The House committee investigating the January 6 attack on the US Capitol wrapped up what may be its last public hearing when it voted to subpoena Donald Trump to give evidence. Here are the key takeaways from the two-and-a-half-hour hearing
January 6 hearing takeaways: Trump knew he lost and now faces subpoena More
In previously unseen footage shared by the January 6 House committee investigating the attack on the Capitol, top lawmakers are seen scrambling to respond. The footage shows House speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell and others trying to maintain order
‘Do you believe this?’: New video shows how Nancy Pelosi took charge in Capitol riot
January 6 hearing takeaways: Trump knew he lost and now faces subpoena More
‘Do you believe this?’: New video shows how Nancy Pelosi took charge in Capitol riotHouse speaker continued to try to find a way for House and Senate to reconvene despite turmoilNew footage of the January 6 riots at the US Capitol shows House speaker Nancy Pelosi calmly trying to take charge of the situation as she sheltered at Fort McNair, two miles south of the Capitol. “There has to be some way,” she told colleagues, “we can maintain the sense that people have that there is some security or some confidence that government can function and that you can elect the president of the United States.” Then an unidentified voice interjected with alarming news: lawmakers on the House floor had begun putting on teargas masks in preparation for a breach. Pelosi asked the woman to repeat what she said.Capitol attack panel votes to subpoena Trump – ‘the central cause of January 6’Read more“Do you believe this?” Pelosi said to another Democratic leader, Jim Clyburn of South Carolina. The footage was from about 2.45pm, when rioters had already disrupted the planned certification of the 2020 presidential election results. It would be hours before the building was secure. Never-before-seen video footage played Thursday by the House of Representatives select committee investigating last year’s riot shows how Pelosi and other leaders, including Republican allies of Donald Trump, responded to the insurrection. The recordings offer a rare glimpse into the real-time reactions of the most powerful members of Congress as they scrambled to drum up support from all parts of the government, including from agencies seemingly ill prepared for the chaos, and vented anger over a president whose conduct they felt had endangered their lives. In the videos, Pelosi and Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer negotiate with governors and defence officials to try to get the national guard to the Capitol as police were being brutally beaten outside the building. The deployment of the guard was delayed for hours as Trump stood by and did little to stop the violence of his supporters. The footage, recorded by Pelosi’s daughter, Alexandra, a documentary film-maker, was shown during the committee’s 10th hearing as an illustration of the president’s inaction in the face of the grave danger posed by the rioters. “As the president watched the bloody attack unfold on Fox News from his dining room, members of Congress and other government officials stepped into the gigantic leadership void created by the president’s chilling and steady passivity that day,” said Democratic congressman Jamie Raskin, a committee member. The concerns were not theoretical. At roughly 3pm, as a Trump loyalist outside Pelosi’s office pointed her finger and shouted, “Bring her out now!” and, “We’re coming in if you don’t bring her out!” the speaker was in a room with Schumer, who said: “I’m gonna call up the effin’ secretary of DoD.”As the violence persisted at the Capitol – “Officer down, get him up,” a voice could be heard bellowing in one clip shown by the committee – the leaders kept making calls from Fort McNair. One went to Virginia governor Ralph Northam about the possibility of help from the Virginia national guard, with Pelosi narrating the events based on what she saw from television news footage. An angrier call followed with Jeffrey Rosen, the then acting attorney general. Days earlier, and unbeknownst at the time to Congress or to the public, Rosen and colleagues had fended off a slapdash attempt by Trump to replace him with a subordinate eager to challenge the election results. On that day, though, Schumer and Pelosi sat shoulder-to-shoulder on the couch and laid bare their frustrations with the country’s top law enforcement official.Throughout the footage, Pelosi maintains her composure, barely raising her voice as she urges Rosen, and later vice-president Mike Pence and others, to send help and tries to work out a way for the House and Senate to reconvene. “They’re breaking the law in many different ways,” Pelosi said to Rosen. “And quite frankly, much of it at the instigation of the president of the United States.” Schumer weighed in too: “Yeah, why don’t you get the president to tell them to leave the Capitol, Mr attorney-general, in your law enforcement responsibility? A public statement they should all leave.” It wasn’t until the evening that the Capitol would be cleared and work would resume. The news that Congress would be able to reconvene to finish its work in certifying the election results was delivered to the congressional leaders not by Trump but by Pence. The House January 6 committee voted unanimously Thursday to subpoena Trump, demanding his personal testimony as it unveiled startling new video of close aides describing his multi-part plan to overturn his 2020 election loss that led to his supporters assault on the Capitol.TopicsJanuary 6 hearingsUS Capitol attackDonald TrumpChuck SchumerUS politicsNancy PelosinewsReuse this content More
In the final minutes of its two-and-a-half hour hearing, the Jan 6th hearing panel subpoenaed Donald J Trump.
Committee member Jamie Raskin said they hope his testimony will clarify aspects of the attack they haven’t been able to uncover
Capitol attack panel votes to subpoena Trump – ‘the central cause of January 6’ More
New York attorney general Letitia James today accused Donald Trump and the Trump organization of trying to evade her investigation into their business practices by taking steps to move assets out of her reach and avoiding her attempts to serve court documents.James last month announced a civil fraud suit against the former president and three of his children over accusations they falsely inflated Trump’s net worth to enrich themselves and secure loans on better terms. The suit added to the mounting legal threats against the former president, who is also under federal investigation for his role in the January 6 insurrection and the government secrets founds at his Mar-a-Lago resort.In a just-released statement, James said she has asked a judge to approve several steps “to stop Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization’s ongoing fraudulent scheme and ensure funds are available to satisfy any disgorgement award.”“Since we filed this sweeping lawsuit last month, Donald Trump and the Trump Organization have continued those same fraudulent practices and taken measures to evade responsibility. Today, we are seeking an immediate stop to these actions because Mr. Trump should not get to play by different rules,” James said.Among the measures James said Trump and his business have taken is incorporating a new company in Delaware on the day the lawsuit was filed. The district attorney said the Trumps could move their assets to that business from New York, in a bid to stymie her case. James wants the court to block any such transfers, as well as appoint an independent monitor that would track Trump’s financial disclosures.She also asked for permission to serve court documents to Donald and Eric Trump electronically “as both defendants and their counsels have refused to accept service of the complaints for almost a month.”New York civil fraud suit could bring down the Trump OrganizationRead moreThe Guardian’s David Smith has a look at what to expect today during what is likely to be the last public hearing of the January 6 committee, which will focus squarely on Trump’s actions as the Capitol was attacked:The ninth and possibly final hearing of the congressional panel investigating the January 6 attack on the US Capitol will focus on Donald Trump’s “state of mind” as the insurrection unfolded.The House of Representatives select committee will reconvene in Washington at 1pm on Thursday after a two-and-a-half month break, and is expected to present new video footage showing efforts to respond to the violence as it was unfolding.“There is going to be some discussion of events that took place prior to election day and there’s going to be some looking at events that took place after January 6,” said an aide to the committee, who did not wish to be named. “We’re going to bring a particular focus on the president’s state of mind and his involvement in these events as they unfold.“So what you’re going to see is a synthesis of some evidence we’ve already presented with that new, never-before-seen information to illustrate Donald Trump’s centrality to the scheme from the time prior to the election.”January 6 panel’s next hearing will focus on Trump’s ‘state of mind’ during attack Read moreNew York attorney general Letitia James today accused Donald Trump and the Trump organization of trying to evade her investigation into their business practices by taking steps to move assets out of her reach and avoiding her attempts to serve court documents.James last month announced a civil fraud suit against the former president and three of his children over accusations they falsely inflated Trump’s net worth to enrich themselves and secure loans on better terms. The suit added to the mounting legal threats against the former president, who is also under federal investigation for his role in the January 6 insurrection and the government secrets founds at his Mar-a-Lago resort.In a just-released statement, James said she has asked a judge to approve several steps “to stop Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization’s ongoing fraudulent scheme and ensure funds are available to satisfy any disgorgement award.”“Since we filed this sweeping lawsuit last month, Donald Trump and the Trump Organization have continued those same fraudulent practices and taken measures to evade responsibility. Today, we are seeking an immediate stop to these actions because Mr. Trump should not get to play by different rules,” James said.Among the measures James said Trump and his business have taken is incorporating a new company in Delaware on the day the lawsuit was filed. The district attorney said the Trumps could move their assets to that business from New York, in a bid to stymie her case. James wants the court to block any such transfers, as well as appoint an independent monitor that would track Trump’s financial disclosures.She also asked for permission to serve court documents to Donald and Eric Trump electronically “as both defendants and their counsels have refused to accept service of the complaints for almost a month.”New York civil fraud suit could bring down the Trump OrganizationRead moreA big increase in monthly social security payments might sound like a good thing, but keep in mind, the government is doing it only because inflation is so high.And today began with word that the consumer price wave didn’t subside much in September. Year-on-year, prices rose 8.2%, below the high of 9.1% in June but not much of a change from the 8.3% level in August. Monthly price growth actually accelerated in September, led by costs for food and, more worryingly, housing, one of the most potent contributors to inflation overall.There will be a few consequences to this report. First of all, it will likely reinforce the Federal Reserve’s conviction that it needs to continue raising interest rates to quell demand and stop prices from rising so much. But it takes time to know the impact of rate increases, and the worry is that the central bank will overdo it and tighten conditions so much that the economy heads into a recession. Indeed, the head of the largest US investment bank warned as much earlier this week, though the Fed is far from the only threat to the economy right now.Then there’s the impact on president Joe Biden and the Democratic party at large. As the saying goes, the buck stops with him, and polls have made clear voters care deeply about the state of the economy – and aren’t a huge fan of his handling of it. Consider this one from Monmouth University released earlier this month, which found inflation to be the top priority among voters surveyed, and Biden getting low marks for his handling of it.If the 8 November midterms result in a wipeout for Democrats in Congress and statehouses nationwide, don’t be surprised if that dynamic turns out to be the reason why. US is headed for a recession, says head of JP Morgan Chase bank: ‘This is serious’Read moreGood morning, US politics blog readers. Americans don’t have many nice things to say about the record streak of inflation that has beset the economy since the start of last year, but for retirees, it’s come with one benefit: larger social security payments. The government announced today it would raise monthly payments from the retirement program by 8.7%, its largest increase in 40 years, to offset rising prices for food, gasoline and other essentials. Older people tend to be reliable voters, so this may have knock-on effects for the midterms, where inflation is seen as a liability for president Joe Biden and the Democrats running nationwide to help him carry out his agenda.Today is going to be a busy one!
The January 6 committee will hold its ninth and potentially last public hearing at 1 pm eastern time today, focusing on what Donald Trump knew before and during the deadly insurrection at the Capitol.
Consumer price data just released shows inflation remaining stubbornly high in September, bad news for the US economy and for Wall Street especially.
Biden is in Los Angeles, where he will promote his infrastructure law announced last year and fundraise for Democrats. More
January 6 panel’s next hearing will focus on Trump’s ‘state of mind’ during attack House select committee will reconvene Thursday with new video footage showing measures to respond during violence at Capitol The ninth and possibly final hearing of the congressional panel investigating the January 6 attack on the US Capitol will focus on Donald Trump’s “state of mind” as the insurrection unfolded.The House of Representatives select committee will reconvene in Washington at 1pm on Thursday after a two-and-a-half month break, and is expected to present new video footage showing efforts to respond to the violence as it was unfolding.House January 6 committee postpones public hearing, citing Hurricane IanRead more“There is going to be some discussion of events that took place prior to election day and there’s going to be some looking at events that took place after January 6,” said an aide to the committee, who did not wish to be named. “We’re going to bring a particular focus on the president’s state of mind and his involvement in these events as they unfold.“So what you’re going to see is a synthesis of some evidence we’ve already presented with that new, never-before-seen information to illustrate Donald Trump’s centrality to the scheme from the time prior to the election.”The committee surpassed many observers’ expectations over the summer with a series of televised hearings that put Trump at the heart of an attempted coup – a premeditated assault on American democracy that sought to overturn the 2020 presidential election.On Thursday it will seek to reclaim the spotlight less than a month before congressional midterm elections, in which hundreds of Republicans who back Trump’s false claim of election fraud are running for office.The committee will present documentary evidence that includes information from hundreds of thousands of pages that the Secret Service handed over in response to a subpoena. The records will show how Trump – who encouraged his supporters to “fight like hell” in a speech on the morning of January 6 – was repeatedly alerted to danger yet still tried to stoke the violence, the Washington Post reported.Unlike previous hearings there will be no live witnesses, the aide said, but there will be new witness testimony, including from individuals who have not been heard from before. It is unclear whether that will include Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, a conservative activist and wife of the supreme court justice Clarence Thomas. Her interview by the panel last month was transcribed but not videotaped.Thursday’s hearing is expected to last about two and half hours and include statements from the panel’s chair, Bennie Thompson, and vice-chair, Liz Cheney – nearing the end of her tenure in Congress after losing a Republican primary race in Wyoming – as well as all seven other members of the committee, each presenting different elements of the evidence.Whereas past hearings concentrated on a particular topic, earning comparisons with TV crime dramas or podcasts, this one will take “a step back” and examine “the entire plan”. But in a background briefing with reporters, the aide denied it amounted to a closing argument, saying it was difficult to know the select committee’s schedule going forward.“The investigation is ongoing and, of course, at some point there will be a comprehensive report released which will present the committee’s findings in a more complete manner. That work goes on. I would resist any characterisation that makes this seem like the final time you’re going to hear from the committee.”TopicsJanuary 6 hearingsDonald TrumpLiz CheneyUS Capitol attackUS politicsnewsReuse this content More
Oath Keepers founder accused of ‘armed rebellion’ on January 6 at trialStewart Rhodes and four associates face the rare civil war-era charge of seditious conspiracy for attacking the US Capitol The founder of the Oath Keepers extremist group and four associates planned an “armed rebellion” to keep Donald Trump in power after he lost the election, a federal prosecutor contended on Monday as the most serious case yet went to trial involving the attack on the US Capitol on 6 January 2021.Stewart Rhodes and his band of far-right militants were prepared to go to war to stop Joe Biden from becoming president, assistant US attorney Jeffrey Nestler told jurors.The group celebrated the Capitol attack as a battle they had won and continued their plot even after Biden’s November 2020 electoral victory was certified by Congress in the early hours of 7 January, Nestler alleged.Capitol attack officer Fanone hits out at ‘weasel’ McCarthy in startling interviewRead more“Their goal was to stop, by whatever means necessary, the lawful transfer of presidential power, including by taking up arms against the United States government,” the prosecutor said during his opening statement. “They concocted a plan for armed rebellion to shatter a bedrock of American democracy.”Rhodes and the four others are the first January 6 defendants to stand trial on the charge of seditious conspiracy, a rare civil war-era charge that calls for up to 20 years behind bars, which they deny. The stakes are high for the US Department of Justice (DoJ), which last secured a seditious conspiracy conviction at trial nearly 30 years ago.Rhodes’ attorney painted a far different picture, describing the Oath Keepers as a “peacekeeping” force. He accused prosecutors of building their case on cherry-picked evidence from messages and videos and told jurors that the “true picture” would show that the Oath Keepers had merely been preparing for presidential orders they expected from Trump but never came.“Stewart Rhodes meant no harm to the Capitol that day. Stewart Rhodes did not have any violent intent that day,” Rhodes’ attorney, Phillip Linder, said. “The story the government is trying to tell you today is completely wrong.”On trial with Rhodes, of Granbury, Texas, are Kelly Meggs, leader of the Florida chapter of the Oath Keepers, Kenneth Harrelson, another Florida member of the group, Thomas Caldwell, a retired US navy intelligence officer from Virginia, and Jessica Watkins, who led an Ohio militia group. They face several other charges as well.About 900 people have been charged and hundreds convicted in the Capitol attack. Rioters stormed police barriers, fought with officers, smashed windows and temporarily halted the certification of Biden’s electoral victory.Prosecutors told jurors the insurrection was no spontaneous outpouring of election-fueled rage but part of a detailed, drawn-out plot to stop Biden from entering the White House.Rhodes began plotting to overturn Biden’s victory right after the election, Nestler said.He told his followers during the planning stage that “it will be torches and pitchforks time if they (Congress) don’t do the right thing”, according to an encrypted Signal message he sent to his followers that was shown to the jury by prosecutors.During a December media interview, Rhodes called senators “traitors” and warned that the Oath Keepers would have to “overthrow, abort or abolish Congress”.Before coming to Washington, they set up “quick reaction force” teams with “weapons of war” stashed at a Virginia hotel, the prosecutor said.As Oath Keepers stormed the Capitol, Rhodes stayed outside, like “a general surveying his troops on a battlefield”, Nestler said. After the attack, the Oath Keepers were “elated”, Nestler said.“These defendants were fighting a war and they won a battle on January 6 … but they planned to continue waging that war to stop the transfer of power prior to Inauguration Day. Thankfully their plans were foiled,” Nestler said.Defense attorneys say the Oath Keepers came to Washington only to provide security at events for figures such as Trump ally Roger Stone before the president’s big outdoor rally behind the White House. Rhodes has said there was no plan to attack the Capitol and that the members who did acted on their own.Rhodes’ lawyer told jurors that his client will take the stand to argue that he believed Trump was going to invoke the Insurrection Act and call up a militia. TopicsUS Capitol attackDonald TrumpJoe BidenUS politicsLaw (US)newsReuse this content More
Oath Keepers to stand trial on charges of seditious conspiracyGroup allegedly discussed paramilitary training and ‘quick reaction force’ to get weapons to Capitol quickly on January 6 The highest-profile prosecution to stem from the January 6 attack on the US Capitol gets under way on Monday in Washington DC, where the founder and four members of the far-right Oath Keepers group will stand trial in federal court on civil war-era charges of seditious conspiracy.It’s a high-stakes trial for the US government, which will attempt to prove that Stewart Rhodes and his associates spent weeks marshaling members of the group to prepare to use violence to deny the certification of the 2016 election and keep Donald Trump in the White House.The five charged with seditious conspiracy – Rhodes, Kelly Meggs, Jessica Watkins, Kenneth Harrelson and Thomas Caldwell – face 20 years in prison if convicted. Two of the 11 people indicted in the case – Brian Ulrich and Joshua James – have pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy. The remaining four will be tried separately.Court documents show that the Oath Keepers – described by the government as “a large but loosely organized collection of individuals, some of whom are associated with militias” that “explicitly focus on recruiting current and former military, law enforcement and first-responder personnel” – were among the individuals and groups who forcibly entered the Capitol.Before the rally, the group had allegedly discussed paramilitary training and setting up a “quick reaction force” at a Virginia hotel that could get weapons into Washington quickly if required and had equipped themselves with thousands of dollars’ worth of guns and tactical gear, including a shotgun, scope, sights and night-vision devices.But while Rhodes, who established the Oath Keepers in 2009, is not accused of entering the Capitol, cellphone records allegedly show he was communicating with Oath Keepers who had and was seen with members of the group afterwards.The trial, which is expected to last about five weeks, comes as at least 919 people have been arrested and charged with crimes relating to what many, before and after the events of January 6, have called an attempted coup d’etat. More than 400 have pleaded guilty or been convicted at trial.But the trial comes with risks for the government, which has not invoked seditious conspiracy laws since failing to successfully prosecute members of the far-right Hutaree militia in Michigan in 2010 in a case that was ultimately dismissed for insufficient evidence.“Americans should be wary of government’s stretching ‘sedition’ charges in ways that might set troubling precedents for a US administration,” said Jim Sleeper, former professor of political science at Yale University.At the same time, he says, “the Oath Keepers’ and their leadership’s well-documented record of excess – and Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice record of discretion and indeed of caution – incline me to trust this use of the act.”According to attorney Bill Swor, who defended the Hutaree group, the circumstances are observably different. In that case, he says, there was no plan and no action was taken. In this, there appears to be evidence that several of the alleged conspirators broke into the Capitol and delayed Congress’s certification of the electoral college count.“Taking the government at their claim that these individuals were acting to disrupt or prevent Congress from discharging its constitutional duty is a significant difference,” he said.“In our case there was a vague assertion that our clients were planning a hostile, violent attack. But government witnesses testified that there was no specific plan and this was just talk and preparation, not against the government but against the forces of the antichrist who would be expressed in … an invading force of United Nations blue helmets.“There was no suggestion that our clients had undertaken any steps to do anything beyond ‘training’ in their immediate geographical area,” Swor adds.In the government’s case against the Oath Keepers, members traveled from across the US with a specific plan, accumulated firearms and brought them to suburban Washington and would have transported them to the seat of government if necessary. “Not only do you have the express purpose but acts taken in preparation to execute a plan,” Swor added.Rhodes’s attorneys have said their defense will focus on their client’s belief that Trump was going to invoke the Insurrection Act and call up a militia to support his attempt to stay in power. His actions, then, were not seditious because they were only designed in anticipation of what they believed would soon become lawful.“What the government contends was a conspiracy to oppose United States laws was actually lobbying and preparation for the President to utilize a United States law to take lawful action,” Rhodes’s attorneys, James Lee Bright and Phillip Linder, said in a court filing.Other defendants have argued that they traveled to Washington to provide security for VIPs or rally-goers from anti-fascist protesters, or antifa.According to the government, Rhodes sent a message to an Oath Keepers chat two days after the presidential election to reject the election results. “We aren’t getting through this without a civil war,” Rhodes allegedly wrote. “Too late for that. Prepare your mind, body, spirit.”Court documents further allege that Rhodes spearheaded an online meeting with members of the group in which he outlined a plan to stop the transfer of power to Joe Biden. After that, prosecutors say, members of the alleged conspiracy began recruiting, training and coordinating their activities.A month later, on 11 December, Rhodes allegedly posted on a group chat that if Biden were to take office, “it will be a bloody and desperate fight. We are going to have a fight. That can’t be avoided.”The day before certification on 5 January, the alleged conspirators transported their weapons to Washington. The following morning, Rhodes messaged: “We will have several well equipped QRFs outside DC. And there are many, many others, from other groups, who will be watching and waiting on the outside in case of worst case scenarios.”However the Oath Keepers trial is resolved, Swor says, the case may serve to set standards around where the individual rights to speak out and protest contravene laws protecting the functioning of government. In the case of the Sedition Act, the law was passed to curb the activities of the Ku Klux Klan, which opposed laws protecting African Americans and Catholics after the US civil war.If nothing else, the contrast between the Hutaree and Oath Keeper cases could establish “clear, bright lines and what is, and what is not, sedition,” Swor says. “In the Hutaree case, the goal was to be prepared to respond to an invasion or defend the government. In the Oath Keepers case, the government’s theory is that these people planned and took action, and that the purpose of their activity was to prevent the government from acting.”TopicsUS Capitol attackThe far rightnewsReuse this content More
