Mediaboss Marketing

Donald Trump likely knew of the danger facing Mike Pence when he attacked his vice president on Twitter during the Capitol riot, according to evidence that emerged during the former president's impeachment trial this week.

GOP Sen. Tommy Tuberville told reporters on Wednesday that Trump had called him on January 6, and that he had told the president Pence had just been ushered out. Tuberville didn't specify the time of the call, but footage from the day showed Pence was taken from the Senate floor at 2:14 p.m.

"He didn't get a chance to say a whole lot because I said, 'Mr. President, they just took the vice president out. I've got to go,'" Tuberville said.

His remarks indicated that Trump was more aware of the danger posed to Pence than was previously known.

At Trump's impeachment trial on Wednesday, Democrats also showed video footage of Pence being escorted out of the Senate floor at 2:14 p.m. after rioters breached the Capitol.

Footage of Pence being taken to safety was also shown on live TV at the time, which Trump was watching, a source familiar with Trump's actions on the day told The Washington Post.

Another source told the publication that the White House was routinely briefed on Pence's movements by the Secret Service, and would likely have been aware of the danger he faced.

Yet at 2:24 p.m., Trump tweeted:"Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution."

In footage played by impeachment managers Thursday, one rioter was shown reading Trump's tweet aloud and others were shown chanting "hang Mike Pence" as they searched the Capitol for the vice president.

A spokesman for Trump did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.

Read more: Democrats are quietly cutting ties with megadonor Martin Elling, a fallen McKinsey & Company star embroiled in an opioid drug consulting scandal

The former president had been piling pressure on the vice president to refuse to certify Joe Biden's election victory, the usually routine congressional procedure that rioters abruptly halted when they attacked the Capitol.

Trump is accused by Democrats of doing little to quell the violence that erupted after his speech to supporters, and seeking instead to whip up their anger further.

Trump's attorneys are slated to present their defense of the former president on Friday.

Read more:
Trump most likely knew Pence's life was in danger when he tweeted an attack on his VP during the Capitol riot - Business Insider

Ivanka Trump reportedly urged her father, former President Donald Trump, to make peace with former Vice President Mike Pence after the deadly Capitol riots, sources familiar with the matter told the Washington Post.

A growing rift had emerged between the two leaders after Trump had publicly denounced Pence and encouraged a mob of his supporters to storm the Capitol and stop the vice president from verifying the election results.

Trump's daughter, Ivanka, who had been appointed a senior White House adviser by her father, sought to reconcile the two men and acted as go-between, encouraging her father to reach out to Pence, two people familiar with the planning said.

Five days after the January 6 insurrection, it was reported that Trump had met with the vice president in the Oval Office for the first time to address what had happened.

At the time, reports described the 90-minute-long meeting as "friendly" and stated that Pence wanted to focus on what he and Trump saw as the administration's wins.

But according to several people familiar with the encounter, the conversation was actually a lot more "stilted" and "uncomfortable," the Post reported.

Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, who reportedly also helped arrange the meeting, later even jokingly compared it to his efforts at brokering peace in the Middle East, a person familiar with his comments told the Post.

Read more: How Trump's Senate trial could end with a vote to ban him from ever holding federal office again and kill any chances of a 2024 run

The report comes after this week's Senate impeachment trial, presented new evidence that showed Trump was more aware of the danger posed to Pence during the Capitol riots than was previously known.

It was also revealed that Trump never called Pence to make sure he was okay after the attack. Mark Short, Pence's chief of staff, who called Trump's chief of staff, Mark Meadows, let them know they were okay.

During the trial on Wednesday, Democrats also showed Pence's video footage getting rushed to safety after rioters breached the Capitol building. In the video, a military aide, seen following Pence, is carrying a "nuclear football."

The relationship between Trump and Pence is unlikely ever entirely to heal, a source close to Pence told the Post. The two have only spoken once since President Joe Biden was inaugurated, the source added.

While the former vice president is said to be "frustrated" with what Trump did, he plans to remain loyal and not speak publicly about their relationship. According to this source, Pence also does not share the same anger that many former aides have toward Trump.

Pence plans on staying out of the spotlight for a few months, likely respecting the unofficial practice of giving a new administration some time and space.

Trump is currently facing an impeachment trial in the Senate for a charge of "incitement of insurrection" for his role in the January 6 Capitol attack.

Both the impeachment and defense teams have already completed their arguments, and Senators could vote as early as Saturday.

Go here to see the original:
Ivanka played peacemaker in Trump and Pence's 'uncomfortable' first meeting after Capitol riots, report says - Business Insider

Let justice be done, though the heavens fall is a common saying in English jurisprudence meaning that the rule of law must be adhered to at all costs. The second attempt to convict impeached former president Trump has ended in his acquittal, but the post-mortems of the events of 1/6 have only just begun. Any analysis of 1/6 should include a close examination of the role played by former Vice President Mike Pence. His conduct that day reflected the greatest devotion possible to the rule of law.

Of course, anyone will believe in the rule of law when doing so suits him. But Pence showed his devotion even at great personal cost to himself. Adherence to the law required him to preside over the counting of electoral votes which would certify not only Trumps defeat for a second term, but his own as well. Moreover, he did so even as rioters were demanding that he be put to death, and a gallows was being erected outside the Capitol.

Now it might be argued that Pence really had no choice. The law required him to open the sealed electoral votes submitted by the states, preside over their tabulation before Congress, and announce the final results of the count. He had no authority to reject ballots lawfully submitted, accept ballots submitted from any source other than the electors duly chosen by the states, or say or do anything else to alter the final outcome of the vote count. His legally assigned role was strictly ministerial and ceremonial; he had no discretion. So whats the big deal?

Well, Pence could have tried to take the actions demanded by Trump and his supporters in Congress and in the mob anyway. Doing so would have been illegal and ineffective in changing the outcome of the electoral vote. But he would still have been proclaimed a great hero among Trumps supporters in the Republican base and made himself the odds-on favorite to win the 2024 GOP presidential nomination, should Trump choose not to seek it.

But as it is, Pence, for the time being, must settle for the accolades of, of all people, Democrats. To be certain, Democratic praise has been lavish. One of the Democratic representatives serving as an impeachment manager (prosecutor) said, Vice President Mike Pence showed us what it means to be an American, what it means to show courage. He put his country, his oath, his values and his morals above the will of one man. Another House manager said, Even though the count resulted in the defeat of his party and his own candidacy, Vice President Pence had the courage to stand against the president, tell the American public the truth and uphold our Constitution.

How sincere this praise may be is open to question. Remember, these are Democrats offering it, and Democrats only praise Republicans who say and do things that favor Democrats. Democrats relentlessly charged Barack Obamas two Republican opponents for the presidency, John McCain and Mitt Romney, with their all-purpose smear, racism, until McCain and Romney emerged as opponents of Trump. Should Pence actually win the 2024 GOP presidential nomination, no doubt the Democrats will revert to their usual anti-Pence litany of accusations: Hes a homophobic bigot, a religious zealot, a sexual weirdohe refuses to be alone with any woman other than his wifeand a bauble-headed toady constantly nodding in agreement with everything his Master said.

Yet the Democrats praise of Pence, however insincere it may be, is not necessarily unjustified. He truly does seem to have put devotion to the law above his personal political ambitions and even his personal health and safety as well. Its too bad Republicans have not yet acknowledged this and that his presidential ambitions may suffer at the hands of those who think he should have danced at the end of the rope on the Capitol Hill gallows.

Should further investigation of 1/6 confirm the truth of the Democrats description of Mike Pence, then he surely will have earned the praise of all who believe in the rule of law, though the heavens fall. Whether hell actually win that praise from sources sincerely believing in his merit and virtue is a different matter.

Malcolm L. Cross has lived in Stephenville and taught politics and government at Tarleton since 1987. His political and civic activities include service on the Stephenville City Council (2000-2014) and on the Erath County Republican Executive Committee (1990 to the present). He was Mayor Pro Tem of Stephenville from 2008 to 2014. He is a member of St. Lukes Episcopal Church and the Stephenville Rotary Club, and does volunteer work for the Boy Scouts of America.Views expressed in this column are his and do not reflect those of The Flash as a whole.

Like Loading...

Related

Original post:
Though the Heavens Fall: Mike Pence and the Rule of Law - The Flash Today

Well, that was a hell of a ride. House impeachment managers wrapped up their opening arguments against former President Donald Trump on Thursday. Trump's defense lawyers take the floor Friday to counter the overwhelming evidence the managers laid out but apparently it won't take them long.

Trump's lawyers reportedly don't believe they'll need the full two days available to them to make their shoddy, legally questionable argument to acquit their client, which has some senators thinking that the trial might wrap up as soon as Saturday. That's assuming, though, that the Senate doesn't vote to allow witnesses to be called.

Neither Democratic nor Republican senators seemed particularly enthusiastic about the idea of witnesses. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., indicated Thursday that the managers haven't decided whether they want to call people to the stand yet, saying, "They will make that decision after the opening arguments of both sides."

Now, you may think this case is a slam dunk for the managers. You may think that there's zero chance that enough Republicans will vote to convict the former president and that we might as well end this sooner rather than later. But if Democrats choose not to call witnesses, they'll be leaving a huge opportunity on the table.

As solid as the managers' case is, it will likely still need the extra emphasis of witnesses testifying under oath before the senators vote on the article of impeachment. And the level of incompetence that we've seen so far from Trump's attorneys, Bruce Castor and David Schoen, makes me think that any of their attempts at cross-examination would do little to bolster their case.

With that in mind, I've come up with a short list of witnesses the managers should call. These witnesses are chosen not just for their ability to confirm the case that's been made, but also for their proximity to Washington, which would allow them to appear on the Senate floor on short notice. And, as I noted before, the Senate has full authority to issue subpoenas to compel them to appear.

Of all the Trump officials who resigned in the aftermath of the riot, it would be wisest to call former Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao

Trump himself has declined to appear, but former Vice President Mike Pence should be the top choice to testify. It's Pence whom the impeachment managers zeroed in on as one of the rioters' main targets. And it is Pence who angered Trump on Jan. 6 ahead of the rally by saying he wouldn't overturn the election results. We should hear from him in his own words about what happened that morning and whether he believed Trump's lies about the election results.

Then, of all the Trump officials who resigned in the aftermath of the riot, it would be wisest to call former Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao. Chao wrote in her resignation note to her staff, which Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., cited Thursday, that "our country experienced a traumatic and entirely avoidable event as supporters of the president stormed the Capitol building following a rally he addressed." She added that it "troubled" her "in a way that I simply cannot set aside."

It seems reasonable to invite Chao to sit for an explanation of just what she meant and what role she believed the former president played in the attack on the Capitol. (It doesn't hurt that Chao is married to Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., which could keep the defense from going after her too hard.)

Several senators could be brought to the stand, but freshman Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., jumped to the top of the list Wednesday. Tuberville confirmed on the record that on the day of the attack he received a call from Trump but had to hang up on him abruptly. "I said, 'Mr. President, they just took the vice president out, I've got to go,'" Tuberville said. As several people have noted, that call happened before Trump's tweet threatening Pence further as the mob was already inside the building. Tuberville should recount that phone call under threat of perjury.

Democrats should absolutely call in FBI Director Christopher Wray to bolster their statements about how foreseeable the violence Trump incited actually was.

While the impeachment managers have already artfully detailed the dangers and injuries that Capitol Police officers faced during the insurrection, it would be worth bringing one of them in to speak directly about events. My preference would be to hear from Officer Michael Fanone, who suffered a mild heart attack from the multiple Taser hits the mob administered.

Speaking of law enforcement, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., recently threatened that if Democrats call witnesses, then Republicans will "want the FBI to come in and tell us about how people preplanned this attack and what happened with the security footprint of the Capitol." To which I say ... sure of course, Democrats should absolutely call in FBI Director Christopher Wray to bolster their statements about how foreseeable the violence Trump incited actually was. He could also speak to the indictments filed so far in which rioters have said they looked to Trump for guidance.

And finally, former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows should absolutely be compelled to give his version of events. That's one of the biggest black holes right now in the official record, despite the news reports of Trump's apparent delight. Meadows was reportedly with Trump all day, and he would be able to speak to his mood and actions in a way that would solidify the charge that for hours, the former president did nothing to stop the mob he incited.

Alternatives to those six speakers could include either former White House counsel Pat Cipollone, who was also with Trump on Jan. 6 and could speak to the many attempts to subvert the election after Nov. 3, and former acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller, who could answer questions about the delay in deploying the National Guard.

While the rules of interviewing witnesses have yet to be agreed upon, the process doesn't have to drag out the proceedings. Each side could take one day total, eight hours each, to question these witnesses and any others. While a witness an hour or so is a pretty fast clip, it would also preclude any weird tangents or nongermane questioning. And, well, on a personal level I just really want to see what would happen if Schoen or Castor tried to trip up Wray or Fanone on the stand, not to mention having Pence and Tuberville unable to lie or dodge questions.

The managers have done an admirable job planting the events of Jan. 6 firmly in the historical record. Now they need to go one step further. In historians' parlance, they need to incorporate true primary source material from witnesses on hand into the catalogue of abuses that they've already compiled against the former president. They may not guarantee a conviction. But we, the American people, deserve to have their voices included.

Read more from the original source:
Democrats need to subpoena Mike Pence, Elaine Chao and others to testify at Trump's trial - MSNBC

Grinning between a thick, grey turtleneck and a red MAGA beanie, a woman named Dawn Bancroft described her experience storming the U.S. Capitol in January. With her friend happily looking on, she spoke in a selfie-style video that would later appear in an affidavit from federal prosecutors bringing criminal charges against her. "We got inside. We did our part," Bancroft crowed. "We were looking for [House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)] to shoot her in the friggin' brain, but we didn't find her."

But what if Bancroft had found her? How real was the risk of violence to disfavored officials during the sedition at the Capitol? One of the impeachment managers in the Senate trial of former President Donald Trump for inciting the riot, Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Co.), on Wednesday argued the mob "would have killed [then-Vice President] Mike Pence if given the chance." Is he right? Was Pence or Pelosi, or others like Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) or Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) in true danger?

Many, like my colleague Matthew Walther, believe the answer is no. This was my initial take, too. I know people who would have happily attended the rally that became this riot, and when I imagine how they would have behaved inside the Capitol, I can't envision them hurting anyone. But I've come to believe there's a mistake in that thinking. The correct measure of the danger here is not what the average individual rioter would do. It's the behavior of the mob, and mobs of nice, normal, nonviolent people can and do kill.

Suppose Bancroft had come upon Pelosi without reinforcement from the angry crowd. I believe she would have confronted her: cursed, yelled, maybe even tried to steal Pelosi's phone or papers (many of the rioters left with congressional property and documents in hand). But I don't think Bancroft would have "shot her in the friggin' brain" in that one-on-one setting. Likewise, had one, isolated member of the "hang Mike Pence!" crowd encountered him alone, I expect the former veep would have emerged physically unharmed. (Granted, there were some in the crowd who seemed more capable of individual violence think of the zip ties and tactical gear but they were relatively few.)

But suppose Pelosi (or any similar target of the mob's ire) had stumbled, alone and unprotected, into a crowd of 100 or 1,000. Suppose they take notice. Suppose Pelosi tries to argue with them. Suppose she utters some phrase or makes some gesture they find particularly intolerable. Suppose she starts to text for help. Suppose one rioter smacks her phone from her hand. Suppose she tries to pick it up, and another rioter slaps her hand away. Suppose the whole seething group suddenly realizes no one is there to intervene. No one can stop them certainly not Pelosi herself, aged 80 and dressed in heels and a narrow dress in which she couldn't run. There was no immediate consequence for the slap. There would be no consequence for another slap. And another. And is it really so difficult to imagine Pelosi ending up dead?

It wouldn't have happened with a noose or a single bullet to the head nothing so orderly and neatly attributable to one or two people. It would have happened with the mob's quarry cowering on the floor being kicked to death, each rioter contributing only one or two strikes, doing just a small part, a part they could rationalize, a part they could tell themselves wasn't the proximate cause of death.

They would need to be able to tell themselves that, because after the mob mentality had faded, the horror would have set in. This is exactly what makes mob violence and the crowd mentality that facilitates it so terrifying: People do things as members of groups which they truly would not consider if the responsibility for that action fell to them alone. "The mob rushes in where individuals fear to tread," as a character explains in B.F. Skinner's Walden Two.

Psychologists like Skinner have varying explanations for the phenomenon, and I don't pretend to know which is most correct. But whatever the reason why, that this behavioral shift happens is undeniable. The behavior of a crowd is not simply the sum of its individual participants' independent choices. There emerges a distinct esprit de corps joyous in a festival audience, jingoistic at a military parade, destructive or even murderous in a mob. Each small escalation encourages another, each act of violence committed without objection by its observers builds a new group norm of acceptable cruelty.

Dawn Bancroft almost certainly wouldn't have murdered Pelosi, despite her brags in her video. But a roomful of Dawn Bancrofts? Yes, they might well have killed someone they hated if they'd had the chance.

Read more:
Would the Capitol mob have killed Mike Pence? - The Week