3. Nugget in NYT backs up Miller's earlier testimony:
"The president did tell advisers in the days before Jan. 6, 2021, that he wanted a National Guard presence, BUT it appeared he wanted the troops as extra protection for his supporters, his aides have privately acknowledged."
4. That undercuts one of Trump's main defenses.
He claimed he wanted Guard in advance to protect the peace.
Not true. He wanted Guard to protect his supporters.
And fact he wanted larger Guard presence is indication he quite fully anticipated violence, the powder keg.
5. NYT is correct: "numerous government investigations have established that law enforcement agencies gravely misjudged the threat."
But not so for DoD.
Miller/Milley:
called Jan 4 Cabinet meeting
raised concern of militias, Proud Boys
proposed rescinding Capitol rally permits
6/6. Finally,
Miller interview: Miller "insisted" he "neither tried nor needed to contact the president on January 6." vanityfair.com/news/2021/01/e…
Miller testimony: "in regard to the President’s involvement in the response. [Trump] had none" with the DoD efforts on Jan. 6.
<end>
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
“Dominion would have an extremely powerful libel case against him. Statements Trump made about the company were extraordinarily defamatory, provably false and enormously harmful.”
“Holding Mr. Trump legally liable for defamation would … provide significant public and institutional censure that could herald a change in our legal system’s apparent tolerance of outright misinformation”
A warning of profound weaknesses in US national security institutions in wake of authoritarian impulses and USG personnel who fall prey to #disinformation.
Authored by @douglaslondon5 who served in CIA's Clandestine Service for more than 34 years.
2. “There are other Michael Flynns and Brad Johnsons still in service across America’s military, intelligence, and law enforcement communities.”
3. “Within the intelligence community, I witnessed the eager politicization to facilitate Trump’s agenda, and it was a key factor driving my retirement.”
Thank you to Doug London for writing this analysis and these reflections.
1. WSJ says investigation of Trump's "orbit" and "allies." Does not say of Trump as a target.
(NYT report of inaction was keyed into latter.) wsj.com/articles/justi…
2. Some thought assignment of U.S. Attorney Windom in late 2021 was a sign of expanding probe toward Trump.
But WSJ says: "Windom previously met with some skepticism within the department when he pushed to explore the activities of several members of Mr. Trump’s inner circle."
3. So what has changed at DOJ due to select committee's work?
WSJ says Hutchinson's testimony has "broadened SOME Justice Department officials’ view of the potential scope of the probe ... though officials said the testimony DIDN'T prompt ANY change in investigative strategy."
DOJ coup attempt
threats to Georgia officials
pressure on Pence
attack on Capitol
Yet paralysis reigned at highest levels of DOJ. Trump’s name and behavior rarely even mentioned. nytimes.com/2022/07/11/us/…
2. “Overt discussion of Mr. Trump and his behavior had been rare, except as a motive for the actions of others.”
And what has Hutchinson’s testimony done?
“Jolted” them
Jolted them to take action? To convene a grand jury? To investigate Trump as a target?
No, the answer is…
3. Hutchinson’s “electrifying public testimony … jolted top Justice Department officials into DISCUSSING the topic of Mr. Trump more directly, at times in the presence of Attorney General Merrick B. Garland and Deputy Attorney General Lisa O. Monaco.”
Part of the excuse here: "Ms. Hutchinson’s name has not yet appeared on ... court documents ... and she did not seem to be a primary witness before the hearings."
On the right:
The court filing on April 22, 2022 of sign. aspects of Hutchinson's interview.
3. What was known in advance of the June public hearings?
June 4. 2022 @NormEisen said: “Cassidy Hutchinson might turn out to be the next John Dean.”
On Jan 3: @maggieNYT reports major scoop: Pence chief of staff Marc Short told VP's lead USSS agent Trump was going to turn publicly against Pence and there could be a security risk to Pence because of it.
<thread>
2. US Secret Service seems to get defensive (mistakenly) thinking this was a criticism of them.
@SecretSvcSpox responds publicly to a tweet by @MilesTaylorUSA issuing what appears to be a denial, until you look more closely at the wording. ...
3. “[T]he Secret Service had no knowledge of that conversation.”
“Had.” Not “has.”
Did he mean had none at the time but very well might have knowledge of it now?
Also “had no knowledge of that conversation” almost admits there was a conversation.