I was about to respond to this email from TPM Reader JR. But I decided it made more sense to respond here.

Lots being written about the importance of establishing whether Trump “knew” he lost.  Greg Sargeant this morning, Slate over the weekend (does Trump really ever “know” anything”) etc etc.  I don’t touch criminal law but it seems to me that focus is too narrow.  I would think Trump could have had the requisite criminal intent to use illegal means to overturn an election even if he “believed” the election was being stolen from him. That is, if he knew or was wilfully blind to the fact that he or his team were using unlawful means to “contest” the election, wouldn;t that be enough?  If he had warnings his words and actions would incite the violence1/6 or were in coordination with plans for the assault on the Capitol, why does it matter whether he “knew” he lost or not?  

Like JR, I’m not a lawyer. So I can’t speak to the internal logic of particular case law or legal standards about mens rea and consciousness of guilt. But I think the way to approach this question is to work it from the other side, as it were.

Here’s an interesting nugget that puts an added context to Bill Stepien’s appearance before the Jan 6th committee. Stepien is working as an advisor/consultant to the campaign of Wyoming Republican Harriet Hageman, the woman running against Liz Cheney in the House primary in Wyoming. (Wyoming has a single representative in the House.)

Normally this wouldn’t be surprising. A top Republican operative might be working with any number of Republican candidates. But Hageman isn’t any Republican. Her candidacy is inextricably tied to the Big Lie. In fact, it’s run almost entirely as a Trump campaign proxy. And of course, Cheney is literally front and center in the committee’s work.

Later this week we’ll be kicking off our annual TPM Journalism Fund drive. This year it is particularly important. Please keep an eye out for the announcement.

You see in the feature story that Bill Stepien, Trump’s 2020 campaign manager after Brad Parscale got canned, is going to be a star witness at the second Jan. 6th committee hearing tomorrow night. I wanted to remind you that Stepien was once a top operative and advisor to Chris Christie. But he fell from grace as part of the Bridgegate scandal back in 2013. When the scandal hit, Christie made Stepien one of the scapegoats. He cut him loose like a dog, as Trump might say. (Stepien himself was never charged with a crime though two of his colleagues were charged and were later convicted, before having their convictions tossed by the Supreme Court.)

There are many things that came out of the first Jan 6th hearing. We’ll talk more about them going forward and we’ll see these points unfolded, I assume, in subsequent hearings. But one point already came through pretty clearly and well and that is the integral role of the two fascist paramilitaries, the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers.

Earlier today, TPM’s Matt Shuham and Josh Kovensky unpacked the Jan. 6 committee’s first hearing. They’ve been covering Donald Trump and his allies’ calculated attacks on democracy and conspiracy to subvert the 2020 election since well before the defining moment of the Jan. 6 insurrection. In case you missed the LIVE conversation, here is a recording: https://twitter.com/i/spaces/1zqKVBlwVjmKB

Follow us on Twitter @TPM to be notified of the next one.

From TPM Reader SC …

I don’t write in often (20 years and three emails, IIRC), but I feel a need to add some balance to the letter from MB that you just posted. MB complains of the lack of discussion of “incompetence” — and I agree on the philosophical issue presented that incompetence demands removal — but the problem is that Chesa, while not great, has not shown incompetence in his position as DA. Is he great? No. Is he a smooth politician? God, no. But in the context of SF DAs going back to Arlo Smith, he is…OK. Disruptive, but relatively effective overall.

From TPM Reader MB …

I’ve heard a lot of pundits discussing the recall in SF as a repudiation of the progressive movement. Honestly I think it’s dead wrong. I voted for Chesa and I wanted the recall. It’s progressive to expect competent and effective government.

I would say the first hearing was pretty powerful. The second half was emotively powerful. But it was the first portion of the hearing which seemed to make some critical connections and add some new facts that I either wasn’t aware of or hadn’t seen connected like that before. There were a lot examples where they hinted at things to come – claiming that the White House was getting lots of intelligence that violence was being planned.

As I mentioned earlier, the part that seemed new to me was seeing so many Trump diehards saying straightforwardly that the whole thing was a lie. That’s not new information. Or not surprising information. But it’s remarkable to see it so clearly. That the whole thing was a lie. A cynical lie. We know that. But this just brings it to the fore in such a graphic way.

The one other point I’ll emphasize again: I didn’t quite grasp how much of this would be wrong-footing the Trump world. You’ve got existing diehards. Not just like Bill Barr who we know has basically washed his hands of Trump. But people who still very much in that world saying yeah that was all crap. That has to sow a lot of dissension in that milieu and put Trump on the warpath against his own loyalists.

Curious to see more.