Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certification

[admin]

Lindsey Graham desperate to avoid testifying about Trump's Georgia election crimes
by Glenn Kirschner
Jul 16, 2022

A Georgia state court judge has ordered Lindsey Graham to testify before the grand jury because Graham is an important and necessary witness to the possible Georgia state election crimes of former president Donald Trump. In a remarkable show of cowardice, Graham ran to a federal court in South Carolina and filed a motion to quash the subpoena in a desperate attempt to keep from having to testify about Trump's crimes.

This video takes apart the legal claims in Graham's court court filing. This video also discusses the real reason Graham is scared to death of being placed under oath and examined about his repeated phone calls with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.



0:00
so senator lindsey graham
0:03
is trying to avoid
0:06
having to testify about the crimes of
0:09
donald trump
0:12
a sitting united states senator
0:14
is trying to use the legal process use
0:17
the courts
0:19
to continue to conceal
0:22
evidence
0:23
of donald trump's crimes
0:26
let that sink in
0:29
and then let's talk about it
0:32
because justice
0:34
matters
0:43
[Music]
0:49
hey all glenn kirschner here
0:52
so senator lindsey graham
0:55
graham has been ordered by a state court
0:58
judge in georgia
0:59
to appear before a grand jury in fulton
1:03
county georgia to testify
1:06
about the possible georgia state
1:08
election crimes
1:10
of donald trump
1:12
so what does lindsey graham do
1:14
does he step up and say i am happy to
1:17
help and provide truthful testimony
1:21
about everything i know no
1:23
lindsay runs to a federal court
1:26
in south carolina
1:29
and tries to avoid having to testify
1:33
he files what's called the motion to
1:35
quash to basically kill the subpoena so
1:39
he doesn't have to go into a grand jury
1:41
and testify about the democracy ending
1:44
crimes of his man
1:47
donald trump
1:49
lindsey graham would rather use
1:51
the legal process and the courts to try
1:54
to continue to conceal
1:57
the crimes of donald trump
2:00
we're going to have some fun with this
2:01
one friends
2:03
let's start by looking at the recent
2:05
reporting in the washington post
2:08
headline
2:09
graham
2:10
trying to quash subpoena denies election
2:14
meddling
2:16
that article begins
2:19
u.s senator lindsey graham
2:21
wasn't seeking to interfere in georgia's
2:24
2020 election when he called state
2:26
officials to ask them to re-examine
2:30
certain absentee ballots after president
2:33
donald trump's narrow loss to democrat
2:36
joe biden
2:37
his lawyers said in a federal court
2:41
filing
2:42
talk about protesting too much
2:47
the article continues
2:49
graham's lawyers made that argument as
2:51
part of efforts to fight a subpoena
2:54
compelling the south carolina republican
2:56
to testify before a special grand jury
2:59
in georgia that's investigating trump
3:02
and his allies actions
3:04
after his 2020 election defeat
3:08
in her subpoena petition
3:11
fulton county district attorney fawnee
3:13
willis
3:14
wrote that graham a longtime trump ally
3:18
made at least two telephone calls to
3:20
georgia secretary of state brad
3:23
raffensberger and members of his staff
3:26
in the weeks after trump's loss to biden
3:30
asking about re-examining certain
3:32
absentee ballots
3:34
to explore the possibility of a more
3:37
favorable outcome
3:39
for former president donald trump
3:44
and friends
3:46
here is the court filing
3:49
that i just read
3:50
filed by lindsey graham and his lawyers
3:54
and frankly you don't need to be
3:57
a lawyer to laugh at this to find the
3:59
comedic value in what we read
4:02
in lindsey graham's court filing it's a
4:05
court filing that's basically captioned
4:08
lindsey graham
4:09
versus the grand jury
4:12
and it's called an expedited motion to
4:15
quash
4:16
quash is a fancy word to kill the
4:19
subpoena and please don't make me
4:20
testify
4:23
and here is how lindsey graham's motion
4:26
opens
4:29
fulton county district attorney has
4:31
ensured south carolina senator lindsey o
4:34
graham that he's not a target or a
4:36
subject of the grand jury investigating
4:40
possible attempts to disrupt the lawful
4:43
administration of the 2020 elections in
4:45
the state of georgia
4:49
talk about
4:50
this sort of
4:51
breathless denial of any wrongdoing
4:55
that's not even what this motion is all
4:57
about
4:58
lindsay
5:00
but as much as you're protesting
5:03
it seems like you might have a little
5:05
consciousness of guilt going on
5:08
the first sentence says i didn't i
5:10
didn't do anything wrong
5:14
the motion continues
5:16
senator graham moves to quash
5:19
because
5:20
one
5:21
uh the constitution's speech or debate
5:23
clause protects him from this legal
5:26
process or to
5:28
sovereign immunity
5:30
prohibits enforcement of the state court
5:32
process on him as a federal officer or
5:35
three
5:36
there are no extraordinary circumstances
5:38
exist for compelling his testimony or or
5:41
for the dog ate his subpoena
5:45
i made up number four
5:47
but the breathlessness of this nonsense
5:52
is telling
5:55
and folks as far as the legal argument
5:57
itself here is what it all boils down to
6:00
and then we're going to talk about why
6:01
lindsay is going to lose this litigation
6:06
and is going to be forced to testify and
6:08
then we're going to talk about what he's
6:10
really afraid of
6:13
here's what it all boils down to
6:16
when the speech or debate clause is
6:19
raised
6:20
in defense to a subpoena
6:22
the only question to resolve
6:25
is whether the matters about which the
6:27
testimony are sought
6:30
fall within the sphere of legitimate
6:33
legislative
6:34
activity
6:36
so
6:37
that's the operative legal question the
6:39
whole legal ballgame is
6:42
whether
6:43
when lindsey graham
6:45
repeatedly called
6:47
secretary of state brad raffensberger
6:51
he had a legitimate legislative purpose
6:56
let's look at some of the data points in
6:58
trying to answer that question
7:00
first of all these calls that he placed
7:02
to raffensberger apparently were not
7:05
recorded
7:06
unlike
7:07
the call that donald trump placed to the
7:09
same republican secretary of state brad
7:12
raffensberger when we have all heard him
7:15
on virtually an endless loop now
7:19
say just find me eleven thousand seven
7:22
hundred and eighty votes
7:24
and corruptly declare me the winner i
7:26
don't care about anything else
7:29
and that ladies and gentlemen
7:31
on that audio recording in donald
7:34
trump's own voice that
7:36
is the georgia state crime of soliciting
7:39
election fraud for which donald trump
7:41
must be indicted and for which donald
7:44
trump i predict will be indicted
7:47
but as far as we know the calls that
7:50
lindsey graham placed to brad raffen's
7:53
burger were not recorded
7:56
however
7:58
brad raffensberger told us a little
8:01
something about the content of those
8:03
calls
8:05
here is what brad raffensberger told the
8:07
washington post about those calls that
8:10
lindsey graham was making to him
8:14
after their call raffensberger told the
8:16
washington post that graham had asked
8:19
him whether he had the power to reject
8:23
certain absentee ballots
8:25
a question
8:27
raffensberger interpreted
8:29
as graham's suggestion to toss out
8:33
legally cast votes
8:36
an allegation that graham calls
8:39
ridiculous
8:41
so friends let's think about that the
8:43
other party on that phone call those
8:46
multiple phone calls because lindsay
8:48
kept calling in
8:50
brad raffensberger said
8:53
yeah the things
8:54
senator graham was saying to me
8:57
made it sound like he was urging me to
8:59
toss out lawfully cast votes
9:04
i mean can't you just hear lindsey
9:06
graham on those phone calls
9:10
brad
9:11
brad come on you're a republican i'm a
9:13
republican
9:15
would it kill you to just you know
9:18
toss out
9:19
some of those votes
9:21
for joe biden
9:23
oh and brad brad
9:24
if anybody asks
9:27
i'm saying these things
9:29
for
9:30
a legitimate
9:32
legislative purpose
9:36
i don't know if lindsay would have
9:37
winked because it was an audio call
9:40
maybe not a zoom call but
9:43
you get the point
9:45
this was not
9:47
for a legitimate
9:48
legislative purpose
9:51
but you know i just wanted to check
9:53
and be sure
9:54
and i reached out to one of my good
9:56
friends kim whaley she's a
9:59
constitutional law professor and wicked
10:02
smart on this kind of stuff and i said
10:05
you know kim
10:06
any of this nonsense
10:08
in what lindsey graham just filed in
10:11
federal court in south carolina
10:14
trying you know
10:15
not to have to testify about donald
10:17
trump's crimes does any of that hold
10:19
water
10:21
and she said well
10:24
speech and debate which is what
10:26
lindsey graham is offering to try to
10:29
defeat
10:30
the
10:31
necessity to testify the speech and
10:33
debate clause
10:34
speech and debate does not protect him
10:38
from non-legislative activity like
10:42
trying to overthrow an election
10:47
yet lindsey graham
10:49
will
10:50
lose
10:51
in federal court he will be compelled to
10:55
testify before the fulton county special
10:58
grand jury investigating donald trump's
11:00
election crimes
11:02
and here is what i suggest is really
11:05
driving old lindsay's train
11:08
this is why he is breathless and
11:10
hysterical in his determination not to
11:14
have to testify
11:16
part of it is he wants to keep
11:17
concealing the crimes of donald trump i
11:19
have no doubt
11:21
but here is another important piece of
11:22
it
11:24
once we know
11:26
that brad raffensberger's interpretation
11:30
of what lindsey graham was telling him
11:32
to do was to toss out lawfully cast
11:36
votes
11:38
lindsay has a little thing called
11:40
the fifth amendment privilege against
11:43
self-incrimination
11:46
yeah
11:47
when the other party to the conversation
11:50
says he was trying to get me to commit
11:52
election fraud
11:55
lindsey graham doesn't want to have to
11:56
be placed under oath before a grand jury
11:58
and testify about that
12:02
because brad raffensberger is already on
12:05
record
12:06
saying what lindsay told him to do
12:10
so lindsey graham's lawyers
12:12
undoubtedly would advise him look if you
12:14
lose this litigation and you have to
12:16
testify and he will lose
12:20
you're going to need to invoke your
12:21
fifth amendment right against
12:22
self-incrimination you're going to need
12:24
to plead the fifth
12:27
and that
12:29
is not a good look
12:31
for a sitting united states senator you
12:34
know why
12:37
because justice
12:39
matters
12:42
stay tuned friends
12:44
we will update this one in real time
12:47
and hopefully um
12:49
lindsay's day of reckoning will come
12:54
friends please stay safe please stay
12:56
tuned and i look forward to talking with
12:58
you all again tomorrow
13:01
[Music]

[admin]

Former federal judge reveals most compelling evidence against Trump's election lies
by Erin Burnett
CNN
Jul 15, 2022

Conservative former Federal Judge Thomas Griffith, one of the authors of the report dismissing Trump's election lies, tells CNN's Erin Burnett what he found to be the most compelling evidence disproving Trump's claims.



************************

Conservative group finds ‘absolutely no evidence of widespread fraud’ in 2020 election
by Zach Schonfeld
07/14/22 3:46 PM ET

Eight prominent conservatives released a 72-page report Thursday refuting claims of election fraud in the 2020 presidential election in dozens of unsuccessful court cases brought forth by former President Trump and his allies.

The group — which includes former federal judges, Republican senators and Republican-appointed officials — said they reviewed all 64 court cases Trump and his allies initiated challenging the election outcome, saying they had reached an “unequivocal” conclusion that the claims were unsupported by evidence.

“We conclude that Donald Trump and his supporters had their day in court and failed to produce substantive evidence to make their case,” the group wrote.

The eight conservatives repeatedly condemned the election fraud claims, but said they have not switched their allegiance to the Democratic Party and have no “ill will” toward Trump nor his supporters.

The group consists of former Sen. John Danforth (R-Mo.); longtime Republican lawyer Benjamin Ginsberg; former federal Judge Thomas Griffith; David Hoppe, chief of staff to former House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.); former federal judge J. Michael Luttig; former federal judge Michael McConnell; Theodore Olson, solicitor general under former President George W. Bush; and former Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.).

“We urge our fellow conservatives to cease obsessing over the results of the 2020 election, and to focus instead on presenting candidates and ideas that offer a positive vision for overcoming our current difficulties and bringing greater peace, prosperity and liberty to our nation,” the group wrote.

The Hill has reached out to a Trump spokesperson for comment.

The group’s report includes an analysis of the claims in each court case challenging the election results in six swing states President Biden narrowly won in 2020: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

The cases included unfounded widespread claims of improperly counted ballots, rigged voting machines, mail-in ballot irregularities, ineligible voters who cast ballots and officials who blocked access for observers in polling places.

The claims have also been a focus of numerous investigations, including the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and a criminal investigation led by the Fulton County, Ga., district attorney.

Two members of the group, Ginsberg and Luttig, have testified publicly before the House panel. Luttig served as an informal adviser to then-Vice President Mike Pence in the lead-up to Jan. 6, telling Pence he could not constitutionally overturn the Electoral College votes.

The eight conservatives acknowledged the election administration was not “perfect” Thursday, noting a relatively small number of cases where authorities found irregularities.

“But there is absolutely no evidence of fraud in the 2020 presidential election on the magnitude necessary to shift the result in any state, let alone the nation as a whole,” they wrote.

“In fact, there was no fraud that changed the outcome in even a single precinct,” the report continued. “It is wrong, and bad for our country, for people to propagate baseless claims that President Biden’s election was not legitimate.”

Beyond the court cases, the conservatives’ report also discussed post-election reviews conducted outside of the legal system by the six swing states, all of which the group said also “failed to support” Trump’s allegations.

In one example, the group noted the Arizona’s state Senate’s review of Maricopa County election results, which was conducted by private firm Cyber Ninjas. The firm’s final analysis found 99 additional votes for Biden and 261 fewer votes for Trump, according to the report.

Cyber Ninjas later shut down after a judge ordered it to pay $50,000 per day in fines until it turned over public records to The Arizona Republic.

In another example, the conservatives referenced a full manual recount of Georgia ballots by Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R), which confirmed Biden’s victory in the state.

Trump had pressured Raffensperger in a now-infamous call to “find” enough votes to reverse Biden’s victory in the state.

“There is no principle of our republic more fundamental than the right of the people to elect our leaders and for their votes to be counted accurately,” the conservatives wrote. “Efforts to thwart the people’s choice are deeply undemocratic and unpatriotic.”

— Updated at 9:57 p.m.

[admin]

Arizona Republican censured by party over testimony on resisting Trump: Rusty Bowers, the Arizona house speaker, testified to the House January 6 committee in June
by Martin Pengelly @MartinPengelly
the guardian
Wed 20 Jul 2022 12.45 EDT

Rusty Bowers, the Arizona house speaker who testified to the January 6 committee about how he resisted Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn his defeat by Joe Biden in the sun belt state, has been formally censured by his own Republican party.

Kelli Ward, chair of the Arizona Republican party, said on Tuesday its “executive committee formally censured Rusty Bowers tonight – he is no longer a Republican in good standing and we call on Republicans to replace him at the ballot box in the August primary”.

Ward released a copy of the formal censure, which included “killing all meaningful election integrity bills” among Bowers’ alleged misdeeds and called on Arizona voters to “expel him permanently from office”.

Bowers testified to the House January 6 committee on 21 June. Discussing Trump’s claim that Bowers told him the Arizona election was “rigged”, Bowers said: “Anyone, anywhere, anytime I said the election was rigged, that would not be true.”

Bowers also recalled a conversation with Rudy Giuliani in which Trump’s personal lawyer, a key player in the attempt to prove mass electoral fraud, allegedly said: “We’ve got lots of theories but we just don’t have the evidence.”

Bowers also spoke about how his Christian faith motivated his defiance of Trump, and described threats made to his safety by Trump supporters while his daughter lay mortally ill.

Like Liz Cheney, one of two Republicans on the January 6 committee and its vice-chair, Bowers was given a Profile in Courage award for his resistance to Trump.

After the hearing at which he appeared, though, it emerged that Bowers had previously told the Associated Press: “If [Trump] is the nominee [in 2024], if he was up against [Joe] Biden, I’d vote for him again. Simply because what he did the first time, before Covid, was so good for the country. In my view it was great.”

This month, Bowers told the Deseret News he might have changed his mind.

“I don’t want the choice of having to look at [Trump] again,” he said. “And if it comes, I’ll be hard pressed. I don’t know what I’ll do.

“But I’m not inclined to support him. Because he doesn’t represent my party. He doesn’t represent the morals and the platform of my party …

“That guy is just – he’s his own party. It’s a party of intimidation and I don’t like it. So I’m not going to be boxed by, ‘Who am I gonna vote for?’ Because that’s between me and God. But I’m not happy with him.

“And I’m not happy with the thought that a robust primary can’t produce somebody better than Trump, for crying out loud.”

He also told Business Insider: “Much of what [Trump] has done has been tyrannical, especially of late. I think that there are elements of tyranny that anybody can practice on any given day, and I feel like I’ve seen a lot of it.”

**************************

Q&A: Rusty Bowers opens up on Trump, the Jan. 6 committee and his Latter-day Saint faith: The Arizona Speaker of the House recently testified before Congress about Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election
by Samuel Benson [email protected]
Jul 10, 2022, 8:58pm MDT

It’s been a busy two weeks for Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers. In late June, the Republican gave an emotional testimony before the Jan. 6 Select Committee about the 2020 election. He said former President Donald Trump, attorney Rudy Giuliani and Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., all pressured him to illegally overturn the election results in Arizona, where Joe Biden won.

“It is a tenet of my faith that the Constitution is divinely inspired … and so for me to do that because somebody just asked me to is foreign to my very being,” Bowers said. “I will not do it.”

In Arizona, the price of Bowers’ testimony has been steep. The state’s GOP chair endorsed Bowers’ challenger in the upcoming primary election. So, too, did Trump.

Bowers is a graduate of Brigham Young University and a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. His faith figured prominently in his congressional testimony.

When we spoke via phone on a recent weekday, Bowers was returning from the cemetery, where he’d just paid to have a headstone placed on his deceased daughter’s gravesite. In his testimony before the Jan. 6 Committee, Bowers became emotional when he described how his daughter Kacey, who was gravely ill at the time, became “upset at what was happening outside” as Trump supporters — at least one of whom was armed — protested in front of the Bowers’ home following the 2020 election. Kacey died only weeks later, in January 2021.

Deseret News writer Christian Sagers traveled to Phoenix to profile Bowers in March 2022. But after Bowers’ recent testimony, the Deseret News caught up with the lawmaker again to better understand the motives behind the man Sagers dubbed Arizona’s “last Republican maverick.”

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Deseret News: Thanks for making the time, Speaker Bowers. Many people were impressed with your testimony before the Jan. 6 Committee. A lot of Republicans are choosing not to cooperate. How did you make the decision to testify?

Rusty Bowers: I know that they all have their own reasons. When they said they would subpoena me, there were no threats. I was open with the investigators when they came and talked to me. I’m in no rush to get a contempt of Congress letter. But they said they really wanted me to come. So they sent a subpoena and we immediately complied. And it was all good. I didn’t look forward to it. But I felt there were some tender mercies concerning it.

DN: The committee, at least for folks on the right, has become somewhat politicized. It’s viewed as a partisan effort. Both Reps. Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney have received a lot of pushback for participating. What is your perspective of those two as lawmakers?

RB: I did not interact with Kinzinger, but I have interacted with Cheney as we went to the JFK Profiles (in Courage Awards). We met and chatted. So I already had some information as to her character, and it was really actually good to see her up there. It was calming for me. I didn’t feel she was a threatening force. And I wasn’t intimidated. But it’s not something I would want to do every other day.

DN: How do you respond to fellow Republicans who say that this committee is all just a sham effort to make Republicans look bad, or a Democratic-motivated effort?

RB: I don’t doubt that there are politics involved. There are politics involved with everybody in the political world, but whether or not the information that is shared is true or not, I think that’s a more important element. I just today had a meeting in Mesa — I call it close encounters of the worst kind — with supposedly Republican women, and some of them were just vicious, vicious people.

I like to ask people — well, I’ll ask you. Have you ever been in a gunfight?

DN: I have not.

RB: Okay. Have you ever been held against your will and somebody instructed somebody else to kill you?

DN: That has never happened to me. No, sir.

RB: Well, it’s happened to me. And I found myself, and I think a lot of America finds ourselves, with the MS-13 on the one side, and in our case, it’s the Sonoran cowboy cartel on the left side. And they intimidate their respective sides and box you in and threaten you and malign you. Those sides don’t represent the real strength of a party, but when they start to embed themselves so deeply in a party that you can’t do anything without incurring their wrath or their intimidation, then the veneer of civilization — which is already paper thin — just goes away. And I think a lot of America feels pinned between the extremes of both sides of the party. And the reaction is either give up and join or flee from the neighborhood and get away from it. And they’ll be an independent or “party not determined” or just bow out totally. And I just don’t want to be bullied to do that. But I feel it all the time. It continues to this day.

DN: What do you foresee is the future of the Republican Party?

RB: If I was antifa or some other hard left group, you might be asking me that, too, if they, after the next election, started raising their profile in an intimidating way. I don’t know that it makes the party go away, but it certainly whittles down the membership of the party until maybe they’ll be happy when they finally can fit in a phone booth. I don’t think it’s helpful. When the (Arizona) party chair comes out in a primary and tells everybody what a jerk I am and what a RINO I am, and to vote for my competitor in this election, and that’s the chair? We’re supposed to be neutral in the primaries, and then you jump behind your candidate in the general! But it’s just on its head here. Trump lies and claims that I told him that our election was bogus, and that he was really the president. I mean, the guy is trying to undermine a basic institution of our governability, that is our ability to vote and have trust in it. And it’s terrible. It’s terrible, and I think it affects the party. I’ve talked to many people who say, “We were Republicans, but we’re out of there now. We don’t want any part of it.” And it’s sad. It’s sad.

DN: I wanted to ask you about Mr. Trump. In your testimony, you said that his efforts to overturn the election were “illegal” and the effects were “horrendous.” You spoke about some of his supporters harassing you and your family, and just recently, Trump called you a RINO and endorsed your challenger. But you also recently said that if Trump is the GOP nominee in 2024, you will support him. Why is that?

RB: That’s a false choice. Why would we focus on that? And I’m not gonna let you box me. I am a conservative. I have a heart that wants to help people in need and feel that we should do that. I want a candidate who has character, who wants to help other people and still maintain their principles, and who is an upright individual. After Trump’s childlike behavior in the first debate (in 2020), many Arizona women wouldn’t vote for him, and he lost the election. That election wasn’t stolen. He lost it. And they went, they voted in Arizona, 60,000ish of those women, 18 to 40, with small children. They just said, “We just can’t do it.” So they voted down-ballot Republican, but they didn’t vote for him. Or some of them even voted for Biden.

I don’t want the choice of having to look at (Trump) again. And if it comes, I’ll be hard pressed. I don’t know what I’ll do. But I’m not inclined to support him. Because he doesn’t represent my party. He doesn’t represent the morals and the platform of my party. And I just see it more and more all the time. That guy is just — he’s his own party. It’s a party of intimidation and I don’t like it. So I’m not going to be boxed by, “Who am I gonna vote for?” Because that’s between me and God. But I’m not happy with him. And I’m not happy with the thought that a robust primary can’t produce somebody better than Trump, for crying out loud.

DN: OK. The Associated Press reported that you plan to vote for Trump. Was that a false report?

RB: It’s not a false report. I know Bob Christie. He’s my AP guy. And I did say it. But it’s just that you get used to, as a defensive mechanism, when people say, “Who are you gonna vote for,” you usually say, “Well, you know, whoever the nominee is for my party,” rather than saying, “I’m voting for X, Y or Z.” I don’t like to be boxed. And so as kind of a sad evasion, I just said that. And it gets me out of a discussion and into a hotter fire. So I’d say it wasn’t a false report. He did quote me, and I’ve talked to him since. I give grace to people, Mr. Benson. If somebody gets in a fight with me, I’ll give them grace. We’ll say we’re sorry to each other. We’ll try to be amicable. So that’s my nature, is to extend some grace and not be hard in judgment against everybody or anybody. But I feel like people are being pinned both ways. I will be supporting somebody in the primary other than Mr. Trump. But it will be a Republican.

DN: Thank you for clarifying that. I wanted to ask about your faith as well. You mentioned your faith as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints several times in your testimony. Did you intend to speak much about your belief in God and how that influenced your decisions? Or is that something that just came naturally?

RB: Well, I didn’t pre-plan anything except the written part that they specifically asked me to read. They asked the question, “Why do you feel so intensely defensive of the Constitution?” So that’s why, because I believe it is divinely inspired and the principles in it are divine. So that’s kind of where they came from. It’s how I believe, how I feel. I’ve believed that since I was a child.

“I will be supporting somebody in the primary other than Mr. Trump. But it will be a Republican.” — Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers.

DN: The Latter-day Saint prophet Joseph Smith supposedly said that at some future day, the Constitution of the United States would “hang by a thread,” and Latter-day Saints would be involved in helping to save it. Do you think you fulfilled prophecy to any degree?

RB: I have thought about that statement about the Constitution hundreds, if not more, times in my life, especially my political life, wondering what the condition of the country would be at and when that would have to happen, and hopefully that we could stand up and defend it, and didn’t know how. And to have that corollary or that parallel come out of the testimony is at least extremely humbling. I hope it’s not me, but if it is in any way me, I hope I don’t fail in achieving that goal.

DN: The last thing I wanted to ask you about is the impact this has had in Arizona. What has been the response from your constituents in Arizona, especially Republicans?

RB: I’ve had hundreds of letters and hundreds of emails from all over the world. It is funny. They compliment me, and then when they read the other part from the AP that I might vote for Trump again, we’ve had some pretty vile responses. You know, if they just give me a chance, instead of automatically putting me in the box. Just now, I paid for the placing of my daughter’s headstone at the cemetery. I don’t know the lady who waited on me, who took my credit card. I didn’t introduce myself. I just said Kasey’s name, and they looked it up and gave me the price. And as she handed me the receipt, she says, “I just wanted you to know that I really was impressed and agree with what you said.” And I think, what did I say? I just said I had a Mastercard. She said, “No, aren’t you the man that testified in Congress?” And I said yes. And she said that she was very thankful, that I showed a lot of bravery in saying that.

I’m grateful that in some way it affected them for good, and I hope if that’s all I ever did, that I would affect somebody for good. If they would want to be a little better or a little more careful of our government and our responsibilities, then that would be enough.

[admin]

James Murray Is The Problem At The Secret Service
by Lawrence O’Donnell
Jul 20, 2022

NBC News is reporting that members of the Secret Service were told at least three times to preserve text messages and communications on their agency phones. MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell breaks down the new developments and explains how the problems at the Secret Service may go all the way to the top.



WE BEGIN TONIGHT WITH JAMES
0:09
MURRAY.
0:09
THE DIRECTOR OF THE SECRET
0:12
SERVICE WHO HAS REMAINED IN
0:14
THAT POSITION DURING THE BIDEN
0:17
ADMINISTRATION, EVEN THOUGH HE
0:18
WAS APPOINTED BY DONALD TRUMP.
0:19
THE FIRST DIRECTOR OF THE
0:21
SECRET SERVICE APPOINTED BY
0:22
DONALD TRUMP WAS ACTUALLY
0:23
CHOSEN BY JOHN KELLY WHEN KELLY
0:25
WAS THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND
0:27
SECURITY.
0:28
THE SECRET SERVICE IS UNDER THE
0:29
JURISDICTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
0:30
SECURITY, AND KELLY BELIEVED
0:32
THAT HIS FRIEND, A RETIRED MARINE
0:35
CORPS GENERAL, RANDOLPH ALICE,
0:37
WAS THE KIND OF OUTSIDER THAT
0:39
THE SECRET SERVICE NEEDED TO
0:41
TAKE A FRESH LOOK AT THE
0:42
MANAGEMENT OF THE SECRET
0:44
SERVICE, WHICH DOES MUCH MORE
0:45
THAN JUST PROTECT THE PRESIDENT
0:47
WITH ITS THREE BILLION DOLLAR
0:49
BUDGET.
0:49
THE SECRET SERVICE DUTIES HAVE
0:51
ALWAYS INCLUDED POLICING
0:54
COUNTERFEIT MONEY.
0:55
AND NOW INCLUDE HIGHLY
0:57
SOPHISTICATED INVESTIGATIONS OF
0:58
FINANCIAL CRIMES
1:00
INVOLVING ELECTRONIC
1:01
COMMUNICATIONS.
1:02
WHICH MAKES IT ALL THE MORE
1:05
IRONIC TO PUT IT MILDLY, THAT
1:07
THE SECRET SERVICE HAS LOST THE
1:10
MOST IMPORTANT ELECTRONIC
1:12
COMMUNICATIONS IN THE HISTORY
1:13
OF THE SECRET SERVICE.
1:16
IT IS SIMPLY NOT AT ALL
1:18
BELIEVABLE, NOT EVEN SLIGHTLY
1:20
BELIEVABLE, THAT THE SECRET
1:21
SERVICE GOT RID OF THE MOST
1:24
IMPORTANT TEXT MESSAGES IN
1:26
THEIR HISTORY, BECAUSE NO ONE
1:31
THERE KNEW THAT THOSE TEXT
1:32
MESSAGES WERE IMPORTANT.
1:35
THE BREAKING NEWS TONIGHT IS
1:36
THAT THE SECRET SERVICE
1:38
EMPLOYEES RECEIVED NOT ONE, NOT
1:40
TWO, BUT THREE SEPARATE
1:43
NOTIFICATIONS INSTRUCTING THEM
1:45
TO PRESERVE COMMUNICATIONS
1:47
BEFORE AN AGENCY WIDE TECHNOLOGY
1:49
REPLACEMENT PROGRAM WENT INTO
1:51
EFFECT IN THE WEEKS AFTER THE
1:53
JANUARY 6TH ATTACK ON THE
1:54
CAPITOL.
1:54
NBC NEWS IS REPORTING QUOTE,
1:57
THE FIRST EMAIL ABOUT
1:58
PRESERVING RECORDS CAME ON
2:00
DECEMBER 9TH, 2020, FROM THE
2:03
SECRET SERVICE'S OFFICE OF STRATEGIC
2:03
PLANNING, AND THE SECOND WAS
2:06
IN JANUARY 2021, FROM THE
2:08
AGENCY'S CHIEF INFORMATION
2:10
OFFICER, THOUGH A SENIOR
2:13
SECRET SERVICE OFFICIAL SOURCE
2:14
DIDN'T PROVIDE AN EXACT DATE.
2:15
THE SENIOR OFFICIAL SAID,
2:18
EMPLOYEES RECEIVED A THIRD
2:19
EMAIL ON FEBRUARY 4TH 2021,
2:22
INSTRUCTING THEM TO PRESERVE
2:23
ALL COMMUNICATIONS SPECIFIC TO
2:26
JANUARY SIX.
2:26
THE EMAILS QUOTE, INCLUDED
2:29
REMINDERS THAT FEDERAL
2:30
EMPLOYEES HAVE THE
2:31
RESPONSIBILITY TO PRESERVE
2:32
THEIR RECORDS AND INCLUDED
2:33
INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO DO SO,
2:35
THE SENIOR SECRET SERVICE
2:38
OFFICIAL SAID.
2:38
IT WAS JAMES MURRAY'S
2:42
RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE ALL
2:44
SECRET SERVICE TEXTS SENT AND
2:47
RECEIVED ON JANUARY SIX WERE
2:50
PRESERVED AND HE DID NOT DO
2:53
THAT.
2:54
DONALD TRUMP NEVER LIKED JOHN
2:57
KELLY'S CHOICE FOR DIRECTOR OF
2:59
SECRET SERVICE.
3:00
RANDOLPH ALICE, DIRECTOR ALICE
3:03
STRUGGLED WITH SOMETHING NO
3:04
SECRET SERVICE DIRECTOR
3:06
BEFORE HIM EVER FACED.
3:07
HOW TO PROVIDE FULL-TIME SECRET
3:09
SERVICE PROTECTION TO A HUGE
3:12
HIGH RISE BUILDING, IN MID-TOWN
3:14
MANHATTAN, WHERE THE PRESIDENT
3:15
OF THE UNITED STATES CLAIMED THAT
3:17
HE STILL LIVED, BUT IN FACT,
3:19
ALMOST NEVER VISITED.
3:20
THE SECRET SERVICE BUDGET FOR
3:22
PROTECTING THAT BUILDING WAS
3:23
HIGHER THAN THE COST OF
3:25
PROTECTING ANY OTHER HOME OF A
3:28
PREVIOUS PRESIDENT AND AT THE
3:30
SAME TIME, THE SECRET SERVICE
3:31
BUDGET WAS SKYROCKETING TO
3:33
PROTECT DONALD TRUMP ON HIS
3:35
CONSTANT GOLFING OUTINGS,
3:37
LOCALLY, IN WASHINGTON, AND IN
3:39
NEW JERSEY, AND IN FLORIDA.
3:40
ADD TO THAT, THE 18 MEMBERS IN THE
3:42
TRUMP FAMILY WHO WERE GIVEN
3:44
SECRET SERVICE PROTECTION, AND
3:45
THE PROTECTIVE BUDGET OF THE
3:47
SECRET SERVICE WAS QUICKLY
3:49
WIPED OUT.
3:49
WHEN USA TODAY RAN A STORY
3:52
WITH THE HEADLINES, SECRET
3:53
SERVICE IS GOING BROKE
3:54
PROTECTING TRUMP.
3:55
DONALD TRUMP BLAMED THE SECRET
3:58
SERVICE DIRECTOR.
3:58
DONALD TRUMP FIRED HIM IN APRIL
4:01
OF 2019.
4:02
IN HER BOOK ABOUT THE SECRET
4:04
SERVICE, ZERO FAIL, THE RISE OF
4:07
THE SECRET SERVICE.
4:08
THE RISE AND FALL OF THE SECRET
4:10
SERVICE, CAROL LEONNIG, TELLS
4:12
US THAT JAMES MURRAY WAS NOT
4:15
DONALD TRUMP'S TOP CHOICE.
4:16
FOR HIS NEXT SECRET SERVICE
4:18
DIRECTOR.
4:18
TRUMP WANTED TO PROMOTE TONY
4:22
ORNATO.
4:22
THE LEADER OF HIS PERSONAL
4:25
SECURITY DETAIL, TO DIRECTOR OF
4:27
THE SECRET SERVICE.
4:28
QUOTE, TRUMP WANTED TO MAKE
4:31
ORNATO DIRECTOR, BUT ORNATO
4:33
SAID HE HAD OTHER PLANS AND
4:35
SUGGESTED TO THE PRESIDENT THAT
4:36
HE HIRE HIS GOOD FRIEND JAMES
4:38
MURRAY, A 23 YEAR OLD MEMBER OF
4:40
THE SERVICE, TRUMP HIRED
4:43
MURRAY AFTER AN INTERVIEW
4:45
LASTING ROUGHLY TEN MINUTES.
4:46
THE PRESIDENT SOON AFTER
4:48
PROMOTED HIS LOYAL DETAIL
4:49
LEADER ORNATO TO A POLITICAL
4:51
ROLE THAT WAS UNPRECEDENTED FOR
4:53
THE NONPARTISAN SECRET SERVICE
4:55
AT THE PRESIDENT'S URGING,
4:57
ORNADO TOOK ON THE JOB OF
4:58
PRESIDENTIAL POLITICAL ADVISER
5:01
AS THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF IN
5:03
THE TRUMP WHITE HOUSE.
5:05
A TEN MINUTE INTERVIEW FOR HIS
5:09
NEW SECRET SERVICE DIRECTOR.
5:09
THAT INTERVIEW MAY WELL HAVE
5:12
INCLUDED THE QUESTIONS, WHO DID
5:14
YOU VOTE FOR FOR PRESIDENT?
5:15
WHO ARE YOU GOING TO VOTE FOR
5:17
PRESIDENT?
5:17
AND DO I HAVE YOUR COMPLETE AND
5:19
TOTAL LOYALTY AT ALL TIMES, FOR
5:21
ANYTHING I MIGHT WANT TO DO?
5:24
>> THIS WAS THE THIRD YEAR OF
5:26
THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY.
5:28
REMEMBER, IN THE FIRST WEEKS OF
5:30
HIS PRESIDENCY, WHEN DONALD
5:32
TRUMP BROUGHT JAMES COMEY INTO
5:33
THE WHITE HOUSE FOR A
5:35
ONE-ON-ONE DINNER.
5:36
DONALD TRUMP WAS STUNNINGLY
5:38
BLATANT ABOUT LOYALTY, IN A
5:40
DISCUSSION WITH COMEY, WHO HE
5:42
DIDN'T EVEN KNOW.
5:43
AND HAD NO REASON TO TRUST.
5:45
DONALD TRUMP MADE IT VERY CLEAR TO
5:48
JAMES COMEY, WHAT WOULD BE
5:50
NECESSARY FOR COMEY TO CONTINUE
5:52
AS FBI DIRECTOR.
5:53
JAMES COMEY TELLS US THAT
5:55
DONALD TRUMP SAID, I NEED
5:56
LOYALTY.
5:56
I EXPECT LOYALTY.
6:00
TONY ORNATO HAD NO DOUBT,
6:03
CERTIFIED JAMES MURRAY'S LOYALTY
6:05
TO TRUMP BEFORE TRUMP'S TEN
6:08
MINUTE INTERVIEW WITH HIM.
6:09
BUT WE KNOW THAT DONALD TRUMP
6:11
WAS NOT GOING TO GIVE THAT JOB
6:13
TO ANYONE WHO DID NOT CLEARLY
6:16
PLEDGE LOYALTY TO DONALD TRUMP.
6:17
SO WE KNOW THAT JAMES MURRAY IS
6:22
A TRUMP GUY IN EVERY SENSE
6:25
IMPORTANT TO DONALD TRUMP OR
6:26
DONALD TRUMP WOULD NOT HAVE
6:28
PROMOTED HIM
6:28
TO DIRECTOR OF THE SECRET
6:31
SERVICE.
6:31
IN APRIL OF 2019, ALL OF THE
6:34
DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES FOR
6:35
PRESIDENT HAD ANNOUNCED THEIR
6:37
CANDIDACIES AND POLLING SHOWED
6:39
DONALD TRUMP RUNNING FAR BEHIND
6:41
JOE BIDEN WITH JOE BIDEN AT 51,
6:43
AND DONALD TRUMP AT 42.
6:44
DONALD TRUMP KNEW JUST LIKE
6:47
2016, THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO
6:49
WAY HE WAS GOING TO WIN MORE
6:50
VOTES THAN THE DEMOCRAT.
6:52
DONALD TRUMP KNEW HE WAS GOING
6:53
TO COME IN SECOND WITH THE
6:55
VOTERS, AND HIS ONLY HOPE WAS
6:56
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE, AND THIS
6:58
TIME, DONALD TRUMP DIDN'T WANT
6:59
TO TAKE HIS CHANCES WITH THE
7:00
ELECTORAL COLLEGE.
7:01
IF IT CAME TO IT, DONALD TRUMP
7:03
WAS OBVIOUSLY WILLING TO TRY TO
7:05
CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THE
7:06
ELECTORAL COLLEGE, AND THAT
7:08
IS EXACTLY WHAT HE DID, AND
7:09
THAT IS WHAT HE WAS STILL
7:10
TRYING TO DO ON JANUARY SIX.
7:12
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON TESTIFIED
7:15
THAT TONY ORNATO TOLD HER, IN
7:17
THE WHITE HOUSE, THAT DONALD
7:19
TRUMP TRIED TO GO TO THE
7:21
CAPITOL, ON JANUARY SIX, TO
7:22
JOIN THE ATTACKERS OF THE
7:24
CAPITOL.
7:24
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON TESTIFIED
7:26
UNDER OATH, THAT TONY ORNATO
7:29
TOLD HER THAT DONALD TRUMP
7:31
PHYSICALLY STRUGGLED WITH ONE OF THE
7:32
SECRET SERVICE AGENTS IN THE
7:33
CAR WHEN HE WAS DEMANDING THAT
7:34
THE CAR TAKE HIM TO THE
7:36
CAPITOL.
7:39
THE SECRET SERVICE DELETED
7:42
EVERY TEXT MESSAGE ABOUT THAT
7:45
INCIDENT IN THE CAR, AND
7:47
EVERYTHING ELSE THAT HAPPENED ON
7:50
JANUARY SIX.
7:50
INCLUDING POSSIBLE TEXT
7:53
MESSAGES ABOUT VICE PRESIDENT
7:54
MIKE PENCE.
7:55
DID TONY ORNATO SEND A TEXT
7:58
MESSAGE TO MIKE PENCE'S SECRET
8:00
SERVICE AGENTS AT THE CAPITOL,
8:02
TELLING THEM TO TAKE THE VICE
8:04
PRESIDENT AWAY FROM THE CAPITOL?
8:05
DID JAMES MURRAY SEND A
8:08
TEXT MESSAGE SAYING THAT TO THE
8:11
AGENTS OF THE CAPITOL
8:12
TO TAKE THE VICE PRESIDENT
8:14
AWAY?
8:14
WERE SECRET SERVICE AGENTS
8:16
TRYING TO REMOVE THE VICE
8:18
PRESIDENT FROM THE CAPITOL FOR
8:19
HIS SAFETY,
8:20
OR WERE THEY TRYING TO REMOVE
8:21
THE VICE PRESIDENT FROM THE
8:23
CAPITOL SO THAT THE VICE
8:25
PRESIDENT COULD NOT CERTIFY THE
8:27
ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTE?
8:28
THERE COULD BE ANSWERS TO ALL
8:30
OF THOSE QUESTIONS IN THE TEXT
8:32
MESSAGES, DELETED BY THE SECRET
8:35
SERVICE, WHICH COULD NOT HAVE
8:37
HAPPENED WITHOUT JAMES MURRAY'S
8:39
PERMISSION.
8:39
DONALD TRUMP KNEW THAT THE
8:41
SECRET SERVICE DIRECTOR, THAT
8:43
HE CHOSE IN APRIL OF 2019, WAS
8:45
GOING TO BE THE SECRET SERVICE
8:46
DIRECTOR ON ELECTION DAY, AND WAS
8:48
GOING TO BE THE SECRET SERVICE
8:49
DIRECTOR AT THE NEXT
8:50
INAUGURATION DAY, AND THAT THE
8:52
SECRET SERVICE DIRECTOR MIGHT
8:53
BE ASKED TO DO THINGS THAT NO
8:55
OTHER SECRET SERVICE DIRECTOR
8:56
IN HISTORY EVER HAD TO DO.
9:01
>> SOMEDAY, AND THAT DAY MAY
9:04
NEVER COME, THAT I'LL CALL UPON YOU TO DO A
9:07
SERVICE FOR ME.
9:07
>> WHATEVER THE SPECIFIC WORDS
9:10
WERE IN DONALD TRUMP'S TEN
9:12
MINUTE INTERVIEW WITH JAMES
9:13
MURRAY BEFORE MAKING HIM DIRECTOR OF
9:15
THE SECRET SERVICE, THE SUBTEXT
9:17
OF IT WAS THAT LINE FROM THE
9:20
GODFATHER.
9:20
"SOMEDAY, AND THAT DAY MAY NEVER
9:23
COME, I WILL CALL UPON YOU TO
9:24
DO A SERVICE FOR ME."
9:27
DID JAMES MURRAY DO A SERVICE
9:30
FOR DONALD TRUMP BY OVERSEEING
9:32
THE DELETION OF ALL THE SECRET
9:34
SERVICE TEXT MESSAGES ON
9:36
JANUARY SIX?
9:36
THE JANUARY SIX COMMITTEE CAN
9:39
ANSWER ALL OF THESE QUESTIONS
9:41
BY ISSUING A SPECIFIC PERSONAL
9:44
SUBPOENA TO JAMES MURRAY FOR
9:45
HIS UNDER OATH TESTIMONY, AND A
9:48
SEPARATE SUBPOENA TO
9:51
JAMES MURRAY FOR ALL OF HIS
9:53
SECRET SERVICE TEXT MESSAGES,
9:54
ON JANUARY SIX.
9:55
TODAY, THE SECRET SERVICE TOLD
9:57
THE COMMITTEE THAT THEY HAD
9:59
FOUND EXACTLY ONE TEXT, THAT IS
10:02
RELEVANT, TO THE COMMITTEE'S
10:04
INVESTIGATION.
10:04
OUT OF THE THOUSANDS MORE TEXTS
10:06
THAT THE SECRET SERVICE NOW
10:08
SAYS WERE DELETED.
10:10
DELETING THOSE TEXTS IS A
10:12
VIOLATION OF LAW.
10:13
JAMES MURRAY KNEW THAT WHEN HE
10:15
ALLOWED THEM TO BE DELETED.
10:17
THE SECRET SERVICE IS ONE OF
10:19
THE MOST SOPHISTICATED CYBER
10:21
OPERATIONS IN THE FEDERAL
10:22
GOVERNMENT.
10:22
THE SECRET SERVICE SPECIALIZES IN
10:24
INVESTIGATING FINANCIAL
10:26
CYBERCRIMES.
10:26
THE SECRET SERVICE KNOWS WHAT ITS
10:29
LEGAL OBLIGATIONS ARE IN
10:31
KEEPING ELECTRONIC RECORDS, AND
10:32
THE SECRET SERVICE VIOLATED THE
10:34
LAW.
10:35
ATTORNEY GENERAL MERRICK
10:36
GARLAND SAID TODAY THAT THE
10:38
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
10:38
INVESTIGATION OF THE ATTACK ON
10:39
THE CAPITOL, AND THEYATTEMPT
10:41
TO OVERTURN THE ELECTION, WILL
10:43
NOT HESITATE IN BRINGING
10:44
CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST ANYONE
10:46
WHO THEY CAN PROVE VIOLATED THE
10:48
LAW.
10:48
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STRESSED NO
10:50
PERSON IS ABOVE THE LAW.
10:51
HE DIDN'T SAY DONALD TRUMP'S
10:53
NAME, BUT THAT IS WHAT EVERYONE
10:55
UNDERSTOOD THAT HE MEANT, AND
10:57
THAT ALSO MEANS THAT NO SECRET
10:59
SERVICE DIRECTOR IS ABOVE THE
11:00
LAW.
11:00
WHEN JAMES MURRAY IS PUT UNDER
11:03
OATH BY THE JANUARY SIX
11:05
COMMITTEE, OR POSSIBLY BY A
11:07
FEDERAL GRAND JURY, HE WILL BE
11:09
ASKED A LONG RANGE OF QUESTIONS
11:10
ABOUT THE SECRET SERVICE
11:12
ELECTRONIC RECORDS PROTOCOLS.
11:13
HE WILL BE ASKED MANY QUESTIONS
11:15
ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED TO THE
11:17
SECRET SERVICE TEXT MESSAGES ON
11:18
JANUARY SIX.
11:18
AND HE SHOULD ALSO BE ASKED
11:21
VERY DIRECT PERSONAL QUESTIONS.
11:23
HOW MANY TEXT MESSAGES DID YOU,
11:28
JAMES MURRAY, SEND AND RECEIVE,
11:30
ON YOUR SECRET SERVICE PHONE
11:31
ON JANUARY SIX?
11:33
WHO SENT YOU TEXT MESSAGES?
11:36
AND WHO DID YOU SEND TEXT
11:38
MESSAGES TO
11:38
ON JANUARY SIX?
11:40
WHAT DID THOSE TEXT MESSAGES
11:42
SAY?
11:42
THE SECRET SERVICE SENT OUT A
11:45
DIRECTIVE TO EVERYONE IN THE
11:46
SECRET SERVICE TO PRESERVE ALL
11:48
RELEVANT TEXT MESSAGES ON THEIR
11:49
PHONES. DID JAMES MURRAY FOLLOW
11:52
HIS OWN DIRECTIVE, OR DID JAMES
11:57
MURRAY PERSONALLY ALLOW ALL OF
12:00
THE TEXT MESSAGES ON HIS SECRET
12:01
SERVICE PHONES, ON JANUARY SIX,
12:04
TO BE DELETED, OR DID JAMES
12:06
MURRAY DO THAT HIMSELF?
12:06
DID HE DELETE THE TEXT
12:09
MESSAGES FROM HIS OWN SECRET
12:10
SERVICE PHONE?
12:11
DID THE DIRECTOR OF THE SECRET
12:13
SERVICE PERSONALLY DO THAT?
12:15
IS THAT THE SERVICE THAT HE DID
12:19
FOR DONALD TRUMP?
12:22
JAMES MURRAY WAS HOPING TO SLIP
12:23
OUT OF TOWN QUIETLY AT THE END
12:25
OF THE MONTH AND START HIS NEW
12:27
CAREER IN THE HIGH-PAID WORLD
12:28
OF CORPORATE SECURITY.
12:29
HE IS SCHEDULED TO BEGIN HIS
12:30
NEW JOB AS THE HEAD OF SECURITY
12:32
FOR SNAPCHAT IN AUGUST.
12:34
WHOEVER IS HANDLING THE
12:36
PRESERVATION OF ELECTRONIC
12:38
RECORDS AT SNAPCHAT NOW, IS
12:39
DOING A BETTER JOB OF IT THAN
12:41
JAMES MURRAY WILL BE ABLE TO
12:43
DO.

Does Snapchat Automatically Delete Conversations?

Similar to other social media apps, Snapchat allows you to have conversations with people who are your friends. However, most things on Snapchat are of ephemeral nature. In simpler terms, this means that they are gone after a while.

Losing the conversation that you particularly like can be a drag, especially if you want to go back to it and reread it. The chat might contain some important information or is simply so funny that you have to go back to it every so often. Either way, it is quite frustrating to realize that the chat bubbles are no longer there.

To understand how Snapchat works, there are a few things you should know about this popular social media platform.

The simple answer is yes. Snapchat is set to automatically delete your chats after the recipient sees them....

-- Does Snapchat Automatically Delete Conversations?, by William Stanton

12:43
HERE IS SOMEONE WHO JAMES
12:47
MURRAY USED TO WORK WITH.
12:48
>> DAN BONGINO: THIS IS ONE THING AND ONE
12:50
THING ONLY.
12:51
THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO SILENCE
12:53
CONSERVATIVES LIKE YOU AND I,
12:54
FROM COMMUNICATING, BEFORE THE
12:57
2022 ELECTION, THAT IS ALL
12:59
THIS IS.
12:59
AND IT'S A MESSAGE BEING SENT
13:00
TO ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS DONALD
13:02
TRUMP EITHER NOW, OR IN THE
13:04
FUTURE
13:04
THAT IT'S OPEN SEASON ON YOU.
13:05
IT'S HUNTING SEASON FOR YOUR
13:07
PRIVATE COMMUNICATIONS.
13:08
DON'T YOU DARE TALK ABOUT YOUR
13:11
INTENTIONS,
13:11
OR COORDINATE, OR DO ANYTHING
13:14
TO GET A REPUBLICAN ELECTED AGAIN,
13:15
BECAUSE LIZ CHENEY WILL MAKE
13:16
SURE, THAT THEY SUBPOENA YOU
13:18
AND MAKE YOUR LIFE REALLY
13:19
MISERABLE.
13:19
THAT IS ALL THIS WAS.
13:20
>> THAT GUY WAS A SECRET
13:23
SERVICE AGENT.
13:23
DAN BONGINO WAS A NEW YORK CITY
13:26
POLICE OFFICER WHO THEN JOINED
13:27
THE SECRET SERVICE, WHERE HE
13:28
WORKED FOR 11 YEARS WHILE JAMES
13:33
MURRAY AND TONY ORNATO WERE ALSO
13:35
WORKING IN THE SECRET SERVICE.
13:36
WERE THEY FRIENDS
13:37
WITH DAN BONGINO?
13:39
ARE THEY FRIENDLY WITH HIM NOW?
13:41
IS DAN BONGINO THE PUBLIC
13:45
VOICE OF WHAT MEMBERS OF THE
13:48
SECRET SERVICE, LIKE JAMES
13:49
MURRAY, ACTUALLY THINK?
13:51
THERE IS A VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM
13:53
AT THE SECRET SERVICE NOW.
13:54
THIS IS THE WORST CRISIS FACING
13:57
THE SECRET SERVICE SINCE THE
13:59
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT
14:00
KENNEDY ON NOVEMBER 22ND, 1963,
14:03
AND THE DIRECTOR OF THE SECRET
14:04
SERVICE HAS NOT SAID ONE WORD
14:07
ABOUT IT. NOT ONE WORD.
14:09
THERE HAS BEEN MUCH JUSTIFIABLE
14:11
OUTRAGE THAT THE CHIEF OF THE
14:14
UVALDE'S SCHOOL'S POLICE FORCE,
14:15
WENT SILENT AFTER THE MASS
14:17
MURDER AT ROBB ELEMENTARY
14:18
SCHOOL, IN UVALDE, TEXAS.
14:19
THIS IS THE SAME THING.
14:21
THE DIRECTOR OF THE SECRET
14:24
SERVICE FACING THE WORST
14:26
SUSPICIONS THAT HAVE EVER BEEN
14:28
FOCUSED ON THE SECRET SERVICE,
14:30
IN ITS HISTORY.
14:31
AND THE DIRECTOR OF THE SECRET
14:34
SERVICE, JAMES MURRAY, SAYS
14:36
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT IT?
14:38
NOT ONE WORD OF EXPLANATION?
14:40
NOT ONE WORD OF DEFENCE?
14:42
NOT ONE WORD OF A PROMISE TO
14:46
FIND OUT WHAT HAS BEEN
14:48
HAPPENING AT THE SECRET SERVICE?
14:49
WE HAVE NEVER SEEN A PROBLEM
14:52
LIKE THIS AT THE SECRET
14:54
SERVICE.
14:54
THERE'S A VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM AT
14:56
THE SECRET SERVICE, AND JAMES
14:59
MURRAY IS PART OF THAT PROBLEM OR
JAMES MURRAY IS THE PROBLEM.

[admin]

Seeing Donald Trump Now The Way They Should Have Seen Him From The Very
Beginning.
by Chris Hayes
MSNBC
Jul 23, 2022



throughout the hearings the committee
has consistently shown trump's negative
impact on his most loyal followers, how
they, uh, you know believed in him,
believed they were doing something good
for the country by working for him and
then, well,
they were disappointed.
it was something that vice chair liz
cheney was explicit about last night. by
our account,
at least 15
of the 20 in-person witnesses at the
hearings this summer, have been
republicans. conservatives. whether
republican officials, or former
republican judges, legendary conservative
judges like michael ludwig.
this is all intentional, because among
other things,
these hearings are a genuine attempt at
persuasion, right? at reaching
conservatives, and republicans, and anyone
who needs convincing that donald trump
is a threat, and a menace, and an
existential danger to american democracy.
and that can be true
even if you're a republican. even if you,
you know, want to see capital gains taxes
cut, or you're opposed to abortion.
and so it makes sense to use the voices
of the people closest to the
ex-president to show that.
but i gotta say,
it also creates
a really weird vibe,
because it really feels like all these
people there sitting before the
microphone, you know dutiful and earnest
as they are,
should know better than to be
continually surprised, and flabbergasted,
disappointed, in disbelief about just how
destructive and blatant a liar donald
trump is.
listen to how a few of them reacted after
donald trump tweeted that mike pence was
a coward,
as an armed mob was storming the capitol
where pence was hiding
inside.
sarah matthews: i think that in that moment for
him to tweet out the message about mike
pence, it was him pouring gasoline on the
fire, and making it much worse.
pat cipollone: i don't
remember when exactly i heard about that
tweet ,but my reaction to it is that's a
terrible tweet, and i disagreed with the
sentiment,
and
i thought it was wrong.
questioner: what was your reaction when you saw that
tweet?
Judd Deere: extremely unhelpful.
chris hayes: that's one way to put it, judd dear.
yeah, extremely unhelpful:
painting a target on the back of the
vice president of the united states as his
security detail hustles him away
from a ferocious mob out for blood
chanting "hang mike pence."
unhelpful! not surprising.
and again, of course, i completely
understand why the committee is leaning
on these trump republicans to tell the
story. but it is still very jarring to
watch
when all of the character flaws they are
identifying
were
shockingly obvious
from
forever, honestly, for decades! but clearly
from the day donald trump came down from
that escalator and said mexico was
sending rapists.
he lived his entire life in public, much
of it on national tv. he ran an entire
presidential campaign,
you know, where he attacked veterans,
women, muslims. he wanted to ban all
muslims from the united states of
america. that itself is utterly
disqualifying. just right there. that's it.
boom! the line.
i would like to think we all knew who he
was before he became president.
this reaction from former trump
supporters, the people who are being
called to testify before the committee, it's
fascinating at some level to watch. i
mean just in a kind of human
trauma sense.
because it's broadly applicable to
literally millions of people. we were
just talking to sarah longwell about
this. right? i mean the republican party
right now is a coalition of the die-hard
maga folks, the people who would walk
through fire for trump, and the people
who
once supported trump and hate liberals,
right? they're just republicans.
they'll vote for the republican nominee.
maybe they're not hardcore trump people.
they think he gets a bad rap. he's kind
of annoying to them.
so these hearings are creating a clear
delineation between these two groups. and
these revelatory moments are displaying
a true study in the depths of human
denial.
and i gotta say i've watched the
hearings thinking that a lot of it was
performance of false naivete.
and i think that's true, especially for
people like bill barr and pat cipollone.
i still think that.
but there was this one moment last night
that really struck me. it was a text
conversation on january 9th between
trump campaign officials tim murtagh and
matthew wolking about trump's refusal to
say anything at all about brian sicknick.
that would be the capitol police officer
who died the day after the attack.
Rep. Elaine Luria (D-Va.): murtaugh said
"also [FUCKED]
not to have acknowledged the death of
the capitol police officer." wolking
responded,
"that's enraging to me. everything he said
about supporting law enforcement was a
lie."
to which murtaugh replied,
"you know what this is? of course
if he acknowledged the dead cop,
he'd be implicitly faulting the
mob. and he won't do that because they're
his people.
and he would also be close to
acknowledging
that what he'd lit at the rally got out of
control.
no way he acknowledges something that
could ultimately be called his fault. no
way!"
chris hayes: it's like you can see the light bulb
coming on over the head of the trump
staffer, like mid-text.
you can see the trump illusion fading
away, just like in these texts.

BRAD PASCALE JAN 6 2021 7:14 PM
This is about trump pushing for uncertainty in our country
A sitting president asking for civil war
This week I feel guilty for helping him win.
KATRINA PIERSON JAN 6, 2021 7:20 PM
You did what you felt right at the time and therefore it was right

chris hayes: that was
trump's former campaign manager brad
pascale said on january 6, saying
quote "a sitting president asking for
civil war this week i feel guilty for
helping him win."
now
those sentiments are fleeting. a lot of
these people have just gone back to
being trump people, so
do with that what you will. but you have
to hope that other people watching the
hearings are having the moment that
these
two guys did,
and seeing donald trump now the way they
should have seen him from, well, the very
beginning.

[admin]

Hearings of Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol
by January 6th.house.gov

Select Committee Hearings

06/09/2022 SELECT COMMITTEE HEARING

06/13/2022 SELECT COMMITTEE HEARING

06/16/2022 SELECT COMMITTEE HEARING

06/21/2022 SELECT COMMITTEE HEARING

06/23/2022 SELECT COMMITTEE HEARING

06/28/2022 SELECT COMMITTEE HEARING

07/12/2022 SELECT COMMITTEE HEARING

07/21/2022 SELECT COMMITTEE HEARING

-- 10/13/2022 SELECT COMMITTEE HEARING

[admin]

We Are Retired Generals and Admirals. Trump’s Actions on Jan. 6 Were a Dereliction of Duty.
by Steve Abbot, Peter Chiarelli, John Jumper, James Loy, John Nathman, William Owens and Johnnie Wilson
July 21, 2022

Admirals Abbot, Loy, Nathman and Owens and Generals Chiarelli, Jumper and Wilson are retired four-star generals and admirals in the U.S. armed forces.

The inquiry by the House’s Jan. 6 committee has produced many startling findings, but none to us more alarming than the fact that while rioters tried to thwart the peaceful transfer of power and ransacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, the president and commander in chief, Donald Trump, abdicated his duty to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

In the weeks leading up to that terrible day, allies of Mr. Trump also urged him to hold on to power by unlawfully ordering the military to seize voting machines and supervise a do-over of the election. Such an illegal order would have imperiled a foundational precept of American democracy: civilian control of the military.

Americans may take it for granted, but the strength of our democracy rests upon the stability of this arrangement, which requires both civilian and military leaders to have confidence that they have the same goal of supporting and defending the Constitution.

We hope that the country will never face such a crisis again. But to safeguard our constitutional order, military leaders must be ready for similar situations in which the chain of command appears unclear or the legality of orders uncertain.

The relationship between America’s civilian leadership and its military is structured by an established chain of command: from unit leaders through various commanders and generals and up to the secretary of defense and the president. Civilian authorities have the constitutional and legal right and responsibility to decide whether to use military force. As military officers, we had the duty to provide candid, expert advice on how to use such force and then to obey all lawful orders, whether we agreed or not.

The events of Jan. 6 offer a demonstration on how military and civilian leaders execute this relationship and what happens when it comes under threat. When a mob attacked the Capitol, the commander in chief failed to act to restore order and even encouraged the rioters. As Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified to Congress, Vice President Mike Pence attempted to fill the void by calling on the National Guard to intervene.

Given the urgent need to secure the Capitol, Mr. Pence’s request was reasonable. Yet the vice president has no role in the chain of command unless specifically acting under the president’s authority because of illness or incapacitation, and therefore cannot lawfully issue orders to the military. Members of Congress, who also pleaded for military assistance as the mob laid siege to the Capitol, are in the same category. In the end, the National Guard deployed not in response to those pleas but under lawful orders issued by the acting secretary of defense, Christopher Miller.

Should civilians atop the chain of command again abandon their duties or attempt to abuse their authority, military ranks can and must respond in accordance with their oaths — without a lawful order from appropriate command authority, they cannot unilaterally undertake a mission. Concurrent with a duty to obey all lawful orders is a duty to question and disobey unlawful orders — those a person “of ordinary sense and understanding,” as a Court of Military Review ruling put it, would know to be wrong.

Operations on U.S. soil must also specifically comply with the Standing Rules for the Use of Force, which limit use of force but explicitly authorize it to protect people from imminent threat of death or serious harm, to defend “assets vital to national security” and “to prevent the sabotage of a national critical infrastructure.”

These are essential checks on civilian officials who would make unlawful use of U.S. military personnel. Governors, who possess broad command authority over our 54 National Guard organizations, for example, may face political pressure to deploy these forces to illegally interfere with elections or other democratic processes.

To recognize these threats to our democracy, military leaders must continue to develop robust training, guidance and resources for service members in accordance with these safeguards, ensuring the integrity of the chain of command and effective operation of civil-military relations.

But while such preparedness is necessary, it is not sufficient.

We each took an oath as former leaders of the armed forces to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” We fulfilled that oath through service to civilian leadership elected by and accountable to the American people. This essential arrangement, however, is not self-executing; it relies on civilian leaders equally committed to protecting and defending the Constitution — including, most important, the commander in chief.

The principle of civilian control of the military predates the founding of the Republic. In 1775, George Washington was commissioned as the military commander of the Continental Army under the civilian command authority of the Second Continental Congress. The next year, among the grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence against King George III was his making “the military independent of and superior to the civil power.”

The president’s dereliction of duty on Jan. 6 tested the integrity of this historic principle as never before, endangering American lives and our democracy.

The lesson of that day is clear. Our democracy is not a given. To preserve it, Americans must demand nothing less from their leaders than an unassailable commitment to country over party — and to their oaths above all.

Adm. Steve Abbot, Gen. Peter Chiarelli, Gen. John Jumper, Adm. James Loy, Adm. John Nathman, Adm. William Owens and Gen. Johnnie Wilson are retired four-star generals and admirals in the U.S. armed forces.

[admin]

Christian Nationalism
by Rachel Maddow
MSNBC
Jul 26, 2022



4:04
have you ever heard of a man named
4:06
gerald l k smith
4:10
if you haven't you are forgiven he is no
4:12
longer a famous figure but in his day he
4:15
was a famous-ish guy a preacher and
4:18
political figure at one point he ran for
4:20
senate in michigan as a republican
4:23
in 1944 he ran for president against fdr
4:27
he ran on the ticket of the america
4:29
first party which he had founded uh
4:32
gerald lk smith did not get far with
4:34
that presidential bid or with the
4:35
michigan senate bid as a republican
4:37
either
4:38
if gerald lk smith is remembered for
4:41
anything today it's probably mostly for
4:43
this
4:44
this is a statue that he erected in
4:47
arkansas in the 1960s it's called christ
4:50
of the ozarks
4:52
christ of the ozarks was the subject of
4:53
a huge a suspiciously huge fundraising
4:56
operation by gerald l k smith um he died
4:59
in 1976 but that that statue still
5:01
stands in arkansas today
5:04
but gerald lk smith
5:05
is about to have another moment in
5:09
the public eye
5:10
because what he really wanted to be
5:12
remembered for
5:14
even more than that statue
5:16
was a nationwide movement that he tried
5:19
to build
5:20
a movement that he named and that he led
5:23
and that he promoted tirelessly
5:26
and that he wanted to outlive him
5:27
forever
5:31
gerald lk smith: the motice behind the term christian nationalists
5:33
is easy to define and simple to
5:35
interpret
5:36
we believe that the destiny of america
5:39
in relationship to its governing
5:41
authority must be kept in the hands of
5:44
our own people
5:46
we must never
5:48
be governed by aliens
5:50
we must keep control of our own money
5:52
and our own blood in other words we must
5:56
remain true to the declaration of
5:59
independence that is
6:02
nationalism we believe that the
6:04
spiritual symbol of our statesmanship is
6:06
the cross
6:08
which indeed is the symbol of
6:10
christianity
6:12
we believe that the inspiring dynamic
6:14
out of which america grew is
6:15
christianity
6:17
we believe that there would be no real
6:19
america such as we love and for which
6:21
we're willing to die
6:22
if there had been
6:24
no christianity
6:26
thus when a christian is a nationalist
6:29
he becomes necessarily a christian
6:33
nationalist
6:34
rachel madow: a christian nationalist that was gerald
6:37
l k smith speaking uh in the 1950s as
6:41
both a sort of pseudo-preacher and a
6:44
political figure on the american right
6:46
he was the spokesman and the founder for
6:48
this movement that he called christian
6:50
nationalism and if that is ringing a
6:52
bell for you at all if it feels despite
6:55
the you know annoying music bed with
6:57
that speech and the guy's weird speaking
6:59
style and all that if that language that
7:01
he was using feels like it it
7:04
rhymes a little bit with today's news
7:07
you are right about that
7:10
marjorie taylor greene: republicans really need to recognize uh
7:14
the people they represent okay they're
7:16
voters not not the lobbyist owners not
7:18
the corporate pacs not not those people
7:20
that's not who the republican party
7:22
should represent uh we need to be the
7:24
party of nationalism and i'm a christian
7:26
and i say it proudly: we should be
7:28
christian nationalists
7:30
rachel madow: "we should be christian nationalists." you
7:33
are seeing that that phrase and that
7:35
sort of branding
7:37
um from the trumpiest members of
7:38
congress that's georgia republican
7:40
congresswoman marjorie taylor greene
7:42
you're also seeing it all over the place
7:44
in headlines now about the way the
7:45
trumpiest part of the republican party
7:47
is kind of branding itself these days
7:50
"christian nationalism on the rise in
7:52
republican campaigns" "christian
7:54
nationalism is reshaping uh the
7:56
republican party."
7:58
the reason this christian nationalism
8:00
thing is an awkward fit the
8:03
reason it's maybe not going to be an
8:04
easy path
8:06
for today's republican party or at least
8:08
it shouldn't be an easy path for today's
8:10
republican party to bring this back
8:13
is because they're not inventing this
8:15
phrase for the first time and
8:18
we're not ignorant to history and we
8:19
know what it meant the last time right
8:21
christian nationalism is not a new
8:22
concept it's not a new american
8:24
right-wing political concept
8:28
the reason this ought to be awkward for
8:29
them to try to bring it back
8:31
is because the last time
8:33
as a country we tried that on
8:35
with guys like gerald l k smith leading
8:37
the way
8:38
they were really not shy in saying
8:40
exactly what they meant by it so i'm
8:42
going to play you a little more gerald
8:44
lk smith here i apologize in advance for
8:46
the annoying music bed coming back
8:48
but also specifically for the content of
8:50
what you're about to hear him say
8:54
gerald lk smith: subversive forces exploiting sentimental
8:57
nitwits are reading into the
8:59
constitution a code of conduct which
9:01
threatens to mongrelize our race
9:04
destroy our racial self-respect and
9:07
enslave
9:08
the white man
9:09
fight mongrelization and all attempts
9:12
being made to force the inter-mixture of
9:14
the black and white races ... preserve
9:16
america as a christian nation
9:19
being conscious of the fact that there
9:21
is a highly organized campaign to
9:24
substitute jewish tradition for
9:27
christian tradition
9:29
the most powerful jewish organization in
9:31
america is the anti-defamation league
9:34
which has launched a campaign to remove
9:36
from all public schools any songbook
9:38
which contains a christmas carol or any
9:41
other hymn which mentions the name of
9:44
jesus
9:45
rachel madow: ah they're coming for the kids they're
9:47
coming for the public schools they've
9:49
infiltrated the public schools with
9:50
their anti-christian ...
9:53
christian nationalism gerald l k smith
9:55
the leader of the christian nationalist
9:57
movement speaking in the 1950s he was
9:59
the leader of that movement in this
10:00
country in the world war ii era around
10:02
the time he was running for president he
10:05
was also a leader of that movement in
10:07
the post-world war ii era and i have to
10:08
tell you what i just played you that's
10:10
kind of the mild stuff from him
10:13
the stuff about the jews taking over the
10:15
world and how americans need to be
10:17
christian nationalists because only that
10:19
can stop the worldwide jewish conspiracy
10:22
not to mention all the race mixing i
10:25
mean
10:26
that soundbite i just played is the milder
10:28
version of what gerald lk smith was
10:30
famous for he was a virulent
10:33
violent racist and anti-semite and that
10:36
was the core of his movement christian
10:38
nationalism
10:40
which you'd think would make christian
10:41
nationalism kind of a hard thing for
10:43
today's republicans to try to raise as
10:45
their new banner
10:48
you think that would be a hard thing
10:49
they apparently do not have any qualms
10:52
particularly from the trumpiest members
10:53
of congress and particularly from the
10:56
republican nominee for governor in the
10:58
swing state of pennsylvania a man named
11:00
doug mastriano he's been kind of the case
11:02
study for months now and republicans
11:04
actually trying to pull on their best
11:06
gerald lk smith masks to make the
11:09
republican party the christian
11:10
nationalist party he always wanted and
11:13
that he spent all those sad decades
11:15
trying to create
11:17
a paid consultant for the doug mastriano
11:20
campaign, again mastriano is the
11:22
republican nominee for governor in
11:24
pennsylvania the republican party has
11:25
chosen him as their candidate for
11:27
governor a paid consultant for
11:28
mastriano's campaign is making headlines
11:30
today thanks to the watchdog group media
11:33
matters uh starting to document this
11:35
guy's own pronouncements
11:37
on
11:38
the threat of the jews
11:40
and on the christian nationalist
11:42
movement as represented by candidates
11:45
like his guy republican doug mastriano
11:49
eric hananoki: so
11:50
no we don't want people who are atheists
11:53
we don't want people who are jewish this
11:56
is an explicitly
11:57
christian movement because this is an
12:00
explicitly christian country now we're
12:02
not saying that uh you know we're gonna
12:05
deport all these people or whatever
12:07
you're free to stay here right you're
12:09
not going to be forced to convert or
12:11
anything like this but you're going to
12:13
enjoy
12:14
the fruits of living in a christian
12:17
society under christian
12:19
laws
12:21
rachel madow: that is a consultant on the campaign for
12:23
the republican nominee for governor in
12:25
pennsylvania doug mastriano clarifying
12:28
clarifying
12:29
that it's not the plan to forcibly
12:31
deport the jews just to be clear that's
12:34
not the plan you know for now but jews
12:36
are not wanted jews are not part of the
12:39
movement that this new republican
12:41
governor in pennsylvania represents
12:43
so jews
12:45
atheists people of other faith they
12:46
won't be forcibly converted or deported
12:50
now that's not the plan for now
12:52
it's just that this is not for them nor
12:54
will this country be

[admin]

Kind of Wild/Creative’: Emails Shed Light on Trump Fake Electors Plan
Previously undisclosed communications among Trump campaign aides and outside advisers provide new insight into their efforts to overturn the election in the weeks leading to Jan. 6.
by Maggie Haberman and Luke Broadwater
New York Times
July 26, 2022

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

One Arizona Republican involved in the effort to reverse the election outcome advocated keeping a key element of the strategy quiet “so we can try to ‘surprise’ the Dems and media with it” on Jan. 6, 2021.

Previously undisclosed emails provide an inside look at the increasingly desperate and often slapdash efforts by advisers to President Donald J. Trump to reverse his election defeat in the weeks before the Jan. 6 attack, including acknowledgments that a key element of their plan was of dubious legality and lived up to its billing as “fake.”

The dozens of emails among people connected to the Trump campaign, outside advisers and close associates of Mr. Trump show a particular focus on assembling lists of people who would claim — with no basis — to be Electoral College electors on his behalf in battleground states that he had lost.

In emails reviewed by The New York Times and authenticated by people who had worked with the Trump campaign at the time, one lawyer involved in the detailed discussions repeatedly used the word “fake” to refer to the so-called electors, who were intended to provide Vice President Mike Pence and Mr. Trump’s allies in Congress a rationale for derailing the congressional process of certifying the outcome. And lawyers working on the proposal made clear they knew that the pro-Trump electors they were putting forward might not hold up to legal scrutiny.

“We would just be sending in ‘fake’ electoral votes to Pence so that ‘someone’ in Congress can make an objection when they start counting votes, and start arguing that the ‘fake’ votes should be counted,” Jack Wilenchik, a Phoenix-based lawyer who helped organize the pro-Trump electors in Arizona, wrote in a Dec. 8, 2020, email to Boris Epshteyn, a strategic adviser for the Trump campaign.

In a follow-up email, Mr. Wilenchik wrote that “‘alternative’ votes is probably a better term than ‘fake’ votes,” adding a smiley face emoji.

The emails provide new details of how a wing of the Trump campaign worked with outside lawyers and advisers to organize the elector plan and pursue a range of other options, often with little thought to their practicality. One email showed that many of Mr. Trump’s top advisers were informed of problems naming Trump electors in Michigan — a state he had lost — because pandemic rules had closed the state Capitol building where the so-called electors had to gather.

The emails show that participants in the discussions reported details of their activities to Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, and in at least one case to Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff. Around the same time, according to the House committee investigating Jan. 6, Mr. Meadows emailed another campaign adviser saying, “We just need to have someone coordinating the electors for states.”

On Dec 8, 2020, at 6:59 PM, Jack Wilenchik [DELETE] wrote:

PPS -- "alternative" votes is probably a better term than "fake" votes. Also it sounds like Kelli Ward and the rest of the electors would be very much into the idea. Kelli's thought it to try to keep it under wraps until Congress counts the vote Jan. 6th (so we can try to "surprise" the Dems and media with it) -- I tend to agree with her.

On an unrelated note -- I just got a call from AZ US Rep Andy Biggs asking if I could testify at a Senate hearing ext week that Sen. Ron Johnson is arranging. I would just be asked to testify to the facts and evidence uncovered in our litigation (which are already public as a result of the trial). Would you have any issue with that? Best -- Jack

Many of the emails went to Mr. Epshteyn, who was acting as a coordinator for people inside and outside the Trump campaign and the White House and remains a close aide to Mr. Trump.

Mr. Epshteyn, the emails show, was a regular point of contact for John Eastman, the lawyer whose plan for derailing congressional certification of the Electoral College result on Jan. 6, 2021, was embraced by Mr. Trump.

Key Revelations From the Jan. 6 Hearings
Card 1 of 9

Making a case against Trump. The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack is laying out a comprehensive narrative of President Donald J. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Here are the main themes that have emerged so far from eight public hearings:

An unsettling narrative. During the first hearing, the committee described in vivid detail what it characterized as an attempted coup orchestrated by the former president that culminated in the assault on the Capitol. At the heart of the gripping story were three main players: Mr. Trump, the Proud Boys and a Capitol Police officer.

Creating election lies. In its second hearing, the panel showed how Mr. Trump ignored aides and advisers as he declared victory prematurely and relentlessly pressed claims of fraud he was told were wrong. “He’s become detached from reality if he really believes this stuff,” William P. Barr, the former attorney general, said of Mr. Trump during a videotaped interview.

Pressuring Pence. Mr. Trump continued pressuring Vice President Mike Pence to go along with a plan to overturn his loss even after he was told it was illegal, according to testimony laid out by the panel during the third hearing. The committee showed how Mr. Trump’s actions led his supporters to storm the Capitol, sending Mr. Pence fleeing for his life.

Fake elector plan. The committee used its fourth hearing to detail how Mr. Trump was personally involved in a scheme to put forward fake electors. The panel also presented fresh details on how the former president leaned on state officials to invalidate his defeat, opening them up to violent threats when they refused.

Strong arming the Justice Dept. During the fifth hearing, the panel explored Mr. Trump’s wide-ranging and relentless scheme to misuse the Justice Department to keep himself in power. The panel also presented evidence that at least half a dozen Republican members of Congress sought pre-emptive pardons.

The surprise hearing. Cassidy Hutchinson, ​​a former White House aide, delivered explosive testimony during the panel’s sixth session, saying that the president knew the crowd on Jan. 6 was armed, but wanted to loosen security. She also painted Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff, as disengaged and unwilling to act as rioters approached the Capitol.

Planning a march. Mr. Trump planned to lead a march to the Capitol on Jan. 6 but wanted it to look spontaneous, the committee revealed during its seventh hearing. Representative Liz Cheney also said that Mr. Trump had reached out to a witness in the panel’s investigation, and that the committee had informed the Justice Department of the approach.

A “complete dereliction” of duty. In the final public hearing of the summer, the panel accused the former president of dereliction of duty for failing to act to stop the Capitol assault. The committee documented how, over 187 minutes, Mr. Trump had ignored pleas to call off the mob and then refused to say the election was over even a day after the attack.

Mr. Epshteyn not only fielded and passed along to Mr. Giuliani the detailed proposal for Jan. 6 prepared by Mr. Eastman, he also handled questions about how to pay Mr. Eastman and made the arrangements for him to visit the White House on Jan. 4, 2021, the emails show.

That was the day of the Oval Office meeting in which Mr. Trump and Mr. Eastman unsuccessfully pressured Mr. Pence to adopt the plan — an exchange witnessed by Mr. Pence’s two top aides, Marc Short and Greg Jacob, both of whom testified last week to the federal grand jury investigating the assault on the Capitol and what led to it.

The emails highlight how much of the legwork of finding ways to challenge Mr. Trump’s losses in the battleground states was done by Mike Roman, director of Election Day operations for Mr. Trump’s campaign.

Mr. Epshteyn and Mr. Roman, the emails show, coordinated with others who played roles in advising Mr. Trump. Among them were the lawyers Jenna Ellis and Bruce Marks; Gary Michael Brown, who served as the deputy director of Election Day operations for Mr. Trump’s campaign; and Christina Bobb, who at the time worked for One America News Network and now works with Mr. Trump’s PAC.

The emails were apparently not shared with lawyers in the White House Counsel’s Office, who advised that the “fake electors” plan was not legally sound, or other lawyers on the campaign.

Some of the participants also expressed approval in the emails for keeping some of their activities out of the public eye.

For instance, after Mr. Trump hosted Pennsylvania state legislators at the White House in late November to discuss reversing the election outcome, Mr. Epshteyn celebrated when news of the meeting didn’t quickly leak. “The WH meeting hasn’t been made public, which is both shocking and great,” he wrote to Ms. Ellis.


Jenna Ellis, at left, Rudolph W. Giuliani and Boris Epshteyn, at right, were involved in the coordinated effort to overturn the 2020 election result. Credit...Jonathan Ernst/Reuters

On Dec. 8, 2020, Mr. Wilenchik wrote that Kelli Ward, one of the Republicans in Arizona participating in the fake electors plan, recommended trying “to keep it under wraps until Congress counts the vote Jan. 6th (so we can try to ‘surprise’ the Dems and media with it) — I tend to agree with her.”

Mr. Epshteyn, Mr. Wilenchik, Mr. Roman, Mr. Eastman, Ms. Bobb and James Troupis, another lawyer involved in the plan, either declined to comment or did not respond to emails or calls seeking comment.

Mr. Marks, in an email, disputed that there was anything inappropriate or improper at work.

“I do not believe there was anything ‘fake’ or illegal about the alternate slates of delegates, and particularly Pennsylvania,” he said. “There was a history of alternate slates from Hawaii in 1960. Nothing was secret about this — they were provided to the National Archives, as I understand the procedure, and then it was up to Congress to decide what to do.”

Mr. Marks added: “I had no involvement with Professor Eastman’s advice regarding the vice president’s role, which I only learned about after the fact, and do not support.”

The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol has produced evidence that Mr. Trump was aware of the electors plan. Ronna McDaniel, the chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, said in a deposition to the panel that Mr. Trump had called her and put Mr. Eastman on the phone “to talk about the importance of the R.N.C. helping the campaign gather these contingent electors.”

The panel has also heard testimony from Mr. Jacob, who was Mr. Pence’s counsel in the White House, that Mr. Eastman admitted in the Jan. 4 Oval Office meeting — with Mr. Trump present — that his plan to have Mr. Pence obstruct the electoral certification violated the Electoral Count Act.

The emails show less than lawyerly precision at times. Mr. Marks repeatedly referred to Cleta Mitchell, another lawyer helping Mr. Trump, as “Clita” and “Clavita,” prompting Mr. Epshteyn to reply: “It’s Cleta, not Clavita.”

Another time, Mr. Epshteyn wrote to Mr. Marks: “Do you mean Arizona when you say Nevada???”

By early December, Mr. Epshteyn was seemingly helping to coordinate the efforts, conferring repeatedly with Mr. Marks and others. Mr. Wilenchik told his fellow lawyers he had been discussing an idea proposed by still another lawyer working with the campaign, Kenneth Chesebro, an ally of Mr. Eastman’s, to submit slates of electors loyal to Mr. Trump.

“His idea is basically that all of us (GA, WI, AZ, PA, etc.) have our electors send in their votes (even though the votes aren’t legal under federal law — because they’re not signed by the Governor); so that members of Congress can fight about whether they should be counted on January 6th,” Mr. Wilenchik wrote in the email on Dec. 8, 2020, to Mr. Epshteyn and half a dozen other people.

From: Jack Wilenchik
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 4:27 PM
To: Boris Epshteyn [DELETE]
cc: Christina Bobb [DELETE]; Lee Miller [DELETE]; Dennis Wilenchik [DELETE] [DELETE]; Aaron Green [DELETE]; Josh Offenhartz [DELETE]; Christine Ferreira; [DELETE]; Victoria Stevens; [DELETE]
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]FW: petition for Cert and Motion for Expedited Consideration

Thanks Boris, and please feel free to call. Honestly, I hate to even hold it up a day (since we're talking about a possible "deadline" on the 14th)...

But with that said, we may have no choice if (1) the ASC doesn't rule today; or (2) its ruling is so bizarre and unexpected, that we need more time to process/deal with it in some way. (For example, maybe it actually sends us back to the trial court to let us do more discovery -- like we asked for .)

Otherwise, I'd recommend just getting a SCOTUS appeal on file tomorrow, since we already know the issues that we will be hitting ... but I'm also happy to just hold off until Thurs, if you prefer. Best -- Jack

PS -- I just talked to the gentleman who did that memo, Ken Chesboro. His idea is basically that all of us (GA, WI, AZ, PA, etc.) have our electors send in their votes (even though the votes aren't legal under federal law -- because they're not signed by the Governor); so that members of Congress can fight about whether they should be counted on January 6th. (They could potentially argue that they're not bound by federal law because they're Congress and make the law, etc.) Kind of wild/creative -- I'm happy to discuss. My comment to him was that I guess there's no harm in it, (legally at least) -- i.e. we would just be sending in "fake" electoral votes to Pence so that "someone" in Congress can make an objection when they start counting votes, and start arguing that the "fake" votes should be counted. Best -- Jack

“Kind of wild/creative — I’m happy to discuss,” Mr. Wilenchik continued. “My comment to him was that I guess there’s no harm in it, (legally at least) — i.e. we would just be sending in ‘fake’ electoral votes to Pence so that ‘someone’ in Congress can make an objection when they start counting votes, and start arguing that the ‘fake’ votes should be counted.”


Supporters of President Donald J. Trump protested in Phoenix two days after Election Day. Arizona was one of the states targeted in the fake electors scheme. Credit...Adriana Zehbrauskas for The New York Times

As they organized the fake elector scheme, lawyers appointed a “point person” in seven states to help organize those electors who were willing to sign their names to false documents. In Pennsylvania, that point person was Douglas V. Mastriano, a proponent of Mr. Trump’s lies of a stolen election who is now the Republican nominee for governor.

But even Mr. Mastriano needed assurances to go along with a plan other Republicans were telling him was “illegal,” according to a Dec. 12 email sent by Ms. Bobb that also referred to Mr. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City.

“Mastriano needs a call from the mayor. This needs to be done. Talk to him about legalities of what they are doing,” she wrote, adding: “Electors want to be reassured that the process is * legal * essential for greater strategy.”

The emails showed the group initially hoped to get Republican state legislatures or governors to join their plans and give them the imprimatur of legitimacy. But by December, it was clear no authorities would agree to go along, so the Trump lawyers set their sights on pressuring Mr. Pence, who was scheduled to preside over a joint session of Congress on Jan. 6.

On Dec. 7, Mr. Troupis, who worked for the Trump campaign in Wisconsin, wrote to Mr. Epshteyn that there was “no need for the legislators to act.” He cited Mr. Chesebro’s legal analysis that the key to Mr. Trump’s hopes was not blocking state certification of the electors on Dec. 14, but creating a reason for Mr. Pence to block or delay congressional certification of the Electoral College results on Jan. 6.

“The second slate just shows up at noon on Monday and votes and then transmits the results,” Mr. Troupis wrote of organizing Republican slates of electors to cast ballots for Mr. Trump on Dec. 14. “It is up to Pence on Jan 6 to open them. Our strategy, which we believe is replicable in all 6 contested states, is for the electors to meet and vote so that an interim decision by a Court to certify Trump the winner can be executed on by the Court ordering the Governor to issue whatever is required to name the electors. The key nationally would be for all six states to do it so the election remains in doubt until January.”

The documents also demonstrated the legal team had relied on widely debunked information to point to broad claims of election fraud. On Dec. 17, Mr. Epshteyn wrote to Mr. Giuliani that a document on election fraud created by Mr. Trump’s trade adviser, Peter Navarro — which has been discredited in public reporting, by state officials and courts — “appears to be the most comprehensive summary of voter fraud from this election season.”

The lawyers were aware their legal efforts were being ridiculed. On Dec. 23, Mr. Marks wrote: “You folks are getting killed in the media on litigation strategy, even on Fox and among conservatives.”

But they were undeterred.

By Christmas Eve, Mr. Eastman seemed to want to harness the power of Mr. Trump’s millions of supporters.

At 8:04 p.m. that night, Mr. Eastman sent Mr. Epshteyn an email that he had received in which a woman implored him to ask Mr. Trump “to put out what he would like his 74 million followers to do to help.” She added: “We need to be one voice, with laser focus, SPEAKING AS 74 MILLION STRONG.”


A video clip of John Eastman, left, invoking the Fifth Amendment during a deposition for the House Jan. 6 committee. Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times

In his email to Mr. Epshteyn, Mr. Eastman wrote, “Thought I’d forward this. 74 Million strong. Let’s figure out a targeted way to deploy them. Rolling thunder? One legislature at a time? The others can see it coming.”

Days earlier, Mr. Trump had told his supporters to descend on Washington on Jan. 6 for a “protest” that he promised would “be wild.”

On Dec. 27, Mr. Epshteyn wrote that Mr. Trump “liked” an aggressive approach being proposed by the lawyers, and that Mr. Eastman would be the “face of the media strategy” along with Mr. Giuliani.

“We need one voice out there,” Mr. Epshteyn wrote of Mr. Eastman, saying he’s “already been out/liked by POTUS.”

Jan. 6 was just days away.

Maggie Haberman is a White House correspondent. She joined The Times in 2015 as a campaign correspondent and was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for reporting on President Trump’s advisers and their connections to Russia. @maggieNYT

Luke Broadwater covers Congress. He was the lead reporter on a series of investigative articles at The Baltimore Sun that won a Pulitzer Prize and a George Polk Award in 2020. @lukebroadwater

[admin]

Trump's defense secretary denies there were orders to have 10K troops ready to deploy on January 6
by Annie Grayer
CNN
Updated 10:22 PM ET, Tue July 26, 2022

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

(CNN) Former acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller told the House select committee investigating the Capitol Hill insurrection that former President Donald Trump never gave him a formal order to have 10,000 troops ready to be deployed to the Capitol on January 6, 2021, according to new video of Miller's deposition released by the committee.

"I was never given any direction or order or knew of any plans of that nature," Miller said in the video.

Miller later said in the video definitively, "There was no direct, there was no order from the President."

"We obviously had plans for activating more folks, but that was not anything more than contingency planning," Miller added. "There was no official message traffic or anything of that nature."

Trump has previously said that he requested National Guard troops be ready for January 6. He released a statement on June 9 that he "suggested & offered" up to 20,000 National Guard troops be deployed to Washington, DC, ahead of January 6 claiming it was because he felt "that the crowd was going to be very large."

The committee released Miller's testimony after already revealing that Trump did not make calls to military personnel or law enforcement to intervene as the Capitol attack was unfolding. General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the committee that he never received a call from Trump as the attack as unfolding.

Milley testified to the committee that he spoke to former Vice President Mike Pence "two or three" times on January 6. Keith Kellogg, former national security adviser to Pence, also told the committee that Trump never asked for a law enforcement response.

***********************

Trump never told Defense secretary to ready 10,000 troops for January 6, new committee video shows - after witnesses say acting Pentagon chief wasn't given any orders that day
by Nikki Schwab, Senior U.S. Political Reporter
Daily Mail
PUBLISHED: 20:23 EDT, 26 July 2022 | UPDATED: 22:56 EDT, 26 July 2022

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

* Former President Donald Trump never ordered his acting Defense secretary to have 10,000 National Guard troops at the ready in preparation for January 6

* The House committee on January 6 put out a video Tuesday evening focused on acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller's testimony

*'Trump also failed to give any order prior to January 6 to deploy the military to protect the Capitol,' the committee said in a tweet

* 'I was never given any direction or order or knew of any plans of that nature,' Miller said of a claim 10,000 troops were made ready by Mark Meadows

* In recent posts on Truth Social, Trump has continued to make the claim he called up 10,000 troops in preparation for January 6

Former President Donald Trump never ordered his acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller to have 10,000 National Guard troops at the ready in preparation for January 6 - the date Congress was tallying the results of the 2020 election.

The House committee on January 6 put out a video Tuesday evening focused on Miller's testimony.

'To remove any doubt: Not only did Donald Trump fail to contact his Secretary of Defense on January 6th (as shown in our hearing), Trump also failed to give any order prior to January 6 to deploy the military to protect the Capitol,' the committee's tweet sharing the video said.


https://twitter.com/January6thCmte/stat ... -deploy%2F
Former President Donald Trump never ordered his acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller (pictured) to have 10,000 National Guard troops at the ready in preparation for January 6, Miller's testimony to the January 6 committee confirmed


Former President Donald Trump, photographed giving a speech in Washington, D.C. Tuesday, was shown during Thursday's January 6 committee hearing to not have acted for hours amid the January 6 Capitol attack

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump - 1h
Why didn't they use the 10,000 troops that I offered up on January 3rd? There would have been no January 6th?

Former President Donald Trump, along with his former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, claimed that Trump ordered 10,000 to be ready on January 6, when Congress was tallying the results of the 2020 election

In testimony to the House committee, Miller - who was only Defense secretary from November 9, 2020 to January 20, 2021 - was asked about a claim former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows saying in an interview that 'as many as 10,000 National Guard troops were told to be on the ready by the secretary of Defense.'

'Not from my perspective,' Miller said. 'I was never given any direction or order or knew of any plans of that nature. So I was surprised by seeing that publicly. But I don't know the context or even where it was.'

Meadows made the comments in February 2021 on Fox News, but Trump has continued to tout that tally.

In a post from Truth Social in June, Trump wrote: 'Why didn't they use the 10,000 troops that I offered up on January 3rd? There would have been no January 6th?'

Miller indicated there were National Guard troops at the president's disposal to respond to January 6 but there was 'not anything more than contingency planning.'

'A non-military person probably could have some sort of weird interpretation,' he added, giving Meadows the benefit of the doubt.

'But no, the answer to your question is no,' he responded when asked if 10,000 troops had been ordered.

He also confirmed there had been no direct push from Trump.

'That's correct there was no direct - there was no order from the president,' Miller said.

The video was posted five days after the committee's primetime hearing that had been dedicated to Trump's refusal to act amid the Capitol attack.

Witnesses told the committee that Trump spent hours on January 6 in the White House dining room watching TV, while aides, family members, lawmakers and allies pleaded with him to tell his supporters to go home.

**********************

New video: Trump defense secretary calls BS on his Jan. 6 lie that he had 10K troops ready to deploy: There was “no order from the president," Chris Miller said in new video released by Jan. 6 committee
by Igor Derysh
Deputy Politics Editor
Salon
PUBLISHED JULY 27, 2022 9:15AM (EDT)

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

Thousands of Donald Trump supporters gather outside the U.S. Capitol building following a "Stop the Steal" rally on January 06, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Photo illustration by Salon/Getty Images)

Former acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller testified to the House Jan. 6 committee that former President Donald Trump never ordered 10,000 troops to be ready to deploy to the Capitol on Jan. 6 despite his repeated claims.

Trump and former chief of staff Mark Meadows previously claimed that the administration had 10,000 National Guard troops ready to deploy to the Capitol.

Miller told the committee that there was no "accuracy" to those statements in a new deposition video released by the panel on Tuesday.

"I was never given any direction or order or knew of any plans of that nature," Miller told the committee, adding that he was "surprised by seeing that publicly" because there was "no order from the president."

Miller explained that "obviously we had plans for activating more folks but that was not anything more than contingency planning."

"There was no official message traffic or anything of that nature," he added.

Pressed again on whether the Defense Department had 10,000 troops ready for Jan. 6, Miller said that a "nonmilitary person could have some sort of weird interpretation but no, the answer to your questions is no."

"That was not part of my plan or the Department of Defense's plan," he said.

January 6th Committee
@January6thCmte - Follow
To remove any doubt: Not only did Donald Trump fail to contact his Secretary of Defense on January 6th (as shown in our hearing), Trump also failed to give any order prior to January 6 to deploy the military to protect the Capitol.

Here is Secretary Miller’s testimony—

[x]
https://twitter.com/January6thCmte/stat ... -deploy%2F

Audio of Select Committee Interview Former Acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller

[Committee] So I want to be clear that -- since then, in February 2021, Mark Meadows said on Fox News that, "Even in January, that was a given as many as 10,000 National Guard Troops were told to be on the ready by the Secretary of Defense." Is there any accuracy to that statement?

[Chris Miller] I'm not -- not from my perspective. I was never given any direction or order or knew of any plans of that nature. So I was surprised by seeing that publicly. But I don't know the context or you know where it was. So there was -- obviously we had plans for activating more folks, but that was not anything more than contingency planning. There was no official message traffic or anything of that nature regarding --

[Committee] So just so we're clear: You did not have 10,000 troops "to be on the ready for January 6th" prior to January 6th?

[Chris Miller] A nonmilitary person probably could have some sort of weird interpretation, but no. The answer to your question is no. That was not part of my plan or the Department of Defense's plan.

[Committee] And just the rest of his statement was, "That was a direct order from President Trump. And yet here is what we see, all kinds of blame going around, but not a whole lot of accountability." To be crystal clear, there was no direct order from President Trump to put 10,000 troops to be on the ready for January 6th, correct?

[Chris Miller] No. Yeah. That's correct. There was no direct -- there was no order from the President.

3:21 PM · Jul 26, 2022

Not only did Trump not order the National Guard to be ready, but he also urged Miller to "do whatever is necessary to protect the demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights," Miller testified in May.

Meadows in an email released by the committee even suggested that the National Guard would "protect pro-Trump people."

The 10,000-troop claim has been repeatedly cited by Trump and his allies to cast blame for the deadly Capitol riot on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

"Don't forget, President Trump requested increased National Guard support in the days leading up to January 6. The request was rejected — by Pelosi, by congressional leaders, including requests, by the way, from the Capitol Police chief," Fox News host Sean Hannity said while interviewing Meadows in December.

Meadows has repeatedly made the claim about the troops.

"What we also know is that President Trump wanted to make sure that the people that came, that there was a safe environment for that kind of assembly. And I've said that publicly before — the 10,000 National Guard troops that he wanted to make sure that everything was safe and secure," Meadows told Hannity at the time. "Obviously having those National Guards available, actually the reason they were able to respond when they did, was because President Trump had actually put them on alert."

Trump made the claim as early as February 28, 2021, just weeks after the riot.

"I requested … I definitely gave the number of 10,000 National Guardsmen, and [said] I think you should have 10,000 of the National Guard ready," he claimed in a Fox News interview. "They took that number. From what I understand, they gave it to the people at the Capitol, which is controlled by Pelosi. And I heard they rejected it because they didn't think it would look good. So, you know, that was a big mistake."

Trump earlier this month updated his claim, falsely writing on Truth Social that he requested up to "20,000 troops to stand guard at the Capitol."

The committee has shown copious evidence that Trump never acted or made any calls to law enforcement or military officials on Jan. 6, watching the violence play out on Fox News in his dining room instead.

Trump in a video recorded on Jan. 7, 2021, falsely claimed that he "immediately deployed the National Guard and federal law enforcement" to secure the Capitol.

The Jan. 6 committee previously released video last month of Trump of Joints Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley revealing that it was then-Vice President Mike Pence who demanded National Guard support.

"Vice President Pence – there were two or three calls with Vice President Pence," Milley testified. "He was very animated, and he issued very explicit, very direct, unambiguous orders. There was no question about that. And I can get you the exact quotes, I guess, from some of our records somewhere. But he was very animated, very direct, very firm to Secretary Miller: Get the military down here, get the Guard down here, put down this situation, et cetera."

He added that he later received a call from Meadows urging him to "kill the narrative" that Pence was calling the shots.

"He said – this is from memory, he said: 'We have to kill the narrative that the vice president is making all the decisions. We need to establish the narrative, you know, that the president is still in charge and that things are steady or stable,' or words to that effect," Milley told the committee. "I immediately interpreted that as politics, politics, politics. Red flag for me, personally, no action. But I remember it distinctly. And I don't do political narratives."

Pence's national security adviser Gen. Keith Kellogg and Trump aide Nick Luna also testified that they were unaware of any requests Trump made to the National Guard or any law enforcement agency.

Committee Vice Chair Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., said at a hearing last month that Trump not only refused to call off his mob but "placed no call to any element of the United States government to instruct that the Capitol be defended."

"He did not call his secretary of defense on Jan. 6. He did not talk to his Attorney General. He did not talk to the Department of Homeland Security," Cheney added. "President Trump gave no order to deploy the National Guard that day. And he made no effort to work with the Department of Justice to coordinate and deploy law enforcement assets."

January 6th Committee
@January6thCmte · Follow
"Trump gave no order to deploy the National Guard that day, and made no effort to work with the Department of Justice to coordinate and deploy law enforcement assets. But Mike Pence did." - @RepLizCheney

Testimony from General Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:

[x]
https://twitter.com/January6thCmte/stat ... -deploy%2F

[Liz Cheney] Not only did President Trump refuse to tell the mob to leave the Capitol, he placed no call to any element of the United States government to instruct that the Capitol be defended. He did not call his Secretary of Defense on January 6th. He did not talk to his Attorney General. He did not talk to the Department of Homeland Security. President Trump gave no order to deploy the National Guard that day, and he made no effort to work with the Department of Justice to coordinate and deploy law enforcement assets. But Vice President Pence did each of those things. For example, Here is what General Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified to this committee:

[General Milley] There were two or three calls with Vice President Pence. He was very animated. And he issued very explicit, very direct, unambiguous orders. There was no question about that. And he was, and I can get you the exact quotes, I guess from some of our records somewhere. But he was very animated, very direct, very firm, and to Secretary Miller, "get the military down, and get the Guard down here. Put down this situation," etc.

[Liz Cheney] By contrast, here is General Milley's description of his conversation with President Trump's chief of staff, Mark Meadows on January 6th:

He said, "we have, we have to kill the narrative that the vice president is making all the decisions. We need to establish the narrative that, you know, that the President is still in charge and that things are steady or stable, or words to that effect." I immediately interpreted that as, "politics, politics, politics." Red flag for me personally, no action. But I remember it distinctly.

8:56 PM Jun 9, 2022