From the trial memorandum of the House Managers — PDF.
It's this stage of the event — what Trump did after we know he knew the crowd had breached the Capitol — that has the most power to convince me that he deserves to be convicted. I can't see the evidence that there was an advance plan to storm the Capitol, and that, if there was, Trump knew about it, and, therefore, that we should read the language of his rally speech in that light. But at some point, we can see that Trump knew the mayhem was in progress, and clearly he ought to have done what he could to stop what his supporters were doing in his name.
It's not that easy to find the time line in the memo. The House Managers are keen to give the impression that Trump knew what was in the offing before he started the rally speech. If you don't accept that argument, you may be frustrated. What time was the first breach of the Capitol? When did Trump finish his speech? When was Trump informed about what happened? I see:
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy confirmed that he had “talked to the President” on the telephone and said: “I think we need to make a statement. Make sure that we can calm individuals down.”
I'd like to know at what time that happened. And "we can calm individuals down" is something that could be said about protests outside the building, before any breach or threat to the members of Congress.
Mick Mulvaney, the President’s former Acting Chief of Staff, tweeted that President Trump “can stop this now and needs to do exactly that. Tell these folks to go home.”
We're given a time stamp for that: 3:01. And yet, as the memo states, Trump had tweeted at 2:38 PM: "support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement … Stay peaceful!" and "ask[ed] everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order."
The memo has to acknowledge those tweets, but it diminishes them as "totally ineffectual" and not a "substantial effort... to protect the Congress." Trump could have tweeted different words — ordering his supporters out of the Capitol — but those are the words he used. He stressed peacefulness, I think, because he wanted a big, expressive protest, and he wasn't ready to accept that the rally was not a success. The great majority of his supporters were peaceful, but some had transgressed.
Finally, at 4:17, Trump put up his video telling his supporters "you have to go home now."
When did the protesters break into the Capitol? The NYT says it begins at 2:11. The Senate calls a recess at 2:13. Trump's "Stay peaceful!" and "No violence!" tweets came 25 minutes later. His "go home" video went up an hour and 39 minutes after that.
The memo stresses that this was "more than three hours from the start of the siege," but we're judging Trump's behavior, so that stress feels deceptive. It seems to me that Trump, in his speech, called for a peaceful march to the Capitol. He repeated his "peace" theme in 2 tweets very soon after he, I presume, heard of the breach of the building. And then it took an hour and 39 minutes before he got out the message "you have to go home now." It was video, so some time was consumed scripting and recording the video.
He could have acted more quickly. Did he believe the marauders in the Capitol were watching his Twitter feed waiting for orders? Was he simply numb and slow to process the information? Did he have some sort of idea that it wasn't so bad for his supporters to be in the Capitol terrorizing the members of Congress — that maybe they deserved it? Was he "'delighted' by the mayhem"?
Is that a quote from Trump — "delighted"? The trial memo gives a footnote for the quote: "Andrew Prokop, Republican Senator: White House Aides Say Trump Was 'Delighted' as Capitol Was Stormed" (Vox).
The quote — I discover from Vox, not from the House Managers' memo — is from Ben Sasse (speaking on Hugh Hewitt's radio show):
“I don’t have any idea what was in his heart about what he wanted to happen once they were in the Capitol, but he wanted there to be chaos. And I’m sure you’ve also had conversations with other senior White House officials, as I have. As this was unfolding on television, Donald Trump was walking around the White House confused about why other people on his team weren’t as excited as he was as you had rioters pushing against Capitol Police trying to get into the building. He was delighted.”
So, "delighted" is Sasse's characterization of how unnamed White House officials characterized Trump's mood. Even if the officials and Sasse (and Vox) were observing and interpreting accurately, I still can't tell what Trump was happy about — perhaps his own rousing speech and the great size and enthusiasm of the crowd on the street. I think the danger to the members of Congress became overwhelmingly important, and Trump was slow to admit it or to say anything that would take the energy out of his intense effort to convince everyone that he'd actually won the election.
That's my reaction to the presentation of the facts in the memo.
