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
Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certification
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Sun Jul 24, 2022 1:25 am
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Tue Jul 26, 2022 3:12 am
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.
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
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Wed Jul 27, 2022 12:31 am
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
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
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Wed Jul 27, 2022 8:25 pm
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
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.”
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.
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.
“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
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
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Wed Jul 27, 2022 8:43 pm
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
(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
* 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
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
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.
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."
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%2FAudio 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
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Fri Jul 29, 2022 1:08 am
An Absolute Lie
by Chris Hayes
MSNBC
Jul 28, 2022
0:00
so one of the questions that has
0:01
lingered in the year and a half since
0:03
the violent attack on january 6 is why
0:05
the capitol police were basically left
0:06
alone to defend themselves and all the
0:08
lawmakers inside the building, not to
0:10
mention the seat of the u.s government.
0:12
how could it be that there was no plan
0:14
to support them ahead of a day that
0:15
donald trump teased would be "wild"?
0:18
and why did it take so long for backup
0:20
to arrive on the 6th when it was clear
0:22
the capitol piece were overwhelmed. we
0:23
saw it on television. where was the
0:25
national guard?
0:27
well, beginning that very afternoon, the
0:29
trump white house attempted to tamp down
0:31
those concerns with a big lie.
0:34
hours into the attack, press secretary
0:36
kayleigh mcenaney tweeted, at president
0:38
trump's direction, "the national guard is
0:40
on the way."
0:41
not true!
0:42
just a lie. not true. donald trump never
0:45
directed the national guard to go to the
0:46
capitol. maybe she was mistaken. but in
0:49
the days before or on january 6, it didn't
0:51
happen. that did not stop trump himself
0:54
from then lying on january 7th.
0:58
[Donald Trump] "i immediately deployed the national
1:00
guard
1:01
and federal law enforcement to secure
1:03
the building and expel the intruders.
1:07
america is, and must always be, a nation
1:10
of law and order."
1:12
[Chris Hayes] we now know, thanks to testimony to the
1:14
january 6 committee, donald trump's staff
1:15
had to convince him to make that speech,
1:17
the january 7th one, in the first place.
1:19
and when he finally agreed, practically
1:21
the first thing out of his mouth, was
1:23
that lie: " i deployed the national guard." it
1:26
had already been debunked, the new york
1:27
times reporting on the evening of
1:29
january 6th that trump, "rebuffed and
1:32
resisted requests to mobilize the
1:33
national guard, and in the end it was
1:35
vice president mike pence who approved
1:37
the order to deploy."
1:39
that did not stop trump and his allies
1:41
and his staff from repeating the lie over
1:44
and over again.
1:46
[Mark Meadows, Fox News] "even in january that was was given. as
1:49
many as ten thousand national guard
1:51
troops were told to be on the ready by
1:54
the secretary of defense. that was a
1:56
direct order from president trump."
1:59
[Chris Hayes] a few weeks after that, trump said it
2:01
again, in an interview on fox news, this
2:02
time trying to dump some of the blame on
2:04
nancy pelosi.
2:06
[Donald Trump, Fox News] "i definitely gave the number of ten
2:08
thousand,
2:09
uh, national guardsmen. i think you should
2:12
have ten thousand of the national guard
2:15
ready. uh, they took that number, from what
2:17
i understand, they gave it to the people
2:19
at the capitol, which is controlled by
2:21
pelosi.
2:22
and i heard they rejected it, because
2:24
they didn't think it would look good."
2:27
[Chris Hayes] of course, the new part also completely
2:28
untrue. just
2:30
fabricated whole cloth. trump has
2:32
continued to spread this lie. even
2:33
recently on his fake twitter platform,
2:35
falsely claiming he recommended, offered
2:37
thousands of troops, and pelosi refused
2:39
them. he will not stop repeating this.
2:41
even now, 18 months later. then, of course,
2:43
there's the cable news echo chamber for
2:45
trump's pseudo alibi.
2:48
[Sean Hannity] "donald trump authorized up to 20,000
2:50
national guard soldiers to protect the
2:53
capitol."
[Sean Hannity] "donald trump authorized the use
2:56
of 20,000 national guard troops."
[Sean Hannity] "donald
2:58
trump called up the national guard two
3:00
days prior."
[Sean Hannity] "don't forget president trump
3:03
requested increased national guard
3:04
support in the days leading up to the to
3:07
january 6."
3:09
[Chris Hayes] sean hannity was still doing this as
3:11
recently as last month. according to
3:12
media matters, he pushed the lie hundreds
3:14
of times in total on at least 43 episodes
3:17
of his show, including when he asked
3:19
donald trump's acting secretary of
3:20
defense at the time, chris miller, and chris
3:22
miller's chief of staff kash patel to
3:24
confirm they heard trump authorize the
3:26
use of national guard troops before the
3:28
6th.
3:30
[Kash Patel] "Mr. Trump unequivocally authorized up to 20,000 national guardsmen and women for us to utilize should the second part of the law, the request come in. But those requests never did, as you highlighted."
[Sean Hannity] "Let me be very clear: both of you said this under oath, under the threat of a penalty of perjury, to the committee?
[Chris Miller] Absolutely, Sean.
[Chris Hayes] Chris Miller, "Absolutely Sean." Now there's no law against lying to Fox News viewers, and if there was they would not have a network. But there is a law against lying under oath. So what story do you think Chris Miller, the guy who told Sean Hannity last month that Trump ordered the guard to be deployed, before the 6th to be ready, what he told the January 6 committee? Well, the Committee has released the tape. We'll play it for you next.
[Kash Patel] "Mr. Trump unequivocally authorized up to 20,000 national guardsmen and women for us to utilize should the second part of the law, the requests come in. But those requests never did as you highlighted."
[Sean Hannity] "Let me me be very clear: both of you said this under oath, under the threat of a penalty of perjury, to the Committee?
[Chris Miller] Absolutely, Sean.
[Chris Hayes] "Under threat of oath, perjury. Absolutely, Sean. Unequivocally." Not a lot of wiggle room in those statements.
Since January 6, Donald Trump and his allies, like Kash Patel -- who apparently wears a custom Kash Patel lapel pin, with a dollar sign on it -- have repeated this utter lie over and over, that the ex-president authorized the national guard to defend the capitol from the mob in the days, uh, leading to it, and then he ordered them to go in. Well now, the January 6 Committee has released definitive proof debunking it. This is testimony under oath from one of the very men you just heard spreading the lie, with Sean Hannity on Fox News last month, Donald Trump's acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller.
[Committee] "I want to be clear here that since then, in February of 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?
[Acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller] "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. But no, there was no -- we obviously had plans for activating more folks, uh, but that was not anything more than contingency planning. There was no official message traffic, or anything of that nature."
[Committee] "Just so we're clear, you did not have 10,000 troops 'to be on the ready for January 6th, prior to January 6th?'"
[Acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller] "Uh, a non-military person probably could have some sort of weird interpretation, but no, to answer your question. That was not, uh, part of my plan, or the Department of Defense's plan."
Chris Hayes] Lies, just lies. They just lie.
Joining us, now Elie Mystal, justice
correspondent for the nation where he
covers politics, and the courts, and also
lies. Um Elie, I,
this is just one small
little nugget. Right? It's just like one
thing.
But it's just very rare that you sort of get them to say the
truth.
And what to me this sort of speaks to, in
some ways, is the power of
subpoenas, the power of being under oath,
which is a real thing, with real
consequences.
And it really does matter. So here we have
an example of why it matters. Why it
matters that a January 6 Committee can get
people under oath. Because they can't lie
like they do on Sean Hannity when
they're before the Committee.
[Elie Mystal] Yeah, Chris Miller might as well have
said, um, "It is weird that people actually
believed the words coming out of my mouth,
because who would do that?" Clear? Like,
that was his testimony under oath. And
you're exactly right Chris: this is why
the subpoenas have so much power. But
this is a lesson that we all need to
learn. And I would argue, we should have
learned in, I don't know, circa 2015.
These people lie
for a living. All they know how to do is
lie. If they are not under oath,
everything they say should be viewed as
a lie. If Donald Trump says, "I had a
cheeseburger for dinner," what should
happen next is a voiceover saying, "MSNBC
News cannot confirm whether or not Trump
got the cheeseburger, or the chicken
nuggets in his happy meal."
I mean,
we have to
independently verify everything they say,
because all they do is lie. That's all
they know how to do. Remember Chris, just
a couple weeks ago, Cassidy Hutchinson
testified,
and then there was all this right-wing
drama, "Oh, the Secret Service is gonna --
Tony Ornato is gonna testify." No. Did they do
that? No. Because they were lying. Nope. And
they weren't gonna come under oath to
lie, so they just had to put this out
there, when everybody knew that Cassidy
Hutchinson was telling the truth, because
she testified under oath. And these
unnamed sources were just lying. At some
point, the rest of the media needs to
catch up to reality and stop
platforming these liars uncritically.
[Liz Cheney] "that is when you heard the president say
9:06
the people with weapons weren't there to
9:07
hurt him, and that he wanted the secret
9:09
service to remove the magnetometers"?
9:12
[Cassidy Hutchinson] "that's correct."
[Liz cheney] "when the president said
9:14
that he would be going to the capitol
9:15
during his speech on the ellipse, the
9:17
secret service scrambled to find a way
9:20
for him to go."
[Cassidy Hutchinson] "mr meadows had a
9:22
conversation with me where he wanted me
9:25
to work with secret service on a
9:27
movement from the white house to the
9:28
Willard hotel so he could attend the
9:30
meeting,
9:31
or meetings, with mr giuliani and his
9:33
associates."
9:36
[Chris Hayes] one thing the january 6 hearings showed
9:37
us was just how integral the secret
9:39
service was to what happened the day of
9:41
the capitol attack. which is why it was
9:44
such a huge shock when we learned that all of
9:45
the text messages, from dozens of agents
9:47
on january 5th and 6th, were deleted.
9:50
that prompted the department of homeland
9:52
security inspector general to open an
9:54
investigation into the agency.
9:56
it's important to note the inspector
9:57
general himself was the same dhs
9:59
inspector general during the trump
10:01
administration. in fact, the guy who heads
10:03
up the secret service right now is the
10:05
same guy who oversaw it during the
10:07
insurrection.
10:08
after the investigation into deleted text
10:10
messages was launched, a spokesperson for
10:12
the secret service released a statement
10:14
saying, "the insinuation that the secret
10:16
service maliciously deleted text
10:18
messages following a request is false."
10:20
instead blaming a technical error. but
10:22
now top democrats are calling for the
10:24
inspector general to step aside, because
10:26
he reportedly found out about those
10:28
deleted text messages, "in december
10:30
20-21, two months earlier than previously
10:33
reported, and did not alert congress at
10:36
the time.
10:37
now jay johnson served as the head of
10:39
the department of homeland security
10:40
under president barack obama. it's the
10:42
body that oversees the secret service.
10:44
and he joins me now. um, it's great to
10:46
have you on. i want to start with the
10:48
secret service, because
10:50
it's a agency with a lot of mythos
10:53
attached to it. they have obviously an
10:54
incredibly important and crucial job. i
10:56
think there's lots of people who work
10:57
there who are, you know, patriots who take
10:59
their job very seriously. institutionally,
11:03
the story the secret service is telling
11:05
here doesn't really add up. and i'm
11:08
wondering your perspective as a person
11:09
who worked at dhs. like how are you
11:11
hearing all this?
11:14
[Jay Johnson] Chris, first of all thanks for having me
11:16
on. my internet connection's a little
11:18
unstable, so you might lose me. and you'll
11:20
end up talking to yourself.
11:21
but,
11:22
uh i was the oversight of the secret
11:25
service
11:26
uh for three years. and i was a protectee
11:28
of the secret service for three years. i
11:30
was in their constant
11:31
company. um,
11:34
a little perspective here. the secret
11:36
service
11:37
is trained
11:39
to take a bullet for the protectee. on
11:41
occasion, even the secret service is
11:44
trained to,
11:45
uh, save a protectee from himself, as we
11:48
saw on
11:49
january 6th.
11:51
I would be, I have to say, I would be very surprised to learn that there was something nefarious around January 6th, related to January 6, through the loss of these text messages. For as long as I've known the Secret Service, going back to my days as a federal prosecutor 33 years ago, they are good at some things, but they are not good at the back office stuff.
And uh, one of the things that frustrated me most in the job as DHS secretary of oversight were the number of unforced errors coming out of that agency, while on the other hand their central mission is executed flawlessly, like a U.N. general assembly, for example, the largest domestic security operation of 2015, led by the Secret Service. Um, so, in the context of the events around January 6, where you have
in the presidential transition, an outgoing President who frankly is unhinged, an incoming President, the Secret Service is in the middle of that transition, they're managing the security on January 20, and the nation is on high alert. Uh, frankly, I'm not surprised that they did not get the data migration completely perfect. Uh, we will learn more about this, but, um, I've had to admonish the Secret Service, I've had to ask for a Director's resignation. It is far from perfect in its execution of a number of things, without a doubt.
