Where the italics go
Also Renato Mariotti:
The thing about the “they’re not here to hurt me” admission that I hadn’t fully taken in is that it implies “they are here to hurt other people.” It’s not “they’re not here to hurt me” but “they’re not here to hurt me.”
That’s a question for Hutchinson: “How did he intone this question?”
I suppose they might ask where he placed the emphasis, but that kind of thing is very hard to remember/easy to remember incorrectly. It’s also a matter of logic though. He didn’t fucking care that they had weapons [actually he was overjoyed that they had weapons] because he wanted them to use the weapons to attack Congress.
An aside, but I find it remarkable that Hutchinson is only 25 or 26 (I’ve seen both). I was nowhere nearly that composed when I was that age, and she clearly understands the potential cost to herself. A profile in courage, I would say.
I don’t think Trump’s “They’re not here to hurt me” necessarily points to the idea that they were there to hurt someone else. Trump fans are notorious for their propensity for carrying weapons to the grocery store, the bank, picking up the kids from day care, etc etc. They don’t actually plan on using them unless an Antifa ninja drops down from the ceiling or something. A concealed gun or a pistol in a holster is their equivalent of a pronoun badge.
So it could easily be argued that the intended message was “C’mon, nobody at this rally brought their gun to assassinate the President, y’all know they just carry it around like it’s chewing gum or a pocket watch.” Which, sadly, makes sense.
Sastra,
Sure, it doesn’t necessarily mean that, as a matter of irrefutable logic or something. I think the point is that it’s all building blocks. No single piece of evidence is dispositive (or essential), but the cumulative impact is hopefully persuasive to a judge and jury.
Things like:
1) Trump was told repeatedly, by people who supported him, who he hired, including his own Attorney General who carried water for him in undermining and mischaracterizing the Mueller Report, that he lost the election.
2) The legal challenges that his team brought were repeatedly shot down, by Republican judges up to and including the Supreme Court, on legal and factual grounds.
3) Trump repeatedly played up 1/6 as a crucial day that “will be wild” and encouraged his supporters to show up.
4) His administration (not sure if we have evidence yet that he was personally advised) had warnings that violence might arise.
5) He was warned at the rally that his supporters were armed.
6) He stated that he didn’t care, let them through.
7) He stated that these armed individuals could go to Congress after his speech.
8) He, and Guiliani, and others, made provocative remarks to these armed people about pressuring Congress and “trial by combat”
9) He told this mob to go to the Capitol.
10) He tried to lead this mob to the Capitol himself.
11) He was advised that the mob was getting violent, then had breached the Capitol, that they were chanting “hang Mike Pence”
12) He said maybe Pence deserved it, then rejected the advice of his aides and family members to try to calm things down and instead sent out a tweet criticizing Pence again, fanning the flames.
.. and a bunch of other things before, during, and after this timeline that I’m leaving out, because I’m doing this all off the top of my head.
Sure, Trump and his defense team can deny or explain each and every one of these however they like, and maybe there’s legitimate doubt about some of them. But so what? A prosecutor is obligated to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, not to prove that every piece of evidence offered is beyond reasonable doubt.
So let Trump say exactly what you’re saying, and let a jury decide if they believe him on that point, and if it even matters if they do. That’s what trials are for.
Also, I said it implies “they are here to hurt other people” – in other words I carefully didn’t say it necessarily points to the idea that they were there to hurt someone else.
But if (if and only if — iff) Hutchinson can indeed remember that Trump emphasized the word “me”, that gives this piece of evidence more weight.
Wouldn’t you say something like “they’re not here to hurt anybody” if you didn’t think any hurting was on the agenda?
Yes, although I suppose if you’re potus it’s somewhat different, in the sense that the Secret Service is there to protect the potus above all else.
A normal person might say “they’re not here to hurt anybody”. But this is Trump, who sees everything that happens in the entire universe through the lens of how it affects him and him alone. He’s a malicious shite and I absolutely buy it that he gleefully anticipated certain people getting hurt, but if I had to put the best possible spin on it, I would say he trusted the crowd with his own safety, and is too intellectually and emotionally stunted to think any further than that. Not many people would be happy with that assessment, but it seems “he’s too ignorant to know better” is seen as a valid defence for presidents and prime ministers alike these days.