Will this be made public?
And, in this case, what does ‘redacted’ mean? Are some parts blacked out?
I haven’t yet had time to review the filing, but “unsealed” means “made public.” I assume there are still some redacted portions, but the bulk of it is now public information. They’re discussing it now on MSNBC.
Two points that have already been made:
-
When Trump was told that Pence was secured and safe during the riot, Trump replied, “So what?”
-
Trump apparently instructed someone (I didn’t catch who) to “Make them riot.” That’s pretty bad!
from what i see on msnbc, explosive. the 3 lawyers on the panel do not look good. gasps are happening as they are reading when not on camera.
found it. the article has the link, over 100 page pdf.
Great, thanks for the explanation.
Thank you! I have stuff to do today, but I hope to fit in at least a cursory review of the filing.
Here is an article I found about it.
It wasn’t Trump who made the “Make then Riot” claim it was an [name redacted] staffer from his campaign.
Here is the relevant portion
The filing says that on Nov. 4, 2020, a campaign employee and “co-conspirator” of Trump tried to sow confusion at the vote count being held at the TCF Center in Detroit, Michigan, which “looked unfavorable to” Trump.
The name of the employee is redacted in the filing, which contains many such redactions of the names of individuals and other details.
When a colleague of that unidentified campaign employee told that person that a batch a votes appeared to be heavily in favor of Joe Biden, the employee responded “find a reason it isn’t,” “give me options to file litigation” and “even if itsbis,” the filing alleges.
“When the colleague suggested that there was about to be unrest reminiscent of the Brooks Brothers Riot” during the Florida vote count in the 2000 election, the campaign employee “responded ‘Make them riot’ and ‘Do it!!!,’ ” the motion alleges.
Thank you! Obviously I badly garbled that when I heard it reported. Thanks for setting the record straight. It’s almost more shocking that a campaign employee did it. I wonder which one?
Isn’t it sad that it could literally be any staffer? “Who’s crazy enough to say that” doesn’t exactly cut down on the possibilities.
the exchange is on page 8. the name is redacted, p5 is what the person is called. p5 is a campaign operative.
QFT. Also, just the general criminality of it. I’m so sick of this aspect being downplayed.
pg 9
starts the move from team sane to team kraken. this happens on nov. 13th. that was when the campaign conceded its litigation in az. trump had no lawful way to win.
trump fired p3 and put cc1 in charge.
itsbis?
Presumably, “even if it’s BS.”
pages 12-14 give the dates that pence tried to gently prod trump to accept it is over. “not to look at (the election) as a loss…just an intermission.”
Pg 25
P4 (senior campaign adviser) writes “when our research and campaign legal team can’t back up any of the claims made by our elite strike force legal team, you can see why we are 0-32 on our cases. I’ll obviously hustle to help on all fronts, but it’s tough to own any of this when it’s all just conspiracy s*** beamed down from the mothership.”
For those that follow msnbc there will be a jack smith filing special with maddow, Hayes, and O’Donnell at 8pm eastern.
Pg 27
In trump vs kemp the defendant signed a verification of fraud allegations that he and the attorney on the case (believed to be Eastman) knew was inaccurate.
P9 (an attorney who represented trump in impeachment 1) spoke to the defendant and Eastman and p31 (another attorney).
He told them they could not have the defendant sign this as they could not verify the “facts” and any lawyer who signed the complaint would be disbarred.
Nonetheless, on dec. 31st, the defendant signed the verification and Eastman caused it to be filed.
Eastman’s law license is suspended.
More informed people than I have put forward the following guesses based on context. Do remember that this remains speculation though:
CC1- Rudy Giuliani
CC2- John Eastman
CC3- Sidney Powell
CC4- Jeff Clark
CC5- Ken Chesebro
CC6- (Boris Epsteyn ? Or Marc Roman?)
P1- Steve Bannon
P2 Bill Stepien
P3 Justin Clark
P4 Jason Miller
P8 Marc Short
P9 Eric Herschmann
P12 Jenna Ellis
P13 Jared Kushner
P16 Doug Ducey
P17 Brian Kemp
P18 Rusty Bowers
P19 Christina Bobb
P21- Mark Meadows
P25 Gabriel Sterling
P27 David Purdue
P28 Kelly Loeffler
P29,30 Shaye Moss & Ruby Freeman
P33- Brad Raffensperger
P35 Ryan Germany
P36 Cleta Mitchell
P39- Ronna McDaniel
P42- Rhona Graff
P43 Justin Reimer
P44 Liz Harrington
P50- Christopher Krebs
P52- Bill Barr
P58- Greg Jacob
I’ve also seen it suggested that the infamous P5 is Stephen Miller but that seems to be a less-informed stab in the dark.
Pg 67 mentions that pence has 5 pages of notes from a meeting pence had with defendant, Eastman, and 2 pence staffers on Jan 4.
The meeting concluded with pence stating “I’m not seeing this argument working”.
Defendant requested that pence staff meet with Eastman to discuss further. Pence agreed.
Pg 68 the morning of Jan 5 defendant spoke with bannon. 2 hours later on his podcast bannon states “all hell is going to break loose tomorrow”.
Pg 71 Jan 5th the defendant met with pence. The defendant threatened to criticize him publicly. This concerned pence’s cos and the cos alerted vpotus secret service detail.
A phone call later in the day another phone call from the defendant to vpotus, pence again stated he did not have the authority.
Shortly after the call defendant tweeted. “I will be speaking at the save America rally tomorrow on the ellipse at 11 am eastern. Arrive early doors open at 11 am eastern.
Big crowds!
Pp 72-78
Speak to the continued pressure on pence the defendant uses twitter to publicly pressure trump.
Before taking the stage the defendant once again calls pence. Pence again says he does have the authority. The defendant becomes incensed and in his speech he targets pence.
Moment by moment going through the defendant’s speech and the crowd’s response to it.
Pg 78 cc5 attended the speech, walked with the crowd, and breached the restricted area.
Pp78-85 outline the day from the defendant watching Fox News alone in the dining area off the oval, to what is happening in the capital.
I feel like you have some typos in this? bolding mine to highlight