Tag: coup
What Liz Cheney Meant In Her Warning To Coup Conspirators

What Liz Cheney Meant In Her Warning To Coup Conspirators

Rep. Liz Cheney delivered two clear warnings during last week's House Select Committee hearings. One was to Donald Trump aides and allies who conspired with him to violently overthrow our government. The second was to those who merely observed these crimes but refuse to tell what they know.

The first message: the game is up because the J6 committee has the goods on Trump’s conspiracy, the coverup and the witness tampering so it’s time to either rat out Donald to save your own skin or give up any hope of leniency when indictments are handed out.

The second message: there’s no legitimate public reason to hold back information if you were a bystander, an observer, but if you do nothing your reputation will be trashed, you will be forever branded a coward and you just might get indicted for failure to report traitorous conduct, itself a crime called misprision of a felony.


The only issue is how to frame the case against Trump and his co-conspirators. As prosecutors often say, you file the case you can win, not the case you want to file.

Cheney didn’t say any of those specifics. She didn’t have to because while the significance of her words and actions may have flown over the heads of most people the lawyers got it loud and clear to criminal defense lawyers representing both the conspirators and the bystanders. The lawyers could be as drunk as Rudy Giuliani and they would still get the messages.

Cheney, that rare Republican who has not surrendered her soul to Trump, put two messages on a big screen at the end of Tuesday’s hearing. The texts showed witness tampering, something Trump has done all his life as the late great Wayne Barrett documented three decades ago.

The terrifying part for conspirators who still cling to Donald was that no names were shown on the big screen, a move sure to spread paranoia and suspicion among the conspirators.

Conspiracy law is designed to help law enforcement drive a wedge between criminals. Criminal defense lawyers are for sure asking their clients this question: Which do you prefer, prison for you or for Donald?

In the cold calculus of criminal law, conspirators who get to prosecutors first with solid evidence and who come clean, really clean, may be able to cut deals saving them from much if any prison time. Even if they can’t avoid prison, they may be able to negotiate agreements on how long and where they will serve their time.

Witness tampering is a charge that prosecutors love to include in a conspiracy case because it shows mens rea – criminal intent. If you are actualoly innocent why would you try to prevent witnesses from telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

No Going Back

For some of Trump’s traitors it’s too late. Like Dante, they stare at the sign above the gates of Hell: abandon hope all ye who enter here. Among those are Giuliani and Mike Flynn, the disgraced general who was on at least two Kremlin-connected payrolls, one direct, the other surreptious.

During a video deposition, snippets of which were played at the Tuesday hearing, Cheney asked Flynn an anodyne question that any loyal American immediately would answer with one word: Yes.

Cheney asked Flynn if he supported the peaceful transition of power from one administration to the next. Flynn exercised his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Flynn’s response, his lawyer at his side, makes perfect sense only if you are a traitor who participated in Trump’s failed coup d’état.

But for others who conspired, or watched and failed to act, there is still hope.

A legal tool can be used to persuade those foolishly loyal to Trump to tell the truth even if all they did was observe the coup plotting and execution of that incompetent but still dangerous attempt to overthrow our democracy.

Title 18 Section 4, known as misprision of a felony, provides that “having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under ther United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Misprision—note the third “i” in that word—means “the deliberate concealment of one’s knowledge of a treasonable act or a felony.” That’s what a coup is: treason. But there are many other crimes that the Justice Department can file against the Trump conspirators.

The Only Issue

The issue before Attorney General Merrick Garland, thanks to work his people should have done but that the J6 committee did instead, is no longer whether there is a criminal case to be made against Donald Trump. The issue isn’t even, as some former federal prosecutors keep saying, whether Trump should be indicted.

The only issue is how to frame the case against Trump and his co-conspirators. As prosecutors often say, you file the case you can win, not the case you want to file.

Part of that framing is how to break up the conspiracy; how to get the rats to turn on each other.

Its clear from search warrant affidavits and subpoenas that Garland has an active criminal investigation or multiple investigations underway.

The real question how is how far flung will the indictments be and will our Justice Department bring a clear, simple and direct case against the man who would be our dictator.

Reprinted with permission from DC Report.

Trump’s Coup Failed But The Danger Still Looms

Trump’s Coup Failed But The Danger Still Looms

Every American recalls with pride the revolution of 1776, when our forebears joined together to cast off colonial rule and create a new nation. Far less familiar is one that was almost equally momentous: the revolution of 1800.

The presidential election that took place then, a dozen years after the ratification of the Constitution, was fraught with peril. Federalists, who supported incumbent John Adams, regarded his opponent Thomas Jefferson as a dangerous radical.

If Jefferson were to become president, it was said, "Murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will be openly taught and practiced, the air will be rent with the cries of distress, the soil will be soaked with blood, and the nation black with crimes." Fear of civil war hung over the nation.

It could have happened. An unintended quirk of the Constitution (corrected by the 12th Amendment in 1803) gave 73 electoral votes to Jefferson — and 73 to his running mate, Aaron Burr, who under the rules had an equal claim to the presidency. The election went to the House of Representatives, and after 36 ballots, Jefferson emerged the winner.

But this result presented a new scenario: the transfer of power from a defeated president. It was a moment of potential crisis for a republic still in its infancy, with its survival still very much an open question. Would the constitutional design function as intended? Or would the losers find a way to hang on to power?


In the end, Adams did what he was supposed to do, and Jefferson became president without incident. Writer Margaret Bayard Smith wrote on Inauguration Day, "I have this morning witnessed one of the most interesting scenes, a free people can ever witness. The changes of administration, which in every government and in every age have most generally been epochs of confusion, villainy and bloodshed, in this our happy country take place without any species of distraction, or disorder."

That peaceful proceeding set the pattern for the next two centuries. Disappointed incumbents swallowed their pride and deferred to the will of the people. While serving as vice presidents, in 1961 and 2001, Richard Nixon and Al Gore even graciously presided over the counting of the electoral votes that made their defeat official.

It's easy to take familiar traditions like these for granted. Only when they are violated does their fragility and their priceless value become apparent. No president ever attempted to stay in power after the voters had rejected him — no president until Donald Trump.

As former federal appellate Judge J. Michael Luttig, a respected conservative, said in a statement to the House committee investigating the Capitol insurrection, "On January 6, 2021, the prescribed day for choosing the American president, there was not to be a peaceful transfer of power — for the first time in the history of our republic."

Except for the moral and physical courage of someone not previously known for that quality, Mike Pence, we might now be ruled an illegitimate tyrant. We might be embroiled in uncertainty with the outcome still up for grabs. We might be on the verge of civil war.

In any case, our form of government would have been fatally damaged. As Luttig noted, it was not just an election that Trump nearly stole; it was democracy itself. What took place on January 6 resembled a desperate battle for power in a banana republic.

A few Republicans have been willing to denounce the attempted coup — notably committee members Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, who were among the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump for his role. But most have tried to dismiss or rationalize it.

Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy derided the committee's televised sessions, demanding that Speaker Nancy Pelosi hold a prime-time hearing on "out-of-control" inflation. But inflation is a recurring malady, which we know how to cure and which the Federal Reserve is already acting against.

By contrast, rescuing constitutional democracy from a mortal threat is something we have never had to do and may not be able to do. It would be foolish to assume that because Trump's attempted usurpation failed, the danger has passed.

After his victory was announced, Thomas Jefferson was pleased but not complacent. "I sincerely thank you for your congratulations on my election, but this is only the first verse of the chapter," he wrote a friend. "What the last may be nobody can tell."

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Emails Show Coup Plotter Eastman Knew Plan Was Illegal

Emails Show Coup Plotter Eastman Knew Plan Was Illegal

John Eastman, former President Donald Trump's lawyer, was well aware that it was unlawful to obstruct the Electoral College certification of President Joe Biden's election victory, new reports reveal.

According to The Guardian, Eastman admitted in an email that the plot was a violation of the Electoral Count Act but advised former Vice President Mike Pence to move forward with the agenda anyway.

Per The Guardian: "The email exchange – revealed in court filings by the select committee last week – shows Eastman attempted to take advantage of the fact that the Electoral Count Act was not followed exactly in the immediate aftermath of the Capitol attack to try and benefit Trump."

“The Senate and House have both violated the Electoral Count Act this evening – they debated the Arizona objections for more than two hours. Violation of 3 USC 17,” Eastman wrote.

Eastman is also said to have pressured the former vice president's to support the flawed agenda describing it as "only a 'minor violation' of the statute that governed the certification procedure."

In a second portion of the email, Eastman attempted to justify his actions arguing that "the statute had already been violated in small ways – delays that amounted to a few hours at best – Pence should have no problem committing 'one more minor violation and adjourn for 10 days.'"

Eastman’s email is deeply significant becayse it suggests he "knew the scheme to delay Biden’s certification was unlawful – which the select committee believes bolsters its case that he was involved in a conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruct Congress," The Guardian reports.

House Counsel Douglas Letter also weighed in with his take on Eastman’s actions and what he requested of Pence.

“It was so minor it could have changed the entire course of our democracy," Letter noted. "It could have meant the popularly elected president could have been thwarted from taking office. That was what Dr. Eastman was urging.”

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

Gen. John Allen Says Trump Orders Could Lead To ‘Civil Military Crisis’

Gen. John Allen Says Trump Orders Could Lead To ‘Civil Military Crisis’

Gen. John Allen, a four-star General and formerly President Obama’s Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL, told This Week with George Stephanopoulos on Sunday that “we would be facing a civil military crisis, the likes of which we have not seen in this country before,” if Donald Trump carried out some of his campaign promises as president.

“He’s talked about needing to torture. He’s talked about needing to murder the families of alleged terrorists. He’s talked about carpet-bombing ISIL. Who do you think is going to get carpet-bombed when all of that occurs? It’ll be innocent families,” Gen. John Allen (Ret.) said, before Stephanopoulos asked him about the consequences of Trump asking military leaders to break the law.

John Allen, who spoke recently in support of Hillary Clinton’s bid for the presidency at the Democratic National Convention, isn’t the first to note that Trump may be unfit to lead the military.

In July of last year, Rear Admiral John Hutson, who once served as the Navy’s top lawyer, told the Daily Beast, “Personally, I hope no one will be called upon to serve under a President T… I can’t bring myself to type the words.”

In December, the website ran a brief profile of Pentagon officials who anonymously said they would refuse to serve in a Trump administration.

In February, former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden told Bill Maher, of Trump’s comments on “waterboarding and a whole lot more” and killing terrorists’ families, “if he were to order that once in government, the American armed forces would refuse to act.”

In March, a group of 121 “GOP National Security Leaders” signed a letter denouncing Trump’s proposals and behavior, including his “embrace of the expansive use of torture,” “anti-Muslim rhetoric,” and “admiration for foreign dictators such as Vladimir Putin.” The letter said Trump’s “insistence that close allies such as Japan must pay vast sums for protection is the sentiment of a racketeer.”

Trump called John Allen a “failed general” in response to his DNC speech — one assumes for the continued existence of the Islamic State. Responding to criticism that military leaders ought to stay neutral in partisan elections, John Allen told Stephanopoulos, “I’ve agonized over this decision over and over again … I wanted to make sure it was very clear that I supported this particular candidate, Hillary Clinton, to be the president and the commander-in-chief and I decried these comments that put us on a potential track for a civil military crisis the like of which we have never seen in this country.”

Photo and Video: ABC/ Media Matters for America.