Wouldn't it be reasonable and necessary for Merrick Garland to review the findings in the Mueller report, conduct follow up investigations as necessary concerning Trump's dealings with Russia in connection with the 2016 election, and then determine to move forward with prosecution of Trump at least for obstruction and witness tampering? Doesn't the new attorney general have a duty to pursue this? Mueller's determination to not prosecute Trump was based on Presidential immunity, but it's gone now.
"Yes" to all of these questions. Just as a federal prosecutor has an ethical duty not to bring a case they don't believe they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, such individuals have an ethical duty to *bring* cases where such proof exists and which were scuttled for reasons that are now moot. The 10 to 12 Obstruction charges from the Mueller Report would indeed be brought forward under the ABA's professional guidelines and DOJ guidelines were the situation not so politicized. That's why I wrote this article here at PROOF (available to the public): https://sethabramson.substack.com/p/some-say-the-criminal-justice-system
What do you think is the best way to combat the disinformation and outright lies be told daily on Fox News? I find their assault on democracy to be especially dangerous & repugnant.
I think corporate media has tried one approach—amplifying every single Fox News atrocity to get ratings for itself—and now it should try the other: pretending Fox News doesn't exist at all. If it is a fringe propaganda operation, as it is, on some level it should not be amplified whatsoever. Do we all retweet and talk about Gateway Pundit, or the Daily Caller, or Breitbart? No. And those remain fringe operations. Why not try the same with Fox News?
Why do you suppose that the committees investigating the Jan 6th insurrection have not put the acting Pentagon Chief and/or Defense Chief/ that Donnie John put into place a few weeks before the riot UNDER OATH to ask him/them this, "Did anyone from the administration request that you change the process by which the Capitol police request help---ie make it more difficult to get Nat'l Guard troops.....:(or other questions that would implicate the admin) Isn't it obvious that Donnie put new people into lead positions so that he could DIRECT them to do certain things that would slow down response times in case of a capital breach? Wouldn't putting those people under OATH to testify clarify from whom they are taking their instructions/directions? It seems like nobody is getting to the heart of the matter, IMHO.
Good question! I think Kash Patel and Ezra Cohen-Watnick and Chris Miller may be key witnesses in the DOJ investigation, so Congress doesn't want to bring them in because they worry it could interfere with the work of the DOJ. Like you, my attitude is quite different: I think you bring them in, put them on TV, put them under oath, ask them every question under the sun, and if they lie you prosecute them. This only *helps* the DOJ—gives them more tools—rather than hurts them. But the default setting in D.C. is to give special leeway and privileges to politicians, their agents, and rich people, and this is part of that. There is no *real* reason not to subpoena them. If they want them to plead the Fifth, let them do it on national television.
I was hoping that I missed something :-(.....I totally agree with you on this. They are missing the boat on this one. I really don't think most people would lie under oath ....but if they were going to lie under oath...the longer the timeframe between when something happened and "the ask", the more the person(s) can say..."well, as I recollect...it's been a long time...blah blah."...."I think it happened like this". It should have been done immediately. I was waiting for the impeachment managers to get them in there. Then I was waiting for these committees...what the heck. It's crazy. I do NOT like the default setting you speak of.....and I think the media and members of Congress should be pushing this. Right on Seth. I almost always agree with you. Thanks for taking my questions.
Thank you for all you do. You helped me survive the Trump presidency and I am not speaking in hyperbole. I thought I was going crazy seeing people I know and love who are smart that got conned by Trump and his family.
Trump was a monster and article after article you linked to provided evidence I was not going crazy seeing all of this stuff.
They at first thought I was the one who was nuts but most have realized they were conned now.
No, it's still there. But there would need to be some sort of conviction for an insurrection-related offense. Unfortunately, I think a censure for insurrection is gone as an option for now, which is a shame because such a censure—however milquetoast politically—could have provided the basis for a disqualification vote. As it is, if the DOJ uncovers significant evidence that Trump helped orchestrate the insurrection (which I think it may well do) that could produce a censure of some kind (without any penalty attached to it) followed by a wholly separate vote to disqualify, which would be based on the uncontested evidence from the impeachment trial, the censure vote, and perhaps information from the election interference case from Georgia. But it's a longshot. I think Democrats have decided that the next three years will be so bad for Trump that *something* will prevent him from running again, perhaps even his own lack of interest. But that is a *huge* risk to the country, I feel, as this man can never again be permitted to hold *any* public office.
I am considering it, but I'd have to find one that really fit (i.e., was not so particular to the class that it didn't make sense as a standalone lecture). Another possibility is that I may simply start doing "lectures" on certain topics as part of the "Adventures in Metajournalism" podcast that full PROOF subscribers have access to.
On a scale of disastrously pessimistic to glorifyingly optimistic, how would you describe your thoughts on whether our democracy will survive, and maybe even strengthen, over the next five years? I still go from one extreme to the other, though I do spend a bit more time on the positive end of the scale since Biden was elected. Who would you suggest we follow on social media to keep our balance?
I am slightly optimistic for our prospects over the next 20 years, but I think HR 1—the election-reform bill—*must* be passed, and that can't happen unless Senator Manchin of West Virginia lets Senate Democrats amend the filibuster rules to require a live, on-floor filibuster. At this point, the greatest danger to America isn't even Trump: it's the Trumpists' war on our voting rights via 250 bills in 40+ states. Those bills are intended to ensure a minority party (the GOP) again rules America, and we've seen how dangerous it is when a party that does not feel accountable to its voters (because it has handpicked them) is in power.
Any thoughts on the Trump/Turkey Halkbank case that has been renewed now that Biden team is allowing information to be gathered? Also, if Barr interfered in the case, would/could he be in some legal trouble?
Interference by Barr would likely be an ethics issue (ABA issue), rather than a criminal one, given the wide latitude his role as AG gave him. I'm more interested in whether Trump could be seen to have obstructed justice or witness-tampered or hindered prosecution or be said to have taken bribes for an official action, as contrary to his claim of being the nation's "chief law enforcement officer" he did not have any designated role in DOJ criminal prosecutions or investigations.
Thank you for all your hard work on PROOF and for gathering all the pieces together in regards to 1/6.
One thing, that has been on my mind n haven't been able to find any reporting on is - what was Trump's end game for 1/6?
I mean, I have read most of your reporting on how the planning was formed months, weeks, n days in advance. But I haven't read anything on his plan for the end of that day, had the mob succeeded.
My mind wonders, if he was to show up at the steps of the Capitol n declare himself the President. Or worse was his plan to decapitate (figuratively) US gov leadership (the next 3 in line were in that building that day) n just take over?
If you have any insight on this topic, I would like to hear it. Thank you!
I don't know. All I can say is that we know the FBI is looking into the events of January 5, particularly those with respect to Alex Jones and Roger Stone. The NYT and WP and others have reported that, while be unwilling to dig—as PROOF has—into what the FBI would be investigating. Corporate media is generally risk-averse because it doesn't want to lose conservative viewers, so they will do all they can to avoid getting out over their skis on Trump now. Unfortunately, that prompts them to ignore even OSINT that tells us where the FBI is headed with all this. Right now, candidly, and I think this is inarguable, the only way to get an accounting of all we know about January 5 is via PROOF (this website).
I understand some say he is old, some say he is corrupt, some say he doesn't want to work on this case and run for re-election at the same time, and all of those things may be true. He also knows that he is wounding and delaying this case by passing it off to a new Manhattan DA who will need months to get up to speed on this and all other matters before Vance's office. I smell something here, but without more information I can't know what it is and don't want to guess. Cowardice? Burnout? Political interference from an external source? Death threats? The seven meetings with Michael Cohen and bringing on of new staffers who are clearly talented suggested an aggressive pursuit of this case. One can't help but feel like something "happened" to cause Vance to decide he wants nothing more to do with it. Which is surprising, admittedly, as even just based on what we know publicly the case is strong: Donald Trump has a long, NYT-documented history of lying to banks and the IRS about his worth (lying in "different directions," depending what suits him: hyperbolically expanding his net worth or cynically contracting it, in each case using knowing lies and techniques of evasion).
I haven't seen anything yet, but it would be extremely unlikely that he wasn't advising Trump directly or, more likely, through Bannon. The three areas he could help in: (a) advice on using paramilitaries to enforce martial law (a longshot of longshots but then again, the Trumpists were desperate and discussing *everything* in the last days of the Trump administration); (b) getting manufactured election-fraud "proof" out of Venezuela via Maduro allies *or* dissidents, both of whom Prince was in contact with 2019-2020; (c) infiltrating left-wing groups to make them take actions they wouldn't otherwise take. All of these three skill-sets are discussed at length in the Erik Prince sections of the Proof trilogy.
I don't know. I go back and forth on this daily. His ethical obligations would compel him to go wherever the evidence leads, but I also suspect he was chosen by Biden in part because the administration had a sense that Garland had a line he did not intend to cross with respect to investigating or prosecuting Republican officials. It may be that Trump allies are fair game, and if they give up Trump (or Gosar, Brooks, Biggs, et. al., the most likely GOP-official targets) Garland will go there, but I'd say it would take a major figure—maybe two—flipping and telling the same story about Trump or his elected-official allies that DOJ and the FBI can run with, investigate, and prove in court. It still feels like a real longshot. But not impossible. This was a grave attack on America that has now launched a domestic terror threat that is ongoing.
Also, I was a Biden campaign research volunteer who may have additional information helpful to your efforts to investigate Ali Alexander's connection and am wondering how I can send you that info privately ?
Apologies- 2nd question from me of something that’s really bothering me - why do you think Biden will not push back / support ending the filibuster esp for H.R 1?
Press Secretary Jen Pasaki was asked this last night on the Reid Out. Her answer: (paraphrasing) Biden believes in trying for bipartisanship and that he believes it is still possible. IMO Joy Reid’s face looked shocked with that Pekaski’s *naive* answer.
By all media accounts, by all statements coming from the GQP opposing HR1, there is no way this bill will pass with the filibuster in place. Knowing this is such an important bill, that will shape elections for years to come, that the GQP is literally doing a full frontal assault on voting rights (based on THE BIG LIE that there was election fraud in 2020), why on Earth wouldn’t Biden, Pelosi, Schumer push back as hard as possible to end the filibuster? This really baffles and upsets me. Thanks for your thoughts.
Hi! Thank you for highlighting the details of the insurrection in such great detail. Your work is key to this investigation and fascinating.
Leading up to the events on 1/6 I had been following Qanon out of curiosity along with Flynn, Lin Wood, Sydney Powell, Don jr. etc. I found the crossover of military, Trump and QAnon concerning. I observed Flynn’s subtle yet very direct incitement of his veteran/Q following almost daily and was aware of the direction it was going. I mistakenly assumed that the FBI was monitoring as well as I was—a regular citizen. Sadly they weren’t.
If you can answer, I would like to ask what your thoughts are on Michael Flynn’s involvement? I found him to be at the epicenter of the Trump, Veteran and QAnon connection leading up to 1/6.
Additionally, is there any chance there’s a way to contact w/ tips?
I think you have it brilliantly covered but I would like to share two individuals who I observed ( on twitter) to be in connection.
I’m so thankful for your work because I felt at times these things would not have been uncovered. The amateur connections I was able to make seemed to be going unnoticed- until I discovered you!
Wouldn't it be reasonable and necessary for Merrick Garland to review the findings in the Mueller report, conduct follow up investigations as necessary concerning Trump's dealings with Russia in connection with the 2016 election, and then determine to move forward with prosecution of Trump at least for obstruction and witness tampering? Doesn't the new attorney general have a duty to pursue this? Mueller's determination to not prosecute Trump was based on Presidential immunity, but it's gone now.
"Yes" to all of these questions. Just as a federal prosecutor has an ethical duty not to bring a case they don't believe they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, such individuals have an ethical duty to *bring* cases where such proof exists and which were scuttled for reasons that are now moot. The 10 to 12 Obstruction charges from the Mueller Report would indeed be brought forward under the ABA's professional guidelines and DOJ guidelines were the situation not so politicized. That's why I wrote this article here at PROOF (available to the public): https://sethabramson.substack.com/p/some-say-the-criminal-justice-system
Does Garland now have access to the Grand Jury transcripts blocked by Barr?
