Mediaboss Marketing

The U.S. Department of Justice must investigate local prosecutors in Memphis and elsewhere where policies are disproportionately targeting communities of color.

Kerry Kennedy| Guest Columnist

Bond posted for Rosalyn Holmes

Josh Spickler, Executive Director ofJust City, and Wade McMullen, an attorney with Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, speak about Rosalyn Holmes' release. Rosalyn Holmes, 16, was reunited with family after more than 40 daysin an adult prison.

Brad Vest/The Commercial Appeal

In Memphis, more children are prosecuted in adult court than in the rest of the state combined. Nearly all of them are Black.

On the Fourth of July, our nation celebrates the promise of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But for too many, that promise is not only broken, it is weaponized by prosecutors who criminalize poverty and race.

More than a half century after Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was killed in Memphis, the city remains a cradle of profound injustice.

Black Memphians are disproportionately targeted for harsh criminal enforcement and punishment. Prosecutors break the rules to rack up convictions, prison terms, and even death sentences.

Hear more Tennessee Voices: Get the weekly opinion newsletter for insightful and thought provoking columns.

I visited Memphis in April with colleagues from Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, the organization founded to carry out my late fathers dreams of a better world. Through our partners at the Memphis Community Bail Fund, the local chapter of Black Lives Matter, and Just City, we met with residents who had been unjustly targeted by local prosecutors.

Among them: Rosalyn Bird Holmes, a Black woman, charged as an adult at only 16 in a robbery committed by two boys while she sat in the backseat of a car. Her bail was set impossibly high $60,000 and she was sent to solitary confinement for more than 40 days, prevented from attending school.

Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights paid her bail and secured her release, but even then, while no one accused Bird of the robbery or taking any money, she still potentially faced decades in prison. She eventually won her case, but it took two years. And the terror of being locked away in a cage as a child will remain with her forever.

Sign up for Black Tennessee Voices newsletter:Read compelling columns by Black writers from across Tennessee.

We also met Pamela Moses, a Black woman sentenced to six years in prison for simply registering to vote.

Officials had told Moses incorrectly that she could vote despite a previous felony conviction; she followed their advice in good faith. Yet Memphis elected prosecutor, Shelby County District Attorney General Amy Weirich, aggressively pursued a voter fraud conviction.

A court later overturned Moses conviction; Weirich and her office had violated the Constitution by failing to disclose emails showing Moses had been misled by a county official. Still, Moses spent nearly three months in prison because of that officials mistake. Several times during our conversation, we had to pause the pain of her experience remained raw.

On the surface, Holmes and Bird have little in common except for three damning factors in the eyes of Memphis prosecutors: they are poor, Black, and call Memphis home.

But they also share remarkable courage and resilience. These women could have been broken by the system, but they bravely shared their pain to prevent it from happening to others.

Sign up for Latino Tennessee Voices newsletter:Read compelling stories for and with the Latino community in Tennessee.

A group of local lawyers and community leaders are working to ensure the womens experiences arent repeated. The advocates this year demanded a Racial Equity Audit of Weirichs office to identify, and hopefully correct, the systemic practices that lead to racist outcomes.

Race discrimination in our legal system from how Black people are prosecuted and punished more harshly, to how Black crime victims are dismissed and disregarded is a crisis that can no longer be ignored, the group wrote.

While the audit is a sound idea, this is not simply a local matter. When law enforcement is driven by discrimination and prosecutors disregard the Constitution, the U.S. Department of Justice and its Civil Rights Division must intervene.

The DOJ has the power to investigate local prosecutors. In 2020, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and a coalition of civil rights groups urged the DOJ to investigate state and local prosecutors in Georgia after white men chased down and murdered Ahmaud Arbery, but prosecutors initially failed to bring charges.

In Memphis and Shelby County, such intervention is long overdue.

Bird Holmes is not the only Black child whose life Weirich has threatened. From 2018 to 2020, 98% of the 217 Shelby County children transferred to adult court were Black. It has been four years since a federal monitor tasked with oversight of the countys juvenile justice system described Weirichs tactics as toxic … for African-American youth, and the racial disparities have only worsened since then.

Similarly, shirking constitutional obligations to fairly present evidence such as in Pamela Moses case has been a hallmark of Weirichs career: A Harvard Law School study examining the first five years of her tenure uncovered more than a dozen cases of misconduct and found Weirich led the state in findings of misconduct and the number of cases reversed because of it.

This sort of repeated discrimination and misconduct is precisely why DOJ enforcement is essential. Memphis system of injustice has gone unchecked for too long, and the Civil Rights Division has the power, and the duty, to force change.

Kerry Kennedy is a human rights lawyer and president of Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights.

The rest is here:
We must restore the promise of freedom and justice for Black people in Memphis | Opinion - Commercial Appeal

The Kansas Reflector welcomes opinion pieces from writers who share our goal of widening the conversation about how public policies affect the day-to-day lives of people throughout our state. Jeromiah Taylor is a Wichita-based writer merging contemplative Christianity with direct action.

Black lives are not symbols. Black lives are not theoretical. And yet, every few years the death of a Black person rises above anonymity to become a touchstone for national anxieties.

In subsequent months, protests seize metro areas, hashtags saturate social media platforms and empty performance plagues national politics. Yet after the initial outrage fades, as the quiet of complacency settles once more over the land, it appears that yet again nothing changed.

CJ Lofton was not an idea, not a poster child. He is not a martyr or the icon of a movement. He was a human being. A human being whose life ended at the hands of public employees.

Something must change.

At the heart of Loftons death lies Kansass untenable stand your ground statute. The law decrees that if a person reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to themselves or another they are not obligated to retreat and are exempted from civil and criminal charges in the event of the attackers death.

Sedgwick County District Attorney Marc Bennet cited the stand your ground statute in his decision to not prosecute the Sedgwick County Juvenile Intake and Assessment Center employees who restrained Lofton for more than 30 minutes while prone. That resulted in what Sedgwick County chief medical examiner Timothy Gorrill ruled Loftons homicide. According to Bennet, no prosecution would hold up in court as a result of the statute.

This ruling is one of several recent decisions in Kansas against prosecution of authorities. In 2018, Johnston County District Attorney Steve Howe cited stand your ground in his ruling against prosecuting the Overland Park police officer who fatally shot 17-year-old John Albers while he backed out of his driveway. Police responded to a call expressing concern that Albers was suicidal. In 2021, Bennet ruled against prosecuting a sheriffs officer who killed 51-year-old Debra Arbuckle in 2019 while she evaded police. Arbuckles expired license plate initiated the pursuit.

Following the public outrage at Lofton's death, Gov. Laura Kelly, the Sedgwick County Commission and Wichita Mayor Brandon Whipple committed themselves to investigating the extent to which foster care and juvenile intake procedures were followed in Lofton's case and considering adjustments to procedures.

Following the public outrage at Loftons death, Gov. Laura Kelly, the Sedgwick County Commission and Wichita Mayor Brandon Whipple committed themselves to investigating the extent to which foster care and juvenile intake procedures were followed in Loftons case and considering adjustments to procedures.

This narrowing of scope to the procedural function of state systems is a derailing tactic. While I affirm the importance of protecting youths in the system, Loftons status as a foster child was incidental to his death. It doesnt matter why the police are called. What matters is that all too often, when they are, somebody dies needlessly with no consequences.

The essential policy issue of Loftons tragic death is the near impossibility of prosecuting law enforcement within the confines of the stand your ground statute.

The few voices calling for a revisit of the statute are largely Republican lawmakers, many of whom were involved in drafting the original measure. House Speaker Ron Ryckman indicated a House committee designed to examine the impact of the statute was a priority of the legislative session. However, no action occurred on the phrasing or execution of the statute.

The fact remains that Kansass stand your ground policy is an untenable skirting of basic civil rights. At its core, the statute provides a legal way for law enforcement to bypass due process.

Every community member deserves access to the full extent of the law to defend themselves against criminal or civil charges. Death must never preclude justice. As evidenced by the cited invocations of stand your ground, even community members who were quite literally fleeing their ground are legally executed without due process, leaving their survivors and advocates without a legal avenue to prosecute the deceaseds killers.

Conceptually, stand your ground relies on a blatant preference for the experience, perspective, and claims of authorities. To believe oneself threatened, regardless of any documented circumstances, cannot be a credible defense against causing bodily harm. It is not a credible defense for four adults to claim fear of death or injury at the hands of an unarmed, restrained, 17-year-old with a BMI of 19.4.

If not repealed, Kansass stand your ground law must be overhauled. A clear and measurable criteria for reasonable belief and imminent death or great bodily harm must be outlined, legislated and enforced. Moreover, no statute must preclude civil or criminal charges in the event of a human death. When someone is killed, the victims survivors must have access to every available avenue of justice, no matter the circumstances of death.

Until then, the Kansas stand your ground statute functions as a state-sanctioned fail-safe to protect those who feel threatened by civilians.

I entreat Kansans to not let Lofton become just another hashtag, just another news cycle, the subject of another brief outrage. Lofton is lost alongside countless others. Our moral imperative consists of preventing the loss of any more human beings at the hands of law enforcement.

Through its opinion section, the Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary,here.

Excerpt from:
Kansas cannot allow another death at the hand of authorities to go without notice and action - Kansas Reflector

Of the many disturbing allegations made by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, riot, the most unnerving of them may be the claim it made in its first hearing, on June 9. In those tumultuous hours, the committee alleged, our constitutional order broke down.

Pence ordered the deployments that quelled the riots. He had no choice.

Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., informed the nation that the rumors suggesting then-Vice President Mike Pence had played a key role in coordinating with the Pentagon on the day of the attack actually minimized his efforts. She said Pence, who was himself under siege in the basement of the Capitol, ordered the deployments that quelled the riots. He had no choice. Former President Donald Trump had done nothing even though Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill and other allies begged him to intervene, she said.

Trump, Cheney said, didnt call his defense secretary, attorney general or the Department of Homeland Security on Jan. 6. He gave no order to deploy the National Guard that day and made no effort to work with the Department of Justice to coordinate and deploy law enforcement assets, she said.

The power of the presidency to issue such orders does not, however, devolve to the vice president. No constitutional mechanism allows for Pences usurpation of that presidential authority. But on Tuesday, we learned why the former vice president apparently felt he had no choice but to take the reins of the military into his own hands. Cassidy Hutchinson, a witness with firsthand knowledge of events in the White House and on the Ellipse that day, testified that Trump didnt just fail to act; he refused to act.

Hutchinson, then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows executive assistant, was as close as anyone to the principal figures under investigation for their conduct that day. According to her recollection, Trump didnt contact the military or federal law enforcement and didnt issue orders to protect the seat of American government because he didnt want to.

Referring to the U.S. Capitol where a joint session of Congress had gathered to certify the results of the 2020 election, Hutchinson recalled telling Meadows that he needed to "check in with" Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio. She said she told Meadows, The rioters are getting close. They might get in. And he looked at me and said, something to the effect of, Alright, Ill give him a call.

No more than a minute, minute and a half later, Hutchinson continued, I see Pat Cipollone barreling down the hallway towards our office. Cipollone served as White House counsel. I remember Pat saying to him something to the effect of, The rioters have gotten to the Capitol, Mark. We need to go down and see the president now. And Mark looked up at him and said, He doesnt want to do anything, Pat.

Weve long known what Trump did not do when the Capitol was under siege. We have not had any confirmation of what the president did do. Until now.

As Hutchinson recalled, Cipollone wasnt as nonchalant as Meadows was about the presidents abdication of his sworn duty to protect the Constitution from its enemies and told Meadows something like, Mark, something needs to be done or people are going to die and the blood is going to be on your f'ing hands.

When the presidents staff got word that the mob invading the Capitol was chanting Hang Mike Pence, who had told Trump that he was obligated to certify Joe Bidens election as president, Hutchison said she heard Cipollone tell Meadows, Mark, we need to do something more. Theyre literally calling for the vice president to be f'ing hung. She recalled an exasperated Meadows replying, You heard him, Pat. He thinks Mike deserves it. He doesn't think they're doing anything wrong.

We now have a credible allegation that Trump affirmatively supported the rioters aims.

Previously, the most charitable assumption that could be made about Trumps conduct that day was that he was apathetic toward the days events. We now have a credible allegation provided voluntarily, under oath and from an individual in close, contemporaneous proximity to the president and his advisers alleging that Trump affirmatively supported the rioters aims.

This testimony about the presidents state of mind from those best positioned to know it must be evaluated within the context of Hutchinsons claims about what the president knew and when he knew it. Hutchinson claimed that Trump and his senior staff were informed by security officials that rally attendees were likely armed with weapons and could be wearing body armor. The president allegedly disregarded this threat and demanded the removal of metal-detecting magnetometers, according to her testimony. She recalled the president saying something to the effect of, you know, I dont f'ing care that they have weapons. Theyre not here to hurt me. Take the f'ing mags away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here.

In the weeks that passed after the riot, Trump attempted to make a distinction between the peaceful attendees of his rally in the Ellipse and the rioters certainly a distinction, though not a mutually exclusive one. But as Hutchinsons testimony contended, Trump apparently was not so eager to see justice meted out to those who ransacked the Capitol, either. Referring to a speech Trump gave on Jan. 7, 2021, Cheney asked Hutchinson, Did you hear that Mr. Trump at one point wanted to add language about pardoning those who took part in the Jan. 6 riot? Hutchinson replied, I did hear that, and I understand that Mr. Meadows was encouraging that language as well.

With that, we have credible testimony that corroborates what was previously only an implication: The former president did not act to save Congress and the Constitution from violence because he liked what he saw. We have testimony that Trump knew his rally attendees were capable of violence and likely armed, that he knew they may have committed prosecutable offenses in his name.

And he didnt care.

Hutchinson provided the committee with several other bombshell allegations, some of which have come under intense scrutiny and have been rebutted by those she named. Those claims should be thoroughly examined by this committee. That said, Hutchinson has provided detailed allegations about what the president was doing in those pivotal 187 minutes.

This isnt hearsay; its sworn testimony from a witness who was in a physical position to hear what she testified to.

There will be attempts to discredit her and her testimony wholesale, but that would be a transparent effort to avoid contending with these specific allegations. This isnt hearsay; its sworn testimony from a witness who was in a physical position to hear what she testified to. This isnt old news; much of this was not previously known. Some Republicans are arguing that Hutchinsons testimony isnt as urgently relevant to voters as the rising cost of consumer goods, but so what? If nothing else, establishing for posterity an account of that days events is valuable, if only so that it is never allowed to happen again.

The charges against the president are credible, possibly criminal, and, if true, they certainly constitute a violation of his oath of office.

Here is the original post:
Mike Pence correctly took over on Jan. 6 despite that not being allowed - MSNBC

A video of former U.S. President Donald Trump from his January 6th Rose Garden statement is played as Cassidy Hutchinson, who was an aide to former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows during the Trump administration, testifies during House Select Committee a public hearing to investigate the January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol, at the Capitol, in Washington, June 28, 2022.

Shawn Thew | Pool | Reuters

Support from some of the Republican Party's biggest donors for a 2024 White House run by former President Donald Trump is dwindling, especially after damaging new details of his actions on Jan. 6, 2021, were revealed at a hearing Tuesday by the House select committee investigating the attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Republican financiers and their advisors have been privately meeting since the committee started to release the initial findings of its probe in a series of public hearings earlier this month, according to interviews with top GOP fundraisers who have helped the party raise millions of dollars. Most of the people asked not to be named because they didn't want to provoke retribution from Trump or his allies.

The people have been discussing the November midterms and who they're going to support in 2024. One name that doesn't often get brought up as a potential presidential candidate is Trump, these people explained.

"Donors are very concerned that Trump is the one Republican who can lose in 2024," Eric Levine, an attorney and longtime GOP fundraiser, said after the hearing Tuesday featuring testimony from former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson. "I think donors were already moving away from Trump," he noted. Levine is co-hosting a fundraising event for the Trump-endorsed former TV host and current Pennsylvania Senate candidate Dr. Mehmet Oz in New York in September, according to an invitation reviewed by CNBC.

For Trump, it's a similar theme to his first run for president. At that time, many corporate business leaders backed other Republican candidates like Jeb Bush early on in the race only later to back Trump when it was obvious he was going to capture the nomination.

A person close to some of the biggest real estate executives in New York who backed Trump during both of his runs for the White House said this time is different. Their view is he's taken "major hits" during the Jan. 6 hearings. None from that group are coming to defend him, at least for now.

"The silence is deafening," this person added.

The lack of interest in Trump by some of the wealthiest Republican donors could boost fundraising efforts for other GOP presidential hopefuls. Multiple Republicans could run in 2024, including Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, former Vice President Mike Pence, Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C. and Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark. Scott is up for reelection in 2022 but recently headlined an event in Iowa, a key state for candidates running for president. Cotton reportedly has huddled with donors to discuss a possible 2024 run.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Orlando, Florida, on Feb. 24, 2022.

Marco Bello | Reuters

The former president has not publicly ruled out running for the White House again in two years after losing to President Joe Biden in 2020. Despite a lack of support from corporate leaders, Trump has maintained a massive campaign war chest thanks largely to small-dollar donors.

His political action committee, Save America, had over a $100 million on hand going into June, according to the latest Federal Election Commission filing. Trump's affiliated super PAC Make America Great Again, Again saw support from a small group of wealthy donors in May, including $150,000 from real estate mogul Geoffrey Palmer and $250,000 from David Frecka, the founder of Next Generation Films. The super PAC raised over $770,000 in May.

Taylor Budowich, a spokesman for Trump, boasted about the former president's record on endorsing GOP candidates and their fundraising success.

"President Trump's endorsement record stands at 146-10, his Save America political committee continues to raise unprecedented amounts of money and the American people remain hungry for his leadership," Budowich said. "And as another witch hunt is blowing up in the faces of Democrats, President Trump is in a stronger position now than at anytime before."

Still, some potential Republican candidates have already been gathering enough donations that show they can compete against Trump's political juggernaut if they were to run for president.

DeSantis raised just over $10 million in May for his 2022 reelection bid for governor. That brought his total fundraising haul in the current election cycle to over $120 million, according to the Tallahassee Democrat. Meanwhile, Pence has been meeting with political donors as he lays the groundwork for a potential 2024 run. Trump has criticized his former No. 2 for certifying the 2020 election results on Jan. 6, as rioters called for him to be hanged.

Pence spoke to the New York State Conservative Party last week, with tickets going for up to $5,000 per person, according to an invitation reviewed by CNBC. He's also set to meet with dozens of donors at a private retreat in Montana in September, according to a person briefed on the matter. A Pence political advisor confirmed the retreat will take place in support of the former vice president's 501(c)(4), Advancing American Freedom.

In this image from video, Vice President Mike Pence speaks as the Senate reconvenes after protesters stormed into the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021.

Senate Television via AP

"There will be a mix of major donors, conservative thought leaders and elected officials," this advisor said. "The focus will be on the work AAF is doing, plans to impact policy issues important to midterms and a larger discussion on the agenda for the conservative movement."

The group recently launched a video that celebrated the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. Similar to a campaign style ad, it also highlighted Pence's positions on abortion and his role in advising Trump on choosing Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. The ad notably does not mention Trump by name.

The testimony by Hutchinson, a former aide to Trump's then-chief of staff Mark Meadows, was one of many recent breaking points for Republican megadonors who were waiting to decide whether to help Trump again, according to the people who helped in past campaigns.

Cassidy Hutchinson, who was an aide to former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows during the administration of former U.S. President Donald Trump, testifies during a public hearing of the U.S. House Select Committee investigating the January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol, at the Capitol, in Washington, June 28, 2022.

Andrew Harnik | Pool | Reuters

Hutchinson delivered some of the Jan. 6 committee's most explosive testimony to date. She said she was told Trump lunged at a Secret Service agent after his security detail refused to take the former president to the U.S. Capitol to meet protestors who later rioted in the halls of Congress. Trump and his allies have tried to discredit her claims. The former president took to Truth Social to distance himself from Hutchinson, saying he barely knew her.

A Republican fundraiser, who actively raised money for Trump and the Republican National Committee in 2020, told CNBC after Tuesday's hearing, "I don't think any major donor with business interests would support a Trump presidential run after today's hearing." That person said they wouldn't feel comfortable, based on these findings, working for Trump's campaign again or raising money for another presidential run.

Some of Trump's business supporters had already disappeared from his corner immediately after the Jan. 6 attack. Home Depot co-founder Ken Langone, who openly supported Trump's policies when he was president, said after the riot that he felt "betrayed" by him.

Trump had a bevy of big name GOP backers, including members of the Mercer family, Blackstone CEO Steve Schwarzman, casino magnates Miriam Adelson and her late husband Sheldon Adelson and Wall Street executive Nelson Peltz. Many of those donors supported Trump in 2016 as the Republican primary came to a close and later his 2020 reelection bid.

Read more here:
GOP megadonors turn on Trump after Jan. 6 hearings, set sights on DeSantis, Pence and other 2024 hopefuls - CNBC

The House select committee investigating Jan. 6 has dominated the news agenda during the past month, holding six public hearings.

The panel, comprised of seven Democrats and two Republicans critical of Trump Reps. Liz Cheney (Wyo.) and Adam Kinzinger (Ill.) has laid out a compelling case against the former president.

By the panels account, Trump knew his claims of election fraud were bogus, recklessly encouraged the Jan 6. rioters and endangered his own vice president as members of a mob marching on the Capitol called for Mike Pences hanging.

Whether the panel will make a criminal referral of Trump to the Department of Justice has not been settled. And there are still more hearings to go.

Here are five of the most damaging details leveled against Trump during the proceedings so far.

Ivanka Trump accepted there was no widespread election fraud

The first Jan. 6 hearing was carried in prime time on June 9 and drew an audience of around 20 million people.

There was plenty of dramatic testimony from the hearing room but the most telling detail and the one with the most lasting impact came from a video interview with Ivanka Trump.

The presidents elder daughter said that she accepted the view of then-Attorney General William Barr that there was no evidence that fraud altered the outcome of the 2020 election.

It affected my perspective, Ivanka Trump said on the video, referring to Barrs assessment. I respect Attorney General Barr so I accepted what he was saying.

Others in Trumps circle have derided his spurious claims of election fraud, but his own daughter doing so packed a unique emotional force.

The following day, the former president fired back, insisting that Ivanka Trump was not involved in looking at, or studying, Election results.

His post, on his Truth Social network, added: She had long since checked out and was, in my opinion, only trying to be respectful to Bill Barr and his position as Attorney General (he sucked!).

As is often the case with the former president, the ferocity of the response seemed to betray an awareness that hed taken a hit.

Trump allegedly knew the Jan. 6 crowd had weapons and wanted to join them at the Capitol anyways

Cassidy Hutchinson, a 26-year-old former aide to former Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, caused a sensation when she testified to a hastily convened meeting of the committee on June 28.

Hutchinson related all kinds of unflattering details regarding Trumps behavior around Jan. 6.

Controversy raged for days over her testimony.

She said she was told a story of Trump lunging for the steering wheel of his vehicle and tussling with a Secret Service agent after being informed he could not go to the Capitol after his rally at the Ellipse on Jan. 6.

The Secret Service agent involved and the driver of the vehicle are reported to be willing to testify that Trump did not make such a lunge and that no one was assaulted.

But on Friday, CNN reported that two Secret Service agents confirmed they had heard accounts similar to Hutchinsons.

In any event, the more substantively damning part of Hutchinsons testimony concerned Trumps knowledge that many of the people in the Jan. 6 crowd were carrying weapons.

Hutchinson, who was backstage at the Ellipse rally, said she heard Trump say something to the effect of, I dont effing care that they have weapons. Theyre not here to hurt me They can march to the Capitol from here.

Trump again took to Truth Social to insist that he didnt want or request that we make room for people with guns to watch my speech, adding, Who would ever want that?

But if Hutchinsons testimony is accurate and she says she heard the remarks firsthand it suggests the then-president was acutely aware of the possibility for violence at the Capitol just before he told the crowd at the Ellipse that they should fight like hell.

That raises the stakes politically and could even elevate the chance of criminal prosecution.

Trumps own campaign manager balked at fraud claims and was proud to be on Team Normal

The panels second hearing, held on June 13, made the case that Trump must have known his claims of election fraud were bogus, given how many people within his own inner circle were telling him this.

The hearing rendered an unflattering portrait of Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor who served as Trumps personal lawyer.

Trump campaign general counsel Matt Morgan recalled how law firms were not comfortable making the arguments that Rudy Giuliani was making publicly because of the dearth of evidence to back them up.

White House lawyer Eric Herschmann said he thought that the overall thrust of the arguments put forth by Giuliani and other Trump backers such as attorney Sidney Powell was nuts.

A memorable phrase from Trump 2020 campaign manager Bill Stepien best summed up the schisms that were developing in the then-presidents orbit.

I didnt mind being characterized as being part of Team Normal, as reporters kinda started to do around that point in time, Stepien said in a video deposition.

Stepien said he hoped that he had earned a good reputation for being honest and professional over many years in Republican political consultancy.

I didnt think what was happening was necessarily honest or professional at that point in time, he added.

The Election Defense Fund that didnt exist

The second hearing also focused on the Trump campaigns fundraising efforts in the immediate aftermath of the election.

The Big Lie was also a big rip-off, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) contended.

Lofgren cited the barrage of fundraising emails Team Trump sent to supporters between Election Day and Jan. 6. On some days, more than 20 such emails were blasted out.

Many encouraged the recipients to contribute to an Election Defense Fund, the suggestion being that the money would be used to push Trumps claims of fraud in court.

One problem: the Election Defense Fund didnt exist.

I dont believe there is actually a fund called the Election Defense Fund, the former digital director for the Trump campaign, Gary Coby, acknowledged.

The nonexistent fund was, at best, a marketing ruse.

It was also an effective one. Between the election and early December 2020, the joint fundraising efforts of Trump and the Republican National Committee raised about $207 million.

Much of the money seemed to go to Trumps main post-election political action committee, Save America PAC.

According to the panel, this PAC in turn made millions of dollars of contributions to pro-Trump organizations.

Trump reportedly thought Mike Pence deserved to hang

One of many shocking occurrences on Jan. 6 was the call from some in the crowd to hang Pence, who resisted urgings from Trump and his allies to help overturn the election.

Trump had sought both publicity and privately to ratchet up the pressure on Pence, including in his speech at the Ellipse.

According to Hutchinsons testimony, the then-president was blithely unconcerned with Pences fate even after serious violence broke out.

Hutchinson recounted witnessing a conversation between Meadows and White House counsel Pat Cipollone soon after the two had been in Trumps presence.

Cipollone, she said, urged more direct action to quell the violence because they are literally calling for the vice president to be effing hung.

Meadows, according to Hutchinson, said something to the effect of, You heard him, Pat. He thinks Mike deserves it. He doesnt think theyre doing anything wrong.

More:
The five most damaging allegations against Trump from the Jan. 6 hearings so far - The Hill