Eliana Willis

The US Senate is back in session today after its latest recess and there will be close attention on a bipartisan group of senators that is exuding increased confidence that a package of gun control measures can advance and make it into law.Connecticut Democrat Chris Murphy is fond of the word significant. Just days ago, less than a week after the mass shooting at Robb elementary school in Uvalde, Texas that killed 19 young children and two teachers, he talked of “an opportunity right now to pass something significant”. Murphy yesterday added: “The possibility of success is better than ever before. But I think the consequences of failure for our entire democracy are more significant than ever.”Murphy believes measures passed in Florida following the 2018 high school shooting in Parkland could attract Republican support and provide a workable template for action in Congress.Chris Murphy of Connecticut, speaking on CNN’s State of the Union, said he was optimistic that recent mass shootings in Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, Texas, could finally prompt enough bipartisan support for legislation that has previously proven elusive.Florida, a Republican-controlled state, acted swiftly after the murders of 17 students and staff at Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school in February 2018, passing red flag laws and raising the age requirement for buying, but not owning, firearms from 18 to 21, among other steps. The Parkland gunman was 19.In his address to the nation last week, Joe Biden called for a federal ban on semi-automatic weapons, and raising the age requirement if that couldn’t be done.Murphy acknowledged the Florida actions and said “there is interest in taking a look at that age range, 18 to 21” during bipartisan discussions about possible legislation, led on the Republican side by Texas senator John Cornyn.Read more here.The founder of the People of Praise, a secretive charismatic Christian group that counts supreme court justice Amy Coney Barrett as a member, was described in a sworn affidavit filed in the 1990s as exerting almost total control over one of the group’s female members, including making all decisions about her finances and dating relationships.The court documents also described alleged instances of a sexualized atmosphere in the home of the founder, Kevin Ranaghan, and his wife, Dorothy Ranaghan.The description of the Ranaghans and accusations involving their intimate behavior were contained in a 1993 proceeding in which a woman, Cynthia Carnick, said that she did not want her five minor children to have visitations with their father, John Roger Carnick, who was then a member of the People of Praise, in the Ranaghan household or in their presence, because she believed it was not in her children’s “best interest”. Cynthia Carnick also described inappropriate incidents involving the couple and the Ranaghan children. The matter was eventually settled between the parties.Read the Guardian’s full report:Legal claims shed light on founder of faith group tied to Amy Coney BarrettRead moreNo more opinions are due today from the US Supreme Court, with all the biggest decisions still awaited. We’ll be keeping an eye on the court’s calendar and on the indispensable Scotusblog for upcoming dates and the rulings issued on those dates. For anyone curious to know a bit more about how this works, the Scotusblog FAQ page is handy, here. The court doesn’t give lots of notice about which will be opinion days in June and, likely, edging into July with such a big caseload. And the public isn’t told what opinions are coming down until they land. However, of course there was the early May bombshell leak of the draft opinion in the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization case out of Mississippi, which explicitly includes a request from the state authorities to the court to overturn the pivotal 1973 Roe v Wade decision that afforded the constitutional right to an abortion in the US.The final opinion is awaited… US shaken to its core by supreme court draft that would overturn Roe v WadeRead moreThis blog is now handing over to the Guardian’s new US politics blogger Chris Stein, based in Washington, and our colleague there Joanie Greve, who was at the helm of the blog but in recent months took on her new role as one of our senior politics reporters. They’ll take you through the rest of today’s politics news. For all the breaking news on UK politics today involving a no-confidence vote in prime minister Boris Johnson, please follow our London team here as they bring you the events as they happen there, in the UK politics live blog.Here’s Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas again, this time putting his name to a decision in the case of Southwest Airlines v Saxon.In an eight to zero opinion (Amy Coney Barrett was recused from this case), Thomas issued the decision that the court essentially said an airline worker is not required to go to arbitration over her pay dispute with Southwest and can fight her case in the courts.The Supreme Court adopts a broad interpretation of an important exception in the Federal Arbitration Act. The upshot of the 8-0 ruling is that an airport worker (and others similarly situated) can bring a claim for overtime pay in court, rather than being forced into arbitration.— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 6, 2022