Chris Hayes: that's a that's a very interesting
13:25
perspective and and illuminating because
13:27
of the experience that you had there
13:28
were some uh you know there were some
13:30
scandals there the secret service during
13:32
during your the period of time that that
13:33
you were overseeing it um i want to ask
13:36
too about something that you said you
13:37
were former federal prosecutors you just
13:38
referenced um and you said that
13:42
more or less that the case the public
13:44
evidence thus presented
13:47
could in the hands of it i think you
13:48
said aggressive prosecutor
13:50
be an indictable prosecutable case
13:53
elaborate on that
13:55
based upon everything we know from
13:57
public sources
13:58
including most notably the january 6th
14:01
hearings
14:02
i believe
14:03
that an aggressive prosecutor
14:06
would be willing to take on the case
14:08
against donald trump
14:09
for
14:10
participation in a seditious conspiracy
14:13
for violation of the insurrection
14:15
statute
14:16
in my opinion january 6 was a very
14:18
definition of an insurrection and the
14:21
statute punishes those who incite the
14:24
insurrection and those who give aid and
14:26
comfort thereto
14:28
donald trump lit the match uh that
14:30
started the conflagration there were
14:32
moments during january 6 where he flew
14:34
he uh
14:35
poured gasoline on the fire and he was
14:38
the commander-in-chief of all the
14:40
firemen
14:41
and
14:42
and failed to call them in
14:44
uh i i believe that uh
14:47
we're well within the range of potential
14:50
criminal liability uh if a an aggressive
14:53
prosecutor is willing to take that on
14:57
i you know you served in the obama
14:58
administration uh you were the if i'm
15:00
not mistaken the general counsel
15:02
department of defense um you've long
15:04
distinguished legal career i tend to
15:06
think of the the individuals like
15:08
yourself who made up the obama cabinet
15:10
and worked close to the former president
15:12
as you know pretty strong
15:13
institutionalists i mean really believe
15:15
in american institutions believe that
15:17
they are uh that they can be uh made to
15:20
be responsive and and and produce uh
15:22
increases in in our welfare
15:25
and i guess i wonder is what do you
15:27
think about the case of like that you
15:28
know this will be bad for the country
15:30
it'll tear the country apart it's
15:31
institutionally reckless to prosecute an
15:34
ex-president from from your perspective
15:35
to someone who's served as long as you
15:37
have
15:39
uh chris i respect and admire what
15:42
gerald ford did in 1974
15:45
75
15:47
sparing the country the prosecution of
15:48
richard nixon
15:50
i think we live in different times right
15:52
now
15:53
an argument could be made
15:55
that
15:56
um
15:57
if there is an indictable case against
16:00
the former president yet we fail to
16:02
prosecute him we may be doing more harm
16:05
to our democracy
16:06
uh than if we forebear
16:09
and it's a different time now and
16:11
in my judgment the actions that occurred
16:14
during the trump presidency around
16:16
january 6 and before were actually far
16:18
more serious than watergate
16:21
yeah jay johnson uh thank you so much
16:23
for for hanging out uh through those
16:25
hanging with us through those technical
16:26
adults i really appreciate it thank you
16:28
always great to see you thank you very
16:29
much
16:32
[Music]
17:10
you
**********************
Miller Contradicts Himself, Says Trump Did Not Order to Deploy Jan.6 Troops
by Gerrard Kaonga
Newsweek
7/27/22 AT 4:44 AM EDT
The January 6 committee has released the audio testimony of former acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller in which he said ex-President Donald Trump did not give any order prior to the January 6 Capitol riot to deploy the military.
The video has also gone viral on Twitter and has more than one million views since it was posted on Tuesday.
The audio testimony from Miller contradicts not only what Trump has previously said about his actions to prevent violence on January 6, 2021, but also what Miller has said about Trump's actions.
Miller was asked by a committee interviewer about comments made by former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows on Fox News in February 2021.
The interviewer quoted Meadows saying that as many as 10,000 National Guard troops were told to be on the ready by the secretary of defense.
When asked if there was any accuracy to the statement, Miller said: "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 even where it was.
"So, no 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."
He was cut off and the interviewer asked for clarification about whether there were or were not 10,000 troops on the ready for January 6 prior to January 6.
He answered: "A non-military 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.
He added: "There was no direct... there was no order from the president."
On June 9, 2022, Trump took to his social media platform, Truth Social, to say that he offered up to 20,000 National Guard or troops to be deployed.
"The Unselect Committee has now learned that I, as President suggested and offered up to 20,000 National Guard, or troops, be deployed in D.C. because it was felt that the crowd was going to be very large," he posted.
"Crazy Nancy Pelosi turned down the offer, she didn't like the way it looked. Likewise, the Mayor of D.C.
"Had they taken up the offer, there would have been no January 6. The Unselects have ruled Pelosi 'off limits, no questions.' The hearing is another political HOAX to counter inflation etc."
A clip of Miller on Sean Hannity's show has also gone viral showing him say that he testified under oath that Trump authorized 20,000 troops. It is not clear on what date Miller was on Hannity's show, however.
While on the show, former Defense Department official Kash Patel said: "Mr. Trump unequivocally authorized up to 20,000 National Guardsmen and women for us to utilize.
Hannity asked: "Let me be very clear. Both of you said this under oath, under the threat of perjury, to the committee?
Miller replied: "Absolutely Sean and to be clear, Kash brought it up best. The meeting was one of the most serious kinds of heavy meetings I have been in.
"It was about a foreign threat that was directed towards the United States. Obviously, we can't talk to you about that for fear of ending up in jail.
He continued: "The president, as we are leaving, says one more thing and we all sat back down and we discussed what was going on on January 6.
"I think it is important to bring up so that the opposition doesn't get this idea that this was the purpose of the meeting.
"The president was doing exactly what I expect the Commander in Chief to do, he was looking at the broad threats against the United States and he brought this up on his own, we did not bring it up."
Newsweek has contacted Trump's office and Miller for comment.
by Chris Hayes
MSNBC
Jul 28, 2022
0:00
so one of the questions that has
0:01
lingered in the year and a half since
0:03
the violent attack on january 6 is why
0:05
the capitol police were basically left
0:06
alone to defend themselves and all the
0:08
lawmakers inside the building, not to
0:10
mention the seat of the u.s government.
0:12
how could it be that there was no plan
0:14
to support them ahead of a day that
0:15
donald trump teased would be "wild"?
0:18
and why did it take so long for backup
0:20
to arrive on the 6th when it was clear
0:22
the capitol piece were overwhelmed. we
0:23
saw it on television. where was the
0:25
national guard?
0:27
well, beginning that very afternoon, the
0:29
trump white house attempted to tamp down
0:31
those concerns with a big lie.
0:34
hours into the attack, press secretary
0:36
kayleigh mcenaney tweeted, at president
0:38
trump's direction, "the national guard is
0:40
on the way."
0:41
not true!
0:42
just a lie. not true. donald trump never
0:45
directed the national guard to go to the
0:46
capitol. maybe she was mistaken. but in
0:49
the days before or on january 6, it didn't
0:51
happen. that did not stop trump himself
0:54
from then lying on january 7th.
0:58
[Donald Trump] "i immediately deployed the national
1:00
guard
1:01
and federal law enforcement to secure
1:03
the building and expel the intruders.
1:07
america is, and must always be, a nation
1:10
of law and order."
1:12
[Chris Hayes] we now know, thanks to testimony to the
1:14
january 6 committee, donald trump's staff
1:15
had to convince him to make that speech,
1:17
the january 7th one, in the first place.
1:19
and when he finally agreed, practically
1:21
the first thing out of his mouth, was
1:23
that lie: " i deployed the national guard." it
1:26
had already been debunked, the new york
1:27
times reporting on the evening of
1:29
january 6th that trump, "rebuffed and
1:32
resisted requests to mobilize the
1:33
national guard, and in the end it was
1:35
vice president mike pence who approved
1:37
the order to deploy."
1:39
that did not stop trump and his allies
1:41
and his staff from repeating the lie over
1:44
and over again.
1:46
[Mark Meadows, Fox News] "even in january that was was given. as
1:49
many as ten thousand national guard
1:51
troops were told to be on the ready by
1:54
the secretary of defense. that was a
1:56
direct order from president trump."
1:59
[Chris Hayes] a few weeks after that, trump said it
2:01
again, in an interview on fox news, this
2:02
time trying to dump some of the blame on
2:04
nancy pelosi.
2:06
[Donald Trump, Fox News] "i definitely gave the number of ten
2:08
thousand,
2:09
uh, national guardsmen. i think you should
2:12
have ten thousand of the national guard
2:15
ready. uh, they took that number, from what
2:17
i understand, they gave it to the people
2:19
at the capitol, which is controlled by
2:21
pelosi.
2:22
and i heard they rejected it, because
2:24
they didn't think it would look good."
2:27
[Chris Hayes] of course, the new part also completely
2:28
untrue. just
2:30
fabricated whole cloth. trump has
2:32
continued to spread this lie. even
2:33
recently on his fake twitter platform,
2:35
falsely claiming he recommended, offered
2:37
thousands of troops, and pelosi refused
2:39
them. he will not stop repeating this.
2:41
even now, 18 months later. then, of course,
2:43
there's the cable news echo chamber for
2:45
trump's pseudo alibi.
2:48
[Sean Hannity] "donald trump authorized up to 20,000
2:50
national guard soldiers to protect the
2:53
capitol."
[Sean Hannity] "donald trump authorized the use
2:56
of 20,000 national guard troops."
[Sean Hannity] "donald
2:58
trump called up the national guard two
3:00
days prior."
[Sean Hannity] "don't forget president trump
3:03
requested increased national guard
3:04
support in the days leading up to the to
3:07
january 6."
3:09
[Chris Hayes] sean hannity was still doing this as
3:11
recently as last month. according to
3:12
media matters, he pushed the lie hundreds
3:14
of times in total on at least 43 episodes
3:17
of his show, including when he asked
3:19
donald trump's acting secretary of
3:20
defense at the time, chris miller, and chris
3:22
miller's chief of staff kash patel to
3:24
confirm they heard trump authorize the
3:26
use of national guard troops before the
3:28
6th.
3:30
[Kash Patel] "Mr. Trump unequivocally authorized up to 20,000 national guardsmen and women for us to utilize should the second part of the law, the request come in. But those requests never did, as you highlighted."
[Sean Hannity] "Let me be very clear: both of you said this under oath, under the threat of a penalty of perjury, to the committee?
[Chris Miller] Absolutely, Sean.
[Chris Hayes] Chris Miller, "Absolutely Sean." Now there's no law against lying to Fox News viewers, and if there was they would not have a network. But there is a law against lying under oath. So what story do you think Chris Miller, the guy who told Sean Hannity last month that Trump ordered the guard to be deployed, before the 6th to be ready, what he told the January 6 committee? Well, the Committee has released the tape. We'll play it for you next.
[Kash Patel] "Mr. Trump unequivocally authorized up to 20,000 national guardsmen and women for us to utilize should the second part of the law, the requests come in. But those requests never did as you highlighted."
[Sean Hannity] "Let me me be very clear: both of you said this under oath, under the threat of a penalty of perjury, to the Committee?
[Chris Miller] Absolutely, Sean.
[Chris Hayes] "Under threat of oath, perjury. Absolutely, Sean. Unequivocally." Not a lot of wiggle room in those statements.
Since January 6, Donald Trump and his allies, like Kash Patel -- who apparently wears a custom Kash Patel lapel pin, with a dollar sign on it -- have repeated this utter lie over and over, that the ex-president authorized the national guard to defend the capitol from the mob in the days, uh, leading to it, and then he ordered them to go in. Well now, the January 6 Committee has released definitive proof debunking it. This is testimony under oath from one of the very men you just heard spreading the lie, with Sean Hannity on Fox News last month, Donald Trump's acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller.
[Committee] "I want to be clear here that since then, in February of 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?
[Acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller] "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. But no, there was no -- we obviously had plans for activating more folks, uh, but that was not anything more than contingency planning. There was no official message traffic, or anything of that nature."
[Committee] "Just so we're clear, you did not have 10,000 troops 'to be on the ready for January 6th, prior to January 6th?'"
[Acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller] "Uh, a non-military person probably could have some sort of weird interpretation, but no, to answer your question. That was not, uh, part of my plan, or the Department of Defense's plan."
Chris Hayes] Lies, just lies. They just lie.
Joining us, now Elie Mystal, justice
correspondent for the nation where he
covers politics, and the courts, and also
lies. Um Elie, I,
this is just one small
little nugget. Right? It's just like one
thing.
But it's just very rare that you sort of get them to say the
truth.
And what to me this sort of speaks to, in
some ways, is the power of
subpoenas, the power of being under oath,
which is a real thing, with real
consequences.
And it really does matter. So here we have
an example of why it matters. Why it
matters that a January 6 Committee can get
people under oath. Because they can't lie
like they do on Sean Hannity when
they're before the Committee.
[Elie Mystal] Yeah, Chris Miller might as well have
said, um, "It is weird that people actually
believed the words coming out of my mouth,
because who would do that?" Clear? Like,
that was his testimony under oath. And
you're exactly right Chris: this is why
the subpoenas have so much power. But
this is a lesson that we all need to
learn. And I would argue, we should have
learned in, I don't know, circa 2015.
These people lie
for a living. All they know how to do is
lie. If they are not under oath,
everything they say should be viewed as
a lie. If Donald Trump says, "I had a
cheeseburger for dinner," what should
happen next is a voiceover saying, "MSNBC
News cannot confirm whether or not Trump
got the cheeseburger, or the chicken
nuggets in his happy meal."
I mean,
we have to
independently verify everything they say,
because all they do is lie. That's all
they know how to do. Remember Chris, just
a couple weeks ago, Cassidy Hutchinson
testified,
and then there was all this right-wing
drama, "Oh, the Secret Service is gonna --
Tony Ornato is gonna testify." No. Did they do
that? No. Because they were lying. Nope. And
they weren't gonna come under oath to
lie, so they just had to put this out
there, when everybody knew that Cassidy
Hutchinson was telling the truth, because
she testified under oath. And these
unnamed sources were just lying. At some
point, the rest of the media needs to
catch up to reality and stop
platforming these liars uncritically.
[Liz Cheney] "that is when you heard the president say
9:06
the people with weapons weren't there to
9:07
hurt him, and that he wanted the secret
9:09
service to remove the magnetometers"?
9:12
[Cassidy Hutchinson] "that's correct."
[Liz cheney] "when the president said
9:14
that he would be going to the capitol
9:15
during his speech on the ellipse, the
9:17
secret service scrambled to find a way
9:20
for him to go."
