Trial To Determine Whether Trump Can Be Blocked From 2024 Ballot Continues
A Colorado court continues to hear a case which could lead to former President Trump being blocked from the 2024 ballot due to his actions on January 6, 2021.
Transcript
00:00:00 And what about archival research?
00:00:09 How would you describe the amount of archival research you've done in your career?
00:00:13 It's a little trickier than the field work where you can count hours of interviews, where
00:00:18 you count the number of interviews.
00:00:20 But, you know, you can look at it in terms of time spent, you can look at it in terms
00:00:24 of number of different archives, number of websites, social media platforms, but given
00:00:28 that that's really where I started in 1996 was online and doing archival research online,
00:00:35 definitely in the 2000s.
00:00:38 And have you done archival research involving the three groups involved in January 6?
00:00:46 Yes, I have.
00:00:49 Now, Dr. Seem, I want to talk a little bit about your work in this case.
00:01:07 How did the archival material available for your work here compare to the kind of archival
00:01:14 material you typically rely on?
00:01:17 It's very consistent.
00:01:19 How so?
00:01:21 Similar types of materials, social media materials, court documents, scholarship, existing scholarship,
00:01:30 folks who are also studying the same topics, looking at their findings, government reports,
00:01:37 just a variety of different kinds of materials that I've used over the years, very comparable
00:01:42 to what was done in this case.
00:01:45 And you've used all three methodologies for your work in this case, is that right?
00:01:52 Yes, that's correct.
00:01:54 Is it common for work in sociology to rely on all three of these methodologies?
00:01:58 Well, this would be referred to as a multi-method approach, and multi-method approaches are
00:02:04 often referred to as kind of gold standard.
00:02:06 Certainly to conduct research in an accurate manner doesn't require using all three.
00:02:12 You could conduct a very legitimate study with any one or some combination, but using
00:02:16 all three certainly would be, like I said, kind of the gold standard.
00:02:20 Dr. Sheen, have you testified as an expert before?
00:02:24 Yes, I have.
00:02:25 Tell us a little bit about that.
00:02:27 I testified in the Science v. Kessler civil case that was related to the Unite the Right
00:02:33 rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.
00:02:36 As you may recall, that was a rally that turned deadly violent in 2017, and I testified on
00:02:43 behalf of the plaintiffs in that case as it relates to the way in which the Unite the
00:02:47 Right rally was organized and the central role that violence played in how the event
00:02:52 was organized.
00:02:53 Have you worked on other cases as an expert?
00:02:55 Yes, I have.
00:02:56 Tell us a little bit about that.
00:02:58 I testified in a murder case in Portland, Oregon.
00:03:03 I was asked by the Multnomah County District Attorney's Office to review some materials
00:03:09 in terms of statements and posts and so forth that the defendant who had been charged in
00:03:14 that case had made, and the District Attorney's Office asked for me to offer an opinion as
00:03:19 to whether I felt those statements were consistent with white supremacist extremist beliefs.
00:03:24 Have you ever worked on behalf of defendants in cases?
00:03:27 Yes, I have.
00:03:28 Many times.
00:03:29 I've worked with federal public defender's offices, for example, across the country.
00:03:34 Now, have you published on extremist political violence?
00:03:39 Yes, I have.
00:03:41 Tell us about some of your publications.
00:03:43 Well, I've written a number of articles, more than 60 peer-reviewed articles or book chapters
00:03:50 and edited volumes that address different facets of political violence and political
00:03:54 extremism, and I've co-authored two books on the topic.
00:03:58 Tell us about the two books.
00:04:00 Okay.
00:04:01 The first book was America's Lost Decadent Inside the White Power of the Minstrel Spaces
00:04:05 of Hate that relied upon all three of the methods that we were just discussing, field
00:04:10 work and interviews and archival research, and the basic focus of the book was looking
00:04:15 at the kind of cultural and social spaces that are important to white supremacist extremists
00:04:21 in terms of sustaining their beliefs and the central role that violence plays within that
00:04:25 culture, and the second book is due to be published in the next month or so, I guess,
00:04:32 is actually looking at the forces or the influences that ultimately led to the attack on the Capitol
00:04:37 on January 6th.
00:04:39 What's your new book called?
00:04:41 Out of Hiding.
00:04:43 Why did you choose that title?
00:04:45 Well, we look at the way in which, starting with the election of Barack Obama in 2008
00:04:52 and a series of other developments following that, how that led to a substantial reemergence
00:04:58 of far-right extremists.
00:05:00 And the Out of Hiding refers to sort of coming out of hiding?
00:05:04 Yes.
00:05:05 Okay.
00:05:06 Now, on the screen, I've put Plaincliffe at 161, which is a copy of your CD, and I don't
00:05:13 want to go into everything in this and really welcome guidance from your honor in terms
00:05:20 of how you want to do this, but would it be easiest to move to him as a demonstrative
00:05:25 exhibit so you have an understanding of his expertise, your honor?
00:05:28 Or we can go through a couple of highlights.
00:05:30 What would be most preferable to you?
00:05:32 Why don't we just walk through his qualifications?
00:05:38 I think it's going to be fine.
00:05:40 Okay, great.
00:05:41 So, Dr. Sime, we, if we scroll down, we see your education, and we've already talked about
00:05:57 that.
00:05:58 Can you tell us a little bit about some of the trainings that you've given?
00:06:03 Yes, I've done a number of trainings for law enforcement, the legal field, educators over
00:06:10 the years in terms of law enforcement.
00:06:12 I've provided training to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Homeland Security,
00:06:16 Federal Bureau of Prisons, Department of Justice, and a number of state-level and local-level
00:06:22 law enforcement agencies across the country.
00:06:24 I've done trainings for legal organizations like the American Bar Association and educational
00:06:31 institutions across the country.
00:06:33 And have you received some grants and some grants from federal government agencies to
00:06:42 study political extremism?
00:06:44 Yes, I have.
00:06:45 Can you tell us, it's on the screen right now, can you tell us a couple of examples
00:06:48 of those?
00:06:49 Sure.
00:06:50 The National Institute of Justice, which is housed under the Department of Justice, Department
00:06:53 of Homeland Security.
00:06:54 What kind of trainings do you provide, I'm sorry, what kind of grants, what kind of work
00:07:00 do you do under those grants?
00:07:03 Sure, it's basic research, that is research intended to look at different questions as
00:07:10 it relates to the causes and consequences of political extremism and political violence,
00:07:16 looking at different factors at the individual, group, and broader societal level in terms
00:07:21 of what kinds of things influence these issues and what kinds of measures seem to be most
00:07:28 effective in terms of countering them.
00:07:31 And here on the screen I have your expert legal consultation.
00:07:34 Is this a list of the cases where you've been retained as an expert, this page and the next?
00:07:40 It appears to be.
00:07:42 Okay.
00:07:43 And then, did you provide testimony to the January 6th Committee?
00:07:48 Yes, I did.
00:07:49 Why was that?
00:07:50 I was invited to provide written testimony.
00:07:53 Fair to say, Dr. Seem, you've been working on issues of right-wing extremism well before
00:08:00 we've been working together in this case.
00:08:02 Yes, I have, my entire career basically.
00:08:05 Okay.
00:08:06 Did you work with us to prepare the Monster Exhibit to summarize your work in this case?
00:08:11 Yes, I did.
00:08:12 Okay.
00:08:13 Now we've got a little bit of a computer issue, let me see if I can bring it up on the right
00:08:17 screen.
00:08:18 While you're doing that, I just have a quick question.
00:08:22 You said the book coming out of High Gang is from 2008, the foreword, when did, kind
00:08:31 of culminating on January 6th, is that correct?
00:08:34 That's correct, Your Honor.
00:08:35 Did you start working on it before January 6th?
00:08:38 We did, yeah, we did.
00:08:40 And that happened while we were working on it, which I would say added an additional
00:08:46 item that certainly, additional development that we needed to address because it was a
00:08:53 new, obviously, facet that was a substantial, important historical event that was very relevant
00:09:01 to what we were already analyzing and discussing.
00:09:04 So it was a work in progress and then that becomes a new chapter of chapters.
00:09:10 Exactly.
00:09:11 On that, Dr. Seamy, did you express any concerns about the possibilities of violence related
00:09:22 to the aftermath of the 2020 election before it happened?
00:09:25 Yes, I did.
00:09:27 Tell us a little bit about that.
00:09:28 Well, in the summer of 2020, I thought it was pretty clear that depending on the outcome
00:09:36 of the election, there was a lot of anger and resentment and mobilization that was really
00:09:43 starting to increase among far-right extremists and that should Donald Trump not be reelected,
00:09:51 I thought it was pretty clear that far-right extremists would respond with political violence.
00:09:58 I think I've got the tech issues worked out.
00:10:02 So is this a demonstrative that we worked together to prepare for your summary?
00:10:07 Yes, it is.
00:10:08 Okay.
00:10:09 Let's go to the first page and tell us what topics did you address in your work in this
00:10:15 case?
00:10:16 Looking at the kind of defining characteristics of far-right extremism, including the kind
00:10:25 of central aspects of the communication style, the influence that Donald Trump and relationship
00:10:31 Donald Trump has developed with far-right extremists, that includes certain communication
00:10:36 strategies, the motives for those who attacked the Capitol on January 6th, and then Donald
00:10:42 Trump's role in the attack on the Capitol.
00:10:47 How does your expertise over the past 27 years help you address these topics?
00:10:55 Well, when you've spent as much time as I have directly observing, directly engaging,
00:11:03 interviewing active and formerly active members of far-right extremist groups, and those are
00:11:09 more affiliated with specific groups as well, understanding that culture provides lots of
00:11:16 different types of insight about things like motivations.
