by Philip Bump
National correspondent
The Washington Post
February 10, 2021
Washington (CNN) Trump campaign officials, led by Rudy Giuliani, oversaw efforts in December 2020 to put forward illegitimate electors from seven states that Trump lost, according to three sources with direct knowledge of the scheme....
Trump hoped Republican legislators from the seven battleground states would replace Biden's authentic electors with the rogue GOP slate, and that Pence would seat those electors during the joint session of Congress on January 6....
The documents from Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin and Nevada explicitly stated, falsely, that the GOP electors were the rightful electors, representing 59 electoral votes.
-- Trump campaign officials, led by Rudy Giuliani, oversaw fake electors plot in 7 states
by Marshall Cohen, Zachary Cohen and Dan Merica, CNN, Updated 9:58 PM ET, Thu January 20, 2022
So here’s the scenario we propose:
1. VP Pence, presiding over the joint session (or Senate Pro Tempore Grassley, if Pence recuses himself), begins to open and count the ballots, starting with Alabama (without conceding that the procedure, specified by the Electoral Count Act, of going through the States alphabetically is required).
2. When he gets to Arizona, he announces that he has multiple slates of electors, and so is going to defer decision on that until finishing the other States. This would be the first break with the procedure set out in the Act.
3. At the end, he announces that because of the ongoing disputes in the 7 States, there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States. That means the total number of “electors appointed” – the language of the 12th Amendment -- is 454. This reading of the 12th Amendment has also been advanced by Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe (here). A “majority of the electors appointed” would therefore be 228. There are at this point 232 votes for Trump, 222 votes for Biden. Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected.
4. Howls, of course, from the Democrats, who now claim, contrary to Tribe’s prior position, that 270 is required. So Pence says, fine. Pursuant to the 12th Amendment, no candidate has achieved the necessary majority. That sends the matter to the House, where the “the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote . . . .” Republicans currently control 26 of the state delegations, the bare majority needed to win that vote. President Trump is re-elected there as well.
5. One last piece. Assuming the Electoral Count Act process is followed and, upon getting the objections to the Arizona slates, the two houses break into their separate chambers, we should not allow the Electoral Count Act constraint on debate to control. That would mean that a prior legislature was determining the rules of the present one — a constitutional no-no (as Tribe has forcefully argued). So someone – Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, etc. – should demand normal rules (which includes the filibuster). That creates a stalemate that would give the state legislatures more time to weigh in to formally support the alternate slate of electors, if they had not already done so.
6. The main thing here is that Pence should do this without asking for permission – either from a vote of the joint session or from the Court. Let the other side challenge his actions in court, where Tribe (who in 2001 conceded the President of the Senate might be in charge of counting the votes) and others who would press a lawsuit would have their past position -- that these are non-justiciable political questions – thrown back at them, to get the lawsuit dismissed. The fact is that the Constitution assigns this power to the Vice President as the ultimate arbiter. We should take all of our actions with that in mind.
-- Six-point-plan to unconstitutionally overture the election results ("Eastman Memo", by John Eastman
And then the footage later that night of some of these same protesters – they had a shot of them back at the Willard Hotel smoking cigars and having a good laugh. First of all, if you’re not familiar with the Willard Hotel, it’s maybe the most expensive hotel to stay in in D.C. It’s right across from the White House. Right across from Lafayette Park. It’s right there on the corner on 16th street where it dead ends at Lafayette Park, and there’s the White House right there. And they are sitting there in the – I don’t know if they have a cigar bar or a lounge, or whatever, and they’re smoking cigars, and having a great laugh! Wow!
-- Michael Moore: The Terrorist Attack Is NOT Over. Rumble with Michael Moore podcast, EP. 153, Premiered Jan 9, 2021
[Robert Costa, The Washington Post, National Political Reporter] Let's step back for a second. With all these partisan shots happening, coming across the bow, from the Republicans and others, what really matters with this Bannon subpoena is not only the power of Congress potentially being diminished if Bannon doesn't end up testifying under oath, but we're not going to have the full story. The Willard Hotel is mentioned by Representative Cheney in her remarks yesterday. January 5th is the day that Trump and his allies push democracy to the brink, coordinating from, just steps from the White House, in a hotel suite, Rudy Giuliani, Jason Miller, Steve Bannon, talking by phone with the President who is pressuring Pence over at the White House, talking to lawmakers, coordinating the message with Conservative allies, this was the day, the eve of the insurrection, to try to make it all happen, to put it in motion. And Bannon, in our reporting, is in that room. And what this Committee clearly wants to figure out under oath is what was being said specifically by Trump to this war room at the Willard, what was being done when they issued a statement in Pence's name late at night saying Pence agreed with the move to push the election to the House, even though Pence did not. There are so many looming questions about why what happens on the 6th gets put into motion. And if you want to answer that, you have to really know what exactly was said by the people at the Willard Hotel and to the President of the United States sitting across the street.
-- Claire McCaskill: Contempt Vote Will Test Whether Congress Has Any Power, by Nicolle Wallace, MSNBC, Oct 20, 2021
In the days before the attack, Eastman was working to salvage Trump’s presidency out of a “command center” in rooms at the Willard hotel near the White House, alongside such top Trump allies as Rudolph W. Giuliani.
Jacob wrote in his draft article that Eastman and Giuliani were part of a “cadre of outside lawyers” who had “spun a web of lies and disinformation” in an attempt to pressure Pence to betray his oath of office and the Constitution.
-- During Jan. 6 riot, Trump attorney told Pence team the vice president’s inaction caused attack on Capitol, by Josh Dawsey, Jacqueline Alemany, Jon Swaine and Emma Brown, The Washington Post, October 29, 2021 at 10:26 p.m. EDT
Trump appointee Charles Herbster says Sen. Tommy Tuberville met with the Trump family, then-RAGA [Republican Attorneys General Association] director and top Trump adviser on Jan. 5 at the Trump International Hotel.
Charles Herbster originally posted on Jan. 5 that the meeting took place at the White House and included Rudy Guiliani that evening, but the next morning he edited his post to say it happened at Trump’s hotel, and he removed Guiliani from the post altogether....
The night before the deadly attack on the U.S. Capitol, Alabama Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville and the then-director of the Republican Attorneys General Association met with then-President Donald Trump’s sons and close advisers, according to a social media post by a Nebraska Republican who at the time was a Trump administration appointee....
Among the attendees, according to Herbster’s post, were Tuberville, former RAGA director Adam Piper, Donald Trump Jr....
RAGA’s [Republican Attorneys General Association] dark-money fundraising arm, the Rule of Law Defense Fund, led by Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, paid for robocalls directing people to the March to Save America and rally, which took place just before the Capitol attack....
RLDF [Rule of Law Defense Fund] was listed as a participating organization for the Jan. 6 “March to Save America” on the march’s website. The website is now down, but archived versions show RLDF as a participating group. Prior to the protest, RLDF [Rule of Law Defense Fund] sent out robocalls detailing when and where citizens should meet for the Jan. 6 rally, which was first reported by the watchdog investigative journalism group Documented.
“I’m calling for the Rule of Law Defense Fund with an important message,” the robocall stated, according to Documented. “The march to save America is tomorrow in Washington D.C. at the Ellipse in President’s Park between E St. and Constitution Avenue on the south side of the White House, with doors opening at 7:00 a.m. At 1:00 p.m., we will march to the Capitol building and call on Congress to stop the steal. We are hoping patriots like you will join us to continue to fight to protect the integrity of our elections. For more information, visit MarchtoSaveAmerica.com. This call is paid for and authorized by the Rule of Law Defense Fund, 202-796-5838.”
-- Trump appointee says Tuberville met with Trump family, advisers on eve of Capitol attack: Tuberville, through a spokeswoman, said he did not attend the meeting with Trump on the eve of the deadly attack, by Eddie Burkhalter, Alabama Political Reporter, January 26, 2021
iii. Giuliani
The court reaches a different conclusion as to Giuliani. There is little doubt that Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded that Giuliani was involved in a conspiracy to “engage[] in a months-long misinformation campaign to convince Trump’s supporters that the election had been illegally stolen.” Thompson Pls.’ Opp’n at 42. But, as the court stated earlier, such a conspiracy does not violate § 1985(1). What Plaintiffs must plausibly establish is that Giuliani conspired to prevent Congress from discharging its duties on January 6th by force, intimidation, or threat. There, they fall short.
In addition to his pre–January 6th actions—which alone do not establish Giuliani as a § 1985(1) conspirator—Plaintiffs point to two of Giuliani’s acts that occurred on January 6th: (1) his rally speech, in which he said, “So, let’s have trial by combat” and “We’re going to fight to the very end to make sure that doesn’t happen,” and (2) a phone call that he made to members of Congress, urging them to delay the Certification. Thompson Pls.’ Opp’n at 42–43. These allegations, individually and taken together, do not “nudge[]” Plaintiffs’ § 1985(1) claim against Giuliani “across the line from conceivable to plausible.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
As to his rally remarks, the court believes Giuliani’s words are not enough to make him part of a § 1985(1) conspiracy. Critically, Giuliani uttered no words that resembled a call to action. “Trial by combat” was not accompanied by a direction to do anything. And, given the speaker, those words were not likely to move the crowd to act. There is no allegation that anyone took Giuliani’s words as permission to enter the Capitol. And there are no allegations that Giuliani at any time before January 6th uttered words advocating or inspiring violence. Indeed, as discussed further below, the court holds that Giuliani’s rally remarks are constitutionally protected speech. Nor is Giuliani alleged to have been involved in rally planning or known that the President would direct the crowd to march to the Capitol. And he did not express solidarity with the rally-goers after some violently assaulted police and forced their way into the Capitol. Giuliani’s words at the rally are not sufficiently additive to make him a § 1985(1) coconspirator.
Neither are his phone calls to lawmakers on January 6th after the Capitol was breached. There is some conflict among Plaintiffs on this allegation. The Bass Plaintiffs allege that such calls were made “while the insurrection was ongoing.” Thompson Compl. ¶ 138. The Blassingame Plaintiffs, on the other hand, say that two such calls occurred at 7:00 p.m., after law enforcement had cleared the Capitol. Blassingame Compl. ¶ 128. Whatever the timing of those calls, they at most establish Giuliani as an opportunist, not someone who shared in the same general conspiratorial objective as others before the violence at the Capitol occurred. Though Giuliani unquestionably was a central figure in the President’s efforts to sow doubt and mistrust in the election’s outcome, the court cannot say, based on the facts alleged, that he plausibly shared the common conspiratorial goal of violently disrupting the Certification.
iv. Trump Jr.
The court reaches the same conclusion as to Trump Jr. The allegations against him are even thinner than those against Giuliani. Before January 6th, he sent false and misleading tweets about the election and publicly criticized officials who did not support his father. He also spoke at the rally, during which he repeated false claims about election fraud and theft. He also warned Republicans who failed to back the President, “we’re coming for you, and we’re gonna have a good time doing it.” As discussed below, the court believes these words to be protected speech. That is all Plaintiffs have attributed to Trump Jr.27 He is not alleged to have participated in rally planning, known that the President would direct a march to the Capitol, or expressed support for the rioters and their actions. The allegations against Trump Jr. are insufficient to make him a coconspirator in a plan to disrupt Congress from performing its duties.
-- Memorandum Opinion and Order, Bennie Thompson, et al., v. Donald J. Trump, USDC for the District of Columbia, by Judge Amit P. Mehta, February 18, 2022
There were fundamentally two reasons that a violent mob stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.
The first was that thousands of people had come to Washington because President Donald Trump had encouraged them to be there that day both by repeatedly — and falsely — claiming that the 2020 presidential election had been stolen and by explicitly telling his supporters to be in Washington on that particular date.
The second was that there were enough people at the Capitol that afternoon to overwhelm the Capitol Police who were protecting the building and force their way inside. Had two dozen people shown up Jan. 6 to protest the counting of electoral votes in the presidential election, there’s no violence and the police officer and four others who died that day would likely still be alive.
While presenting their case that Trump incited the day’s violence at the former president’s impeachment trial on Wednesday, House impeachment manager Del. Stacey Plaskett (D-Virgin Islands) raised an intriguing point. At some point, the decision was made to direct attendees at the rally outside of the White House toward the Capitol that day, ensuring a critical mass of people that might not otherwise have been there. Why? When did that particular decision emerge?
A review of the available evidence and prior reporting indicates how that plan was developed — but not necessarily who made it.
The crowd had just been at the Ellipse attending a “Save America” rally, where President Trump spoke. At the end of his remarks, he told rally-goers, “we fight, we fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” The President then directed the thousands gathered to march to the Capitol—an idea he [President Trump] had come up with himself....[Dustin Stockton] There were several things, like we saw warning signs along the way with Trump, right? And frankly we made some excuses for him, and excuses for why, you know, maybe Michael Cohen, or Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, or some of these other people that we knew and liked, right, had run into trouble with it. But uh, for us, when He [Trump] directed people to the Capitol at the 6th, what we revealed to the Committee is that there was an internal conflict that was ongoing inside the organizer groups about what the program, and what the day on January 6th should look like. And we kind of lost that battle, and we didn't realize we lost that battle until President Trump told people to walk down to the Capitol. And we had put several events in D.C. together before. We knew the kind of logistics it took to do that safely: the Marshals, the Security, the Stage, the Sound -- all the things you have to do to be able to safely manage a crowd of that size, and we knew that wasn't in place. And we knew that the people that they had asked to lead, that they were not people who should ever be associated with something as solemn as the White House. And so for us, it was devastating. Like, it was very deflating. And it's one of those like "snap-to-reality" moments where you look back over all the previous warning signs that you've ignored, and you have to challenge yourself on....
[Chris Hayes] There's a key factual claim you're making here, which I just want to follow up on, because I think it's key, and then I want to come back around to one more thing, and then I will let you guys go on with your evening. So the key factual claim here, which I think is fascinating, is essentially an internal debate that emerges among the organizers about what happens after the Ellipse... What you're saying is there was a group that wanted to mobilize that huge crowd, and basically kind of send them off towards the Capitol ...
[Dustin Stockton] [Nods his head in agreement]
[Chris Hayes] ... without a permit, we should note, without Security ...
[Jennifer Lynn Lawrence] [Nods her head in agreement]
[Chris Hayes]... without any sort of checks for who would control the crowd, who would lead them, who would make sure things didn't get out of hand. And you were in the opposite faction that said, "We shouldn't do that." And the moment that you found out you lost that internal debate was the President of the United States saying literally to the riled-up crowd, "Now you're going to come with me down to the Capitol, so they can hear you how angry you are." That's what you're saying, and what you're telling the Committee.
[Jennifer Lynn Lawrence] Absolutely yes that is. And I mean, I'm quoted in Pro Publica, I don't know if I'm allowed to say on air what I actually said the moment that you know uh, He said it from the stage, but you can go look up that quote. But I mean, at this point, we didn't know. Our plan for that day was we were supposed to stay at the Ellipse all day. And we were being told that we could stay there 12 and 14 hours, until all the electors had been seated up at Capitol Hill. And you know it was portrayed to us that if the electors were seated for President Biden, that Trump would recognize those results. So he wanted the largest crowd ever -- this is what was portrayed to us, you know, at the Ellipse -- that if He had to give whatever his form of "Sayonara Speech" was, he wanted the biggest crowd there possible. And that was our plan. So the minute that we realized like, "Oh my god, you're marching those people. We have nothing in place. Like there's nothing" -- like, "What are you doing?" And it was so disheartening, and so deflating, and it is really not okay.
-- Jan. 6 Organizers: We ‘Lost The Battle’ When Trump Ordered March To Capitol, by Chris Hayes
Significantly, the rally was not permitted for a march from the Ellipse. Id. ¶ 90. The President and his campaign came up with the idea for a march to the Capitol....
Early in the speech he referenced a march to the Capitol and said he knew the crowd would be going there to “peacefully and patriotically” make their voices heard....
The Trump campaign and various related entities paid more than $3.5 million to assist in [the January 6 Rally] organizing. Blassingame Compl. ¶ 39. President Trump also allegedly participated directly in the planning. He was involved in decisionmaking about the speaking lineup and music selection. Thompson Compl. ¶ 69. And, critically, to the surprise of rally organizers, President “Trump and his campaign proposed that the rally include a march to the Capitol,” even though the permit they had obtained did not allow for one....
Early in the speech he alluded to rally-goers marching to the Capitol building. The President told the assembled crowd that “Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us. And if he doesn’t, that will be a sad day for our country because you’re sworn to uphold our Constitution. Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy.”...
The President’s call for a march to the Capitol was not, however, authorized. It was something that he and his campaign had devised. The Rally’s permit said: “This permit does not authorize a march from the Ellipse.”...
The President communicated directly with his supporters, inviting them to Washington, D.C., to a rally on January 6th, the day of the Certification, telling them it would be “wild.” He directly participated in the rally’s planning, and his campaign funded the rally with millions of dollars. At the rally itself, the President gave a rousing speech in which he repeated the false narrative of a stolen election. The crowd responded by chanting and screaming, “Storm the Capitol,” “Invade the Capitol,” “Take the Capitol right now,” and “Fight for Trump.” Still, the President ended his speech by telling the crowd that “we fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” Almost immediately after these words, he called on rally-goers to march to the Capitol to give “pride and boldness” to reluctant lawmakers “to take back our country.” Importantly, it was the President and his campaign’s idea to send thousands to the Capitol while the Certification was underway. It was not a planned part of the rally. In fact, the permit expressly stated that it did “not authorize a march from the Ellipse.” From these alleged facts, it is at least plausible to infer that, when he called on rally-goers to march to the Capitol, the President did so with the goal of disrupting lawmakers’ efforts to certify the Electoral College votes....
When the President tweeted an invitation to the January 6 Rally, pro-Trump message boards and social media lit up with some supporters expressing a willingness to act violently, if needed. Based on these allegations, it is reasonable to infer that before January 6th the President would have known about the power of his words and that, when asked, some of his supporters would do as he wished. On January 6th they did so. When he called on them to march to the Capitol, some responded, “Storm the Capitol.” Thousands marched down Pennsylvania Avenue as directed. And, when some were inside the Capitol, they told officers, “We were invited here by the President of the United States.” Even the President’s counsel conceded that an invitation to commit a tort and the acceptance to do so would establish a civil conspiracy....
And, following a 75-minute speech in which he blamed corrupt and weak politicians for the election loss, he called on them to march on the very place where Certification was taking place....
Nor is Giuliani alleged to have been involved in rally planning or known that the President would direct the crowd to march to the Capitol....
[Trump Jr.] is not alleged to have participated in rally planning, known that the President would direct a march to the Capitol, or expressed support for the rioters and their actions.
-- Memorandum Opinion and Order, Bennie Thompson, et al., v. Donald J. Trump, USDC for the District of Columbia, by Judge Amit P. Mehta, February 18, 2022
Here’s what we know happened, starting the month prior.
December
On Dec. 19, five days after the electoral votes had been cast in all 50 states, Trump first drew the public’s attention to the day those votes would be counted.
There would be a “big protest in D.C. on January 6th,” he wrote on Twitter. “Be there, will be wild!”
The next day, someone registered the domain WildProtest.com, leveraging Trump’s tweet to promote an event that does not appear to have existed previously. It appears to have been the brainchild of Ali Alexander, a far-right provocateur who was also the driving force behind StopTheSteal.com, a lucrative group leveraging Trump’s claims about voter fraud.
The location of the “wild protest” moved slightly, but by Dec. 31 the protest still had the same general logistics: meeting just northeast of the Capitol at 10 a.m. for an hours-long rally with various right-wing speakers.
Jan. 1
Trump leaned into promoting the nebulously identified protest, tweeting repeated enticements for supporters to attend.
“The BIG Protest Rally in Washington, D.C., will take place at 11.00 A.M. on January 6th,” he wrote in one tweet. “Locational details to follow.”
Jan. 2
The next day, those details appeared to emerge. Amy Kremer of the group Women for America First announced that her group would be holding a rally at the Ellipse, just south of the White House.
Amy Kremer
@Amy Kremer
We are excited to announce the site of our January 6th event will be The Ellipse in the President's Park, just steps from the White House!
Join us January 6th, doors will open at 7am & you'll want to get there early!
RSVP @ TrumpMarch.com!
#MarchForTrump #StopTheSteal
12:58 PM Jan 2, 2021
In an interview on One America News, her daughter Kylie Kremer was vague about whether Trump would make an appearance — though she strongly suggested he might.
Behind the scenes, the White House was likely already intimately involved.
“At the turn of the year,” the New York Times reported earlier this month, “Mr. Trump decided to join the rally himself, and the event effectively became a White House production, with several people close to the administration and the Trump campaign joining the team.”
Trump himself was actively involved in decision-making, according to the Times report: “The president discussed the speaking lineup, as well as the music to be played, according to a person with direct knowledge of the conversations.”
Jan. 3
The following day, Trump made clear that he would attend the Women for Trump rally.
“I will be there,” he tweeted, sharing a promotional tweet from Kylie Kremer. “Historic day!”
Trump’s involvement in the rally at the Ellipse meant booting some of the originally slated speakers. Dustin Stockton, a former Breitbart employee who was helping plan the event, helped find space for them at a rally the prior evening, which had been organized by a group called the 80 Percent Coalition.
The three discrete protests — Wild Protest, the one at the Ellipse and the one on Jan. 5 — became part of one coordinated event, renamed the March to Save America. (The domain MarchtoSaveAmerica.com was registered on Dec. 30.)
At some point on Jan. 3, the event’s website was updated to include an actual march. That morning, the event details simply identified that a rally would be held at the White House on the morning of Jan. 6.
By that evening, a second event was added: “At 1:00 PM, we protest at US Capitol.”
This same day, law enforcement officials were raising the alarm about the mass of people expected at the rally. As The Washington Post reported last month:
“In a 12-page report on Jan. 3, the intelligence unit of the congressional police force described how thousands of enraged protesters, egged on by Trump and flanked by white supremacists and extreme militia groups, were likely to stream into Washington armed for battle.”
The acting defense secretary met separately with Trump, who agreed that the D.C. National Guard should be activated.
Jan. 4
A permit issued by the National Park Service delineates what was expected at the event on the evening of Jan. 5, the rally that had originally been organized by the 80 Percent Coalition.
Five thousand people were expected to attend an all-day event. But, the permit notes, “there is no march associated with this permitted demonstration.”
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
PUBLIC GATHERING PERMIT: #21-0274
ORGANIZATION'S NAME: RALLY TO REVIVAL
LOCATION: FREEDOM PLAZA
JANUARY 5, 2021 FROM 5:A.M. - 11:59 P.M.
EVENT OVERVIEW: Participants (5,000) will assemble at Freedom Plaza to conduct a first amendment rally demonstration on January 5, 2021 from 5:00 a.m. - 11:59 p.m.
One of the individuals identified as speaking at the rally is conspiracy theory peddler Alex Jones. According to reporting from the Wall Street Journal, Jones obtained a prominent speaking slot by donating $50,000 to the effort — and helped secure hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional funding from a prominent Republican donor.
Jan. 5
The Wild Protest website is updated with the three-part plan: the rally in Freedom Plaza that afternoon, the rally at the Ellipse the next morning and the rally at the Capitol early in the afternoon — right as Congress was convening to count the electoral votes.
TRUMP WANTS TO SEE YOU IN DC
JAN 5, 1 PM: FREEDOM PLAZA
JAN 6, 9 AM: THE ELLIPSE, PRESIDENT'S PARK
JAN 6, 1PM: CAPITOL BLDG (NORTH EAST DR)
MARCHTOSAVEAMERICA.COM
That plan only implied a march. The final permit issued for the rally at the Ellipse, like that issued for the rally at Freedom Plaza, explicitly indicated that no march was authorized.
PERMIT#21-0278 (AMENDED)
PERMITTEE: WOMEN FOR AMERICA FIRST
LOCATION: ELLIPSE, SOUTHWEST QUADRANT, AND SOUTHEAST QUADRANT; SOUND OF TREE LIGHTING SITE
DATE: JANUARY 2-8, 2021 (06:30 AM - 7:l30 PM)
Additional Conditions
A. This permit authorizes the use of the Ellipse southwest quadrant, west of the vista site line and south of the tree lighting site starting on Saturday, January 2 at 6:30 am until Wednesday, January 8, 2021 at 7:30 pm. This permit does not authorize a march from the Ellipse.
This was the point Plaskett focused on during the Senate impeachment trial on Wednesday.
“The permits stated in no uncertain terms that the march from the Ellipse was not permitted,” she said. “It was not until after President Trump and his team became involved in the planning that the march from the Ellipse to the Capitol came about — in direct contravention of the original permit.”
“This was not a coincidence,” she added.
That’s not quite right. The final permit says that no march is authorized — but it also includes an “activity overview” that mentions movement between the two sites.
“Some participants may leave,” it reads, “to attend rallies at the United States Capitol to hear the results of Congressional certification of the Electoral College count.”
PERMIT #21-0278 (AMENDED)
PERMITTEE: WOMEN FOR AMERICA FIRST
LOCATION: ELLIPSE, SOUTHWEST QUADRANT, AND SOUTHEAST QUADRANT, SOUTH OF TREE LIGHTING SITE
DATE: JANUARY 2-8, 2021 (06:30 AM - 7:30 PM)
Activity Overview:
Women for America First will conduct a first amendment rally "March for Trump" to demand transparency and protect election integrity. The rally will feature speakers from Women for America First, Congressional Representatives, Roger Stone, Julio Gonzalez, Rudy Giuliani, Diamond and Silk. Women for America First will not conduct an organized march from the Ellipse at the conclusion of the rally. Some participants may leave to attend rallies at the United States Capitol to hear the results of Congressional certification of the Electoral College count.
This appears to be what the groups had planned: the Ellipse event with the Capitol event soon after.
One of the groups supporting the March to Save America was the Rule of Law Defense Fund, the policy arm of the Republican Attorneys General Association. In a robocall sent out on Jan. 5, which was obtained by the watchdog group Documented, it promoted the next day’s events — and a march.
-- Republican attorneys general condemned over robocall that urged march to Capitol: Group distances itself from robocall sent by fundraising arm that encouraged Trump supporters to ‘call on Congress to stop the steal’, by Kenya Evelyn
-- Steve Marshall says he’ll investigate Republican AG group’s role in Washington march, by Mike Cason
“The March to Save America is tomorrow in Washington, D.C., at the Ellipse in President’s Park between E St. and Constitution Avenue on the south side of the White House, with doors opening at 7:00 a.m,” the message read. “At 1:00 p.m., we will march to the Capitol building and call on Congress to stop the steal.”
Jan. 6
Speaking at noon on the day of the short-lived insurrection, Trump also announced a march.
“We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated,” Trump said at the outset of his comments. “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Near the end of his speech, after many people had already begun walking toward the Capitol, he made the same pitch.
“We’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue,” he said, implying for the second time in his comments that he would go with them. “ … And we’re going to the Capitol, and we’re going to try and give … our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don’t need any of our help. We’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.”
Stockton, the organizer who’d helped shuffle the speaking lineup once Trump was confirmed as a speaker, told the Times that he was surprised to learn a formal march had been added to the mix.
“Before the White House became involved,” the Times reported him saying, “the plan had been to stay at the Ellipse until the counting of state electoral slates was completed.”
It’s not clear why Stockton might have been surprised by the plan to transition from the Ellipse to the Capitol. Perhaps he wasn’t aware that the Wild Protest had been folded in. Perhaps he understood the transition as something less formal than a march.
But by 1 p.m. on Jan. 6, the mechanic behind the move didn’t really matter. Thousands of people were at or on their way to the Capitol, and within 90 minutes, hundreds would be inside.