[Cassidy Hutchinson] "mr meadows had a
9:22
conversation with me where he wanted me
9:25
to work with secret service on a
9:27
movement from the white house to the
9:28
Willard hotel so he could attend the
9:30
meeting,
9:31
or meetings, with mr giuliani and his
9:33
associates."
9:36
[Chris Hayes] one thing the january 6 hearings showed
9:37
us was just how integral the secret
9:39
service was to what happened the day of
9:41
the capitol attack. which is why it was
9:44
such a huge shock when we learned that all of
9:45
the text messages, from dozens of agents
9:47
on january 5th and 6th, were deleted.
9:50
that prompted the department of homeland
9:52
security inspector general to open an
9:54
investigation into the agency.
9:56
it's important to note the inspector
9:57
general himself was the same dhs
9:59
inspector general during the trump
10:01
administration. in fact, the guy who heads
10:03
up the secret service right now is the
10:05
same guy who oversaw it during the
10:07
insurrection.
10:08
after the investigation into deleted text
10:10
messages was launched, a spokesperson for
10:12
the secret service released a statement
10:14
saying, "the insinuation that the secret
10:16
service maliciously deleted text
10:18
messages following a request is false."
10:20
instead blaming a technical error. but
10:22
now top democrats are calling for the
10:24
inspector general to step aside, because
10:26
he reportedly found out about those
10:28
deleted text messages, "in december
10:30
20-21, two months earlier than previously
10:33
reported, and did not alert congress at
10:36
the time.
10:37
now jay johnson served as the head of
10:39
the department of homeland security
10:40
under president barack obama. it's the
10:42
body that oversees the secret service.
10:44
and he joins me now. um, it's great to
10:46
have you on. i want to start with the
10:48
secret service, because
10:50
it's a agency with a lot of mythos
10:53
attached to it. they have obviously an
10:54
incredibly important and crucial job. i
10:56
think there's lots of people who work
10:57
there who are, you know, patriots who take
10:59
their job very seriously. institutionally,
11:03
the story the secret service is telling
11:05
here doesn't really add up. and i'm
11:08
wondering your perspective as a person
11:09
who worked at dhs. like how are you
11:11
hearing all this?
11:14
[Jay Johnson] Chris, first of all thanks for having me
11:16
on. my internet connection's a little
11:18
unstable, so you might lose me. and you'll
11:20
end up talking to yourself.
11:21
but,
11:22
uh i was the oversight of the secret
11:25
service
11:26
uh for three years. and i was a protectee
11:28
of the secret service for three years. i
11:30
was in their constant
11:31
company. um,
11:34
a little perspective here. the secret
11:36
service
11:37
is trained
11:39
to take a bullet for the protectee. on
11:41
occasion, even the secret service is
11:44
trained to,
11:45
uh, save a protectee from himself, as we
11:48
saw on
11:49
january 6th.
11:51
I would be, I have to say, I would be very surprised to learn that there was something nefarious around January 6th, related to January 6, through the loss of these text messages. For as long as I've known the Secret Service, going back to my days as a federal prosecutor 33 years ago, they are good at some things, but they are not good at the back office stuff.
Friends, now I'm going to talk about something that probably qualifies as irony. When I was a federal prosecutor at the D.C. U.S. attorney's office, and we seized evidence, computers or cell phones, and we needed to have forensic searches conducted of the computers, or of the cell phones, you know where I went? I didn't go to the Metropolitan Police Department. I didn't even go to the FBI lab down at Quantico, although I used their services regularly for other forensic endeavors. No, I went to the U.S. Secret Service Forensic Science Division. That was the unit that we most often used to conduct forensic searches of cell phones. And they were really good at what they did. They were especially good at retrieving things that had been deleted from cell phones, or deleted from computers. I'm betting they probably still are good at what they do. And in fact, if you look at the U.S. Secret Service website, you'll see that they think they're pretty good at what they do. There's the website for the Secret Service, touting their forensic expertise: "expertise in processing and analyzing digital multimedia, items of evidence, expertise in cyber forensics, which includes a cyber workforce of special agents and forensic analysts dedicated to conducting advanced computer, mobile device" -- that would be cell phones -- "and vehicle infotainment systems forensic examinations using specialized methods, software, and equipment and their cyber forensic teams work to identify and secure criminal evidence for prosecution." I guess, except, when they're deleting their own text messages that are of enormous investigative value.
-- Secret Service deletes Jan. 6 text messages. A move to protect Trump? Also, Mike Pence MUST testify, by Glenn Kirschner, Justice Matters
And uh, one of the things that frustrated me most in the job as DHS secretary of oversight were the number of unforced errors coming out of that agency, while on the other hand their central mission is executed flawlessly, like a U.N. general assembly, for example, the largest domestic security operation of 2015, led by the Secret Service. Um, so, in the context of the events around January 6, where you have
in the presidential transition, an outgoing President who frankly is unhinged, an incoming President, the Secret Service is in the middle of that transition, they're managing the security on January 20, and the nation is on high alert. Uh, frankly, I'm not surprised that they did not get the data migration completely perfect. Uh, we will learn more about this, but, um, I've had to admonish the Secret Service, I've had to ask for a Director's resignation. It is far from perfect in its execution of a number of things, without a doubt.
Chris Hayes: that's a that's a very interesting
13:25
perspective and and illuminating because
13:27
of the experience that you had there
13:28
were some uh you know there were some
13:30
scandals there the secret service during
13:32
during your the period of time that that
13:33
you were overseeing it um i want to ask
13:36
too about something that you said you
13:37
were former federal prosecutors you just
13:38
referenced um and you said that
13:42
more or less that the case the public
13:44
evidence thus presented
13:47
could in the hands of it i think you
13:48
said aggressive prosecutor
13:50
be an indictable prosecutable case
13:53
elaborate on that
13:55
based upon everything we know from
13:57
public sources
13:58
including most notably the january 6th
14:01
hearings
14:02
i believe
14:03
that an aggressive prosecutor
14:06
would be willing to take on the case
14:08
against donald trump
14:09
for
14:10
participation in a seditious conspiracy
14:13
for violation of the insurrection
14:15
statute
14:16
in my opinion january 6 was a very
14:18
definition of an insurrection and the
14:21
statute punishes those who incite the
14:24
insurrection and those who give aid and
14:26
comfort thereto
14:28
donald trump lit the match uh that
14:30
started the conflagration there were
14:32
moments during january 6 where he flew
14:34
he uh
14:35
poured gasoline on the fire and he was
14:38
the commander-in-chief of all the
14:40
firemen
14:41
and
14:42
and failed to call them in
14:44
uh i i believe that uh
14:47
we're well within the range of potential
14:50
criminal liability uh if a an aggressive
14:53
prosecutor is willing to take that on
14:57
i you know you served in the obama
14:58
administration uh you were the if i'm
15:00
not mistaken the general counsel
15:02
department of defense um you've long
15:04
distinguished legal career i tend to
15:06
think of the the individuals like
15:08
yourself who made up the obama cabinet
15:10
and worked close to the former president
15:12
as you know pretty strong
15:13
institutionalists i mean really believe
15:15
in american institutions believe that
15:17
they are uh that they can be uh made to
15:20
be responsive and and and produce uh
15:22
increases in in our welfare
15:25
and i guess i wonder is what do you
15:27
think about the case of like that you
15:28
know this will be bad for the country
15:30
it'll tear the country apart it's
15:31
institutionally reckless to prosecute an
15:34
ex-president from from your perspective
15:35
to someone who's served as long as you
15:37
have
15:39
uh chris i respect and admire what
15:42
gerald ford did in 1974
15:45
75
15:47
sparing the country the prosecution of
15:48
richard nixon
15:50
i think we live in different times right
15:52
now
15:53
an argument could be made
15:55
that
15:56
um
15:57
if there is an indictable case against
16:00
the former president yet we fail to
16:02
prosecute him we may be doing more harm
16:05
to our democracy
16:06
uh than if we forebear
16:09
and it's a different time now and
16:11
in my judgment the actions that occurred
16:14
during the trump presidency around
16:16
january 6 and before were actually far
16:18
more serious than watergate
16:21
yeah jay johnson uh thank you so much
16:23
for for hanging out uh through those
16:25
hanging with us through those technical
16:26
adults i really appreciate it thank you
16:28
always great to see you thank you very
16:29
much
16:32
[Music]
17:10
you
**********************
Miller Contradicts Himself, Says Trump Did Not Order to Deploy Jan.6 Troops
by Gerrard Kaonga
Newsweek
7/27/22 AT 4:44 AM EDT
The January 6 committee has released the audio testimony of former acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller in which he said ex-President Donald Trump did not give any order prior to the January 6 Capitol riot to deploy the military.
The video has also gone viral on Twitter and has more than one million views since it was posted on Tuesday.
The audio testimony from Miller contradicts not only what Trump has previously said about his actions to prevent violence on January 6, 2021, but also what Miller has said about Trump's actions.
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—
https://twitter.com/i/status/1552041350941532168
3:21 PM · Jul 26, 2022
Miller was asked by a committee interviewer about comments made by former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows on Fox News in February 2021.
The interviewer quoted Meadows saying that as many as 10,000 National Guard troops were told to be on the ready by the secretary of defense.
When asked if there was any accuracy to the statement, Miller said: "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 even where it was.
"So, no 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."
He was cut off and the interviewer asked for clarification about whether there were or were not 10,000 troops on the ready for January 6 prior to January 6.
He answered: "A non-military 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.
He added: "There was no direct... there was no order from the president."
On June 9, 2022, Trump took to his social media platform, Truth Social, to say that he offered up to 20,000 National Guard or troops to be deployed.
"The Unselect Committee has now learned that I, as President suggested and offered up to 20,000 National Guard, or troops, be deployed in D.C. because it was felt that the crowd was going to be very large," he posted.
"Crazy Nancy Pelosi turned down the offer, she didn't like the way it looked. Likewise, the Mayor of D.C.
"Had they taken up the offer, there would have been no January 6. The Unselects have ruled Pelosi 'off limits, no questions.' The hearing is another political HOAX to counter inflation etc."
A clip of Miller on Sean Hannity's show has also gone viral showing him say that he testified under oath that Trump authorized 20,000 troops. It is not clear on what date Miller was on Hannity's show, however.
cyn
@Acyn · Follow
Replying to @Acyn
Here is Miller saying on Hannity he testified under oath that Trump authorized 20k troops
https://twitter.com/i/status/1552053211640451072
4:08 PM · Jul 26, 2022
While on the show, former Defense Department official Kash Patel said: "Mr. Trump unequivocally authorized up to 20,000 National Guardsmen and women for us to utilize.
Hannity asked: "Let me be very clear. Both of you said this under oath, under the threat of perjury, to the committee?
Miller replied: "Absolutely Sean and to be clear, Kash brought it up best. The meeting was one of the most serious kinds of heavy meetings I have been in.
"It was about a foreign threat that was directed towards the United States. Obviously, we can't talk to you about that for fear of ending up in jail.
He continued: "The president, as we are leaving, says one more thing and we all sat back down and we discussed what was going on on January 6.
"I think it is important to bring up so that the opposition doesn't get this idea that this was the purpose of the meeting.
"The president was doing exactly what I expect the Commander in Chief to do, he was looking at the broad threats against the United States and he brought this up on his own, we did not bring it up."
Newsweek has contacted Trump's office and Miller for comment.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Fri Jul 29, 2022 2:57 am
Secret Service deletes Jan. 6 text messages. A move to protect Trump? Also, Mike Pence MUST testify
by Glenn Kirschner
Justice Matters
7/15/22
It seems that no day goes by without a new revelation about some kind of governmental shenanigans, malfeasance, corruption or worse. We now know that the US Secret Service deleted text messages of its officers from January 5 and 6, 2021, AFTER the Office of the I,nspector General requested those texts as part of its investigation of the Secret Service. This video discusses the implications and consequences of this revelation.
Also, it probably qualifies as irony that federal prosecutors in DC routinely use the Secret Service Forensic Sciences Division to perform forensic searches of computers and cell phones, including when prosecutors seek to retrieve informations deleted from computers and cell phones.
This video also explores the need for former Vice President Mike Pence to testify to the January 6 House select committee, particularly now that important text message evidence has ben deleted by the Secret Service.
0:00
so friends have you heard the one about
0:03
the secret service deleting its text
0:07
messages
0:08
from january 5 and january 6. you know
0:12
right around the time of the
0:14
insurrection it's quite a tale
0:18
let's talk about it
0:20
because justice
0:22
matters
0:32
[Music]
0:39
hey all glenn kirschner here
0:41
so friends why should a single day go by
0:45
without us learning about some new
0:48
governmental shenanigans
0:50
malfeasance corruption
0:53
maybe a little outright crime
0:56
we now know
0:57
that text messages of secret service
1:01
officers
1:02
from january 5 and january 6 2021
1:07
text messages that undoubtedly would
1:09
have shed some important light
1:12
on among other things what donald trump
1:15
was up to
1:16
at the time of the insurrection
1:19
those text messages have been deleted
1:23
by the secret service
1:26
here's the new reporting from cnn
1:30
secret service erased text messages from
1:33
january 5 and 6 2021
1:36
after oversight officials asked for them
1:41
and that article begins
1:43
the u.s secret service erase text
1:46
messages from january 5 and 6 shortly
1:49
after they were requested by oversight
1:52
officials investigating the agency's
1:54
response to the u.s capitol riot
1:58
according to a letter given to the house
2:00
select committee investigating the
2:02
insurrection
2:04
and here is part of a letter that was
2:08
written by the inspector general the
2:10
person who was seeking this evidence
2:13
a gentleman named joseph kefari here's
2:16
part of a letter he wrote to
2:18
representative benny thompson and other
2:21
members of congress
2:23
the office of the inspector general
2:25
notified benny thompson and others that
2:28
quote
2:29
many u.s secret service text messages
2:32
from january 5 and 6 2021
2:35
were erased as part of a device
2:39
replacement program
2:41
the us secret service erased those text
2:44
messages
2:45
after
2:47
italicized
2:48
after oig the office of the inspector
2:52
general requested records of electronic
2:54
communications from the u.s secret
2:57
service as part of our evaluation of
3:00
events
3:01
at the capitol on january 6th
3:06
Friends, now I'm going to talk about
something that
probably qualifies as irony.
When I was a federal prosecutor at the
D.C. U.S. attorney's office, and we seized
evidence, computers or
cell phones,
and we needed to have forensic searches
conducted of the computers, or of the
cell phones,
you know where I went?
I didn't go to the Metropolitan Police
Department.
I didn't even go to the FBI lab down at
Quantico, although I used their services
regularly
for other forensic endeavors. No,
I went to the U.S. Secret Service
Forensic Science Division.
That was the unit that we
most often used
to conduct forensic searches of
cell phones.
And they were
really good
at what they did. They were especially
good
at retrieving things that had been
deleted
from cell phones, or deleted from
computers.
I'm betting they probably still are good
at what they do.
And in fact,
if you look at the U.S. Secret Service
website,
you'll see that
they think they're pretty good at what
they do.
There's the website for the Secret
Service, touting their forensic expertise:
expertise in "processing and analyzing
digital multimedia, items of evidence,
expertise in cyber forensics, which
includes
a cyber workforce of special agents and
forensic analysts dedicated to
conducting advanced computer,
mobile device -- that would be cell phones --
and vehicle infotainment systems
forensic examinations using specialized
methods, software, and equipment
and their cyber forensic teams work to
identify and secure
criminal evidence for prosecution.
I guess, except,
when they're
deleting their own
text messages that
are of
enormous investigative value.
5:33
so yes now there has to be an
5:34
investigation
5:36
to try to determine if this was a
5:39
nefarious destruction of evidence
5:42
perhaps even to try to protect donald
5:44
trump
5:46
or if it was only
5:48
a horrifically reckless
5:51
destruction of evidence by the secret
5:53
service
5:55
but regardless of the outcome of that
5:57
investigation
5:59
what has to happen now is the secret
6:01
service officers
6:03
who were texting on january 5th on
6:05
january 6th who have information and
6:08
evidence relevant
6:10
to the insurrection
6:12
they have to testify
6:16
along with mike pence
6:20
on january 6th
6:22
as trump's angry mob descended on the
6:25
capitol
6:26
as they hunted for mike pence as they
6:28
were chanting hang mike pence
6:32
the secret service tried to convince
6:35
mike pence to get in the car so they
6:37
could whisk him away
6:40
and mike pence said
6:42
those six words
6:44
that representative raskin said were
6:46
chilling i'm not getting in that car
6:52
and he didn't
6:55
mike pence
6:57
needs to testify
7:00
i would say mike pence needs to man up
7:02
but
7:03
i abandoned that phrase a long time ago
7:06
certainly when we saw heroes like
7:09
ambassador marie ivanovic
7:11
dr fiona hill most recently cassidy
7:14
hutchinson testify stand up to trump
7:18
heroically no mike pence needs to woman
7:21
up
7:23
look i know mike pence thinks he's still
7:26
in political play
7:29
right like there is some self-respecting
7:31
voter in america that would cast their
7:33
vote for mike pence
7:36
the way he
7:37
enabled donald trump's
7:40
crimes and and victimization of the
7:42
american people for four years
7:45
you know mike pence is not in political
7:48
play give it up sport but you know what
7:51
you can still salvage a little bit of
7:53
your self-respect and maybe even help
7:55
move our democracy forward by stepping
7:58
up
7:59
and testifying
8:01
testifying about that relentless
8:04
pressure campaign
8:06
by donald trump trying to get you to do
8:09
the wrong thing the unlawful thing the
8:11
unconstitutional thing the undemocratic
8:14
thing the unpatriotic thing
8:18
woman up
8:19
grow a spine
8:22
testify
8:25
because justice
8:28
matters
8:31
friends as always please stay safe
8:33
please stay tuned and i look forward to
8:35
talking with you all again
8:37
tomorrow
8:41
[Music]
8:49
you
by Glenn Kirschner
Justice Matters
7/15/22
Friends, now I'm going to talk about something that probably qualifies as irony. When I was a federal prosecutor at the D.C. U.S. attorney's office, and we seized evidence, computers or cell phones, and we needed to have forensic searches conducted of the computers, or of the cell phones, you know where I went? I didn't go to the Metropolitan Police Department. I didn't even go to the FBI lab down at Quantico, although I used their services regularly for other forensic endeavors. No, I went to the U.S. Secret Service Forensic Science Division. That was the unit that we most often used to conduct forensic searches of cell phones. And they were really good at what they did. They were especially good at retrieving things that had been deleted from cell phones, or deleted from computers. I'm betting they probably still are good at what they do. And in fact, if you look at the U.S. Secret Service website, you'll see that they think they're pretty good at what they do. There's the website for the Secret Service, touting their forensic expertise: "expertise in processing and analyzing digital multimedia, items of evidence, expertise in cyber forensics, which includes a cyber workforce of special agents and forensic analysts dedicated to conducting advanced computer, mobile device" -- that would be cell phones -- "and vehicle infotainment systems forensic examinations using specialized methods, software, and equipment and their cyber forensic teams work to identify and secure criminal evidence for prosecution." I guess, except, when they're deleting their own text messages that are of enormous investigative value.
-- Secret Service deletes Jan. 6 text messages. A move to protect Trump? Also, Mike Pence MUST testify, by Glenn Kirschner, Justice Matters
It seems that no day goes by without a new revelation about some kind of governmental shenanigans, malfeasance, corruption or worse. We now know that the US Secret Service deleted text messages of its officers from January 5 and 6, 2021, AFTER the Office of the I,nspector General requested those texts as part of its investigation of the Secret Service. This video discusses the implications and consequences of this revelation.
Also, it probably qualifies as irony that federal prosecutors in DC routinely use the Secret Service Forensic Sciences Division to perform forensic searches of computers and cell phones, including when prosecutors seek to retrieve informations deleted from computers and cell phones.
This video also explores the need for former Vice President Mike Pence to testify to the January 6 House select committee, particularly now that important text message evidence has ben deleted by the Secret Service.
0:00
so friends have you heard the one about
0:03
the secret service deleting its text
0:07
messages
0:08
from january 5 and january 6. you know
0:12
right around the time of the
0:14
insurrection it's quite a tale
0:18
let's talk about it
0:20
because justice
0:22
matters
0:32
[Music]
0:39
hey all glenn kirschner here
0:41
so friends why should a single day go by
0:45
without us learning about some new
0:48
governmental shenanigans
0:50
malfeasance corruption
0:53
maybe a little outright crime
0:56
we now know
0:57
that text messages of secret service
1:01
officers
1:02
from january 5 and january 6 2021
1:07
text messages that undoubtedly would
1:09
have shed some important light
1:12
on among other things what donald trump
1:15
was up to
1:16
at the time of the insurrection
1:19
those text messages have been deleted
1:23
by the secret service
1:26
here's the new reporting from cnn
1:30
secret service erased text messages from
1:33
january 5 and 6 2021
1:36
after oversight officials asked for them
1:41
and that article begins
1:43
the u.s secret service erase text
1:46
messages from january 5 and 6 shortly
1:49
after they were requested by oversight
1:52
officials investigating the agency's
1:54
response to the u.s capitol riot
1:58
according to a letter given to the house
2:00
select committee investigating the
2:02
insurrection
2:04
and here is part of a letter that was
2:08
written by the inspector general the
2:10
person who was seeking this evidence
2:13
a gentleman named joseph kefari here's
2:16
part of a letter he wrote to
2:18
representative benny thompson and other
2:21
members of congress
2:23
the office of the inspector general
2:25
notified benny thompson and others that
2:28
quote
2:29
many u.s secret service text messages
2:32
from january 5 and 6 2021
2:35
were erased as part of a device
2:39
replacement program
2:41
the us secret service erased those text
2:44
messages
2:45
after
2:47
italicized
2:48
after oig the office of the inspector
2:52
general requested records of electronic
2:54
communications from the u.s secret
2:57
service as part of our evaluation of
3:00
events
3:01
at the capitol on january 6th
3:06
Friends, now I'm going to talk about
something that
probably qualifies as irony.
When I was a federal prosecutor at the
D.C. U.S. attorney's office, and we seized
evidence, computers or
cell phones,
and we needed to have forensic searches
conducted of the computers, or of the
cell phones,
you know where I went?
I didn't go to the Metropolitan Police
Department.
I didn't even go to the FBI lab down at
Quantico, although I used their services
regularly
for other forensic endeavors. No,
I went to the U.S. Secret Service
Forensic Science Division.
That was the unit that we
most often used
to conduct forensic searches of
cell phones.
And they were
really good
at what they did. They were especially
good
at retrieving things that had been
deleted
from cell phones, or deleted from
computers.
I'm betting they probably still are good
at what they do.
And in fact,
if you look at the U.S. Secret Service
website,
you'll see that
they think they're pretty good at what
they do.
There's the website for the Secret
Service, touting their forensic expertise:
expertise in "processing and analyzing
digital multimedia, items of evidence,
expertise in cyber forensics, which
includes
a cyber workforce of special agents and
forensic analysts dedicated to
conducting advanced computer,
mobile device -- that would be cell phones --
and vehicle infotainment systems
forensic examinations using specialized
methods, software, and equipment
and their cyber forensic teams work to
identify and secure
criminal evidence for prosecution.
I guess, except,
when they're
deleting their own
text messages that
are of
enormous investigative value.
5:33
so yes now there has to be an
5:34
investigation
5:36
to try to determine if this was a
5:39
nefarious destruction of evidence
5:42
perhaps even to try to protect donald
5:44
trump
5:46
or if it was only
5:48
a horrifically reckless
5:51
destruction of evidence by the secret
5:53
service
5:55
but regardless of the outcome of that
5:57
investigation
5:59
what has to happen now is the secret
6:01
service officers
6:03
who were texting on january 5th on
6:05
january 6th who have information and
6:08
evidence relevant
6:10
to the insurrection
6:12
they have to testify
6:16
along with mike pence
6:20
on january 6th
6:22
as trump's angry mob descended on the
6:25
capitol
6:26
as they hunted for mike pence as they
6:28
were chanting hang mike pence
6:32
the secret service tried to convince
6:35
mike pence to get in the car so they
6:37
could whisk him away
6:40
and mike pence said
6:42
those six words
6:44
that representative raskin said were
6:46
chilling i'm not getting in that car
6:52
and he didn't
6:55
mike pence
6:57
needs to testify
7:00
i would say mike pence needs to man up
7:02
but
7:03
i abandoned that phrase a long time ago
7:06
certainly when we saw heroes like
7:09
ambassador marie ivanovic
7:11
dr fiona hill most recently cassidy
7:14
hutchinson testify stand up to trump
7:18
heroically no mike pence needs to woman
7:21
up
7:23
look i know mike pence thinks he's still
7:26
in political play
7:29
right like there is some self-respecting
7:31
voter in america that would cast their
7:33
vote for mike pence
7:36
the way he
7:37
enabled donald trump's
7:40
crimes and and victimization of the
7:42
american people for four years
7:45
you know mike pence is not in political
7:48
play give it up sport but you know what
7:51
you can still salvage a little bit of
7:53
your self-respect and maybe even help
7:55
move our democracy forward by stepping
7:58
up
7:59
and testifying
8:01
testifying about that relentless
8:04
pressure campaign
8:06
by donald trump trying to get you to do
8:09
the wrong thing the unlawful thing the
8:11
unconstitutional thing the undemocratic
8:14
thing the unpatriotic thing
8:18
woman up
8:19
grow a spine
8:22
testify
8:25
because justice
8:28
matters
8:31
friends as always please stay safe
8:33
please stay tuned and i look forward to
8:35
talking with you all again
8:37
tomorrow
8:41
[Music]
8:49
you
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Tue Aug 02, 2022 11:27 pm
House panels: DHS officials interfered in effort to get lost Secret Service texts
After the inspector general’s office requested the Secret Service’s January 6 communications, the effort was shut down. The new revelations appear to show that the chief watchdog for the Secret Service and DHS took deliberate steps to stop the retrieval of texts it knew were missing.
by Hugo Lowell in Washington
the guardian
Tue 2 Aug 2022 09.46 EDT
NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT
Top officials at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) inspector general’s office interfered with efforts to recover erased Secret Service texts from the time of the US Capitol attack and attempted to cover up their actions, two House committees said in a letter on Monday.
Taken together, the new revelations appear to show that the chief watchdog for the Secret Service and the DHS took deliberate steps to stop the retrieval of texts it knew were missing, and then sought to hide the fact that it had decided not to pursue that evidence.
The inspector general’s office had initially sought to retrieve the lost texts from across the DHS – spanning both the Secret Service as well as the former DHS secretary Chad Wolf and his deputy, Ken Cuccinelli – as part of its internal review into January 6.
But six weeks after the inspector general’s office first requested Secret Service communications from the time of the Capitol attack, that effort was shut down by Thomas Kait, the deputy inspector general for inspections and evaluations, the House committees said.
“Use this email as a reference to our conversation where I said we no longer request phone records and text messages from the USSS relating to the events on January 6th,” Kait wrote in a July 2021 email to a senior DHS liaison official, Jim Crumpacker, that was obtained by Congress.
The House committees also disclosed they had learned that Kait and other senior officials manipulated a memo, authored on 4 February 2022, that originally criticized the DHS for refusing to cooperate with its investigation and emphasized the need to review certain texts.
By the time that Kait and other senior officials had finished with the memo, the House committee said, mentions about the erased texts from the Secret Service or the DHS secretary had been removed and instead praised the agency for its response to the internal review.
The memo went from being a stinging rebuke that said “most DHS components have not provided the requested information” to saying “we received a timely and consolidated response from each component”, the House committees said.
Appearing to acknowledge the removal of the damaging findings in the memo, Kait asked colleagues around that time: “Am I setting us up for anything by adding what I did? I spoke with Kristen late last week and she was ok with acknowledging the DAL’s efforts.”
The disclosures alarmed the House oversight committee chair, Carolyn Maloney, and House homeland security committee chair, Bennie Thompson – who also chairs the House January 6 committee – enough to demand that top DHS officials appear for transcribed interviews.
In the four-page letter, the two House committees again called for the recusal of the DHS inspector general, Joseph Cuffari, and demanded communications inside the inspector general’s office about not collecting or recovering texts from the agency relating to the Capitol attack.
The deepening investigation has also revealed that Cuffari’s office was notified in February 2022 that texts from Wolf and Cuccinelli could not be accessed and that Cuccinelli had been using a personal phone – yet never told Congress.
Kait has a history of removing damaging findings from reports. In a DHS report on domestic violence and sexual misconduct, Kait directed staff to remove a section that found officers accused of sexual offenses were charged with generic offenses, the New York Times reported.
The controversy over the missing texts erupted several weeks ago after Cuffari first informed Congress in mid-July that his department could not turn over Secret Service texts from the time of the Capitol attack because they had been erased as part of a device replacement program.
That prompted Thompson, through the House January 6 select committee, to issue a subpoena to the Secret Service for texts from the day before and the day of the Capitol attack as it examined how the agency intended to move Donald Trump and Mike Pence on January 6.
But the Secret Service provided only one text exchange to the select committee, the Guardian has previously reported, telling investigators that every other message had been wiped after personnel failed to back up data from the devices when they were swapped out.
After the inspector general’s office requested the Secret Service’s January 6 communications, the effort was shut down. The new revelations appear to show that the chief watchdog for the Secret Service and DHS took deliberate steps to stop the retrieval of texts it knew were missing.
by Hugo Lowell in Washington
the guardian
Tue 2 Aug 2022 09.46 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.
Top officials at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) inspector general’s office interfered with efforts to recover erased Secret Service texts from the time of the US Capitol attack and attempted to cover up their actions, two House committees said in a letter on Monday.
Taken together, the new revelations appear to show that the chief watchdog for the Secret Service and the DHS took deliberate steps to stop the retrieval of texts it knew were missing, and then sought to hide the fact that it had decided not to pursue that evidence.
The inspector general’s office had initially sought to retrieve the lost texts from across the DHS – spanning both the Secret Service as well as the former DHS secretary Chad Wolf and his deputy, Ken Cuccinelli – as part of its internal review into January 6.
But six weeks after the inspector general’s office first requested Secret Service communications from the time of the Capitol attack, that effort was shut down by Thomas Kait, the deputy inspector general for inspections and evaluations, the House committees said.
“Use this email as a reference to our conversation where I said we no longer request phone records and text messages from the USSS relating to the events on January 6th,” Kait wrote in a July 2021 email to a senior DHS liaison official, Jim Crumpacker, that was obtained by Congress.
The House committees also disclosed they had learned that Kait and other senior officials manipulated a memo, authored on 4 February 2022, that originally criticized the DHS for refusing to cooperate with its investigation and emphasized the need to review certain texts.
By the time that Kait and other senior officials had finished with the memo, the House committee said, mentions about the erased texts from the Secret Service or the DHS secretary had been removed and instead praised the agency for its response to the internal review.
The memo went from being a stinging rebuke that said “most DHS components have not provided the requested information” to saying “we received a timely and consolidated response from each component”, the House committees said.
Appearing to acknowledge the removal of the damaging findings in the memo, Kait asked colleagues around that time: “Am I setting us up for anything by adding what I did? I spoke with Kristen late last week and she was ok with acknowledging the DAL’s efforts.”
The disclosures alarmed the House oversight committee chair, Carolyn Maloney, and House homeland security committee chair, Bennie Thompson – who also chairs the House January 6 committee – enough to demand that top DHS officials appear for transcribed interviews.
In the four-page letter, the two House committees again called for the recusal of the DHS inspector general, Joseph Cuffari, and demanded communications inside the inspector general’s office about not collecting or recovering texts from the agency relating to the Capitol attack.
The deepening investigation has also revealed that Cuffari’s office was notified in February 2022 that texts from Wolf and Cuccinelli could not be accessed and that Cuccinelli had been using a personal phone – yet never told Congress.
Kait has a history of removing damaging findings from reports. In a DHS report on domestic violence and sexual misconduct, Kait directed staff to remove a section that found officers accused of sexual offenses were charged with generic offenses, the New York Times reported.
The controversy over the missing texts erupted several weeks ago after Cuffari first informed Congress in mid-July that his department could not turn over Secret Service texts from the time of the Capitol attack because they had been erased as part of a device replacement program.
That prompted Thompson, through the House January 6 select committee, to issue a subpoena to the Secret Service for texts from the day before and the day of the Capitol attack as it examined how the agency intended to move Donald Trump and Mike Pence on January 6.
But the Secret Service provided only one text exchange to the select committee, the Guardian has previously reported, telling investigators that every other message had been wiped after personnel failed to back up data from the devices when they were swapped out.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Tue Aug 09, 2022 1:37 am
F.B.I. Searches Trump’s Home in Florida: The former president said that Mar-a-Lago had been “raided” and that authorities had even broken into a safe.
by Maggie Haberman, Ben Protess and Adam Goldman
New York Times
8/8/22
NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT
The search appears to be focused on materials Trump took from the White House.
Former President Donald J. Trump said on Monday that the F.B.I. had searched his Palm Beach, Fla., home and had broken open a safe — an account signaling a dramatic escalation in the various investigations into the final stages of his presidency.
The search, according to multiple people familiar with the investigation, appeared to be focused on material that Mr. Trump had brought with him to Mar-a-Lago, his private club and residence, when he left the White House. Those boxes contained many pages of classified documents, according to a person familiar with their contents.
Mr. Trump delayed returning 15 boxes of material requested by officials with the National Archives for many months, only doing so when there became a threat of action to retrieve them.
Former President Donald J. Trump said F.B.I. agents had searched Mar-a-Lago, his private club and residence in Florida, and broken open a safe. Credit...MediaPunch, via Associated Press
The F.B.I. would have needed to convince a judge that it had probable cause that a crime had been committed to get a search warrant, and proceeding with a search on a former president’s home would almost surely have required sign-off from top officials at the bureau and the Justice Department.
A spokesperson for the F.B.I. declined to comment, and Justice Department officials did not initially respond to requests for comment.
Mr. Trump was in the New York area at the time of the search.
Mr. Trump, who campaigned for president in 2016 criticizing Hillary Clinton’s practice of maintaining a private email server for government-related messages while she was secretary of state, was known throughout his term to rip up official material that was intended to be held for presidential archives. One person familiar with his habits said that included classified material that was shredded in his bedroom and elsewhere.
“After working and cooperating with the relevant Government agencies, this unannounced raid on my home was not necessary or appropriate,” Mr. Trump said, maintaining it was an effort to stop him from running for president in 2024. “Such an assault could only take place in broken, Third-World Countries.”
“They even broke into my safe!” he wrote.
Mr. Trump did not share any details about what the F.B.I. agents said they were searching for.
The search took place on Monday morning, a person familiar with it said, although Mr. Trump claimed agents were still there many hours later.
The search was at least in part for whether any records remained at the club, the person familiar with the search said.
Aides to President Biden said they were stunned by the development and learned of it from Twitter.
The search came as the Justice Department has also been stepping up questioning of former Trump aides who had been witnesses to discussions and planning in the White House of Mr. Trump’s efforts to remain in office after his loss in the 2020 election.
Mr. Trump has been the focus of questions asked by federal prosecutors in connection with a scheme to send “fake” electors to Congress for the certification of the Electoral College.
The current F.B.I. director, Christopher A. Wray, was appointed by Mr. Trump.
The law governing the preservation of White House materials, the Presidential Records Act, lacks teeth, but criminal statutes can come into play, especially in the case of classified material.
Criminal codes, which carry jail time, target anyone who “willfully injures or commits any depredation against any property of the United States” and anyone who “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates or destroys” government documents.
Samuel R. Berger, a national security adviser to President Bill Clinton, pleaded guilty in 2015 to a misdemeanor charge for removing classified material from a government archive. In 2007, Donald Keyser, an Asia expert and former senior State Department official, was sentenced to prison after he confessed to keeping more than 3,000 sensitive documents — ranging from the classified to the top secret — in his basement.
In 1999, the C.I.A. announced it had suspended the security clearance of its former director, John M. Deutch, after concluding that he had improperly handled national secrets on a desktop computer at his home.
In January of this year, the archives retrieved 15 boxes that Mr. Trump took with him to Mar-a-Lago from the White House residence when his term ended. The boxes included material subject to the Presidential Records Act, which requires that all documents and records pertaining to official business be turned over to the archives.
The items in the boxes included documents, mementos, gifts and letters. The archives did not describe the classified material it found other than to say that it was “classified national security information.”
Because the National Archives “identified classified information in the boxes,” the agency “has been in communication with the Department of Justice,” David S. Ferriero, the national archivist, told Congress at the time.
Federal prosecutors subsequently began a grand jury investigation, according to two people briefed on the matter. Prosecutors issued a subpoena earlier this year to the archives to obtain the boxes of classified documents, according to the two people familiar with the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation.
The authorities also made interview requests to people who worked in the White House in the final days of Mr. Trump’s presidency, according to one of the people.
Mr. Trump made clear in his statement that he sees potential political value in the search, something some of his advisers echoed, depending on what any investigation produces.
Jonathan Martin, Luke Broadwater and Glenn Thrush contributed reporting.
by Maggie Haberman, Ben Protess and Adam Goldman
New York Times
8/8/22
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.
The search appears to be focused on materials Trump took from the White House.
Former President Donald J. Trump said on Monday that the F.B.I. had searched his Palm Beach, Fla., home and had broken open a safe — an account signaling a dramatic escalation in the various investigations into the final stages of his presidency.
The search, according to multiple people familiar with the investigation, appeared to be focused on material that Mr. Trump had brought with him to Mar-a-Lago, his private club and residence, when he left the White House. Those boxes contained many pages of classified documents, according to a person familiar with their contents.
Mr. Trump delayed returning 15 boxes of material requested by officials with the National Archives for many months, only doing so when there became a threat of action to retrieve them.
Former President Donald J. Trump said F.B.I. agents had searched Mar-a-Lago, his private club and residence in Florida, and broken open a safe. Credit...MediaPunch, via Associated Press
The F.B.I. would have needed to convince a judge that it had probable cause that a crime had been committed to get a search warrant, and proceeding with a search on a former president’s home would almost surely have required sign-off from top officials at the bureau and the Justice Department.
A spokesperson for the F.B.I. declined to comment, and Justice Department officials did not initially respond to requests for comment.
Mr. Trump was in the New York area at the time of the search.
Mr. Trump, who campaigned for president in 2016 criticizing Hillary Clinton’s practice of maintaining a private email server for government-related messages while she was secretary of state, was known throughout his term to rip up official material that was intended to be held for presidential archives. One person familiar with his habits said that included classified material that was shredded in his bedroom and elsewhere.
“After working and cooperating with the relevant Government agencies, this unannounced raid on my home was not necessary or appropriate,” Mr. Trump said, maintaining it was an effort to stop him from running for president in 2024. “Such an assault could only take place in broken, Third-World Countries.”
“They even broke into my safe!” he wrote.
Mr. Trump did not share any details about what the F.B.I. agents said they were searching for.
The search took place on Monday morning, a person familiar with it said, although Mr. Trump claimed agents were still there many hours later.
The search was at least in part for whether any records remained at the club, the person familiar with the search said.
Aides to President Biden said they were stunned by the development and learned of it from Twitter.
The search came as the Justice Department has also been stepping up questioning of former Trump aides who had been witnesses to discussions and planning in the White House of Mr. Trump’s efforts to remain in office after his loss in the 2020 election.
Mr. Trump has been the focus of questions asked by federal prosecutors in connection with a scheme to send “fake” electors to Congress for the certification of the Electoral College.
The current F.B.I. director, Christopher A. Wray, was appointed by Mr. Trump.
The law governing the preservation of White House materials, the Presidential Records Act, lacks teeth, but criminal statutes can come into play, especially in the case of classified material.
Criminal codes, which carry jail time, target anyone who “willfully injures or commits any depredation against any property of the United States” and anyone who “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates or destroys” government documents.
Samuel R. Berger, a national security adviser to President Bill Clinton, pleaded guilty in 2015 to a misdemeanor charge for removing classified material from a government archive. In 2007, Donald Keyser, an Asia expert and former senior State Department official, was sentenced to prison after he confessed to keeping more than 3,000 sensitive documents — ranging from the classified to the top secret — in his basement.
In 1999, the C.I.A. announced it had suspended the security clearance of its former director, John M. Deutch, after concluding that he had improperly handled national secrets on a desktop computer at his home.
In January of this year, the archives retrieved 15 boxes that Mr. Trump took with him to Mar-a-Lago from the White House residence when his term ended. The boxes included material subject to the Presidential Records Act, which requires that all documents and records pertaining to official business be turned over to the archives.
The items in the boxes included documents, mementos, gifts and letters. The archives did not describe the classified material it found other than to say that it was “classified national security information.”
Because the National Archives “identified classified information in the boxes,” the agency “has been in communication with the Department of Justice,” David S. Ferriero, the national archivist, told Congress at the time.
Federal prosecutors subsequently began a grand jury investigation, according to two people briefed on the matter. Prosecutors issued a subpoena earlier this year to the archives to obtain the boxes of classified documents, according to the two people familiar with the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation.
