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....
Posts
228 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 228 of 228I found out yesterday that the FBI knew weeks in advance that something was going down and didn't consider it action worthy. The DC sheriff knew it too as did the white house. The whitehouse even advised that DC have the national guard on standby. So yes. He knew something was going to happen. When he knew was open for debate. But so did every other agency in DC and no one thought it important enough to act. Perhaps this is why congress is walking back the 'impeachment' rhetoric.
I can understand the mouth breathers want a lynching. Be careful. Because when they cant hang Trump they'll grab the closest n-word and toss a rope. They are evil, vile people.
This notion that Trump's first amendment rights are curtailed--that he is not entitled to protest on his own behalf because govt security agencies believe that some people may be planning to get violent at around the same time--is risible. It provides a nice clean path for eliminating the basic rights of people who are out of power. A position unfit for a law professor.
I wish I had read the post and commented earlier.
"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."
Seems to me that this says Trump found out about it by "reading it in the newspaper" - just like Obama always did. Very careful framing. They concede nothing regarding prior personal knowledge.
"I mean the belief that a preexisting plan is evidence that he did not make himself part of the action."
The notion that he "made himself part of the action" requires proof, which isn't provided by either of the trial briefs or any other source as far as I am aware. So aren't we back to square 1 on this, even using Ann's standard for guilt?
Trump offered the national guard and even the military to help secure the inauguration, but then he incited a riot?
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/02/former-chief-staff-mark-meadows-drops-bomb-power-drunk-democrats-trump-offered-assistance-multiple-times-dc-officials-january-6th-video/
Mikio's side elected a guy who cheerily congratulated the greatest "voter fraud" organization the world has ever seen, in a scripted speech... but Mikio wants the other side to explain and/or defend Trump's saying "by" instead of "down" in a debate. Mm hmm.
1. Does Mikio mean that our guy can be relied on to speak clearly and accurately at all times while Mikio's guy is so addled that he can't read a teleprompter?
2. Does Mikio mean that the standard used to judge Mikio's guy ought properly to be dramatically lower than the standard used on our guy?
3. Or does Mikio believe that Biden was speaking accurately and we ought all just to take our 20g chocolate rations and go home?
Althouse put ZERO analysis in the election fraud to protect this blog, but has not problem trying to project and "open mind" regarding this bullshit impeachment.
What a joke.
Blogger Gusty Winds said...
"Althouse put ZERO analysis in the election fraud to protect this blog, but has not problem trying to project and "open mind" regarding this bullshit impeachment.
What a joke."
It's good theater for the rubes. The left is eating this up. Stay tuned for a usual suspect circle jerk.
Since everyone is delving into Trump's motives:
IF Trump knew of the attack, by his very nature and past experience, he would have called for more security at the Capitol. Being that there was little, and others declined to add it, I confer that others knew and set up the President. Not guilty!
If there were groups making plans, how did the FBI know? Was it because they had informants in these groups? We know that was the case with the Proud Boys, for example. The leader of the Proud Boys was an FBI informant. The leader.
The FBI has a long history of using undercover people to incite fringe groups to commit crimes they otherwise would never have seriously considered.
After watching the the Intelligence Community using their resources to try to take Trump out since before his inauguration, you have to ask, who's plan was it to go in to the Capitol?
Ann, if the FBI actually told Trump they had discovered a "pre-existing" plan for an attack, don't you think they would have leaked that to the press, or even proudly announced it on CNN? Everything else that might hurt Trump was leaked by them, after all.
Gusty Winds said...
Althouse put ZERO analysis in the election fraud to protect this blog, but has not problem trying to project and "open mind" regarding this bullshit impeachment.
She chose that path to protect herself from the mob.
If Trump new about the plan for violence, then he was grossly irresponsible with his speech to the crowd.
But, if he wasn’t informed, then his words, taken at face value, are quite reasonable.
Of course, there’s the possibility that he unofficially knew but didn’t officially know. More and more I think that’s probably the case even though I doubt it can be proven.
If there was a plan by people unrelated to Trump, then you have to prove that Trump knew at the time that the plan existed.
the mere fact that FBI says now that the plan existed back then says nothing about Trump's knowledge back then
Tom said...
Of course, there’s the possibility that he unofficially knew but didn’t officially know. More and more I think that’s probably the case even though I doubt it can be proven.
More honest Tom:
There's no proof that Trump is guilty, so I'm going to make up a story that can't be disproved, and go with that because it supports my biases
Exactly how is Trump supposed to have "unofficially" "known"? Briefed by the FBI "off the record"? How do we prove that didn't happen? We can't?
Then you've got a great story, assuming you're a dishonest hack.
Did he know know...
I realize that I am late to this party but would like to include my two cents.
