The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

Tag: trump insurrection

Federal Appeals Court Says Insurrectionists Could Be Disqualified From Election

Joining an insurrection against the United States is grounds for disqualifying a public official from continuing to hold office, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday.

The decision is a significant blow for Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-NC), who suffered a not-so-surprising trouncing in the GOP primary for his seat in North Carolina’s 11th District.

Before the defeat, Cawthorn, an extremist Republican and staunch Trump ally, was challenged by North Carolina voters who argued that the lawmaker’s role in inciting the violent mob that later stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021 was enough reason to ban him from ever holding public office again under the 14th Amendment.

No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof," the amendment states clearly.

Cawthorn sued the North Carolina State Board of Elections in February to stop officials from entertaining any requests to re-examine his eligibility to run for reelection. The Republican lawmaker argued that an amnesty law Congress passed in 1872 meant that the disqualification language in the 14th amendment didn’t apply to future insurrectionists, according to BuzzFeed.

On Tuesday, a panel of judges at the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the plaintiff voters and ruled against Cawthorn. One of the court's three-judge panel, Judge Toby Heytens, wrote, “The issue currently before us is whether that same 1872 legislation also prospectively lifted the constitutional disqualification for all future rebels or insurrectionists, no matter their conduct. To ask such a question is nearly to answer it.”

“The available evidence suggests that the Congress that enacted the 1872 Amnesty Act was, understandably, laser-focused on the then-pressing problems posed by the hordes of former Confederates seeking forgiveness,” Heyten added.

“We hold that the 1872 Amnesty Act removed the Fourteenth Amendment’s eligibility bar only for those whose constitutionally wrongful acts occurred before its enactment,” the ruling read.

Cawthorn argued that the case was moot because he had long since lost and conceded the race to his rival, but the court disagreed because the election results hadn’t been certified yet; therefore, the issue could reappear in another campaign, per the Daily Mail.

However, the court didn’t include any language in its ruling that indicated the judiciary considered the January 6 riot an insurrection, or whether the efforts of Trump and his allies to overturn the 2020 election results could disqualify them from holding office.

Free Speech for People, an advocacy group that backed the voters' challenges to Cawthorn, hailed the ruling as a major victory in its statement. “This ruling cements the growing judicial consensus that the 1872 Amnesty Act does not shield the insurrectionists of 6 January 2021 – including Donald Trump – from the consequences of their actions.”

The group has brought similar cases against other Republicans closely tied to the horrific events of January 6: Reps. Marjorie Taylor Green (R-GA), Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Andy Biggs (R-AZ), and Mark Finchem, an Arizona state representative.

Neither of these cases has been successful.

House Panel Obtains Coup Plot Emails That Eastman Tried To Conceal

John C. Eastman was the author of an infamous two-page memo that found the far-right attorney and Donald Trump supporter outlining a scheme in which then-Vice President Mike Pence would throw out the 2020 presidential election results during a joint session of Congress on January 6, 2021. Eastman’s insurrectionist activities have been probed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s House Select Committee, which, according to CNN, has “obtained a cache of emails” that Eastman “sought to keep secret.”

CNN reporters Katelyn Polantz and Paul LeBlanc explain, “The 101 e-mails, exchanged between January 4 and January 7, 2021, were released to the committee after Judge David Carter ruled that Eastman had not made a sufficient claim to attorney-client privilege. One e-mail, a draft memo for Rudy Giuliani, was obtained by the committee because the judge decided it was potentially being used to plan a crime. The memo recommended that then-Vice President Mike Pence reject some states’ electors during the January 6 congressional meeting.”

According to Carter, “This may have been the first time (that) members of President Trump’s team transformed a legal interpretation of the Electoral Count Act into a day-by-day plan of action.”

Carter, describing the e-mails, wrote, “In another e-mail thread, Dr. Eastman’s colleagues discuss whether to publish a piece supporting his plan, and they touch on state lawsuits only to criticize how they are being handled by the Trump campaign…. In a different e-mail thread, Dr. Eastman and a colleague consider how to use a state court ruling to justify Vice President Pence enacting the plan. In another e-mail, a colleague focuses on the ‘plan of action’ after the January 6 attacks.”

Efforts by the January 6 committee to obtain those e-mails, Polantz and Paul LeBlanc note, were “closely watched in the legal community because of the panel’s bold move to accuse Eastman and Trump of criminal conspiracy.”

“The House said it believed Trump had been trying to obstruct Congress and to defraud the government by blocking his loss of the election and discussing it with Eastman,” the CNN journalists note. “Still, neither Trump nor Eastman has been charged with any crimes. Further, despite the House’s filings, lawmakers aren’t prosecutors and can’t bring charges. And there is no public indication that the Justice Department is seriously investigating Eastman and Trump’s attempt to subvert the 2020 election.”

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

Trump White House Shut Down Record-Keeping On Day Before  Capitol Riot

Former President Donald Trump's presidential diarist has revealed how his records diminished vastly during the time leading up to January 6.

In a collective piece published by CNN, the network's reporters and correspondents, Zachary Cohen, Jamie Gangel, Ryan Nobles, Annie Grayer, and Paula Reid, offered comprehensive details about the mystery behind Trump's scant records in the days leading up to the insurrection on the U.S. Capitol.

"The presidential diary that was generated for January 6 contains scant details," they reported. "It lists information from the switchboard call logs and Trump's public schedule but little else besides a phone call the former President had with an "unidentified individual" at 11:17 a.m. And there are no entries in the diary for roughly three hours, from 1:21 p.m. to 4:03 p.m."

Multiple inside sources familiar with the day-to-day operations of the Trump White House and the current investigation into the seven-hour gap in official notations as the angry mob stormed the U.S Capitol on January 6. One inside source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, claimed White House record-keepers "appeared to be "iced out" in the days leading up to January 6."

Another inside source with knowledge of the investigation revealed the last day of normalcy. "The last day that normal information was sent was the fourth," said another source. "So, starting the fifth, the diarist didn't receive the annotated calls and notes. This was a dramatic departure. That is all out of the ordinary."

So, was the change intentional? Was there a directive for the seemingly abrupt change in record-keeping? Those questions have yet to be answered and the possibility of intentionality has yet to be determined.

"It's tough to know what that change was. Was it intentional?" one source said. "You can only keep track of something when you know what's going on. When people don't share things with you, whether that was intentional and who decided that, I think it's a little murky at this point."

However, the latest development does suggest notable changes did come in the days leading up to the insurrection; not just on the day unrest erupted at the federal building.

According to one former official who worked for the Trump administration, "'all sense of normal order started to break down' and around early January, 'the cracks were showing.'" As Trump and his allies continued to scramble in hopes of him staying in power, the former official noted that some White House staffers were already seeking new jobs while others were unsure of what to do. In short, the official described the last days of the Trump White House as "every man for himself."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

Endorse This: MSNBC Supercut Highlights Cruz's January 6 Hypocrisy (VIDEO)

Republican Senator Ted Cruz has proven time and again that he's a feckless partisan hack. He shamelessly cosplays as a salt of the earth, working folks conservative when in realty he's a Princeton and Harvard-schooled elitist. Now he's arguing that “Democrats don’t believe in democracy."

Cruz's mammoth hypocrisy is highlighted in a new supercut that offers a blistering comparison of his remarks following the 2020 presidential election compared to now. MSNBC’s Mehdi Hasan released the video, featuring Cruz's contradictory remarks days before the insurrection on the U.S. Capitol. He pretends to be on the side of democracy when he and his cultist party are blatantly destroying it.

Watch:

Michael Hayne is a comedian, writer, voice artist, podcaster, and impressionist. Follow his work on Facebook and TikTok

How A Trump Tweet Mobilized His January 6 Insurrection Mob

At the time, it just seemed like another in a series of increasingly unhinged tweets emanating from the White House. But in retrospect, it has become increasingly clear—importantly, to the House Select Committee, as the New York Times reports—that Donald Trump’s tweet of December 18, 2020, was a call to arms for his army of uncivil warriors, telling them when and where to come to prevent his removal from office as a result of losing what he falsely claimed was a fraudulent election.

The tweet cited a report by his minion Peter Navarro (thoroughly debunked in short order) in the Washington Examiner claiming there was enough fraud in key battleground states to swing the election. “Statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 Election,” he claimed, and exhorted his readers: “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”

Trump tweet Dec. 19 2020

As we reported at the time, a broad bandwidth of Trump supporters—including violent neo-fascists like the Proud Boys and heavily armed “Patriots” such as the Oath Keepers—promptly leapt into action, preparing to come to Washington to prevent their “Glorious Leader” from being swept from office. And they not only heard Trump’s call, they responded just as he had hoped they would—by putting Congress under physical siege and attempting an insurrection.

Subsequently, evidence released by the Justice Department in the 700-plus court cases filed so far in the insurrection substantiates that Trump’s tweet played a central role in attracting a mob numbering in the tens of thousands to Washington—and not just any mob, but one prepared to use violence to prevent the certification of the Electoral College votes that day. And among those were people, notably those same Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, who had very specific plans for achieving that goal.

The Times notes that the evidence clearly shows the electrifying effect the tweet had on Trump’s far-right troops:

Extremist groups almost immediately celebrated Mr. Trump’s Twitter message, which they widely interpreted as an invitation to descend on the city in force. Responding to the president’s words, the groups sprang into action, court filings and interviews by the House committee show: Extremists began to set up encrypted communications channels, acquire protective gear and, in one case, prepare heavily armed “quick reaction forces” to be staged outside Washington.
They also began to whip up their members with a drumbeat of bellicose language, with their private messaging channels increasingly characterized by what one called an “apocalyptic tone.” Directly after Mr. Trump’s tweet was posted, the Capitol Police began to see a spike in right-wing threats against members of Congress.

At least one member of the Oath Keepers—the leaders of the group’s Florida chapter, Kelly Meggs—boasted the next day:

Well we are ready for the rioters, this week I organized an alliance between Oath Keepers, Florida 3%ers, and Proud Boys. We have decided to work together to shut this shit down

Meggs posted another message three days later referencing Trump’s December 19 tweet. Meggs wrote: “He wants us to make it WILD that's what he's saying. He called us all to the Capitol and wants us to make it wild!!! Sir Yes Sir!!! Gentlemen we are heading to DC pack your shit!!"

A few days later, on December 26, Meggs messaged his cohorts that they were targeting January 6 for an “insurrection”: “Trumps staying in, he’s Gonna use the emergency broadcast system on cell phones to broadcast to the American people. Then he will claim the insurrection act.”

“That’s awesome,” someone replied. “Any idea when?”

“Next week,” Meggs answered, adding: “Then wait for the 6th when we are all in DC to insurrection.”

Key leaders of the far-right mob began organizing around January 6 almost immediately after Trump’s 10:25 p.m. tweet. White-nationalist America First leader Nick Fuentes tweeted at 2:26 a.m. that he intended to join Trump on January 6. Ali Alexander—who had been organizing and leading various “Stop the Steal” protests outside ballot-counting facilities in key battleground states—started promoting Trump’s post later that afternoon.

Within days, Alexander took a leading role in organizing protests on January 6, teaming up with Amy Kremer and other mainstream Republican operatives to make them happen. There wound up being four different pro-Trump events in Washington that day; the one overseen by Alexander was called the “Wild Protest,” for which you could get the details at his wildprotest.com website.

Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes—who now stands charged with seditionist conspiracy for his actions on January 6 and those leading up to it—had been a featured speaker at the first “Stop the Steal” rally on December 12, exhorting the crowd: “He needs to use that now, he needs to invoke the Insurrection Act and suppress this insurrection,” adding: “If he does not do it now, while he is commander in chief, we are going to have to do it ourselves later, in a much more desperate, much more bloody war.”

Trump’s tweet raised Rhodes’ hyperbole to new heights; on December 21, he warned in an interview that there would be “a massively bloody revolution” if Joe Biden took office. Two days later, he posted a letter saying that “tens of thousands of patriot Americans” with “mission-critical gear” stashed nearby would be in Washington on January 6.

A December 27 email from stopthesteal.us, headlined “TRUMP JUST TWEETED JAN 6TH EVENT! AGAIN!” encouraged followers to attend, directing them to Alexander’s “Wild Protest” site. “PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTS YOU IN DC JANUARY 6,” it emphasized, adding that the organization was working to secure the votes of Republican Senators to oppose Biden’s certification: “We’ve identified six (seven including Senator-elect Tommy Tuberville) that could join our cause. StopTheSteal.us is working closely, whipping the vote up, with patriots in the Congress.”

As Media Matters reported, some two dozen GOP officials and organizations in at least 12 states used Facebook as a platform to organize bus trips to the rally. The posts advertising the buses were unsparing in the use of incendiary rhetoric, too.

“This is a call to ALL patriots from Donald J Trump for a BIG protest in Washington DC! TAKE AMERICA BACK! BE THERE, WILL BE WILD!” wrote the New Hanover County GOP of North Carolina in a Facebook post advertising bus seats. (The phrase “be there, will be wild!” was a rallying cry by Trump to his followers for that day.)

Trump himself kept tweeting.

December 27: “See you in Washington, DC, on January 6th. Don’t miss it. Information to follow.”

December 30: “JANUARY SIXTH, SEE YOU IN DC!”

January 1: “The BIG Protest Rally in Washington, D.C. will take place at 11:00 A.M. on January 6th. Locational details to follow. StopTheSteal!”

Trump’s tweets and the rush of organizing that followed gave the green light to the would-be uncivil warriors. “On January 6, we find out whether we still have a constitutional republic,” one MAGA fanatic tweeted on New Year’s Eve. “If not, the revolution begins. I’d rather fight and die than live in a socialist society. Pretty sure 80 million Americans feel the same way.”

In the leadup, QAnon accounts grew excited. More than half of the 20,800 QAnon-identified accounts on Twitter mentioned the date and the rally, though only a minority called for violence. Rather, most of them posted their typically outlandish claims intended to outrage and inflame readers.

“No wonder the President said January 6 in DC was going to be wild. @LLinWood just told us many of our politicians are raping and killing children. They won’t be able to walk down the street,” one QAnon account on Parler posted.

When the day arrived, the thousands drawn to D.C. were primed for action. The big event on January 6 was the “March to Save America” at the White House Ellipse, at which Trump spoke. There were other rallies scheduled to follow: Ali Alexander’s “Wild Protest,” scheduled to take place northeast of the Capitol; and three variations on “Stop the Steal” rallies at Freedom Plaza, just east of the White House. These later events were largely short-circuited by the insurrection, as the crowds fled the venue to join the scene at the Capitol.

The tweet inspired a broad swath of conspiracies unconnected to the Oath Keepers or Proud Boys, usually involving only a handful of actors. In one such case, according to the indictment, a trio of extremist Trump supporters from California traveled to Washington, in their own words, to “violently remove traitors” and “replace them with able bodied Patriots.” Embroiled with the mob on the Capitol’s western entrance, one of them tazed Metropolitan Police Officer Michael Fanone into unconsciousness, while another encouraged the mob to climb in through broken windows; once inside, the trio trashed congressional offices.

The three of them apparently met on a Telegram channel called “Patriots 45 MAGA Gang,” where they shared Trump-related conspiracy theories and agreed that action needed to be taken to prevent Trump from being unseated as president. Two days later, local Trump activist named Edward Badalian asked the channel, “okay who is down to drive to DC on Jan4?” The next day, he opined that “we need to violently remove traitors and if they are in key positions rapidly replace them with able-bodied Patriots.”

“We gotta go handle this shit in DC so the crooked politicians don’t have an army of thugs threatening violence to back their malevolent cabal ways,” wrote Badalian in one thread.

“We are taking this shit back,” Badalian wrote in another thread. “Yeah, absolutely, yes,” replied Daniel Rodriguez, another local Trumpist.

In other conversations, Rodriguez told his cohorts that he would “assassinate Joe Biden” if he got the chance and “would rather die than live under a Biden administration.” On December 29, Rodriguez posted: “Congress can hang. I’ll do it. Please let us get these people dear God.”

The trio gathered weapons and gear—a stun gun, pepper spray, gas masks, and walkie-talkies—in the weeks before January 6. Badalian and Rodriguez traveled together from California, and "joined a caravan" in Kentucky on January 5 headed to the Stop the Steal event, setting up caravan communications with a radio app on cellphones.

When they arrived in Washington, Rodriguez texted his cohorts on Telegram: “There will be blood. Welcome to the revolution.”

After battling police, the trio entered the Capitol and trashed congressional offices. Two of them went on Alex Jones’ Infowars program two days later and blamed all the violence on “antifa,” while falsely claiming they had not gone inside or participated in the violence.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

Momentum Builds In Congress To ‘Do Something’ About Thomas Misconduct

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is a problem for the court, for the nation, and for democracy in general. That’s been true for decades, as long as his deep ties to the dark money swirling around the judiciary, and doesn’t even take into account the extremely partisan activities of his “best friend” and wife Ginni. Since those activities now include attempting to overthrow the government, the problem of Clarence Thomas just got a whole lot more glaring—and congressional leadership has been caught just a bit flat-footed.

Stepping into the void, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was the first to use the “I” word. “Clarence Thomas should resign,” she tweeted. “If not, his failure to disclose income from right-wing organizations, recuse himself from matters involving his wife, and his vote to block the Jan 6th commission from key information must be investigated and could serve as grounds for impeachment.”

By all means, the House should start talking about impeachment. That’s what Thomas deserves: the ultimate censure. That’s where to start: the maximum. There’s no real other leverage the other two branches have over the Supreme Court than pressure in the public eye and the threat of action. Chief Justice John Roberts has been aware enough about his personal legacy in his career thus far to make blowing up the Thomas scandal in public—and keeping it there with discussion of impeachment—a smart tactic.

Would the 50-50 Senate convict him? No, but that’s a valuable weapon for Democrats in the upcoming election. Republicans are protecting the Supreme Court justice who has refused to recuse himself from cases involving his wife’s efforts to overthrow the government.

The good news is that Democrats are inching toward something a little more concrete than demanding that Thomas recuse. That’s where they started. A group of House and Senate Democrats, spearheaded by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), wrote to the Supreme Court requesting that Thomas recuse himself from any future Jan. 6-related cases, as well as provide a “written explanation for his failure to recuse himself” in previous cases.

“[G]iven the recent disclosures about Ms. Thomas’s efforts to overturn the election and her specific communications with White House officials about doing so, Justice Thomas’s participation in cases involving the 2020 election and the January 6th attack is exceedingly difficult to reconcile with federal ethics requirements,” says the letter obtained by The Washington Post.

The lawmakers also called on Roberts to commit to creating “a binding Code of Conduct for the Supreme Court—the only court in the country not currently subject to a judicial code of ethics—that includes (1) enforceable provisions to ensure that the Justices comply with this Code and (2) a requirement that all Justices issue written recusal decision.” They ask that he do so by April 28.

Which is a fine and appropriate next step, since Thomas will surely refuse to recuse. “He absolutely should recuse himself,” Jayapal told Politico. But, she added, “Clearly the Supreme Court is in need of ethics reforms.”

Jayapal is on the House Judiciary committee, so the ethics reform thing is another possibility. In fact, legislation to impose the Judicial Code of Ethics on the Supreme Court—which is currently exempt from it—would be a good concurrent step for Congress to be taking along with the public pressure campaign to get him to resign. That legislation exists in a bill written by Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) and should start moving through the committee immediately.

After an ill-conceived dismissal of the issue on Monday by Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin, who suggested there’s no urgency to the Thomas problem, there’s now some momentum there. Durbin had a day to think it over and is now joining Warren in saying lawmakers need to act. Durbin told CNN’s Manu Raju that imposing the ethics code on the Supreme Court is “long overdue.” Warren told him the legislation should include limits on stocks and “rules about other kinds of personal conflicts.” The Senate Democrats are expected to discuss Murphy’s legislation in their conference luncheon Tuesday, Raju reports.

That’s all fine and needs to move apace. At the same time, House Democrats should not rule out pursuing impeachment, which has to initiate in that chamber. Once again, Ocasio-Cortez is pushing Democrats to go there. Remember, she said, that pushing for impeachment of Trump on his extortion of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was initially deemed “unrealistic,” and the “debate was fierce & opposition real.” But, she argues, “When we look back at the decision to impeach Trump over Ukraine today, could you imagine if the naysayers and those claiming to be ‘politically savvier’ won? WE would be explaining why we allowed it to happen instead of the Senate explaining why they acquitted.” That’s on the Senate Republicans.

“Subpoenas, investigations, and impeachment should absolutely be on the table. We shouldn’t have to think twice about that,” she concluded in the thread. “We must go where the facts take us. A failure to act puts the imperiling of democracy squarely on *our* shoulders. It’s our duty to defend it.”

Let the Senate lead on the code of ethics legislation. How are Senate Republicans going to argue about that? The House needs to start those investigations toward impeachment. Both chambers should also be talking now about legislation to expand the court, and to put pressure on President Joe Biden to join as well. If there’s going to be any change, any accountability at the court, it’s not going to come without a big public stink. It’s the only way it’s going to happen.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

White House Logs Show Bombshell Seven-Hour Gap In Trump Calls

The White House has released a log from January 6 that included a seven-hour gap in calls made by former President Donald Trump as a mob of supporters descended on the U.S. Capitol Building.

According to documents obtained both The Washington Post and CBS News, the House Select Committee has obtained internal phone records that show a gap of seven hours and 37 minutes between Trump's officially notated phone calls "including the period when the building was being violently assaulted."

The Post highlighted a breakdown of the exact time window between the former president's White House notations noting:

"The lack of an official White House notation of any calls placed to or by Trump for 457 minutes on January 6, 2021 – from 11:17 a.m. to 6:54 p.m. – means the committee has no record of his phone conversations as his supporters descended on the Capitol, battled overwhelmed police and forcibly entered the building, prompting lawmakers and Vice President Mike Pence to flee for safety."

The documents reportedly consist of 11 pages of phone records that also included Trump's official daily diary and White House switchboard log. The U.S. National Archives turned over the official notations to the Select Committee as part of the Jan. 6 investigation.

Per The Post:

"The records show that Trump was active on the phone for part of the day, documenting conversations that he had with at least eight people in the morning and 11 people that evening. The seven-hour gap also stands in stark contrast to the extensive public reporting about phone conversations he had with allies during the attack, such as a call Trump made to Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) — seeking to talk to Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) — and a phone conversation he had with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

Conservative Columnist Offers Plain Reason Why Trump Might Run In 2024

At his poorly attended campaign-style rally Saturday at a racetrack in Georgia, former President Donald Trump all but formally announced that he's going to try to reclaim his former job in 2024.

One reason that he might "have to" run again, according to a former assistant U.S. attorney general Dennis Aftergut writing for The Bulwark, is that Trump wants to cloak himself in the immunity of the presidency to shield himself from federal prosecution on charges stemming from the deadly Jan. 6 insurrection.

"Two motivations appear to lead the pack of emotional wolves that maraud Trump’s brain," Aftergut wrote. "First, as his niece Mary Trump has said, he owns 'the most colossal and fragile ego on the planet.' His frail self-image fears external confirmation that he’s a loser. Restoration would represent redemption."

Trump has another, more pressing need to get himself back into the White House, and Aftergut said "we received a strong whiff of Trump’s fear of federal prosecution" when he unendorsed Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) -- who revealed the former president has been asking him since September 2021 to help him overturn President Joe Biden's election.

"Second, and likely more important, is his fear of federal prosecution," Aftergut added. "The presidency brings immunity from it under Justice Department memos. Although Attorney General Merrick Garland has appeared reluctant to prosecute Trump, he remains exposed to federal prosecution on a variety of charges — including charges related to Jan. 6th — absent a return to the White House."

Aftergut notes that the former president, who under any circumstances has no immunity from prosecutions at the state or local level, probably fears federal action more.

"It seems clear that Trump has more to fear from any indictment by the Justice Department, with its far greater resources, and with the venue for any trial in Washington, where he cannot count on a follower or two to be on the jury to hang it," Aftergut wrote.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet