Eliana Willis

More stories

  • 150 Shares169 Views

    in Elections

    Trump aides identify Republicans who sought pardons for January 6th – video

    In the fifth round of hearings probing the ways in which US president Trump abused his powers to cajole the justice department into endorsing his false election claims, White House staffers give testimony identifying several Republican members of Congress who sought pardons. Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger said ‘the only reason I know to ask for a pardon is because you think you’ve committed a crime’

    Republicans who aided coup attempt sought blanket presidential pardons
    ‘More to come’: what the January 6 panel has revealed of Trump’s efforts to retain power More

  • 188 Shares159 Views

    in Elections

    Trump asked DoJ to 'just say election was corrupt', January 6 hearing told – video

    Donald Trump relentlessly pressured top officials at the justice department to pursue groundless claims of voter fraud in an unsuccessful effort to cling to power, according to testimony the House committee investigating the January 6 insurrection heard on Thursday. The testimony by former acting US deputy attorney general Richard Donoghue included a claim Trump urged him ‘to tell people that this was an illegal, corrupt election’.

    January 6 panel calls Trump’s scheme a ‘power play’ that nearly succeeded More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Elections

    Republicans who aided coup attempt sought blanket presidential pardons

    Republicans who aided coup attempt sought blanket presidential pardonsMatt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Ted Cruz among those who requested to be let off after attempting to overturn election results The Republicans Matt Gaetz and Mo Brooks sought a blanket pardon of members of Congress involved in Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn his defeat by Joe Biden through lies about electoral fraud, the House January 6 committee revealed on Thursday.A witness said Andy Biggs of Arizona, Louie Gohmert of Texas and Scott Perry of Pennsylvania also contacted the White House about securing pardons. The same witness, former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, said she heard Marjorie Taylor Greene, an extremist from Georgia, wanted a pardon too.Capitol attack panel details Trump’s pressure on DoJ to support fraud claimsRead moreThe committee displayed an email written by Brooks, of Alabama, on 11 January 2021, five days after the deadly attack on the US Capitol by Trump supporters.Brooks, who delivered a fire-breathing speech at a rally before the Capitol riot, sought pre-emptive pardons for “every congressman and senator who voted to reject the electoral college vote submissions of Arizona and Pennsylvania”.A total of 147 Republicans lodged such votes, even after the Capitol was stormed, an attack that endangered the life of the vice-president, Mike Pence, and to which a bipartisan Senate committee linked seven deaths.Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley, potential rivals to Trump for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024, were among them.For the January 6 committee, the Illinois Republican Adam Kinzinger said Brooks “emailed the White House, quote, ‘pursuant to a request from Matt Gaetz [of Florida]’, requesting a pardon for Representative Gaetz, himself and unnamed others.“Witnesses told the select committee that the president considered offering pardons to a wide range of individuals connected to the president,” Kinzinger added.Jan 6 Committee reveals Mo Brooks emailed the White House requesting a pardon for Rep Matt Gaetz and “every Congressman and Senator who voted to reject the electoral college vote submissions of Arizona and Pennsylvania” pic.twitter.com/try0PCsiIV— nikki mccann ramírez (@NikkiMcR) June 23, 2022
    It has been widely reported that Trump allies sought January 6-related pardons before Trump left office, and that Trump considered offering pre-emptive pardons to himself and family members. He has repeatedly floated the idea of pardoning Capitol rioters should he return to power.The January 6 committee previously revealed that John Eastman, the law professor who pushed Pence to overturn election results, contacted Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney, to ask if a pardon was possible.In testimony played on Thursday, Eric Herschmann, a Trump White House lawyer, said of Gaetz: “The general tone was, ‘We may get prosecuted because we were defensive of the president’s positions on these things.’“The pardon that he was discussing, requesting was as broad you could describe, from the beginning of time up until today, for any and all things.“He mentioned Nixon and I said Nixon’s pardon was never nearly that broad.”Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 over the Watergate scandal, involving political dirty tricks and their cover-up. He was pardoned by Gerald Ford, his successor in office.Barr feared Trump might not have left office had DoJ not debunked fraud claimsRead moreIn other testimony played on Thursday, Hutchinson, a former assistant to Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, said: “Mr Gaetz, Mr Brooks, I know both advocated for there to be a blanket pardon … pre-emptive pardons.“Mr Gaetz was personally pushing for a pardon … since early December. I’m not sure why. He reached out to me to ask if he could have a meeting with Mr Meadows about receiving a presidential pardon.”Hutchinson listed the other Republicans who requested pardons.On Twitter, Gaetz said: “The last Republican president to be sworn in without congressional Democrats objecting to electors was George HW Bush.” He did not immediately comment about the pardon revelations.Kinzinger said: “The only reason I know to ask for a pardon is because you think you’ve committed a crime.”TopicsJanuary 6 hearingsDonald TrumpUS Capitol attackUS politicsTed CruzRepublicansnewsReuse this content More

  • 213 Shares139 Views

    in Elections

    Trump might not have left office if fraud claims had not been debunked, Barr claims – video

    Donald Trump’s attorney general, William Barr, thought Trump might have refused to leave office at all had the Department of Justice not immediately investigated and disproved his lies about electoral fraud in his defeat by Joe Biden.
    ‘I am not sure we would’ve had a transition at all,’ Barr said in startling video testimony played by the January 6 committee on Thursday.
    The hearing, the fifth in a series set to extend into July, focused on Trump’s attempts to pressure the justice department to aid his attempt to overturn the election result – an attempt that culminated in the deadly attack on the US Capitol on 6 January 2021

    Barr feared Trump might not have left office had DoJ not debunked fraud claims More

  • 150 Shares109 Views

    in Elections

    January 6 panel calls Trump’s scheme a ‘power play’ that nearly succeeded

    January 6 panel calls Trump’s scheme a ‘power play’ that nearly succeededEx-president launched a weeks-long campaign to strong arm the justice department into declaring the election corrupt02:02The House committee investigating the January 6 insurrection said on Thursday that Donald Trump heaped immense pressure on top leaders at the justice department, engaging in a “power play to win at all costs” that nearly succeeded in overturning the will of the American people.Testifying at the committee’s fifth and final hearing of the month, three former justice department officials, recounted a dramatic Oval Office confrontation three days before the assault on the Capitol in which Trump contemplated replacing the agency’s acting head with an “completely incompetent” lower-level official who embraced his stolen election myth. Trump only relented, they said, when he was warned that there would be mass resignations at the department if he followed through with the plan.Barr feared Trump might not have left office had DoJ not debunked fraud claimsRead more“For the department to insert itself into the political process this way, I think, would have had grave consequences for the country,” said Richard Donoghue, the former acting deputy attorney general, to the committee on Capitol Hill. “It may very well have spiraled us into a constitutional crisis and I wanted to make sure that he understood the gravity of the situation.”That 3 January meeting was the culmination of a weeks-long pressure campaign by the president in which he attempted to strong arm the justice department into declaring the election corrupt.In a breach of longstanding guidelines meant to guard the agency’s independence, Jeffrey Rosen, the former acting attorney general told the committee Trump contacted him “virtually every day” to complain that he had not done enough to investigate voter fraud in the election.Opening the hearing, the panel’s chair, congressman Bennie Thompson, said Trump knew that the allegations of voter fraud were false, but nevertheless pressured the department to declare the election results tainted. After exhausting his legal options and being rebuffed by state and local elections officials, the panel said a desperate Trump turned to the justice department to falsely declare the election corrupt.“Donald Trump didn’t just want the justice department to investigate,” Thompson said. “He wanted the justice department to help legitimize his lies, to basically call the election corrupt.”In one of the near-daily conversations Trump had with the agency’s leader, Rosen told the president that the Department of Justice “can’t and won’t snap his fingers and change the outcome of an election”.“I don’t expect you to do that,” Trump snapped back, according to Donoghue, whose handwritten notes of the exchange were displayed on a large screen during the hearing. “Just say that the election was corrupt + leave the rest to me and the [Republican] Congressmen.”At the center of Thursday’s hearing was Jeff Clark, a department official who embraced Trump’s myth of a stolen election. At the urging of Republican congressman Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, Trump contemplated replacing Rosen with Clark, an environmental lawyer by trade.“What was his only qualification?” congressman Adam Kinzinger, an Illinois Republican and member of the committee who led the questioning, asked rhetorically. “He would do whatever the president wanted him to do, including overthrowing a free and fair democratic election.”Clark’s audacious effort to bend the department to Trump’s will included a draft letter addressed to state officials in Georgia falsely asserting that the department had evidence of voter fraud and suggesting the state withdraw its certification of Biden’s victory in the state. He sent the letter to Rosen and Donoghue for their signature.Donoghue said the letter was so “extreme” and baseless he had to read it twice to grasp the gravity of what was being suggested. Both he and Rosen refused to sign it.In a videotaped deposition, Eric Herschmann, a lawyer in the White House counsel’s office, said Clark’s plan to subvert the 2020 election was “asinine”. Using expletives, he said he told Clark: “Congratulations, you just admitted your first step or act you’d take as attorney general would be committing a felony.”Tensions erupted on 3 January, when Clark told Rosen that Trump intended to replace him as the head of the department. White House call logs from that afternoon showed that the White House staff was already referring to Clark as the “acting attorney general”, the committee showed.Rosen, refusing to be fired by a subordinate, demanded a White House meeting. That night, Rosen, Donoghue, and Steven Engel, the former assistant attorney general for the office of legal counsel, who also testified on Thursday, gathered in the Oval Office with Trump and top White House lawyers for a tense, hours-long meeting.Donoghue said Trump appeared ready to follow through with the plan to replace Rosen with someone who promised fealty. “What have I got to lose?” Donoghue recalled Trump saying. “A lot,” he replied. He and Engel walked Trump through the implications of such a dramatic shift, warning him that there would be mass resignations among senior officials. Donoghue said Engel told the president Clark would be “leading a graveyard”.“It was very strongly worded to the president that that would happen,” Donoghue said.Their warnings were ultimately persuasive and Trump relented. Before they left, Donoghue said Trump asked him what would happen to Clark. He explained that only Trump could fire him. Trump replied that he wouldn’t.The panel also revealed that several of Trump’s allies in Congress had requested pardons from the president in the days after the deadly assault on the Capitol. It displayed an email from congressman Mo Brooks in which the Alabama Republican asked the White House to consider a presidential pardon for himself and other congressional allies.In testimony, Trump aides said Republican congressmen Scott Perry of Pennsylvania; Matt Gaetz of Florida; Louie Gohmert of Texas and Andy Biggs of Arizona all requested “pre-emptive” pardons. All voted against certifying the results of the election in the hours after the riot.“The only reason I know to ask for a pardon is because you think you’ve committed a crime,” Kinzinger said.The panel voted unanimously to hold Clark in contempt of Congress after he failed to cooperate with its investigation. He later appeared before the committee but Kinzinger said he asserted his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination more than 125 times.Just before the hearing began, it was revealed that federal investigators searched Clark’s home earlier this week, according to a person familiar with the matter who was not authorized to speak publicly.In new testimony from the committee’s taped deposition with Bill Barr, the former attorney general, said he thought it was important for the department to investigate – and ultimately disprove – Trump’s false claims of voter fraud. Had it not, Barr said he shuddered to think what might have happened. “I’m not sure we would have had a transition at all.”The officials’ testimony on Thursday all bolstered Barr’s conclusion that the president’s claims of election fraud were “bullshit”. Among the outlandish claims Trump latched onto was a purported plot involving an Italian defense contractor who purportedly conspired with US intelligence to manipulate the vote count. In an email to Rosen, Donoghue called the conspiracy “pure insanity”.The committee is building the case that Trump was at the heart of the sprawling conspiracy that led to the violence on January 6 – a lie that has only metastasized in the months since a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol with pipes, bear spray and Confederate flags. Nine people died in the assault and its aftermath.Republicans who aided coup attempt sought blanket presidential pardonsRead moreThe committee said it would resume public hearings in July as part of its efforts to reveal in serial fashion what Thompson described as the “inner workings of what essentially was a political coup”.Future sessions are expected to detail how extremist groups like the Proud Boys planned the attack on Congress and how Trump failed to act to stop the violence once it erupted on 6 January.Concluding Thursday’s hearing, Kinzinger, one of Trump’s few Republican critics who is retiring at the end of his term, said Trump “was willing to sacrifice our republic to prolong his presidency”. He came close, Kinzinger said, but ultimately failed thanks to the “good people” who put their oath of office first.But, he warned: “I’m still worried that not enough has changed to prevent this from happening again.”TopicsJanuary 6 hearingsUS Capitol attackUS politicsDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More

  • 188 Shares129 Views

    in Elections

    DoJ seeks delay in Proud Boys case as it collides with parallel January 6 inquiry

    DoJ seeks delay in Proud Boys case as it collides with parallel January 6 inquiryTwo cases had managed to steer clear of each other as the justice department and House panel pursued the same ground The US justice department’s criminal investigation into the January 6 Capitol attack collided with the parallel congressional investigation, causing federal prosecutors to seek a delay in proceedings in the seditious conspiracy case against the far-right Proud Boys group.The two January 6 inquiries had largely managed to steer clear of each other even as both the justice department and a House select committee pursued the same ground. But it all came to head on Wednesday.At a hearing in federal court in Washington, federal prosecutors and defendants in the justice department’s seditious conspiracy case asked a federal judge to delay the August trial date of the former Proud Boys national chairman Henry Tarrio, AKA Enrique Tarrio, and other top members of the far-right group.January 6 panel to focus on Trump’s relentless pressure on justice departmentRead more“It is reasonably foreseeable that information relevant to the defendants’ guilt (or innocence) could soon be released,” assistant US attorney Erik Kenerson wrote on Tuesday. “Inability to prepare their respective cases … is potentially prejudicial – to all parties.”The request was granted “reluctantly” by US district judge Timothy Kelly, who said the trial will now start in December, agreeing that the select committee’s report and witness transcripts that are slated to be made public in September could upend preparations.The justice department has run into the issue that because it is conducting a criminal investigation, its federal prosecutors are bound by strict rules requiring high standards of proof before they start issuing subpoenas and collecting evidence.By contrast, the select committee, in conducting a congressional investigation examining the circumstances surrounding the Capitol attack, can issue subpoenas for documents and testimony whenever and however it likes, given the approval of a majority of its members.That has meant the panel has amassed more than 1,000 transcripts of closed-door depositions conducted with key witnesses related to the January 6 inquiries, some of which the justice department believes are relevant to its cases but the panel had declined to share.In a letter last week, Matthew Graves, the US attorney for the District of Columbia, and assistant attorneys general Kenneth Polite and Matthew Olsen complained their inability to access transcripts was hampering criminal investigations, including in the Proud Boys case.“The select committee’s failure to grant the department access to these transcripts complicates the department’s ability to investigate and prosecute those who engaged in criminal conduct in relation to the January 6 attack on the Capitol,” they wrote in the letter.The select committee relented and suggested it would not even wait until September but start making transcripts public as early as July. But lawyers for the Proud Boys took issue with both dates, saying the contents of the transcripts could bias a jury ahead of trial.Not all of the defendants sought a delay. Tarrio opposed the request because “an impartial jury will never be achieved in Washington DC whether the trial is in August, December, or next year”. Ethan Nordean, another prominent Proud Boys figure, opposed the request unless he was freed from pre-trial detention.The potential for the transcripts to influence a jury pool has been a recurring complaint for the Proud Boys lawyers, who argue the January 6 hearings – which started three days after Tarrio and others were charged with seditious conspiracy – will irreparably taint a jury.Federal prosecutors have pushed back, contending that people in Washington were no more likely to have seen the hearings than people in New York or Miami. Still, the government agreed for the need for breathing space between the trial and transcripts being made public.The justice department, meanwhile, has its own concerns with the transcripts’ release and would seemingly prefer to get the transcripts in private to compare what witnesses have told the select committee and what they have secretly told a grand jury.At least two members of the Proud Boys have testified before the select committee in closed-door depositions: Tarrio, who has been charged with seditious conspiracy and other crimes, and Jeremy Bertino, who has been mentioned in court filings but is currently not charged.Also on Wednesday, the justice department issued new subpoenas to at least three people connected to the Trump campaign’s potentially illegal plan to send fraudulent election certificates to Congress as part of the effort to overturn the 2020 election results.The confirmed recipients of the grand jury subpoenas were Brad Carver, a Georgia Republican party official who was a Trump elector, Thomas Lane, a Trump campaign official in Arizona and New Mexico, and Sean Flynn, a Trump campaign aide in Michigan, the New York Times reported.TopicsUS Capitol attackJanuary 6 hearingsThe far rightHouse of RepresentativesUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

  • 125 Shares169 Views

    in Elections

    Republican who livestreamed Capitol attack given three months in prison

    Republican who livestreamed Capitol attack given three months in prisonWest Virginia lawmaker Derrick Evans, 37, who filmed self-incriminating footage, pleaded guilty to committing civil disorder00:43A West Virginia lawmaker who participated in the January 6 attack on the Capitol while livestreaming the deadly insurrection has been sentenced to three months in prison.Derrick Evans, 37, was arrested and charged shortly after the attack, in part thanks to self-incriminating video footage he shot of himself leading and egging on rioters who overwhelmed police at the Capitol.Feds seek delay in Proud Boys conspiracy case as it collides with parallel January 6 inquiryRead moreHe resigned, then pleaded guilty to the felony of committing civil disorder in March, but was given bail and appeared virtually from his home for sentencing on Wednesday.Evans, who had been sworn into the Republican-led legislature less than a month before the attack, is among 21 lawmakers known to have joined the rioters trying to overturn the 2020 election. He is the only one to be prosecuted so far.Evans had a penchant for broadcasting live on his Facebook page, Derrick Evans – The Activist, which had 32,000 followers, whom he encouraged to travel to Washington to “fight for Trump”, according to prosecutors.He documented his bus journey to the capital, and then headed straight for the east side of the Capitol. Donning a helmet, Evans shouted out updates to the growing crowd about the violence occurring on the west side of the Capitol, where rioters first breached the building, according to the sentencing memo.Evans narrated as the mob eventually overwhelmed the police and pushed through the Rotunda doors, according to video clips from his account played in court.“We’re taking this house, I told you today! Patriots stand up! … My people didn’t vote for me because I was a coward.” After breaching the building, he said, “We’re in! Derrick Evans is in the Capitol!”He deleted the video later that day, but it had already been widely circulated.Evans is among at least 825 people so far charged in connection with the insurrection, of whom 310 have pleaded guilty.Before January 6, Evans had streamed live footage of himself outside West Virginia’s only abortion clinic, which led to a 10ft fence being built around the building and a clinic volunteer having to obtain a restraining order against him. Evans also broadcast his protests against Black Lives Matter and drag shows.On Wednesday Evans told the judge that he took responsibility for his actions and regretted that his actions would leave his kids “fatherless for months”.TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsWest VirginiaRepublicansnewsReuse this content More

  • 150 Shares109 Views

    in Elections

    January 6 panel to focus on Trump’s relentless pressure on justice department

    January 6 panel to focus on Trump’s relentless pressure on justice departmentThe ex-president pushed the department to more aggressively investigate debunked claims of fraud with threats Donald Trump pressured top justice department officials to falsely declare that the 2020 election was corrupt and launch investigations into discredited claims of fraud as part of an effort to return him to office, the House January 6 select committee will say on Thursday.The panel investigating the Capitol attack is expected at its fifth hearing to focus on how Trump abused the power of the presidency to twist the justice department into endorsing false election claims – and potentially how the Republican congressman Scott Perry sought a pardon for his involvement.Trump campaign knew ‘fake electors’ scheme was fraudulent, panel arguesRead moreThe finer details of the hearing were outlined to the Guardian by two sources close to the inquiry who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to reveal details ahead of the hearing. They cautioned that the details might still change.Among the points the select committee is expected to cover include how Trump pursued a relentless campaign against the leadership of the justice department to more aggressively investigate debunked claims of fraud, and threatened to fire them when they refused.The foundation of that effort, extraordinary even by the standards of the Trump presidency, culminated in a 3 January 2021 meeting at the White House where Trump almost appointed a loyalist as acting attorney general until the leadership warned of en masse resignations.At that contentious meeting, Trump was about to move ahead with a plot to replace the acting attorney general, Jeffrey Rosen, with Jeffrey Clark, a justice department official sympathetic to claims of election fraud.The former president only relented when he was told by Rosen that the justice department leadership would resign – and the White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, said he and his deputy, Pat Philbin, would also quit if Trump followed through.Trump’s proposed plan amounted to a “murder-suicide pact”, Cipollone is understood to have said, according to a participant at the meeting who testified to the Senate judiciary committee that issued an interim report last year.The select committee is also expected to examine the fraught weeks leading up to that moment, and the growing fear inside the justice department that Trump might drag them in to overturn the election results.Perry introduced Clark to Trump, the interim report found. The panel is expected to shed new light on that at the hearing led by Congressman Adam Kinzinger, as well as how Perry sought a presidential pardon days after 6 January.The hearing is expected to be the select committee’s final one in June – there will be at least two more hearings next month but probably not before 12 July when the House returns from recess – and will probably build on the interim report.In doing so, the select committee is likely to relive other key moments: a 27 December 2020 call in which Trump pressured Rosen and his deputy, Richard Donoghue, to declare the election corrupt; Trump’s push to get Clark to get Rosen to open investigations into fraud.Rosen and Donoghue will testify at the hearing, as will Steven Engel, the then assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel, the select committee has said. Clark invoked his fifth amendment protection against self-incrimination in a closed-door deposition.“Just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me” and congressional allies including the Republican congressman Scott Perry, Trump said on the call, according to notes taken by Rosen.The former president also spoke multiple times with Clark about pushing his superiors to send Georgia officials a letter that falsely claimed the justice department had identified “significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election”.When Rosen and Donoghue refused, the interim report found, Trump considered firing them. On 2 January 2021, Trump appeared to coerce Rosen to send the letter, first suggesting he could dismiss Rosen, and then saying he would not fire Rosen as long as he sent the letter.TopicsJanuary 6 hearingsDonald TrumpUS elections 2020US politicsnewsReuse this content More