January 6th, 2021 Flashcards
Trump Fake Elector Plot
The Trump fake electors plot was a key part of efforts to overturn the 2020 U.S. presidential election. After losing the election, Donald Trump, his associates, and Republican officials in seven states created and submitted fraudulent certificates of ascertainment to falsely claim Trump had won those states. The scheme, supported by a fringe legal theory from attorneys Kenneth Chesebro and John Eastman, aimed to have Vice President Mike Pence count these fake electors instead of the legitimate ones, thereby overturning Joe Biden’s victory. Trump, fully aware the plan violated the Electoral Count Act, pressured Republican legislators and the Justice Department to act on baseless claims of election fraud. Rudy Giuliani played a central role in coordinating the scheme across multiple states. Investigations by the January 6 committee and the Justice Department revealed Trump’s involvement, with indictments issued against dozens of Republican officials and Trump associates by mid-2024.
FBI Informants on January 6th - Chat GPT
Yes, there is evidence that FBI informants were present at the U.S. Capitol during the events of January 6, 2021. Court filings and news reports have revealed that the FBI used informants within groups like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers to gather intelligence leading up to and during the Capitol breach.
Key points include:
1. Court Filings: During trials of January 6 defendants, defense attorneys disclosed the presence of FBI informants within certain groups. For example, in the Proud Boys trial, it was revealed that multiple confidential human sources (CHSs) were embedded in the organization.
2. Oversight Investigations: The House Judiciary Committee, under Republican leadership, has sought information about the extent of FBI involvement and whether informants played any role in influencing or escalating the events.
3. FBI’s Position: The FBI has not confirmed the full extent of its informant activities but has stated that such operations are standard in monitoring extremist groups and are not intended to incite illegal actions.
While informants were present, there is no definitive evidence that they provoked or led the breach. Their role remains a subject of debate, with critics questioning whether the FBI adequately shared intelligence to prevent the attack.
Informants’ Role:
• FBI informants were embedded in groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. Their primary purpose was likely to monitor activities and gather intelligence on potential threats. • Some defense attorneys have argued in court that informants may have influenced group actions or strategies, but no direct evidence has proven that informants encouraged illegal activities.
Investigations and Testimonies:
During the trials of January 6 defendants, the presence of informants was revealed. Defense lawyers have occasionally suggested entrapment or undue influence by informants, but judges and prosecutors have largely dismissed these claims due to a lack of evidence.
Testimonies from informants themselves or FBI agents have not indicated that informants incited violence or coordinated the breach.
Public Debate:
Critics of the FBI have speculated that informants could have played a more active role in the events. For instance, some argue that their presence might have emboldened certain participants.
Supporters of the FBI argue that informants are a routine part of counterterrorism and law enforcement operations, and their actions are usually limited to observation and reporting.
While informants were present, there is no verified evidence that they directly escalated or provoked the breach of the Capitol. Much of the speculation around their involvement remains unsupported by concrete findings from official investigations.
The FBI and other law enforcement agencies often embed informants in groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers because these organizations have been associated with extremist ideologies and activities that may pose security threats. Monitoring such groups helps authorities gather intelligence, prevent illegal activities, and protect public safety.
Why Were There Informants?
1. Threat of Violence:
• Both groups have been linked to rhetoric and activities that law enforcement views as potentially violent or seditious. Informants help gather information on planned activities, membership, and leadership structures.
2. Countering Extremism:
• Groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers have been involved in anti-government or militia movements, which federal authorities monitor as potential domestic terrorism threats.
3. Proactive Prevention:
• Informants can provide early warnings about planned illegal activities, enabling law enforcement to intervene before violence occurs or laws are broken.
Concerns About the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers
These groups have been associated with problematic actions and ideologies, leading to law enforcement scrutiny.
The Proud Boys
• Far-Right Nationalism: The group promotes ultranationalist ideologies and has been accused of fostering white supremacist beliefs, although they deny being racist.
• History of Violence: Members have been involved in violent street clashes during protests, particularly against left-wing groups like Antifa.
• Leadership Convictions: Key Proud Boys leaders, including Enrique Tarrio, were convicted for their roles in planning and leading actions on January 6, 2021.
The Oath Keepers
• Anti-Government Ideology: This militia-style group promotes conspiracy theories about government overreach and has a history of stoking fears about martial law and federal oppression.
• Armed Presence: The group has appeared armed at protests and has been accused of intimidating communities under the guise of protecting constitutional rights.
• Seditious Conspiracy Convictions: Oath Keepers’ leader Stewart Rhodes and others were convicted for planning coordinated efforts to disrupt the certification of the 2020 presidential election.
Concerns Raised by Critics
1. Radicalization: Both groups have been accused of radicalizing members by spreading extremist ideologies and conspiracy theories.
2. Destabilizing Actions: Their actions, including armed demonstrations and violent confrontations, have sometimes escalated political tensions.
3. January 6 Involvement: Members of both groups played key roles in the Capitol breach, leading to numerous arrests and convictions.
The FBI has used informants in various groups throughout history as part of its efforts to monitor and counteract threats to national security, public safety, and civil order. These groups have spanned political, ideological, and criminal spectrums, including extremist organizations, political movements, and organized crime.
Notable Groups with FBI Informants
1. Civil Rights and Black Liberation Movements (1960s-1970s)
• Black Panther Party:
The FBI infiltrated the Black Panther Party under its COINTELPRO program, targeting members with surveillance, informants, and disruption efforts. The agency viewed the Panthers as a threat due to their calls for systemic change and their armed self-defense initiatives.
• Example: Informant William O’Neal played a significant role in betraying Fred Hampton, a key leader, leading to Hampton’s assassination in a police raid in 1969.
2. Ku Klux Klan (KKK):
• The FBI placed informants within the KKK to counteract the group’s violent activities, including bombings, lynchings, and voter intimidation.
• Example: FBI informants provided intelligence that helped solve the 1964 murders of civil rights workers Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner in Mississippi (the “Mississippi Burning” case).
3. Communist Party USA (CPUSA):
• During the Cold War, the FBI extensively monitored the CPUSA, fearing communist infiltration of U.S. institutions. Informants provided information about meetings, membership, and potential espionage.
4. American Indian Movement (AIM):
• The FBI infiltrated AIM during the 1970s, viewing it as a radical threat due to its activism for Indigenous rights and its occupation of sites like Wounded Knee. Critics argue that these efforts were part of broader suppression of Indigenous activism.
5. Organized Crime (1940s-Present):
• The FBI has long used informants to infiltrate organized crime families, such as the Italian-American Mafia.
• Example: Mobster Joe Valachi became an FBI informant in the 1960s, revealing details about the Mafia’s structure and operations, including the existence of the “Cosa Nostra.”
6. Environmental and Animal Rights Groups (1990s-Present):
• Informants have been placed in groups like the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and Animal Liberation Front (ALF), which the FBI labeled as “eco-terrorists” due to acts of arson and property destruction targeting industries they opposed.
7. Far-Right and Militia Groups (1990s-Present):
• The FBI infiltrated groups like the Aryan Nations, the Michigan Militia, and other anti-government militias, particularly after the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.
• Example: In the 2020 plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, FBI informants were instrumental in uncovering and thwarting the plan.
8. Islamic Extremist Networks (Post-9/11):
• The FBI used informants to monitor and disrupt plots linked to al-Qaeda, ISIS, and other extremist organizations. Critics have sometimes accused the FBI of entrapment in cases involving informants in Muslim communities.
9. Labor Unions (Early 20th Century):
• The FBI monitored labor movements like the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) during the early 1900s, associating them with anarchist or socialist threats. Informants were used to report on strikes and meetings.
Why It Made Sense in These Cases
• Public Safety: Monitoring groups like the KKK or organized crime directly contributed to reducing violence, solving crimes, or dismantling criminal organizations.
• Counteracting Subversion: During the Cold War, informants in communist groups provided intelligence on suspected espionage activities.
• Preventing Terrorism: Infiltrating extremist networks has thwarted domestic and international terror plots.
• Law Enforcement Insight: Informants helped law enforcement understand the inner workings of clandestine or hostile organizations.
Controversies
While the use of informants has been effective in many cases, it has also led to significant ethical and legal concerns:
• COINTELPRO Abuses: The FBI’s tactics, particularly during the 1960s and 1970s, were criticized for targeting legitimate political activism, sowing distrust, and infringing on civil liberties. • Entrapment Allegations: Some informant operations have been accused of encouraging or provoking criminal activity that might not have occurred otherwise.
The FBI’s use of informants has played a crucial role in countering legitimate threats throughout history. However, the balance between public safety and civil liberties remains a contentious issue, with lessons learned from both successes and abuses.
AP News, December 2024:
Social media users are misrepresenting a report released Thursday by the Justice Department inspector general’s office, falsely claiming that it’s proof the FBI orchestrated the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.
The watchdog report examined a number of areas, including whether major intelligence failures preceded the riot and whether the FBI in some way provoked the violence. Claims spreading online focus on the report’s finding that 26 FBI informants were in Washington for election-related protests on Jan. 6, including three who had been tasked with traveling to the city to report on others who were potentially planning to attend the events.
Although 17 of those informants either entered the Capitol or a restricted area around the building during the riot, none of the 26 total informants were authorized to do so by the bureau, according to the report. Nor were they authorized to otherwise break the law or encourage others to do so.
Here’s a closer look at the facts.
CLAIM: A December 2024 report released by the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General is proof that the Jan. 6 Capitol riot was a setup by the FBI.
THE FACTS: That’s false. The report found that no undercover FBI employees were at the riot on Jan. 6 and that none of the bureau’s informants were authorized to participate. Informants, also known as confidential human sources, work with the FBI to provide information, but are not on the bureau’s payroll. Undercover agents are employed by the FBI.
According to the report, 26 informants were in Washington on Jan. 6 in connection with the day’s events. FBI field offices only informed the Washington Field Office or FBI headquarters of five informants that were to be in the field on Jan. 6. Of the total 26 informants, four entered the Capitol during the riot and an additional 13 entered a restricted area around the Capitol. But none were authorized to do so by the FBI, nor were they given permission to break other laws or encourage others to do the same. The remaining nine informants did not engage in any illegal activities.
None of the 17 informants who entered the Capitol or surrounding restricted area have been prosecuted, the report says. A footnote states that after reviewing a draft of the report, the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington said that it “generally has not charged those individuals whose only crime on January 6, 2021 was to enter restricted grounds surrounding the Capitol, which has resulted in the Office declining to charge hundreds of individuals; and we have treated the CHSs consistent with this approach.”
The assistant special agent in charge of the Washington Field Office’s counterterrorism division told the inspector general’s office that he “denied a request from an FBI office to have an undercover employee engage in investigative activity on January 6.” He, along with then-Washington Field Office Assistant Director in Charge Steven D’Antuono, said that FBI policy prohibits undercover employees at First Amendment-protected events without investigative authority.
Many social media users drew false conclusions from the report’s findings.
“JANUARY 6th WAS A SETUP!” reads one X post that had received more than 11,400 likes and shares as of Friday. “New inspector general report shows that 26 FBI/DOJ confidential sources were in the crowd on January 6th, and some of them went into the Capitol and restricted areas. Is it a coincidence that Wray put in his resignation notice yesterday? TREASON!”
The mention of Wray’s resignation refers to FBI Director Christopher Wray’s announcement Wednesday that he plans to resign at the end of President Joe Biden’s term in January.
Other users highlighted the fact that there were 26 FBI informants in Washington on Jan. 6, but omitted key information about the findings of the report.
These claims echo a fringe conspiracy theory advanced by some Republicans in Congress that the FBI played a role in instigating the events of Jan. 6, 2021, when rioters determined to overturn Republican Donald Trump’s 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden stormed the Capitol in a violent clash with police. The report knocks that theory down. Wray called such theories “ludicrous” at a congressional hearing last year.
Asked for comment on the false claims spreading online, Stephanie Logan, a spokesperson for the inspector general’s office, pointed The Associated Press to a press release about the report.
In addition to its findings about the the FBI’s involvement on Jan. 6, the report said that the FBI, in an action its now-deputy director described as a “basic step that was missed,” failed to canvass informants across all 56 of its field offices for any relevant intelligence ahead of time. That was a step, the report concluded, “that could have helped the FBI and its law enforcement partners with their preparations in advance of January 6.” However, it did credit the bureau for preparing for the possibility of violence and for trying to identify known “domestic terrorism subjects” who planned to come to Washington that day.
The FBI said in a letter responding to the report that it accepts the inspection general’s recommendation “regarding potential process improvements for future events.”
January 6th Criminal Proceedings - Wikipedia
The January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol led to extensive criminal investigations and prosecutions. As of September 2023, over 1,100 individuals have been charged with federal crimes related to the events of that day. These charges range from violent assaults on law enforcement to obstruction of official proceedings and seditious conspiracy.
Notably, leaders of extremist groups received some of the longest sentences:
• Enrique Tarrio (Proud Boys): 22 years
• Stewart Rhodes (Oath Keepers): 18 years
• Joseph Biggs (Proud Boys): 17 years
• Ethan Nordean (Proud Boys): 18 years
• Zach Rehl (Proud Boys): 15 years
• Kelly Meggs (Oath Keepers): 12 years
• Jessica Watkins (Oath Keepers): 8.5 years
These sentences reflect the severity of their actions in planning and executing the attack.
The prosecutions have been part of the largest criminal investigation in U.S. history, underscoring the significant legal consequences for those involved in the Capitol breach.
The criminal charges stemming from the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack include a wide range of offenses, reflecting the diverse actions of those involved. Here are some key charges:
Common Charges
• Entering or remaining in a restricted building or grounds: Unauthorized entry into the Capitol or its surrounding areas.
• Disorderly and disruptive conduct: Engaging in behavior that disrupted the proceedings or peace.
• Obstruction of an official proceeding: Interfering with the certification of the Electoral College results.
• Parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building: Prohibited acts under federal law related to protests within the Capitol.
Violent and Serious Charges
• Assaulting, resisting, or impeding law enforcement officers: Acts of violence or obstruction targeting police officers.
• Using a dangerous weapon during an assault: Enhanced charges for individuals who used weapons.
• Seditious conspiracy: Planning to overthrow or disrupt the U.S. government.
Property and Theft-Related Charges
• Destruction of government property: Vandalizing or damaging Capitol facilities or furnishings.
• Theft of government property: Stealing items such as documents, electronics, or furnishings.
Firearms and Explosives Charges
• Carrying firearms or explosives on Capitol grounds: Violating laws prohibiting such weapons in restricted areas.
• Unlawful possession of firearms: Charges against individuals who were not authorized to carry.
Conspiracy Charges
• Conspiracy to obstruct a federal proceeding: Coordinating efforts to disrupt Congress’s certification of the election.
• Conspiracy to prevent officers from discharging duties: Planning actions to hinder law enforcement.
Other Charges
• Civil disorder: Participating in or inciting actions that disrupted the functioning of government.
• Aiding and abetting: Assisting others in committing criminal acts.
The charges reflect both individual acts and coordinated efforts, with some defendants receiving multiple charges based on the severity of their actions.
Several individuals were charged with seditious conspiracy in connection with the January 6 Capitol attack. This charge is one of the most severe and involves plotting to overthrow, destroy, or oppose by force the authority of the U.S. government. Here are the key figures and groups involved:
Oath Keepers
The Oath Keepers, a far-right militia group, had several members charged with seditious conspiracy. Key individuals include:
• Stewart Rhodes: Founder and leader of the Oath Keepers, sentenced to 18 years in prison.
• Kelly Meggs: Leader of the Florida chapter of the Oath Keepers, sentenced to 12 years in prison.
• Jessica Watkins: Member of the Ohio Oath Keepers, sentenced to 8.5 years in prison.
• Kenneth Harrelson: Another key member of the group, convicted but received a lighter sentence.
Proud Boys
Members of the Proud Boys, a far-right group known for political violence, were also charged with seditious conspiracy. Key individuals include:
• Enrique Tarrio: Leader of the Proud Boys, sentenced to 22 years, the longest sentence related to the Capitol attack.
• Ethan Nordean: A prominent Proud Boys leader, sentenced to 18 years.
• Joseph Biggs: Another Proud Boys leader, sentenced to 17 years.
• Zach Rehl: Former Proud Boys chapter president, sentenced to 15 years.
Details of Their Actions
Both groups coordinated efforts leading up to January 6, including:
• Organizing armed members and planning their roles in the attack.
• Using encrypted communications to discuss disrupting Congress’s certification of the Electoral College results.
• Leading breaches of Capitol barriers and directing others during the riot.
These seditious conspiracy charges underscore the severity of the actions and the premeditated efforts to disrupt the democratic process.
Insurrection vs. Seditious Conspiracy
Seditious conspiracy and insurrection are related but distinct federal crimes, both dealing with attempts to undermine or overthrow the U.S. government. Here’s a breakdown of the differences:
Seditious Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 2384)
• Definition: Involves two or more people conspiring to:
• Overthrow or destroy the government by force,
• Oppose the authority of the government by force,
• Prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States by force,
• Seize, take, or possess government property by force.
• Focus: Centers on the planning and coordination of using force against the government.
• Penalty: Up to 20 years in prison.
• Examples:
• Planning attacks or violent actions against federal institutions.
• Coordinated actions to prevent Congress from performing its duties, such as certifying an election.
Insurrection (18 U.S.C. § 2383)
• Definition: Involves anyone who:
• Incites, assists, or engages in an actual rebellion or violent uprising against the authority of the United States.
• Focus: Centers on participation in or encouragement of an active rebellion.
• Penalty:
• Up to 10 years in prison.
• Ineligibility to hold public office.
• Examples:
• Participating in a violent uprising intended to overthrow the government.
• Directly leading or organizing a rebellion against the U.S. government.
Key Differences
1. Scope:
• Seditious conspiracy focuses on the planning and agreement to use force, even if the plan is not fully executed.
• Insurrection requires active participation in a rebellion or uprising.
2. Severity:
• Seditious conspiracy generally carries heavier penalties (up to 20 years) because it implies a coordinated, premeditated threat to the government.
• Insurrection, while serious, has a lower maximum penalty (10 years).
3. Usage:
• Seditious conspiracy is more commonly charged because it targets preparatory actions, making it easier to prosecute when clear plans are evident.
• Insurrection is rarely charged, as it requires proving direct involvement in a rebellion, which is harder to establish in many cases.
In the Context of January 6
Prosecutors largely opted for seditious conspiracy charges for key figures (e.g., Proud Boys, Oath Keepers) because it was easier to prove their coordination and intent to disrupt government processes. While many observers referred to January 6 as an “insurrection,” the legal bar for charging someone with insurrection is higher and less commonly pursued.
Hundreds of convictions, but a major mystery is still unsolved 3 years after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot - AP News; January 2024
Here’s a condensed summary of the article, highlighting all the key points, players, and stats:
Overview
• Hundreds of people, including far-right extremists, former police officers, an Olympic swimmer, and active-duty Marines, have been convicted in the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot, the largest criminal investigation in U.S. history.
• Trials, plea hearings, and sentencings are ongoing, with over 80 suspects still unidentified, including the individual who planted pipe bombs outside the Republican and Democratic National Committee offices the night before the riot.
Key Statistics
• Charged: Over 1,230 people, with crimes ranging from trespassing to assault and seditious conspiracy.
• Guilty pleas: ~730 individuals.
• Convictions: ~170 defendants at trials.
• Sentenced: ~750 people, two-thirds of whom received prison time.
• Sentences range from a few days to 22 years (longest given to Enrique Tarrio, former Proud Boys leader, for seditious conspiracy).
• Only two defendants were acquitted of all charges, both in judge-only trials.
Supreme Court Case
• The Supreme Court will review the use of the “obstruction of an official proceeding” charge, which has been applied to over 300 defendants, including former President Donald Trump.
• Arguments will be heard in March or April, with a decision expected by summer 2025. Some sentencings are delayed pending the ruling.
Unresolved Cases
1. Rioters at Large:
• Over 80 individuals who assaulted police remain unidentified.
• Some fugitives include:
• Christopher Worrell (sentenced to 10 years) and siblings Olivia and Jonathan Pollock, who assaulted officers.
• Evan Neumann, who fled to Belarus after his indictment in December 2021.
• Rewards of up to $30,000 offered for leads.
2. Pipe Bomb Case:
• Explosives were placed outside RNC and DNC buildings on Jan. 5, 2021.
• The FBI has offered a $500,000 reward for information on the suspect, shown on video wearing a gray hoodie, face mask, gloves, and Nike Air Max Speed Turf sneakers.
Justice Department’s Stance
• U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves and Attorney General Merrick Garland emphasized accountability for all involved in the Capitol attack.
• The DOJ continues to investigate leads and make arrests while prosecuting remaining cases.
The cases against fake electors - Citizens for Ethics; July 2024
Key Points: Fake Electors and Legal Actions Across States
* Overview:
* 84 fake electors across seven states signed false electoral certificates claiming Trump won in 2020.
* As of July 2024, fake electors from Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, and Nevada have been charged, while those in New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin have not.
* State-by-State Legal Actions:
* Arizona:
* 11 fake electors and 7 Trump aides (including Rudy Giuliani & Mark Meadows) face charges.
* Trial set for January 5, 2026.
* One fake elector, Lorraine Pellegrino, pleaded guilty.
* Georgia:
* At least 3 fake electors indicted, while 8 accepted immunity deals.
* Lt. Gov. Burt Jones under investigation.
* Michigan:
* Witness testimony ongoing.
* 1 fake elector (James Renner) took a deal and testified that others did not know they were committing a crime.
* Nevada:
* Case against 6 fake electors dismissed on jurisdictional grounds; needs to be refiled in Douglas County.
* New Mexico & Pennsylvania:
* Fake electors added a legal clause stating their votes were valid only if courts recognized them.
* This makes criminal prosecution unlikely in Pennsylvania.
* New Mexico’s forgery laws do not cover false electoral certificates.
* Wisconsin:
* Those who delivered the fake certificates have been indicted, but the fake electors themselves have not faced charges.
* Broader Implications:
* Indictments across four states highlight the seriousness of the scheme.
* Advocates argue legal accountability is necessary to prevent future election subversion.
The evidence for the fake electors scheme primarily comes from official investigations, indictments, court filings, and plea agreements. Here’s where the key evidence is found:
- Criminal Indictments and Charges
- The state attorneys general and district attorneys in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, and Nevada have filed formal charges against individuals involved in the scheme.
- Indictments often include documents, witness testimony, communications, and recorded actions showing the fake electors knowingly signed and submitted fraudulent electoral certificates.
- Signed False Electoral Certificates
- The 84 fake electors in seven states signed official-looking documents falsely claiming that Donald Trump won in their states. These were sent to Congress, the National Archives, and state officials.
- The publicly available false certificates serve as direct evidence of the scheme.
- Court Testimony and Plea Deals
- In Michigan, fake elector James Renner testified in court that he and others were involved, though he claimed they didn’t know it was illegal.
- In Arizona, Lorraine Pellegrino pleaded guilty, which suggests prosecutors have strong evidence against others.
- Emails, Messages, and Coordination with Trump’s Team
- Investigators have uncovered communications between Trump’s allies and the fake electors, showing coordination.
- In Georgia, evidence includes emails and meetings with Trump’s legal team, such as Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman.
- The January 6th Committee Report and DOJ investigations have also provided evidence of coordination.
- Statements from Officials and Witnesses
- In some states, Republican state officials refused to certify false results and later testified about pressure from Trump’s team.
- Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s Secretary of State, provided evidence of Trump’s direct efforts to overturn the election, including the infamous “Find 11,780 votes” call.
- Dismissal in Nevada Due to Jurisdiction
- The Nevada judge dismissed the case because it was filed in the wrong county, but did not dispute that a crime occurred.
- Legal Analysis in Non-Charging States
- In Pennsylvania and New Mexico, fake electors added legal disclaimers to their documents, which likely shielded them from prosecution.
- In Wisconsin, only those who delivered the fake certificates have been charged, not the electors themselves.
The combination of indictments, court filings, testimony, documentary evidence, and plea deals is what law enforcement is using to build and prosecute these cases.
The most devastating piece of evidence at the Trump trial - CNN; 2021
At Trump’s second impeachment trial, the events of January 6 were indisputable, captured on video for all to see. Unable to challenge the facts, Trump’s lawyers focused on his intent, arguing that he never intended for the attack to occur and was “horrified” by it. However, a tweet Trump sent at 6 p.m. that day undermines this defense. In it, he called the rioters “great patriots,” urged them to “remember this day forever,” and continued to push the false claim that the election was stolen. Rather than expressing horror, Trump’s words conveyed empathy—even approval—of the attack.
House impeachment managers seized on this tweet as damning evidence of Trump’s intent, highlighting it in their arguments and video presentations. The tweet shows Trump not as a bystander but as someone who welcomed the riot’s outcome. If this were a criminal trial, such direct evidence of intent would likely secure a conviction. While the impeachment trial is shaped by politics rather than strict legal standards, Trump’s defense team appears to have little recourse against this unfiltered glimpse into his mindset—one that strongly suggests he saw the attack as justified and even praiseworthy.
Trump incited Capitol riot further after it began, impeachment prosecutors will claim - CNBC; 2021
Key Points with Quotes:
New Evidence & Strong Case: Prosecutors in Trump’s impeachment trial will present new evidence showing he “spent weeks laying the groundwork” for the January 6 riot and “incited it further” once the violence began. “The evidence of Trump’s guilt in this case is overwhelming,” House impeachment managers’ aides stated.
Potential Republican Shift: Aides suggested that “reluctant senators” may change their minds after seeing the evidence. “Once they see that this President did in fact incite a violent insurrection in order to hold onto power, I think it very well may be the case that reluctant senators change their mind and vote to convict.”
Impeachment Trial Challenge: Conviction requires at least 17 Republican senators joining Democrats, but 45 Republicans had previously voted against holding the trial. Some, however, had said that vote did not guarantee they would acquit Trump.
Framing as a Violent Crime Case: Prosecutors will treat the trial like a “violent crime prosecution,” arguing Trump incited the attack by telling supporters to “fight” against Biden’s confirmation.
Impact of the Riot: The riot disrupted Congress, led to five deaths, and forced lawmakers into hiding. The impeachment team sees the case as “personal” because “they were among those targeted by the riot.” “They are not taking this lightly.”
Felons or dupes? Treatment of Trump’s fake electors has varied wildly by state - Politico; May 2024
Here are the key points from the article:
Fake electors scheme: In December 2020, 84 Republicans across seven states falsely claimed to be Donald Trump’s electors after the 2020 election. They aimed to help overturn Joe Biden’s victory by promoting false slates of electors to Congress.
Legal consequences:
Some states have charged all fake electors, like Michigan (16 electors) and Nevada (6 electors), while others like New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin have not filed any charges.
In Georgia, three fake electors were charged alongside Trump, with several others receiving immunity deals in exchange for cooperation.
Wisconsin has not charged any fake electors despite the state’s involvement in the scheme.
Arizona, Michigan, and Nevada have charged fake electors with felonies, while other states like New Mexico and Pennsylvania shielded their electors with caveats in their paperwork.
Kenneth Chesebro: Chesebro, a Wisconsin lawyer, was a key architect of the scheme. He has faced little legal consequence despite being identified as a co-conspirator in federal cases. He received a plea deal in Georgia, but has not been charged in other states.
Prosecutorial disparity: The varying legal outcomes are influenced by state-level decisions. Some prosecutors have focused on charging lower-level actors (fake electors) while others have pursued higher-level players, like Chesebro, with little success.
Michigan and Nevada trials: Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel charged all fake electors, though one charge was dropped. Nevada’s trial is set for January 2025.
Legal approach: The scheme involved preparing fraudulent elector certificates and pressuring state lawmakers to endorse them. The effort failed, but Trump allies promoted the false electors as a basis for challenging the election result in Congress.
Special counsel investigation: Special counsel Jack Smith has included Chesebro as a co-conspirator in the broader investigation into Trump’s election efforts, but it remains unclear whether charges will follow.
In short, while the fake electors were involved in the same scheme, the legal consequences they face vary greatly by state, with some getting charged while others receive immunity or face no charges at all.
What Trump Asked of Pence - Factcheck.org; August 3rd, 2023
🔹 Dec. 23, 2020
Trump retweeted (and later deleted) a memo titled Operation “PENCE” CARD, which “falsely asserted that the Vice President could, among other things, unilaterally disqualify legitimate electors from six targeted states.”
John Eastman (Co-Conspirator 2) circulated a two-page memo proposing Pence announce there were no valid electors in 7 disputed states.
Memo ended with: “Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected.”
Eastman’s plan “acknowledged [it] violated the ECA.”
🔹 Dec. 25, 2020
Pence called Trump to wish him Merry Christmas. Trump asked him to reject electors.
Pence replied: “You know I don’t think I have the authority to change the outcome.”
🔹 Dec. 29, 2020
Trump told Pence: “Justice Dept [was] finding major infractions,”
According to Pence’s contemporaneous notes, this was false.
🔹 Jan. 1, 2021
Trump berated Pence for opposing a lawsuit asserting the VP could return or reject electoral votes.
Pence: There’s “no constitutional authority” for that.
Trump: “You’re too honest.”
🔹 Jan. 3, 2021
Trump told Pence he had the “absolute right” to reject votes and “overturn the election.”
Pence disagreed, noting an appeals court had just rejected that idea.
Eastman circulated another memo suggesting Pence send elector slates to legislatures (still a violation of the ECA).
🔹 Jan. 4, 2021
Meeting: Trump, Eastman, Pence, Marc Short (Pence’s CoS), Greg Jacob (Pence’s legal counsel).
Trump said:
“Bottom line — won every state by 100,000s of votes.”
“What about 205,000 votes more in PA than voters?” (A claim DOJ officials had already told him was false.)
Trump and Eastman’s ask: Pence should either:
Reject legitimate electors unilaterally, or
Send them back to states.
Pence said Eastman wasn’t sure it was legal.
Trump: “That’s okay, I prefer the other suggestion.” (Rejecting the electors outright.)
White House lawyer Eric Herschmann told Eastman the plan was “crazy” and would cause “riots in the streets.”
Eastman replied: There had been “violence in this history of our country to protect the democracy or to protect the [R]epublic.”
🔹 Jan. 5, 2021
At Trump’s direction, Short and Jacob met with Eastman again.
Eastman pushed Pence to “unilaterally reject electors.”
Jacob warned this would lead to a “disastrous situation” and possibly “have to be decided in the streets.”
Trump posted:
“The Vice President has the power to reject fraudulently chosen electors.”
Private Trump-Pence meeting: Pence again refused to act.
Trump told him he’d have to “publicly criticize him.”
But that evening, Trump falsely claimed in a campaign statement:
“The Vice President and I are in total agreement that the Vice President has the power to act.”
🔹 Jan. 6, 2021
Morning social media post by Trump:
“States want to correct their votes… All Mike Pence has to do is send them back to the States, AND WE WIN.”
“Do it Mike, this is a time for extreme courage!”
11:15 a.m. — Trump called Pence and again asked him to reject votes. Pence refused.
Trump then added remarks back into his Save America rally speech, despite aides removing them:
“I hope Mike is going to do the right thing… If Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election… He has the absolute right to do it… All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the States to recertify, and we become president.”
Just before 1 p.m., Pence released a public statement:
“[My] role as President of the Senate… did not include ‘unilateral authority to determine which electoral votes should be counted and which should not.’”
During the Capitol riot, crowds chanted:
“Hang Mike Pence!”, “Bring him out!”, “Traitor Pence!”
🔹 Night of Jan. 6 – Jan. 7, 2021
After Congress reconvened, Eastman emailed Pence’s counsel:
“I implore you to consider one more relatively minor violation [of the ECA] and adjourn for 10 days…”
3:41 a.m., Jan. 7 — Pence certified Joe Biden’s election victory.
🔹 Aug. 1–2, 2023 (Post-Indictment Reactions)
Trump’s lawyer (Aug. 1, CNN): Claimed Trump’s “ultimate ask” was to “simply pause” the count.
Mike Pence (Aug. 2, Fox News):
Called that claim “completely false.”
“Trump demanded that I… overturn the election by returning or literally rejecting votes.”
“Read the indictment.”
🔹 Aug. 3, 2023
Trump posted on social media:
Criticized Pence for not “fight[ing] against Election Fraud.”
Claimed “The V.P. had power that Mike didn’t understand.”
Said “RINOs & Dems changed the law” to take that power away.
Fact check: This is false — Pence never had that authority, and the 2022 update to the Electoral Count Act only reaffirmed the VP’s ministerial role.