What do you think is the best way to combat the disinformation and outright lies be told daily on Fox News? I find their assault on democracy to be especially dangerous & repugnant.
I think corporate media has tried one approach—amplifying every single Fox News atrocity to get ratings for itself—and now it should try the other: pretending Fox News doesn't exist at all. If it is a fringe propaganda operation, as it is, on some level it should not be amplified whatsoever. Do we all retweet and talk about Gateway Pundit, or the Daily Caller, or Breitbart? No. And those remain fringe operations. Why not try the same with Fox News?
LOVE this ‘new’ tactic! Yes!! I’m going to certainly now be more mindful on Twitter re what I share / retweet. Thank you!
Why do you suppose that the committees investigating the Jan 6th insurrection have not put the acting Pentagon Chief and/or Defense Chief/ that Donnie John put into place a few weeks before the riot UNDER OATH to ask him/them this, "Did anyone from the administration request that you change the process by which the Capitol police request help---ie make it more difficult to get Nat'l Guard troops.....:(or other questions that would implicate the admin) Isn't it obvious that Donnie put new people into lead positions so that he could DIRECT them to do certain things that would slow down response times in case of a capital breach? Wouldn't putting those people under OATH to testify clarify from whom they are taking their instructions/directions? It seems like nobody is getting to the heart of the matter, IMHO.
Good question! I think Kash Patel and Ezra Cohen-Watnick and Chris Miller may be key witnesses in the DOJ investigation, so Congress doesn't want to bring them in because they worry it could interfere with the work of the DOJ. Like you, my attitude is quite different: I think you bring them in, put them on TV, put them under oath, ask them every question under the sun, and if they lie you prosecute them. This only *helps* the DOJ—gives them more tools—rather than hurts them. But the default setting in D.C. is to give special leeway and privileges to politicians, their agents, and rich people, and this is part of that. There is no *real* reason not to subpoena them. If they want them to plead the Fifth, let them do it on national television.
I was hoping that I missed something :-(.....I totally agree with you on this. They are missing the boat on this one. I really don't think most people would lie under oath ....but if they were going to lie under oath...the longer the timeframe between when something happened and "the ask", the more the person(s) can say..."well, as I recollect...it's been a long time...blah blah."...."I think it happened like this". It should have been done immediately. I was waiting for the impeachment managers to get them in there. Then I was waiting for these committees...what the heck. It's crazy. I do NOT like the default setting you speak of.....and I think the media and members of Congress should be pushing this. Right on Seth. I almost always agree with you. Thanks for taking my questions.
One area Dems could improve on.
Here's my question for you to answer/comment on. Thanks much!
Thank you for all you do. You helped me survive the Trump presidency and I am not speaking in hyperbole. I thought I was going crazy seeing people I know and love who are smart that got conned by Trump and his family.
Trump was a monster and article after article you linked to provided evidence I was not going crazy seeing all of this stuff.
They at first thought I was the one who was nuts but most have realized they were conned now.
So thank you. I'll always keep reading you.
I'm so glad to hear this, Dan. Thanks so much for the kind note.
Will they ever vote to bar Trump from running for federal office ever again, or is that possibility gone?
No, it's still there. But there would need to be some sort of conviction for an insurrection-related offense. Unfortunately, I think a censure for insurrection is gone as an option for now, which is a shame because such a censure—however milquetoast politically—could have provided the basis for a disqualification vote. As it is, if the DOJ uncovers significant evidence that Trump helped orchestrate the insurrection (which I think it may well do) that could produce a censure of some kind (without any penalty attached to it) followed by a wholly separate vote to disqualify, which would be based on the uncontested evidence from the impeachment trial, the censure vote, and perhaps information from the election interference case from Georgia. But it's a longshot. I think Democrats have decided that the next three years will be so bad for Trump that *something* will prevent him from running again, perhaps even his own lack of interest. But that is a *huge* risk to the country, I feel, as this man can never again be permitted to hold *any* public office.
I very much enjoyed the lecture you posted from your journalism course. Would you ever consider sharing other lectures?
I am considering it, but I'd have to find one that really fit (i.e., was not so particular to the class that it didn't make sense as a standalone lecture). Another possibility is that I may simply start doing "lectures" on certain topics as part of the "Adventures in Metajournalism" podcast that full PROOF subscribers have access to.
On a scale of disastrously pessimistic to glorifyingly optimistic, how would you describe your thoughts on whether our democracy will survive, and maybe even strengthen, over the next five years? I still go from one extreme to the other, though I do spend a bit more time on the positive end of the scale since Biden was elected. Who would you suggest we follow on social media to keep our balance?
I am slightly optimistic for our prospects over the next 20 years, but I think HR 1—the election-reform bill—*must* be passed, and that can't happen unless Senator Manchin of West Virginia lets Senate Democrats amend the filibuster rules to require a live, on-floor filibuster. At this point, the greatest danger to America isn't even Trump: it's the Trumpists' war on our voting rights via 250 bills in 40+ states. Those bills are intended to ensure a minority party (the GOP) again rules America, and we've seen how dangerous it is when a party that does not feel accountable to its voters (because it has handpicked them) is in power.
We took back the House, Senate and WH in 4 years. Not fast enough? 🤷♀️
There is so much going on on State level, e.g. regarding Governors, State parliament elections and Federal elections. This is really worrying.
Any thoughts on the Trump/Turkey Halkbank case that has been renewed now that Biden team is allowing information to be gathered? Also, if Barr interfered in the case, would/could he be in some legal trouble?
Interference by Barr would likely be an ethics issue (ABA issue), rather than a criminal one, given the wide latitude his role as AG gave him. I'm more interested in whether Trump could be seen to have obstructed justice or witness-tampered or hindered prosecution or be said to have taken bribes for an official action, as contrary to his claim of being the nation's "chief law enforcement officer" he did not have any designated role in DOJ criminal prosecutions or investigations.
Hi Seth,
Thank you for all your hard work on PROOF and for gathering all the pieces together in regards to 1/6.
One thing, that has been on my mind n haven't been able to find any reporting on is - what was Trump's end game for 1/6?
I mean, I have read most of your reporting on how the planning was formed months, weeks, n days in advance. But I haven't read anything on his plan for the end of that day, had the mob succeeded.
My mind wonders, if he was to show up at the steps of the Capitol n declare himself the President. Or worse was his plan to decapitate (figuratively) US gov leadership (the next 3 in line were in that building that day) n just take over?
If you have any insight on this topic, I would like to hear it. Thank you!
Decertify the electoral college votes to force a vote in congress, which would have likely favored t****?
Yes. Kill Congress. Kill Pence. Use the military to seize and hold power as long as he could. That Was the Plan.
Why are we not hearing more about January 5 events on major media outlets? Am I missing it? Thanks for your work.
I don't know. All I can say is that we know the FBI is looking into the events of January 5, particularly those with respect to Alex Jones and Roger Stone. The NYT and WP and others have reported that, while be unwilling to dig—as PROOF has—into what the FBI would be investigating. Corporate media is generally risk-averse because it doesn't want to lose conservative viewers, so they will do all they can to avoid getting out over their skis on Trump now. Unfortunately, that prompts them to ignore even OSINT that tells us where the FBI is headed with all this. Right now, candidly, and I think this is inarguable, the only way to get an accounting of all we know about January 5 is via PROOF (this website).
Thank you.
Any thoughts on Cy Vance?
I understand some say he is old, some say he is corrupt, some say he doesn't want to work on this case and run for re-election at the same time, and all of those things may be true. He also knows that he is wounding and delaying this case by passing it off to a new Manhattan DA who will need months to get up to speed on this and all other matters before Vance's office. I smell something here, but without more information I can't know what it is and don't want to guess. Cowardice? Burnout? Political interference from an external source? Death threats? The seven meetings with Michael Cohen and bringing on of new staffers who are clearly talented suggested an aggressive pursuit of this case. One can't help but feel like something "happened" to cause Vance to decide he wants nothing more to do with it. Which is surprising, admittedly, as even just based on what we know publicly the case is strong: Donald Trump has a long, NYT-documented history of lying to banks and the IRS about his worth (lying in "different directions," depending what suits him: hyperbolically expanding his net worth or cynically contracting it, in each case using knowing lies and techniques of evasion).
Everything Trump touches. Dies. 💀
Any idea what Erik Prince has contributed to the Jan insurection?
And btw THANK YOU for the immense amount of time and energy that you give to the work that you do for us.
I haven't seen anything yet, but it would be extremely unlikely that he wasn't advising Trump directly or, more likely, through Bannon. The three areas he could help in: (a) advice on using paramilitaries to enforce martial law (a longshot of longshots but then again, the Trumpists were desperate and discussing *everything* in the last days of the Trump administration); (b) getting manufactured election-fraud "proof" out of Venezuela via Maduro allies *or* dissidents, both of whom Prince was in contact with 2019-2020; (c) infiltrating left-wing groups to make them take actions they wouldn't otherwise take. All of these three skill-sets are discussed at length in the Erik Prince sections of the Proof trilogy.
Yep, I ve read the lot. That's why I was constantly thinking of him in January.
👏 and a low bow 🙇♂️
Seth, do you believe AG Garland will investigate Cruz, Hawley, and DJT related to the insurrection mob violence on the Capitol?
I don't know. I go back and forth on this daily. His ethical obligations would compel him to go wherever the evidence leads, but I also suspect he was chosen by Biden in part because the administration had a sense that Garland had a line he did not intend to cross with respect to investigating or prosecuting Republican officials. It may be that Trump allies are fair game, and if they give up Trump (or Gosar, Brooks, Biggs, et. al., the most likely GOP-official targets) Garland will go there, but I'd say it would take a major figure—maybe two—flipping and telling the same story about Trump or his elected-official allies that DOJ and the FBI can run with, investigate, and prove in court. It still feels like a real longshot. But not impossible. This was a grave attack on America that has now launched a domestic terror threat that is ongoing.
Direct communication by phone with the insurrectionist mob during the siege on 1/6 would seem to have legal implications. 🤔
Yes, the Jan 6th attack has opened us up to God knows what else. Seth, thank you for answering my question. I appreciate your work!
Also, I was a Biden campaign research volunteer who may have additional information helpful to your efforts to investigate Ali Alexander's connection and am wondering how I can send you that info privately ?
Yes, you can send info via my website's contact form: www.sethabramson.net
Cool beans, thank U
Apologies- 2nd question from me of something that’s really bothering me - why do you think Biden will not push back / support ending the filibuster esp for H.R 1?
Press Secretary Jen Pasaki was asked this last night on the Reid Out. Her answer: (paraphrasing) Biden believes in trying for bipartisanship and that he believes it is still possible. IMO Joy Reid’s face looked shocked with that Pekaski’s *naive* answer.
By all media accounts, by all statements coming from the GQP opposing HR1, there is no way this bill will pass with the filibuster in place. Knowing this is such an important bill, that will shape elections for years to come, that the GQP is literally doing a full frontal assault on voting rights (based on THE BIG LIE that there was election fraud in 2020), why on Earth wouldn’t Biden, Pelosi, Schumer push back as hard as possible to end the filibuster? This really baffles and upsets me. Thanks for your thoughts.
Hi! Thank you for highlighting the details of the insurrection in such great detail. Your work is key to this investigation and fascinating.
Leading up to the events on 1/6 I had been following Qanon out of curiosity along with Flynn, Lin Wood, Sydney Powell, Don jr. etc. I found the crossover of military, Trump and QAnon concerning. I observed Flynn’s subtle yet very direct incitement of his veteran/Q following almost daily and was aware of the direction it was going. I mistakenly assumed that the FBI was monitoring as well as I was—a regular citizen. Sadly they weren’t.
If you can answer, I would like to ask what your thoughts are on Michael Flynn’s involvement? I found him to be at the epicenter of the Trump, Veteran and QAnon connection leading up to 1/6.
Additionally, is there any chance there’s a way to contact w/ tips?
I think you have it brilliantly covered but I would like to share two individuals who I observed ( on twitter) to be in connection.
I’m so thankful for your work because I felt at times these things would not have been uncovered. The amateur connections I was able to make seemed to be going unnoticed- until I discovered you!