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.

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.

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 wanted to share a few quick thoughts with you before tonight’s hearings.

One very minor point is that for some time I’ve heard complaints to the effect of, “what has the committee been doing all this time? Most of what we’ve found out about January 6th has been from the media.” This is mostly a misunderstanding. The great majority of reporting you’ve seen over the last six months revealing texts and other material about the insurrection originated with the committee’s investigation. So this isn’t an either/or. The committee investigation has almost certainly been the primary generator of new information even though very little of it has come officially from the investigation.

We mentioned last week that after the top GOP candidates for the Michigan governor’s race were stripped from the ballot over forged signatures, the remaining at least nominal frontrunner (poll leaders in most recent poll) was a guy named Ryan Kelley, who was literally part of the mob that stormed the Capitol building on January 6th and had a lot of connections to the guys who plotted to kidnap and murder Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. Well, he just got arrested by the FBI. No details yet on what the charges are or why he was taken into custody.

11:49 AM: Kelley’s arrest was part of a raid on his home and stems from his actions breaching the Capitol complex on January 6th. Charges forthcoming.

This is just a wild story. Really a sign of the times in many ways. A seventy-something Democratic protestor showed up at a Republican event in Arizona with far-right Republican Senate candidate Blake Masters. He was clearly there looking to make a stir. The man, Peter Jackson, had on a Black Lives Matter shirt, a “Jail Trump” hat and a mask. So clearly he wasn’t going to blend in. He also had his phone out videotaping. So he clearly wanted a record of how the crowd reacted. But he wasn’t violent in any way. The crowd quickly got violent with him, punching him, knocking him down. The Masters supporters claimed that he attacked a woman. The video clearly shows that’s not true. At one point Masters puts his hands around the guy’s neck and starts throttling him. It would probably be a bit much to say he tried to strangle him. But it wouldn’t be wildly off the mark. Anyway, THIS IS ALL ON VIDEO.

On the long list of excuses and deflections gun rights activists use to shut down any talk of gun regulation, one critical angle comes down to numbers. Mass shootings, school shootings, gun massacres — whatever you want to call them — only make up a tiny percentage of the number of people killed every year by guns in the United States. That’s true. Relatedly, AR-15s, the mass shooters’ firearm of choice, account for only a tiny percentage of overall firearms deaths in the United States. That’s true. Indeed, some noted that the 10 African-Americans murdered in a Buffalo supermarket on May 14th may not even have been a majority of the African-Americans killed by firearms on that single day. Using these very real numbers, gun rights activists portray supporters of assault weapons bans, bans on high capacity magazines and the rest as reactive and innumerate. It’s similar to the way that gun activists sometimes try to shut down restriction conversation by noting how people horrified by all the carnage don’t know all the technical differences between this gun and that one.