Posts
235 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 235 of 235“I just think it's funny that you think my mild-mannered comments are trollish, and that you're the commenter police or something. On this blog. With the general tone of commenters here, where rudeness, name calling, and personal attacks are the norm. I'm the troll. That's funny.”
There is no bigger troll here than Michael K. He outdoes any troll for number of comments and incessant monitoring of profile pages of commenters he believes are liberals. It’s as if he’s made it his personal mission to be the Karen of the Althouse comments sections.
Cut to the part in his speech where Trump exhorts his supporters to get in their faces and punch back twice as hard.
That's all the proof we need.
17 trimesters of JournoListic braying and congressional collusion in progress in an acutely phobic reaction to our first Orange-American President standing up for Americans, and to mitigate progress and collateral damage domestically and globally.
CNN!
Meanwhile, we still don't know who killed Ashli Babbitt.
Investigators struggle to build murder case in death of US Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick
Cut to the part in his speech where Trump exhorts his supporters to get in their faces and punch back twice as hard.
Thank you for your support to "audit the vote". Go home in peace.
Meanwhile, the Democrat congress and JournoLists in collusion persisted to normalize adversity: denial of human and civil rights. I wonder how humpty dumpties lean.
Meanwhile, we still don't know who killed Ashli Babbitt.
Why and who killed an unarmed woman. From he available evidence, it appears to have been an elective abortion... homicide. Indeed, a novel apology for self-defense. Democ-cracy is aborted (e.g. wicked solution)... dies at the Twilight Fringe ("darkness"). A chaotic press spectacle that could have been prevented if Congress had not avoided constitutional responsibility, and a JournoListic press in collusion, and invited a delegation of the diverse (number and color) People assembled to present their case and be heard.
Try having some standards for a change.
A leftist wrote that without the slightest hint of irony.
I want a divorce.
81 million voters voted against him.
I do not expect the Resident Idiot to understand, but to clarify for others:
81 million votes were assigned to Joe Biden after his unusually lackluster basement campaign. I will bet my entire fortune that no one can prove that 81 million unique, legally registered voters voted (one time only) for Joe Biden.
To my specific knowledge, Democrat precinct workers have been creating votes since the 1960's by setting the machines to straight party D and pulling the lever until their arms got tired.
Did they stop cheating because the technology changed? No. They adapted and created an embarrassingly large number of fake votes for a ridiculous candidate that no one liked and many (like Ann) did not vote for.
Little Girl with the big mouth from the Bronx LIED????? AGAIN??? ".@AOC made clear she didn’t know who was at her door. Breathless attempts by media to fan fictitious news flames are dangerous.
My office is 2 doors down. Insurrectionists never stormed our hallway. Egregious doesn’t even begin to cover it. Is there nothing MSM won’t politicize?"
Well, looky here...AOC lied, accused Ted Cruz of wanting her murdered, and accused the cop who helped her out of looking at her wrong, and she was SCARED....What a freaking Drama Queen. When does Congress get to vote HER off of committees for HER conspiracy theories and false accusations ??? It's pathetic....https://thepostmillennial.com/aoc-wasnt-in-the-capitol-building-at-the-time-of-the-jan-6-riot-she-was-in-another-building-entirely
"How do you know Trump has 80 million supporters when only 74 million voted for him?"
We'll never really know how many, because, cheating.
Eh, can you really use Tweets as evidence? Trump supposedly tweeted right in the middle of a debate with Biden and the MSM said—“now we have proof Trump does not do his own tweets.” It was supposedly a gotcha moment. (I’m sure they will conveniently forget that now.)
Then assume the tweets are Trump. Wouldn’t that in some circles be a way to de-escalate? It sounds like that Mormon guy that use to council couples. Basically the tweets could be seen as validating the grievances, letting them know that they have been heard, telling them they are not bad people— but time to go home now and de-escalate.
Compare and contrast that to Democrats trying to get Black Lives Matter to chill the hell out....
