Trump's Lawyer Plays Video Of Biden, Harris, Waters Using Violent Rhetoric Grilling Extremism Expert At Colorado Trial
Peter Simi, a sociology professor at Chapman University and expert in right-wing extremism, testifies at the Colorado trial of former President Trump that could see him blocked from the 2024 ballot, and is shown video of Democrats using violent rhetoric by Trump's lawyer.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00 Yes, ma'am.
00:07 Can we just dive into it here?
00:21 Yeah, just dive in.
00:22 Okay.
00:23 Okay, so Dr. Seemee, I'm going to start with some exhibits here, and I want to, I'm going
00:30 to talk about some intentionality and interpretation, so that's sort of what this.
00:38 I'm going to talk about intentionality.
00:41 Let's try that again.
00:44 I'm going to talk about intentionality and interpretation, so the next part of what we're
00:52 going to talk about.
00:53 So let's bring up 1074.
00:54 Okay, so Dr. Seemee, I'm going to start with some exhibits here, and I want to, I'm going
00:59 to talk about some intentionality and interpretation, so that's sort of what this.
01:04 I'm going to talk about intentionality.
01:07 I'm going to talk about intentionality.
01:12 I'm going to talk about intentionality.
01:17 I'm going to talk about intentionality.
01:22 I'm going to talk about intentionality.
01:27 I'm going to talk about intentionality.
01:32 I'm going to talk about intentionality.
01:37 I'm going to talk about intentionality.
01:42 Okay, can we play just for the first five speakers on this video, please?
01:49 [Video plays]
01:50 So, you heard a number of speakers use the term "fuck," correct?
01:57 That's correct.
01:58 And I'd represent to you that those are, you know, the people who are in the audience,
02:05 the leading members of the Democrat Party and office holders.
02:16 Are you able to tell from their speech whether or not they're intending to provide a message
02:25 to the members of the far right-wing, you know, far right-wing extremists?
02:31 If I may explain my answer?
02:35 Let's just start off on small bits and then I'll certainly give you a chance.
02:38 So, from what they're saying, so using the word "fight,"
02:41 are you able to tell if they're intending to speak with far right extremists?
02:45 No, absolutely not.
02:47 And you can--it'd be fair to say that you can infer that they're not intending to speak with far right extremists
02:54 because they tend towards a different side of the political spectrum.
02:58 Would that be fair to say?
03:00 I wouldn't necessarily want to make that kind of inference on limited information,
03:05 but I see where you're--I understand your characterization.
03:09 Would it be fair to say that in order to understand whether they're--well, let me back up.
03:18 Can you tell from what they're saying whether or not the members of the far, you know,
03:24 far right-wing extremists would view that as a communication to them?
03:31 Ten-second clips, absolutely not.
03:34 You'd need more context, correct?
03:36 More information, more context.
03:37 And what is some of that more information you'd need?
03:41 You'd want to look at past communication patterns.
03:45 You'd want to understand the historical context between the speaker
03:49 and whatever, you know, community or culture you're trying to understand whether they have a relationship with.
03:55 You'd want information from that culture's perspective,
04:00 in our case, right-wing extremists and how they receive messages,
04:05 and in particular, it's a very specific person.
04:08 So there's, you know, a number of different types of information you'd want to be able to more fully assess
04:14 and try and identify whether there's any patterns that are present.
04:18 Let's play a little bit more.
04:19 I'm guessing your answers are going to be the same, but we're going to go through this.
04:22 Okay.
04:23 Play five.
04:24 [Video plays]
04:35 Did you answer the same for those five?
04:37 Yes, it is.
04:38 Okay.
04:39 Let's just finish the clip, and I'll ask you a few more questions at the end of this clip, okay?
04:45 [Video plays]
05:08 [Video plays]
05:30 [Video plays]
05:54 [Video plays]
06:20 Okay. You heard a few speakers in there say, "We're going to take the fight to the streets."
06:24 Do you remember hearing that among some of the speakers?
06:28 Two of them, I believe, said that.
06:30 Okay. I trust your characterization.
06:34 You don't want me to play that whole thing again, do you?
06:36 I'd rather not.
06:37 Okay.
06:39 So there's a couple of speakers that said, "We're going to take the fight to the streets."
06:45 If they were at a rally with far right-wing extremists in it, and they used the term "fight,"
06:56 and "We're going to take the fight to the streets," would those far right-wing extremists interpret that as a call to violence?
07:04 They had a relationship with the speaker that involved a history of that speaker promoting and endorsing violence
07:12 before and after violent incidents had occurred, had developed a relationship,
07:18 you know, signaling various things that were important to that community, that culture,
07:23 signaling things in terms of their support for various grievances, using language,
07:31 representing threats as existential in nature, and requiring, you know, violent action.
07:37 If all of those things were present, then, yeah, quite possibly they would interpret that that way.
07:43 Okay. And if those things weren't present, it's unlikely they would interpret those terms "fight"
07:50 and "take the fight to the streets" as a call to violence, correct?
07:54 It's always hard to, you know, predict, you know, take something out of the equation.
07:59 Again, if you're just saying, like, "In isolation, one thing," and if that one thing's not present,
08:04 then, yeah, that would make sense that it would have a substantial influence in terms of a lack of action that might not be taken.
08:12 So let me give you a hypothetical.
08:15 Let's say there's a speaker, say one of those speakers in there that says,
08:19 "We're going to fight like hell, and we're going to take the fight to the streets."
08:22 That's what they say. And they say that at a big rally, and that rally has far-right extremists in it.
08:29 But they don't have a history of promoting violence, at least none that the right wing speakers know of.
08:35 And they don't have any perceived relationship with the far-right wing extremists.
08:40 So they don't have those two factors.
08:43 Would that be considered a call to violence?
08:47 What are the other contextual factors present? And that would make a big difference, too.
08:51 So, again, you know, some of these hypotheticals, when they're asked without enough information,
08:57 it's hard for me to answer that question.
08:59 It would depend on what's the context of that speech that's being given.
09:03 Why were they saying certain things? What was it related to?
09:08 You know, the audience is going to receive-- even with a lack of information,
09:12 you can still imagine that our audience would receive certain calls to action in a particular way, depending on the situation.
09:21 Let's take a look at a few more videos.
09:27 And I think they'll provide a little more context, but perhaps not enough.
09:30 So we'll talk about that.
09:32 [Video plays]
09:52 [Video plays]
10:08 Okay. Let's stop that right there.
10:14 So you see the woman in there, and I'll represent you that she's a congresswoman,
10:22 and she's speaking to a crowd, and she's telling the crowd to push back and make people not feel welcome there,
10:28 and people are cheering her on.
10:31 Is that a call to violence, or would you need additional contextual information?
10:40 One of the factors that would be important in terms of additional contextual information is,
10:45 are there individuals and groups present in the audience that have known violent histories for committing acts of political extremism,
10:53 violent political extremism?
10:56 Making a statement like that with a crowd that has that known history is different than saying those things in a crowd where that's not present.
11:06 Okay. So this is Congressman Waters.
11:10 She may or may not know if people have that history or who have that history in that crowd.
11:16 Okay.
11:17 So you're saying, well, maybe it's a call to violence if there are people with that history in the crowd,
11:23 and maybe it's not a call to violence if there's people without that history in the crowd.
11:28 Is that a fair characterization?
11:30 In fact, I think that would be, again, one aspect.
11:34 We're only talking about one aspect, though.
11:36 So what other aspects would I need?
11:38 I would go back to what we just discussed, which is the history in terms of the relationship between the speaker and members of the audience.
11:47 Okay. Great. Let's look at number 147.
11:51 [ Video ]
12:15 Okay. So they're joking about smacking people there, and she's laughing at it.
12:20 Does that give you enough context to know whether or not that would be perceived as an endorsement of or a call to violence?
12:28 No, it really doesn't.
12:29 I mean, again, it's a fairly short clip.
12:31 I'm not familiar with the speakers as far as the radio hosts.
12:37 There's just not much contextual information for me to say much about.
12:41 Okay. Let's look at number 1048, please.
12:55 [ Video ]
13:24 Okay. Let's talk about that one a little bit.
13:51 Do you know who that is speaking, or do you understand the context behind that?
13:54 I know who the speaker is.
13:55 Okay. And do you understand the context that that was involved in a debate with respect to abortion and the possibility of the United States Supreme Court issuing a decision?
14:05 Yes, that's my understanding based on what I saw.
14:08 Okay. Did you have a preexisting understanding before looking at this video?
14:12 Of this particular clip?
14:14 Yeah.
14:15 No, I did not.
14:16 So you heard Senator Schumer, he talked about how women are coming under attack, how people are waging war on them and taking fundamental rights.
14:32 Is that language characteristic of some of the language used by far right wing extremists?
14:40 I'm not saying he is one, but does it have the same characteristics of some of the language used by far right wing extremists?
14:47 One of the things I would want to know more about in order to more fully answer your question would be the history of the speaker's use of the term war,
14:55 and whether there's evidence basically that would suggest that the speaker really believes that a literal war is taking place and that some type of action is required,
15:09 or whether the speaker is using a more configurative type of term in terms of war.
15:15 So without that information, then it's really hard to assess how the speaker is using that term war.
15:23 Okay. Does the speaker using the phrase "we're coming under attack," does that create a sense of self-defense among the listeners?
15:36 It could. Again, how they hit the history of the speaker's use of the term and their understanding of the terms, how they've used it in the past, whether they've used it in the past,
15:47 these would all be important contextual factors to look at.
15:52 So you can't really tell just looking at the words?
15:56 I don't think there's a social scientist in the world that would say you can take just words at face value.
16:03 Context is always important, whether we're talking about violence or otherwise.
16:07 Okay. Let's take a look at clip 1054, please.
16:11 I have not wanted to get into, you notice in the national press, talking about Trump's behavior, his personal behavior.
16:26 But what he says he did is a textbook definition of sexual assault.
16:36 He speaks to the world with a thing like this. There's more than that.
16:42 He said, "Because I'm famous, because I'm a star, because I'm a billionaire, I can do things other people can't."
17:01 What a disgusting assertion from anyone who made it.
17:07 The press always asked me, "Go on, what's your hour of debating him?"
17:10 "No, I'm just in hospital. I can take you behind the gym."
17:13 That's what he did.
17:17 I believe he was President Joe Biden. He may have not been President yet at that clip.
17:32 But at the time, President Joe Biden, I don't know the time, out of respect, at the time he made that comment, could or would that have been interpreted by far right wing extremists as a call to violence?
17:53 Well, let me just first say that one of the contextual factors in looking at that statement is he said, "I wish I went to high school."
18:01 I think it's an important aspect of the statement in terms of understanding.
18:07 So let me interrupt you a second.
18:10 Couldn't him saying, "I wish you were in high school" be treated as a case of plausible deniability, almost like a joke, to mask his violent tendencies?
18:20 That is possible. Again, with more context, we can make a better determination.
18:25 So it would require context to understand whether he's engaged in, is that double speak or front and back behavior?
18:34 Double speak.
18:36 Double speak.
18:37 Front and back stage would have other applications.
18:40 Okay. So we would need context to understand whether one of those two methods of communication were to apply.
18:46 I hate to sound like a broken record, but we'd want to know whether there was a relationship between Joe Biden and far right extremists,
18:52 such that there would be a pattern developed where you would have far right extremists who would understand certain things in a certain way based on the speaker's words.
19:01 Okay. Great. I'm not going to subject you to any more of these types of videos, so thank you very much for that.
19:07 Let me move on.
19:13 I want to go to the, there's a demonstrative exhibit picture you used, picture number four, if I remember correctly. Do you remember looking at that?
19:23 Yes, I do.
19:24 Okay. I want you to look at that picture on the left.
19:29 Okay.
19:31 I'm guessing, and I'm wondering if this is your opinion as well, that those are two people fighting. Does that look like two people fighting?
19:37 When you say two people, you're referring to, on my left, the person in a kind of light blue colored shirt that's holding the flag, that appears to be using it as a weapon.
19:46 And the person in the green, correct?
19:47 And the person in the green.
19:48 Okay.
19:49 To me, it appears that the person with the blue is getting ready to, she might say stab, the person in the green with the flag.
19:56 Okay. And the person, well, let's look at those people. So the person in the blue has a helmet, right?
20:02 Yes, that's correct.
20:03 And the person in the green has a gas mask on.
20:06 It appears to be, yes.
20:08 Yeah. So it looks as though maybe they both prepared for violence. Would that be fair to say?
20:12 I think that's correct.
20:13 Okay. And the person in the blue, and I see what you're saying, it looks as though that person's preparing to stab, but I had wondered, it'd be fair to, it could be that that person in the blue had just, was pulling the flag away from the person in the green trying to kill her.
20:32 And the person in the green trying to grab it. The person in the green's arm, their arms are outstretched, right?
20:37 Yeah, it appears that way.
20:38 Okay. So it could be that they're, and I don't know if it is, but they could be trying to pull it away from the person in the green. That's a fair interpretation of that photo, isn't it?
20:47 That's fair in this particular photo, I will say that.
20:51 Well, let's just stick with the photo. I'll let you explain. I'm not going to entirely cut you short.
20:55 Sure, sure.
20:56 And it could be that the person in the blue is preparing to try and stab the person in the green, or hit the person in the green with that flagpole, and the person in the green is sort of reaching out to defend themselves. Could that be the case?
21:10 Yes.
21:11 That could be the case. And it could be maybe that the person in the green has swung that flagpole, and the person in the blue caught it, and the person in the green just released it. That could be an interpretation. That could be what happened.
21:26 Yeah, it could be.
21:28 So, from that photo, we're not really sure who's the instigator of the violence, whether it's the person in the green or the person in the blue, right?
21:38 That's correct.
21:40 Okay.
21:43 And from what I could tell just looking at the attire, I mean, the person in the blue, I didn't see any like a 1776 emblem or Betsy Ross that we had talked about that would necessarily indicate that that person in the blue was a, or is a member of a far right-wing extremist.
22:09 I mean, is there some attire that, it looks like it's a woman, I mean, she, long hair, it looks as though that in the back, that could be wrong. But you'd agree with me there's nothing in that person's attire that signifies them as a far right-wing extremist.
22:26 Other than the fact that they attended, you know, the rally rally, which was attended by far right extremists.
22:31 Right. That's fair. So the context, where they're located, but not necessarily their attire themselves.
22:37 Some people at United to Right had more kind of group specific attire. Many others did not. That's pretty common.
22:44 And you'd agree with me, same person, same with the person in the green. There's nothing necessarily in their attire that signifies that they're a far right-wing extremist or a member of that group. You'd agree with me on that?
22:56 I would agree with you.
22:57 Okay.
23:00 So you had talked about, we can turn that off for a second.
23:05 You did say I could explain a little bit.
23:08 All right, I'll let you explain.
23:10 The reason I selected that photo is because dozens of people were assaulted by far right extremists that day using various weapons, including flashers.
23:19 Okay.
23:20 And that's, you know, documented.
23:21 Okay. And so you selected that photo?
23:23 To be representative of the type of violence that happened at United to Right that was committed by far right extremists.
23:28 Okay. Now, did you attend, did you attend that rally?
23:31 No, I did not.
23:32 Were you an observer of the rally?
23:34 No, I was in Montreal at the time.
23:36 Okay. So you were out of the country during the rally?
23:39 Correct.
23:41 Let's talk about the, you talked a little bit about the Million MAGA, the Million MAGA March, is that correct?
23:51 That's correct.
23:52 Okay. And you, and there was a video where a car that you said was President Trump's motorcade drove through it?
24:00 That's my understanding.
24:01 That was your understanding. And what's that understanding based on?
24:04 It's been documented in multiple places.
24:07 Okay. And the reason I ask that, I mean, I just saw one vehicle drive through. I mean, I guess in my experience, it seems like there's sort of a whole convoy usually.
24:15 Okay. I think we might have saw a little slightly different aspect of it.
24:19 Okay.
24:20 There were several vehicles.
24:21 Okay. And you testified, if I remember correctly, that the, that the vehicle went through and then after that violence broke out?
24:29 No, that wasn't my testimony.
24:32 How did I misunderstand that?
24:34 The way you've characterized it now, it sounds like it kind of almost immediately broke out. It said at some point later.
24:40 Oh, at some point later. Okay. I'm sorry. I was just trying to get the sequence right. I didn't mean to imply that it was immediate.
24:45 Okay.
24:46 So the vehicle drove through, people cheered it, and then at some point later, violence broke out?
24:51 Correct.
24:52 Okay. And did you attend that event?
24:55 No, I did not.
24:56 Okay. Now you also, there was a tweet in which President Trump said that Antifa, I think he called them scum, but he said Antifa attacked and they were driven off and then later other people attacked.
25:09 Do you remember that tweet?
25:10 I do.
25:11 Okay. And, and I remember your, your testimony very clearly because, because I tend to do a fair amount of writing.
25:21 I mean, that's all that lawyers produce is words in hot air. And so I'm always sort of keenly attuned to the passive tense.
25:29 Okay.
25:30 And you said that after the, you know, after President Trump's motorcade drove through, sometime later, violence, it turned violent.
25:40 Were you there to witness who instigated violence?
25:44 I was not present at that event.
25:46 Okay. Is it your testimony that members of far right extremists started attacking people?
25:55 It's my testimony that members of far right extremist groups like the Proud Boys Committed acts of violence that night.
26:01 Okay. Is it your testimony that they were defending themselves from an attack from Antifa?
26:07 It's my testimony that President Trump framed it that way in the tweet.
26:12 Okay. But we don't at this point stand, well I should say at this point where you are now, you don't know who may have started the violence.
26:23 My understanding is that certainly some of the members of the Proud Boys instigated the violence.
26:28 Some of them were arrest made and so forth. So.
26:32 And what's that understanding based on?
26:34 Public documents.
26:35 And I guess the reason I'm asking is I didn't see a public document in your expert report that would indicate who caused any of that violence.
26:46 I mean I'd have to review my reports.
26:51 Okay.
26:52 Let's talk about that Million MAGA March.
27:05 President Trump did not organize that march. Is that correct?
27:14 That's correct.
27:15 Okay. And he didn't invite the speakers to it, did he?
27:21 No, he did not.
27:22 And he did not invite who attended to it. He didn't invite the attendees, did he?
27:27 That's correct.
27:28 The only thing he did was drive through it, correct?
27:31 Presidential overcame it, correct.
27:33 Okay.
27:40 Let me ask you another question. So there was another video.
27:45 I think it's number 73. I'm just going to play a portion of it to remind you. I'm not quite even sure how to describe it.
28:01 So you remember talking about this video?
28:03 Yes, I do.
28:04 And you said that that was posted on the Donald, Donald dot win.
28:10 Donald, yeah.
28:13 Donald dot win website.
28:16 Yeah, it's a website of sorts. It originally started on subreddit and then got here and turned into a formal website.
28:23 Okay. But that's not President Trump's official website, is it?
28:27 That's correct.
28:28 And it's not his personal website?
28:30 That's correct.
28:31 And there's no evidence that he put it on there, is it?
28:35 No, I didn't testify to that.
28:37 And you testified that there was some traffic or other postings or conversations on that website?
28:44 A substantial amount. These are large sites that have for years had a substantial amount of extremist, right wing, far right extremist posts, including ones of violent nature.
28:58 And there's no post on that website from Donald Trump, is there?
29:03 Not to my knowledge.
29:08 In fact, there's no evidence that President Trump's even aware of that website, is there?
29:16 I mean, I'm not inside Donald Trump's mind in terms of what he's aware of in terms of specific sites, but I can tell you that, as indicated in the report, that there was a specific situation in terms of some of Trump's advisors, staff, that involved some of the posts on that particular site as it related to January 6th.
29:45 And certainly there were a number of posts that specifically addressed the plans to commit violence on January 6th.
29:55 Now, was one of those posts by Steve Bannon -- you had mentioned a post by -- a comment by Steve Bannon. I don't remember if you said he had posted on that website or it was elsewhere.
30:05 No, I -- my reference to Steve Bannon was in regards to comments he had made about claiming victory no matter what the election result were.
30:14 Okay. And do you know the relationship between Steve Bannon and President Trump?
30:19 I know he served initially as his primary campaign manager, and then after Donald Trump was elected president, he served as a White House advisor.
30:31 Okay.
30:32 And that there, at least according to Steve Bannon, had maintained communication.
30:37 So Steve Bannon claims that he's maintained communication with President Trump.
30:41 I've heard in the public record that he made statements in regards to that.
30:45 Okay. Would it surprise you if -- to learn that President Trump had fired Steve Bannon?
30:52 No, I recall that.
30:53 Okay. And do you recall President Trump saying, "Steve Bannon has nothing to do with me or my presidency"?
30:59 When he was fired, he not only lost his job, he lost his mind. Do you remember President Trump saying that?
31:05 I do recall that.
31:07 Okay. So you remember President Trump disavowing Steve Bannon, correct?
31:11 Yes, correct.
31:12 Okay.
31:13 So let's go back to the speech -- to sort of speech patterns. So you're talking about relationships and whatnot.
31:23 So if President Trump were to rally, and we saw -- I think where he was, there was a protest or something, and he says, "Get that person out of there."
31:33 That could be considered a call to violence if there's far right-wing extremists in that group. Is that fair to say?
31:42 Yes, especially if it's part of a pattern and it involves after-the-fact endorsements.
31:50 Okay. And then if he said, "Get that person out of here," and then like a few seconds or after a pause said, "But don't hurt him."
32:00 Would that "but don't hurt him" in your view be plausible deniability?
32:06 It certainly could be. Yes, again, we'd have to look at the specific instances in the context, but certainly that statement could serve as a means of establishing plausible deniability.
32:19 Okay. And so I'm going to give you a hypothetical -- well, let me ask you. So let's say President Trump said, "Get that person out of here, but don't hurt him."
32:31 And then members of the crowd pushed that person out and roughed them up a bit, injured them a little bit, somewhat.
32:40 Would that change your opinion?
32:43 I'm sorry, I can't hear you.
32:45 Would that, in your view, if President Trump said, "Get that person out of here," and then shortly after said, "But don't hurt him," and members of the crowd interpreted that to get the person out, to physically, forcibly remove that person?
33:01 Including assaulting the person.
33:03 And that person was hurt, injured.
33:06 By means of assault.
33:08 By means of those -- yeah, exactly what those people did.
33:10 Okay.
33:11 Would you view President Trump's comments as a call to violence?
33:16 I would view -- well, so that's quite good. The previous question was about plausible deniability.
33:22 I understand. Let me -- I'll first ask you, would you view that as a call to violence?
33:27 Within context, if there's a pattern established, if there's been endorsements for violence after the fact, then certainly that would fit that pattern.
33:36 Okay.
33:37 And then if he said, "But don't hurt him," would that be an example of plausible deniability?
33:43 If there was an after-the-fact endorsement of violence that occurred, then certainly that would give credence to interpreting the statement that you just mentioned as an effort to create plausible deniability.
33:55 Okay.
33:56 But I'm not going to give you that part of the hypothetical.
33:59 I'm just going to say that President Trump said, "Get him out of here," and then said, "But don't hurt him."
34:06 And that there was a crowd, and the crowd in fact reacted -- at least some members of that crowd reacted with violence.
34:13 They forcibly put that person out there.
34:16 Okay.
34:17 Is the phrase, "But don't hurt him," is that plausible deniability?
34:22 That's all we have to go on.
34:25 Well, you know, like the answer, but it depends.
34:29 It's going to depend on context.
34:31 It's going to depend on patterns.
34:33 So giving one isolated example as hypothetical with small bits of information, you know, it's difficult to know exactly how these things should be interpreted or would be interpreted.
34:46 Okay.
34:47 But in your view, there's a possibility that it could be interpreted as a call to violence plus plausible deniability.
34:56 There's a possibility that that could be the case.
34:59 Yes.
35:00 Okay.
35:01 [ Pause ]
35:14 Okay.
35:15 So I want to draw your attention to January 6th or the events leading up to and surrounding January 6th.
35:26 So you testified about a number of tweets, and one of the tweets that you testified was President Trump tweeting, "Come to January 6th.
35:36 We'll be wild."
35:38 You remember that?
35:39 Yes, I do.
35:40 Okay.
35:41 And when I say, "Come to January 6th," I'm paraphrasing that.
35:44 But he was trying to draw up support, and the last part he said, "We'll be wild," right?
35:50 That's correct.
35:51 Okay.
35:52 Was that phrase, "We'll be wild," a call to violence?
35:58 By itself?
36:00 Is that what you're asking?
36:03 I'm giving you the tweet.
36:04 I can bring it up again if you want.
36:06 Not necessary.
36:07 Okay.
36:08 Was that tweet in and of itself a call to violence?
36:16 It was -- for far-right extremists, they wouldn't understand it in and of itself.
36:22 They would understand it within the context of a pattern, and in that respect, certainly it was interpreted that way as a call to violence.
36:29 Okay.
36:30 So knowing what you know of all of President Trump's and the far-right wing extremists, their respective activities leading up to the day where he said, "We'll be wild,"
36:42 your testimony is that the far-right wing extremists certainly interpreted that as a call to action.
36:48 That's correct.
36:49 Okay.
36:51 Was it -- do you have evidence that it was President Trump's intention to call them to action?
36:59 My opinion is not addressing that issue, but I'm not in President Trump's mind.
37:08 I can tell you about the patterns that have been observed by myself and other scholars as it relates to issues in terms of far-right extremists and these issues.
37:18 I can tell you what I've observed in terms of patterns specifically related to President Trump and his relationship with far-right extremists.
37:24 Okay.
37:25 So your testimony today, then, it's fair to say, is really sort of limited to how far-right wing extremists interpreted President Trump's remarks.
37:38 It's referencing that, but it's also certainly part of observing a pattern.
37:43 It's not just observing what far-right extremists do, but also what the speaker and the center of the message is dealing to.
37:51 And so that's part of the pattern.
37:55 The pattern is not just the far-right extremists and their response, but also the messages that are being sent, the things that are being done, the acts that are taken, the words that are spoken.
38:03 All of that's part of the pattern as well.
38:05 And what you just said is that it's beyond your opinion today as to whether or not Trump intentionally sought to mobilize people to violence on January 6th.
38:20 Is that right to say?
38:22 I can say that he expressed a consistent pattern of messages over time that encouraged violence.
38:33 He expressed messages over time that endorsed violence.
38:37 And that's very, you know, I think, clear in terms of this pattern.
38:43 Okay.
38:47 So on January 6th, you saw his speech and you saw where he said, go down there and march peacefully and patriotically to the Capitol.
39:00 Remember that part of the speech?
39:01 Yes, I do.
39:02 Okay.
39:03 And your testimony is that the -- or your conclusion, and tell me if I'm wrong here.
39:08 Your conclusion is that the far-right wing extremists interpreted that to be plausible deniability because of this past history and because your belief that President Trump had aggressive language that outweighed the peacefully and patriotic statement.
39:32 Those two factors, the history and the outweighing of the peacefully and patriotic.
39:39 Is that correct?
39:40 Those are two, yeah, very critical factors.
39:42 I think that's a fair characterization.
39:49 And the aggressive language had to do with going down there and fighting and that type of phrase.
39:58 As well as the existential threat type of language, you might say.
40:04 As well as the reference to essentially a different set of rules applying.
40:08 So it was the aggressive language in terms of the references to fighting, which a number of times, some of the times, but also some of these other things I just pointed to as well.
40:18 Okay.
40:20 But at the end of the day, you don't -- I mean, like you said, you don't know what was actually going through President Trump's head.
40:25 Not in President Trump's mind.
40:45 Excuse me one moment here.
40:46 I think I'm almost done.
40:55 One other question about plausible deniability.
40:58 If I heard you correctly, so if -- one of the characteristics, to be fair to say, of plausible deniability is that the speaker only says -- only makes that denying statement once.
41:13 It's a different matter if the speaker makes that denying statement multiple times in a speech.
41:21 That could make a difference.
41:23 This is all contextual.
41:25 So it would depend on overall statement, what portion the specific efforts at plausible deniability kind of consisted of.
41:37 There's just a lot of factors we have to take into consideration.
41:40 Okay.
41:41 So it would probably be fair to sum up your testimony as saying, look, when someone makes certain comments or speeches, to understand the impact of that speech, you need to understand not just the words that are used, but the contextual factors, of which there can be many.
42:01 Is that fair to say?
42:02 Very fair.
42:03 Okay.
42:04 That's all I have.
42:05 Thank you, Ron.
42:06 Any other questions?
42:07 Okay.
42:08 [BLANK_AUDIO]