8 Aug 2023 5:00 pm
Out of the many new details revealed in former President Donald Trump's third indictment, the most chilling one may be a discussion between Trump's White House deputy counsel Patrick Philbin and "Co-Conspirator 4" — who, based on the Jan. 6 Committee report, appears to be Jeffrey Clark, a former top Justice Department official in the Trump administration.
That discussion, in which the man believed to be Clark suggests using the Insurrection Act, underscores how Trump's inner circle wasn't simply seeking ways to delay Trump's departure from the White House, but actively gaming out how he could stay in power even in the face of a mass movement to restore democracy — using military force.
According to the indictment, Philbin repeatedly discouraged Trump and his loyalists from trying to stay in the White House beyond the end of his term.
In December, he allegedly told Trump, “There is no world, there is no option in which you do not leave the White House [o]n January 20th.”
Then on the afternoon of Jan. 3, Philbin apparently tried to dissuade “Co-Conspirator 4” from trying to assume the role of acting attorney general as part of a reported bid to overturn the election results with Trump.
He allegedly told that person that “there had not been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that if the Defendant [Trump] remained in office nonetheless, there would be ‘riots in every major city in the United States.’”
The indictment alleges that Clark responded, “Well ... that’s why there’s an Insurrection Act.”
more chilling conversation:
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opi ... -rcna97773
An “insurrection,” by definition, is a “violent uprising against an authority or government.” It is clear that Capitol stormers who dissented against the election outcome, or even sought to obstruct Congress' certification of the election, were rising up against the government.Jan 7, 2022What the History of the Word "Insurrection" Says About Jan 6
That discussion, in which the man believed to be Clark suggests using the Insurrection Act, underscores how Trump's inner circle wasn't simply seeking ways to delay Trump's departure from the White House, but actively gaming out how he could stay in power even in the face of a mass movement to restore democracy — using military force.
According to the indictment, Philbin repeatedly discouraged Trump and his loyalists from trying to stay in the White House beyond the end of his term.
In December, he allegedly told Trump, “There is no world, there is no option in which you do not leave the White House [o]n January 20th.”
Then on the afternoon of Jan. 3, Philbin apparently tried to dissuade “Co-Conspirator 4” from trying to assume the role of acting attorney general as part of a reported bid to overturn the election results with Trump.
He allegedly told that person that “there had not been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that if the Defendant [Trump] remained in office nonetheless, there would be ‘riots in every major city in the United States.’”
The indictment alleges that Clark responded, “Well ... that’s why there’s an Insurrection Act.”
more chilling conversation:
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opi ... -rcna97773
An “insurrection,” by definition, is a “violent uprising against an authority or government.” It is clear that Capitol stormers who dissented against the election outcome, or even sought to obstruct Congress' certification of the election, were rising up against the government.Jan 7, 2022What the History of the Word "Insurrection" Says About Jan 6