The Jan. 6 hearings go deep on what Trump knew and when he knew it.

([link removed])

The January 6 committee’s latest hearing left no room for doubt: January 6 was not a peaceful protest that got out of hand. It was a planned insurrection from the very beginning, and Donald Trump knew it.

The timeline is clear. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election hit an inflection point on December 18 following a meeting in which Team Crazy (attorneys Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani and former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn) urged the president to order the military to seize voting machines. The meeting became loud, heated, and profane. Ultimately, the plan collapsed under the objections of White House legal advisers, who pointed out that there was absolutely no evidence of widespread voter fraud.

Stymied by the legal realities, Trump opened a new front in his war on our democracy. At 1:42 a.m., Trump sent his now infamous tweet: “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”

We already knew that members of extremist groups took this as a literal call to arms. Far-right commentator Matt Bracken told supporters that the event would involve storming the Capitol. Another extremist YouTuber called “Salty Cracker” warned of a “red wedding,” code for a slaughter. One organizer confirmed in advance that Trump planned to call on his supporters to march on the Capitol.

What we learned this week was that while the far right was gearing up for war, they were in close contact with Trumpworld.

Indeed, many of those contacts predate Trump’s tweet, showing that his advisers were cultivating white supremacist groups. Michael Flynn can be seen in photos from December 12 using Oath Keepers for personal security. Roger Stone, one of Trump’s closest political advisers, had been recorded reciting the initiation oath of the Proud Boys.

Following Trump’s invitation to insurrection, those contacts intensified. Stone was on a group chat with Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes, Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, and the right-wing provocateur Ali Alexander discussing January 6.

“These nonaligned groups were aligning,” said Donell Harvin, a former intelligence official for Washington, DC. The Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers had not historically worked together, but they proclaimed an alliance to keep Trump in power. (Whoever said Trump isn’t a uniter?)

The rank-and-file white supremacists and political extremists issued a steady stream of violent threats: “I’m ready to die for my beliefs, are you ready to die police?” and “Cops don’t have ‘standing’ if they’re on the ground lying in a pool of their own blood.” Others discussed bringing weapons, handcuffs, and body armor on January 6. There were detailed discussions of the architecture of federal buildings.

While his advisers were in contact with known violent extremists arming themselves for rebellion, President Trump egged them on. He tweeted about the rally more than a dozen times before January 6 and called the 2020 election “the biggest scam in our nation’s history.” The day before the insurrection, while Flynn, conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, and “Stop the Steal” organizer Ali Alexander whipped extremists into a frenzy on a plaza near the White House, repeatedly referencing 1776, Trump asked an aide to open his Oval Office doors so he could hear. He tweeted that he was listening to them from inside the White House.

Shortly after speaking to Trump on the phone, Steve Bannon went on right-wing radio. “All hell is going to break loose tomorrow,” he said.

And it did. Surprise, surprise.

Watching the hearing, I got the distinct sense that we (the public) were not the target audience. The committee seemed to be speaking directly to the Department of Justice as the committee members masterfully blocked off Trump’s potential defenses to prosecution. “President Trump is a 76-year-old man,” Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) said. “He is not an impressionable child. . . . He is responsible for his own actions.” Let’s hope Attorney General Merrick Garland is listening.



A New Legal Threat to Elections

The radical “independent state legislature theory” will face a pivotal test this fall when the Supreme Court hears a gerrymandering case out of North Carolina. Moore v. Harper could allow Republican lawmakers to reinstate an extremely gerrymandered state congressional map deemed unconstitutional by the state’s supreme court. More broadly, however, validating this fringe legal theory could grant state legislators near absolute power over federal elections — to the detriment of voters.

No court has ever ruled this way. It’s at odds with the Constitution. But at least four Supreme Court justices decided to hear a case that could turn this radical notion into law. “The task now is to expose the baselessness and the radicalness of these justices’ latest project, as the public awakens to just how dangerous this Court really is,” Thomas Wolf and Ethan Herenstein write. THE ATLANTIC

([link removed])

Restrictive Voting Laws Inspired by the Big Lie

As the January 6 hearings have shown, the Capitol attack was fueled by lies that Trump won in 2020. Though the wave of litigation to overturn the presidential election results universally failed in court, state legislators in Georgia, Texas, Florida, and elsewhere have used false claims about voter fraud to pass laws that will restrict the right to vote and increase the risk of election interference. “The January 6 insurrection may have been unsuccessful, but clearly, the Big Lie and the ongoing damage it is inflicting on our democracy are not going away,” Will Wilder and Katie Friel write. Read more

([link removed])

The Rise in Violent Crime: Myths vs. Facts

After years of decline, crime — particularly violent crime — increased during the pandemic. Policymakers should avoid oversimplifying this complex issue and jumping to conclusions about what caused it. A new Brennan Center analysis examines what we know so far about the rise in crime and debunks myths about what drove this trend. “Even with violence well below historic highs, members of the public are right to be concerned, and it is incumbent upon policymakers to develop smart, innovative answers to these new public safety challenges,” Ames Grawert and Noah Kim write. Read more

([link removed])

Outlawing Police Quotas

Across the country, police leaders implicitly and explicitly direct officers to meet enforcement quotas, such as hitting a certain number of stops, tickets, or arrests in a given time period. Though these are often framed as tools to measure productivity, they put immense pressure on officers to meet arbitrary number requirements regardless of how impactful (or meaningless) these enforcement activities are. “Legislators must enact comprehensive legislation to outlaw enforcement quotas completely,” Jackie Fielding writes. “Anything less risks turning police into revenue generators at the expense of addressing real public safety issues.” Read more

([link removed])

Coming Up

VIRTUAL EVENT: Fixing Our Broken Courts

([link removed])

Thursday, July 14, 12–1 p.m. ET

The Supreme Court is facing a crisis of legitimacy as it tilts sharply to the right. Spurred by the recent rulings on abortion, guns, and environmental regulations, Americans are seeking ways to push back against the Court’s radical, conservative supermajority. Join the Brennan Center and the Center for American Progress for a discussion on pathways to court reform with moderator Laura Coates, CNN senior legal analyst; Michael Waldman, Brennan Center president; and Sherrilyn Ifill, law professor and former NAACP Legal Defense Fund president and director-counsel. RSVP today

([link removed])

Want to keep up with Brennan Center Live events? Subscribe to the events newsletter.

([link removed])


News

Alicia Bannon on partisan gerrymandering and threats to judicial integrity // THE ATLANTIC

([link removed])

Liz Howard on threats to election workers // ASSOCIATED PRESS

([link removed])

Douglas Keith on the importance of state courts in the fight for abortion rights // NEW YORK TIMES

([link removed])

Rachel Levinson-Waldman on social media monitoring in schools // TEXAS TRIBUNE

([link removed])

Sean Morales-Doyle on Trump allies’ drive to train partisan poll watchers // GUARDIAN

([link removed])

Mekela Panditheratne on the Supreme Court’s ruling limiting EPA climate change regulations // BOSTON GLOBE

([link removed])

Feedback on this newsletter? Email us at [email protected]


([link removed])

Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271

646-292-8310

tel:646-292-8310

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Support Brennan Center

[link removed]

Want to change how you receive these emails or unsubscribe? Click here

[link removed]

to update your preferences.

([link removed])

([link removed])

([link removed])

([link removed])

([link removed])

([link removed])