Eliana Willis

Former Virginia police officer convicted of storming US CapitolThomas Robertson was found guilty of all six counts he faced stemming from his participation in the 6 January 2021 riots A federal jury has convicted a former Virginia police officer of storming the US Capitol with another off-duty officer, to obstruct Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s 2020 electoral victory.Proud Boys member pleads guilty to role in US Capitol attackRead moreJurors on Monday convicted former Rocky Mount police officer Thomas Robertson of all six counts he faced stemming from the 6 January riot, including charges that he interfered with police officers at the Capitol and that he entered a restricted area with a dangerous weapon – a large wooden stick.His sentencing hearing was not immediately scheduled.Robertson’s jury trial was the second among hundreds of Capitol riot cases. The first ended last month with jurors convicting a Texas man, Guy Reffitt, of all five counts in his indictment.Robertson did not testify at his trial, which started 5 April. Jurors deliberated for several hours over two days before reaching their unanimous verdict.One juror, who spoke to the Associated Press only on condition of anonymity, said as she left the courthouse, “I think the government made a really compelling case and the evidence was fairly overwhelming.”Defense attorney Mark Rollins said Robertson will appeal the jury’s verdict. “While Mr Robertson disagrees with the jury’s decision, he respects the rule of law,” Rollins said in a statement.A key witness for prosecutors in his case was Jacob Fracker, who also served on the Rocky Mount police force and viewed Robertson as a mentor and father figure.Fracker was scheduled to be tried alongside Robertson before he pleaded guilty last month to a conspiracy charge and agreed to cooperate with authorities. Fracker testified Thursday that he had hoped the mob that attacked the Capitol could overturn the 2020 presidential election results.Robertson was charged with six counts: obstruction of Congress, interfering with officers during a civil disorder, entering a restricted area while carrying a dangerous weapon, disorderly or disruptive conduct in a restricted area while carrying a dangerous weapon, disorderly or disruptive conduct inside the Capitol building, and obstruction. The last charge stems from his alleged post-riot destruction of cellphones belonging to him and Fracker.During the trial’s closing arguments Friday, assistant US attorney Risa Berkower said Robertson went to Washington and joined a “violent vigilante mob” because he believed the election was stolen from then-president Donald Trump. He used the wooden stick to interfere with outnumbered police before he joined the crowd pouring into the Capitol, she said.“The defendant did all this because he wanted to overturn the election,” Berkower said.Rollins conceded that Robertson broke the law when he entered the Capitol during the riot. He encouraged jurors to convict Robertson of misdemeanor offenses but urged them to acquit Robertson of felony charges that he used the stick as a dangerous weapon and that he intended to stop Congress from certifying the electoral college vote.“There were no plans to go down there and say, ‘I’m going to stop Congress from doing this vote,”’ Rollins said.Fracker testified that he initially believed that he was merely trespassing when he entered the Capitol building. However, he ultimately pleaded guilty to conspiring with Robertson to obstruct Congress.The town of Rocky Mount, which is about 25 miles south of Roanoke and has roughly 5,000 residents, fired Robertson and Fracker after the riot.TopicsUS Capitol attackWashington DCUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

Trump ‘very intent on bringing my brother down’, Joe Biden’s sister saysValerie Biden Owens, who has worked on all her brother’s campaigns, also says ‘no there there’ on her nephew Hunter Donald Trump is “very intent on bringing my brother down”, Joe Biden’s sister said.The Republican judge blocking her party from rigging electoral districtsRead more“The only race I wasn’t enthusiastic about Joe getting involved in was the 2020 presidency,” Valerie Biden Owens told CBS News.“Because I expected, and was not disappointed, that it would be ugly and mean, and it would be an attack on my brother, Joe, personally and professionally, because the former president is very intent on bringing my brother down.”A year and a half into his presidency, Biden is battling crises at home including inflation and the coronavirus pandemic and abroad, over the Russian invasion of Ukraine.Trump dominates the Republican party, propagating the “big lie” about voter fraud in his defeat by Biden which fueled the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, continuing to attack Biden as incapable of the demands of office, flirting with a third White House run and dispensing endorsements to candidates in the midterm elections.On Sunday, the Republican House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, claimed Republicans would not swiftly impeach Biden “for political purposes”, should as expected the party take the House in November.Biden Owens helped raise her brother’s children after his first wife and daughter were killed in a car crash and has worked on all his campaigns. She has written a book called Growing Up Biden: A Memoir.“I assumed from the beginning that the former president and his entourage would attack my brother by going and attacking my family,” she said.Trump has focused on Hunter Biden, the president’s son, who has written his own book about his struggle with addiction and whose business affairs are the subject of scrutiny.Hunter Biden was one subject of Trump’s attempt to withhold military aid from Ukraine in exchange for political dirt, an attempt that led to Trump’s first impeachment. To Republicans, Hunter Biden remains a tempting target. Federal investigators are known to be looking at his financial affairs.His aunt told CBS: “There hasn’t been a there, there since it was mentioned in 2019 or whenever it was.”‘TV is like a poll’: Trump endorses Dr Oz for Pennsylvania Senate nominationRead moreShe also said: “Hunter has written in exquisite detail about his struggle with addiction, his walk through hell, and I am so grateful he has been able to walk out of hell, but I don’t think there’s a family in this country who hasn’t tasted it.”Trump’s destructive power remains widely feared. Pundits and rivals are watching his endorsements closely, among them a choice to back Mehmet Oz, a TV doctor, for the Senate nomination in Pennsylvania, a pick many Republicans opposed.On Monday, a possible rival to Trump for the 2024 Republican nomination, Ron DeSantis, was offered a warning that might have sounded familiar to Valerie Biden Owens.Nikki Fried, a Democrat running to oppose DeSantis for governor in Florida, told Business Insider that if Trump runs again and gets back on Twitter – from which he has been banned since the Capitol attack – “I say one tweet created [DeSantis] and one tweet can destroy him”.TopicsJoe BidenDonald TrumpHunter BidenUS politicsUS elections 2024US elections 2020DemocratsnewsReuse this content More

