“So What?”

Trump’s reckless pursuit of power was no accident—Jack Smith’s unsealed brief exposes a playbook of harassment and violence that Americans must confront again in 2024.

This week’s newsletter is sponsored by Civic Shout.

This week, a judge unsealed a legal brief from Special Counsel Jack Smith. In the document, Smith lays out his case against Donald Trump, and why Trump shouldn’t have immunity from prosecution. Smith tells a compelling story, piecing together details in a damning timeline. Smith makes the case that Trump knew he’d lost the election but didn’t care and was planning to hold onto power anyway, at one point telling his daughter and son-in-law: “It doesn’t matter if you won or lost the election. You still have to fight like hell.”

The brief does an incredible job outlining how Trump and his cronies wielded targeted harassment, threats, and incitement to violence strategically all through their attempt to overthrow the election. The day after the election, as the Trump campaign is sending folks to disrupt vote counting in key states a Trump campaign staffer instructs “Make them riot,” after being told violence at a Detroit location is imminent.

The most chilling aspect of all of this is Trump’s sustained pressure campaign on Mike Pence to become a co-conspirator by refusing to certify the election. Trump threatens Pence with harassment and violence both in private and on Twitter. When Trump learned that Pence had to be moved to a secure location — due to the rioters Trump incited having breached the Capitol Building and chanting “Hang Mike Pence” — his response was to say “So what?” Mere minutes later, alone in a room with only Fox News and Twitter for company, Trump tweeted an attack on Pence, further endangering the former Vice President and everyone at the Capitol Building with him.

As I’ve said many times before, Trump and his cronies aren’t interested in winning elections but in seizing power by any means necessary. Donald Trump deploys threats and harassment without a second thought and incites violence toward anyone who gets in his way. This is who Donald Trump is; everyone still supporting his campaign knows this and is OK with it.

Here’s the good news. Trump’s playbook hasn’t changed. No matter the election results, we know that Trump will try to declare himself the winner anyway. We know what his allies will attempt to do in the states. We know his media strategy and his social media strategy. 

There’s a tendency to think about all of this with fear and dread, but I consider it a strategic advantage. MAGA’s playbook never changes, and pro-democracy advocates, Civil Society, and Harris’ political operation have all been preparing for the inevitable. This latest brief from Smith is yet another data point that can be used in our own planning.

I’ll end by encouraging everyone, myself included, not to fall into cynicism and accept the notion that Trump won’t be held accountable for his crimes. The primary reason for Trump’s second run seems to be an attempt to avoid jail time. He’s been convicted guilty already and even with six SCOTUS thumbs on the scale, Jack Smith seems confident he can win at trial. Four years ago, I wouldn’t have believed Trump would ever be prosecuted, and now look where we are. If Trump loses the election, more guilty verdicts are likely in his future. He’ll spend his twilight years in courtrooms and potentially be incarcerated. 

---

Imagine paying 2-10x less for email & SMS opt-ins

If you think you’re overpaying for new donors, you probably are. Try Civic Shout and acquire fired-up opt-ins for as little as $0.75 each. Learn more >>

---

ICYMI

Musk, X, and Trump 2024: Where are the Legal and Ethical Boundaries? (Just Security)

This piece from Justin Hendrix and Dean Jackson asks all of the right questions. Musk’s ownership of Twitter (X) has been bad for the company, America, and the general political discourse. And we don’t really have the needed guardrails in place to protect ourselves against any of it. I wish I had better answers, but there’s much to think about here.

Abortion Bans by Another Name: How Republicans Are Trying to Fool the Public (The Present Age)

Parker Molloy’s conversation with Jessica Valenti is illuminating and worth a read. I actually thought Vance’s answers on abortion were the most damning of the debate. If Google trends are a good metric, so are voters.

Why Conservatives Get Suspended More Than Liberals on Social Media (Washington Post)

“But study co-author David G. Rand, an MIT computational social science professor, said his team found that conservatives share more falsehoods and low-quality information online even when you let groups of Republicans define what counts as false or low-quality.” Lulz.

Want even more links? Subscribers receive a special ICYMI edition of CARD on Fridays. 

---

Coda

I’m currently reading Character Limit: How Elon Musk destroyed Twitter by New York Times tech reporters Kate Conger and Ryan Mac. So far no one involved in Musk’s purchase of Twitter comes out looking particularly good. There’s Elon Musk, a man with many addictions, Twitter included, who’s willing to spend billions of dollars on a business he doesn’t understand so that he can become America’s Next Top Troll. Then there’s everyone in Twitter leadership who handed him the keys. Even those who clearly realized it wasn’t going to end well. 

It’s a wild read and when I’m finished I plan to write a newsletter about it, released early for paid subscribers. The newsletter will always be free to read but current subscribers have expressed an interest in seeing more content, and don’t seem to mind if it’s eventually made free. I can’t write a second newsletter every week but I’m going to try to do it more often. If you want early access to my take on Character Limit, and other topics, click the button below. 

That’s all for this week. We’ve got just over a month until the election. Remember to take deep breaths and stay hydrated! I’ll see you again next Sunday.