Andrew Weissmann on Trump’s Legal Woes
Andrew Weissmann is one of many legal analysts that MSNBC has turned to for legal discussions involving Donald Trump’s legal woes. Let’s explore some of Mr. Weissmann’s misguided analyses.
State Prison Term?
One assertion that Andrew Weissmann puts forth over Donald Trump’s state legal woes is that Donald Trump won’t be able to “get out of” any state convictions. While on its face, this assertion may seem valid, but not if you take into account a second presidency of Donald J. Trump. While a “standard bearer” President wouldn’t be able to get out of it, at least someone who actually respects the Constitution and the rule of law, we already understand that Donald Trump respects nothing but himself.
We already know that Donald Trump intends to retaliate against his political rivals. He’s already stated this. Exactly what that means or how that retribution may come is unclear. However, one thing is crystal clear. If Donald Trump is capable of an insurrection against the United States, complete with inciting his followers into violence, then Trump is absolutely 100% capable of any action against any government authority.
Should Donald Trump be found guilty of any state crimes that require incarceration in a state prison and assuming his guilty sentencing involves such incarceration, you can bet Donald Trump as President won’t serve a day of that state prison sentence. Why? Retribution.
Military Might
The President of the United States is the commander over the United States Military. Trump knows that. We know that. What this means is that instead of simply making calls to heads of state using nebulous language that might or might not sound guilty, Trump’s gloves will come fully off. Donald Trump can and will use the military to retaliate against his foes, including those in state power. He will use the military to stop anyone who attempts to collect him for any state incarceration.
Not only will Trump play the innocent victim card as hard as possible on all media outlets and call out state officials by name so his followers will seek them out, he will also send in the military to collect and then detain and/or jail anyone who tries to bring him in, placing these people into federal prisons. Will these people get trials? No. Why? Because Trump will have unraveled the need to use the judicial system to find anyone guilty. Indeed, he will make himself judge, jury and executioner (such that that term means) over all Federal legal actions. All he will need to do is pen a missive that someone is guilty and off to Federal prison they go without a trial.
You might be thinking that these ideas are all far fetched, that Trump will never be able to assert that type of authority. If Trump gets back into power as President, he will have that authority because the voters who voted him in willed that power to him. This folks is what a dictator looks like. This is how a dictator acts.
It Doesn’t Affect Me!
Yes, absolutely it does. If Trump becomes arbiter over all federal legal matters effectively disbanding the courts, even the tiniest of federal infractions could lead to federal prison time and/or death, all at his or his assign’s whims… yes, for any citizen. Even if you haven’t managed to commit any federal infractions, but you wrote something Trump disliked on social media, this could land you in prison. Think of Alexei Nivalny being placed in prison because of Vladimir Putin didn’t like what Nivalny was saying…. you’ll quickly get the idea of where Donald Trump will take America.
Weissmann’s Delusion
Andrew Weissmann is under the incredible delusion that the judicial system will hold and somehow continue to work as it normally has after Donald Trump regains power as President. Weissman’s rationale and thinking is so incredibly wrong. Donald Trump has already stated he will gut the Constitution and its powers. He will fully take the gloves off and begin systematically dismantling the U.S. Constitution at its core including the Legislative and the Judicial branches of government. Trump will usurp the powers of both the Legislative and Judicial branches and make them his own, probably disbanding all courts and Capitol Hill. Trump will become all three branches in one.
Cabinet
Will Trump’s cabinet allow this? Sure. Trump is filling his little black book with names of those people who are fully willing to do his bidding. In his last term, he failed to find people willing to make these hard choices. If Trump manages another Presidential term, he will most certainly surround himself this time with people fully ready, willing and able to fulfill Trump’s every wish and desire… no matter the cost to America, to the Constitution or to you, the voters.
State Powers
Once the Constitution is gutted, the idea that States have any say under his dictatorship will evaporate. Congressional representatives? Nope. They’re history. Trump will then make it so that if the state authorities don’t immediately bow to his wishes, they won’t remain state authorities. In fact, I fully expect that Trump will immediately remove any state authorities who don’t agree with his Presidency. In fact, I then further expect Trump to reassign his own cronies to operate those same state authorities under federal purview.
That means that once Trump begins running not just the Federal government, but also every State government, he can commute any sentence he likes, including any state sentences that might be pending against him.
State Legislatures
What does this mean for states, state voting and state legislatures? It means they’re gone, history, expunged from existence. Donald Trump absolutely cannot allow states any manner of power that overrides his own authority.
Thus, Weissmann’s analysis of Donald Trump’s state legal woes is incredibly premature and could even be considered incredibly naive. The only way Donald Trump manages to become incarcerated under state law (assuming he is found guilty) is if he is NOT reelected as President in 2024. Only at that point will Donald Trump be forced to surrender to authorities under this current legal and constitutional system. If Donald Trump becomes President again, there will be no Constitution or, indeed, any state law under which to hold Donald J. Trump accountable for anything; not now, not ever.
Vote as if your life depends on it
If you still don’t believe Donald Trump is capable of the above, then you’re even more deluded than Donald Trump. However, if you’re invested in your current way of life, in your family and indeed, the current system, constitution and rule of law, then you need to vote as if your life depends on it; because it does. A vote for Donald J. Trump is a vote to dismantle the United States.
If you want your children to have a future in the same way that you had a future when you were a child, then you need to vote to maintain our current way of life. What that means is NOT voting for Donald J. Trump. Further, you shouldn’t vote for ANY GOP candidates because they are all tainted by Donald Trump’s ideals… and wish the same harm to America that Trump does.
In the 2024 Election, that leaves voting for Independents, Libertarians and Democrats. Whatever you do, DO NOT vote for anyone in the Republican party unless you want to see America, your current way of life, your family and any money that you have saved all end.
↩︎
Analysis: Jack Smith’s 2020 Election Indictment
Let me start this article out by saying that I am not a Republican, nor do I much like Donald Trump either as a politician or as a person. He’s a vile, pathological lying, bigoted and overall crass person. The man literally has almost no redeeming values. With that said, I also don’t like when even the vilest of persons, like Donald Trump, isn’t getting a fair shake. Let’s explore.
Jack Smith’s 2020 Election Indictment
I recently published a news article discussing this very indictment. I’ve withheld making any comments over this indictment solely because that information was newsworthy. Meaning, passing along this information timely to Randocity’s readers was important. Yes, it is important. However, there are some problems with this indictment that few news channels are discussing. The first and biggest problem is…
Presidential Immunity
Many of the statements included in Jack Smith’s indictment were made while then President Trump was still a sitting President. He made the statements while officially holding the office of President of the United States.
The President of the United States is entitled to Absolute Presidential Immunity, shielding the President from lawsuits while performing business as President. However, some in the judicial system believe that Presidential Immunity is not absolute, meaning that criminal conduct performed by the President (outside of Presidential job responsibilities) may not be immune from prosecution.
I’m not convinced that that’s the correct course for the United States. While I don’t want rogue Presidents performing illegal criminal actions, I also don’t want the DOJ able to apply spurious lawsuits on either a sitting President or, more importantly, a former President after-the-fact.
The question remains, were the statements that President Trump made regarding January 6th and those involving the placement of fake electors considered within the job role of President? While I would love to say, “No”, I am not in a position to make that judgement. Only a court can. That means it’s the responsibility of Jack Smith to have a court determine if Trump’s statements are admissible towards the case he is bringing. Meaning, many of the statements made by Trump included in Jack Smith’s indictment were made while Donald Trump was still President.
The question is then whether the statements are protected by Presidential Immunity. Jack Smith would need to first establish if any or all of Trump’s statements can be admitted as evidence or if they must be excluded as part of Presidential Immunity that Trump held at the time.
“At the time”
Here’s another problem that is born out of the above. Presidential Immunity is clearly active while a person is actively holding office as President of the United States. Once a person leaves office and becomes a former President, all of the acts performed AS PRESIDENT should still remain protected under Presidential Immunity. If not, it means that as a former President, all actions made by a then President can, at the time they become an ex-President, become fodder for criminal litigation.
If America starts trying and convicting each and every President as soon as they leave office, where are we as nation? More than this, does Presidential Immunity really exist? No. Actions performed by a President during his or her tenure in office must remain sacrosanct even after leaving office. Those actions were performed while faithfully executing the duties as President. Even when the person leaves office and becomes an ex-President, those Presidential years remain a sacrosanct bubble protected by Presidential Immunity in perpetuity. That means that an ex-President cannot be tried for actions performed WHILE President after becoming an ex-President.
This should go without saying. If America allows the justice system to begin prosecuting every former President for actions performed while in office, who would ever want to become President?
However, any person who is not President CAN be tried and convicted for actions performed while NOT President, either before being elected or after becoming an ex-President.
Jack Smith is Barking up the Wrong Tree
There were many ways a lawsuit could manifest against Donald Trump involving January 6th, such as involving Treason and Sedition, neither of which are named in Jack’s current lawsuit as charges. Both Treason and Sedition are high enough and serious enough crimes that these charges would easily negate Presidential Immunity by a landslide. After all, no President should need to ever perform Sedition or Treason in the execution of Presidential duties and responsibilities.
On the other hand, the four counts levied by Jack Smith are as follows:
- 18 U.S.C. § 371 — Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
- 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k) — Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding
- 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(2), 2 — Obstruction of and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding
- 18 U.S.C. § 241 — Conspiracy against Rights
These obstruction and plain-old conspiracy charges don’t instantly negate Presidential Immunity. In fact, these charges are a bit open for being contested. These above crimes are not necessarily serious enough to warrant dropping Presidential Immunity over them and can also be interpreted in ways that make the prosecutor appear prejudicial (i.e., biased) towards the defendant.
Thus, the indictment Jack Smith has brought is fraught with problems, specifically around statements and actions made and also the specific charges being levied, all while Donald Trump still actively held Presidential Immunity.
Unnamed co-conspirators hold no such immunity from prosecution. These people should be brought up on charges for the actions they performed and statements they made around the 2020 Election, including newscasters and congressional members. However, Donald Trump’s statements and actions shouldn’t be used to prosecute Donald Trump while Trump still held Presidential Immunity, at least not until Jack Smith has a court determine which statements (and actions) ARE and ARE NOT protected by that Immunity. Until the Presidential Immunity issue is resolved, Jack Smith is barking up the wrong prosecutorial tree.
In fact, Jack’s whole indictment now actually does look like a witch hunt as Donald Trump suggests. Without first resolving whether Trump’s statements were protect by Presidential Immunity, transcribing those statements into an indictment is extremely risky and premature AND makes Jack Smith look like he’s rushing to get this lawsuit done, but quite improperly and with prejudice.
A prosecutor can’t simply dismiss steps because they’re inconvenient or slow the process. Unfortunately, making missteps like this only serves to weaken Jack’s case against Donald Trump, probably giving Trump the opportunity to have the entire case dismissed based on prejudicial treatment.
Instead, I would have preferred if Jack Smith had had a court first determine whether the statements transcribed are or are not, in fact, protected by Presidential Immunity. Let’s resolve this issue first. If some or all statements are protected by Presidential Immunity, then the statements cannot be held as evidence against Donald Trump or against Donald Trump’s alleged actions for the charges being levied.
Better, revise the charges to include Sedition and Treason so that there is no question as to whether Presidential Immunity is involved.
↩︎
Did Elizabeth Holmes get the correct sentence?
As we should already know, now-disgraced and convicted CEO Elizabeth Holmes operated Theranos. Theranos was to offer the world a fantastical new way of testing people’s health concerns for all manner of blood diagnostics all with the tiniest drop of blood. It’s fantastical because Elizabeth Holmes’s Theranos was never able to make this testing technology actually work (the entire basis for the fraud). Ms. Holmes has now been convicted of wire fraud and defrauding investors, a federal crime. More than this, Ms. Holmes has now been sentenced to serve 11 years in a federal prison.
NBC News Opinion
One NBC opinion piece, written by a former federal prosecutor and current attorney, Andrey Spektor, contends that Elizabeth Holmes’s 11 year sentence is too harsh. This author does not agree. Why? Because of the nature of and, more importantly, the real dangers posed by the device she failed to create.
Andrey’s contention is:
But that calculation was the least important component of determining Holmes’ sentence because the judge ultimately disagreed with the probation estimate and, anyway, no rational judge would have sentenced her to anything approaching life in prison. Among other things, she is a first-time, nonviolent offender whose crime did not lead to anyone’s death.
I contend that this highlighted statement is, at best, inaccurate and is, at its worst, false. There may actually have been illness and death as a result of Theranos’s deception, when the Theranos “Edison miniLab” machine (pictured)
, did not work as purported and likely impacted medical treatments needed (or weren’t needed, as the case may be) for medical patients. For Andrey to contend that no one died (or by extension, weren’t injured or hurt), that’s incredibly wrong thinking.
Ms. Holmes’s deception impacted many people’s health; health which relied on accurate testing results from Theranos’s Edison miniLab machine. Without accurate testing results, the wrong medications could have been prescribed, the wrong treatment plans could be implemented, up to and including not prescribing medications which could save people’s lives… or indeed the opposite may have occurred; the wrong prescription may have been prescribed causing injury or potentially death. Claiming her fraudulent testing equipment couldn’t cause harm is fallacious and disingenuous. Worse, according to the whistleblowers, Ms. Holmes knew that her miniLab testing equipment didn’t work!
Dangers to Society
The fact that the Edison’s machine’s deception was “caught early” is of no consolation to those who received inaccurate test results from Theranos’s intentional equipment deception. In other words, you can’t just play “god” with people’s lives and health and expect to get away with it.
To claim that her defrauding and misleading and intentional deception about her alleged testing methodology, which clearly did not work properly (or at all), didn’t impact people’s health and lives is insulting to those who could have lost their lives to Theranos’s medical fraud. Even still, some still could lose their lives early because of Theranos.
That the fraud was caught early because of two conscientious whistleblowers within Theranos employee ranks is more a testament to those two individual’s forthright and upstanding conscience than of Elizabeth Holmes coming clean about the dangers the Theranos Edison ultimately posed to society. Elizabeth Holmes would likely have continued to play this dangerous game if those two whistleblowers hadn’t come forward. It wasn’t Elizabeth Holmes who “came clean” on the wrongness of her equipment. It was those two Theranos whistleblowers who put their careers in jeopardy to save the lives of others.
11 Year Sentence
For all of these reasons above, I vehemently disagree with Andrey Spektor’s opinion. Elizabeth Holmes’s 11 year sentence is not at all inappropriate or too long. In fact, I’d say her sentence was downright lenient considering the danger she, Theranos and her fraudulent testing equipment posed to society as a whole. If her equipment’s fraud had not been found early, we could have gone perhaps a year or two or longer without knowing how many people might have been misdiagnosed, given the wrong medical treatments or, indeed, given no treatments at all for preventable, but fatal illnesses if left untreated. In short, Elizabeth Holmes (and her fake testing equipment) was (and is) a danger to society.
I contend that 11 years is way too lenient for that level of danger and risk that she and Theranos posed to the world. She doesn’t deserve leniency for having committed this level of medical malfeasance against the public at large. While one can try and argue that the trial wasn’t about her medical malfeasance specifically, the fraud fully stemmed from that malfeasance. Thus, any malfeasance must be considered as part of the sentencing. It can’t be “distanced” or “separated” as though it didn’t exist. That malfeasance was the entire reason Elizabeth Holmes’s machine was found to have caused the defrauding of investors. Eye on the ball, people.
While a trial for the affected patients was not allowed to move forward, that doesn’t preclude the absolute sheer negligence and willful malfeasance Holmes performed against an unsuspecting public. Elizabeth Holmes knew her machine didn’t work. Yet she STILL went ahead with placing it into Walgreens knowing its problems. That’s not innocent happenstance; that’s willful malfeasance and, at worst, malevolence. Conscientious people don’t put other people in harm’s way intentionally. Elizabeth Holmes put people in harm’s way. One might want to call that blind ambition. Call it what you will. Blind ambition can still result in someone doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons, even knowing that the outcome might cause harm to others. That can’t be dismissed with an 18 month sentence (as Ms. Holmes has requested), a mere slap on the wrist.
No, the 11 year sentence by federal sentencing Judge Edward Davilla was definitely of a sufficient length as to give her pause AND send her a solid message for what Theranos and she had done to the public… even if not specifically stated by judge Davilla; this judge knew the stakes.
Babies as Shields?
One thing Elizabeth Holmes appears to also be shrewd at is trying to get out of her 11 year sentence. She’s now attempting this by getting pregnant. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with starting a family… but on the heels of beginning an 11 year federal criminal sentence? I get that her biological clock is ticking, but it primarily says she’s using an infant as a shield. That’s not a good look and it fully supports the above malfeasance. She’s putting her baby in harm’s way to protect herself from going to prison, or at least so she hopes. It’s a crude and crass way to begin prison… and it leaves her kids in the lurch without a parent for 11 years.
She knew she had been convicted, yet she chose to get pregnant anyway? A judge should have held her in contempt of court over that. When Holmes’s first child was born, her trial had not yet begun. Thus, there was no way to know which way her trial might go. Her second child, however, is simply being used as a pawn against incarceration. That’s both a nasty and very vile reason to have a child. It doesn’t show compassion for the child, it shows self-preservation by Holmes. It’s an incredibly uncaring and self-centered tactic, especially for a baby that’s now caught in her manipulative crossfire. As I said, distasteful.
She’s now delivered her second child, but it’s almost certain she’s working hard to conceive a third as yet another shield. Enough’s enough here. If she pops up pregnant again, cite her for contempt of court, let her carry that child to term in prison and give birth to that child behind bars. The sentence was issued and it must be carried out. Having a baby shouldn’t become a “get out of jail free” card… not for her, not for anyone. Worse, babies should never be used as incarceration blockers.
Judges should make it perfectly clear to any convicted felon who decides to conceive a baby after conviction means possible contempt of court and that neither the pregnancy nor the birth will stop the incarceration from occurring. Playing these games with the court should always mean contempt of court and possible longer incarceration time.
Did Elizabeth Holmes get the correct sentence?
No, but not for the reasons Andrey Spektor proposed. In fact, Ms. Holmes got a far more lenient sentence than she should have been given considering the real medical dangers both she and her testing machine imposed on society. Ms. Holmes should count herself lucky at receiving only 11 years. Let’s hope that when she gets out of prison, she doesn’t try to start yet another dangerous “medical testing” company.
As for those 11 years Ms. Holmes faces? This amount of incarceration also sends a clear message to other would-be CEOs not to play with people’s lives using untested medical technologies in the goal of gaining personal fame, wealth or for any other reason.
Editor’s Update: Elizabeth Holmes began her 11 year sentence as of May 30th, 2023 at the minimum security facility for females Federal Prison Camp (FPC) located in Bryan, Texas. Her final bid to remain out on appeal was denied. Elizabeth Holmes’s federal inmate register number is 24965-111.
↩︎
Is Trump Guilty or Not?
I know there’s a lot of speculation, particularly since the January 6th Select Committee Hearings. Let’s explore what might make Trump guilty of something and what that something might be.
Electoral College Vote
To begin to understand how the January 6th riots became a reality, we must jump back in time to the Trump “Save America Rally” at the Ellipse the morning of the riots. However, before we discuss the content in this rally, let’s talk about what it takes to put together such a rally. More than this, why was January 6th chosen for this specific rally in the first place?
Election Lost
We all should now know and understand that Trump lost the 2020 election. We actually even knew it long before January 6th, but Donald Trump is a major sore loser. He simply cannot stand to lose. Thus, to avoid having to admit defeat, he chose to lie and claim the election was stolen. This lie is ultimately how the Save America Rally began.
Invitations to this rally began to circulate perhaps weeks before the actual event. In fact, I saw a tweet requesting attendance to the event on January 2nd, before the event from Donald Trump’s now suspended Twitter account. I even replied to a tweet in this stream.
More than this, this invitation was also sent to extremist groups known for violence, such as The Proud Boys, the Oathkeepers and others. Donald Trump was well aware of whom were being invited to the Rally. Of course, he didn’t know which groups might show because it wasn’t an RSVP thing, but he assumed at least some of these groups, if not all of them, would show… and show up, they did.
This is the precursor that must be understood to what later transpires at the “Save America Rally” the morning of January 6th at the Ellipse.
The Ellipse
The morning of the Ellipse began with a mostly RA RA session, but with some inciting rhetoric from both Trump and a bunch of Trump sycophants, including Rudy Giuliani. Trump, during his speech, included certain key phrases to work up the crowd and to specifically incite them to take action. Let’s read his closing words from that speech!
But I said, “Something’s wrong here.” Something’s really wrong. Can’t have happen. And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore. Our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors have not yet begun. My fellow Americans for our movement, for our children and for our beloved country and I say this despite all that’s happened, the best is yet to come. So, we’re going to… we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give… the Democrats are hopeless, they’re never voting for anything, not even one vote… but 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, I want to thank you all, God bless you and God Bless America.
Thank you all for being here, this is incredible, thank you all very much.
— Former President Donald Trump at the Ellipse on January 6th
Donald Trump was, after this speech concluded, advised by his team not to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue and he took that advice and did not march along side the crowd. Instead, they did so of their own accord, but at Donald Trump’s prompting.
Let’s take a few more words of this apart. For example, “the bold ones”. For this he is specifically referring to those like The Proud Boys and The Oathkeepers. He didn’t mention them by name, but he knew such “bold” groups were in attendance. He could see them in the crowd from the podium. For “the weak ones”, he’s trying to incite the people who don’t normally perform violent acts to step up and “take back our country”. For “take back our country”, that rhetoric is specific to the “Stop the Steal” lie discussed below.
Because Trump and his followers believe the election was stolen, he wanted everyone at that rally to “take back the country” from those who have been labeled as “thieves”… when, in fact, it was Trump who was the thief and who, at the time, was attempting to dismantle Democracy and the Constitution and illegally take a position from the duly elected candidate, Joe Biden and harm the rest of America by setting aflame the fabric of Democracy.
“Fight Like Hell”
A lot of people claim that these words are innocent. They aren’t. They’re actually fighting words. Let’s understand fighting words.
Violent actions began almost immediately (within a few minutes) after this speech concluded at the Capitol… as it was stated by Trump where “fight like hell” needed to occur. Once the people had walked down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol, all hell broke loose and the violence began. In this definition above, it says “incite an immediate breach of the peace”. How quickly “immediate” must be is a matter of debate, but I’d say it also matters based on its context… context that Trump supplied in his speech. “We’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue… we’re going to try and give them (the weak Republicans) the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.”
Trump told the crowd exactly what to do, where to do it and when to do it… and then followed through.
Once the rioting began, there were 187 minutes of continuous rioting that remained until Donald Trump broke his silence and requested the rioters to leave the Capitol grounds. However, by that time, the police may have been getting the crowds under control, no thanks to the President’s 187 minutes of inaction and silence.
It’s not just the “fight like hell” words, though. It’s all of the subtext in his and other people’s speech both before and after and the Save America Rally. It’s even in the name of the rally, “Save America” as though America needed saving. Saving from what exactly? The peaceful transition from one president to the next.
Stop the Steal
Again, we must step back in time to understand where this rally began and why. The “Save America Rally” wasn’t a one-off rally that appeared out of nowhere without context. No. It began as part of the “Stop the Steal” campaign that Trump initiated.
As we all know, Trump rejected (at the time in 2020) the idea that he had lost the election. In fact, he so rejected the notion that he lost the election, he fabricated all sorts of scenarios as to why it cannot be possible. From bad voting machines, to dead people voting, to faked ballots, to voting fraud, to election rigging on the part of the Democrats. He even attempted to rig the election himself in his favor by trying to replace the legitimate Electors with a set of his own choosing, Electors that would be faithful to Donald, not to Democracy.
Anything Donald could wrap his little greedy paws around, he’d use as a possible reason for Biden having won illegitimately. This included many, many failed lawsuits and paying for independent third party auditors to re-audit ballots in some key states. None of this worked… not the lawsuits, not the audits and definitely not his lies. The states that were accused of “rigging” or “cheating” have since audited and re-audited each and every vote cast many times to prove Biden legitimately won the election.
All of this was to no avail. Nothing has convinced Donald Trump that he has lost the 2020 election. As of this article’s date, Donald Trump is still attempting to perpetuate this lie.
No, the Save America Rally was intended for one singular purpose: to storm Capitol Hill and prevent the Electoral College from completing its job. That was the single, solitary purpose behind the Save America Rally. The rally was simply a precursor to rile up the crowd and give them a purpose. That’s exactly what Trump did in his speech.
The crowd, however, knew exactly the reason why they were there… to “Stop the Steal”. Of course, there was no steal involved. The election was free and fair and just. Nothing was stolen from anyone, least of all Donald Trump. Trump lost the election in the same way he had won it four years earlier. The voters cast their vote for Joe Biden in 2020 just as they had cast their vote for Donald Trump in 2016.
However, because the rally attendees knew exactly what “Save America” meant and knew exactly why the rally came to exist, it opened the door for exactly what happened on January 6th on the Capitol grounds.
Violence
Because it was known to at least some people in Trump’s administration, and likely to Trump himself, the types and groups of people who were invited to the rally, not just everyday citizens, but groups of extremists, it should have been known that violence was an inevitable outcome. Instead of attempting to quell that possibility during the Save America Rally, Trump did the opposite. He told them to “fight like hell” because “something is wrong”. The crowd knew exactly why they were there and it wasn’t to stand and listen to Donald Trump.
The day was January 6th, the day the Electoral College votes were to be counted. Having a rally specifically on that day with a march down to the Capitol was handwriting on the wall. There’s no way to “stop” the Electoral College by standing there peacefully outside. No. The crowd knew this. They didn’t need to be told, even though Trump more or less spelled it out with “Fight like Hell”.
The people handling this Electoral counting activity in the Capitol could only be stopped from within. That meant breaching the grounds and entering the building… which is exactly what the crowd proceeded to do and ultimately did. However, Pence and the rest of the House and Senate took shelter away from where the crowds were, thwarting advances by the crowds… only delaying the counting process.
The point to all of this is that Donald Trump’s prior rally lies combined with this Save America Rally speech lead directly to the violent outcomes of the crowd that commenced. If the Save America Rally hadn’t taken place, there would have been no riot. The riot was a direct result of the Save America Rally and, more specifically, because of Donald Trump’s words immediately prior to the crowd walking to the Capitol.
Motives
Clearly, Donald Trump had motive, opportunity and intent here. We know what that motive is. We understand the opportunity because of the Rally. We also understood the intent and outcome he desired. The motive was to stop the Electoral College and prevent them from continuing with their vote count so that he could continue his Presidency. How exactly that was to happen, Trump didn’t really care. Stopping the Electoral College vote would have been simply a stopgap measure. Meaning, even if the House and Senate hadn’t performed their vote count, President Biden would have still taken office. The vote was already official. The Senate and House portion is simply a formality. It is a formality which could likely be forgone without any problems in the system.
Exactly what Donald Trump thought he could accomplish by stopping that vote count with people breaching the Capitol is unknown.
Mike Pence
As Vice President, at the time, Mike Pence was requested by Donald Trump to reject some or all of the Electoral College vote counts. However, that’s not a power that the Vice President holds during the Electoral College vote count procedure. His role is procedural and as a facilitator of the process. The Vice President holds no power to veto, change or alter Electoral College votes in the way that Donald Trump had requested.
Why is this information important? It goes to motive on the part of Trump. Clearly, Trump was willing to try any and every avenue at this disposal to try to retake the office come January 20th, inauguration day. Trump wanted to be the one being inaugurated. Unfortunately, there was no way forward to that end short of dispensing with Democracy and the Constitution entirely… which is likely what Donald Trump wanted. Clearly, Donald Trump didn’t care whose toes he stepped on, whose coat got wet, or who fell in his puddles of water, so long as the outcome he wanted materialized.
When Pence told Trump he would be unable to do as requested by attempting to change the outcome of the Electoral College, Trump effectively tweeted that Pence had effectively turned on him. This, at the time that Pence and other representatives were holed up in fear of their lives against rioters… and at that time the tweet went out, the rioters began chanting “Hang Mike Pence”. Trump’s tweet alerted the rioters to the fact that Pence was not on board with keeping Trump in power.
Pence remained steadfast and continued with his oath and duties all while Trump did nothing to quell the rioting for 187 very long minutes.
187 minutes
Here’s a turning point. If you didn’t believe Trump had any hand in launching the riots, then you should after you understand that it took Trump 187 minutes to make a statement to stop the rioting, which he himself launched at the Ellipse. He wanted the Electoral College vote count to stop. He wanted to remain in power as President. This is all a given.
So, for that 187 minutes, he sat quietly (mostly), Tweeting only a few times. None of those communications were to tell the rioters to stop. No. Instead, they were, like the Pence tweet mentioned above, more or less attempting to egg the rioters on.
Even still, at the end of those grueling 187 minutes (at least for the cops there at the Capitol), Trump finally called a halt, but then rewarded the rioters with “Go home. We love you. You’re very special”.
You don’t reward people for bashing other people’s heads with barriers, fire extinguishers and flagpoles all while dousing them with pepper spray. That’s not what you say to people involved in violent activities. That statement was, in fact, so inappropriate as to be distasteful. It also goes to show, once again, motive, opportunity and intent. A person truly wanting the violence to stop doesn’t offer up rewarding words. Truly disgusting.
Motive, Opportunity and Intent
All three of these indicate a mindset of Trump at the time. Let’s support these with Trump’s actions:
- Trump knew he had lost the election, but created the big election lie
- Trump began the Stop the Steal rallies
- Trump sued states to attempt to prove voter fraud
- Trump invited people to the Capitol on the day of the Electoral College vote count specifically to interfere and stop the count
- Trump incited and fomented the riot at the Capitol from the people who attended the “Save America Rally”
- Trump more than likely knew violent extremist groups were present at the rally
- Trump incited the crowd with phrases like “Fight like hell” and “Save America”
- Trump did nothing for 187 minutes while these groups continued attacking the Capitol
- Trump rewarded the attendees at the end of those 187 minutes once he knew they couldn’t succeed
- Trump lost at this attempt
The motive, then, is to attempt to stay in power as President illegally beyond his Presidential term. The opportunity is to use his public power and words to wield citizens as weapons against the U.S. Government. The intent is to stop the peaceful transition of power.
What was the intent during his 187 minutes of mostly silence? The same as stated above. However, there’s no way to know what was going through Trump’s head. That’s the reason for the January 6th hearing testimony. To uncover conversations people had with Donald Trump during those 187 minutes. These conversations and other information may be very relevant to see a glimpse into the mind of Donald Trump, to see what he was thinking and possibly doing (or not doing).
Guilty or Innocent?
While 187 minutes with him doing nothing to stop the riot may not be considered a crime as part of his Presidential duties, as part of a wider and larger operation, including his election lie, the Stop the Steal concept, the Save America Rally insurrection incitement and the subsequent riot when combined, it may point to other illegal activities. It certainly leads to this conclusion.
That Trump is likely guilty of attempting to overthrow the election to remain in office. What he did is actually a form of Advocating to Overthrow the Government, which is highly illegal and carries a fine and up to 20 years in prison, along with a 5 year ban on holding any government position. Advocating to overthrow may be further considered a form of treason if other conditions are present (i.e, 187 minutes of silence).
At the time of the Capitol riot, the rioters should be considered an enemy of the United States. As a result, Trump doing nothing during those 187 minutes to stop the rioters could see him considered guilty of “adher[ing] to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort in the United States.” The very definition of Treason. If the rioters are labeled an enemy of the United States for the duration of the riot, then Trump should be considered “giving aid” during that 187 minutes of silence. He started the whole thing and then did nothing to stop it. That’s very much “giving aid”. His “rewarding” words stated when he asked the rioters to go home solidifies the fact that he was “giving aid”.
Anyone who attacks a Federal building should automatically be considered an enemy of the United States for the time they continue to attack. It doesn’t matter if the person is a natural born citizen or not. It’s the action of attacking which changes the status of the person to an enemy of the United States.
Some argue, well Trump would be overthrowing himself as he was still in power at the time. No, he was actually attempting to overthrow the future Biden administration, which was just days away from taking office. Trump’s tenure was ending and he knew that. Trump wasn’t overthrowing himself, he was attempting to overthrow Democracy (and Biden). He was attempting to light the Constitution on fire and burn it all to keep himself in power and keep Biden out of the office after Biden was so duly elected.
Clearly, it failed. Trump failed. It wasn’t for lack of trying and it wasn’t without damage and consequences to police who lost their lives, to the Capitol building that needed repairs and to at least one rioter who was killed… not to mention, the damage it has done to the reputation of the United States around the world.
This all means that because of Trump’s direct actions, not only is he likely guilty for Advocating to Overthrow the Government, not only may he be further guilty of Treason, he is likely also responsible for the deaths during the Capitol riot. After all, if he hadn’t held the “Save America Rally”, those extremists might never have showed up. It was due to his Tweet and his prompting that led people to the Ellipse and ultimately to the Capitol that day. Therefore, at the very least, Trump is partially responsible for the deaths of those at the Capitol on January 6th, 2021. Because of his 187 minutes of inaction, he likely intentionally let the rioters continue unabated which appears that he had “given them aid and comfort in the United States”, the very definition of Treason.
Trial and Consequences
All of this means, especially after all of the January 6th Select Committee’s investigation, that there should be more than sufficient evidence for the Department of Justice to hold a trial over Donald Trump’s actions prior to and leading up to the January 6th riot event.
Leave the trial up to a jury to decide whether or not Trump is guilty of any or all of these charges. Personally, I don’t see innocence here. There is nothing at all innocent about lying about election fraud, then inviting violent extremists to the Capitol, unleashing them onto an unsuspecting police force and then giving them 187 minutes to perform their damage, kill people, all in an attempt to halt the Electoral College vote process. That doesn’t at all say innocent to me. No, Trump definitely needs an indictment and a trial over all of this.
↩︎
Random Thoughts - Randocity! 
leave a comment