00:11:19 And then the archival research is really important as well, because that also provides certain
00:11:25 insight about people's perspectives, motivations, communication strategies, and so forth.
00:11:32 You talked about communication strategies.
00:11:35 Can you give us a couple of examples of things that are particularly unique to right-wing
00:11:43 extremist communications to help us understand what you mean by that?
00:11:46 Sure.
00:11:49 In terms of this case, for example, 1776 is very relevant to an outsider that might just
00:11:55 sound like a number or a fairly innocuous historical reference to the Revolutionary
00:12:02 War, but to insiders within far-right extremist culture that has a very specific connotation
00:12:10 or relationship to violence, and it really is a direct call to violence.
00:12:16 Tell us a little bit about the materials that you reviewed in this case to address these
00:12:24 four issues.
00:12:25 Before you go there, I just have one follow-up question.
00:12:28 Sorry.
00:12:29 No, please.
00:12:30 When you were talking about the field work and you said that sometimes you, like you
00:12:36 said, you embed yourself, what do you mean?
00:12:40 How is that different than an interview?
00:12:42 Does the group that you're embedding yourself, do they know that you're embedding yourself,
00:12:47 or are you undercover?
00:12:48 I'm just trying to understand what the distinction is between field work and the interviews.
00:12:53 Sure.
00:12:54 It's a great question, Your Honor.
00:12:55 The field work would involve a more immersive experience from a research standpoint, so
00:13:01 it would include a lot of observation.
00:13:03 It would include informal interviews, which would be much more conversational in style.
00:13:09 When you're embedded, depending on the approval you've received from what's called the institutional
00:13:16 review boards, which academic research is governed under federal regulations under institutional
00:13:21 review boards, there is a way to do that where you don't have to obtain informed consent
00:13:26 and you could do it, you could be embedded surreptitiously without your participants
00:13:31 or subjects' knowledge.
00:13:33 The field work I did, certainly in terms of the folks that I've lived with, they knew
00:13:38 that I was doing research.
00:13:39 Some of the larger gatherings that I attended as part of field work, people wouldn't necessarily
00:13:44 know that I was a researcher.
00:13:46 They might assume that I was one of them and then I essentially would notify people as
00:13:52 my relationship with them kind of developed.
00:13:55 And so the main distinction I would say between the interviews is they're much more structured
00:13:59 than compared to the field work, which is again, intended to be a much more naturalistic
00:14:04 way of gathering information, whereas the interviews are, while helpful and certainly
00:14:08 provide a lot of insight, are also pretty structured and formalized.
00:14:13 But for the most part, you're not becoming a member of a group pretending to be a member
00:14:20 of a group of all your religious doing research?
00:14:23 I've never done that, no.
00:14:24 Okay, thank you.
00:14:25 Dr. Seaman, can you just give us a couple real life examples of, you mentioned sleeping
00:14:32 on someone's couch or in your spare bedroom, how do those come to be?
00:14:36 Well, it's a pretty involved process, you might say, in terms of gaining people's trust
00:14:45 and building rapport with individuals, spending time with them to where they feel comfortable
00:14:49 inviting you to do that.
00:14:50 Now sometimes it actually ended up happening much quicker than I expected.
00:14:55 Contacting folks, when I first started, this was in the very early days of the internet,
00:15:00 so PO boxes were still kind of a thing.
00:15:03 So my first contacts actually emerged through letters that I wrote to PO boxes, and I was
00:15:09 able to meet with individuals in person, and then from there develop relationships to where
00:15:13 they were comfortable enough with inviting me into their homes.
00:15:17 Just help us understand how someone who's a member of a right wing extremist group would
00:15:25 say to a university professor, "Why don't you come stay in my bedroom?"
00:15:29 How does that come to be?
00:15:31 It doesn't always quite happen like that.
00:15:33 I've had many doors slammed in my face, and generally been asked in not so polite terms
00:15:39 to get lost, so that certainly happens.
00:15:42 But for some, they see it, I think, for a lot of different reasons.
00:15:45 First, people sometimes enjoy being the focus of attention.
00:15:51 So to have your researcher say that they're interested in you and want to spend time with
00:15:56 you, for some people they find that satisfying.
00:16:00 For some, they see it as an opportunity to get their message out, to recruit potentially
00:16:05 if not the researcher, then to at least get their message out there and try to shape things
00:16:11 and influence things more broadly.
00:16:13 So I think there's a number of different motives that lead to people making those kinds of
00:16:19 invitations.
00:16:20 I want to be clear, we've talked about your work, the field work, and interviews with
00:16:27 the groups involved in January 6th.
00:16:30 Did that work happen before or after January 6th, 2021?
00:16:35 Before.
00:16:36 Okay.
00:16:37 And did you rely on all three of these methodologies in your work in this case?
00:16:46 Yes, I did.
00:16:47 Okay.
00:16:48 And are these the sort of methodologies and materials that experts in your field reasonably
00:16:53 rely on in forming opinions upon the subject of political extremism?
00:16:58 Yes, it is.
00:16:59 Okay.
00:17:00 Based on your scholarship, your prior work, and your review of materials in this case,
00:17:06 are you familiar with the events of and leading up to January 6th, those who participated
00:17:11 in the attack and Mr. Trump's role in those events?
00:17:14 Yes, I am.
00:17:15 Your Honor, at this point in time, we've tendered Dr. Seamy as an expert on political extremism,
00:17:20 including how extremists communicate and how the events leading up to and including the
00:17:26 January 6th attack relate to longstanding patterns of behavior and communication by
00:17:31 political extremists.
00:17:33 What were your thoughts and objections there?
00:17:37 Okay.
00:17:38 Professor Seamy will be admitted as an expert on political extremism, including how extremists
00:17:54 communicate and his interpretation of January 6th, vis-a-vis his expertise in extremism
00:18:05 and extremism communications.
00:18:08 Thank you very much, Your Honor.
00:18:10 Let's turn to some high-level findings, and then we'll get more granular as our conversation
00:18:15 continues.
00:18:16 Okay, Dr. Seamy?
00:18:18 Sounds good.
00:18:19 So, on the screen, we have a picture of the three groups we've talked about, but let's
00:18:27 start with a basic definition.
00:18:30 What is far-right extremism?
00:18:33 The best way to think about far-right extremism is that it's defined by some core characteristics.
00:18:38 And what I'm going to first say in terms of thinking about it, visualizing it, is if you
00:18:43 think about a constellation in the sky, if you think about a broad-based network, that's
00:18:48 what we're talking about with far-right extremism.
00:18:50 There's individual adherence, there's groups and organizations.
00:18:53 These are all part of this constellation.
00:18:56 And it's pretty far-ranging.
00:18:58 It includes a disparate set of elements, but then there are these core characteristics
00:19:03 that cut across certain beliefs, practices, and communication strategies.
00:19:10 Let's talk about some of these core characteristics.
00:19:14 What are some of the core characteristics that beliefs in far-right extremism?
00:19:20 Several things, really.
00:19:22 Having reliance on conspiracy theory, explaining events, situations, as a result of kind of
00:19:30 shadowing forces that are on the scene.
00:19:32 And those, you know, the specific types of conspiracy theories are pretty far-ranging.
00:19:37 They're kind of adhered to among far-right extremists, but the use of conspiracy theory
00:19:42 is very central.
00:19:45 A strong distinction between us and them.
00:19:48 And of course, people in general make distinctions between us and them, and oftentimes it's
00:19:53 quite innocuous if you think about, for instance, sports fans make distinctions.
00:19:59 Packers fans versus Vikings fans, or so forth.
00:20:02 Pretty innocuous stuff for the most part.
00:20:05 But what we're talking about here in terms of distinctions between us and them for far-right
00:20:09 extremists is that them are really viewed...
00:20:12 ...representing some threats.
00:20:35 Another central kind of tenet is really an anti-democratic ethos that really moves in
00:20:43 the direction of supporting authoritarian impulses, authoritarian beliefs, authoritarian
00:20:49 leaders, structures of various sorts.
00:20:52 So I would say those are kind of three defining aspects of beliefs.
00:20:56 Next on your slide is practices, including violence.
00:21:01 Talk to us about the role that violence plays in far-right extremism.
00:21:06 Because of part of what I just mentioned about beliefs, the idea that there's these existential
00:21:12 threats out there that have been dehumanized, violence is viewed as a necessary tactic to
00:21:19 achieve political goals.
00:21:21 Violence is glamorized and glorified in many ways, viewed in a kind of legitimized fashion,
00:21:28 seen as a formal self-defense to fend off these existential threats.
00:21:35 So it is, again, very central to...
00:21:38 So it's not the only practice, but it is a central practice.
00:21:42 The last core characteristic is communications and strategies.
00:21:46 Tell us a little bit about communication strategies you've observed in your work.
00:21:53 Yeah, so some of the things in terms of communication strategies that I've observed about other
00:21:57 scholars in the field have also observed as it relates to far-right extremism is a reliance
00:22:03 on doublespeak, which is a specific kind of deceptive style of communication that often
00:22:09 involves using words that have multiple meanings, one meaning for insiders, another meaning
00:22:16 potentially for outsiders, using language with a so-called wink and a nod, you might
00:22:22 say. Also, making substantial kind of distinctions between front and backstage behavior, so presenting
00:22:31 oneself or a group in a particular way that's more favorable on the front stage, and then
00:22:36 being much more open about things like the use of violence on the backstage.
00:22:41 And the same would apply to the doublespeak in terms of its relationship to violence,
00:22:47 that it's a technique, a communication strategy that's used to promote violence, but in a
00:22:52 kind of deceptive way.
00:22:54 Let me stop right there, Dr. Seamy. Where would the 1776 example that you talked to
00:23:01 us about earlier fit in to this vocabulary that we're talking about right now?
