Takeaways from the Select Committee's Final Report

The Select Committee's report has been out now for a few days, so there are plenty of takeaway pieces from different media outlets. Let's take a look at some of them.

Vox

• The report shows the full extent of the effort to overturn the election
• Extremists played a key role in the riot
• The push to overturn the election started right away
• Even Trump didn't take Sidney Powell seriously
• Cassidy Hutchinson's lawyer was trying to protect Trump, not Hutchinson
• The Committee thinks Trump should be constitutionally disqualified from ever holding office again

PBS

• The Committee submitted criminal referrals for Trump
• Twelve conclusions show that Trump broke the law and knew it
• Law enforcement should have expected the riot and were unprepared

CNN

• The report lays out the full case against Donald Trump in one place and pulls no punches
• It is a comprehensive narrative supported by vast details
• It's not just about Trump, but also about Muriel Bowser, law enforcement, the National Guard, and more
• There is no corroboration about whether Trump tried to grab the wheel of the SUV and go to the Capitol
• The court fights over documents were well worth it
• There is more to come, with documents and transcripts

Politico

• Many witnesses under oath couldn't remember anything about an extremely unusual and eventful day
• There were many interconnected parts to the plot to overturn the election results
• Recommendations: update the ECA, bar Trump from office, give congressional subpoenas teeth
• Surprising notes: James Watkins is not Q, Trump was furious when USSS protected him in 2020
• Ginni Thomas, Ray Epps, and Robin Vos aren't mentioned anywhere
• Rolling the report out at 9:46 p.m. Thursday with no warning or index was pretty poor form
• The Committee used many sources, including e-mails, phone records, and documents from NARA

The Washington Post

• Trump is accused of breaking four laws
• Trump resisted urging peace even after the rioting started
• The rioters were armed with a huge array of different weapons
• His staff repeatedly told Trump the conspiracy theories about Dominion voting machines were false
• Trump's team thought Giuliani was crazy
• The report didn't shed any light on Cassidy Hutchinson's story about Trump trying to grab the wheel of the SUV
• Trump might also have tried to obstruct justice

AP

• The report was intended for as a permanent record for the history books
• It lays out the multipart scheme Trump had to try to overturn the election
• It releases many small details not previously known
• It details Trump's lack of action as the riot progressed and he knew about it
• The recommendations are intended to safeguard democracy from a repeat performance

Interestingly, we have been unable to find and "takeaway" pieces from Fox News, Breitbart, or other right-wing outlets. We guess they are slow readers or were too busy decorating their holiday trees.

The PBS story summarizes a detailed list of actions and inactions of Trump's misconduct, many of them illegal:

• Lies: Trump lied endlessly about events and talked about nonexistent fraud over and over. He may have done this to raise money. However, in addition to raising money, the lies also provoked his supporters into coming to the Capitol and rioting.
  
  
• Oath: Trump took an oath to the Constitution and swore that he would see that the laws were faithfully executed. Not only did he violate his oath of office, but he conspired to break laws himself and ordered others to do so as well.
  
  
• Pence: One of the people Trump pressured to break the law was the vice president, Mike Pence. He corruptly pressured Pence—repeatedly—to violate the law and try to interfere with the counting of the electoral votes.
  
  
• DoJ: Trump tried to pressure the Dept. of Justice into helping him overturn the election results. When the officials being pressured threatened to resign, he offered the job of acting attorney general to Jeffrey Clark, who was willing to go along with Trump's lies. Only when the entire top of the DoJ threatened to resign if he did that, did Trump relent.
  
  
• State officials: Trump's pressure campaign was not limited to federal officials. He also pressured many state officials. These included secretaries of state and state legislators who were ordered to make up new slates of electors. This pressure violated many state laws about interfering with an election.
  
  
• Slates of electors: Trump tried very hard to create false slates of electors and get them submitted to Congress. That violates all manner of laws. He may not have known that, but his lawyers sure did.
  
  
• Courts: Trump included false information in court filings, which is also illegal.
  
  
• The crowd: Trump summoned the crowd and when it showed up, provoked it and told it to go commit crimes. Again, he broke various laws here.
  
  
• Condemning Pence: Not only did Trump personally tell Pence to commit a crime, but Trump later went on social media to condemn Pence for refusing to do so. He knew this would provoke more violence. The rioters didn't catch Pence and hang him, but they came within 40 feet of him.
  
  
• Failure to act: Trump watched the riot for hours on television but did nothing to stop it, despite entreaties from his staff, members of Congress, and many others. He knew exactly what was going on and wanted it to continue.
  
  
• Conspiracy: All of these acts were preceded by a multipart conspiracy involving multiple co-conspirators. Trump knew exactly what he was doing since he planned it all carefully in advance. The riot was only part of the plan to overturn the election, but it was anything but a spontaneous uprising.
  

Naturally, Trump reacted to the final report. How could he not? It recommended that he be prosecuted for four felonies and be barred from ever again holding public office. He responded by posting a video to his social media platform saying that the Committee is deceiving the American people with lies. He also rebutted the Committee's observation that he did nothing for 187 minutes during the riot. He said that he sent out two tweets telling the rioters to support the Capitol police and remain peaceful. One might argue that his oath to see that the laws are faithfully executed requires a bit more than sending out two tweets in the middle of a riot. For example, during the Whiskey Rebellion, George Washington actually sent out five tweets telling the crowd to calm down, and then headed to the airport so he could talk to the rioters in person. That's what leadership looks like.

What Trump did not mention is that prior to those two tweets he sent out a tweet saying that Mike Pence didn't have the courage to protect the country. He also lied about the situation in other tweets. The report addressed the "good" tweets and said they had no effect on the rioters.

In addition to defending himself on the strength of two tweets, Trump whined that the Committee didn't conclude that the election was a corrupt disaster. Possibly because the Committee didn't think it was. (V)

Who Pleaded the Fifth Amendment?

Donald Trump famously once said that only criminals plead the Fifth Amendment when testifying. Well, if that is true, the Select Committee called on at least 32 criminals to testify because that is the number of people already known to have pleaded the Fifth during their testimony. Here is the (initial) list:

• Christopher Barcenas, Proud Boy and member of Miami-Dade's Republican Executive Committee
• Kathy Berden, a Republican National Committee member from Michigan
• Alexander Bruesewitz, conservative political consultant
• Patrick Casey, leader of the alt-right America First movement
• Dion Cini, founder of TrumpSwag.com and noted Trump fanatic
• Jeffrey Clark, former Trump DOJ official
• Jim DeGraffenreid, a Republican National Committee member from Nevada
• Enrique De La Torre, Stop the Steal supporter and the most mysterious man in the world
• John Eastman, former Trump attorney
• Jenna Ellis, former Trump attorney
• Nick Fuentes, white nationalist and Ye grifter
• Julie Fancelli, Publix heiress
• Bianca Gracia, founder and president of Latinos for America First (formerly Latinos for Trump)
• Alex Jones, host of far-right InfoWars webshow, famously bankrupt
• Ryan Kelley, former GOP candidate for Michigan governor
• Charlie Kirk, founder and executive director of Turning Point USA
• David Scott Kuntz, member of the anti-government group Three Percenters
• Antonio Lamatta, QAnon supporter
• Philip Luesldorff, member of fringe far-right paramilitary group 1st Amendment Praetorian
• Robert Patrick Lewis, chairman of 1st Amendment Praetorian
• Joshua Eric Macias, founder of Vets for Trump
• Shawna Martin, QAnon supporter, member of Panhandle Patriots of Idaho
• Michael J. McDonald, chairman of Nevada's Republican Party
• Stewart Rhodes, founder of the far-right Oath Keepers
• Mayra Rodriguez, fake Trump 2020 elector from Michigan
• Mike Roman, Trump reelection campaign operative
• Roger Stone, Republican operative and noted Nixon fanatic
• Enrique Tarrio, leader of the Proud Boys
• James Waldron, former U.S. Army colonel who spread misinformation about election fraud
• Kelli Ward, chairwoman of Arizona's Republican Party
• Garrett Ziegler, former White House aide
• Michael Flynn, Trump's former national security adviser

During a deposition in August, Trump himself took the Fifth over 400 times. In a criminal trial, the prosecution is not allowed to tell the jury that the defendant pleaded the Fifth earlier. However, in a civil trial, that information can be used against the defendant. (V)

Trump's Tax Returns Are Full of Red Flags

Donald Trump's tax returns are extremely complicated since he owns over 500 entities personally and all of the profits and losses of all of them show up on his personal tax returns. No member of Congress could possibly understand what he did and whether it was legal or not. Well, OK, maybe Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Steven Palazzo (R-MS), Tom Rice (R-SC), Brad Sherman (D-CA), Victoria Spartz (R-IN) and Tom Suozzi (D-NY), since they used to be CPAs. But not the other members. Fortunately, Congress possesses a secret weapon: the Joint Committee on Taxation. It is a nonpartisan agency that advises Congress on tax issues and is staffed with people who actually understand the tax laws. It would be nice if the people who wrote the tax laws actually understood what they were doing, but such is not the case.

For the last few weeks, the JCT has had Donald Trump's past 6 years; worth of tax returns and has been studying them intensely. They have already flagged five items that IRS really needs to examine very closely, as follows:

• Business losses: The single biggest reason Trump paid no taxes in many years is that he is a terrible, awful, dreadful businessman. He routinely "loses" tens of millions of dollars a year. He can't compete with Elon Musk, who can lose tens of millions of dollars in a few hours, but really good businessmen (and businesswomen) make millions a year. They don't lose millions (or billions) a year.
  
  But there is a huge question of whether the reported losses are real or more like the "fake news" Trump likes to talk about. The returns the Ways and Means Committee got may not help clarify this because the losses happened in previous years and carried forward. It is known that Trump casinos, Trump Airlines, Trump steak, Trump vodka, and many other Trump products were indeed failures, but there is a huge difference between "I bought this building for $40 million and then had to sell it for $30 million so I get a $10 million loss" and "My brand is tarnished so I am deducting $50 million for that." IRS might be able to sort this out, but some of the losses are so long ago that Trump could legitimately respond to questions from IRS with "I threw out all the paperwork years ago."
  
  
• Mingling expenses: There are multiple places where Trump apparently bought things for personal use and deducted them as business expenses. That's one of IRS' little no-nos. It is known that closely held entities often mix up business expenses with personal expenses. In Trump's case, he deducted $342,182 in 2020 for a rental property that had no income. If it was a rental property, shouldn't there have been some income? Could it be that he used the property personally (which means the expenses are not deductible)?
  
  One of his companies, DT Endeavor I LLC (aviation), reported gross income one year of $680,886 and expenses of $680,886. Coincidences happen, of course. It's normal. Also Melania Trump (modeling) took in $3,848 in income and reported $3,848 in expenses. Must be those pesky coincidences again. But coincidences aside, buying a large Boeing 757 jet and using it a couple of times a year to visit a rental property and using it the rest of the time for personal trips doesn't mean you can deduct the whole purchase price and operating costs as a business expense.
  
  
• Loans to his kids: Trump reported receiving over $100,000 in interest from Ivanka, Junior, and Eric. Apparently not from Tiffany. If you're not a "10," you don't count with Trump. Disguising a gift as a loan could be an illegal way to try to avoid paying gift tax. Also, the kids would get to deduct the interest they paid on the "loan," but if it really wasn't a loan, that would be illegal, too. To qualify as a legitimate loan, there would have to be an agreement about when the loan was to repaid, potential penalties for not repaying on time, etc. IRS could (and should) ask for a copy of the loan agreement. This fails the smell test.
  
  
• Land conservation: Trump owns a property called Seven Springs in Westchester County, NY. Lovely place. He took a conservation easement on it in 2015. This means that the deed was updated to prevent anyone from ever developing the property into houses, a shopping center, etc., in the future. Giving up the development rights (or equivalently selling or donating these rights to an environmental organization) would entitle Trump to a tax deduction because the property would then be worth less. He claimed a $21 million deduction for this. Was the property really worth that much less without the possibility of development? If local zoning laws prohibited development in the first place, then voluntarily "giving up" his rights to development meant nothing and the $21 million deduction is completely fraudulent. It wouldn't be hard for IRS to contact a local real estate broker in Westchester to ask about zoning laws and get property appraisals for the land, with and without development rights. The agency finally got around to talking to property appraisers—last month. It should have done it years ago.
  
  
• Foreign taxes: The U.S. has double-taxation treaties with many countries that state how international taxation is handled. For example, if an American has income in, say, Scotland, from a golf course he owns, the treaty specifies which country can tax it. These treaties are immensely complicated and run hundreds of pages because many situations are complex. Imagine an American citizen living in England who has stock in a French company that owns a mine in Arizona that produces ore that is sold to buyers in Germany and Michigan. Who gets to tax what? In some cases, when an American pays taxes to a foreign government, the treaty states that the American gets a credit for the foreign taxes paid against his U.S. taxes (and vice-versa, of course). But this applies only if the taxes are really paid to the foreign government and accrued taxes weren't avoided by some accounting trick. IRS could (and should) ask to see the bank statements showing the wire transfers for the tax payments.
  

And these are only the most obvious red flags. Knowing that Trump pushes the envelope on everything, the JCT (and certainly the IRS) should assign experts to go over every line on Trump's recent tax returns and demand proof for every questionable item. (V)

Five Signs That Biden Is Going to Run Again

The only person who knows (maybe) for sure whether Joe Biden is going to run for reelection is... Joe Biden, although Jill Biden is probably a close second. Bettors at PaddyPower put the chance of a run at 71%. But there are tea leaves to read that could give important clues, like these:

• The Democrats: The Democratic field is quiet. Nobody is running up to New Hampshire or Iowa to sniff around. OK, so Iowa may not matter this time, but none of the potential candidates are zipping around South Carolina either. No Democratic hopeful is releasing a poll showing how he would crush either Donald Trump or Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) into fine dust. The silence has been eerie. This means that Democratic insiders expect Biden to run again and they are at least somewhat clued in by talking to White House staffers who might know stuff. For example, if Biden's pollster showed up for a chat with the President last week, that might have meant something.
  
  
• Biden's allies know: Related to the above, Biden has told close allies, like Barack Obama, that he is in. They have intentionally or accidentally spread the word among Democratic hopefuls that they should set an alarm on their phones for around March 2027 or so. White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain recently told reporters that Biden will make an important announcement early next year. Klain wouldn't have said that unless he was pretty sure Biden was in.
  
  
• The campaign: There have been numerous stories that have been leaking out about what kind of campaign Biden will run. We had one a week ago, but there are plenty of others. These stories happen because either the White House is leaking them or the people involved are leaking them. One story that is getting a lot of attention is where the campaign headquarters will be. It might be in Philadelphia again or possibly in Wilmington, DE.
  
  
• The message: Biden's campaign message got a test run during the midterms. Very simply, it is "Republicans are too extreme." It is a smart message because it works against both Trump and DeSantis. Trump is old hat, but there is a ton of stuff Biden could use against DeSantis to portray him as an extremist. The message would even work in the very unlikely event that somehow Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) got the nomination. It wouldn't work against Gov. Larry Hogan (R-MD), but Biden is no doubt guessing that that ain't gonna happen.
  
  
• Jill: At a state dinner earlier this month, Jill Biden essentially told French President Emmanuel Macron that Biden is running. She probably didn't mean to let it slip, but if Biden were planning to retire, Jill wouldn't have told Macron that her husband is champing at the bit. She is actually the key to the whole issue. There are only two reasons Biden might decide not to run. First, a serious health issue and second that Jill was against a run. Neither of them seem to be obstacles as far as any outsider can see.
  

So although most Democratic voters don't want Biden to run, it appears that he is going to give it his best. Almost no one wants Biden vs. Trump again, but that is a real possibility. On the other hand, Biden vs. DeSantis seems increasingly likely due to Trump's many legal (and possibly tax) issues. As an aside, bettors at PaddyPower put the chance of DeSantis as the GOP nominee at 55% and of Trump at 31%. Mike Pence and Nikki Haley are at 6%. Gov. Doug Ducey (R-AZ) is at 4%. Sens. Tim Scott (R-SC) and Josh Hawley are at 2%, as are Mike Pompeo and Jeb! Despite the little bubble about Scott as the nominee, being tied with Jeb! at 2% is not good sign. The good news is that Ivanka (0.7%) is ahead of Ye (0.5%). (V)

What's an Abortion?

If a doctor takes a 6-month-old fetus out of a woman's womb during a D&C, that is clearly an abortion. But does taking a pill that causes a pregnancy not to happen an abortion? The words matter since almost half the states have banned most, if not, all, abortions. So what is an abortion? Dictionary.com says it is "the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy." So what's an embryo? The same source calls it "the young of a viviparous animal, especially of a mammal, in the early stages of development within the womb, in humans up to the end of the second month."

Clear? Not really. At least not to the FDA. It has decided that a "morning after pill," including the popular "Plan B One-step," does not cause an abortion. It has now produced wording to be inserted into the leaflets in the packages that say the medication "works before release of an egg from the ovary." It also says that the pill "will not work if you're already pregnant."

The consequence of this ruling is that states that ban abortion will not be able be able to ban the sale of Plan B and similar products because officially they do not cause abortions. At least not under laws banning abortions. A state could pass a law banning the sale of drugs that influence when eggs are released by ovaries, but this quickly runs into banning many birth control pills, pills used in IVF treatments, and more. Whether a state can ban an approved prescription drug or an approved over-the-counter drug opens a whole new can of worms.

Some pharmacists have refused to dispense Plan B on the grounds that abortions violate their religion. Can they continue to refuse to dispense Plan B if the FDA now says it does not cause an abortion? Can a pharmacist make up his own personal definition of abortion? Chief Justice John Roberts, get ready. It will be on your plate before long. (V)

Abbott Strikes Back

Govs. Greg Abbott (R-TX) and Ron DeSantis (F-FL) seem to be engaging in a proxy battle about who can ship more migrants north. Until this past weekend, Ron DeSantis had the upper hand with his planeload of migrants to Martha's Vineyard. Now Abbott has sent three busloads of migrants to D.C. and had them dropped off at One Naval Observatory (the vice president's official residence) on a below-freezing Christmas Eve. An act of Christian charity? We don't know. And unfortunately, the staff theologian forgot that it is unwise to drink eggnog and sacramental wine within a few hours of each other. After all, there may be the blood of Christ, but there ain't no nog of Christ. In any event, a local aid organization brought the migrants to a D.C. church.

Is this a sign that Abbott plans to challenge DeSantis for the Republican nomination in 2024 and feels he needs to out-macho DeSantis? We don't know. Dropping 100+ people out in the freezing cold on Christmas Eve, probably on false pretenses, sounds venal to us, but venal is the secret sauce that many Republican voters lap up with glee. Abbott has been complaining about the administration's failure to secure the border for years. This stunt was just designed to be more dramatic than DeSantis flying migrants from Texas to Massachusetts (with a very short stopover in Florida to make it seem legal). At least Abbott used buses instead of a plane, which saved Texas taxpayers some money, although he missed the opportunity to vastly overpay a Republican donor who owns a charter air company, as did DeSantis.

Maybe Abbott's move was an attempt to bring attention to the potential expiration of Title 42, a Trump-era policy of sending all migrants back to Mexico regardless of their claims of asylum. The Supreme Court put the expiration on hold temporarily, so maybe this is some kind of coded message to the Court to make the hold permanent.

While this may help Abbott pick off some Republicans who currently support DeSantis, one poll shows that only one-third of Americans support this kind of publicity stunt. Maybe Abbott is thinking that first he has to get the nomination, so his general-election strategy will have to wait until that happens. (V)

John Eastman and Clarence Thomas Go Back 40 Years Together

In July 2021, dozens of Justice Clarence Thomas' former clerks gathered at a fancy resort in West Virginia for a reunion with the justice. In one photo of the event, standing next to the Justice's wife Ginni Thomas, was John Eastman, one of the masterminds of Donald Trump's fake elector scheme. And indeed, Eastman clerked for Thomas in 1996. Did he get his legal theories on the Electoral College from Thomas? Interesting question.

Clearly some of the other clerks were discomfited by Eastman's presence at the weekend retreat. But it has been reported that the relationship between Eastman and Thomas goes back before Eastman's clerkship and even before Thomas ascended to the Supreme Court in 1991.

In the 1980s, the two worked in the Reagan administration and knew each other there. They explored writings and legal theories that later informed their views on the Constitution. In those years, both were influenced by the Claremont Institute, which holds that people's fundamental rights come from God or nature, and not from government or written documents like the Constitution. These views have now become ascendant in right-wing legal circles.

In the lead-up to the coup attempt, Eastman concocted a scheme in which the state legislatures could toss out their states' respective laws about how electoral votes were to be determined and send in their own slates of electors, presumably in consultation with God.

Legal experts agree that Eastman and Thomas share a similar worldview. Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig, who has known Eastman since teaching him law at the University of Chicago 30 years ago, said: "They both look at the law in the same way. The fact that John writes it might well be a signal that Thomas would view it in the same way." While the previous election didn't end up in the Supreme Court, a related case, Harper v. Moore, is up before the Court this term. In its ruling, the Court will have to decide if legislatures are free to ignore state laws and just send in a slate of electors they like. That is actually pretty close to what Eastman wanted. So we may find out an indirect way by June how Thomas would have ruled had Eastman gotten his way and Arizona, Georgia, and other states had indeed submitted multiple slates of electors. (V)

Lake Lost the Rest of Her Case as Well

Losing Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake (R) filed a lawsuit to try to get her loss overturned or have a new election. Her main argument was "I don't like losing." We noted last week that the judge threw eight of her 10 claims out without even hearing them since that were so absurd. For the other two, he was willing to bring them to trial.

The trial lasted 2 days and is now over. The judge asked for evidence that Maricopa County messed up the election. There were some problems with a few printers, but no voter was denied the chance to vote as a result and all votes were ultimately counted. Several witnesses testified that a small number of printed ballot images were 5% too small and that could happen only if the settings were intentionally wrong. County officials vigorously denied that. It is possible that heat from the printers caused the malfunctions, but that is still under investigation.

Lake's lawyers called on Richard Baris, of the conservative firm Big Data Poll, to discuss the exit polling he did. He said the errors were big enough to change the results. The lawyer for defendant and governor-elect Katie Hobbs (D) noted that FiveThirtyEight bans Big Data Poll because it doesn't believe their polls. We're jealous. We also ban them. They could have cited us, too.

In any event, the judge was not impressed by Lake's case and ruled in favor of Hobbs on Saturday.

Meanwhile, on Friday, in a different case, a different judge ruled against Arizona AG candidate Abe Hamadeh (R), who is trailing Kristin Mayes (D) by 511 votes out of 2.5 million. State law requires a recount in such cases, but it is not complete yet. So it seems the new Republican strategy of "always claim victory and sue if you lose" doesn't seem to be convincing the judges. (V)

Santos Voters Don't Care

We have written about Rep.-elect George Santos (R-NY) here and here. To summarize these items, Santos lied about his education, his job history, his grandparents, and just about everything else in his background. He invented a complete life that he never lived. General speaking, lying in public is not a crime, except in some specific cases such as falsely representing products, but usually not when you are the product. Still, Santos has taken the art of lying to new heights, constructing an entire C.V. where just about every line is false.

Politico was curious about how voters in Santos' district feel about their new all-fake representative, so they sent a couple of reporters over there to talk to some of them. The district covers the northern half of Long Island, from Great Neck to Smithtown. It was represented by Democrat Tom Suozzi until he resigned to run for governor. The PVI is D+2.

What the reporters found is that among some people in the district, the dislike of Democrats is so strong that they would rather have a fabulist representing them than a Democrat. One woman in Glen Cove, who preferred to remain anonymous, said she was more wary of the Democrats than of Santos. She said: "Truthfully, I don't trust the Democrats on anything they say. I see it on the TV and I turn it off." Billionaire John Catsimatidis, who lives in the district, said that Santos is no different than Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), who exaggerated his military service record when he ran for the Senate in 2010. Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman (R) said he would withhold judgment. The Democrats the reporters spoke to were furious, but that was to be expected.

For Democrats who can't understand how stupid the voters can be, imagine the situation were reversed. The Democrat was a pathological liar who invented an education background and career out of whole cloth, but on the issues was a generic Democrat. And the opponent was Kari Lake, who has a sterling career that she has presented honestly. Which one would you vote for? (V)

Trumpworld Is Like the Mafia

Ruth Marcus has a column in The Washington Post that is as sad as it is revealing. It discusses the plight of Cassidy Hutchinson, once an aide to Mark Meadows and later a star witness at the Select Committee hearings. She is in her mid-20s and out of work since Trump left office. When the Committee decided it wanted to hear from her because she was at the center of the storm and saw everything first hand, she tried to find a lawyer to help her. She found one, but he wanted a $150,000 retainer—money she didn't have. So she turned to Trumpworld for help. Sure enough, she soon got a call from Stefan Passantino, who worked in the White House Counsel's office during Trump's presidency. He was willing to help. When she asked who would pay the bills, the response was "we have you taken care of." So not only would some unnamed person pay her legal bills without her knowing who it was (a violation of legal ethics), but she was promised a good job in Trumpworld later. She was in her mid 20s, unemployed, frightened, and didn't know what to do.

Hutchinson called her mother and said: "They will ruin my life, Mom, if I do anything they don't want me to do." At first she went along with Passantino because she was scared and didn't know what else to do. Passantino coached her. He didn't tell her to lie but he did tell her to answer most questions with: "I don't recall." He said that is not perjury. Actually, if you do remember—and she remembered most of the things she was asked about vividly—it is perjury. She was hesitant to go along with this, but was still scared. They practiced preparing for the deposition and Passantino kept telling her "No no no no. We don't want to go there." Passantino kept emphasizing that Hutchinson's task was to protect Trump at all costs. In effect, he was Trump's lawyer, not hers. It was a horrible time for a young woman who was in way over her head and was afraid that "once you are looped in, especially financially, with them, there is no turning back. It is like working with the Mafia."

In the end, Hutchinson decided that she couldn't look herself in the mirror if she did what Trumpworld wanted, so she fired Passantino and told the Committee the full truth. Now he has a problem, not her.

Above we have an item about who pleaded the Fifth Amendment. After reading this (or better yet, Marcus' entire column), you might have a better idea of why so many people did that. (V)

A December to Rhymember, Part XIV: Rebel without a Clue

Reader J.D.M. in Cottonwood Shores, TX brings to our attention the fact that The Hill is now running holiday-themed political poetry. Hm. Wonder where they might have gotten that idea from?

In any case, let's do some insurrection-related pieces. To start, a pair of haikus from E.B. in Seattle, WA:

Dear Leader suffer'd
From electile dysfunction
"A steal!" said his id

He tweeted "Be wild!"
"Hang Pence!' Then insurrection
Orange jumpsuits await

And a limerick from S.B. in Natick, MA:

So the Hearing has reached its conclusion,
(The insurrection one, not the collusion)
To no one's surprise,
They said, "Lock up those guys."
In other news, now we've got fusion.

Another, from K.J.O. in Brookdale, NJ:

To democracy he brought insurrection
His crimes did not escape our detection
The jury will see
His future will be
In an orange suit to match his complexion

And finally, a song parody from G.W. in London, England, UK:

Constantly lying about stolen elections
Whilst a blind eye is turned to fascist insurrections
Voter restrictions and gerrymand'rings
These are a few of the GOP's favorite things

Denying trans rights (because ladies are ladies)
Then forcing women to keep rapists' babies
Thoughts and prayers offered after shootings
These are a few of the GOP's favorite things.

Dog-whistle politics, dinners with racists
QAnon nonsense for folks at their basest
D.C. pizza parlors and paedophile rings
These are a few of the GOP's favorite things

When reality bites
When the truth stings
When the facts look bad
I simply believe what they say on Fox News
And I then I don't feel so sad.

We foresee more song parodies tomorrow. Here is the address if you are so inclined. (Z)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger