President Donald Trump called acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen on Dec. 27 last year to discuss the issue at the center of his concerns. Not the 2,200 people a day dying of covid-19 at that point but, instead, his desperate attempts to cling to power after losing the presidential election on Nov. 3.
Before digging into that call, it’s worth remembering the context. The election was called for Joe Biden on Nov. 7, as it became apparent that Trump had no path to victory. The Trump campaign and Trump himself tried to block states from certifying their results, without success.
On Dec. 11, the Supreme Court rejected the Texas attorney general’s flailing effort to toss vote totals from Biden-voting states. Three days after that, electors met in every state to cast their final ballots for president and vice president. By Dec. 27, Trump and an increasingly fringe group of allies had tried to gin up myriad conspiracy theories about the vote, each of which was quickly debunked or facially ridiculous. But here was Trump, insisting that Rosen do something.
Notes taken by Rosen’s deputy Richard Donoghue reveal Trump’s plan, such as it was.
Trump appears to have suggested that he was better versed on the situation than the top Justice Department official, because, he said, Rosen and his team “may not be following the internet the way I do.” (As a nation, we can be grateful that they were not.)
“[U]nderstand that the DOJ can’t + won’t snap its fingers + change the outcome of the election, doesn’t work that way,” Rosen said to Trump, according to Donoghue’s summary.
“[D]on’t expect you to do that,” Trump said in response, “just say that the election was corrupt + leave the rest to me and the R. Congressmen.”
Everything until those last four words was pretty well-established. It was clear from the first hours after polls closed on Nov. 3 that Trump was grasping at every conspiracy theory that popped up on websites or in conservative media, a habit that continues unabated.
It’s long been tricky to determine if Trump actually believes the nonsensical, conflicting or obviously false claims he pushes forward; that he used his familiarity with them as something of a validator in his conversation with Rosen suggests that, to at least some extent, he does.
We knew, too, that there was tension between the White House and Justice Department over the election results, with Trump angling to oust Rosen in favor of someone more amenable to his conspiracy theories. A few days after the call with Rosen, his allies pressed the department to file a lawsuit with the Supreme Court, a suit that largely mirrored the Texas suit that was already tossed.
What Donoghue’s notes suggest is that Trump had fully bought into the effort that would eventually become his Alamo: having Republican legislators block the electoral-vote counting due to take place at the Capitol on Jan. 6.
It was already established that some Trump allies would stand up in opposition to the counting of votes on that day. Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) told Breitbart News more than a week earlier that he planned to do so. Others quickly signed on. It was on Dec. 19 that Trump himself first tweeted about Jan. 6, coupling promotion of yet-another false conspiracy theory about the election with the request that his supporters come to Washington on the day the votes would be counted: “Be there, will be wild!”
It hasn’t been clear, though, how closely the White House worked with those legislators in anticipation of the day. There have been hints for some time that members of Congress were in contact with the organizers of a protest at the Capitol that day, with one leader of that effort identifying Brooks and two others by name as having “schemed” with him about how to put “maximum pressure on Congress while they were voting.” But what about the days before? What, if anything, was the strategy for blocking the electoral votes beyond the objections that actually occurred? How closely was Trump involved in the effort?
To some extent, Donoghue’s notes capture a conversation similar to the one that led to Trump’s first impeachment. Then, he asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to announce an investigation into Biden that he clearly hoped would shake something loose politically. In December of last year, he wanted Rosen to validate the effort to object to the vote in broad strokes, at which point … something would happen. But what? And with whom?
It’s possible that Trump’s plan went no further than that. It’s possible that he identified those “R. Congressmen” as part of the effort for no reason other than that he knew they planned to object. But that he mentioned them at all does suggest more integration than had previously been indicated. And, as ProPublica has reported, there was clearly some coordination between the White House and the hybrid events that day, including discussions about speaking roles.
Trump and his allies reportedly put the day’s violence to use, looking to leverage the interruption to the vote-counting caused by the rioters who stormed the Capitol. The president and his allies tried calling Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) in an effort to gum up the works. He spoke with Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) that day, as well, though it’s not clear when or about what. Trump’s call with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) that day was less friendly, but centered on Trump’s failure to condemn the violence.
One of the unanswered questions about the events of that day is precisely what the White House and Trump’s Republican allies knew about them and how they might have contributed to them behind the scenes. This is a central target of the select committee established to probe the eruption of violence. Certainly, there may be no fire under the smoke.
But, again, some congressional Republicans clearly did their best to aid Trump’s effort. On the morning of Jan. 6, Brooks spoke before Trump at a rally outside the White House. It was time, he said, to “start taking down names and kicking ass.” It’s not clear if any of those in attendance did the former, but some clearly did the latter.
The ex-president has built an arsenal of groups staffed with ex-officials and loyalists seemingly aimed at sustaining his political hopes for a comeback
Donald Trump’s penchant for turning his political and legal troubles into fundraising schemes has long been recognized, but the former US president’s money hustling tricks seem to have expanded since his defeat by Joe Biden, prompting new scrutiny and criticism from campaign finance watchdogs and legal analysts.
Critics note Trump has built an arsenal of political committees and nonprofit groups, staffed with dozens of ex-administration officials and loyalists, which seem aimed at sustaining his political hopes for a comeback, and exacting revenge on Republican congressional critics. These groups have been aggressive in raising money through at times misleading appeals to the party base which polls show share Trump’s false views he lost the White House due to fraud.
Just days after his defeat last November, Trump launched a new political action committee, dubbed Save America, that together with his campaign and the Republican National Committee quickly raked in tens of millions of dollars through text and email appeals for a Trump “election defense fund”, ostensibly to fight the results with baseless lawsuits alleging fraud.
The fledgling Pac had raised a whopping $31.5m by year’s end, but Save America spent nothing on legal expenses in this same period, according to public records. Run by Trump’s 2016 campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, Save America only spent $340,000 on fundraising expenses last year.
In another move, Trump last month announced he was filing class-action lawsuits against Facebook, Google and Twitter, alleging “censorship” due to bans by the platforms after the 6 January Capitol attack that Trump helped stoke. But the move prompted several legal experts to pan the lawsuits as frivolous and a fundraising ploy.
Trump’s new legal stratagem raised red flags, in part because he teamed up with America First Policy Institute (AFPI), a non-profit group led by ex-White House official Brooke Rollins. At a press briefing with Trump, Rollins publicly told supporters they could “join the lawsuit” by signing up on a website, takeonbigtech.org, a claim belied by details on the website which featured a red button with the words “DONATE to AFPI”.
“Donald Trump is a one-man scam Pac,” said Paul S Ryan, vice-president of policy and litigation with Common Cause. “Bait-and-switch is among his favorite fundraising tactics,” Ryan stressed, noting that Trump’s Save America Pac told “supporters he needed money to challenge the result of an election he clearly lost”, and then wound up not spending any on litigation last year.
“Now he’s at it again, with frivolous lawsuits filed [in July] against Facebook, Twitter and Google, accompanied by fundraising appeals,” Ryan added. “This time he’s got the unlimited dark money group America First Policy Institute in on the racket.”
Other experts voice strong concerns about Trump’s tactics with Save America
“The president deceived his donors. He asked them to give money so he could contest the election results, but then he spent their contributions to pay off unrelated debts,” said Adav Noti, a former associate general counsel at the Federal Election Commission and now chief of staff at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center.
Noti added: “ That’s dangerously close to fraud. If a regular charity – or an individual who didn’t happen to be president of the United States – had raised tens of millions of dollars through that sort of deception, they would face a serious risk of prosecution.”
Such concerns have not deterred Trump’s fundraising machine from expanding further with the launch of a super Pac, Make America Great Again Action, which can accept unlimited donations. Both the Super Pac and Save America are run by Trump’s ex campaign manager Lewandowski, who did not return calls seeking comment.
The Super Pac has reportedly hosted at least two events for mega donors at Trump’s golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, and in Dallas, but it’s not known how much has been hauled in so far.
Both Pacs are seen as vehicles for Trump to raise more funds to influence 2022 congressional races, where he has vowed to try to defeat several politicians such as the anti-Trump Republican Liz Cheney who voted to impeach him this year after the Capitol attack.
Campaign filings for the first six months of 2021 reveal that Trump’s political groups led by Save America raised $82m dollars, an unprecedented total for an ex president. Save America banked most of the funds while spending some to pay for Trump’s travel and other expenses, instead of challenging election results in states like Arizona despite Trump’s false claims of fraud there.
Veteran campaign finance analysts say that the bevy of Trump-linked groups launched since his defeat raise new questions about his motives and political intentions
“Trump’s aggressive fundraising, using a variety of committees and surrogates, raises questions about whether his continual hints at running in 2024 is primarily a ploy for donations,” said Sheila Krumholz, who leads the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. “Trump may be more interested in fundraising than actually running, especially given how unprecedented his post-loss fundraising is.”
Besides Trump’s fundraising pitches for his new Pacs and non-profits, some major Republicans groups have collaborated in fundraising appeals since his defeat, and keep piggybacking on his allure to the party base, despite Trump’s repeated falsehoods that the election was stolen
In the eight weeks post-election, for instance, the RNC, the Trump campaign and Save America reportedly raised about $255m, but only spent a small fraction on lawsuits.
Further, Trump’s cachet with small donors is still exploited by party allies including the National Republican Senatorial Committee, (NRSC) the fundraising arm for Republican senators.
For instance, the NRSC in July email fundraising pitches touted a free Trump T-shirt for a limited number of donors writing checks from $35 to $5,000 to “protect the America First Majority”.
Similarly, the RNC in a 19 July email alert rolled out a money pitch to become an “official 2021 Trump Life Member” for donors who chipped in $45 or more by midnight.
Charlie Black, a longtime Republican operative, said that Republicans committees realize that Trump’s “name has the most popular appeal to the grassroots, so naturally they’re going to try to figure out ways to use his brand where they can to raise more funds”.
But legal analysts caution that Trump’s fundraising modus operandi with his various new Pacs and non-profits are different, and carry clear risks for unwitting donors and US campaign finance laws.
“Our nation’s campaign finance and anti-fraud laws have proven no match for Trump’s schemes,” said Ryan of Common Cause. “So my one piece of advice for Trump supporters is donor beware!”
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
