A big thank you to everyone who’s contributed so far in Day One of this year’s TPM Journalism Fund drive. If you can contribute we would greatly appreciate it. Below I explain just what the Fund is and why it’s so critical this year especially. If you’re able, just click right here. Thank you.

Sometimes the biggest things happening in the world are happening out of view. Sometimes they’re hidden but just as often they simply don’t get the attention they should because they don’t have traction as news stories. Or perhaps all the players have their own interests in not drawing attention to them. You may have noticed that Joe Biden is traveling to Saudi Arabia next month and that he plans to hold a summit with the de facto ruler of the country, Mohammed bin Salman — usually called MBS. He’s going to Riyadh. MBS is not coming to Washington. This is presented as a full reset of relations between the two countries and — though this is stated less directly — a full reset with MBS. So all that human-rights, Yemen-war, Jamal-Khashoggi-being-dismembered-at-a-consulate-in-Istanbul stuff is done with. That was then. This is now.

There was quite a bit of subtle storytelling and repositioning going on through this morning’s testimony. Perhaps especially from Bill Barr. But there was one moment from Barr that struck me as revealing. During his testimony, Barr was describing the run-up to one visit to the White House when it was clear that Trump wasn’t going to acknowledge he had lost. Barr said that it was getting a bit “awkward.” That’s probably an understatement.

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.

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.