00:23:05 Yeah, that would be a type of doublespeak because, again, it would have a certain meaning
00:23:09 to outsiders who aren't familiar with the kind of inside culture, but to insiders within
00:23:15 the culture, they would understand and interpret that word differently.
00:23:21 Do all far-right extremists share these beliefs, practices, and communication strategies?
00:23:29 These are core characteristics that cut across the culture, but we are dealing with a large
00:23:35 culture that has different elements, and so you're going to see varying degrees, but these
00:23:41 characteristics do have a high degree of salience that does cut across the culture.
00:23:47 You've selected three groups to highlight here on this slide.
00:23:51 Can you tell us a little bit about each of these groups?
00:23:55 Sure. First group to my left is the Proud Boys, and they were founded in 2016 by Gavin
00:24:03 McGinnis, more recently been led by Enrique Theriault.
00:24:07 They were really founded, according to McGinnis' own words, as a violent street gang with a
00:24:13 political ideology that's referred to as Western chauvinism.
00:24:17 Sorry, you said Western?
00:24:19 Chauvinism.
00:24:21 I'm sorry. Tell us a little bit more about the Proud Boys.
00:24:23 Oh, sure. So the political violence that they gravitate towards is directed towards people
00:24:31 that they believe to be political opponents, and the emphasis or the central nature of
00:24:37 violence for the Proud Boys is best, I guess you might say, exemplified by their mantra,
00:24:43 "Fuck around and find out." Excuse my language.
00:24:47 That's a common used mantra. In fact, you actually see it in the image there in terms
00:24:53 of the acronym, but that's really in a nutshell how they view the important use of violence
00:25:00 to achieve their goals.
00:25:02 Tell us about the Oath Keepers.
00:25:04 Sure. They were founded in 2009 by Stuart Rose, who's a Yale Law School graduate, and
00:25:11 the Oath Keepers were part of the second wave of the anti-government militia movement that
00:25:16 emerged shortly after Barack Obama's election in 2008.
00:25:20 The first wave was, of course, during the 1990s and ultimately culminated in the Oklahoma
00:25:24 City bombing in 1995, and the movement had somewhat dissipated for a period of time,
00:25:30 but it then had a second wave that emerged in 2008.
00:25:34 And so the Oath Keepers were part of that.
00:25:37 They focused a lot on the idea of law enforcement and military maintaining their oath to maintain
00:25:45 the Constitution, which they believe the government has become tyrannical and is violating the
00:25:51 Constitution. They adhere to lots of different types of conspiracy theories about the government
00:25:56 putting people in detention camps and things of that nature.
00:25:59 So there's a high degree of kind of paranoia among the Oath Keepers.
00:26:04 They've been involved in various armed standoffs, like the Bundy Ranch standoff in 2014 in Nevada
00:26:11 and the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in Oregon standoff that occurred there in 2016 and in
00:26:18 several others. So that's kind of the Oath Keepers in a nutshell.
00:26:23 What about the Three Percenters?
00:26:25 They were founded just a year before the Oath Keepers, so in 2008.
00:26:30 So they were also part of the second wave of the anti-government militia movement that
00:26:34 emerged at that time. And the Three Percenters were founded by Mike Vandenborg, who actually
00:26:40 had been involved in the first wave of the militia movement in the 1990s.
00:26:44 And they developed a kind of more decentralized set of different types of Three Percenters
00:26:51 groups across the country. They've been involved in actual plots, domestic terror plots, on
00:26:56 multiple occasions. And their name itself refers to the idea, the actually inaccurate
00:27:02 idea, that only 3% of the colonists fought against the British in the American Revolution.
00:27:09 And the reason why that's important for them is because they believe they're this same
00:27:14 kind of vanguard that's now fighting against the U.S. government that's become too radical.
00:27:21 Let's turn to the next slide and tell us, we've talked generally about the role violence
00:27:29 plays in far-right extremism, but tell us why you chose pictures of the Unite the Right
00:27:35 rally to show this violence and the role that violence plays more generally.
00:27:40 Well, it was a very important event among far-right extremists. Of course, the name
00:27:47 itself indicates in part some of their efforts in terms of uniting the right and the fact
00:27:54 that violence was always intended to be part of this event. When you looked at the social
00:28:02 media platforms where Unite the Right was organized, Discord and other platforms, there
00:28:08 were discussions, for example, of using automobiles to attack individuals, their counter-protesters,
00:28:15 which obviously ultimately happened on the second day.
00:28:18 Is that what we see on the right?
00:28:20 Yes, yes. So there you see James Field's car mowing into this group of counter-protesters
00:28:27 in the afternoon after a state of emergency had been called and things were starting to
00:28:32 disperse. And of course, Heather Hire was murdered in this car attack and a number of
00:28:38 other individuals. You see there Marcus Martin in midair. He was permanently disabled from
00:28:43 his being struck by the car, as were a number of other individuals seriously injured.
00:28:50 So we had a car attack, and then to the left you see the way in which flagpoles being used
00:28:55 to bludgeon individuals they perceive as political opponents. That was also discussed ahead of
00:29:01 time. Individuals on the Discord platform and other platforms were talking about what
00:29:07 types of instruments they could use as weapons and the importance of framing it as self-defense
00:29:14 and also the importance of framing it as we're just joking about committing violence.
00:29:19 I want to talk a little bit more about this framing as self-defense. Tell us a little
00:29:25 bit more about that.
00:29:26 Well, given that within society we generally recognize the right that individuals have
00:29:32 to defend themselves in certain situations where they may be harmed or their life threatened.
00:29:37 Anytime an individual or group can frame their violence as self-defense, it offers a degree
00:29:44 of legitimacy. That's true of individuals and it's true of groups. It's also part of
00:29:49 this worldview that they have that they really are under threat, under attack from a variety
00:29:56 of forces. So therefore, anytime they engage in violence, from their perspective it becomes
00:30:01 seen as a type of self-defense.
00:30:06 You mentioned some of the humor, I believe, and your answer is now. Let's turn to the
00:30:12 next slide and tell us what you see on the left. Why did you choose to have this quote
00:30:20 from Robert Ray on the left?
00:30:22 So Robert Ray was one of the central organizers of the Rioted Rally. Here he's actually explaining
00:30:29 and this is where archival material becomes really useful and important from a research
00:30:33 standpoint because in this quote he's explaining the role or the function in terms of how they
00:30:38 use humor to essentially promote violence but do it in a way that's not always obvious
00:30:45 to keep people off balance in terms of not knowing whether their calls for violence are
00:30:51 meant to be taken seriously or not. They know as insiders that the calls are meant to be
00:30:56 taken seriously, but they understand that by framing it as humor, outsiders may not
00:31:01 always be able to discern the difference.
00:31:04 One more question on the violence and far-right extremism. Does everyone attracted to far-right
00:31:11 extremism engage in violence?
00:31:14 No, no, not at all. There's, I think, we can talk about different roles that individuals
00:31:20 have in terms of within this culture as it relates to violence. One are violence planners.
00:31:27 That is, these are individuals who really help orchestrate plot violence but aren't
00:31:33 directly involved in it themselves. Stuart Rhoades and Nicky Theriault would be current
00:31:39 examples that fit that mold. Then you have your violent implementers. These are individuals
00:31:46 who may help in the planning or may not help in the planning, but their primary kind of
00:31:50 role is to actually execute or implement the violence. These individuals often come prepared
00:31:55 to commit violence. They may have weapons of various sorts or other instruments that
00:32:00 are helpful for that in terms of trying to complete their violent acts.
00:32:04 Then you have other folks that in some situations, they may be open to committing violence, but
00:32:09 they're not involved in the planning and they aren't necessarily intending to commit
00:32:14 violence at the outset, but given a certain situation, they might be open to it or certainly
00:32:20 at least wouldn't necessarily prevent violence from occurring. Then you have a fourth bucket
00:32:25 of folks that are sympathetic bystanders, you might say. These are folks who are planning.
00:32:32 They're not engaging in the violence, but they may more indirectly in more subtle ways
00:32:39 support the violence.
00:32:41 On the left, we see a picture of the person attacking wearing a helmet and goggles. Is
00:32:48 that an example? What category of, would you put someone like that in?
00:32:55 I would say probably a violence implementer.
00:32:59 Why is that?
00:33:01 Well, they've come prepared for violence in terms of having the goggles and the head
00:33:08 gear and then they're using an instrument that's meant to be for displaying a symbol.
00:33:17 They've turned that into a weapon. Again, based on what we know about how Unite the
00:33:22 Right was planned and the directives that were discussed in great length about how to
00:33:28 use things like flagpoles as weapons, I think that certainly you could infer that this person
00:33:37 came prepared to use their flagpole in that respect.
00:33:40 All right, let's go to the communication style. On the right, we have a video of Nick
00:33:47 Fuentes. Who is Nick Fuentes?
00:33:50 In short, he's a white supremacist leader, quite influential among folks that follow
00:33:59 him. He was present at the attack on the Capitol on January 6th. He was present at Unite the
00:34:05 Right rally. He has a substantial presence in terms of social media platforms as well
00:34:11 as offline.
00:34:15 We'll play the video just to make sure we're keeping housekeeping done correctly. This
00:34:19 is T120, which is admissible but hasn't yet been admitted under the court's October 27th
00:34:25 order. I'll go ahead and play the video.
00:34:29 Is he part of one of the three groups or is he out on his own?
00:34:38 No, he's not involved in those three groups.
00:34:42 And what you said, which video?
00:34:44 P120.
00:34:46 [VIDEO PLAYBACK]
00:35:02 [INAUDIBLE]
00:35:14 Could you actually replay it a little louder?
00:35:17 Yes.
00:35:24 [INAUDIBLE]
00:35:33 So, Dr. Seamy, why did you include this video of Nick Fuentes?
00:35:41 It's an illustration of how the double speak works in real time, where you have both advocacy
00:35:48 and then, you know, part of double speak is about developing plausible deniability, where
00:35:54 you insert certain aspects in terms of the communication that allows them to say after
00:35:59 the fact, why I didn't mean it, or gives you some type of kind of built-in excuse, you
00:36:03 might say, built-in rationale for why you shouldn't be taken in terms of the same, what
00:36:11 you said, as a promotion of violence.
00:36:13 So this really kind of exemplifies that style of communication.
00:36:18 And I think it's important to recognize that among far-right extremist leaders like Nick
00:36:23 Fuentes, you're not going to see very often just completely open promotion for violence.
00:36:29 Oftentimes, there is these efforts to build in a plausible deniability so that it's not
00:36:35 completely obvious.
00:36:37 And so, you know, one person can't be, or is more difficult to hold a person criminally
00:36:43 or civilly liable for promoting violence.
00:36:46 So this is, you know, very consistent with what we see among far-right extremists more
00:36:50 broadly.
00:36:51 To make sure we understand exactly what you mean, talk us through the specific things
00:36:57 that Mr. Fuentes did in this video that is that double speak.
00:37:01 Yeah, you want to replay it one more time?
00:37:03 Sure.
00:37:04 [INAUDIBLE]
00:37:07 OK, well, it's right there.
00:37:09 [INAUDIBLE]
00:37:12 Right.
00:37:13 First statement is, you know, killing state legislatures.
00:37:19 You get, you can say, what else are you going to do?
00:37:23 And then we get the negation.
00:37:25 But I'm not, you know, suggesting that.
00:37:27 But then, what else can you do, right?
00:37:30 So it's kind of a teeter-totter back and forth in terms of promoting, bringing it back, and
00:37:35 then still promoting.
00:37:37 And so that's the strategy.
00:37:41 Are these techniques unique to far-right extremists?
00:37:48 Double speak and front and backstage behavior, these are common aspects of human behavior
00:37:53 more broadly.
00:37:55 All of us, I would assume, in this room at some point in our lives have used a lot of
00:38:00 deceptive language, have used some types of double speak.
00:38:03 We all present ourselves differently on the front stage.
00:38:06 If you think about a job interview, for example, you're going to present yourself in one fashion.
00:38:11 And on the backstage, when we're in the privacy of our home, we might engage differently.
00:38:15 So these are very common things.
00:38:17 What's distinctive about what we're talking about here today is that the front and backstage
00:38:22 and the double speak are connected to violence and the use of violence.
00:38:26 And so that's what distinguishes far-right extremists in these respects as it relates
00:38:31 to these communication strategies.
00:38:33 How do you know these communication strategies work?
00:38:39 Well, that comes, again, from the data collection.
00:38:41 That comes from the field work and having the opportunities to observe the culture and
00:38:46 how it operates.
00:38:47 That comes from interviewing active members of these groups and formerly active members
00:38:52 of these groups and having them discuss these strategies and how things are structured in
00:38:57 terms of within the culture.
00:38:59 And that comes from the archival material.
00:39:01 And this quote here from Robert Ray is, again, it's an important example of what can be learned
00:39:06 from archival material in terms of some of these issues.
00:39:12 What about instances where violence occurs and then there's discussion of violence after
00:39:19 the occurrence?
00:39:21 Have you looked at that in your work?
00:39:24 I'm sorry, could you repeat the question?
00:39:26 What about when violence occurs and there's communication after the violence?
00:39:31 Did you look at that in your work in this case?
00:39:33 Yes.
00:39:34 Tell us what you learned about these communication strategies from looking at what people say
00:39:39 after violence occurs.
00:39:41 Well, you're going to get certain kinds of promotions, certain kinds of endorsements.
00:39:47 But again, it's not always going to be completely transparent in the endorsements for public
00:39:54 relations purposes in particular.
00:39:59 But certainly the endorsements afterwards in terms of supporting violence is an important
00:40:05 part of reinforcing the cultural sense of role violence plays within the culture.
00:40:11 What about condemnation after?
00:40:13 Is that an important factor?
00:40:15 Absence of condemnation, is that something that you studied?
00:40:18 Yeah, when you have an absence of condemnation, that then can be interpreted and often is
00:40:24 interpreted among far-right extremists as essentially a type of endorsement.
00:40:29 That is, as an endorsement by omission.
00:40:32 How are you confident that the audiences understand the speaker's messages when they use this
00:40:39 communication style?
00:40:42 Twenty-seven years of gathering data, spending thousands of hours in the field talking with
00:40:48 individuals immersed in this culture, talking with individuals who used to be immersed in
00:40:53 this culture and aren't anymore, going through the volume of archival materials, I feel very
00:41:00 confident that these strategies are widely understood.
00:41:06 Individuals indicate this, and other scholarship finds similar things.
00:41:10 So there's consistency in what I've found with other scholars who also study this issue.
00:41:16 In your report, you talk about repeat interactions between the speaker and the audience.
00:41:22 Does repeat interactions influence your conclusion that these communication styles are effective?
00:41:29 Yes, absolutely.
00:41:30 Again, as part of this cultural immersion, as people become more immersed within a cultural
00:41:36 environment, and that would be true of any culture, really, the more repeated interactions
00:41:41 between speaker and audience, the more understanding develops, the more people begin to be able
00:41:47 to interpret contextual cues, which are an important part of what we're talking about
00:41:51 here.
00:41:52 Context is very relevant in terms of understanding communication.
00:41:56 And so the more immersed you are within a culture, the more able you are to interpret
00:42:01 context.
00:42:02 Talk to us about your earlier example of 1776, through the lens of this immersed in culture
00:42:09 and repeat interactions.
00:42:10 What did you see in your study?
00:42:13 Well, for individuals that, again, are immersed in the culture, then you're going to, over
00:42:20 time, start to develop an understanding of a term like 1776 and how it becomes a call
00:42:27 for violence.
00:42:28 And so as people interact both online and offline, they're exposed to the messaging,
00:42:35 then that's where the familiarity develops.
00:42:39 Tell us, I think you said this already, but just to make sure we're clear, based on your
00:42:46 work, what does 1776 mean among far-right extremists?
00:42:51 It's a violent call for revolution.
00:42:56 Did you see examples of 1776 being used as a violent call for revolution leading up to
00:43:05 a non-January 6th?
00:43:07 Some speeches.
00:43:09 There's a document that the Proud Boys Choir of 1776 returns, which was basically a blueprint
00:43:15 for attacking the Capitol.
00:43:17 So, yes, there were several aspects to 1776, in my opinion, was being used as a call for
00:43:24 violence.
00:43:25 What is, you talked about the document, 1776 returns.
00:43:30 Tell us a little bit more about that document.
00:43:33 Well, it's a document that Enrique Terrio acquired through an associate, and the document
00:43:41 was, like I said, it was a blueprint, had logistics in terms of how to go about attacking
00:43:47 the Capitol, had scenarios, vantage points in terms of different location spots, vulnerabilities
00:43:55 and so forth.
00:43:56 So it was a recipe of sorts, you might say.
00:44:00 Now I want to turn from far-right extremists generally and focus on their relationship
00:44:06 and communication with Donald Trump.
00:44:10 Can you describe, if you look at these, whoops, I'm ahead of myself, the relationship between
00:44:19 Donald Trump and far-right extremists?
00:44:23 Well, in my years of studying this, and again, this is confirmed among other scholars, far-right
00:44:31 extremists generally would perceive national political leaders with a lot of skepticism
00:44:36 of their political citizenship because of their view of the government being basically
00:44:41 corrupt and so forth.
00:44:42 So the relationship that developed between Donald Trump and far-right extremists really
00:44:47 in many respects is somewhat unprecedented, and certainly at least in recent history,
00:44:52 in that far-right extremists really were galvanized by his candidacy in 2015, and a relationship
00:45:00 emerged between Donald Trump and far-right extremists, with far-right extremists really
00:45:06 seeing him as speaking their language and really addressing many of their key grievances.
00:45:15 So on the screen, we have an excerpt from Donald Trump's campaign launch speech in 2015.
00:45:25 Tell us why you chose to highlight this portion of Donald Trump's 2015 speech.
00:45:33 Yes, and if I may, just very briefly, even before 2015, Donald Trump was promoting, one
00:45:42 of the leading figures for promoting birtherism, challenging conspiracy theory, challenging
00:45:47 Barack Obama's legitimacy to serve as president.
00:45:50 And that put him in the orbit of folks like Alex Jones, a far-right media influencer.
00:45:56 And so that was really the beginning.
00:45:58 And then when he announced his candidacy for run for president there in June of 2015 and
00:46:04 used this language, that was a real kind of clarion call for far-right extremists that
00:46:09 this is somebody we want to pay attention to.
00:46:11 And you can see here in the quote referring to when Mexico sends its people, they're sending
00:46:17 people, they're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists.
00:46:22 And some, I assume, are good people.
00:46:24 And using terms like they're rapists, that phrase, that would be the kind of conversations
00:46:29 the far-right extremists have and the kind of terminology they use both on and offline.
00:46:34 So there was a real kind of alignment in terms of language with what they heard in his announcement
00:46:40 speech and the things that are important to them.
00:46:44 Is calling people from Mexico, claiming they're bringing drugs, crime, and that they're rapists,
00:46:51 is that consistent with Western chauvinism?
00:46:54 Yes, sir.
00:46:55 The belief structure you mentioned earlier?
00:46:57 Yeah, absolutely.
00:46:58 Tell us a little bit about what Western chauvinism is.
00:47:00 Well, Western chauvinism is a way of claiming that Western civilization is basically superior
00:47:09 and that other non-Western cultures and civilizations are deficient.
00:47:13 And they use terms like, you know, "West is right" and so forth to kind of underscore
00:47:20 this point.
00:47:21 And so it's, that's, you know, Western chauvinism in a nutshell.
00:47:25 Here, Donald Trump ends this quote by saying, "Some, I assume, are good people."
00:47:31 Why doesn't that sort of undo the earlier language?
00:47:37 Well, this is, we get back to what we were discussing earlier in terms of possible deniability.
00:47:42 So you get this kind of negation that's inserted after using this inflammatory language.
00:47:49 And that then provides the speaker with, well, I didn't say all.
00:47:55 For far-right extremists, they hear the rapist part.
00:47:58 They hear that language that's so consistent with the kind of conversations they're having,
00:48:03 as I mentioned.
00:48:04 And understand that the negation is necessary.
00:48:07 They understand because this is how they communicate amongst themselves as well.
00:48:11 And their own leaders use and establish plausible deniability.
00:48:16 So they understand that a national, you know, individual who's running for the office of
00:48:21 the presidency is also going to need to establish plausible deniability.
00:48:26 Now, I want to turn to a specific aspect of Donald Trump's communications over the years.
00:48:33 And that's this Stop the Steal movement and Trump's role in it.
00:48:38 Could you describe your movement generally to the court?
00:48:41 Yeah, it's, you know, the conspiracy theory that focuses on different aspects of how the
00:48:48 2020 presidential election was corrupt, stolen, fraudulent, you know, marked by, you know,
00:48:56 a substantial amount of fraud and, you know, a variety of different kind of aspects of
00:49:04 that conspiracy.
00:49:05 And you've chosen a couple tweets here.
00:49:08 Before we talk about the tweets, did Donald Trump start the Stop the Steal language questioning
00:49:15 elections in 2020 or did it start before that?
00:49:18 No, it really predates 2020.
00:49:20 What do we see on the screen here?
00:49:23 Yeah, so you see here the upper tweet there from 2012 where Donald Trump is referring
00:49:30 to the Romney-Obama election.
00:49:34 There were machines that switched the votes from Romney to Obama and don't let your vote
00:49:39 be stolen.
00:49:40 So, again, using that language, that verbiage about, you know, elections being stolen.
00:49:45 And then below that, you see from the midterms in 2018 references to, you know, election
00:49:52 corruption.
00:49:53 We must protect our democracy because elections are being stolen.
00:49:59 What relationship did you find between the far right extremists and the Stop the Steal
00:50:04 movement?
00:50:05 A lot of overlap really started at the beginning when it really starts to emerge in full force
00:50:12 in 2020.
00:50:13 You see one of the first rallies, for example, in Arizona, Alex Jones is present there as
00:50:19 a speaker.
00:50:20 Armed anti-government militia types are there at that rally in Arizona.
00:50:24 And that continues to be the case as more and more Stop the Steal rallies, you know,
00:50:30 transpired during that time.
00:50:32 You see a substantial presence of folks like Proud Boys and others.
00:50:37 Now, moving forward to the 2020 election, in your work, did you see Donald Trump spreading
00:50:45 doubt about the 2020 election?
00:50:47 Yes, I did.
00:50:48 Let's look at a couple videos you highlighted.
00:50:53 Why did you choose this video from August 17th, 2020?
00:50:59 Because it's, you know, multiple months prior to the election.
00:51:03 And it's very clear in the statement about the election being fraudulent unless Donald
00:51:12 Trump is reelected.
00:51:13 And this video is P61, another one of these deemed admitted but not yet admitted video
00:51:21 that's your honor.
00:51:24 And I guess I forgot to move the admission of T120.
00:51:29 So would you like to play the video?
00:51:31 I'd like to move to both of these.
00:51:34 So on P120, which was the half of the case, I'm actually going to just consider that a
00:51:54 demonstrative and a basis for a report, but not admitted into evidence.
00:52:00 The two speeches were about to siege our, our which numbers?
00:52:11 P61 is Trump's speech has not yet been admitted.
00:52:16 The one on the right has already been admitted.
00:52:17 That's P47.
00:52:18 So 161, the Trump speech.
00:52:23 I'll play the video on the left.
00:52:26 Okay.
00:52:27 Because the only way we're going to lose this election is if the election is rigged.
00:52:34 Remember that.
00:52:35 It's the only way we're going to lose this election.
00:52:38 Why did you choose to highlight this video?
00:52:41 Again, it's multiple months and we're already getting this narrative, this, this, you know,
00:52:48 conspiracy theory.
00:52:49 Multiple months.
00:52:50 I'm sorry.
00:52:51 Oh, I'm sorry.
00:52:52 Before, before the election itself in November.
00:52:54 And it's very clear, you know, what, what, what the message is.
00:52:58 Now let's play the video on the right.
00:53:01 And this is from the early morning hours of election night, right?
00:53:07 That's correct.
00:53:08 At this point in time that Trump is giving this speech, have the election results been
00:53:15 determined?
00:53:16 No, it's still unclear.
00:53:17 We were getting ready to win this election.
00:53:23 Why did you choose to highlight this speech?
00:53:32 This underscores the strategy that had been discussed by people like Steve Bannon, for
00:53:39 instance, about claiming victory no matter what on election night, irregardless of what
00:53:45 people suggest, claim victory.
00:53:47 Is there anything else notable about how Trump talked about these elections in these two
00:53:53 speeches that you'd like to draw attention to?
00:53:56 Yeah, very, very much.
00:53:58 Again, this is the language of corruption of elections being stolen for far right extremists.
00:54:05 That's going to resonate because it's central to their worldview, to their perspective,
00:54:09 that there's this corrupt system that's preventing them from electing somebody that they support,
00:54:18 that the system's rigged.
00:54:20 And so again, you're going to have a high degree of alignment there and resonance for
00:54:24 far right extremists with that kind of language.
00:54:27 Did you select some examples of how far right extremists responded to this language from
00:54:32 Donald Trump?
00:54:33 Yes, I did, right.
00:54:34 If you don't, what examples can you put on the screen here?
00:54:43 Yeah, so these are messages on the Harvard social media platform.
00:54:48 And this is from Joe Bid, so at the time he was a prominent member of the Crown Boys.
00:54:53 And you can see the time stamps there to my left, and beginning at 5.03 PM.
00:55:00 First message, the left is stealing the election, so there's that, that purge, that alignment
00:55:06 there.
00:55:07 They're not even trying to hide it.
00:55:09 We have no justice, no law, and no democracy.
00:55:12 And then these are following up.
00:55:14 The second message is, there's some additional intensification.
00:55:19 And the second message is about 17 minutes later, where there's reference to the Democrats
00:55:24 are shameful on America, call me pieces of shit.
00:55:27 I hope you all have shitty fucking lives.
00:55:30 Fuck you.
00:55:31 So this is representative of a certain kind of intensification, amplification that's happening
00:55:38 among far right extremists as it relates to the idea of the election being stolen.
00:55:43 I'm going to have to use all your speakers.
00:55:47 Apologies.
00:55:48 I want to turn to Trump's relationship or use of some of these techniques to call for
00:56:02 political violence that we talked about earlier.
00:56:05 I want to go to the next slide.
00:56:07 And did you see Trump use the same doublespeak and other communication strategies to call
00:56:15 for violence?
00:56:16 Yes, I did.
00:56:17 Can you look at a couple of examples and tell us generally the kinds of things you saw in
00:56:23 your work?
00:56:24 What you see is this kind of relationship develops, the relationship develops between
00:56:30 Donald Trump and far right extremists.
00:56:33 One facet of it, and it's a mostly faceted relationship really, so it's happening in
00:56:38 many different ways, but one facet certainly is through rallies where violence is occurring.
00:56:45 And there are both promotion and endorsement of violent incidents or violent assaults that
00:56:51 are occurring at rallies.
00:56:53 So that would be one facet.
00:56:55 Again, I want to underscore the relationship is emerging between Donald Trump and far right
00:56:59 extremists in a lot of different aspects to it.
00:57:02 Great.
00:57:03 So the video on the left, Your Honor, is P53.
00:57:06 It's another admissible but not yet admitted exhibit.
00:57:11 And that's a video of President Trump?
00:57:16 Yes.
00:57:17 Okay, P53 will be admitted.
00:57:19 Play the video.
00:57:21 [VIDEO PLAYBACK]
00:57:23 [INAUDIBLE]
00:57:24 He was swinging around and he started swinging at the audience.
00:57:28 And the audience swung back.
00:57:30 And I thought it was very, very appropriate.
00:57:33 He was swinging, he was hitting people, and the audience hit back.
00:57:38 How does this exchange support your opinion in this case?
00:57:44 This was a press conference.
00:57:46 Actually, Ben Carson had just dropped out.
00:57:49 This was to announce Ben Carson's support for Donald Trump's candidacy.
00:57:53 But during the Q&A portion of the press conference, one of the journalists asked Donald Trump
00:57:59 about violence at rallies.
00:58:02 And so Donald Trump was responding to that question, specifically referring to what appears
00:58:08 to have been a violent incident that had just recently occurred prior to this at a rally
00:58:14 in Las Vegas.
00:58:15 And what you hear there is in this focus on self-defense, violence, self-defense, and
00:58:22 the setting of this scenario, that you have these counter-protesters that are kind of
00:58:29 antagonizing things, and that his supporters have used violence as a form of self-defense.
00:58:36 And he's really endorsing that, and it's pretty clear in the comments.
00:58:42 And your honor, the second video is P56.
00:58:45 We also move for exhibition.
00:58:50 And that is also a sketch of--
00:58:55 Yes.
00:58:56 P56 is a--
00:58:59 But you also have people that were very fine people on both sides.
00:59:05 You have people in that group-- excuse me, excuse me.
00:59:08 I saw the same pictures as you did.
00:59:10 You have people in that group that were there to protest and take you down to them a very,
00:59:16 very important statute.
00:59:19 So set the stage for this video first, and then tell us what you saw in the video.
00:59:23 Sure. So this was a press conference-- excuse me, a press conference on the heels of the
00:59:31 Unite the Right rally, which again, just is to underscore a deadly Unite the Right rally
00:59:37 where one person is murdered and dozens of others injured by white supremacists who had
00:59:44 planned and organized an event to be violent, shown up in Charlottesville, Virginia, and
00:59:49 executed dozens of acts of violence throughout the day, including murder.
00:59:54 And during this press conference, we hear the president refer to there being fine people.
01:00:01 And one of the things-- as part of this group of white supremacists who gathered that day.
01:00:07 And one of the things, certainly, that we know is white supremacists and other far-right
01:00:12 extremists heard that message as an endorsement.
01:00:15 And they tell us that. They thank the president afterwards for the comments.
01:00:21 Who thanked the president?
01:00:23 David Duke, who was president that day at the Unite the Right rally, a long-time neo-Nazi
01:00:29 Klansman. Richard Spencer, one of the key organizers of Unite the Right, who was president
01:00:33 that day. Andrew England, the founder of the Daily Stormer, who wasn't president at Unite
01:00:39 the Right, but a leading influencer among far-right extremists. All three of those folks
01:00:46 thanked the president for the comments and said that they understood some degree of condemnation
01:00:54 and the comments was necessary on his part. But in large, they took it as an endorsement.
01:00:59 In your work on leaders of political extremism, have you ever seen a national leading political
01:01:10 figure endorse violence in the way that you've seen Donald Trump endorse violence?
01:01:15 No, I have not.
01:01:17 Now, let's go to a rally in Alabama. And tell us what we're going to see here.
01:01:31 So on my left there, the rally in Alabama, Birmingham, you're going to hear Donald Trump
01:01:40 comment about a protester at the rally and he needed to be removed.
01:01:47 And then what do we see on the right?
01:01:49 And then the following day is a Fox News segment where Donald Trump is calling in on the phone
01:01:56 and is being asked a question about what happened at the rally.
01:01:59 And this exhibits P50 and P48. We can move from both of their admissions.
01:02:05 Let me call it P50 and let me see the P48.
01:02:19 Let's play P50.
01:02:21 Sure.
01:02:22 [inaudible]
01:02:31 And then now, any of you referring to a protester?
01:02:36 And now let's play the interview, P48.
01:02:42 [inaudible]
01:03:10 And this was a very obnoxious moment.
01:03:13 Mr. Chairman, I really want to thank you all.
01:03:15 I'm happy to be in this meeting again.
01:03:17 [inaudible]
01:03:23 P48?
01:03:24 P48 is admitted.
01:03:25 Thank you, Your Honor.
01:03:26 So tell us, Dr. Seiby, what did you see in Trump's reaction the next day about his relationship to coronavirus?
01:03:40 He had an endorsement, right?
01:03:43 Again, the built-in kind of defense, self-defense argument there in terms of his comments.
01:03:50 But you get an endorsement.
01:03:52 Maybe he should have been roughed up.
01:03:54 You get the "maybe" inserted, which qualifies it a bit.
01:03:59 But what far-right extremists hear is they hear the comments at the rally, the strong language about getting him out of here,
01:04:06 the person's assaulted at the rally by multiple people, and then the next day Donald Trump essentially endorses the assault that was committed.
01:04:16 And we have one more series of Trump videos.
01:04:28 Let's go to that slide.
01:04:29 [inaudible]
01:04:33 And, Your Honor, these are both Trump speeches, P123 and P56, and they're both just Trump speaking.
01:04:42 P56 and 123.
01:04:50 P56 and 123.
01:04:52 Thank you very much.
01:04:57 And don't hurt him, Dr. Seiby.
01:05:02 Don't get him.
01:05:04 Don't get in touch with the president, the most dishonest human beings in the world.
01:05:15 If I say don't hurt him, then the president is -- well, Trump is a misogynist to me.
01:05:20 Can you believe this?
01:05:24 Tell us about the communication strategies Donald Trump is using in that video.
01:05:32 Well, he makes this proposition about if I say go get him, which I have no idea why a national political figure would ever say go get him, right?
01:05:42 That kind of -- use that kind of language.
01:05:44 So that's that unconventional aspect that we were just talking about, that for far-right extremists, it's something that they are galvanized by,
01:05:53 that they're, you know, really mobilized by, lack of convention.
01:05:57 But he says, you know, if he says that, then he gets in trouble, but if he says don't hurt him, then they say he's weak.
01:06:04 And so it's this very kind of mixed message, but certainly there's no clear, consistent message about condemning violence in any, you know, way,
01:06:14 shape, or form, which you would expect, again, among our leaders.
01:06:19 Your Honor, I wanted to object.
01:06:21 The witness continues to say he would expect this among our leaders.
01:06:27 Historically, I'm not aware of any leader like this.
01:06:29 One steps, or the court has accepted, who steps, which is far-right wing extremism.
01:06:35 He is not an expert on political discourse, political campaigns, issues along those lines, historical behavior of other presidents.
01:06:44 So we object to that.
01:06:48 But he's a really good expert, and that's what he's here for.
01:06:55 I will stray Professor Seamy's statement regarding what one would expect of political leaders.
01:07:06 Dr. Seamy, in your 27 years working on far-right extremism, do you look at the relationship between far-right extremists and politicians as part of that work you've done?
01:07:17 Yes, I do.
01:07:19 Both local and national politicians?
01:07:22 That's correct.
01:07:23 In your 27 years of experience, have you ever seen either a statewide or national politician use the kind of language that we're seeing here from Donald Trump about violence?
01:07:36 Say it with me.
01:07:39 I'll go first.
01:07:40 Go ahead, Don.
01:07:43 Let's turn to the second video, and before we play the second video on the screen, tell us what you see – tell us what we're going to see.
01:07:52 This is also from the press conference after the United to Right, so same press conference that we saw the earlier clip about fine people, and we're going to see official comments.
01:08:04 I'm sure in that group there was some bad ones. The following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people – neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them.
01:08:16 Why doesn't Donald Trump saying there were some rough, bad people sort of serve as a kind of condemnation that you said you were looking for?
01:08:26 Far-right extremists understand that those kinds of negations, that kind of condemnation is going to be necessary on some level, and again, they tell us that.
01:08:37 So it's very clear that from an audience perspective, far-right extremists realize that that part of the comments were necessary, but that still the overall message for them they received was affirmation.
01:08:59 As part of your work on far-right extremism, have you looked at how Trump supporters react to these kinds of statements that we've seen?
01:09:09 Yes, I have.
01:09:11 As a general matter, what did you see?
01:09:13 I mentioned, for instance, Andrew Anglin and the comments that he made, where he actually literally says that basically Trump gave us encouragement, affirmation, gave us a little bit of condemnation, which we understand is necessary.
01:09:33 Overall, it's good for us, and many non-leaders rank and file similar sentiments expressed on various social media platforms and so forth.
01:09:45 Now, in your work, have you seen other politicians use language like "fight," et cetera, in their speech?
01:09:53 Oh, sure.
01:09:54 And what observed differences do you see between Donald Trump's use of rhetoric like that and other political speakers?
01:10:07 Well, this is all about context, where we've been discussing this relationship between Donald Trump and far-right extremists.
01:10:15 It has to be understood within a pattern that developed over multiple years, and so the meaning of words within that pattern, within that context, takes a certain shape.
01:10:28 The same word, though, in a different context, without that pattern, would obviously have different meanings.
01:10:34 In your study, have you ever seen any other national political figure have the same kind of repeated violence occurring in their presence and refusal to condemn or endorsement of it as you see with Donald Trump?
01:10:53 No, I have not.
01:10:56 I want to turn now to the events leading up to January 6th.
01:11:02 We've talked about Donald Trump's relationship with far-right extremists generally, and I want to focus on the lead-up to January 6th.
01:11:11 And I want to start with a minute exhibit about Donald Trump saying to the Proud Boys, "Stand back and stand by."
01:11:22 So let's play this, and then I have a couple questions for you about the statement.
01:11:27 [VIDEO PLAYBACK]
01:11:28 - [INAUDIBLE]
01:11:29 - [INAUDIBLE]
01:11:30 - [INAUDIBLE]
01:11:31 - [INAUDIBLE]
01:11:32 - [INAUDIBLE]
01:11:33 - [INAUDIBLE]
01:11:34 - Stand back and stand by.
01:11:38 - What impacts did Trump's statement of "stand back and stand by" to the Proud Boys have?
01:11:47 - It was powerful. It was influential almost immediately.
01:11:51 Well-received, received as an affirmation, as an endorsement of sorts.
01:11:57 You start to see Proud Boys turn the lingerie into T-shirts that are being sold.
01:12:03 And it's not just the Proud Boys that received that message.
01:12:05 Far-right extremists more broadly saw and heard that message as affirmation, as an endorsement.
01:12:16 In this exchange, who used the word "Proud Boys"?
01:12:23 Was he asked a question about the Proud Boys, or did he pick that out of his own brain to say it?
01:12:29 - Can you play it?
01:12:30 - Sure.
01:12:33 - It's right there on the screen.
01:12:35 - [INAUDIBLE]
01:12:40 - Stand back and stand by.
01:12:44 So, replaying it doesn't help answer the question.
01:12:47 - Yeah, there's some crosstalk still.
01:12:50 It's a little bit harder in terms of the examples.
01:12:54 I mean, he obviously says "Proud Boys."
01:12:57 - And you mentioned that Proud Boys and other extremist groups took this as an endorsement.
01:13:09 Did Trump eventually issue a statement that these groups understood as a call to stop standing by, but rather to act?
01:13:18 - Before you go there, what does "stand back, stand by," how did they, in your view, interpret it?
01:13:26 Because it doesn't mean anything to me.
01:13:29 - Sure, yeah.
01:13:30 They interpreted it as a preparedness, as an endorsement to be prepared and to be on alert, you might say.
01:13:41 - For something.
01:13:42 - For something.
01:13:44 - And did Donald Trump then tell them that something was--
01:13:50 - Yes, he did.
01:13:51 - OK.
01:13:54 Let's show the next slide.
01:13:56 What do we see on the left on this slide?
01:14:00 - A tweet from Donald Trump.
01:14:03 - And in your work, what importance does this tweet have?
01:14:10 - Very substantial.
01:14:13 You see the reference to a 36-page report about election fraud.
01:14:19 And at the end of the statement is the final kind of line, "Big protest in D.C. on January 6th.
01:14:26 Be there.
01:14:27 Will be wild!" with exclamation point.
01:14:30 - And in your work, did you look at how the far-right extremists reacted to this tweet?
01:14:36 - Yes, I did.
01:14:37 - OK.
01:14:38 Let's play exhibit P80.
01:14:41 And, Your Honor, this was on the admissible exhibit.
01:14:44 So based on Your Honor's earlier rulings, let's just play this as a demonstration rather than admissible evidence.
01:14:49 OK?
01:14:52 - It's Saturday, December 19th, the year is 2020.
01:14:57 And one of the most historic events in American history has just taken place.
01:15:03 President Trump, in the early morning hours of the day, tweeted that he wants the American people to march on Washington, D.C.
01:15:12 on January 6th, 2021.
01:15:16 - And now Donald Trump is calling on his supporters to descend on Washington, D.C., January 6th.
01:15:23 - He is now calling on we, the people, to take action.
01:15:28 Share our notes.
01:15:29 - Don't front your side, everybody.
01:15:31 January 6th, man.
01:15:32 January 6th, see you in D.C.
01:15:34 That's today, man.
01:15:36 This man is sending this tweet out every single day.
01:15:39 And you can see the pieces, friends, they're all woven together for a straight-up good party in Washington, D.C. on January 6th.
01:15:48 - This is the most important call to action on domestic soil since Paul Revere and his riot in 1776.
01:15:57 - We're going to only be saved by millions of Americans moving to Washington, occupying the entire area,
01:16:06 if necessary, storming right into the Capitol.
01:16:10 Now, we know the rules of engagement.
01:16:13 If you have enough people, you can push down any kind of a fence or a wall.
01:16:19 - This could be Trump's last stand.
01:16:22 At a time when he has specifically called on his supporters to provide for D.C.,
01:16:27 that's something that may actually be the big push.
01:16:30 Trump supporters need to say, "This is it.
01:16:33 It's now or never."
01:16:35 - I don't understand something, son.
01:16:37 I don't understand something.
01:16:39 That way, this is going to be a rampage going down January 6th.
01:16:44 - On that day, Trump says, "Show up for a protest.
01:16:47 It's going to be wild."
01:16:49 And based on what we've already seen from the previous events, I think Trump is absolutely correct.
01:16:54 - But, look, son, you should have a look on January 6th.
01:16:58 Kick that door open.
01:17:00 Look down the street.
01:17:02 Show up for a building plus a game club for the Americans.
01:17:06 - The time for games is over.
01:17:08 The time for action is now.
01:17:10 Where were you when this was called?
01:17:15 - What did you see in the reaction of right-wing extremists to Trump's tweet in that video?
01:17:22 - There's quite a bit there.
01:17:24 You have various references, including specific references, to attacking the Capitol,
01:17:30 storming the Capitol, pushing in doors.
01:17:33 You have a reference to a red wedding, which is a reference to a TV show, a massacre that occurs on a TV show.
01:17:40 You have general kind of calls to action based on the tweet and the tweets that followed in terms of, you know,
01:17:51 encouraging and urging people to go to January 6th.
01:17:56 - In your review of this, did you also look at other reactions of right-wing extremists to Donald Trump's
01:18:04 "will be wild" tweet beyond this?
01:18:06 - Yes, I did.
01:18:07 - And in your general review of the reaction to the "will be wild" tweet, did you see folks understand the purpose of being there?
01:18:16 - Yeah, absolutely, including that it's now time to take action.
01:18:20 We were on standby, and now it's time for action.
01:18:24 There's actual explicit references and statements made by far-right extremists about that in their standing.
01:18:32 - Now, I want to play exhibit P73 next, which is the video Trump retweeted the same day as the "will be wild" speech.
01:18:48 And I want to play the video and ask you how you connect, what connection you see between the "will be wild" tweet and the video.
01:18:57 [crowd chanting]
01:19:19 [crowd chanting]
01:19:37 [crowd chanting]
01:19:57 [crowd chanting]
01:20:17 [crowd chanting]
01:20:37 - I hope you see me. I have a few questions about this video.
01:20:41 Tell us how the communication strategies used in this video relate to communication strategies used by other leaders of far-right extremists.
01:20:52 - Well, the fight for Trump and the world's safe America.
01:20:58 So again, this goes back to something we've talked a lot about, which is this idea of an existential threat.
01:21:04 And that requires certain kinds of action, violent action, to fend off these threats.
01:21:12 I should point out that the video was reposted from the Donald Wynn site that became a hotbed for violent far-right extremist comments, statements, including specifically related to the attack on the Capitol.
01:21:29 And that's that context that's also important, that we've talked a lot about, looking at that larger context from where the video comes from, and the consistency.
01:21:39 - Let me just ask you, what do you mean by "reposted from the Donald Wynn"?
01:21:45 Tell us how this video came to be.
01:21:49 Donald Trump posted from his Twitter feed, right?
01:21:52 - Right.
01:21:53 - Okay, so what do you mean by "reposted from the Donald Wynn"?
01:21:56 - It had originally appeared on the Donald Wynn.
01:22:00 As a video appears on a platform, it can be reposted on a different platform.
01:22:06 And so prior to Donald Trump posting on Twitter, it had appeared on the Donald Wynn site.
01:22:12 - And what significance to you does that context have?
01:22:16 - Again, as I mentioned, the Donald Wynn had for quite some time been a hotbed for far-right extremist comments, statements involving violence.
01:22:27 And then ultimately, in the lead-up to the attack on the Capitol, there were specific statements about attacking the Capitol and committing various acts of violence on January 6th.
01:22:39 - And this is DonaldWynn.com, or something?
01:22:44 - The net, which is actually now Beatrix.
01:22:47 It's sort of the name of the domain name has changed since January 6th.
01:22:52 - But it was DonaldWynn.net?
01:22:55 - Yeah, at the time.
01:22:57 I couldn't tell you exactly when the domain name change happened.
01:23:02 - And how, based on your work, how do followers, right-wing extremist followers of Donald Trump interpret this "fight for Trump" mantra that we hear chanted over and over again on the video?
01:23:16 - Far-right extremists view the word "fight" in literal terms.
01:23:21 And "fight" implies the need to commit violence, to fend off threats.
01:23:27 And again, from their perspective, they would see "fighting" as a form of self-defense.
01:23:33 - Now, based on your work...
01:23:36 - You say self-defense is more like an existential self-defense of democracy?
01:23:44 - It's... well, they tend to be anti-democratic, so I would leave off the last part.
01:23:50 But yes, definitely an existential threat that needs to be fended off.
01:23:55 - And a threat to democracy as they see it, because they feel like it's corrupt, etc., right?
01:24:02 - Yeah, so, in that respect, yeah.
01:24:05 - And talk to us, Dr. Seemey, about how this self-defense language, the "stop the steal" movement in the fall of 2020, how that plays into the extremist view of the election process that's going to play out from November through January.
01:24:26 - I'm sorry, could you repeat the question?
01:24:28 - Yeah, sure. Just following up on the judge's question, in terms of the existential threat that you've talked about, far right extremists seeing, and they're framing it in terms of self-defense.
01:24:39 Let me ask a preliminary question first. How does self-defense, that viewpoint, relate to the way the extremists looked at the election and the process that followed the election?
01:24:53 - Again, it's about this idea of theft. It means still having things taken, things stolen. So the election was stolen, the system's corrupted. All of that is consistent with the broader worldview that they tend to have.
01:25:09 - And what did they view, based on your work, as the existential threat that the election posed to them?
01:25:21 - To no longer have Donald Trump in power, and to have that taken from them.
01:25:30 - Now, based on your work, how did far right extremists react to Trump's calls to come to Washington, D.C. on January 6th?
01:25:40 - They were galvanized, mobilized, energized.
01:25:49 - Based on organizing them to come to Washington, D.C., on D.C., what did you see about other reactions they had to Trump's call for them to be there?
01:26:01 - A number of things happened after the December 19th tweet, and certainly lots of messaging occurred in terms of far right extremists being energized and mobilized in terms of towards January 6th.
01:26:19 - On the next slide, we have a couple examples of some extremist reactions to the "We'll Be Wild" tweet. Tell us what we see on the left. First, who is the group, the three percenters originally?
01:26:35 - As I mentioned at the beginning, the three percenters organized in different kinds of sets. The three percenters original would be one kind of sect of three percenters, and you might have another one, three percenters Kansas, so forth and so on across the country.
01:26:53 So this was one of those.
01:27:05 - Yeah, and this goes to the way in which the comment that was made during the debate really resonated with far right extremists, not just the proud boys, but here you see the three percenters referencing the statements that Donald Trump made during the debate and saying that they're ready for action.
01:27:28 And the next quote says, "Pure evil that is conspiring to steal our country away from the American people." You see that?
01:27:35 - Yes.
01:27:37 - How does that fit into the pattern of communication you see?
01:27:41 - Again, it represents the world in terms of seeing these imminent threats, these existential threats, deeply tied to the idea of the stolen election, but also more broad than that, that basically our country is on the verge of being completely taken away from us.
01:28:01 - The next quote from the three percenters original is instructing any member who can attend to participate on January 6th because the President of the United States has put out a general call for patriots of this nation to gather in Washington, D.C.
01:28:21 - Excellent.
01:28:23 - Did you see other examples of far right extremists viewing the Will Be Wild tweet as a general call for patriots of this nation to gather in Washington, D.C.?
01:28:33 - Yes, it was very intense, very substantial. I would say across far right extremists, there was a substantial presence of that reaction.
01:28:44 - On the right, you see another message. Why don't you read the message and tell us how that fits into what you see in terms of patterns of communication?
01:28:57 - Yes, so here you have a message that says, "Trump is calling for Proud Boys to show up on the 6th." So pretty straightforward in terms of that's how the message was received in terms of the tweet.
01:29:12 - Now, beyond using social media to bring people to Washington, D.C. on January 6th, did Trump say or do anything else to communicate his support for protesters who were coming out to support him?
01:29:30 - Yes, he did.
01:29:31 - Okay. Were there rallies between after the election and before January 6th in D.C.?
01:29:39 - Yes, there were.
01:29:40 - Okay. Was there one in November?
01:29:43 - Yes, there was, the Million MAGA march.
01:29:45 - Okay. And at the Million MAGA march, did it turn violent?
01:29:54 - Yes, it did.
01:29:55 - Okay. And, Your Honor, I'd like to show a video for demonstrative purposes only. This is a video that, on the left, is a Donald Trump's motorcade sort of driving through the march.
01:30:12 It hasn't been admitted, but I think just for demonstrative purposes only, I can show it to the expert.
01:30:18 - Yep. That's fine.
01:30:21 [Video plays.]
01:30:31 [Chanting, "United we stand!"]
01:30:41 [Chanting, "United we stand!"]
01:31:10 - So what do we see in that video, Dr. Seabrook?
01:31:13 - Well, you see the presidential motorcade driving through the protest, at least this segment of the protest.
01:31:24 And obviously, they're responding very favorably to the motorcade and very excited and, you know, viewing this as, you know, what seems to be an affirmation of sorts.
01:31:38 - In your work on political violence and extremism, have you ever seen a national politician show support like this for a rally that turned violent?
01:31:53 - Objection, Your Honor. That's a leave question.
01:31:57 - I'll re-ask it.
01:31:58 - I'll rephrase. Objection sustained.
01:32:01 - Dr. Seabrook, how does the video we just watched relate to your study of other national politicians?
01:32:13 - Objection, Your Honor. I don't think he's testified that he's studied other politicians.
01:32:18 - He did actually previously testify that part of his work includes studying national politicians in general
01:32:29 and their relationship to extremism. So I'm going to let him answer the question to the extent he can.
01:32:38 - I've never seen anything, certainly in recent history, that's similar to this, what happened.
01:32:46 - On the right, what do we see?
01:32:50 - This is a tweet by Donald Trump responding to what happened, ultimately, in terms of the violence that occurred.
01:33:00 And you see it starts with "Antifa scum ran for the hills today when they tried attacking the people at the Trump rally
01:33:08 because those people aggressively fought back. Antifa waited until tonight," ultimately,
01:33:16 says, "to attack innocent #MAGA people. DC police, get going, do your job, don't hold back."
01:33:25 - So was the violence before or after the drive-thru?
01:33:30 - After.
01:33:31 - After.
01:33:32 - It was in the evening.
01:33:36 - How did far-right extremists view Donald Trump's comment on the violence?
01:33:43 - Endorsement. It's pointing, you know, essentially responsibility at Antifa in using a language that would be consistent
01:33:52 with the kind of language they would use to describe Antifa as scum. So, again, there's an alignment in terms of language
01:33:58 and then there's the, you know, at least perceived endorsement of the violence that, again, framed as self-defense,
01:34:06 that the violence directed towards Antifa was necessary for self-defense purposes.
01:34:15 - Were there events outside of rallies that show you how extremists reacted to Trump's rhetoric about "stop the steal"
01:34:27 and invocation of political violence?
01:34:29 - Yes, there were.
01:34:30 - Okay. Let's look next at the video. The video has already been admitted into evidence.
01:34:39 And before we play the video, tell us what are we looking at here?
01:34:45 - As the "stop the steal" conspiracy theory started galvanizing far-right extremists, one of the things we saw was a substantial
01:34:54 increase in threats to election workers and election officials. And so here we're about to hear from one of the officials
01:35:03 in Georgia's Secretary of State's office essentially ask President Trump to stop inciting violence.
01:35:13 So that'll be his comments.
01:35:17 - So let's play the video and then let's talk about how Trump responded to that.
01:35:22 - Okay.
01:35:39 - Who was he telling to stop encouraging people to engage in violence?
01:35:44 - President Trump.
01:35:45 - Okay. How did President Trump respond to that specific call from the Georgia Secretary of State worker to stop telling people to engage in violence?
01:35:59 - So to the right of the video you just played is Donald Trump tweeting a message but also retweeting the video,
01:36:09 the clip of the video that we just saw. So we see in the comment, "Rigged election, show signatures in envelopes,
01:36:20 expose the massive voter fraud in Georgia." So we get the video where he's being asked to condemn violence, stop inspiring
01:36:32 violence, and the response is to double down on the very thing that Mr. Sterling has claimed is inspiring the threats of violence
01:36:45 towards the election workers and officials in Georgia. So the double down on the thing that's inspiring it, no reference to condemning
01:36:54 violent threats or saying there's no place for that, that's completely omitted in the video clip.
01:37:03 - In the what?
01:37:04 - In the video clip.
01:37:09 - Based on your work, how would far-right extremists perceive Trump's response?
01:37:17 - The endorsement support, there's no condemnation, there's the mission that we talked about earlier, which is often perceived by
01:37:26 far-right extremists as a sign of support, but also the doubling down on the very thing that's galvanizing the threats in the
01:37:34 first place would be a sign of support from the perspective of far-right extremists.
01:37:42 - I want to turn now to the days leading up to January 6th. In your review of what happened, did you find evidence that
01:37:50 helped you understand why some attacked the Capitol?
01:37:54 - Yes, I did.
01:37:55 - Okay. I want to play, for demonstrative purposes only, a video, P81, and then we can talk about the context that these
01:38:10 speeches fit into the larger January 6th event.
01:38:14 - I want them to know that 1776 is always an option. These degenerates of the Deep State are going to give us what we want
01:38:31 or we are going to shut this country down.
01:38:38 - 1776! 1776! 1776! 1776!
01:38:51 - So, what do we see here, Dr. Skiby, and why is this important for your work in this case?
01:38:58 - In the first portion of the video clip, you see Alexander talking about 1776 being an option, and you see the references to
01:39:13 Deep State being degenerates, so again, we're back to the dehumanizing language, which is an important piece of this
01:39:20 work in terms of enabling violence. So that's the portion at the beginning, and then the second portion is Alex Jones
01:39:31 shouting repeatedly, "1776." And again, within this cultural context, that term is going to have a very specific meaning
01:39:42 that's different than what for outsiders outside of that context.
01:39:47 - In the video, we see a couple banners in the background. Tell us what those banners show.
01:39:53 - You see one to my right, a white banner that says "Stop the Steal" in black lettering. There's a Trump banner, 2020.
01:40:12 - Okay, and now, do you know which people on January 6th stormed the Capitol, saw which political speech the day before?
01:40:26 - No, I mean, certainly not across the board.
01:40:31 - And does that undercut your ability to explain what happened on January 6th?
01:40:38 - No, I don't think so.
01:40:39 - Why not?
01:40:41 - We're talking about a lot of different sources of influence. We're talking about what happened specifically on January 6th
01:40:50 in terms of the speech at the Ellipse. We're talking about various tweets. We're talking about various events in the lead-up to January 6th.
01:41:00 So, for saying one thing is the source of the influence would not be really accurate.
01:41:09 What we can see, though, is among far-right extremists, how these different sources of influence ultimately resulted in terms of producing the attack on the Capitol.
01:41:23 - And in your work, did you see Donald Trump as sort of leading that influence?
01:41:30 - Yes, I did.
01:41:31 - Now, let's talk about what happened on January 6th.
01:41:36 - So, before I think what we're going to do since it's been almost two hours is let's take a break.
01:41:42 But, Mr. Gessler, I just want to make sure that we'll do cross probably immediately following with that report, because I'm assuming, Mr. Olsen, you're kind of coming to this again.
01:41:57 - Yeah, I'll probably have another 20 or 30 minutes.
01:41:59 - Okay. So, we'll go straight into direct after Mr. Olsen finishes. We'll go straight into cross after Mr. Olsen finishes his script.
01:42:11 And we will be back at --
01:42:15 - Just before we break, I just want to make sure we have a common understanding about our interaction with witnesses during breaks or on the stand.
01:42:21 I assume we're not to talk to them about the subject of their testimony during breaks.
01:42:25 - Yes.
01:42:26 - Okay, great. Thank you.
01:42:27 - So, we will be back at 10:15.
01:42:33 [ Break ]