Coup plotters in Congress?

September 8, 2023

          An acquaintance grew up in a small town that had a strong mob presence, including “mob friendly” representation on the city council. The acquaintance volunteered to serve on a city commission. One day (several decades ago), he was in a meeting discussing whether a city contract would be awarded to a company that was apparently viewed favorably by the mob.

The acquaintance innocently noted that a member of the city council would vote against awarding the contract to the company. My acquaintance was told, “Don’t worry, [the councilmember] won’t be at the meeting due to an accident.”

Later that day, the city council member “fell” off his two-story house and broke both of his legs—the “accident” predicted several hours earlier—and missed the meeting (and the vote). My acquaintance promptly resigned from the city commission, ending his brief attempt at civic involvement.

          In early December 2020, Donald Trump and others planned for Senator Chuck Grassley to preside over the count of electoral ballots because V.P. Mike Pence was expected to “miss” the joint session of Congress to be held on January 6th. As it turned out, Mike Pence came within minutes of being spirited away from the Capitol on January 6th by the Secret Service. But Pence sensed the effort to remove him from the Capitol was intended to prevent him from presiding over the electoral count. By refusing to leave the Capitol—and remaining in place to preside over the electoral count—Mike Pence may have prevented Senator Chuck Grassley from sending the election back to Republican legislatures eager to overturn the 2020 election.

          Mike Pence—like the unfortunate city councilman—was “expected” to miss the most important meeting of his life. Fortunately for Mike Pence, he avoided broken legs and involuntary removal from the Capitol by his Secret Service “security” detail. The question is, “Did Senator Grassley expect Mike Pence to miss the electoral count?”

          Senator Grassley, the president pro tempore of the Senate, denies that he ever had any discussions about stepping in for a “missing” Mike Pence on January 6th. But as Grassley’s hometown newspaper reported on January 5th, Grassley said the following:

Well, first of all, I will be — if the Vice President isn’t there and we don’t expect him to be there, I will be presiding over the Senate.

See Iowa Capital Dispatch on 1/5/2021, Grassley suggests he may preside over Senate debate on Electoral College votes.

          Grassley has repeatedly claimed that his remarks were “misinterpreted” and that he expected that V.P. Pence would preside over the joint session of Congress to count the electoral ballots.

          Grassley’s denials contradict the plain words he spoke on January 5th. And those words suspiciously align with a coup plan outlined in an email between Ken Chesebro and Rudy Giuliani on December 13, 2020. The email lays out a plan for Mike Pence to “recuse” himself from his constitutional role of counting the electoral ballots. Chesebro’s email laid out the following timeline for the coup:

“Jan. 6th: The Vice President announces he will not serve as presiding officer [over the joint session]. . . .

At this point, the Vice President will recuse himself . . . .

In the absence of the Vice President, the president pro tempore [Grassley] acts as the President of the Senate. . . .

So regardless of whether it is Chuck Grassley or another senior Republican who agrees to take on the role . . . can then make his own judgment that the Arizona proceedings violated due process, so he won’t count the votes in Biden’s column.”

          The December 13, 2020 email from Chesebro to Giuliana is here: 2020-12-13 Email Chesebro to Giuliani. Read the email for yourself and then ask how Grassley knew on January 5th that “we don’t expect him [Pence] to be there, [so] I will be presiding over the Senate.”

          A reasonable inference is that Senator Grassley was aware of the plot to overturn the election—and expected that he would replace Pence on January 6th. To dispel that inference, Grassley should explain why he “expected” that Pence would not “be there” on January 6th.

          Trump's attorney and fellow coup plotter John Eastman refused to testify about the Grassley/Pence switch in his disbarment proceeding this week. See Politico, John Eastman declines to elaborate on Trump world discussions about Chuck Grassley presiding on Jan. 6. Eastman invoked the attorney-client privilege to avoid discussing the plan to have Grassley step in for Pence.

          Per Politico,

Eastman said discussions on that topic were protected by attorney-client privilege. When pressed about which client of his he was referring to, Eastman replied: “President Trump.”

          Prosecuting Trump is the priority of special counsel Jack Smith. But when Trump's trials are over, the DOJ should investigate Chuck Grassley and other senators and representatives who appeared to be “in the know” about the plan to replace Mike Pence with “Chuck Grassley or another senior Republican.”

          Indeed, the efforts of the GOP-led House Judiciary Committee to “investigate” (read: interfere with) the Georgia prosecution and defund special counsel Jack Smith may be driven by the fear of other members of Congress that their complicity in the coup will be exposed. The GOP Chair of the Judiciary Committee has asked for documents from Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis and special counsel Jack Smith.

          D.A. Fani Willis sent a scathing response to Jim Jordan on Thursday. See The Hill, Willis accuses Jordan of ‘illegal intrusion’ into Georgia Trump prosecution in scathing letter.

The original letter is here: 2023-09-07 Ltr Willis to Jordan. Willis wrote, in part:

The obvious purpose [of the demand for documents] is to obstruct a Georgia criminal proceeding and to advance outrageous misrepresentations. As I make clear below, there is no justification in the Constitution for Congress to interfere with a state criminal matter, as you attempt to do. [¶]

Face this reality, Chairman Jordan: the select group of defendants who you fret over in my jurisdiction are like every other defendant, entitled to no worse or better treatment than any other American citizen.

          D.A. Willis also addressed Jordan’s implied threat to end federal funding of special programs in Fulton County:

If you and your colleagues follow through on your threats to deny this office federal funds, please be aware that you will be deciding to allow serial rapists to go unprosecuted, hate crimes to be unaddressed, and to cancel programs for at-risk children. Such vengeful, uncalled for legislative action would impose serious harm on the citizens we serve, including the fact that it will make them less safe.

          As with almost everything MAGA extremists do, their actions betray a sense of fear. Jim Jordan isn’t just trying to run interference for Donald Trump, he is attempting to insulate himself, Chuck Grassley, Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, and others from further scrutiny. Jordan has cause to be worried. Jack Smith’s grand jury in Washington, D.C. is still gathering evidence as of Thursday of this week. See CNN, Grand jury investigating 2020 election interference meets after four-week break.

CNN’s presidential poll.

          I have advised readers to ignore polls. But on Thursday, CNN ran dire headlines “above the fold” regarding its latest poll. If CNN is in your newsfeed, it was impossible to miss CNN’s alternating headlines for the poll, which included the following rotation of click-bait headlines:

• “Biden’s unpopularity could give Trump his shot at reclaiming power.”

• “Alarm bells are ringing for Democrats who look at CNN’s most recent poll.”

• “Most Democrats want an alternative to Biden.”

          I haven’t had time to review the underlying polling data, but I did read CNN’s “analysis” of its poll. The analysis spun every fact against Biden. Although the polling had “bad” news for both Trump and Biden, the entire narrative structure of the article was designed to strike fear into Democrats.

          An example of the egregious lack of balance is contained in the following paragraph:

The one thing [Biden] cannot change is his age—which will likely be an even greater factor next year, when he will turn 82 weeks after the election. Aging is a painful subject for everyone, let alone a person who is in the public spotlight. (Trump, who will be 78 when voters cast ballots next November, has endured less scrutiny on this front.) The health and mental acuity of the president is going to play a more prominent role in this election than any previous one in US history. Biden has been certified fit for office by his physicians, but there are doubts over whether he will be able to maintain the kind of rigorous campaign trial schedule that is often adopted by incumbent presidents running for reelection. Any failure to do so, or even a minor health blip, will be used as proof of infirmity by opponents who already ruthlessly pounce on any misstatement, stumble or senior moment to argue Biden’s too old.

          From an actuarial standpoint, Trump and Biden are effectively the same age and Trump is clearly in poorer health than Biden. Yet CNN’s analysis focuses almost exclusively on Biden’s age and imaginary health problems while observing in passing only that “Trump has endured less scrutiny” about his age.

           Talk about hypocrisy! CNN’s “analysis” devotes NO “scrutiny” to Trump's age or health while pounding Biden on that subject. CNN then feigns surprise that voters are more concerned about Biden’s age than Trump’s! That disparity is a media-created phenomenon to which CNN has contributed greatly.

          CNN has an agenda: It is seeking to save itself by attracting viewers unhappy with Fox over its treatment of Trump. CNN’s “analysis” of the most recent poll aligns neatly with that agenda. If CNN wants to be Fox News, then we should treat all reporting from CNN with the same skepticism that we apply to all headlines, analyses, and facts reported by Fox News.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse files ethics complaint against Justice Alito

          Senator Sheldon Whitehouse filed an ethics complaint against Justice Alito. Because the Supreme Court has no procedure for accepting or investigating ethics complaints, Senator Whitehouse sent the complaint to Chief Justice Roberts.

          The details and background are given comprehensive treatment in The Hartmann Report, SCOTUS Has Placed Itself Above Congress, the Constitution, and the Founders.

          Senator Whitehouse filed his ethics complaint after Justice Alito penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that said, in part:

No provision in the Constitution gives [Congress] the authority to regulate the Supreme Court—period.

          Thom Hartmann explains why Alito’s statement is wrong in every way possible. I won’t repeat Hartmann’s excellent analysis, but instead refer you to his article.

          Meanwhile, Justice Kavanaugh addressed a meeting of the Judicial Conference on Thursday. In clear recognition of the scandals piling up at the Court, Kavanaugh said

[H] e hopes there will be “concrete steps soon” to address recent ethics concerns surrounding the court, but he stopped short of addressing calls for justices to institute an official code of conduct.

 See Politico, Kavanaugh predicts ‘concrete steps soon’ to address Supreme Court ethics concerns.

Concluding Thoughts.

          I attended an event this afternoon for VoteRiders, an organization dedicated to helping voters navigate the dizzying array of state voter ID requirements. (It is a wonderful organization; check out its good work at the link.)

          During the event, an attendee asked how those of us seeking to defend democracy should deal with the fatigue caused by the incessant outrageous statements and conduct by political extremists. The question is a good one and I immediately began thinking about how I would answer the question in tonight’s newsletter. (That’s how I process most things in my daily life—“What would I say about this in the newsletter?” Whether that is a healthy habit is a discussion for another newsletter.)

          So, here is the silently drafted and edited answer I composed as I listened to the speaker at the event give his response to the question:

          First, we should accept that fatigue and exhaustion are completely understandable and reasonable. Indeed, it would be cause for concern if we never experienced those feelings. We are, after all, homo sapiens who are trying to manage and suppress the “fight-or-flight” impulses that were key to our survival a mere 500 generations ago.

          Second, we must recognize that the point of the outrageous conduct and statements is to exhaust and overwhelm us. They are rapid-fire performative provocations designed to keep us in a permanent state of agitation, constantly on the sharp edge of the fight-or-flight response. In short, extremists are attempting to exhaust us by manipulating our most basic human impulses, “short-circuiting” our rational responses by “flooding the zone” with a sensory overload of outrage.

          Finally, having recognized that the outrageous conduct and statements are performative, we should refuse to rise to the bait at an emotional level. Does that mean we should ignore the outrageous acts? No. Instead, we must establish a “professional distance” between those acts and our responses. Deny permission to extremists who seek to manipulate us, and then determine how best to use their outrageous statements to persuade swing voters who will decide the 2024 election. The outrageous statements are not grounds for emotional outrage; they are jet fuel that will propel us to victory—but only if we react with equal parts strategic thinking, unyielding determination, and disciplined intensity.

          I hope that helps.

          Talk to you tomorrow!