(Just saw a video interview of Kamala with Jane Pauley and she makes the same reference to the Capitol attack as Chuck Schumer— comparing it to December 7th— Pearl Harbor. So they are all as dumb as Chuck or as evil and want the escalation as an excuse to grab more power and limit free speech.)
"It’s as if he’s made it his personal mission to be the Karen of the Althouse comments sections."
A statement in which low-intelligence voter Inga spikes the OkBoomerMeter.
Never forget that Inga categorically refused to say that murdering Republican Congressmen or Congresswomen was wrong, even in theory. For 11 months she claimed she would rather be waterboarded that be forced to say that shooting Republicans was wrong.
Now she's all"Gotta impeach Trump for not calling for peace fast enough!" Well, maybe he should have waited 11 months, right Inga? That kind of delay to call for peace seems to be what you find acceptable.
Most of the other leftists at this blog still are not sorry one whit about Hodgekinson's attack and attempted murder. So your "oh, I must find the fainting couch because Trump was X hours late calling for peace!" simply does not pass muster.
@dwshelf wrote, "The only way one can know that Trump had any intention of inciting a riot is to claim mind reading power, the power to read Trump's mind." Uh, no. Intent is an element of many crimes, e.g., murder, securities fraud, assault, theft. The courts not only don't require mind reading to prove intent, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't admit it. So, how is intent proven? By inference from observable facts. Following is a typical federal court jury instruction on circumstantial evidence and inference:
“Some evidence proves a fact directly, such as testimony of a witness who saw a jet plane flying across the sky. Some evidence proves a fact indirectly, such as testimony of a witness who saw only the white trail that jet planes often leave. This indirect evidence is sometimes referred to as circumstantial evidence. In either instance, the witness’s testimony is evidence that a jet plane flew across the sky.”
“Circumstantial evidence is evidence of facts and circumstances from which one may infer connected facts which reasonably follow in the common experience of mankind. Circumstantial evidence is evidence which tends to prove a disputed fact by proof of another fact or other facts which have a logical tendency to lead the mind to the conclusion that the disputed fact has been established.”
“[C]ircumstantial evidence is treated no differently than direct evidence, and may be sufficient to support a verdict of guilty, even though it does not exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence.”
You're welcome.
Edit correction to comment: That Mormon guy that use to *counsel* couples. Stephen Covey. Sounds like Trump might have had marriage therapy and uses that method— perhaps— badly.
The Impeachment for Democrats is not so much about Trump— the greatest end game benefit is to divide and weaken The Left’s opposition. The goal is to get every Republican on record as to their distinct orientation to Trump to therefore get Trump fans to do the Democrat’s dirt work for them by going after any Republican that does not demonstrate absolute blind loyalty to Trump. This will weaken any effective opposition to The Left—Nancy and Schumer are Machiavellians.
dwshelf wrote, "The only way one can know that Trump had any intention of inciting a riot is to claim mind reading power, the power to read Trump's mind." Uh, no. Intent is an element of many crimes, e.g., murder, securities fraud, assault, theft. The courts not only don't require mind reading to prove intent, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't admit it. So, how is intent proven? By inference from observable facts. Following is a typical federal court jury instruction on circumstantial evidence and inference:
“Some evidence proves a fact directly, such as testimony of a witness who saw a jet plane flying across the sky. Some evidence proves a fact indirectly, such as testimony of a witness who saw only the white trail that jet planes often leave. This indirect evidence is sometimes referred to as circumstantial evidence. In either instance, the witness’s testimony is evidence that a jet plane flew across the sky.”
“Circumstantial evidence is evidence of facts and circumstances from which one may infer connected facts which reasonably follow in the common experience of mankind. Circumstantial evidence is evidence which tends to prove a disputed fact by proof of another fact or other facts which have a logical tendency to lead the mind to the conclusion that the disputed fact has been established.”
“[C]ircumstantial evidence is treated no differently than direct evidence, and may be sufficient to support a verdict of guilty, even though it does not exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence.”
Good for you!
Inga said...
“The idea that Donald Trump and his 80 million supporters are responsible for what that galoot with the horns did at the Capitol is ridiculous, and you know that, too.”
How do you know Trump has 80 million supporters when only 74 million voted for him? 81 million voters voted against him.
Yeah, I'm gonna say no. I have visions of Hunter and "Doctor" Jill Biden going to various towns and cities like the undertaker in Monty Python's Holy Grail screaming "Bring out your dead to vote!"
As a conservative, I am ready to move on, Biden is President, short of a totally unforeseen circumstance at the "trial," such as ee-reee-fu-ta-bul proof that there was fraud and enough to make Muttering Joe an illegitimate President and leaves Creaky Pat Leahy slack-jawed, The Wicked Witch of The West staggered, Shooo-mah babbling, and Mitt pondering what's left of his future, things will line up as they have, Trump doesn't get convicted for engaging in protected speech, and this won't come up again until November 2022, when every last illiberal lib will try to hang Trump as an anvil around the neck of any R running for office.
Investigators struggle to build murder case in death of US Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick
Meanwhile, even if they do charge someone - not to be insensitive about it - but they have burned the evidence so there is nothing left but ashes. The number one issue is cause of death, but they conveniently cremated the body. Thus, a complete reliance on what the government coroner says is the cause of death.
According to one law enforcement official, medical examiners did not find signs that the officer sustained any blunt force trauma, so investigators believe that early reports that he was fatally struck by a fire extinguisher are not true.
Unlike the Antifa riots, where police where shot, the officer here had a medical event AFTERWARD. Likely death is from natural causes. But still they will try to create a murder case out of it.
At least we know his name.
Tragedy all around. AND injustice abounds.
This whole Jan 6 event has “intelligence false flag” written all over it.
Wait, that implies something was wrong with what went down January 6, when everyone knows storming the Capitol was a Patriot Jamboree.
How can we know you’re not the agent provocateur?
Walking through the comments, I see a lot of self-righteous indignation.
That's not a compliment.
Walking through the comments, I see a lot of self-righteous indignation. That's not a compliment.
Older white men let their Victimization Freak Flag fly and find it strangely liberating.
@Michael K:
Farmer, you often respond to what you think someone said or thought. Example:
Pardoning Deep State enemies like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden is one example. That they didn't get pardoned but Bannon did is all you need to know about what a dipshit Trump is.
First, "said" and "thought" are two very different things. Second, in your example, I make no reference to anything Trump said or thought. I said he is a "dipshit" because "they didn't get pardoned but Bannon did." I'm criticizing his actions. Where's the mindreading?
I was shocked at reporting I saw today (linked on Instapundit) that the Capitol policeman who died did not suffer from blunt force trauma so wasn't hit on the head with a fire extinguisher. The autopsy is still pending apparently just short of a a month from the incident. Given that, I really can't see the difference between the anti-Kavanaugh agitators and the Trump supporters except the poor response from the Capitol Police. I understand that the Capitol Police are under Nancy Pelosi's jurisdiction.
The Democrats' strategy seems to be to keep stirring up hatred of Trump among the electorate, and force Republicans to support and defend Trump so that the Republicans will do poorly in the 2022 elections. But what seems to be happening is that normal people are just tuning all this clamor out. Political junkies, like commenters on Althouse, can keep on with "yes he did" "no he didn't" for a long time, but go out and listen to normal people: This isn't what they are talking about. Biden is wasting his honeymoon.
Can we circle back to "You, a retired law professor"?
I would really like to hear Althouse's arguments regarding the constitutionality of the pending trial. Trump is now a private citizen, and AFAIK, there is no provision in the Constitution for the Senate to try a private citizen. There is also the quite clear prohibition against bills of attainder, which seems to be what the pending trial actually is. You can't sic the federal government on a private citizen, even if that citizen used to be the president.
This whole situation is a farce. If the democrats had any sense they'd just let it go and let Trump fade from public consciousness, at least a little. But they don't, so we're about to re-enter the Trump Show. CNN needs the ratings boost, I've heard.
@Unknown: If you want the opinion of this still teaching law professor, it’s a close question. If you’re right, then any impeached officer can resign and avoid the prohibition on future office entailed by conviction. On the other hand, it seems almost pointless for the Senate to go through a trial for some scoundrel who has already left office. I thinks it’s quite unpredictable how the Supreme Court might rule on this issue if it ever gets there. Ll
Is it possible that the only evidence they have is someone's characterization of someone else's characterization of what Trump might have said?
MayBee,
Your pregnant niece should have had her AR with her.
I thinks it’s quite unpredictable how the Supreme Court might rule on this issue if it ever gets there.
I thinks it's entirely predictable how the Supreme Court will rule on this issue: It won't. The Constitution gives the Senate the sole power to try all impeachments. Sole is a word even lawyers are capable of understanding.
@Earnest Prole: You are trying to make an argument about the prudential limits on the Court’s jurisdiction. I agree in part. If Mr. Trump were to seek an injunction against the Senate proceeding with the impeachment trial, the Court would probably hold that the federal courts don’t have jurisdiction under the political question doctrine or some other such device. However, if the Senate goes ahead with the trial and if Trump is convicted and the Senate votes to bar him from running for office again, and if some state official tries thereafter to keep Trump off the primary ballot in his state, and if Trump sues said official, then the federal courts will have jurisdiction to decide whether Trump’s rights have been violated and whether the impeachment trial and the bar from future elections were constitutional. I don’t know how the Court would answer that question, but I am confident they would answer it.
I'm a Trump supporter, and that is not MY understanding.
So, you're delusional and a liar.
Wait a minute. Which is it?
I can understand how, if I believe what I said, that makes me delusional, and how, if I don't believe what I said, that makes me a liar, but to be delusional and a liar, I'd have to both believe it and not believe it. Or is that White male logic that can be discounted because it comes from a place of privilege? (Asking for a friend.)
I Callahan said...
I think the commenter Seamus was being facetious here, not saying he believed that was what Trump was really saying.
That is possibly true. I'l wait to see if Seamus jumps in to agree with you. :-)
My 8:43 a.m. 2/3 post wasn't good enough for you?
Maybe you Trump supporters *aren't* so good at reading hidden meanings as I thought. But then, that would mean that Trump's supporters *didn't understand his call to march peacefully to the Capitol as meaning "burn the motherfucker down." So maybe Trump's words should be taken literally, as a call to march peacefully. But if that's the case, then shouldn't my words also be taken literally, as pointing out that Trump's words actually meant "Burn the motherfucker down"?
I'M SO CONFUSED!!!
I think a hypothetical about whether an impeached official could resign prior to removal from office is a less-effective argument than one based on the text of the constitution- especially since Trump didn't resign to escape conviction. His term ended and he left office.
I am so Happy to be writing this article in here, i am here to explore blogs forum about the wonderful and most safe cure for HERPES SIMPLEX VIRUS.I was positive to the Virus called HERPES and i lost hope completely because i was rejected even by my closet friends. i searched online to know and inquire about cure for HERPES and i saw testimony about DR Ebhota online on how he cured so many persons from Herpes Disease so i decided to contact the great herbalist because i know that nature has the power to heal everything. i contacted him to know how he can help me and he told me never to worry that he will help me with the natural herbs from God! after 2 days of contacting him, he told me that the cure has been ready and he sent it to me via FEDEX or DHL and it got to me after 4 days! i used the medicine as he instructed me (MORNING and EVENING) and i was cured! its really like a dream but i'm so happy! that's the reason i decided to also add more comment of Him so that more people can be saved just like me! and if you need his help,contact his Email: (drebhotasoltion@gmail.com) You can contact him on WhatsApp +2348089535482 He also have the herb to cure difference cure for any sickness (1) HERPES,
(2) DIABETES,
(3) HIV&AIDS,
(4) URINARY TRACT INFECTION,
(5) HEPATITIS B,
(6) IMPOTENCE,
(7) BARENESS/INFERTILITY
(8) DIARRHEA
(9) ASTHMA..
Post a Comment