The Bloomberg Law site notes that the case could have a wide impact on worker arbitration rights. It explained that Latrice Saxon:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Sued the airline in 2019, alleging it failed to pay her and hundreds of current and former ramp supervisors time-and-a-half earned for their overtime work. The Dallas-based carrier countered that its employee was contractually bound to bring the claim in arbitration, rather than in court. While a federal district judge agreed with the airline, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit did not. The supreme court took up the case.The US supreme court has issued three opinions today, moments ago, although they are not the cases the nation is on the edge of its proverbial seat about – abortion and gun rights.The court just ruled that the Florida authorities can recoup $300,000 in medical expenses out of a settlement paid in the case of Gianinna Gallardo, who suffered appalling injuries at 13, in 2008, when she was hit by a truck after getting off a school bus. A 7-2 majority, with the opinion written by Clarence Thomas and joined by liberal-leaning Elena Kagan, opined for the state over the Gallardo family.A few minutes prior, the court ruled in a case, Siegel v Fitzgerald, about the constitutionality of increased US Trustee’s fees charged to companies in chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.Details on the third ruling in a tick.The Supreme Court strikes down Congress’ decision to increase bankruptcy fees in most states while leaving a different system in place in two states. SCOTUS unanimously holds that the two different fee systems violates the Constitution’s requirement of “uniform” bankruptcy laws.— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 6, 2022
The US supreme court is about to issue ruling(s) on cases decided in the current term.We’ll keep you up to date on what happens, when the opinion(s) are handed down at 10am ET.As Scotusblog notes, there’s a lot for the bench to get to:We’re live now:https://t.co/S5A4KeL5nQ https://t.co/ddml8iKgtC— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 6, 2022
The four big cases we at the Guardian are watching most closely are an environmental case out of West Virginia, a gun rights case stemming from New York, an immigration case via Texas involving the US-Mexico border and the pivotal Mississippi abortion case that also includes the state authorities asking Scotus to overturn Roe v Wade.The US Senate is back in session today after its latest recess and there will be close attention on a bipartisan group of senators that is exuding increased confidence that a package of gun control measures can advance and make it into law.Connecticut Democrat Chris Murphy is fond of the word significant. Just days ago, less than a week after the mass shooting at Robb elementary school in Uvalde, Texas that killed 19 young children and two teachers, he talked of “an opportunity right now to pass something significant”. Murphy yesterday added: “The possibility of success is better than ever before. But I think the consequences of failure for our entire democracy are more significant than ever.”Murphy believes measures passed in Florida following the 2018 high school shooting in Parkland could attract Republican support and provide a workable template for action in Congress.Chris Murphy of Connecticut, speaking on CNN’s State of the Union, said he was optimistic that recent mass shootings in Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, Texas, could finally prompt enough bipartisan support for legislation that has previously proven elusive.Florida, a Republican-controlled state, acted swiftly after the murders of 17 students and staff at Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school in February 2018, passing red flag laws and raising the age requirement for buying, but not owning, firearms from 18 to 21, among other steps. The Parkland gunman was 19.In his address to the nation last week, Joe Biden called for a federal ban on semi-automatic weapons, and raising the age requirement if that couldn’t be done.Murphy acknowledged the Florida actions and said “there is interest in taking a look at that age range, 18 to 21” during bipartisan discussions about possible legislation, led on the Republican side by Texas senator John Cornyn.Read more here.Good morning, US politics blog readers, it’s going to be an exceptionally busy, high-stakes week in Washington with Americans’ constitutional rights and democracy itself under the spotlight.Here’s what’s on the agenda.
The US Senate is back in session on the Hill today after its latest recess and a bipartisan group of senators is exuding confidence that a package of gun control measures can make progress, while the leading lawmaker in talks warns of “significant” consequences of failure.
Talks continue amid another series of deadly shootings at the weekend, following grotesquely on the heels of the school massacre in Uvalde, Texas and the racist killing of Black Americans in a supermarket in Buffalo.
New measures under discussion do not include the demands of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris for a ban on assault weapons, following the recent carnage, but there is more progress being made right now on legislative talks than there has been for years.
The US Supreme Court is due to issue opinions today and Thursday, June being the crunch month for decisions arising in cases from the current term and with more than 30 decision to be declared. The public (and press) are not party to which cases will be announced until the bench speaks up.
Last but not least for this briefing note: the special House committee investigating events on and around the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the US Capitol by extremist supporters of then-president Donald Trump is in final preparations for its first public hearing, this Thursday in prime time – and the right is already revving up its riposte. More

Trump’s bid to cling to power ‘beyond Nixon’s imagination’, Watergate duo sayBob Woodward and Carl Bernstein write in new book foreword that bid to overturn election made Trump ‘our first seditious president’ Donald Trump was the first seditious president in US history, surpassing in his efforts to hang on to power beyond even the criminal imagination of Richard Nixon, according to the two political reporters who were instrumental in securing Nixon’s downfall.In a new foreword to their celebrated 1974 book on the Watergate scandal, All the President’s Men, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein accuse Trump of pursuing his “diabolical instincts” by zeroing in on the certification of Joe Biden’s presidential victory by Congress on January 6 last year. In the authors’ assessment, Trump’s unleashing of the mob that day, culminating in the violent attack on the US Capitol, amounted to “a deception that exceeded even Nixon’s imagination”.Capitol attack panel to unveil new evidence against Trump at public hearingsRead moreThey write in their foreword, published by the Washington Post, they write: “By legal definition this is clearly sedition … thus Trump became the first seditious president in our history.”Woodward and Bernstein’s comparison of Trump and Nixon carries singular weight, given that as young Washington Post reporters they helped to uncover Nixon’s campaign of political spying and cover-up that led in 1974 to the only resignation of a president in American history. In separate capacities, the two journalists have also reported extensively on the Trump presidency, with Woodward doing so in a series of three books: Fear, Rage and Peril.The timing of their analysis is also potent. It comes just days before the House select committee investigating the January 6 insurrection stages the first of at least six televised hearings in which they will attempt to show the American people that Trump acted corruptly in his efforts to stop Biden’s certification.Woodward and Bernstein suggest that the two presidents had much in common, despite the almost half a century that stands between them. Nixon’s belief that it was for the greater good that he stayed in power whatever the means was “embraced by Trump”, they write.“A man is not finished when he is defeated. He is finished when he quits,” Nixon told himself in 1969. That informed Trump’s campaign to hold on to power through falsehoods even in the face of defeat.Misinformation also unites the diabolical pair. “Both Nixon and Trump created a conspiratorial world in which the US constitution, laws and fragile democratic traditions were to be manipulated or ignored, political opponents and the media were ‘enemies,’ and there were few or no restraints on the powers entrusted to presidents,” Woodward and Bernstein say in their new foreword.The reporters also explore the differences between the two men, notably that Trump attempted his electoral subversion in public. Pulling no punches, they call the January 6 insurrection “a Trump operation” and predict that the House committee has an abundance of evidence to prove that point in the upcoming hearings.Though Nixon’s criminal misdeeds tend to be remembered through the lens of the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate Hotel on 17 June 1972, and the cover-up that followed, the authors remind their readers that his core purpose was to subvert that year’s presidential election. They rehearse some of the extreme measures that Nixon’s team of operatives took to derail the presidential campaign of his main Democratic rival, Senator Edmund Muskie of Maine.Those measures included writing fake letters on Muskie stationery alleging sexual misconduct by other Democratic candidates and stealing Muskie’s shoes from outside his hotel room where he had left them for polishing in order to spook him out. Muskie ultimately lost the Democratic nomination to the liberal senator George McGovern of South Dakota.Trump, the reporters argue, pursued equally ruthless tactics designed to undermine credibility in the 2020 presidential election. They reached a pitch on January 6 with the violent mob breaking into the Capitol chanting “Hang Mike Pence” against Trump’s vice-president who was proceeding with certification of the election results.In the last analysis, Woodward and Bernstein ask themselves why two such powerful men would embark on parallel efforts to destroy democracy. They have one overriding answer.“Fear of losing and being considered a loser was a common thread for Nixon and Trump,” they write.TopicsDonald TrumpBob WoodwardCarl BernsteinUS Capitol attackUS politicsRichard NixonWatergatenewsReuse this content More

US justice department declines to charge former Trump officials Meadows and Scavino with contempt of CongressDecision marks major blow for House committee investigating US Capitol attack The US Department of Justice will not pursue charges of criminal contempt of Congress against top former Trump White House officials Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino for refusing to comply with subpoenas in the congressional investigation into the January 6 attack on the Capitol.The decision – communicated to the counsel for the House of Representatives on Friday morning – marks a major blow for the House select committee investigating January 6, which had sought prosecutions for the two Trump aides in criminal referrals.But in a letter sent around the same time that the justice department charged former Trump White House official Peter Navarro with contempt for defying his subpoena, the US attorney for the District of Columbia said he would take no action against Meadows and Scavino.Secret Service were warned of security risk to Pence day before Capitol attackRead more“Based on the individual facts and circumstances of their alleged contempt, my office will not be initiating prosecutions for criminal contempt as requested in the referral against Messrs Meadows and Scavino,” the US attorney, Matthew Graves, said.The justice department’s letter, earlier reported by the New York Times, was confirmed to the Guardian by two sources familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private communications.In declining to prosecute Meadows and Scavino, Graves said in his letter that his office was also closing the probes into two of Trump’s most senior advisers. “Review of each of the contempt referrals arising from the Jan. 6 committee’s investigation is complete,” he said.Meadows did not respond to a request for comment on Friday. An attorney for Scavino could not be reached late on Friday. The US attorney’s office declined to comment.The decision marks the denouement for five months of speculation over whether the justice department would move to bring contempt charges against Meadows, who was deeply involved in Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results as White House chief of staff.Meadows was among the very first targets to receive a subpoena from the select committee and initially assisted the investigation under a cooperation agreement, turning over thousands of pages of documents and communications, until he abruptly withdrew from the deal.Ex-Trump adviser Peter Navarro indicted for defying Capitol attack panelRead moreThe select committee moved to recommend him for criminal contempt of Congress after he refused to attend a closed-door deposition, but that initial cooperation – in addition to his valid claims of executive privilege – appears to have brought him a reprieve.The select committee also recommended contempt of Congress charges for Dan Scavino, the former Trump White House deputy chief of staff for communications, who remained in close proximity to Trump on January 6 and was subpoenaed to give documents and testimony.Scavino is not understood to have provided any materials. But as with Meadows, Scavino spent months negotiating with the select committee over executive privilege and justice department office of legal counsel memos that shield presidential advisers from testifying.TopicsUS newsUS Capitol attackDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More

Trump aide Peter Navarro ordered to testify before grand jury over January 6Former White House adviser reveals federal subpoena, which also calls for documents to be handed over, in court filing Peter Navarro, a top White House adviser to Donald Trump, revealed in a court filing on Monday that he had been ordered to testify before a federal grand jury and produce to prosecutors any records concerning January 6, including communications with the former president.The grand jury subpoena to Navarro, which he said was served by two FBI agents last week, compels him to produce documents to the US attorney for the District of Columbia and could indicate widening justice department action ensnaring senior Trump administration officials.Trump calls Capitol attack an ‘insurrection hoax’ as public hearings set to beginRead moreNavarro’s disclosure about the subpoena came in an 88-page filing that seeks a federal court to declare the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack unlawful, in a desperate move to stop a potential contempt of Congress indictment for defying the panel’s subpoena.The grand jury subpoena appeared to be part of a case to hold Navarro in contempt rather than pertaining to the justice department’s criminal investigation into the Capitol attack, though the exact nature of the justice department subpoena was not immediately clear.But the new filing, reviewed by the Guardian, that Navarro will submit to the US district court for the District of Columbia, is not expected to succeed beyond causing a nuisance and possibly delaying the justice department from moving on a contempt indictment.The filing is seeking the court to rule that the select committee is not properly constituted and therefore illegal, because the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, refused last year to appoint some Republican members put forward by the House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy.Since the panel supposedly lacks a Republican minority – despite the presence of Republicans Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger – its subpoenas are unenforceable, the suit argues, and therefore his non-compliance with his subpoena is immaterial and should mean the justice department cannot act on a referral for contempt of Congress.The filing also asks the court to grant an injunction preventing the US attorney for the District of Columbia, Matthew Graves, from enforcing a 28 May 2022 grand jury subpoena compelling him to produce documents requested in the select committee subpoena.“Since the subpoena of the Committee is ultra vires, unlawful, and unenforceable, the US Attorney’s Grand Jury Subpoena is likewise ultra vires, unlawful, and unenforceable and the US Attorney must be enjoined from any actions to enforce this subpoena,” Navarro wrote.The argument that the select committee is not properly constituted has been a common charge levelled by some of Trump’s allies against the congressional investigation into January 6, as they seek to find any way to avoid having to cooperate with the sprawling investigation.But even as Navarro repeats the claim echoed by prominent Republican members of Congress challenging their subpoenas from the panel, he may find his suit an uphill battle given that multiple federal courts have repeatedly rejected that argument as meritless.Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee to the DC district court, most recently ruled this month that the panel was not illegitimate when the Republican National Committee mounted a legal challenge to block a subpoena demanding records from its email vendor, Salesforce.Navarro’s additional argument that Biden could not waive the executive privilege asserted by Trump that precluded him from testifying to the panel is also expected to run into difficulty given the supreme court rejected that reading of the presidential protection.In the opinion that declined to grant Trump an injunction to stop the National Archives turning over White House documents to the inquiry, the supreme court ruled that although Trump had some ability to assert executive privilege, it did not overcome Biden’s waiver.The arguments put forward by Navarro are questionable from a legal standpoint, two former US attorneys told the Guardian, broadly characterizing Navarro’s complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief as a frivolous suit designed to buy him time.A spokesman for the select committee declined to comment.Navarro was referred to the justice department for criminal contempt of Congress by the full House of Representatives in April after he entirely ignored a subpoena issued to him in February demanding that he produce documents and appear for a deposition.The top White House trade adviser to Trump was deeply involved in efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election from the very start, the Guardian has previously reported, deputizing his aides to help produce reports on largely debunked claims of election fraud.Navarro was also in touch with Trump’s legal team led by Rudy Giuliani and operatives working from a Trump “war room” at the Willard hotel in Washington to stop Biden’s election certification from taking place on January 6 – a plan he christened the “Green Bay Sweep”.TopicsUS Capitol attackTrump administrationnewsReuse this content More

Trump calls Capitol attack an ‘insurrection hoax’ as public hearings set to beginFormer president intensifies attacks on Liz Cheney at Wyoming rally and endorses her Republican primary challenger in midterm elections As the House committee investigating the attack on the US Capitol by extremist supporters of Donald Trump prepares to start public hearings next week, the former president called the insurrection on January 6, 2021, a hoax.Trump spoke at a rally in Wyoming on Saturday night in support of the Republican primary challenger in the midterm elections to congresswoman Liz Cheney. Cheney sits on the committee and has been vilified by Trump since she voted in favor of his historic second impeachment over the insurrection.Addressing the sub-capacity crowd at a rally in Casper for Republican candidate Harriet Hageman, Trump slammed Cheney, saying: “As one of the nation’s leading proponents of the insurrection hoax, Liz Cheney has pushed a grotesquely false, fabricated, hysterical partisan narrative.”Capitol attack panel to hold six public hearings as it aims to show how Trump broke lawRead moreHe added: “Look at the so-called word insurrection, January 6 – what a lot of crap.”Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives a week after a violent mob broke into the US Capitol to try in vain to prevent a joint session of congress certifying Democrat Joe Biden’s victory over Republican Trump in the 2020 presidential election.Trump was accused of inciting the deadly insurrection because he held a rally near the White House that morning, during which he urged the crowd to go to the Capitol and “fight like hell” to overturn the election result.Then as the violent mob, many carrying Trump banners, broke into the Capitol and rampaged through corridors, offices and chambers, attacking vastly outnumbered police officers and sending Democrats and Republicans fleeing for their lives, Trump ignored calls from colleagues and relatives to publicly call his supporters off and only hours later went on TV mildly telling people to “go home”.Trump was acquitted at his impeachment trial by the US Senate. A bipartisan Senate report later linked seven deaths to the Capitol attack on January 6.Lawmakers called for an independent commission to be created, similar to one set up after the terrorist attacks on the US on September 11 2001, to investigate the events on and leading up to January 6 and the involvement of the Trump White House.Republicans in the Senate killed that move so the House last summer formed a select committee to investigate the insurrection, chaired by Mississippi Democratic congressman Bennie Thompson but also including Republicans Adam Kinzinger and Cheney, the daughter of former vice-president Dick Cheney.The committee has since gathered mountains of evidence and taken testimony from numerous witnesses behind closed doors, while being stonewalled by many senior Republicans, and accuses Trump of attempting to lead a type of coup.January 6 ‘was a coup organized by the president’, says Jamie RaskinRead moreThe committee is due to hold a series of public hearings beginning 9 June and expects to present a report before the midterm elections in November. Separately, the Department of Justice is also investigating events on and surrounding the Capitol attack, led by the US attorney general, Merrick Garland.At the rally in Wyoming , Trump appeared to lament the treatment of those arrested for taking part in the Capitol attack, while falsely claiming that anti-fascist and Black Lives Matter movement anti-racism activists “have killed plenty”.“Look what they are doing to these people,” he said.More than 800 people have been charged with federal crimes relating to the riot on January 6, in the biggest federal criminal investigation since the 9/11 terrorist attacks.At least 300 have already pleaded guilty, mostly to misdemeanors, and nearly 20o have been sentenced. Approximately 100 others have trial dates.In the latest court cases, Matthew Mark Wood, of North Carolina, pleaded guilty last Friday to charges that he stormed the Capitol, including a felony charge of obstructing an official proceeding, and will be sentenced in September.He entered the Capitol by climbing through a smashed window and followed others who had overcome police through corridors and into House speaker Nancy Pelosi’s offices.Also last Friday Matthew Joseph Buckler, of Maryland, pleaded guilty and will be sentenced in July for “parading, demonstrating or picketing in a Capitol building” after also entering through a window breached by the mob.It was ruled in court that the former top leader of the far right, violent group the Proud Boys, Henry “Enrique” Tarrio, will remain jailed while awaiting trial on charges that he conspired with other members of the extremist group to take part in the insurrection.Tarrio, a south Florida resident, has been indicted on charges including conspiracy.TopicsUS newsDonald TrumpUS Capitol attackUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

Kevin McCarthy refuses to comply with January 6 attack panel subpoenaThe Republican minority leader sent an 11-page letter appearing to demand materials from the committee related to his questioning Kevin McCarthy, the top Republican in the House, indicated on Friday to the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack that he would not cooperate with a subpoena unless he could review deposition topics and the legal rationale justifying the request.The California congressman’s response adopts an adversarial position similar to other subpoenaed Republican Congress members, and it sets a conundrum for the panel over whether to entertain the requests that also challenge the January 6 inquiry’s legitimacy.McCarthy appeared to tell the select committee in an 11-page letter through his lawyer that he would not consider complying with the subpoena until House investigators turned over materials that would reveal what the panel intended to use in questioning ahead of a deposition.Rudy Giuliani stonewalls Capitol attack investigators during lengthy depositionRead moreThe House minority leader also asked the panel to give him internal analyses about the constitutional and legal rationales justifying the subpoena, and whether the panel would adhere to one-hour questioning between majority and minority counsel, according to the letter.McCarthy’s references to the minority counsel amounted to a thinly veiled attack at the investigation, which Republicans have called illegitimate because the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, refused last year to appoint some of McCarthy’s picks for the Republican minority.The accusations, however, are to some degree disingenuous: it was McCarthy who pulled all Republican participation, incensed at Pelosi’s refusals, rather than name different members. Pelosi later added Republican congressmembers Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger to the panel.McCarthy’s requests also appeared phrased in a manner expecting the select committee to decline his requests, with the letter accusing the panel of issuing unprecedented subpoenas to five House Republicans in an illegal and unconstitutional manner.“The select committee is clearly not acting within the confines of any legislative purpose,” the letter said. “It is unclear how the select committee believes it is operating within the bounds of law or even within the confines of any legislative purpose.”The response from McCarthy largely mirrored the response from Ohio congressman Jim Jordan on Wednesday. In the letter, obtained by the Guardian, Jordan said he would consider complying only if the panel shared material that put him under scrutiny.Like with Jordan, it was not immediately clear how McCarthy might act if the select committee refused his requests. The investigation’s standard operating procedure to date has been not to share such materials with witnesses, according to a source familiar with the matter.The panel’s next move could have significant ramifications for both its inquiry and Congress. If the panel refused the request and the five subpoenaed House Republicans in turn declined to cooperate, it could leave large unanswered questions about the Capitol attack.But it could also set a problematic precedent for Republicans themselves, who might like the idea of subpoenaing Democrats in partisan investigations should the GOP take control of the House – as Capitol Hill widely expects – after the 2022 midterm elections.A spokesperson for the select committee declined to comment.The resistance from McCarthy came as he and Jordan denounced the investigation as a “kangaroo court” in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. “For House Republican leaders to agree to participate in this political stunt would change the House forever,” they wrote.With McCarthy’s refusal to appear for a deposition without first receiving materials from the select committee, at least four of the five Republicans subpoenaed to testify about their roles in the events of 6 January have now declined to comply without some sort of negotiation.The current chairman of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus, Scott Perry, and its previous chairman, Andy Biggs, have both sent letters to the panel refusing to cooperate, CNN reported. It was not clear whether the fifth Republican, Mo Brooks, would comply.TopicsUS Capitol attackRepublicansHouse of RepresentativesUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

Jim Jordan demands material on him before complying with January 6 subpoenaRepublican congressman sent a six-page letter to the panel asking for materials that put him under scrutiny for his cooperation Republican congressman Jim Jordan told the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack that he would consider complying with the panel’s subpoena only if they shared the material that put him under scrutiny, according to a letter he sent Wednesday.The response by Jordan – the top Republican on the House judiciary committee who spoke to Donald Trump on January 6 – stopped short of a refusal to comply with his subpoena, though it was not clear how he would proceed if the panel refused his request.In the six-page letter sent to the select committee and obtained by the Guardian, Jordan demanded House investigators share with him all materials they intended to rely upon in questioning, materials in which he is referenced, and legal analyses about subpoenaing members of Congress.Capitol attack committee seeks appearance by Trump ally Jim JordanRead more“Because your subpoena is an unprecedented use of a committee’s compulsory authority against another member,” Jordan said in his letter, “I respectfully ask for the following material so that I may adequately further respond to your subpoena.”The response puts the ball in the select committee’s court, forcing House investigators to decide whether they will acquiesce to Jordan’s demands in the hope that it convinces him to give some testimony, or refuse and potentially close off any chance of cooperation.But the letter, which challenged the legality of the select committee and its subpoenas, appeared to be something of a gambit for Jordan, too. For one thing, it was not clear whether Jordan wanted to face the consequences for defying a subpoena if his demands were not met.The response from Jordan – finalized on Tuesday and sent to the panel on Wednesday – also included complaints that House investigators had not acted in good faith by issuing a subpoena around four months after Jordan apparently declined to give voluntary assistance.“Your subpoena was unprompted and, in light of the unaddressed points from my January 9 letter, plainly unreasonable. I write to strongly contest the constitutionality and validity of the subpoena in several respects,” Jordan said.The select committee’s subpoena to Jordan – which came alongside four other subpoenas to House minority leader Kevin McCarthy, Scott Perry, Andy Biggs and Mo Brooks – demanded testimony about his December 2020 meetings with Trump in the White House and other communications.House investigators took the step to issue the unprecedented subpoenas to five Republican members of Congress after Jordan, McCarthy and Perry did not appear for interviews on tentative dates suggested in initial letters seeking voluntary cooperation.TopicsUS Capitol attackRepublicansUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

Blow to Madison Cawthorn as appeals court reverses ‘insurrectionist’ rulingPeople who take part in insurrections against US government can be barred from office and 1872 act does not apply, court rules People who take part in insurrections against the US government can be barred from office, an appeals court said on Tuesday, reversing a ruling in favor of Madison Cawthorn, an extremist Republican politician from North Carolina.Trump-backed nominees lost in Georgia, but can Republicans escape the specter of Maga?Read moreHailing a “major victory”, Free Speech For People, the group which brought the case, said: “This ruling cements the growing judicial consensus that the 1872 Amnesty Act does not shield the insurrectionists of 6 January 2021 – including Donald Trump – from the consequences of their actions.”Cawthorn lost a primary this month and will not return to Congress in November. But Free Speech For People pursued an appeal.It also brought cases against Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, two Arizona Republicans, Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs, and an Arizona state representative, Mark Finchem. All have been unsuccessful.The challenges cited the the 14th amendment to the US constitution, passed after the civil war.It says: “No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath … to support the constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”Cawthorn and the other Republicans were closely tied to events around the deadly January 6 attack on the US Capitol by Trump supporters seeking to stop certification of Joe Biden’s election victory. They have denied knowledge of plans for violence.In answer to Free Speech for People, lawyers argued that an 1872 amnesty law for former Confederates did not only apply retroactively. Judges sided with them.Ruling in the Cawthorn appeal, Toby Heytens, one of a three-judge panel of the US court of appeals for the US fourth circuit, wrote: “The available evidence suggests that the Congress that enacted the 1872 Amnesty Act was, understandably, laser-focused on the then-pressing problems posed by the hordes of former Confederates seeking forgiveness.”Heytens also said only Congress could decide such matters, writing: “When the district court here tried to determine the effect of the 1872 Amnesty Act on Representative Cawthorn’s qualification for access to the ballot, the attempt amounted to a judging of his qualifications for office. The district court had no jurisdiction to make that call.”Praveen Fernandes, vice-president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, which filed an amicus brief, said: “Although Representative Cawthorn just lost his party’s nomination for his seat in Congress, today’s ruling remains an incredibly important one.“It makes clear that the 1872 Amnesty Act poses no barrier to similar future … challenges of the qualification of candidates to appear on the ballot, thus ensuring that section three of the 14th amendment can continue to serve its purpose as an important mechanism for holding public officials accountable when they violate their oaths of office.”Cawthorn did not immediately comment.TopicsRepublicansUS politicsUS Capitol attacknewsReuse this content More