Liz Cheney disputes report January 6 panel split over Trump criminal referralRepublican on House select committee, however, refuses to say whether Trump should be referred for criminal charges

Is Trump in his sights? Garland under pressure to charge
A key Republican on the House January 6 committee disputed a report which said the panel was split over whether to refer Donald Trump to the Department of Justice for criminal charges regarding his attempt to overturn the 2020 election, leading to the Capitol attack.‘Smoking rifle’: Trump Jr texted Meadows strategies to overturn election – reportRead more“There’s not really a dispute on the committee,” the Wyoming representative Liz Cheney told CNN’s State of the Union.The New York Times said otherwise on Sunday, in a report headlined: “January 6 Panel Has Evidence for Criminal Referral of Trump, but Splits on Sending.”“The debate centers on whether making a referral – a largely symbolic act – would backfire by politically tainting the justice department’s expanding investigation into the January 6 assault and what led up to it,” the paper said.Citing “members and aides”, the Times said such sources were reluctant to support a referral because it would create the impression Democrats had asked the attorney general, Merrick Garland, to investigate Trump.Cheney said: “We have not made a decision about referrals on the committee … [but] it’s actually clear that what President Trump was dealing with, what a number of people around him were doing, that they knew it was awful. That they did it anyway.”She was speaking two days after CNN reported that the January 6 committee had obtained text messages in which Donald Trump Jr laid out election subversion tactics to Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, just two days after election day.A leading legal authority, Harvard professor Laurence Tribe, called the text a “smoking rifle” in establishing culpability in Donald Trump’s inner circle.Cheney cited a decision “issued by [federal] Judge [David] Carter a few weeks ago, where he concluded that it was more likely than not the president United States was engaged in criminal activity.“I think what we have seen is a massive and well-organised and well-planned effort that used multiple tools to try to overturn an election.”Cheney pointed to a guilty plea this week by a member of the far-right Proud Boys group, Charles Donohoe, to conspiring to attack the Capitol in a bid to stop Congress certifying Joe Biden’s victory. Such planning for events in Washington on 6 January, in part broadcast by Trump, was she said “the definition of an insurrection” and “absolutely chilling”.But Cheney would not be drawn on whether Trump should be referred for prosecution.She said: “The committee has … a tremendous amount of testimony and documents that I think very, very clearly demonstrate the extent of the planning and the organisation and the objective, and the objective was absolutely to try to … interfere with that official proceeding. And it’s absolutely clear that they knew what they were doing was wrong. They knew that it was unlawful.”Asked if there was a dispute on the committee, Cheney said there was not.“The committee is working in a really collaborative way to discuss these issues,” she said, adding: “We’ll continue to work together to do so. So I wouldn’t characterise there as being a dispute on the committee … and I’m confident that we will we will work to come to agreement on on all of the issues that we’re facing.”Cheney said Ivanka Trump’s testimony this week was “helpful, as has been the testimony of many hundreds of others who have appeared in front of the committee”.Proud Boys member pleads guilty to role in US Capitol attackRead moreShe said Trump aides Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino, referred to the DoJ for criminal contempt charges this week, had been “contemptuous” in refusing to testify.On Sunday, Kevin McCarthy, the House Republican leader who ejected Cheney from leadership over her involvement in the January 6 committee, issued a statement in support of the fight for democracy in Ukraine, in the face of the Russian invasion.Asked if she saw irony in such words from a man who sided with Trump over the Capitol attack, Cheney said: “What I would say is that what’s happening today in Ukraine is a reminder that democracy is fragile that democracy must be defended, and that each one of us in a position to do so has an obligation to do so.“Clearly, I think Leader McCarthy failed to do that, failed to put his oath to the constitution ahead of his own personal political gains.”TopicsUS Capitol attackDonald TrumpRepublicansUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

