Daily Archives: January 7, 2022

Former President Donald Trump's niece, author Mary Trump, said this week that she thought her uncle did not intervene to stop the violence on January 6 because he was "getting off on it."

Mary Trump was responding to new information revealed by Rep. Liz Cheney from the January 6 panel's investigation into the Capitol riot. Cheney told ABC News host George Stephanopoulos on Sunday that the former president continued to watch the January 6 riot unfold on TV from a dining room next to the Oval Office, instead of intervening to stop the violence.

Mary Trump responded to the news in an appearance on SiriusXM's "The Dean Obeidallah Show" this week.

"We know his daughter Ivanka went in at least twice to ask him to please stop this violence. Obviously he didn't do that. Any of this surprise you?" Obeidallah asked Trump.

"No, and what's sort of eerie is that I thought we already knew that. Like, I had a picture in my head because it makes perfect sense of course, that's what he was doing. He was getting off on it," Trump told Obeidallah. "And there was no way he was going to stop anything because he was enjoying it too much, and he probably wanted it to get worse."

Trump added that she thought the only reason Ivanka and others in Trump's orbit were telling him to stop the violence at the Capitol was that it "got out of control."

"They really thought that they could control this monster they created and were probably hoping for a bloodless coup. If they could just get Pence to do, you know, in their view, the right thing, or delay enough or get it thrown to the Supreme Court or what have you," Trump said.

She added that Trump likely had "no interest" in telling them to stand down even after the crowd turned violent. Crowds breached the Capitol at 2:11 p.m. on January 6, and Trump waited a full hour before taking to Twitter and encouraging his followers to "remain peaceful" and "respect" authorities.

"They realized that they needed Donald to tell them to stand down, which he had no interest in doing because he probably thought, one, that it was fun to watch all these people being murderous on his behalf. But two that it would be the best way for him to stay in power," Trump added.

Trump has been an outspoken critic of her uncle. This past September, she called him a "fascist" and, on a separate occasion, a "loser."

Representatives for former President Donald Trump did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.

In recent weeks, the January 6 select committee revealed panicked texts sent during the Capitol riot from Donald Trump Jr. to then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows. In those texts, Trump Jr. begged Meadows to get his father to give a speech to stop the insurrection.

According to the January 6 committee, Fox News hosts and other lawmakers also texted Meadows, imploring him to get Trump to stop the violence at the Capitol.

The former president continues to double down on his claims that the January 6 riot was a "completely unarmed protest of the rigged election."

Earlier this week, Trump called off a press conference initially scheduled for the one-year anniversary of the January 6 insurrection. He blamed the abrupt cancellation of the eventon "the total bias and dishonesty of the January 6 Unselect Committee of Democrats, two failed Republicans, and the Fake News Media."

See original here:

Mary Trump: Donald Trump was 'getting off' on the January 6 violence - Business Insider

In hindsight, Donald Trumps intentions could not appear clearer. During the final months of the 2020 Presidential race, he systematically conducted a disinformation campaign that convinced many of his supporters the election would be stolen by Democrats. After losing, he doubled down on those false claims and repeatedly pressured state election officials, Justice Department prosecutors, federal and state judges, members of Congress, and the Vice-President to overturn the results. After those efforts failed, he appeared at a rally in Washington, D.C., where he urged thousands of his supporters to stop Congress from certifying his defeat. For hours, as they stormed the Capitol, he failed to act.

Those steps, the leaders of the congressional committee investigating the January 6th attack on the Capitol contend, seemingly constitute a crime. But, based on the evidence made public so far, the unprecedented nature of Trumps actionstogether with the vagueness of laws regarding the certification of Presidential elections, legal loopholes, and his manipulation of otherscould allow the former President to escape being criminally charged for his role in events surrounding the attack.

A congressional staffer with knowledge of the committees investigation said that it is ongoing and too early to say what it will yield. The staffer pointed out that Trump has a history of trying to avoid explicitly implicating himself in wrongdoing over the years, as he did in the Oval Office call with Ukraines Presidentwhich, nevertheless, led to his first impeachment. Trump seems to have been very careful never to give an orderto strongly insinuate what should happen rather than giving an order, the staffer told me, comparing Trump with Henry II of England, who famously (perhaps apocryphally) engineered the murder of the Archbishop of Canterbury by signalling to subordinates his desire to be free of the religious leader without explicitly ordering it. The staffer, who asked not to be named, invoked a phrase said to have been uttered by the twelfth-century king: Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?

Recent statements by the committee chair, Bennie Thompson, and the vice-chair, Liz Cheneyone of only two Republicans on the panelhave raised expectations that the panel will refer Trump to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution. Such a step would increase the political pressure on Attorney General Merrick Garland to prosecute Trump. In a television interview on Sunday, Thompson said that the panel is examining whether Trump committed a crime: If theres any confidence on the part of our committee that something criminal we believe has occurred, well make the referral. And Cheney, in a speech last month, mentioned a specific charge: Did Donald Trump, through action or inaction, corruptly seek to obstruct or impede Congresss official proceeding to count electoral votes?

Federal prosecutors in Washington have charged dozens of rioters who stormed the Capitol with felony counts of obstructing an official proceeding of Congress, which carry a potential sentence of up to twenty years. But legal experts said that convicting Trump of such a charge could be difficult. Ilya Somin, a libertarian legal scholar at George Mason University and a critic of the former President, told me that Trumps lawyers would likely argue that it did not apply to him because he did not enter the Capitol on January 6th. I think it is very clear that it applies to the people who entered the building, Somin said. If Trump did enter the building and lead the attack in person, it would be much easier to convict him of this and other offenses.

The congressional staffer with knowledge of the committees work said that the media had exaggerated Thompson and Cheneys statements. The criminal-referral stuff has gotten blown out of proportion, the staffer cautioned. It has become the shiny new object. (Another shiny new object emerged on Tuesday, when the committee asked the Fox News host Sean Hannity to voluntarily testify about text messages that hed sent which show he had advance knowledge regarding President Trumps and his legal teams planning for January 6th. Hannity warned against Republicans in Congress trying to overturn the results, writing on January 5th that he was very worried about the next 48 hours.) The staffer said that the committee is primarily focussed on creating a definitive history of events on January 6th and recommending laws and reforms that would prevent future attempts to overturn electionsgiving the American people the full picture of what happened and making recommendations to help insure that nothing like January 6th happens again.

Ultimately, the decision about whether to prosecute Trump lies with Garland, a former federal judge who has made restoring public faith in the political neutrality of the Justice Department his core goal. Despite Garlands attempts to divorce the Justice Department from politically charged prosecutions, it is increasingly clear that investigating Trump is becoming the defining issue of his tenure. The continued defiance of Trump and his allies is forcing Garland to make a decision faced by none of his predecessors: whether to prosecute a former President who tried to subvert an election and appears ready to do so again. Democrats are demanding that Garland move more aggressively, with Representative Ruben Gallego, of Arizona, declaring his effort so far weak and feckless, and contending that there are a lot more of the organizers of January 6th that should be arrested by now.

David Laufman, a former senior Justice Department official, said he disagreed with criticism of the Justice Department for not having already charged Trump criminally. Notwithstanding the horrors of January 6th, D.O.J. should not be pursuing criminal investigations or prosecutions against former President Trump or others connected to the attack on the Capitol unless both the facts and the law support doing so under established policy, he said. Its the Department of Justicenot the Department of Retributionand we dont want to see the rule of law eroded just to make us feel good. But Laufman also called for prosecutors to not go easy on Trump, adding that the department shouldnt be shying away from using the full weight of its enforcement authorities against Trump or anyone else simply because doing so could be perceived as politically motivated.

On Wednesday afternoon, Garland gave a speech that was clearly designed to reassure the public and counter critics. The twenty-five-minute address was vintage Garland. He pledged political neutrality and declared that we follow the factsnot an agenda or an assumption. He promised equal justice for all: There cannot be different rules depending on ones political party or affiliation. There cannot be different rules for friends and foes. And he vowed further measures. The actions we have taken thus far will not be our last, he said, adding that the Justice Department remains committed to holding all January 6th perpetrators, at any level, accountable under lawwhether they were present that day or were otherwise criminally responsible for the assault on our democracy.

In an era when the majority of Republicans falsely believe that the 2020 election was fraudulent and the majority of Democrats think that it was not, Garland will be demonized no matter what action he takes regarding Trump. The Attorney General, based on his speech, continues to believe that he can restore normal ordera Justice Department term for basing decisions on whether to charge defendants strictly on the facts of a case. He continues to believe that the majority of Americans still support the principle that all people should be treated fairly under the law, including Donald Trump. And that the majority will reject political violence and trust the judicial system. At the moment, that belief, for Garland and all Americans, is an enormous political gamble.

Original post:

The January 6th Criminal Case Against Donald Trump - The New Yorker

We should be grateful for such small mercies.

In a rare moment of lucidity, Donald Trump has abandoned plans to take part in what would have amounted to a Satanic-like version of Groundhog Day, by informing his army of culpable MAGA-hat-wearing worshippers that he will not reprise his role as insurrectionist-in-chief on the first anniversary of the storming of Capitol Hill.

Trump had intended, no doubt, to launch into one of his signature diatribes to absolve himself of responsibility for the seminal role he played in what is emerging, drip by incriminating drip, to have been a coordinated but, ultimately, failed coup dtat.

Reportedly, Trump remains holed up at his gaudy version of Shangri-La the Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida at the urging of his circle of reliable sycophants who advised that his habit of droning on and on extemporaneously might further implicate him in the violent desecration of the United States Constitution a year ago.

Trump was also miffed that his incoherent, lie-laced remarks would not be televised, denying this preening narcissist the validation that apparently gives his vacant life the ephemeral attention a twice-impeached president and pampered brat requires like he requires oxygen in almost equal measure.

Alas, our reprieve from having to endure another spasm of Trumps lunatic tantrums will be brief since he plans to say what he proposed to say today at a rich white mans never-ending grievance-fest sorry, rally slated for later this month in Arizona.

Still, it is a relief that, for once, Trump has opted, surprisingly, to shut up largely out of self-preservation, of course particularly on a day that, given its historical import, will, I suspect, be remembered and reviled by enlightened Americans in the same vein as 9/11.

It is worth recalling that the terrorists who attacked the US on that date may have been plotting to destroy the Capitol as well. They were thwarted by brave passengers and crew on board United Flight 93 who, ironically, organised another type of insurrection to save lives (possibly) at the Capitol at the expense of their own.

So, arguably, on January 6, 2021, Trump and his band of fanatical allies in Congress and at the White House helped finish the job begun by a band of fanatics on 9/11. Instead of a plane, the MAGA mob ransacked and overwhelmed the seat of US democracy by virtue of their rampaging numbers and with any weapon at hand.

Trumps crass revisionism about what happened this time last year on Capitol Hill and why it happened has been taken up by the usual and some unusual suspects.

The usual suspects, like Trump, feed their viewers and readers a geyser of lies about what happened and why it happened for the same rank reasons as their dear, delusional leader money, notoriety and to disfigure history.

They have no shame. Hence, they cannot be shamed.

It is the unusual suspects, including several lapsed progressive writers, who should be ashamed of belittling the Trump-led insurrection simply as a gathering of aggrieved Americans gone slightly awry or giving sustenance to the crackpot claim that the FBI secretly fomented the furious mayhem as part of a false flag operation.

Like smug conspiracy-mongers, they cling to minor discrepancies to challenge the official story in their fantastical effort to dismiss the seriousness of a calculated and determined attempt to prevent the certification of a new president elected by a healthy plurality of voters.

Move over, Oliver Stone. You have ludicrous company.

Meanwhile, a gaggle of centrist columnists outside the US, has penned their de rigueur commemorative missives that contemplate with varying degrees of apocalyptic horror the lasting significance and consequences of the traumatic bedlam of 1/6.

In Canada, a number of pundits have suddenly experienced remarkable epiphanies and now recognise the existential threat that Trump and his legion of frothing, AK-47-toting disciples pose to the institutional framework of Americas constitutional republic.

It took them a while.

I remember when these realpolitik-clich-spouting types lectured those of us who warned, years ago, that Trump was a flagrant fascist whose defining autocratic nature would inevitably lead to a brutal assault on the already fragile and corroded infrastructure of US democracy.

Despite Trumps litany of outrages that confirmed, again and again, his odious character and sinister designs, these sensible centrists insisted that this crude, but capable, authoritarian should be treated with grudging deference and respect lest he scuttle lucrative cross-border commerce or, worse, trigger a trade war.

Oh, how I remember when the keyboard cavalry condemned Canadas appeasement of that other, and long forgotten, menace to Western democratic values and principles, Saddam Hussein, when then Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrtien refused to join the calamitous coalition of the willing.

Turns out, the critics of appeasement became the appeasers who, throughout Trumps egregious tenure as president, repeatedly cautioned against confronting his blatant anti-democratic modus operandi in favour of the national interest.

These days, the sensible centrists have done a stunning volte-face and lament that conditions are ripe for the imminent collapse of American democracy and that, by 2030, if not sooner, the country could be governed by a right-wing dictatorship.

In 2014, the suggestion that Donald Trump would become president would also have struck nearly everyone as absurd. But today we live in a world where the absurd regularly becomes real and the horrible commonplace, a Canadian political scientist wrote in a suitably centrist Canadian newspaper.

Not true.

Several astute observers, including the prescient writer and filmmaker, Michael Moore, warned, early on, that a wretched, ignorant, dangerous, part-time clown and full-time sociopath is going to be [Americas] next president.

And the horrible had become commonplace long before January 6, 2022. It is just that the sensible centrists in Canada and elsewhere chose wilfully and willingly to ignore it to mollify Trump.

They have, it appears, forgotten this, prompting a Royal Roads University professor to pen this astonishing paragraph: But now we must focus on the urgent problem of what to do about the likely unraveling of democracy in the United States. We need to start by fully recognising the magnitude of the danger.

Scores of wise, concerned people were focused on the urgent problem and recognised the magnitude of the danger prior to and immediately after Trump rode down a golden escalator to announce his candidacy for president in 2015.

They were ignored or ridiculed as nave idealists who did not understand how the real world works.

To irresponsible, habitually wrong, sensible centrists in Canada and beyond: A belated welcome to the real world.

Finally, the millions of enlightened Americans who have resisted Trump and pine, like me, to see him and his confederates paraded into a courtroom in appropriately coloured orange jumpsuits, were likely disappointed by Attorney General Merrick Garlands comments yesterday regarding the number of insurrectionists charged to date.

Hundreds of Trumps maniacal foot soldiers have been nabbed and some sentenced. Their leaders, so far, have escaped accountability and punishment.

On this score, Garland offered rather vague assurances that the Justice Department remains committed to holding all January 6 perpetrators, at any level, accountable under law whether they were present that day or otherwise criminally responsible for the assault on our democracy.

Garland then pleaded for patience with the course of the ongoing investigation.

[The probe will continue] as long as it takes and whatever it takes for justice to be done consistent with the facts and the law, the ponderous attorney general said.

Well, you best hurry, man, or there will be nothing left to save.

The views expressed in this article are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeeras editorial stance.

See original here:

Trumps 1/6 finished the job of 9/11 - Al Jazeera English