The authorities also made interview requests to people who worked in the White House in the final days of Mr. Trump’s presidency, according to one of the people.
Mr. Trump made clear in his statement that he sees potential political value in the search, something some of his advisers echoed, depending on what any investigation produces.
Jonathan Martin, Luke Broadwater and Glenn Thrush contributed reporting.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Wed Aug 10, 2022 12:28 am
Part 1 of 2
Inside the War Between Trump and His Generals: How Mark Milley and others in the Pentagon handled the national-security threat posed by their own Commander-in-Chief.
by Susan B. Glasser and Peter Baker
The New Yorker
August 15, 2022 Issue
August 8, 2022
[x]
As the President’s behavior grew increasingly erratic, General Mark Milley told his staff, “I will fight from the inside.” Photo illustration by Klawe Rzeczy; Source photographs from Getty; National Archives / Newsmakers
In the summer of 2017, after just half a year in the White House, Donald Trump flew to Paris for Bastille Day celebrations thrown by Emmanuel Macron, the new French President. Macron staged a spectacular martial display to commemorate the hundredth anniversary of the American entrance into the First World War. Vintage tanks rolled down the Champs-Élysées as fighter jets roared overhead. The event seemed to be calculated to appeal to Trump—his sense of showmanship and grandiosity—and he was visibly delighted. The French general in charge of the parade turned to one of his American counterparts and said, “You are going to be doing this next year.”
Sure enough, Trump returned to Washington determined to have his generals throw him the biggest, grandest military parade ever for the Fourth of July. The generals, to his bewilderment, reacted with disgust. “I’d rather swallow acid,” his Defense Secretary, James Mattis, said. Struggling to dissuade Trump, officials pointed out that the parade would cost millions of dollars and tear up the streets of the capital.
But the gulf between Trump and the generals was not really about money or practicalities, just as their endless policy battles were not only about clashing views on whether to withdraw from Afghanistan or how to combat the nuclear threat posed by North Korea and Iran. The divide was also a matter of values, of how they viewed the United States itself. That was never clearer than when Trump told his new chief of staff, John Kelly—like Mattis, a retired Marine Corps general—about his vision for Independence Day. “Look, I don’t want any wounded guys in the parade,” Trump said. “This doesn’t look good for me.” He explained with distaste that at the Bastille Day parade there had been several formations of injured veterans, including wheelchair-bound soldiers who had lost limbs in battle.
Kelly could not believe what he was hearing. “Those are the heroes,” he told Trump. “In our society, there’s only one group of people who are more heroic than they are—and they are buried over in Arlington.” Kelly did not mention that his own son Robert, a lieutenant killed in action in Afghanistan, was among the dead interred there.
“I don’t want them,” Trump repeated. “It doesn’t look good for me.”
The subject came up again during an Oval Office briefing that included Trump, Kelly, and Paul Selva, an Air Force general and the vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Kelly joked in his deadpan way about the parade. “Well, you know, General Selva is going to be in charge of organizing the Fourth of July parade,” he told the President. Trump did not understand that Kelly was being sarcastic. “So, what do you think of the parade?” Trump asked Selva. Instead of telling Trump what he wanted to hear, Selva was forthright.
“I didn’t grow up in the United States, I actually grew up in Portugal,” Selva said. “Portugal was a dictatorship—and parades were about showing the people who had the guns. And in this country, we don’t do that.” He added, “It’s not who we are.”
Even after this impassioned speech, Trump still did not get it. “So, you don’t like the idea?” he said, incredulous.
“No,” Selva said. “It’s what dictators do.”
The four years of the Trump Presidency were characterized by a fantastical degree of instability: fits of rage, late-night Twitter storms, abrupt dismissals. At first, Trump, who had dodged the draft by claiming to have bone spurs, seemed enamored with being Commander-in-Chief and with the national-security officials he’d either appointed or inherited. But Trump’s love affair with “my generals” was brief, and in a statement for this article the former President confirmed how much he had soured on them over time. “These were very untalented people and once I realized it, I did not rely on them, I relied on the real generals and admirals within the system,” he said.
It turned out that the generals had rules, standards, and expertise, not blind loyalty. The President’s loud complaint to John Kelly one day was typical: “You fucking generals, why can’t you be like the German generals?”
“Which generals?” Kelly asked.
“The German generals in World War II,” Trump responded.
“You do know that they tried to kill Hitler three times and almost pulled it off?” Kelly said.
But, of course, Trump did not know that. “No, no, no, they were totally loyal to him,” the President replied. In his version of history, the generals of the Third Reich had been completely subservient to Hitler; this was the model he wanted for his military. Kelly told Trump that there were no such American generals, but the President was determined to test the proposition.
By late 2018, Trump wanted his own handpicked chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He had tired of Joseph Dunford, a Marine general who had been appointed chairman by Barack Obama, and who worked closely with Mattis as they resisted some of Trump’s more outlandish ideas. Never mind that Dunford still had most of a year to go in his term. For months, David Urban, a lobbyist who ran the winning 2016 Trump campaign in Pennsylvania, had been urging the President and his inner circle to replace Dunford with a more like-minded chairman, someone less aligned with Mattis, who had commanded both Dunford and Kelly in the Marines.
Mattis’s candidate to succeed Dunford was David Goldfein, an Air Force general and a former F-16 fighter pilot who had been shot down in the Balkans and successfully evaded capture. No one could remember a President selecting a chairman over the objections of his Defense Secretary, but word came back to the Pentagon that there was no way Trump would accept just one recommendation. Two obvious contenders from the Army, however, declined to be considered: General Curtis Scaparrotti, the nato Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, told fellow-officers that there was “no gas left in my tank” to deal with being Trump’s chairman. General Joseph Votel, the Central Command chief, also begged off, telling a colleague he was not a good fit to work so closely with Mattis.
Urban, who had attended West Point with Trump’s Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, and remained an Army man at heart, backed Mark Milley, the chief of staff of the Army. Milley, who was then sixty, was the son of a Navy corpsman who had served with the 4th Marine Division, in Iwo Jima. He grew up outside Boston and played hockey at Princeton. As an Army officer, Milley commanded troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, led the 10th Mountain Division, and oversaw the Army Forces Command. A student of history who often carried a pile of the latest books on the Second World War with him, Milley was decidedly not a member of the close-knit Marine fraternity that had dominated national-security policy for Trump’s first two years. Urban told the President that he would connect better with Milley, who was loquacious and blunt to the point of being rude, and who had the Ivy League pedigree that always impressed Trump.
Milley had already demonstrated those qualities in meetings with Trump as the Army chief of staff. “Milley would go right at why it’s important for the President to know this about the Army and why the Army is the service that wins all the nation’s wars. He had all those sort of elevator-speech punch lines,” a senior defense official recalled. “He would have that big bellowing voice and be right in his face with all the one-liners, and then he would take a breath and he would say, ‘Mr. President, our Army is here to serve you. Because you’re the Commander-in-Chief.’ It was a very different approach, and Trump liked that.” And, like Trump, Milley was not a subscriber to the legend of Mad Dog Mattis, whom he considered a “complete control freak.”
Mattis, for his part, seemed to believe that Milley was inappropriately campaigning for the job, and Milley recalled to others that Mattis confronted him at a reception that fall, saying, “Hey, you shouldn’t run for office. You shouldn’t run to be the chairman.” Milley later told people that he had replied sharply to Mattis, “I’m not lobbying for any fucking thing. I don’t do that.” Milley eventually raised the issue with Dunford. “Hey, Mattis has got this in his head,” Milley told him. “I’m telling you it ain’t me.” Milley even claimed that he had begged Urban to cease promoting his candidacy.
In November, 2018, the day before Milley was scheduled for an interview with Trump, he and Mattis had another barbed encounter at the Pentagon. In Milley’s recounting of the episode later to others, Mattis urged him to tell Trump that he wanted to be the next Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, rather than the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Milley said he would not do that but would instead wait to hear what the President wanted him to do. This would end whatever relationship the two generals had.
When Milley arrived at the White House the next day, he was received by Kelly, who seemed to him unusually distraught. Before they headed into the Oval Office to meet with Trump, Milley asked Kelly what he thought.
“You should go to Europe and just get the fuck out of D.C.,” Kelly said. The White House was a cesspool: “Just get as far away as you can.”
In the Oval Office, Trump said right from the start that he was considering Milley for chairman of the Joint Chiefs. When Trump offered him the job, Milley replied, “Mr. President, I’ll do whatever you ask me to do.”
For the next hour, they talked about the state of the world. Immediately, there were points of profound disagreement. On Afghanistan, Milley said he believed that a complete withdrawal of American troops, as Trump wanted, would cause a serious new set of problems. And Milley had already spoken out publicly against the banning of transgender troops, which Trump was insisting on.
“Mattis tells me you are weak on transgender,” Trump said.
“No, I am not weak on transgender,” Milley replied. “I just don’t care who sleeps with who.”
There were other differences as well, but in the end Milley assured him, “Mr. President, you’re going to be making the decisions. All I can guarantee from me is I’m going to give you an honest answer, and I’m not going to talk about it on the front page of the Washington Post. I’ll give you an honest answer on everything I can. And you’re going to make the decisions, and as long as they’re legal I’ll support it.”
As long as they’re legal. It was not clear how much that caveat even registered with Trump. The decision to name Milley was a rare chance, as Trump saw it, to get back at Mattis. Trump would confirm this years later, after falling out with both men, saying that he had picked Milley only because Mattis “could not stand him, had no respect for him, and would not recommend him.”
Late on the evening of December 7th, Trump announced that he would reveal a big personnel decision having to do with the Joint Chiefs the next day, in Philadelphia, at the hundred-and-nineteenth annual Army-Navy football game. This was all the notice Dunford had that he was about to be publicly humiliated. The next morning, Dunford was standing with Milley at the game waiting for the President to arrive when Urban, the lobbyist, showed up. Urban hugged Milley. “We did it!” Urban said. “We did it!”
But Milley’s appointment was not even the day’s biggest news. As Trump walked to his helicopter to fly to the game, he dropped another surprise. “John Kelly will be leaving toward the end of the year,” he told reporters. Kelly had lasted seventeen months in what he called “the worst fucking job in the world.”
For Trump, the decision was a turning point. Instead of installing another strong-willed White House chief of staff who might have told him no, the President gravitated toward one who would basically go along with whatever he wanted. A week later, Kelly made an unsuccessful last-ditch effort to persuade Trump not to replace him with Mick Mulvaney, a former congressman from South Carolina who was serving as Trump’s budget director. “You don’t want to hire someone who’s going to be a yes-man,” Kelly told the President. “I don’t give a shit anymore,” Trump replied. “I want a yes-man!”
A little more than a week after that, Mattis was out, too, having quit in protest over Trump’s order that the U.S. abruptly withdraw its forces from Syria right after Mattis had met with American allies fighting alongside the U.S. It was the first time in nearly four decades that a major Cabinet secretary had resigned over a national-security dispute with the President.
The so-called “axis of adults” was over. None of them had done nearly as much to restrain Trump as the President’s critics thought they should have. But all of them—Kelly, Mattis, Dunford, plus H. R. McMaster, the national-security adviser, and Rex Tillerson, Trump’s first Secretary of State—had served as guardrails in one way or another. Trump hoped to replace them with more malleable figures. As Mattis would put it, Trump was so out of his depth that he had decided to drain the pool.
On January 2, 2019, Kelly sent a farewell e-mail to the White House staff. He said that these were the people he would miss: “The selfless ones, who work for the American people so hard and never lowered themselves to wrestle in the mud with the pigs. The ones who stayed above the drama, put personal ambition and politics aside, and simply worked for our great country. The ones who were ethical, moral and always told their boss what he or she NEEDED to hear, as opposed to what they might have wanted to hear.”
That same morning, Mulvaney showed up at the White House for his first official day as acting chief of staff. He called an all-hands meeting and made an announcement: O.K., we’re going to do things differently. John Kelly’s gone, and we’re going to let the President be the President.
In the fall of 2019, nearly a year after Trump named him the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Milley finally took over the position from Dunford. Two weeks into the job, Milley sat at Trump’s side in a meeting at the White House with congressional leaders to discuss a brewing crisis in the Middle East. Trump had again ordered the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria, imperilling America’s Kurdish allies and effectively handing control of the territory over to the Syrian government and Russian military forces. The House—amid impeachment proceedings against the President for holding up nearly four hundred million dollars in security assistance to Ukraine as leverage to demand an investigation of his Democratic opponent—passed a nonbinding resolution rebuking Trump for the pullout. Even two-thirds of the House Republicans voted for it.
At the meeting, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, pointed out the vote against the President. “Congratulations,” Trump snapped sarcastically. He grew even angrier when the Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer, read out a warning from Mattis that leaving Syria could result in the resurgence of the Islamic State. In response, Trump derided his former Defense Secretary as “the world’s most overrated general. You know why I fired him? I fired him because he wasn’t tough enough.”
Eventually, Pelosi, in her frustration, stood and pointed at the President. “All roads with you lead to Putin,” she said. “You gave Russia Ukraine and Syria.”
“You’re just a politician, a third-rate politician!” Trump shot back.
Finally, Steny Hoyer, the House Majority Leader and Pelosi’s No. 2, had had enough. “This is not useful,” he said, and stood up to leave with the Speaker.
“We’ll see you at the polls,” Trump shouted as they walked out.
When she exited the White House, Pelosi told reporters that she left because Trump was having a “meltdown.” A few hours later, Trump tweeted a White House photograph of Pelosi standing over him, apparently thinking it would prove that she was the one having a meltdown. Instead, the image went viral as an example of Pelosi confronting Trump.
Milley could also be seen in the photograph, his hands clenched together, his head bowed low, looking as though he wanted to sink into the floor. To Pelosi, this was a sign of inexplicable weakness, and she would later say that she never understood why Milley had not been willing to stand up to Trump at that meeting. After all, she would point out, he was the nonpartisan leader of the military, not one of Trump’s toadies. “Milley, you would have thought, would have had more independence,” she told us, “but he just had his head down.”
