In a week in which the nation has been transfixed by new impeachment proceedings against President Donald J. Trump, the first U.S. president to be impeached twice by the House of Representatives, it is easy to lose sight of some important nuances connected with last week’s horrific events at the United States Capitol.
The Article of Impeachment brought to the floor by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday and voted on on Wednesday, January 13, is striking in its brevity. Only a single charge was brought against the President: incitement of insurrection. That in itself is extraordinary. Previous impeachment proceedings against both Trump and past U.S. Presidents (i.e. Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton) contained several Articles of Impeachment, and none arguably contained a charge as manifestly worthy of impeachment as ‘incitement of insurrection’.
Also extraordinary is the brevity of the Article itself. It contains mention of only two specific acts Trump made that qualify as incitement, along with a third blanket statement regarding Trump’s conduct since the election, during which time he made numerous statements alleging vote fraud.
The two acts cited in the Article are (1) Trump’s speech to a crowd gathered at the Ellipse on January 6 just prior to the ‘riot’ (so termed), in which Trump used inflammatory language to urge the crowd to ‘go down to the Capital and fight like hell, or you won’t have a country anymore’, along with (2) Trump’s attempt to coerce Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to ‘find him’ enough votes – Trump provided Mr. Raffensperger with an exact number, 11,700 – in order overturn Georgia’s election result.
Trump’s actions might have been difficult to prove in an earlier time. The fact that the first was captured on video (with clear audio) and the second captured in a recorded phone call won’t give Trump much wiggle room in a court of law, should he face criminal prosecution for his role in the Capital Riot after he leaves office.
The picture the Article of Impeachment provides of President Trump is of a corrupt and shameless operator intent on securing re-election by either fair means or foul, and willing to use the pressure of an angry mob to intimidate members of Congress into defying the U.S. Constitution by refusing to certify the Electoral College’s votes on January 6 (though it appears unlikely that Congress even holds the power to take such an act, as a matter of law).
What the Article does not consider, and what Speaker Pelosi and other members of Congress have not yet alleged, is whether the Capital Riot was a carefully orchestrated event planned by the President and his staff, rather than a case of calculated incitement of a crowd of angry and unruly voters disappointed with the election result.
Based on preliminary evidence and statements released by the Capitol Police and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), it would appear that groups of highly motivated individuals within the roughly 8,000 strong crowd of protestors came to the nation’s capital with prearranged plans to disrupt Congress’s count of the Electoral College votes by entering the Capitol and stopping the count by force, either by chasing Senators and Representatives out of the chambers, or by holding some or all the legislators captive until they made some kind of promise to overturn the November 3 vote.
The groups cited by the FBI include members of far-right paramilitary organizations already familiar to many readers: the Proud Boys, the Boogaloo Bois, various white nationalist groups, and militia members radically opposed to gun control. Other radical groups had apparently organized via social media applications such as Facebook, and lacked any coherent organization or leadership structure, being largely informal and semi-spontaneous clusters formed around Facebook groups. These included many followers of the far-right conspiracy theory, QAnon.
What is not clear at this time is whether any of these groups were specifically prompted by the President or members his staff to storm the Capitol in advance of January 6 with clear objectives. In other words, it is not yet clear whether the so-called ‘Capital Riot’ was a spontaneous action by individuals who came to Washington, D.C. with an intent to disrupt the workings of government, or whether it was, in fact, a criminal conspiracy initiated by President with the specific goal of stopping the vote count by taking members of Congress hostage, including the two people closest in the line of succession to the President: the Vice President and Speaker of the House.
This is a chilling possibility.
Nevertheless, this line of thought must be explored by federal investigators and the Acting U.S. Attorney General, as well as the AG’s successor in the incoming Biden Administration.
One of the striking facts made clear by both interviews with Capital Police officers and video recordings of the incursion is the possession by the insurrectionists of zip tie handcuffs. As reported by TMZ, the fact that the rioters who entered the Capitol had zip ties in their possession suggests that they planned to take hostages, or at least hold members of Congress prisoner for some length of time.
Why? What would their demands have been?
Let’s assume that the insurgents were able to take Vice President Pence and Speaker Pelosi hostage, along with several dozen members of Congress, including the President pro tempore of the Senate, Senator Chuck Grassley. What would have ensued? An armed standoff, surely. Demands by the captors to overturn the election result in exchange for release of the hostages, possibly. At any rate, a delay in Congress’s certification of the Electoral College vote count that might have lasted…beyond January 20.
What would have transpired if the Vice President, Speaker, and President pro tempore of the Senate were hostages at 12 noon on January 20? Secretary of State Mike Pompeo would have been next in the line of presidential succession.
This is the same Mike Pompeo who, when asked by a reporter during a November 11 news conference whether there would be a smooth presidential transition said – apparently in jest, but with a straight face – that there would be ‘a smooth transition to a second Trump Administration’.
Now, you can see the direction in which I am leading this, and it’s not pretty.
In ordinary times, I would be embarrassed to make a blog post alleging a conspiracy by top U.S. government officials to assist an outgoing U.S. President in hanging on to power. It would place me among the nuts who believe in the ‘Siri Theory’ of papal succession in reference to the 1958 papal conclave, along with various other less-exotic-but-still-pretty-crazy conspiracy theories. Not as kooky as QAnon (gulp), but still pretty darn kooky.
But this is the Trump Administration. Tens of millions of Americans believe the 2020 Presidential election was stolen because the President kept repeating his allegations over and over through is Twitter account for eight weeks following the election. The Capitol was stormed and taken by a crowd of right-wing extremists. As I write, 15,000 National Guard troops are amassing in the nation’s capital to protect the incoming President and other dignitaries from the threat of extremist violence during the Inauguration.
So, who are we to say what is a crazy allegation in such times?
Greymantle isn’t going to leave an accusation of this kind hanging in the wind like a torn Union battle flag, however. I’d much rather suggest where federal and state investigators might point their flashlights in order to shine further light on recent events and find the parties ultimately responsible.
My first suggestion: investigate Trump aide Stephen Miller. Seize his government and private laptops, his cell phones, and any other personal devices in his possession. Unlock his email accounts, text messages, and any forays into the ‘dark web’ that he may have made in order to reach out to members of armed extremist groups.
My hunch is the Miller was the conduit between Trump and armed, white nationalist groups. Far more than being a senior policy advisor, it is not only likely, but probable, that Miller served (serves, as of this writing) as the Administration’s back door communication channel with these groups, relaying messages between them and the President himself. If this is the case, then Miller is the most logical intercessor for any planning of large-scale armed actions by such groups intended to benefit the President and his perceived political interests.
What do I base this on? Well, the man’s public statements and resume, for one, including his work as a press secretary in the past for several of the most right-wing elected figures in American politics, including then-Senator Jeff Sessions and former representative Michele Bachman. In addition, there are those emails leaked to the press in November 2019 by former Breitbart staffer Katie McHugh which show a clear pattern of interest in white nationalist causes and pro-Confederate symbols, including links to articles on neo-Nazi websites such as American Renaissance.
By themselves, those emails (mostly from 2015 and 2016) don’t prove anything. But, taken together with Miller’s consistent parroting of Trump’s false election fraud claims and the fact that Miller has served in the White House since the earliest days of the Administration – a pretty rare feat given the rapid turnover of staff in an administration unusual for its level of “churn”, these emails suggest that Miller retains an exceptionally high level of trust from his boss. Miller’s continued presence could also imply that Miller serves in some critical role or function for Trump, a role disguised by his rather vague title and job description.
There’s only one way to find out what Stephen Miller has been up to for the past four years: read his electronic communications. But first, investigators need a good reason to seize that data. We are not yet a police state, after all. Mr. Miller retains legal rights as a U.S. citizen, regardless of whether he opposes extending those rights to others.
The police and the FBI need an excuse to obtain a warrant to search Mr. Miller’s office and personal residence and any safety deposit boxes, self-storage containers or other repositories he may have set up to facilitate the concealment of his communications with fringe groups.
The Trump Administration is in its final days. After January 20, there may be a number of former White House aides troubled by the events of January 6 and other actions of the outgoing President who wish to unburden their consciences and share what they know about the inner workings of the White House under Mr. Trump.
Some of the insurrections arrested since the Capitol Riot may also be willing to cut a deal rather than face lengthy prison sentences, particularly if they feel betrayed by Mr. Trump after he leaves office. Perhaps one of these people knows something unpleasant concerning Mr. Miller – something worthy of a deposition, at least. Mr. Miller need not be accused of any crime to be called as a witness.
Whatever the case, Stephen Miller’s prior history, closeness to his boss, and my own intuitions lead me to believe that Mr. Miller holds the key to more than one mystery concerning the events at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
Until next time…
