the building and with essentially no opposition.

Achilles said...

Howard's friends think Trump should be convicted by a secret ballot.

Because in Howard's diseased and addled mind, we are the brainwashed ones.

At some point Howard, you will realize you democrats are acting just like the Nazi party circa 1933.

People don't turn to censorship when they think they are right.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Tim 5:44

That is the same garbage and obvious vote fraud that went on wherever Biden needed to get ahead in a blue precinct to flip the state.

Friendo said...

my asshole hurts at your parsing of potential Trump guilt. Puhleeze. Be cruelly neutral, or stop the facade and the nonsense..

tim in vermont said...

"Isn't democracy grand!”

Awww, are the voters standing in the way of your little show trial with no standards of evidence and subsequent political execution? Wouldn’t you so much rather have a secret vote to protect these Senators from voters? That would be grand!

Amadeus 48 said...

Every public servant and elected official in America needs to read about Abraham Lincoln's tribulations during the Civil War, and then read his Second Inaugural Address.

"With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan -- to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations."

Huge social, political, and economic changes followed the war. Would Lincoln handled them better than those who survived him? Who knows? If we have any inspiration in our history to guide us from here, it is that.

Leland said...

I'm late to this, so maybe someone fisked this but:

I want to see... all the evidence of a plan, and what law enforcement knew about this plan, whether Trump was informed, and why there wasn't better protection of the Capitol.

1) what law enforcement knew about this plan: This is the new information provided by Trump's lawyers. The FBI knew about the plan.

2) whether Trump was informed: That's not identified in the statement you excerpted, but the line you did quote absolutely doesn't suggest Trump was informed in advanced.

3) why there wasn't better protection of the Capitol: This is still a great question. One problem Trump has is he offered greater protection in advance, and this was rejected. The original offer suggests that Trump knew something. However, the argument that he knew, and then used language that he knew would get supporters to approach the Capitol, but didn't say "overthrow the government" doesn't rise to "incitement of insurrection" in my book. Further, there is an argument I expect to be ignored (such as Hillary's support by foreign governments in 2016) about how much the Democrats knew of the plan and refused protection hoping Trump would send the people to the Capitol. As many noted, it was rather easy going to infiltrate the Capitol.

I do think Trump's lawyers argument that the FBI's knowledge in advance doesn't mean Trump's speech had nothing to do with the riot. It's a nice statement that may fool those that don't work through the logic. But it is no worse an argument than those claiming Trump should be tried for premeditated murder.

In short, you can convince me that Trump sent the people to the Capitol knowing they would disrupt proceedings, but Democrats have done this time and again (see Kavanaugh hearings) and no one dared call it insurrection.

Jupiter said...

"But what if Trump knew there was a plan to storm the Capitol? Then all those words are transformed! They become an incitement to the violence, especially if the people in the crowd know he knows."

Well yeah, if "The Capitol Police, the NYPD and the FBI all had prior warning that there was going to be an attack on the Capitol.", then it was almost certainly leaked to the NYT and WaPo. Pretty much public knowledge at that point.

Friendo said...

Howard, would you, please, just fuck off.

tcrosse said...

For crying out loud, they're still arguing whether FDR knew about Pearl Harbor beforehand.

Big Mike said...

If Trump knew there was a plan to storm the Capitol building, then his speech to the crowd was an incitement, even though he never told the crowd to commit any act of violence.

This was raw foolishness then, and it is worse foolishness now that we know that the people who were planning to do the storming were not Trump voters but were members of Antifa and other violent Democrat movements.

Amadeus 48 said...

tcrosse--Good one!

Real American said...

if there was a plan, then it wasn't incitement because violence was already intended well before Trump did or said anything. In other words, the rioters weren't responding to what Trump said at the rally.

That's obvious! Trump told the crowd to peacefully protest. The rioters did the opposite.

Some incitement!

Rabel said...

The filing only provides a link to a press report from Trump friendly John Solomon claiming without detail or quotes that law enforcement had advance knowledge.

A slender reed indeed.

Narr said...

tcrosse writes, "they're still arguing whether FDR knew about Pearl Harbor beforehand."

Good point, and even better is that there are some who are still arguing that he not only knew, he incited and arranged it!

Narr
What a guy!

farmgirl said...

Of law enforcement knew of this plan they should have:
1-Called in the National Guard
2-Surrounded the capitol w/razor wire
3-Not let anyone breach the walls
4-had more capitol cops
5- etc that I can’t think of right now....
Kinda like now-

Chennaul said...

I rather suspect that if the FBI and the Capital Police had communicated to Trump that there was a plan to breach the capital, he would have expected them to do something about it, and thus not factored it into his plans or his speech.

If the FBI and Capitol Police knew of a plan to attack the Capitol—in advance— why didn’t they do more to prevent it? Reinforcement , more barricades, etc.

James K said...

I didn’t say the memo concedes that Trump was informed of a plan. I still have that question.

Even if he knew, there are still a lot of possibilities. If the FBI knew of a plan, presumably they knew who was behind the plan. If it was antifa, why would Trump think he had any influence on them? And was he told not only there was a plan, but that security would stand aside? If the plan was known, wouldn't it be natural to expect that steps would be taken to stop it? For all we know, that's what Trump was told.

Jim at said...

Shorter Mikio:

2+2 = 7

Guilty!!!

Luke Lea said...

Given the past record of the FBI and CIA and other intelligence agencies in attempting to undermine the Trump administration, isn't it possible that they failed to fully inform the president about the existence, extent, or seriousness of such plans. Indeed in the worst case scenario they might have deliberately taken steps to reduce normal security measure around the capital building, thus increasing the possibility of a breach. That possibility deserves investigation since so far the absence or normal security measures has been described as unexplainable.

BUMBLE BEE said...

Between Seth Rich and Ashli I'd say Capitol Police don't meet the criteria necessary to be called "law enforcement".

Jalanl said...

By Ann's logic Churchill is guilty of inciting World War II.

Hey, he knew Hitler was plotting something and he gave speeches imploring the British people to fight! If not for Churchill millions of people would have been spared!

RigelDog said...

I'm not buying it, mainly because Trump would have to realize that people actually rioting and breaching the Capitol and coming after Congress would be a disaster for him, for his election issues, and for the Right in general. And it certainly has been all that and a bowl of tater salad.

Rabel said...

Achilles, there are multiple videos showing the fatal shot.

Chris of Rights said...

I'm trying to imagine Professor Althouse grading a paper in which the student makes this argument:
1) I knowingly move into a high crime neighborhood
2) My soon shoots and kills someone attempting to burgle my house
3) Therefore my son and I are guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, because I knew in advance that I might be burgled and still moved into the neighborhood.

Seems to me that's the exact same argument Althouse is making now.

buster said...

What evidence would prove Althouse wrong? Suppose the rioters say they did it on their own. Does that show that Trump is innocent? Or is it co-conspirators protecting the man whom the conspiracy was meant to support?

Luke Lea said...

There were definitely plans on the Democratic side to have widespread "mostly peaceful protests" all over the country in the event that Biden lost, at least if we believe that story in the Times. Why else were they boarding up all the stores in Georgetown, etc...?

Spiros said...

What about incitement to suicide? It's nearly impossible to convict the creeps who encourage their boyfriends and girlfriends to commit suicide. These creeps know that their partners are suicidal and, nevertheless, they persist in encouraging them to kill themselves. Sometimes there are criminal cases. Mostly, the victims' voluntary decisions to commit suicide are viewed as superseding causes under the criminal law’s causation doctrine. Just offering moral support or encouragement to a suicidal individual is not enough. There has to be something concrete that facilitates the commission of the suicide. Buying the razor blades or pills or whatever will land you in prison; a couple of nasty text messages won't...

So, reasoning by analogy, what did Trump actually do? Aren't the individual rioters responsible for their stupid decisions to trash the Capitol Building and traumatize AOC?

tim in vermont said...

I think Dersh had it right. There is no point arguing law because law has nothing to do with this. It’s just about power.

Banjo said...

Ann, surely this is the conclusion you wanted to reach in your heart of hearts.

tim in vermont said...

What is Maricopa County hiding? Why won’t they let the perfectly above board and merely ‘fortified’ election be examined?

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/feb/2/maricopa-county-ignores-gop-subpoena-election-equi/

Leland said...

There were definitely plans on the Democratic side to have widespread "mostly peaceful protests" all over the country in the event that Biden lost, at least if we believe that story in the Times.

Indeed and that reads as conspiracy to commit insurrection. Trump and like minded should be noting this often. Just as they noted Democrats inciting violence over the summer.

Big Mike said...

The FBI was caught lying to Trump about investigations so it could leak those investigations to CNN.

Now Ann wants to take the FBI at face value?


And let’s not forget that the FBI received two warnings that a person named Nikolas Cruz planned to shoot up a school, yet they did nothing.

Wince said...

Mayor Muriel Bowser
@MayorBowser
·
Jan 5
To be clear, the District of Columbia is not requesting other federal law enforcement personnel and discourages any additional deployment without immediate notification to, and consultation with, MPD if such plans are underway.

https://mobile.twitter.com/MayorBowser/status/1346530358674792466?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1346530358674792466%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fhomenews%2Fadministration%2F532739-bowser-to-doj-pentagon-dc-isnt-requesting-federal-law-enforcement-to

NCMoss said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kai Akker said...

Those confused-looking guys wandering around the Capitol who didn't know what to do with themselves? Just to be clear, is that The Insurrection?

C'mon.

Narayanan said...

Achilles said...
I like how Ann completely ignores all of the videos of the "Capitol Police" leading "protestors" through the halls of Congress during the "insurrection."

Or the video of the Agent shooting the unarmed Ashlii Babbit from about 10 feet away in the back.
----------===========
in the video every one and I saw : much closer than 10 feet - more like 2 or 3
I was quite expecting second shot at the person next to her

Balfegor said...

If it was talked about on social media, the record exists. Wouldn't the FBI have seen it in advance and communicated to the President about it?

Back in your Pandora's box post, I noted that the affidavit filed in support of at least one of the capitol riot indictments (for the three alleged Oathkeepers) contains evidence of pre-riot references to a "plan" and in-riot evidence of communications about sticking to the plan once they're already in the Capitol, so I've been pretty comfortable that there was some sort of plan in advance, at least for some subset of the rioters. Notably, most of the other affidavits lack any similarly suggestive evidence of pre-riot coordination, although the government might be withholding it for the moment while they continue to identify targets for prosecution. I think, though, that if there were clear advance knowledge of the riot on social media (where the public could find it), it should have shown up in the affidavits by now, especially if it's already being reported elsewhere. The affidavits do contain ambiguous pre-riot evidence off social media, after all. So I infer that there is evidence of a plan, but it was probably not clear it was serious until the riot kicked in.

On the other hand, the fact that DOJ and the army offered support to DC and Capitol police in advance suggests that they had may have had sufficient advance evidence to raise an actual concern. On the other hand, it either wasn't definite enough to share with DC and Capitol police, or they did, and the police looked at it and thought it was garbage -- hence Mayor Bowser's dismissive letter rejecting federal assistance.

On the gripping hand, I'd be very, very surprised if Director Wray were in the habit of sharing inchoate evidence of possible unrest with the President, particularly if the President is Trump. I would think there would have to be some huge and definite red flags to rise to that point. And if there were, we should have seen them -- not characterisations of them -- by now.

320Busdriver said...


Blogger Rabel said...
Achilles, there are multiple videos showing the fatal shot.

There is about as much info on Ms Babbit and how she died as there is on the cause of death for officer Sicknick. Which is to say is about right for a non functioning republic. What are they hiding you ask?

FullMoon said...

As said by others, Always rumors of some kind of attack being relayed to the President. If Trump was advised of a plan, it was more likely a plan by the left to disrupt a peaceful protest, just like they did during and after the pussyhat protests.

chickelit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
chickelit said...

Were any of the Capitol stormers at Trump's speech or within earshot? Surely their movements and motivations are known by now.

Balfegor said...

People saying that if the FBI had evidence of a plot, why didn't they call in the National Guard, etc. -- look at the January 5 tweet from the DC mayor that Wince linked above. She's directly rejecting offers of assistance from DOJ and the Army (look at the addressees). She only has jurisdiction over DC police, but my understanding is Capitol Police also rejected assistance from DOJ/Army. That offer might just be in line with the prior offers of assistance at the time of the Antifa/BLM riots, or it might have been motivated by specific evidence of a plot. Either way, this isn't a dog that didn't bark. I mean, maybe it didn't, maybe it did -- there's a lot we don't know. But I don't think you can strongly infer an absence of evidence of a plot based on the failure to call out the National Guard. Weakly, eh, perhaps.

tim in vermont said...

Facebook mentioned 73 times, Parler 8, so let’s shut down Parler.

https://twitter.com/MaxAbrahms/status/1358526058379833345

God of the Sea People said...

Discovering in retrospect that the riot was planned in advance tells us nothing about the President’s knowledge at the time. I don’t think this is as damning as Anne thinks it is.

Hey Skipper said...


"Ann: But what if Trump knew there was a plan to storm the Capitol? Then all those words are transformed! They become an incitement to the violence, especially if the people in the crowd know he knows."

AssumIng the “if”, in order for those words to be transformed, doesn’t that mean the obverse must also be true?

That is, you must also conclude that if Trump hadn’t said those words, no one would have stormed the Capitol.

No way.

donald said...

This is nothing less than mental masturbation. The entire concept is embarrassing if one thinks of one’s self as a serious thinker and gives it any credence.

Narayanan said...

videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-Babbitt

New videos capture fatal shooting of Ashli Babbitt during Capitol siege
By Aaron Feis NYPost >>> https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/

Inga said...

“Were any of the Capitol stormers at Trump's speech or within earshot?”

From Trump’s Rally to Congress
This time-lapse animation shows smartphones as they moved from Donald Trump’s rally to the Capitol.


“A source has provided another data set, this time following the smartphones of thousands of Trump supporters, rioters and passers-by in Washington, D.C., on January 6, as Donald Trump’s political rally turned into a violent insurrection. At least five people died because of the riot at the Capitol. Key to bringing the mob to justice has been the event’s digital detritus: location data, geotagged photos, facial recognition, surveillance cameras and crowdsourcing.”

Balfegor said...

Here's another affidavit, this time of an alleged Proud Boy, that contains suggestive pre-riot evidence of a plan to do . . something. It helpfully contrasts the peaceful November and December protests attended by groups like the Proud Boys with the violent January protest. The latter was apparently preceded by discussion of dressing in black (Antifa colours) or incognito, rather than black and yellow, which I guess are the Proud Boys colours? There's also details set forth as evidence this fellow Biggs incited other demonstrators to break into the Capitol.

boatbuilder said...

I would hazard a guess that Trump may have been skeptical about any reports of non-specific potential violence, because he would see it as part of the effort to get him to call off the march/rally. Which, given that he had been lied to and misled repeatedly by the FBI, that his supporters had never engaged in violence at his hundreds of rallies, and that the march was his last opportunity to demonstrate massive public support for his challenge to the legitimacy of the election counting, is an entirely reasonable view.
Someone on this board in the last couple of days quoted some "insider" saying that Trump was telling his advisors that he thought that they would need more Nat. Guard troops than the DC and Capitol people were asking for. This is consistent with Trump's strongly held belief (right again) that his supporters would show up bigly. Not violently (OK, wrong on that, but there were a few hundred thousand who remained peaceful).
I also agree with the basic point that if Trump planned an insurrection, wouldn't he have planned a little more actual force, and perhaps some follow-up?

Marcus Bressler said...

The Hostess continues to embarrass herself today. First the fellating of Google's demands and now this: this post is as sloppy as a drunk hooker. Isn't it embarrassing when smarter people read what you wrote and go, "WTF did she just say?"

THEOLDMAN

A brave blogger would leave Google behind, damn the old posts.

Rosalyn C. said...

The Capitol breach completely nullified the plan to challenge the certification. Trump wanted the certification to be challenged, especially by those states which challenged the vote count and had sent in alternative electors' votes for Trump. Trump wanted the voices of his supporters outside the Capitol to encourage the Senators to act to challenge the electors' votes. There is no rational way that Trump wanted the Capitol to be breached by a violent mob. Democrats are asserting that the mob wanted to overthrow the government and prevent the Senate from completing its task of counting the electoral college. If some in the mob had that idea they missed the memo of the plan. For sure the mob was not following the instructions of Donald Trump.

If Trump had in fact been warned of some plans to breach the Capitol was he assured that such plans were not a significant threat or a serious threat? The Capitol police and others have claimed that they did not consider the protest to be a serious threat as their excuse for their weak security arrangements. Could they have been misinformed about the threat being insignificant and Trump told something completely different? Now we're just speculating. But that doesn't add up because the mayhem did not help Trump and it wasn't part of his plan.

I don't assign negative motives to Ann for her speculation and conclusions about Trump's intentions. I attribute her opinion to being uninformed or perhaps misinformed. She bought into the Democrat narrative that Trump intended to remain President by the mob preventing the certification of the Electoral College. That's as ridiculous as the many other claims about Trump -- that he wasn't serious about running, he wasn't serious about serving, he was going to start WWIII, he was a Russian agent, he was never going to leave and the military would have to physically remove him, he's too unstable to be trusted with intelligence briefings etc.

chickelit said...

That new video of Ashli Babbitt being shot needs to be suppressed or explained. The "well dressed" shooter was wearing gloves-- why?-- fear of finger prints? You can almost see his face. He needs to be outed.

chickelit said...

From that new vantage point, Ashlii Babbit's killing looks like cold blooded murder.

Marcus Bressler said...

It WAS murder IMO. But I'm not the prosecutor AND weeks later, we still don't know the name of the killer.

THEOLDMAN

Francisco D said...

steve uhr said...Too bad Trump refuses to testify about his knowledge and state of mind.

Are you really a lawyer? I find that statement unbelievable, but not surprising from you.

I would love to cross examine you about your state of mind, but I am afraid that we would find that you have no mind.

boatbuilder said...

that video isn't "New." I saw it the next day.A month ago. It depicts outrageous conduct-pretty much cold-blooded murder-by the shooter, who is obviously known to "law enforcement," and one would think to the press insiders.

Yes, she was a rioter. What if she had been part of a BLM protest and she was shot like that?

What are they hiding?

Francisco D said...

Althouse,

The good news is that Google will not censor you.

Your liberal friends in Madison will be civil with you.

You have not been cancelled by your tribe.

The bad news ... lets not go there right now.

chickelit said...

I don't assign negative motives to Ann for her speculation and conclusions about Trump's intentions. I attribute her opinion to being uninformed or perhaps misinformed.

Don't forget that she ridiculed Trump at first (2015), then voted against him once (2016) and abstained the second time in 2020. I think she only gives Trump a fairer shake than other liberals do because she respects others' opinions about him.

chickelit said...

It depicts outrageous conduct-pretty much cold-blooded murder-by the shooter, who is obviously known to "law enforcement," and one would think to the press insiders.

The man must be a government agent with a license to kill.

Rosalyn C. said...

I suppose that chickelit is correct, that Ann has displayed a basic prejudice against Trump as a president while admiring him and his value as an entertainer. That's generous for a liberal. Most liberals assign evil intentions to Trump while claiming he is incompetent and unintelligent. It's a complete accident he accomplished so much.

My favorite incoherent criticism of Trump -- all the people who died from Covid is Trump's fault, while neglecting any credit to Trump for the quick development of the vaccine.

Owen said...

Will Trump's lawyers demand discovery/testimony from Capitol Police on their preparedness or rather lack thereof? What is their SOP to prep and plan and equip and deploy under conditions like these? And by "these," I mean at least two scenarios: (1) they had received warning from FBI and/or other credible sources that the S was about to hit the F, perhaps with specific estimates on who, what, where, how many, with what; or (2) they had not received such warning ins such detail but were aware that Trump Rally was going to be/likely to be well into six figures. Either way, they had to have a plan. Or am I being too charitable: that these overpaid buffoons don't plan beyond the next coffee break?

And whatever their plan was, can we take some testimony on with whom they shared their thinking? They report to Pelosi, right? So can we get Pelosi under oath to tell us what she knew, when she knew it, what she told them to do or not to do?

This is going to be a fun event.

chickelit said...

Inga said...This time-lapse animation shows smartphones as they moved from Donald Trump’s rally to the Capitol.

That's an interesting new tool. I hope it's not used in a partisan way. Also, there are so few pings actually inside the Capitol and pings seems to approach the Capitol from all sides -- it's hard to say whether the pings that breached the Capitol came from the rally.

Howard said...

After the Senate fails to convict, are federal or DC criminal indictments heading to some of the former administration?

stevew said...

Who killed Ashli Babbitt? What is the cause of officer Brian Sicknick's death?

Hint: Not Trump.

Ken B said...

From another thread, perhaps relevant in this one

AA: “I will protect this blog ... Google could delete this blog”

Rosalyn C. said...

The head of the Capitol Police has already resigned so he won't be available to testify.

I had heard that Pelosi nixed the deployment of the National Guard ahead of the vote because she didn't like the optics. But that story has evaporated.

chickelit said...

Marcus said...It WAS murder IMO. But I'm not the prosecutor AND weeks later, we still don't know the name of the killer.

What do the goons and cowards tell Babbit's parents and next of kin: "She was killed while rioting and she shouldn't have been there?' That's plausible, but why the double standard? Why are leftwing organizations encouraged to riot by authorities -- authorities like Madison's mayor and Portland's mayor?

Ken B said...

Anyone remember the Morton's Fork?

If there was no plan, then Trump's words incited the violence.
If there was a plan then Trump didn’t need to incite the violence.

PB said...

Do you know how many "plots" there are every day? The ability of the FBI to judgr the seriousness of any of them is minimal. If the Capitol Police felt it was a severe threat. They would have acted very differently.

Achilles said...

Narayanan said...

Achilles said...
I like how Ann completely ignores all of the videos of the "Capitol Police" leading "protestors" through the halls of Congress during the "insurrection."

Or the video of the Agent shooting the unarmed Ashlii Babbit from about 10 feet away in the back.
----------===========
in the video every one and I saw : much closer than 10 feet - more like 2 or 3
I was quite expecting second shot at the person next to her


I just watched a video in Spanish.

Before the videos I saw Ashlii Babitt fell into the arms of a federal agent surrounded by 4 fully armored agents with assault rifles. They were the closest people to her when she was shot.

The video I just saw clearly shows another federal agent step forward and shoot her even while she was surrounded by armed federal agents.

This was murder.

We didn't even shoot people like that in Afghanistan or Iraq. In fact the shooter would have gotten his ass beat for shooting in the direction of other people that were part of his unit. The other officers in that group were clearly in the direction of his fire.

She was clearly surrounded by well armed people.

The people who cheer her murder are evil people.

traditionalguy said...

The war to remove the legitimate Government of the USA by Trump’s MAGA voters by use of well proven electronic vote flipping rolls along. Forbidding Trump to run again is the coup de grace for American self governance. The funny part is that the crime families ruling Red China would gladly have paid ten times more in cash bribes had the Globalist bargained for it like DJT bargains.

chickelit said...

boatbuilder said...What are they hiding?. That the man who shot Babbit was not wearing a glove but was actually Black? I can see how that might be inflammatory.

William said...

Trump's lawyers should call Al Sharpton as an expert witness. There's a man who truly knows that there's no relation between free speech and the actions of an angry mob.

Ampersand said...

Given the preexisting plan, his decision to go forward with his trivial complaints about the theft of the election was a high crime. He should have stopped in his tracks and allowed the one percent faction of idiots to put an end to his rally.
All that said, Trump should have called the idiots, idiots, early and often. And he didn't. A serious error.

Jamie said...

Inga said...This time-lapse animation shows smartphones as they moved from Donald Trump’s rally to the Capitol.

That's an interesting new tool. I hope it's not used in a partisan way. Also, there are so few pings actually inside the Capitol and pings seems to approach the Capitol from all sides -- it's hard to say whether the pings that breached the Capitol came from the rally.


This "tool" - I have thoughts. From the NYT article: "A source has provided another data set, this time following the smartphones of thousands of Trump supporters, rioters and passers-by in Washington, D.C., on January 6." More clearly stated, an anonymous source has provided a data set that the source claims follows the smartphones of Trump supporters, rioters, and passers-by, and the NYT believes the source's claim. What evidence is provided that this data set does indeed do what it says it does? And while we're at it - good God. The source also claims that the data set has discerned that the data set represented three groups: Trump supporters, rioters, and passers-by. In other words, the data set has some means to exclude members of law enforcement, the military, the press, people who live or work in D.C. (not "passers-by")... What means is that?

Or - just spitballing here - the source provided a manufactured data set that showed a suitably vague Brownian movement of some cellphones from rally to !!insurrection!!.

Note: I think it's perfectly possible that some people who were at the rally ended up at the Capitol. I also think it's more than possible, given the utterly and consistently peaceful and prosocial behavior of enormous crowds at Trump rallies going back four-plus years, that any cellphones present at the rally that belonged to window-breakers who breached the Capitol belonged not to Trump supporters but to anti-Trump antagonists.

Change my mind.

William said...

At Marie Antoinette's trial, she was charged although not convicted of sexually abusing her seven year old son. The seriousness of the charge reflects not on the depravity of Marie Antoinette but on the malice of those who were trying her....Marie was actually guilty of conspiring with foreign powers to subvert the General Assembly. She believed that the Assembly meant harm to her husband, herself, and her child. Who was the most paranoic?.....I think the charges against Trump are patently unfounded. The fact that they are being aired in the Capitol is as much an offense against that building as that committed by the rioters.

Jamie said...

The charges against Trump are unimportant to the goal of the Democrats in Congress. They could have impeached him for leaving wads of chewing gum under the Resolute desk if they only wanted to Get Trump. They had the votes.

What they want is to Get Us: to make the political stance of anyone who has ever supported Trump in any degree equivalent to that of a (Congress-styled) violent insurrectionist. The little morality play in Congress Friday, wherein Rashida Tlaib wept loudly for the fear and trauma suffered by her staff and The Right Honourable Reverendess Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or whatever she goes by now came up to comfort her grieving colleague - good freaking gravy, I am a feminist of long standing and they make me ashamed to be a woman. rhardin again shows that he's not altogether wrong - that little display was to show all the Right-Thinking People just how reprehensible those Trump people are. The revelation of the tracking software we all knew was embedded in our phones, or more properly the use of that software to track the movements of some people from rally to Capitol - that's to show us that we can't escape; it's not to support the impeachment article, since the speech-to-break-in timeline doesn't support the assertion that Trump incited people at the rally to do the breaking in. The Time article about how the election was pressured, steered, and cajoled into the "proper outcome" in order to "save democracy" - that was to show us that not only can they f*ck us whenever they want, but they can then chain us and make us lie there next to them like Princess Leia in the gold bikini while they hold public court.

shudder... I graduated from high school in 1984, losing sleep over Cold War terror and naively believing that if we did escape nuclear holocaust, it would be in spite of and not because of Reagan and Thatcher. And I never envisioned that my beloved country would be following 1984's playbook by the time my own children were the age I was then. The worst thing I had to worry about was whether I'd survive the initial blast only to die of radiation sickness; now I have to wonder whether my children will be allowed to attend college, work, get a credit card, buy or rent a place to live, because I used to have a blog where I defended conservatism and criticized progressivism and because I use my real name everywhere now.

The Godfather said...

Suppose you're Pres. T (a hypothetical president), and the FBI, etc. picks up evidence several days before your scheduled speech that "some people" are planning a violent demonstration at the US Capitol. Question 1: Does the FBI, etc. pass this information on to you? Question 2: If so, do you (should you) believe it? Question 3: You sincerely believe that the election processes in several States were so flawed that the results should be invalidated by the State legislatures, and to start the process for that, congress should reject the reported electoral college results from those States and send them back to the legislatures. You know that the public has been told by anti-Pres. T media that there's no basis for your concern about the conduct of the election in those States, but you also know that the media are committed to supporting your adversary in the election. So you want to encourage members of congress who might be leaning your way on this issue to take a stand that is unpopular with the media, by showing them that there are a lot of loyal Americans who agree that the election results in several States should be reconsidered.

Then, maybe, the FBI etc. tells you about the rumors/evidence of plans for a violent riot at the Capitol by people who are not "your People". Question 4, Do you now say to your supporters: Don't march peacefully up to the Capitol to show your support for correcting misconduct in the election. Give it up. The risk of violence (that didn't deter my political opponents from supporting the George Floyd protesters throughout much of 2020) is more important than whether the election of the President of the US was legitimate.

stephen cooper said...

and Obama knew that many of the groups he praised included people who would do things far worse than congregate at a ceremonial building that belongs to us all


so what is the point unless Obama is being impeached too?

stephen cooper said...

and if you think Obama should not be next up on the impeachment carousel you are just as much of a racist as the people you hate
most of the people killed after Obama's pro-violence rhetoric were black

stephen cooper said...

if there is no impeachment trail of Obama in Congress in the next few weeks then I agree with the commenters who say that these impeachment hearings are a greater offense to this country than anything that happened during the protests

Clyde said...

Robert Cook said...
"The best part is that these people probably think the Capitol Police or FBI would tell Trump of such things."

Shouldn't they?!


You're talking about the same Capitol Police that still have not told us the name of the officer who killed Ashli Babbitt, as well as numerous other details of the Capitol riot that have been requested by conservative media and ignored. (To put that in perspective, if a black person had been killed or injured by the police, we would have known the officer's name almost immediately. You know I'm right.) If they won't tell us who killed Ashli Babbitt, what makes you think they would have told Trump ANYTHING?!

Clyde said...

Narayanan said...

in the video every one and I saw : much closer than 10 feet - more like 2 or 3
I was quite expecting second shot at the person next to her


You only have to kill one pour encourager les autres.

Mikio said...

"Proud Boys, stand back, and stand by" - Trump, first presidential debate, Sep. 29, 2020

A smoking gun as far as I'm concerned to his inciting the violent insurrection at the Capitol. And the fact there's no evidence he did anything to try to stop it during the hours it was happening. Double smoking guns.

I defy anyone to answer the following: What did Trump mean there? What did he want the Proud Boys to stand by for?

The answer's obvious. Let's see any possible spin of an alternative. Stand by for... a game of Parcheesi? Some manly patty cake? Braiding each other's hair later?

It was an agitated, military-sounding order (which was weird af in the context of a debate, but he knew he had a huge audience, some say the hugest) from the then-CIC to a "far-right, neo-fascist, and male-only white nationalist organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States."

Go ahead, let's see attempts at a plausible answer.

stephen cooper said...

Clyde, I know you're right. Sad, because I find your avatar picture so unworthy of you.

Clyde said...

Mikio, you have a clown in office now who can barely read a teleprompter without gaffes. Trump was in the middle of a live debate and he said "stand by" instead of the more obvious "stand down," which is probably what he meant. Spare us your high dudgeon.

Clyde said...

stephen cooper said...
Clyde, I know you're right. Sad, because I find your avatar picture so unworthy of you.


Not sure what you're trying to say, unless it's that you don't like iPhones. It's an iPhone avatar that I ported out. I could go back to the green snake, but right now I'm not.

stephen cooper said...

I love snakes, the only reason I don't have pet snakes is that they all have life expectancy that is longer than mine, and, although I have many wonderful relatives and a few good friends, I would not trust any of them to take care of my pet snakes after I am gone.

Mikio said...

he said "stand by" instead of the more obvious "stand down," which is probably what he meant. Spare us your high dudgeon.

So you're changing his words for him, to suit yourself. Could you be more risibly weak? And it's not high dudgeon. Biden's in. Your boy's out. Man, you're clueless. Don't expect me to respond again unless you pick your game way up.

Clyde said...

Clueless? I read you like a book, Mikio. A pulp novel on the second-hand rack.

Scott said...

Oh Ann, the "attack" started before the speech ended. that is all that matters

chickelit said...

Unknown said...Oh Ann, the "attack" started before the speech ended. that is all that matters

Timelines and chronology? That's old school litigation. Narrative is the new metric.

Ann Althouse said...

"Oh Ann, the "attack" started before the speech ended. that is all that matters"

That belief of yours corresponds with the belief of Trump's lawyers that a preexisting plan gets him off the hook.

Ann Althouse said...

I don't mean the belief that the attack started before the speech ended. I agree with that. I mean the belief that a preexisting plan is evidence that he did not make himself part of the action.

wendybar said...

"Democrats cannot pretend that they were confused by the word ‘fight’...the...nonprofit started by...Stacey Abrams and endorsed by none other than Speaker Pelosi is literally called ‘Fair Fight,’ and it asks people to join the “fight for free and fair elections.”

"The fact that some small percentage of unlawful rioters who, as the FBI...knew in advance, had been planning to come and wage war, did so later...does not in any way mean that they were acting at Mr. Trump’s direction or through any 'incitement' from Mr. Trump." #impeachmentmemo - Joel Pollak

Lincolntf said...

If you are forced to imagine the thoughts in Trump's head and then superimpose your thoughts of his thoughts over his words in order to conjure up "incitement", then you ain't got a case.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 228   Newer› Newest»