Recap of Day 3 of the Jan 6 Hearings

[ChiGoose]

Here are my notes from the third Jan 6 hearing followed by my thoughts.

 

RECAP

 

Mark Short (Mike Pence's Chief of Staff):

• Told Mark Meadows and Pat Cipollone that the plan to reject or delay the count was not legitimate and they agreed.

• Pence had told Trump many times that he had no authority on January 6th but Trump still tweeted that Pence was in on the plan

• Met with the Secret Service on Jan 5th with concerns about Pence’s safety and worried that Trump would lash out.

 

Judge Michael Luttig (Retired federal judge and Pence advisor):

• If Pence had done what Trump asked, it would have plunged the country into a revolution
• The dual-electors scheme had no legal significance
• There is no historical precedent for the VP to take action during the certification to alter the result
• There is no basis in the Constitution or in the laws of the US for Eastman’s theory about the VP’s powers during certification
• “Donald Trump, his allies and supporters, are a clear and present danger to American democracy. That’s not because of what happened on January 6th. It’s because, to this very day, the former president, his allies, and his supporters pledge that in the presidential election of 2024, if the former president or his anointed successor as the Republican Party presidential candidate were to lose that election, that they would attempt to overturn that 2024 election in the same way that they attempted to overturn the 2020 election, but succeed in 2024 where they failed in 2020. I don’t speak those words lightly. I would have never spoken those words ever in my life except that that’s what the former president and his allies are telling us.”
• “The former president and his allies are executing that blueprint for 2024 in open, plain view of the American public”

 

Greg Jacob (Mike Pence’s General Counsel):

• John Eastman admitted to the president that his Jan 6th plan would violate the law
• Pence told Jacob that he kept seeing that he had some role to play on Jan 6th but did not believe this was true
• Pence mentioned he first came into congress in 2000 and remembers Al Gore gaveling down challenges to Bush’s victory.
• After conducting research on this, Jacob put together a memo for Pence that found that there was no role for him.
• The founders who broke away from the rule of King George III would not have built a system where one person could decide the outcome of a presidential election.
• There was a meeting in the Oval Office on Jan 4th where Eastman laid out two theories on what Pence could do: either reject the electoral votes outright, or suspend the proceedings and declare a 10 day recess to throw it back to the state. He recommended the second option.
• Eastman acknowledged that the plan would violate the law but said the Supreme Court would not take it up.
• Jacob discussed Eastman’s plan with Eastman himself on Jan 5. Jacob told Eastman that the Supreme Court would rule against him 9-0. Eastman said they would lose 7-2 but eventually conceded that it would be 9-0
• When Jacob stated that if the VP could do this, Al Gore would have done it in 2000, Eastman told him “Al Gore did not have a basis to do it in 2000, Kamala Harris shouldn’t be able to do it in 2024, but I think you should do it today”
• On Jan 6, Pence did not leave the Capitol. The head of his Secret Service detail told him to get into the car but that they wouldn’t leave. Pence told him “I know you, I trust you, but you’re not the one behind the wheel.” Pence’s staff who had already gotten into the car then got out.
• At no point during the events did Trump call to check in on Pence and his family’s safety.
• Jacob sent an email to Eastman stating “Thanks to your bull####, we are now under siege.”
• Eastman said that, because the proceedings were interrupted, they were already in violation of the law, so Pence could act to further violate the law.
• If Pence had followed through on the plan, it would have led to chaos, lawsuits, and violence. It would have established that one person would determine the outcome of an election.

 

Eric Herschmann (White House Lawyer):

• “It made no sense to me that in all of the protections that were built into the constitution for the President to be elected, that the power to choose the president would be sitting with the Vice President.”
• Rudy Giuliani agreed that Herschmann was probably correct that the VP had no role at certification
• There was a meeting in the oval office on the morning of Jan 6th with Trump, Don Jr., Eric, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Mark Meadows, Ivanka and others. Trump was on the phone with Pence and was getting angry. Called him a wimp and “the p-word” and implied he had made a mistake picking him as VP 5 years prior.
• On Jan 7, Eastman called Herschmann asking to preserve something in Georgia for appeal. Herschmann responded that he needed to focus on orderly transition and that Eastman needed to hire a great criminal defense lawyer.

 

Other evidence presented:

• After hearing testimony from Herschmann that Rudy Giuliani knew the plan was not legal, there is video of Rudy on Jan 6th stating the following to a crowd:
  • "Every single thing that has been outlined for the plan for today is perfectly legal. I have professor Eastman here with me to say a few words about that.”
  • Called for Pence to take action
• John Eastman wrote an email explaining how his plan was not legal or constitutional
• When John Eastman testified before the committee, he asserted his 5th amendment rights over 100 times
  • Questioner: “You can discuss conversations with the president in the media but you will not discuss them with this committee?”
  • Eastman: “Fifth”
• Sean Hannity texted that the White House counsel will resign over Eastman’s plan and that he was worried about the next 48 hours (sent on Jan 5)
• Jared Kushner was not concerned about resignations as he was busy working on pardons
• Quote from the opinion in Eastman v. Thompson: “Based on the evidence, the Court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021”
• Eastman sent an email to Rudy stating “I’ve decided that I should be on the pardon list, if that’s still in the works."
• A confidential informant from the Proud Boys told the FBI that they would have killed Mike Pence if given the chance. “Anyone they got their hands on, they would have killed, including Nancy Pelosi.”
• At one point, Pence was just 40 feet from the rioters.
• Early versions of Trumps speech at the Ellipse did not mention the Vice President but Trump changed them to talk about the plan for Pence to act
• After being informed that the capitol had been breached, Trump tweeted that Pence didn’t have the courage to do what was needed. Videos show the rioters reading that and saying “Pence betrayed us” followed by the crowd surging

 

THOUGHTS

This hearing seemed to focus primarily on Eastman's plan to have Pence prevent the certification of the vote. Once again, it underscores how differently these people talk behind closed doors or under oath than they do in public. Eastman himself admitted that his plan was illegal and unconstitutional. They all knew it but they misled their public because it benefitted them. Even after this, Eastman is publicly pushing back despite having testified to the committee and invoking the 5th instead of stating that he actually believed in his plan.

 

I still don't see a smoking gun of Trump himself saying he knew he lost and that he knew this was all nonsense, but there is ample evidence to show that he should have known and was willfully ignorant. In any case, Eastman has tremendous legal exposure here. He is also an absolutely terrible lawyer  and should have his license revoked.

 

Sean Hannity providing advice to an administration he ostensibly covered seems to fly under the radar. Feels like that would be headline news if a reporter for like CNN was providing advice behind the scenes to a Democratic administration.

 

After two hearings, we have debunked the stolen election theories and the idea that the Vice President can pick the winner of the election. Both are good, but given the actions of people like Eastman and Rudy (however idiotic they were), it would probably be a good idea to look at amending and clarifying the Electoral Count Act.

 

Finally, it looks like there was a pardon list being compiled. Which is definitely something you do when you know you're following the law...

[716er]

Appreciate these recaps

[SoCal Deek]

Thanks!

In short, Trump and his legal team were looking at options available to them as a remedy for what they perceived was an injustice that had been done to them leading up to, during, and following the election ….and in the end they chose to do none of them. 
The end. 

[ChiGoose]

2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Thanks!

In short, Trump and his legal team were looking at options available to them as a remedy for what they perceived was an injustice that had been done to them leading up to, during, and following the election ….and in the end they chose to do none of them. 
The end. 

 

A more accurate reading would be that Trump pressured Pence both publicly and privately to take an action that Trump was told was illegal. Trump even told his supporters at the rally that day about the plan (which again, he was told was illegal). When Pence declined to do what he wanted, Trump was angry at him and when some of the rioters found out, they expressed their desire to kill Mike Pence. Some of them made it within 40 feet of him during the chaos.

[SoCal Deek]

26 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

A more accurate reading would be that Trump pressured Pence both publicly and privately to take an action that Trump was told was illegal. Trump even told his supporters at the rally that day about the plan (which again, he was told was illegal). When Pence declined to do what he wanted, Trump was angry at him and when some of the rioters found out, they expressed their desire to kill Mike Pence. Some of them made it within 40 feet of him during the chaos.

Let’s say that’s true. Wanting to do something that you know is illegal is not a crime. At least not yet anyway.

The end.

[ChiGoose]

6 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Let’s say that’s true. Wanting to do something that you know is illegal is not a crime. At least not yet anyway.

The end.