Pro-Trump activist Ali Alexander to cooperate with Capitol attack inquiryAttorney says organizer of the ‘Stop the Steal’ movement will work with justice department after he was subpoenaed Ali Alexander, the prominent pro-Trump activist, will cooperate with the justice department investigation into the Capitol attack, making him the first high-profile political figure to agree to assist the government’s criminal inquiry into the events of January 6.The move is likely to give initial momentum to the newly expanded justice department investigation running in parallel to the House select committee investigation examining Donald Trump and the Capitol attack.An attorney for Alexander – the organizer of the “Stop the Steal” movement – told the Guardian that he had agreed to cooperate with the justice department since he was left with no choice after being issued a grand jury subpoena, and had been informed by the prosecutor that he was not currently a target of the investigation.The news of his cooperation was earlier reported by the New York Times.In a lengthy statement through his attorney, Alexander denounced the process as “hostile” but indicated he would comply with the grand jury subpoena asking about the “Women for America First” group and the “Save America March” events that immediately preceded the Capitol attack.Capitol attack investigators zero in on far-right Oath Keepers and Proud BoysRead more“I did nothing wrong and I am not in possession of any evidence that anyone else had plans to commit unlawful acts,” Alexander said in the statement. He has also denounced anyone who took part in or planned violence on 6 January 2021.Alexander said he did not think he could provide prosecutors with anything useful for the inquiry, noting he had not financed the equipment used for the Save America rally on the Ellipse near the White House and had not discussed the security for the event with the Trump White House.The statement added that he had not coordinated any movements with the Proud Boys militia group and he had only accepted an offer from the Oath Keepers militia group to act as security for a separate event he had planned near the Capitol, which ultimately did not take place.It was not clear what assistance Alexander might furnish. But he was deeply involved in efforts to invalidate the results of the 2020 election and had contacts with members of Congress and, according to the House select committee, White House officials.That is now of interest to the justice department, which recently expanded the scope of its January 6 inquiry to include Trump’s push to return himself to office, after spending months focused purely on the rioters that stormed the Capitol.A spokesperson for the justice department declined to comment.The subpoena to Alexander from the grand jury empaneled by federal prosecutors suggests the justice department investigation could go beyond that of the select committee, to which he testified voluntarily for about eight hours last December.It also indicates that the criminal inquiry could reach Trump’s inner circle, with the subpoena demanding information about members of the legislative and executive branches who were involved in efforts to obstruct the certification of Joe Biden’s election win.TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More

Trump says he regrets not marching on Capitol with supporters on January 6 Ex-president also rejects suggestions he used ‘burner phones’ on day of the assault in Washington Post interview Donald Trump has said he regrets not marching on the US Capitol building with his supporters on the day of the January 6 insurrection and again rejected suggestions he used “burner phones” on the day of the assault.In a defiant interview with the Washington Post the former president said he had pressed to march with his supporters on January 6, but was blocked from doing so by Secret Service agents. “Secret Service said I couldn’t go. I would have gone there in a minute,” Trump told the Post, later bragging about the size of the “tremendous crowd” at the “Save America” rally that day.Last month CBS News and the Post revealed internal White House phone records from the day of the attack on the Capitol showed a seven-hour-and-37-minute gap in Trump’s phone logs including the period in which the assault occurred. The reports revealed the House committee investigating the attack were examining whether Trump had used burner phones – disposable mobile phones – during that period.Trump has denied doing so and said he did not know the meaning of the term, but last week his former national security adviser John Bolton said the former president had used the term several times in conversations.In his interview with the Washington Post, Trump again denied use of burner phones and said he had not destroyed any call logs. He claimed instead he had not received many phone calls on the day of the assault, but remembered talking to two Republican congressmen, the House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, and Jim Jordan.“From the standpoint of telephone calls, I don’t remember getting very many,” he told the Post, later adding, “Why would I care about who called me? If congressmen were calling me, what difference did it make? There was nothing secretive about it. There was no secret.”Trump also acknowledged he had communicated with Ginni Thomas, wife of the conservative supreme court justice Clarence Thomas, during his presidency but said he was not aware of her lobbying around the 2020 election results.Text messages obtained by the Washington Post and received by the 6 January committee, revealed Ginni Thomas had repeatedly lobbied Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, to push to keep Trump in power after Joe Biden won the election.“First of all, her husband is a great justice. And she’s a fine woman. And she loves our country,” Trump said in his interview with the Post.The former president also said he had not been contacted by the 6 January committee and offered no clear indication of how he would respond if contacted. He branded his daughter Ivanka’s appearance before the committee earlier this week as “shame and harassment” but told the Post he was not aware of what she had said.The interview came as the committee received a cache of 101 emails belonging to the Trump lawyer John Eastman, which are likely to reveal details of the efforts undertaken to block former vice-president Mike Pence from certifying the election result in Congress on 6 January.On Wednesday the House also voted to hold two former senior Trump aides, Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with subpoenas issues by the committee, paving the way for potential criminal prosecution.TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsDonald TrumpUS elections 2020newsReuse this content More

House votes to hold Trump duo Navarro and Scavino in contempt of CongressApproval of contempt resolution over months-long defiance of subpoenas sets pair on path towards criminal prosecution by DoJ The House voted on Wednesday to hold two of Donald Trump’s top advisers – Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino – in criminal contempt of Congress for their months-long refusal to comply with subpoenas issued by the House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack.The approval of the contempt resolution, by a vote of 220 to 203, sets the two Trump aides on the path toward criminal prosecution by the justice department as the panel escalates its inquiry into whether Trump oversaw a criminal conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election.Congressman Jamie Raskin, a member of the select committee who introduced the contempt resolution to the House floor, said the select committee needed the House to advance the measure in order to reaffirm the consequences for defying the January 6 investigation.January 6 panel receives Trump lawyer emails about plan to block Biden victoryRead moreCiting a ruling by a federal judge last week that Trump “likely” committed felonies to return himself to the Oval Office for a second term, Raskin said on the House floor that the panel wanted Navarro and Scavino’s cooperation because they engaged in trying to overthrow an election.But having refused to comply with their subpoenas in any form, Raskin said that “these two witnesses have acted in contempt of Congress and the American people; we must hold them in contempt of Congress and the American people”.The contempt citations approved by the House now head to the justice department and the US attorney for the District of Columbia, Matthew Graves, who is required by law to weigh a prosecution and present the matter before a federal grand jury.Should the justice department secure a conviction against the Trump aides, the consequences could mean up to a year in federal prison, $100,000 in fines, or both – though it would not force their compliance, and pursuing the misdemeanor charge could take months.The subpoena defiance by Navarro and Scavino meant the select committee was ultimately unable to extract information directly from them about Trump’s unlawful scheme to have then-vice president Mike Pence stop Joe Biden’s election win certification on 6 January.But the panel has quietly amassed deep knowledge about their roles in the effort to return Trump to office in recent weeks, and senior staff decided that they could move ahead in the inquiry without hearing from the two aides, say sources close to the inquiry.The determination by the select committee that Navarro and Scavino’s cooperation was no longer essential came when it found it could fill in the gaps from others, the sources said, and led to the decision to break off negotiations for their cooperation.The final decision to withdraw from talks reflected the panel’s belief that it was not worth the time – the probe is on a time crunch to complete its work before the November midterms – to pursue their testimony for potentially only marginal gain, the sources said.House investigators had sought cooperation from Navarro, a former Trump senior advisor for trade policy who became enmeshed in the effort to reverse Trump’s election defeat, for around a month until it became apparent they were making no headway.The select committee issued a subpoena to Navarro since he helped devise – by his own admission on MSNBC and elsewhere – the scheme to have Pence stop Biden’s certification from taking place as part of one Trump “war room” based at the Willard hotel in Washington.Navarro also worked with the Trump campaign’s legal team to pressure legislators in battleground states win by Biden to decertify the results and instead send Trump slates of electors for certification by Congress at the joint session in January 6.But when that plan started to go awry, Navarro encouraged then-Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to call political operative Roger Stone to discuss January 6, the panel said in its contempt of Congress report published last week.The former Trump aide, however, told the select committee – without providing any evidence – that the former president had asserted executive privilege over the contents of his subpoena and would therefore not provide documents or testimony.With Scavino, the select committee first issued Trump’s former deputy White House chief of staff for communications in September last year, since he had attended several meetings with Trump where election fraud matters were discussed, the panel said.But after the panel granted to Scavino six extensions that pushed his subpoena deadlines from October 2021 to February 2022, the former Trump aide also told House investigators that he too would not comply with the order because Trump invoked executive privilege.The select committee rejected those arguments of executive privilege, saying neither Navarro nor Scavino had grounds for entirely defying the subpoenas because either Trump did not formally invoke the protections, or because Biden ultimately waived them.At the business meeting last week where the select committee voted unanimously to recommend that the full House find Navarro and Scavino in contempt of Congress, