NEW REPORT: Longtime Trump Confidant Told Special Counsel Jack Smith the Ex-President Was ‘Just Not Interested’ in Stopping Jan. 6 Riot
By: KenMeyer (Mediaite)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A new report has revealed previously undisclosed details about Donald Trump's inner circle and how they tried to get the former president to call off his rioting supporters on January 6th.
ABC News, on Sunday morning, reported that Special Counsel Jack Smith's team interviewed Dan Scavino — the former Trump White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications, after his executive privilege claims were overruled last year. The report described key details offered by Scavino, former Trump aide Nick Luna, and others who were close to Trump that day and are now being legally compelled to comply with Smith despite any previous claims of executive privilege.
Previous reports about the storming of the U.S. Capitol have noted that Trump refused to quell his rioting supporters even when his aides urged him to do so.
"According to what sources said Scavino told Smith's team, Trump was 'very angry' that day," ABC reported. "Not angry at what his supporters were doing to a pillar of American democracy, but steaming that the election was allegedly stolen from him and his supporters, who were 'angry on his behalf.' Scavino described it all as 'very unsettling,' sources said."
Scavino — who has worked for Trump for the past three decades — was the only other person who had access to Trump's Twitter account at the time. As such, ABC reported that when Trump blasted former Vice President Mike Pence for refusing to go along with his scheme to throw out the 2020 election results, White House staffers confronted Scavino "demanding to know why he would post that in the midst of such a precarious situation."
From the report:
Scavino said he was as blindsided by the post as they were, insisting to them, "I didn't do it," according to the sources.
Some of Trump's aides then returned to the dining room to explain to Trump that a public attack on Pence was "not what we need," as Scavino put it to Smith's team. "But it's true," Trump responded, sources told ABC News. Trump has publicly echoed that sentiment since then.
At about the same time Trump's aides were again pushing him to do more, a White House security official heard reports over police radio that indicated Pence's security detail believed "this was about to get very ugly," according to the House committee's report.
As Trump aide Luna recalled, according to sources, Trump didn't seem to care that Pence had to be moved to a secure location. Trump showed he was "capable of allowing harm to come to one of his closest allies" at the time, Luna told investigators, the sources said.
More than half an hour later, Trump allowed Scacvino to tweet a message he wrote telling the rioters to "stay peaceful," but aides reportedly kept pressing for more to be done. And Scavino confirmed that Trump had other concerns than stopping the riot.
Trump listened to the pleas, "but he was just not interested at that moment to put anything out," Scavino told Smith's team, according to the sources. Instead, Trump was focused on watching TV and taking in the chaotic scenes, Scavino said, the sources added.
The conversation between Scavino and Smith's team went on with him reportedly being yet another Trump official who saw no evidence of mass fraud that corrupted the results of the election.
Tags
Who is online
99 visitors
The moment Pence confirmed he was going to do the right thing he lost the “ally” designation.
Why would he want to stop the coup/insurrection that he had incited?
Trump saw the riot as something that might advance his cause, that is why he did not act. Liz Cheney called Trump's conduct that afternoon as the greatest dereliction of duty by a president in US history and its hard to see where she is wrong on that.
So you finally acknowledge that Jan 6 was nothing more than a riot and not an insurrection.
FINALLY!!
I have always said it was a riot. American courts, and the US Senate have said it was an insurrection. We can both be right.
I wouldn't let your friends here know that.
I have never seen a leftist, here or anywhere else, call J6 a riot. They have been told it was an insurrection, so that is what they have been going with...
Why in the world would you think the 2 have to be exclusive of each other? A riot whose stated intention is to disrupt the workings of government and the peaceful transfer of power would also be an insurrection.
OK let's use your logic.
You would agree, then, that the BLM riots in Portland and Seattle where they tried to burn down state and federal buildings could also be considered insurrections.
Why did the government, federal or otherwise, not charge any of those insurrectionists with that crime?
“I have never seen a leftist, here or anywhere else, call J6 a riot.”
Not sure if you watched the events unfold that day. For those that did, it was a spectacle that was head shaking at best, and heartbreaking in reality.
And all while the supposed ‘CIC’ rooted on his agenda, sat still for hours, and had the temerity to blame others for not anticipating the consequences of his actions.
It was unbelievable then, and indicative of how far we have fallen given the excuses made to this minute in attempting to diminish the impact of the crisis it was, and tragically continues to be.
Also, let's tack on the takeover of the California state house last week by a bunch of leftists, which interrupted a session of the California legislature.
By your logic, that was an insurrection also, right?
Right.
Well, i appreciate your reply, but it had nothing to do with what I posted.
What government procedure were they attempting to stop?
You are attempting to claim that an action with the expressed purpose of interfering with government processes is the same as crimes that occur on government property? If I need to explain the differences between them to you, you are too far gone with partisan rhetoric to listen.
When a group of asswipes try and burn down a building, the building needs to be shut down for a period of time so that it can be inspected for safety. Until then, those that work in said building have nowhere readily available to go, hence, government procedures have been stopped.
"You are attempting to claim that an action with the expressed purpose of interfering with government processes is the same as crimes that occur on government property"
I am not "attempting". I am SAYING that when you riot to stop legislative procedures, whether it is in a city hall, state legislative house or the US Capitol, it is all the same. If one is a leftist insurrection dream, then they ALL are.
So you are too far gone with partisan rhetoric.
Ironic coming from you
I stated facts, you opinion and false equivalency.
And probably sporting a woody