 

So far, we have learned that the Trump admin was told the election was not stolen and that the Vice President does not have the authority to stop the certification. Despite this, Trump publicly and privately claimed the election was stolen and pressured Pence to stop the certification.

 

I would agree that these actions are not necessarily tantamount to a crime. I suppose you could construct a prima facie conspiracy charge, but it would be very difficult to secure a verdict.

 

But we are also only around the halfway mark for the hearings. We have not heard all of the evidence. Through the hearings and public documents, we know that Trump wanted to stop the certification of the election even though he had been told that he lost the election and the certification could not be prevented. We also know, separately, that there were some groups who planned on breaking into and occupying federal buildings on Jan 6 to prevent the certification.

 

I have not seen anything that would indicate that Trump himself knew of those plans. There are some hints that people close to him might have known, but I haven't seen smoking gun evidence on that. I do not know if there was such a link and I do not know that the committee has evidence of it if there is.

 

So, I am trying to take this evidence as it comes, knowing that there is more to come later. I don't know what the next hearing will show us, but to just dismiss it all as "they didn't prove that Trump said 'I know I am lying and let's go do crimes!' so nothing matters and nothing happened" does not seem appropriate with several hearings still on the calendar.

[SoCal Deek]

3 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

So far, we have learned that the Trump admin was told the election was not stolen and that the Vice President does not have the authority to stop the certification. Despite this, Trump publicly and privately claimed the election was stolen and pressured Pence to stop the certification.

 

I would agree that these actions are not necessarily tantamount to a crime. I suppose you could construct a prima facie conspiracy charge, but it would be very difficult to secure a verdict.

 

But we are also only around the halfway mark for the hearings. We have not heard all of the evidence. Through the hearings and public documents, we know that Trump wanted to stop the certification of the election even though he had been told that he lost the election and the certification could not be prevented. We also know, separately, that there were some groups who planned on breaking into and occupying federal buildings on Jan 6 to prevent the certification.

 

I have not seen anything that would indicate that Trump himself knew of those plans. There are some hints that people close to him might have known, but I haven't seen smoking gun evidence on that. I do not know if there was such a link and I do not know that the committee has evidence of it if there is.

 

So, I am trying to take this evidence as it comes, knowing that there is more to come later. I don't know what the next hearing will show us, but to just dismiss it all as "they didn't prove that Trump said 'I know I am lying and let's go do crimes!' so nothing matters and nothing happened" does not seem appropriate with several hearings still on the calendar.

You’re doing a great job. I’m only cautioning you against drawing the conclusions you’re so clearly desperate to make. Remember, we already know how this ended. 
Have a great weekend…seriously. And Happy Father’s Day if you are one or have one. 👍

[ChiGoose]

26 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

You’re doing a great job. I’m only cautioning you against drawing the conclusions you’re so clearly desperate to make. Remember, we already know how this ended. 
Have a great weekend…seriously. And Happy Father’s Day if you are one or have one. 👍

 

I firmly believe that Trump is morally culpable for what happened on January 6th. But that's a far cry from saying he's legally responsible. I think there's a decent chance we see enough evidence that he broke the law, but I do not believe there will actually be an indictment even if it's warranted.

 

You have a great weekend and Father's Day as well!

[Wacka]

The daily circle jerk for libs.

[ChiGoose]

15 minutes ago, Wacka said:

The daily circle jerk for libs.

 

What a meaningful contribution to this board. You really worked hard at that one.

[L Ron Burgundy]

23 minutes ago, Wacka said:

The daily circle jerk for libs.

Thank you for taking some off from watching the view to post.   We all know how hard that is for you.

[Jauronimo]

33 minutes ago, Wacka said:

The daily circle jerk for libs.

This is actually a reasonable discussion featuring differing viewpoints so far.  But if you're feeling left out of this circle, perhaps you'd feel more comfortable in one of the 25+ active threads where the intelligentsia of this board are sharing the latest twitter memes, new twists on Lets Go Brandon, and vigorously congratulating each other for their various witticisms and strokes of creativity?

Edited June 17, 2022 by Jauronimo

[BillsFanNC]

On 6/17/2022 at 1:31 PM, ChiGoose said:

Here are my notes from the third Jan 6 hearing followed by my thoughts.

 

I wonder what the King's  thoughts would be for the deleted evidence?