In fact, Milley was already quite wary of Trump. That night, he called Representative Adam Smith, a Washington Democrat and the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, who had also been present. “Is that the way these things normally go?” Milley asked. As Smith later put it, “That was the moment when Milley realized that the boss might have a screw or two loose.” There had been no honeymoon. “From pretty much his first day on the job as chairman of the Joint Chiefs,” Smith said, “he was very much aware of the fact that there was a challenge here that was not your normal challenge with a Commander-in-Chief.”
Early on the evening of June 1, 2020, Milley failed what he came to realize was the biggest test of his career: a short walk from the White House across Lafayette Square, minutes after it had been violently cleared of Black Lives Matter protesters. Dressed in combat fatigues, Milley marched behind Trump with a phalanx of the President’s advisers in a photo op, the most infamous of the Trump Presidency, that was meant to project a forceful response to the protests that had raged outside the White House and across the country since the killing, the week before, of George Floyd. Most of the demonstrations had been peaceful, but there were also eruptions of looting, street violence, and arson, including a small fire in St. John’s Church, across from the White House.
In the morning before the Lafayette Square photo op, Trump had clashed with Milley, Attorney General William Barr, and the Defense Secretary, Mark Esper, over his demands for a militarized show of force. “We look weak,” Trump told them. The President wanted to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 and use active-duty military to quell the protests. He wanted ten thousand troops in the streets and the 82nd Airborne called up. He demanded that Milley take personal charge. When Milley and the others resisted and said that the National Guard would be sufficient, Trump shouted, “You are all losers! You are all fucking losers!” Turning to Milley, Trump said, “Can’t you just shoot them? Just shoot them in the legs or something?”
Eventually, Trump was persuaded not to send in the military against American citizens. Barr, as the civilian head of law enforcement, was given the lead role in the protest response, and the National Guard was deployed to assist police. Hours later, Milley, Esper, and other officials were abruptly summoned back to the White House and sent marching across Lafayette Square. As they walked, with the scent of tear gas still in the air, Milley realized that he should not be there and made his exit, quietly peeling off to his waiting black Chevy Suburban. But the damage was done. No one would care or even remember that he was not present when Trump held up a Bible in front of the damaged church; people had already seen him striding with the President on live television in his battle dress, an image that seemed to signal that the United States under Trump was, finally, a nation at war with itself. Milley knew this was a misjudgment that would haunt him forever, a “road-to-Damascus moment,” as he would later put it. What would he do about it?
In the days after the Lafayette Square incident, Milley sat in his office at the Pentagon, writing and rewriting drafts of a letter of resignation. There were short versions of the letter; there were long versions. His preferred version was the one that read in its entirety:
The letter was dated June 8th, a full week after Lafayette Square, but Milley still was not sure if he should give it to Trump. He was sending up flares, seeking advice from a wide circle. He reached out to Dunford, and to mentors such as the retired Army general James Dubik, an expert on military ethics. He called political contacts as well, including members of Congress and former officials from the Bush and Obama Administrations. Most told him what Robert Gates, a former Secretary of Defense and C.I.A. chief, did: “Make them fire you. Don’t resign.”
“My sense is Mark had a pretty accurate measure of the man pretty quickly,” Gates recalled later. “He would tell me over time, well before June 1st, some of the absolutely crazy notions that were put forward in the Oval Office, crazy ideas from the President, things about using or not using military force, the immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan, pulling out of South Korea. It just went on and on.”
Milley was not the only senior official to seek Gates’s counsel. Several members of Trump’s national-security team had made the pilgrimage out to his home in Washington State during the previous two years. Gates would pour them a drink, grill them some salmon, and help them wrestle with the latest Trump conundrum. “The problem with resignation is you can only fire that gun once,” he told them. All the conversations were variations on a theme: “ ‘How do I walk us back from the ledge?’ ‘How do I keep this from happening, because it would be a terrible thing for the country?’ ”
After Lafayette Square, Gates told both Milley and Esper that, given Trump’s increasingly erratic and dangerous behavior, they needed to stay in the Pentagon as long as they could. “If you resign, it’s a one-day story,” Gates told them. “If you’re fired, it makes it clear you were standing up for the right thing.” Gates advised Milley that he had another important card and urged him to play it: “Keep the chiefs on board with you and make it clear to the White House that if you go they all go, so that the White House knows this isn’t just about firing Mark Milley. This is about the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff quitting in response.”
Publicly, Lafayette Square looked like a debacle for Milley. Several retired generals had condemned his participation, pointing out that the leader of a racially diverse military, with more than two hundred thousand active-duty Black troops, could not be seen opposing a movement for racial justice. Even Mattis, who had refrained from openly criticizing Trump, issued a statement about the “bizarre photo op.” The Washington Post reported that Mattis had been motivated to do so by his anger at the image of Milley parading through the square in his fatigues.
Whatever their personal differences, Mattis and Milley both knew that there was a tragic inevitability to the moment. Throughout his Presidency, Trump had sought to redefine the role of the military in American public life. In his 2016 campaign, he had spoken out in support of the use of torture and other practices that the military considered war crimes. Just before the 2018 midterms, he ordered thousands of troops to the southern border to combat a fake “invasion” by a caravan of migrants. In 2019, in a move that undermined military justice and the chain of command, he gave clemency to a Navy seal found guilty of posing with the dead body of a captive in Iraq.
Many considered Trump’s 2018 decision to use the military in his preëlection border stunt to be “the predicate—or the harbinger—of 2020,” in the words of Peter Feaver, a Duke University expert on civil-military relations, who taught the subject to generals at command school. When Milley, who had been among Feaver’s students, called for advice after Lafayette Square, Feaver agreed that Milley should apologize but encouraged him not to resign. “It would have been a mistake,” Feaver said. “We have no tradition of resignation in protest amongst the military.”
Milley decided to apologize in a commencement address at the National Defense University that he was scheduled to deliver the week after the photo op. Feaver’s counsel was to own up to the error and make it clear that the mistake was his and not Trump’s. Presidents, after all, “are allowed to do political stunts,” Feaver said. “That’s part of being President.”
Inside the War Between Trump and His Generals: How Mark Milley and others in the Pentagon handled the national-security threat posed by their own Commander-in-Chief.
by Susan B. Glasser and Peter Baker
The New Yorker
August 15, 2022 Issue
August 8, 2022
[x]
As the President’s behavior grew increasingly erratic, General Mark Milley told his staff, “I will fight from the inside.” Photo illustration by Klawe Rzeczy; Source photographs from Getty; National Archives / Newsmakers
In the summer of 2017, after just half a year in the White House, Donald Trump flew to Paris for Bastille Day celebrations thrown by Emmanuel Macron, the new French President. Macron staged a spectacular martial display to commemorate the hundredth anniversary of the American entrance into the First World War. Vintage tanks rolled down the Champs-Élysées as fighter jets roared overhead. The event seemed to be calculated to appeal to Trump—his sense of showmanship and grandiosity—and he was visibly delighted. The French general in charge of the parade turned to one of his American counterparts and said, “You are going to be doing this next year.”
Sure enough, Trump returned to Washington determined to have his generals throw him the biggest, grandest military parade ever for the Fourth of July. The generals, to his bewilderment, reacted with disgust. “I’d rather swallow acid,” his Defense Secretary, James Mattis, said. Struggling to dissuade Trump, officials pointed out that the parade would cost millions of dollars and tear up the streets of the capital.
But the gulf between Trump and the generals was not really about money or practicalities, just as their endless policy battles were not only about clashing views on whether to withdraw from Afghanistan or how to combat the nuclear threat posed by North Korea and Iran. The divide was also a matter of values, of how they viewed the United States itself. That was never clearer than when Trump told his new chief of staff, John Kelly—like Mattis, a retired Marine Corps general—about his vision for Independence Day. “Look, I don’t want any wounded guys in the parade,” Trump said. “This doesn’t look good for me.” He explained with distaste that at the Bastille Day parade there had been several formations of injured veterans, including wheelchair-bound soldiers who had lost limbs in battle.
Kelly could not believe what he was hearing. “Those are the heroes,” he told Trump. “In our society, there’s only one group of people who are more heroic than they are—and they are buried over in Arlington.” Kelly did not mention that his own son Robert, a lieutenant killed in action in Afghanistan, was among the dead interred there.
“I don’t want them,” Trump repeated. “It doesn’t look good for me.”
The subject came up again during an Oval Office briefing that included Trump, Kelly, and Paul Selva, an Air Force general and the vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Kelly joked in his deadpan way about the parade. “Well, you know, General Selva is going to be in charge of organizing the Fourth of July parade,” he told the President. Trump did not understand that Kelly was being sarcastic. “So, what do you think of the parade?” Trump asked Selva. Instead of telling Trump what he wanted to hear, Selva was forthright.
“I didn’t grow up in the United States, I actually grew up in Portugal,” Selva said. “Portugal was a dictatorship—and parades were about showing the people who had the guns. And in this country, we don’t do that.” He added, “It’s not who we are.”
Even after this impassioned speech, Trump still did not get it. “So, you don’t like the idea?” he said, incredulous.
“No,” Selva said. “It’s what dictators do.”
The four years of the Trump Presidency were characterized by a fantastical degree of instability: fits of rage, late-night Twitter storms, abrupt dismissals. At first, Trump, who had dodged the draft by claiming to have bone spurs, seemed enamored with being Commander-in-Chief and with the national-security officials he’d either appointed or inherited. But Trump’s love affair with “my generals” was brief, and in a statement for this article the former President confirmed how much he had soured on them over time. “These were very untalented people and once I realized it, I did not rely on them, I relied on the real generals and admirals within the system,” he said.
It turned out that the generals had rules, standards, and expertise, not blind loyalty. The President’s loud complaint to John Kelly one day was typical: “You fucking generals, why can’t you be like the German generals?”
“Which generals?” Kelly asked.
“The German generals in World War II,” Trump responded.
“You do know that they tried to kill Hitler three times and almost pulled it off?” Kelly said.
But, of course, Trump did not know that. “No, no, no, they were totally loyal to him,” the President replied. In his version of history, the generals of the Third Reich had been completely subservient to Hitler; this was the model he wanted for his military. Kelly told Trump that there were no such American generals, but the President was determined to test the proposition.
By late 2018, Trump wanted his own handpicked chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He had tired of Joseph Dunford, a Marine general who had been appointed chairman by Barack Obama, and who worked closely with Mattis as they resisted some of Trump’s more outlandish ideas. Never mind that Dunford still had most of a year to go in his term. For months, David Urban, a lobbyist who ran the winning 2016 Trump campaign in Pennsylvania, had been urging the President and his inner circle to replace Dunford with a more like-minded chairman, someone less aligned with Mattis, who had commanded both Dunford and Kelly in the Marines.
Mattis’s candidate to succeed Dunford was David Goldfein, an Air Force general and a former F-16 fighter pilot who had been shot down in the Balkans and successfully evaded capture. No one could remember a President selecting a chairman over the objections of his Defense Secretary, but word came back to the Pentagon that there was no way Trump would accept just one recommendation. Two obvious contenders from the Army, however, declined to be considered: General Curtis Scaparrotti, the nato Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, told fellow-officers that there was “no gas left in my tank” to deal with being Trump’s chairman. General Joseph Votel, the Central Command chief, also begged off, telling a colleague he was not a good fit to work so closely with Mattis.
Urban, who had attended West Point with Trump’s Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, and remained an Army man at heart, backed Mark Milley, the chief of staff of the Army. Milley, who was then sixty, was the son of a Navy corpsman who had served with the 4th Marine Division, in Iwo Jima. He grew up outside Boston and played hockey at Princeton. As an Army officer, Milley commanded troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, led the 10th Mountain Division, and oversaw the Army Forces Command. A student of history who often carried a pile of the latest books on the Second World War with him, Milley was decidedly not a member of the close-knit Marine fraternity that had dominated national-security policy for Trump’s first two years. Urban told the President that he would connect better with Milley, who was loquacious and blunt to the point of being rude, and who had the Ivy League pedigree that always impressed Trump.
Milley had already demonstrated those qualities in meetings with Trump as the Army chief of staff. “Milley would go right at why it’s important for the President to know this about the Army and why the Army is the service that wins all the nation’s wars. He had all those sort of elevator-speech punch lines,” a senior defense official recalled. “He would have that big bellowing voice and be right in his face with all the one-liners, and then he would take a breath and he would say, ‘Mr. President, our Army is here to serve you. Because you’re the Commander-in-Chief.’ It was a very different approach, and Trump liked that.” And, like Trump, Milley was not a subscriber to the legend of Mad Dog Mattis, whom he considered a “complete control freak.”
Mattis, for his part, seemed to believe that Milley was inappropriately campaigning for the job, and Milley recalled to others that Mattis confronted him at a reception that fall, saying, “Hey, you shouldn’t run for office. You shouldn’t run to be the chairman.” Milley later told people that he had replied sharply to Mattis, “I’m not lobbying for any fucking thing. I don’t do that.” Milley eventually raised the issue with Dunford. “Hey, Mattis has got this in his head,” Milley told him. “I’m telling you it ain’t me.” Milley even claimed that he had begged Urban to cease promoting his candidacy.
In November, 2018, the day before Milley was scheduled for an interview with Trump, he and Mattis had another barbed encounter at the Pentagon. In Milley’s recounting of the episode later to others, Mattis urged him to tell Trump that he wanted to be the next Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, rather than the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Milley said he would not do that but would instead wait to hear what the President wanted him to do. This would end whatever relationship the two generals had.
When Milley arrived at the White House the next day, he was received by Kelly, who seemed to him unusually distraught. Before they headed into the Oval Office to meet with Trump, Milley asked Kelly what he thought.
“You should go to Europe and just get the fuck out of D.C.,” Kelly said. The White House was a cesspool: “Just get as far away as you can.”
In the Oval Office, Trump said right from the start that he was considering Milley for chairman of the Joint Chiefs. When Trump offered him the job, Milley replied, “Mr. President, I’ll do whatever you ask me to do.”
For the next hour, they talked about the state of the world. Immediately, there were points of profound disagreement. On Afghanistan, Milley said he believed that a complete withdrawal of American troops, as Trump wanted, would cause a serious new set of problems. And Milley had already spoken out publicly against the banning of transgender troops, which Trump was insisting on.
“Mattis tells me you are weak on transgender,” Trump said.
“No, I am not weak on transgender,” Milley replied. “I just don’t care who sleeps with who.”
There were other differences as well, but in the end Milley assured him, “Mr. President, you’re going to be making the decisions. All I can guarantee from me is I’m going to give you an honest answer, and I’m not going to talk about it on the front page of the Washington Post. I’ll give you an honest answer on everything I can. And you’re going to make the decisions, and as long as they’re legal I’ll support it.”
As long as they’re legal. It was not clear how much that caveat even registered with Trump. The decision to name Milley was a rare chance, as Trump saw it, to get back at Mattis. Trump would confirm this years later, after falling out with both men, saying that he had picked Milley only because Mattis “could not stand him, had no respect for him, and would not recommend him.”
Late on the evening of December 7th, Trump announced that he would reveal a big personnel decision having to do with the Joint Chiefs the next day, in Philadelphia, at the hundred-and-nineteenth annual Army-Navy football game. This was all the notice Dunford had that he was about to be publicly humiliated. The next morning, Dunford was standing with Milley at the game waiting for the President to arrive when Urban, the lobbyist, showed up. Urban hugged Milley. “We did it!” Urban said. “We did it!”
But Milley’s appointment was not even the day’s biggest news. As Trump walked to his helicopter to fly to the game, he dropped another surprise. “John Kelly will be leaving toward the end of the year,” he told reporters. Kelly had lasted seventeen months in what he called “the worst fucking job in the world.”
For Trump, the decision was a turning point. Instead of installing another strong-willed White House chief of staff who might have told him no, the President gravitated toward one who would basically go along with whatever he wanted. A week later, Kelly made an unsuccessful last-ditch effort to persuade Trump not to replace him with Mick Mulvaney, a former congressman from South Carolina who was serving as Trump’s budget director. “You don’t want to hire someone who’s going to be a yes-man,” Kelly told the President. “I don’t give a shit anymore,” Trump replied. “I want a yes-man!”
A little more than a week after that, Mattis was out, too, having quit in protest over Trump’s order that the U.S. abruptly withdraw its forces from Syria right after Mattis had met with American allies fighting alongside the U.S. It was the first time in nearly four decades that a major Cabinet secretary had resigned over a national-security dispute with the President.
The so-called “axis of adults” was over. None of them had done nearly as much to restrain Trump as the President’s critics thought they should have. But all of them—Kelly, Mattis, Dunford, plus H. R. McMaster, the national-security adviser, and Rex Tillerson, Trump’s first Secretary of State—had served as guardrails in one way or another. Trump hoped to replace them with more malleable figures. As Mattis would put it, Trump was so out of his depth that he had decided to drain the pool.
On January 2, 2019, Kelly sent a farewell e-mail to the White House staff. He said that these were the people he would miss: “The selfless ones, who work for the American people so hard and never lowered themselves to wrestle in the mud with the pigs. The ones who stayed above the drama, put personal ambition and politics aside, and simply worked for our great country. The ones who were ethical, moral and always told their boss what he or she NEEDED to hear, as opposed to what they might have wanted to hear.”
That same morning, Mulvaney showed up at the White House for his first official day as acting chief of staff. He called an all-hands meeting and made an announcement: O.K., we’re going to do things differently. John Kelly’s gone, and we’re going to let the President be the President.
In the fall of 2019, nearly a year after Trump named him the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Milley finally took over the position from Dunford. Two weeks into the job, Milley sat at Trump’s side in a meeting at the White House with congressional leaders to discuss a brewing crisis in the Middle East. Trump had again ordered the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria, imperilling America’s Kurdish allies and effectively handing control of the territory over to the Syrian government and Russian military forces. The House—amid impeachment proceedings against the President for holding up nearly four hundred million dollars in security assistance to Ukraine as leverage to demand an investigation of his Democratic opponent—passed a nonbinding resolution rebuking Trump for the pullout. Even two-thirds of the House Republicans voted for it.
At the meeting, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, pointed out the vote against the President. “Congratulations,” Trump snapped sarcastically. He grew even angrier when the Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer, read out a warning from Mattis that leaving Syria could result in the resurgence of the Islamic State. In response, Trump derided his former Defense Secretary as “the world’s most overrated general. You know why I fired him? I fired him because he wasn’t tough enough.”
Eventually, Pelosi, in her frustration, stood and pointed at the President. “All roads with you lead to Putin,” she said. “You gave Russia Ukraine and Syria.”
“You’re just a politician, a third-rate politician!” Trump shot back.
Finally, Steny Hoyer, the House Majority Leader and Pelosi’s No. 2, had had enough. “This is not useful,” he said, and stood up to leave with the Speaker.
“We’ll see you at the polls,” Trump shouted as they walked out.
When she exited the White House, Pelosi told reporters that she left because Trump was having a “meltdown.” A few hours later, Trump tweeted a White House photograph of Pelosi standing over him, apparently thinking it would prove that she was the one having a meltdown. Instead, the image went viral as an example of Pelosi confronting Trump.
Milley could also be seen in the photograph, his hands clenched together, his head bowed low, looking as though he wanted to sink into the floor. To Pelosi, this was a sign of inexplicable weakness, and she would later say that she never understood why Milley had not been willing to stand up to Trump at that meeting. After all, she would point out, he was the nonpartisan leader of the military, not one of Trump’s toadies. “Milley, you would have thought, would have had more independence,” she told us, “but he just had his head down.”
In fact, Milley was already quite wary of Trump. That night, he called Representative Adam Smith, a Washington Democrat and the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, who had also been present. “Is that the way these things normally go?” Milley asked. As Smith later put it, “That was the moment when Milley realized that the boss might have a screw or two loose.” There had been no honeymoon. “From pretty much his first day on the job as chairman of the Joint Chiefs,” Smith said, “he was very much aware of the fact that there was a challenge here that was not your normal challenge with a Commander-in-Chief.”
Early on the evening of June 1, 2020, Milley failed what he came to realize was the biggest test of his career: a short walk from the White House across Lafayette Square, minutes after it had been violently cleared of Black Lives Matter protesters. Dressed in combat fatigues, Milley marched behind Trump with a phalanx of the President’s advisers in a photo op, the most infamous of the Trump Presidency, that was meant to project a forceful response to the protests that had raged outside the White House and across the country since the killing, the week before, of George Floyd. Most of the demonstrations had been peaceful, but there were also eruptions of looting, street violence, and arson, including a small fire in St. John’s Church, across from the White House.
In the morning before the Lafayette Square photo op, Trump had clashed with Milley, Attorney General William Barr, and the Defense Secretary, Mark Esper, over his demands for a militarized show of force. “We look weak,” Trump told them. The President wanted to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 and use active-duty military to quell the protests. He wanted ten thousand troops in the streets and the 82nd Airborne called up. He demanded that Milley take personal charge. When Milley and the others resisted and said that the National Guard would be sufficient, Trump shouted, “You are all losers! You are all fucking losers!” Turning to Milley, Trump said, “Can’t you just shoot them? Just shoot them in the legs or something?”
Eventually, Trump was persuaded not to send in the military against American citizens. Barr, as the civilian head of law enforcement, was given the lead role in the protest response, and the National Guard was deployed to assist police. Hours later, Milley, Esper, and other officials were abruptly summoned back to the White House and sent marching across Lafayette Square. As they walked, with the scent of tear gas still in the air, Milley realized that he should not be there and made his exit, quietly peeling off to his waiting black Chevy Suburban. But the damage was done. No one would care or even remember that he was not present when Trump held up a Bible in front of the damaged church; people had already seen him striding with the President on live television in his battle dress, an image that seemed to signal that the United States under Trump was, finally, a nation at war with itself. Milley knew this was a misjudgment that would haunt him forever, a “road-to-Damascus moment,” as he would later put it. What would he do about it?
In the days after the Lafayette Square incident, Milley sat in his office at the Pentagon, writing and rewriting drafts of a letter of resignation. There were short versions of the letter; there were long versions. His preferred version was the one that read in its entirety:
I regret to inform you that I intend to resign as your Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Thank you for the honor of appointing me as senior ranking officer. The events of the last couple weeks have caused me to do deep soul-searching, and I can no longer faithfully support and execute your orders as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It is my belief that you were doing great and irreparable harm to my country. I believe that you have made a concerted effort over time to politicize the United States military. I thought that I could change that. I’ve come to the realization that I cannot, and I need to step aside and let someone else try to do that.
Second, you are using the military to create fear in the minds of the people—and we are trying to protect the American people. I cannot stand idly by and participate in that attack, verbally or otherwise, on the American people. The American people trust their military and they trust us to protect them against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and our military will do just that. We will not turn our back on the American people.
Third, I swore an oath to the Constitution of the United States and embodied within that Constitution is the idea that says that all men and women are created equal. All men and women are created equal, no matter who you are, whether you are white or Black, Asian, Indian, no matter the color of your skin, no matter if you’re gay, straight or something in between. It doesn’t matter if you’re Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jew, or choose not to believe. None of that matters. It doesn’t matter what country you came from, what your last name is—what matters is we’re Americans. We’re all Americans. That under these colors of red, white, and blue—the colors that my parents fought for in World War II—means something around the world. It’s obvious to me that you don’t think of those colors the same way I do. It’s obvious to me that you don’t hold those values dear and the cause that I serve.
And lastly it is my deeply held belief that you’re ruining the international order, and causing significant damage to our country overseas, that was fought for so hard by the Greatest Generation that they instituted in 1945. Between 1914 and 1945, 150 million people were slaughtered in the conduct of war. They were slaughtered because of tyrannies and dictatorships. That generation, like every generation, has fought against that, has fought against fascism, has fought against Nazism, has fought against extremism. It’s now obvious to me that you don’t understand that world order. You don’t understand what the war was all about. In fact, you subscribe to many of the principles that we fought against. And I cannot be a party to that. It is with deep regret that I hereby submit my letter of resignation.
The letter was dated June 8th, a full week after Lafayette Square, but Milley still was not sure if he should give it to Trump. He was sending up flares, seeking advice from a wide circle. He reached out to Dunford, and to mentors such as the retired Army general James Dubik, an expert on military ethics. He called political contacts as well, including members of Congress and former officials from the Bush and Obama Administrations. Most told him what Robert Gates, a former Secretary of Defense and C.I.A. chief, did: “Make them fire you. Don’t resign.”
“My sense is Mark had a pretty accurate measure of the man pretty quickly,” Gates recalled later. “He would tell me over time, well before June 1st, some of the absolutely crazy notions that were put forward in the Oval Office, crazy ideas from the President, things about using or not using military force, the immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan, pulling out of South Korea. It just went on and on.”
Milley was not the only senior official to seek Gates’s counsel. Several members of Trump’s national-security team had made the pilgrimage out to his home in Washington State during the previous two years. Gates would pour them a drink, grill them some salmon, and help them wrestle with the latest Trump conundrum. “The problem with resignation is you can only fire that gun once,” he told them. All the conversations were variations on a theme: “ ‘How do I walk us back from the ledge?’ ‘How do I keep this from happening, because it would be a terrible thing for the country?’ ”
After Lafayette Square, Gates told both Milley and Esper that, given Trump’s increasingly erratic and dangerous behavior, they needed to stay in the Pentagon as long as they could. “If you resign, it’s a one-day story,” Gates told them. “If you’re fired, it makes it clear you were standing up for the right thing.” Gates advised Milley that he had another important card and urged him to play it: “Keep the chiefs on board with you and make it clear to the White House that if you go they all go, so that the White House knows this isn’t just about firing Mark Milley. This is about the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff quitting in response.”
Publicly, Lafayette Square looked like a debacle for Milley. Several retired generals had condemned his participation, pointing out that the leader of a racially diverse military, with more than two hundred thousand active-duty Black troops, could not be seen opposing a movement for racial justice. Even Mattis, who had refrained from openly criticizing Trump, issued a statement about the “bizarre photo op.” The Washington Post reported that Mattis had been motivated to do so by his anger at the image of Milley parading through the square in his fatigues.
Whatever their personal differences, Mattis and Milley both knew that there was a tragic inevitability to the moment. Throughout his Presidency, Trump had sought to redefine the role of the military in American public life. In his 2016 campaign, he had spoken out in support of the use of torture and other practices that the military considered war crimes. Just before the 2018 midterms, he ordered thousands of troops to the southern border to combat a fake “invasion” by a caravan of migrants. In 2019, in a move that undermined military justice and the chain of command, he gave clemency to a Navy seal found guilty of posing with the dead body of a captive in Iraq.
Many considered Trump’s 2018 decision to use the military in his preëlection border stunt to be “the predicate—or the harbinger—of 2020,” in the words of Peter Feaver, a Duke University expert on civil-military relations, who taught the subject to generals at command school. When Milley, who had been among Feaver’s students, called for advice after Lafayette Square, Feaver agreed that Milley should apologize but encouraged him not to resign. “It would have been a mistake,” Feaver said. “We have no tradition of resignation in protest amongst the military.”
Milley decided to apologize in a commencement address at the National Defense University that he was scheduled to deliver the week after the photo op. Feaver’s counsel was to own up to the error and make it clear that the mistake was his and not Trump’s. Presidents, after all, “are allowed to do political stunts,” Feaver said. “That’s part of being President.”
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Return to United States Government Crime
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests