2020 Election: Predictions, Results and Reactions

[N.E. Brigand]

Remember that file of people in military garb winding their way through the crowd up the steps toward the Capitol? Today seven of the twelve have been hit with conspiracy charges.

It's interesting to note the takeaway of a prominent conservative columnist named Byron York of the Washington Examiner upon reading the charging documents in which various participants in this "stack" are quoted as to their motivations. They believed that when President Trump tweeted in December that the January 6 event would be "wild," what he meant was that he wanted his followers to make it wild. York says this shows that the people who showed up for the insurrection were were already delusional and therefore it's not Trump's fault that they launched an attack on the Capitol.

The Jesus Christ Superstar actor I mentioned earlier today, James Delisco Beeks (aka James T. Justis), was the final person to be identified and charged in that "stack" of twelve Oath Keeper militia members I discussed in February. Apparently he was almost fully masked the entire time.

Here's a fun paragraph in the official complaint filed with the arrest warrant:

"Beeks continues to perform in the Jesus Christ Superstar production. Law enforcement observed him in early November 2021 at performances in San Francisco and Los Angeles. There are no performances scheduled the week of November 15, 2021. The production is scheduled to perform the week of November 23, 2021 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin before heading to Toronto in December."

Anyone else thinking of this?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

He also bills himself as one of the world's premier Michael Jackson impersonators

[N.E. Brigand]

The Republicans relented and certified the results. They just needed to make fools of themselves and the rest of us first, I guess.

I was just coming to post that, but you beat me to it!

Have you seen anything in which the Republican chair of the board, Monica Palmer, or the other GOP member, explained why they switched their position (other than that they needed to make fools of themselves first)?

I believe that their initial decision was followed by a period of public commentary (via video) from hundreds of people who didn't hold back.

This seems to be an example.

Interesting point he makes about Palmer having said she would be willing to certify all of Wayne County except for Detroit (which is 80% black) despite the fact that Livonia (which is 95% white) apparently had worse discrepancies. "Your grandchildren are going to think of you like Bull Conner or George Wallace."

In between the two votes, reporters learned that the other Republican board member, William Hartmann, likes to post questionable memes and conspiracy theories.

William Hartman's conspiracy theories naturally included some about Covid-19. He has compared mask and vaccinatoin mandates to Nazi Germany, and he personally refused to get vaccinated. Now he's in intensive care on a ventilator with the disease.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Former DOJ official could be second person to face contempt charges for defying January 6 committee

If Jeffrey Clark does get referred to the Justice Department I think it will be a more difficult call for Garland and his team than it was with Bannon, who had absolutely no legitimate claim to any privilege and refused to even appear. Clark at least showed up before refusing to answer questions, and was a government official on January 6 and the time period leading up to it, and therefore at least has some kind cognizable claim for executive privilege. As for his claim for attorney-client privilege, that is more problematic since, of course, his client is supposed to be the U.S. public, not the president.

[N.E. Brigand]

Chansley's previous or current lawyer, the supposedly ineffective Albert Watkins, tells Talking Points Memo that he still represents Chansley and that Chansley has told Watkins that he hasn't authorized Pierce to represent him. Watkins writes, "It appears a third-party named under a power-of-attorney for financial matters for Mr. Chansley may have attempted to use the power-of-attorney to serve as authority to engage Mr. Pierce."

Chansley may not have been consulted at the time of the reporting above, but today he did indeed ask the judge to allow Pierce to replace Watkins as his lawyer, and the judge agreed.

If this leads to Chansley appealing his conviction on the grounds that he had ineffective counsel. he's still left having to explain whether he was telling the truth when he told the judge that he did the things he was pleading guilty to and that he deeply regretted having done them.

[N.E. Brigand]

Former DOJ official could be second person to face contempt charges for defying January 6 committee

If Jeffrey Clark does get referred to the Justice Department I think it will be a more difficult call for Garland and his team than it was with Bannon, who had absolutely no legitimate claim to any privilege and refused to even appear. Clark at least showed up before refusing to answer questions, and was a government official on January 6 and the time period leading up to it, and therefore at least has some kind cognizable claim for executive privilege. As for his claim for attorney-client privilege, that is more problematic since, of course, his client is supposed to be the U.S. public, not the president.

Is there a crime-fraud exception for executive privilege as there is for attorney-client privilege?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

In theory, there should be, though to the best of my knowledge, no court has actually so ruled. Here's an interesting opinion piece at JustSecurity from back in late August just after the select committee requested documents that argues that Trump's anticipated (at that time) executive privilege invocation could backfire precisely because it could lead to a ruling by the district court that Trump and/or his allies engaged in criminal conduct. That, of course, did not happen, but an invocation of executive privilege by Clark and Trump could potentially backfire in the same way

ETA: If you really want to get deep into the weeds, here is a Cornell Law Review article from back in May 2020 that addresses this question long before the election took place and 1/6 resulted.

EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE—WITH A CATCH: HOW A CRIME-FRAUD EXCEPTION TO EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE WOULD FACILITATE CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OF EXECUTIVE BRANCH MALFEASANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION’S SEPARATION OF POWERS

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Here is yet another example of misleading journalism.

Former New York City police commissioner intends to comply with January 6 committee subpoena but wants an apology

The headline and the article itself basically says that despite the fact that former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik believes that the committee should apologize for saying that he was at the meeting at the Willard Hotel that he paid for at which allegedly the insurrection was partly planned, he will cooperate with their subpoena. But buried in the article is this nugget:

Kerik's lawyer Timothy Parlatore asked for additional time to comply with the panel's requests so that they can go through requested materials and sort out any potential privilege claims with attorneys for the former President.

In other words, despite saying that he will comply he is not really going to comply because we know that the "attorneys for the former President" will tell him that any relevant documents or testimony that he has is privileged.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I listened to some of the oral argument before the D.C. Circuit panel today. It seemed pretty clear to me, despite some challenging questions to the attorneys for the House and the Biden administration, that they will rule against Trump, but that we will grant an extension on their stay of probably 14 days to give Trump an opportunity to petition the Supreme Court to take the case. I wouldn't be surprised if the SCOTUS then either extends the stay and lets the case gather mothballs, or grants the petition --- and then lets the case gather mothballs. I hope not, though.

Meanwhile, apparently Mark Meadows has reached a deal with the committee for at least some preliminary cooperation. He is producing some documents and will appear for an initial interview. It is unclear, however, whether he will actually produce substantive relevant documents and/or answer substantive relevant questions, or if he is just delaying.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Sobbing Capitol rioter described his assault of police Officer Michael Fanone: 'My God. What did I just do?'

"Trump called us. Trump called us to D.C. ... If he's the commander in chief and the leader of our country, and he's calling for help -- I thought he was calling for help," Rodriguez said in the interview.

[N.E. Brigand]

Meanwhile, apparently Mark Meadows has reached a deal with the committee for at least some preliminary cooperation. He is producing some documents and will appear for an initial interview. It is unclear, however, whether he will actually produce substantive relevant documents and/or answer substantive relevant questions, or if he is just delaying.

Since Mark Meadows, Donald Trump's last Chief of Staff (and the fourth in four years), was most recently mentioned in this thread, this is where I'll note that the Guardian today published a report, derived from Meadows's forthcoming memoir, in which Meadows claims that Trump tested positive for Covid-19 on September 26, 2020, three days before his first presidential debate with Joe Biden on September 29 (that debate happened here in Cleveland). Meadows says that a second test the same day as the first found Trump to be negative for the virus (both apparently were rapid tests), that Trump didn't take a further test prior to the debate -- despite an agreement between the two candidates and the debate commission that a negative test would be required for entry (it has been known since shortly after the debate that Trump and his team arrived "too late" to be tested on the spot) -- and that Trump was feeling unwell that entire time, including the day of the debate. (The White House announced on October 1 that Donald and Melania Trump both had tested positive for Covid, and Donald Trump was hospitalized the next day.) Late today, two former White House aides confirmed to the Washington Post that Trump had indeed tested positive prior to the debate.

Asked for comment by the Guardian, Trump today said the story was untrue.

I believe that. The true story is probably worse than what Meadows describes.

In my opinion, it's likely that Trump was positive the entire time and that senior White House staff knew that. In other words, I think that they deliberately exposed Joe Biden to someone with Covid-19.

Some observers are looking back at the statement issued by the White House physician on October 1, 2020:

"This evening I received confirmation that both President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump have tested positive for the SARS-CoV-2 virus."

Notice what that statement doesn't say? It doesn't say that the Trump first tested positive that day, only that the doctor got "confirmation," which could be any sort of communication provided to him at that time, including someone simply saying, "I confirm that the test conducted a week ago showed President Trump was positive for Covid."

Edited to add: Even if my belief is incorrect, what Meadows describes is pretty bad. For example, New York Times reporter Michael Shear today writes:

"Hours after he received the call from Mark Meadows informing him of a positive test, Donald Trump came to the back of Air Force One without a mask and talked with reporters for about 10 minutes. I was wearing a mask, but still got COVID, testing positive several days later."

If you know you are positive for Covid, a disease which at that time had killed hundreds of thousands of Americans and for which there was not yet a vaccine, and then put yourself into close proximity with others, I think you are committing assault.

[N.E. Brigand]

I was just coming to post that, but you beat me to it!

Have you seen anything in which the Republican chair of the board, Monica Palmer, or the other GOP member, explained why they switched their position (other than that they needed to make fools of themselves first)?

I believe that their initial decision was followed by a period of public commentary (via video) from hundreds of people who didn't hold back.

This seems to be an example.

Interesting point he makes about Palmer having said she would be willing to certify all of Wayne County except for Detroit (which is 80% black) despite the fact that Livonia (which is 95% white) apparently had worse discrepancies. "Your grandchildren are going to think of you like Bull Conner or George Wallace."

In between the two votes, reporters learned that the other Republican board member, William Hartmann, likes to post questionable memes and conspiracy theories.

William Hartmann's conspiracy theories naturally included some about Covid-19. He has compared mask and vaccination mandates to Nazi Germany, and he personally refused to get vaccinated. Now he's in intensive care on a ventilator with the disease.

William Hartmann has died of complications from Covid-19. He was 63.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

That's sad.

Meanwhile, Judge Amy Berman Jackson calls it the way it is yet again.

Trump 'stoked' crowd on January 6 and should be held accountable, federal judge says

Though she did not refer to Trump by name, District Judge Amy Berman Jackson said during a sentencing for riot defendant Russell Peterson that the former President and other speakers at the Ellipse riled the crowd and "explicitly encouraged them to go to the Capitol and fight for one reason and one reason only -- to make sure the certification of the election didn't happen."
"There may be others who bear greater responsibility and should be held accountable," Jackson said to Peterson. "But this is not their day in court. It's yours."

[N.E. Brigand]

Meanwhile, apparently Mark Meadows has reached a deal with the committee for at least some preliminary cooperation. He is producing some documents and will appear for an initial interview. It is unclear, however, whether he will actually produce substantive relevant documents and/or answer substantive relevant questions, or if he is just delaying.

Since Mark Meadows, Donald Trump's last Chief of Staff (and the fourth in four years), was most recently mentioned in this thread, this is where I'll note that the Guardian today published a report, derived from Meadows's forthcoming memoir, in which Meadows claims that Trump tested positive for Covid-19 on September 26, 2020, three days before his first presidential debate with Joe Biden on September 29 (that debate happened here in Cleveland). Meadows says that a second test the same day as the first found Trump to be negative for the virus (both apparently were rapid tests), that Trump didn't take a further test prior to the debate -- despite an agreement between the two candidates and the debate commission that a negative test would be required for entry (it has been known since shortly after the debate that Trump and his team arrived "too late" to be tested on the spot) -- and that Trump was feeling unwell that entire time, including the day of the debate. (The White House announced on October 1 that Donald and Melania Trump both had tested positive for Covid, and Donald Trump was hospitalized the next day.) Late today, two former White House aides confirmed to the Washington Post that Trump had indeed tested positive prior to the debate. [...]

Meadows has said that he will cooperate with the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection only insofar as their questions don't impinge upon executive privilege. Does that mean he got Trump's permission to disclose these details about his health in the book? Or do such concerns only apply when no one is paying for the information? Would Meadows talk to the Committee for a fee?

[Frelga]

Kickstarter?

[N.E. Brigand]

I had completely forgotten that Donald Trump later suggested that his Covid-19 infection could be blamed on the "Gold Star" families (i.e., families of former military service members who died in war) that he met on September 27; he said: "they want to hug me and they want to kiss me" and that's how he might have contracted the disease.

But that was the day after he secretly tested positive for Covid.

The depth of Donald Trump's hatred for U.S. troops is immeasurable.

[N.E. Brigand]

Former DOJ official could be second person to face contempt charges for defying January 6 committee

If Jeffrey Clark does get referred to the Justice Department I think it will be a more difficult call for Garland and his team than it was with Bannon, who had absolutely no legitimate claim to any privilege and refused to even appear. Clark at least showed up before refusing to answer questions, and was a government official on January 6 and the time period leading up to it, and therefore at least has some kind cognizable claim for executive privilege. As for his claim for attorney-client privilege, that is more problematic since, of course, his client is supposed to be the U.S. public, not the president.

The Committee has voted to refer Clark for contempt. The matter now goes to the full House for consideration.

In the meantime, Clark's lawyer apparently has told the Committee that if forced to testify, Clark will take the Fifth.

I'm going to push back on the usual refrain we hear in situations like this:

"It's actually appropriate for Jeffrey Clark to take the Fifth and sensible lawyers would recommend that he strongly consider doing so."

If you've done something wrong, don't you have a moral duty to confess? The legally smart thing to do, even if it's your right to do so, is not necessarily the ethical thing to do. And I would add that Clark needn't wait until he's testifying. He should lay bare his wrongdoing in public now.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

That's a very tough sell. The right against self-incrimination is a bedrock pillar of our justice system. You don't get to pick and choose who gets to assert it and who doesn't, based simply on your own political believes or even your own moral judgments. That is the path to anarchy and/or authoritarianism.

[N.E. Brigand]

That's a very tough sell. The right against self-incrimination is a bedrock pillar of our justice system. You don't get to pick and choose who gets to assert it and who doesn't, based simply on your own political believes or even your own moral judgments. That is the path to anarchy and/or authoritarianism.

I'm not saying he doesn't have the to assert it. I'm not picking and choosing at all. It's Clark who should choose. He should choose to do the right thing.

And the right thing, if he is guity, would be for him to confess his crimes.

[N.E. Brigand]

The headline and first paragraph of a New York Times article on Oct. 4, 2020:

After Biden’s Exposure to Trump, His Team Is Cagey on Health Questions
"With transparency on health newly significant in the presidential race, Joe Biden’s safety protocols have remained largely under wraps. But on Sunday evening, his campaign said he had again tested negative for the coronavirus."

That's right. The story was that Biden wasn't being open enough about his health.