Ann, if I understand you correctly, you believe that if DJT had foreknowledge of possible violence that his speech should be considered as fomenting the "insurrection". Now, I am no lawyer, and I understand that this is political proceeding but....
You yourself concede that the language that DJT used in his speech was standard political boilerplate. There was no overt call to violence or insurrection. Therefore, wouldn't DJT have had to been involved in some level of planning with the "insurrectionists"? Is there any evidence of that? Otherwise you are postulating that Trumps had to know that his standard political language would send "dog whistles" to individuals that he had not had any communication with.
Your level of evidence requirement should be proof that either DJT or his people were coordinating with the people that attacked the Capital. What I hear you saying is that if DJT had any inkling that there might be violence that using language such as,"we won't back down" equals incitement to violence.
1: Everyone knew that BLM was engaging in violent riots. Democrats supported them anyway.
Does this mean that every single Democrat politician who supported BLM after the first protest turned into a riot should be impeached, removed form office, and blocked from ever holding office again?
2: The 1st Amendment is for all Americans, or none. Pick one
3: Trump told the people to go to the Capitol and peacefully make their voices heard. He has an absolute 1st Amendment right to say that and call for that, and they have an absolute 1st Amendment right to do it.
4: "Heads I win, tails you lose" destroys society. We spent all summer and fall having "mostly peaceful" riots by the left, with all the good people insisting that the people who marched with BLM and didn't commit violence themselves bear no shame for the violence that happened during the BLM riots.
If that is true, then the same applies to every single person at the Capitol on 1/6 who did not personally commit violence.
If everyone at the 1/6 protests tarred with the brush of the "attack on the Capitol", then every single person who supported BLM is guilty of the murders and destruction carried out by BLM.
Again: pick one, and stick to it. Either call out every single BLM supporter, or stop whining about 1/6
Additionally, why do you only utilize the parameters of consideration that the MSM and Democrats want you to use in determining if DJT incited violence? Shouldn't you consider other factors? Such as, if there was foreknowledge of violence, who knew about it, whose responsibility was it to address this issue and what steps did they take to ensure that the planned violence was stopped or mitigated?
Let me provide some answers. DJT does not have any policing or security powers within the District other than within the WH grounds. The Mayor is responsible for the DC police and the Speaker is controls the Capital Police force. If the FBI knew that violence was being planned in the District the should have informed both the Mayor and the Speaker along with the president. We do have circumstantial evidence that was the case.
What did each of these people who were responsible for addressing unrest in DC do to prepare to stop or mitigate possible reports of violence. DJT offered the NG to the Mayor but she rejected his offer. Additionally, she tweeted that she was not going to provide any additional police presence. We don't know what instructions the Speaker provided to the Capital Police (you might ask yourself why we don't) but we do know that they did not appear to provide any additional staffing or protection despite the supposed warning of planned violence by the FBI.
Knowing what we do know, it appears that the only leader who tried to do anything to secure the Capital, even though it was not his responsibility, was DJT. Shouldn't that be considered as well?
The parameters that you have set forth for determining whether DJT should be impeached are extremely one sided. Did he know there was the possibility of violence? If so, he can't give a speech or hold a rally because any of his words that can be misconstrued by his detractors, "we must resist" are secret dog whistle to violence. If you believe this to be true then you have provided the left with the ultimate heckler's veto.
Oh, BTW:
BLM was using violence to advance their political agenda: overthrow of the Trump Administration.
If what happened on 1/6 was insurrection, then so was every single BLM or Antifa "protest" that had violence.
Which, so far as I can tell, was pretty much all of them
People have been coming up with the weirdest rules in a desperate attempt to defend Trump! For instance, here's a commenter on this post:
the "attack" started before the speech ended. that is all that matters
Is the rule that it doesn't count as incitement unless he did it at the end of the speech? And in this day and age, should we pretend that people walking around outside were incapable of continuing to watch a speech that was being live-streamed? That's hardly a cutting-edge technology in 2021.
Now this is from the Trump lawyer:
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.
That seems to imply that since Trump gave a speech on January 6, nothing he said any earlier could possibly matter. But Reason notes that he tweeted on December 19: "Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!" And even if he hadn't said anything about the protest until January 6, why would you rule out the possibility that he found out about an existing plot, and decided to get involved late and egg them on?
Why is it that Trump's defenders are saying so much that doesn't make sense and/or isn't true? Could it be because a logical and true defense of Trump doesn't exist? Hmmm…
Do you really think that a riot at the Capitol could lead to the counts being overturned and Trump remaining in office? Were they actually going to kill Pelosi and Pence and take over the country? Do you seriously think that Trump thought that would work?
I can sort of understand your view. I thought Trump should have realized that even if the election had been stolen from him, the Supreme Court, the Congress or the Vice President weren't going to step in and award the presidency to him or give him a do-over. But isn't the idea of pulling off a coup or insurrection something that even Trump would think unreasonable?
What did the FBI know? We don't know what intelligence they had and we may never know. Was it just "chatter"? You know, something big is going to happen on January 6. Well, something big was indeed going to happen, but chatter doesn't usually tell you what.
Did they have informants inside? Did they give the feds reliable information that an assault was planned? If they did, why wasn't Capitol fortified? Was it a screw-up? Did Trump give an order not to guard the Capitol? Could he? Was that his responsibility or something the bureaucracy would leave up to him? Did Pelosi and Schumer drop the ball? Were they careless? Did they plan some kind of entrapment? Or did White privilege make them thing there wouldn't be anything threatening on that day?
It's all surprising. If the far right or the alt.right is a threat, if Trumpism really does threaten "our democracy," why weren't more vigorous measures taken to ensure the Capitol? The fact that steps weren't taken could be seen as the result of conspiring or colluding or just plain incompetence, but it could also be an indication that there was no solid "actionable info" about a plan thought up beforehand.
I suspect the attack wasn't "planned." Something was planned. Confrontations. Some headcracking or window breaking and jostling on the barricades. But unless you believe a conspiracy theory, it wasn't to be expected that it would be so easy to break into the Capitol. It wasn't to be expected that protestors would simply be let into the building (and people who went there peacefully on that day and were let in probably didn't expect to have their lives ruined because of events they didn't foresee). The rioters took advantage of opportunities that mostly likely they didn't foresee or expect.
I'm inclined to think that what happened was the result of chance circumstances. Some militants had intentions, but that doesn't add up to a "plan." Trump probably had some awareness of the chatter and told the protestors to be peaceful. He could have done more. Always, he (or some imaginary ideal president) could have done more or better or different. But I don't think you can pin the charge of incitement on him.
Of course, there’s the possibility that he unofficially knew but didn’t officially know. More and more I think that’s probably the case even though I doubt it can be proven.
Or that he officially knew, but didn't unofficially know - that he was briefed but wasn't paying attention or that papers reached the White House but he didn't see them or maybe even that the FBI is lying about what it told him. That may be more likely than that he was in communication with violent groups.
John, regardless of Ann's thoughts about what constitutes guilt, there is actually a legal standard for what constitutes incitement that is at issue here. The timeline of what happened doesn't support a conviction under that standard, because the bad actors intended to act badly prior to, and regardless of, what Trump said in his speech. He didn't incite them if they were already planning to do it.
For a criminal act like incitement, there is always the possibility of trying Trump criminally. However, there doesn't seem to be any interest in following through with that separate from impeachment, because everyone knows that standard can't be met in a criminal trial where legal standards have real meanings and the President would be afforded due process.
Of course an impeachment trial is not a legal trial, and they can throw legal standards out the window if they wish. But if there is no actual standard for guilt or innocence, then a conviction is basically meaningless political theater.
So, Trump's speech to audit the vote and hold off the protests was the neutral choice.
How many weapons, how many guns were involved in this "insurrection"?
"Brass knuckles and pocket knives, stun guns and "stinger whips" and about a dozen guns.
Maybe more, I don't know.
If there was an actual plan involved, why weren't weapons more in evidence?
Such guns as were found may have belonged to "lone wolves," rather than people in groups that might have formulated a serious plan of attack.
John Althouse Cohen said...
Is the rule that it doesn't count as incitement unless he did it at the end of the speech?
It doesn't count as incitement if it happen before he said the "inciting words".
So, John, tell us which exact words of Trump's you claim "incite the violence."
Then Give us the time stamp when those words were uttered.
Then give us the time when the first violence started.
If the violence started before Trump's words, either he has a really amazing time machine, or else he didn't incite it.
That simple enough for even you to understand?
Now this is from the Trump lawyer:
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.
That seems to imply that since Trump gave a speech on January 6, nothing he said any earlier could possibly matter. But Reason notes that he tweeted on December 19: "Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!"
The House "impeached" Trump for his words said on 1/6. They did not impeach him for his tweet on 12/19.
Even someone as mentally limited as you are should be able to figure out that you have to prove the "crime" that was charged.
And even if he hadn't said anything about the protest until January 6, why would you rule out the possibility that he found out about an existing plot, and decided to get involved late and egg them on?
Because the rule that decent human beings follow is "innocent until proved guilty", not "guilty until proved innocent."
So unless and until you provide some actual evidence to back up your fantasy, we rule out the possibility that it is true.
I will say this for you: you would have fit right in with the accusers at the Salem Witch Trials.
Post a Comment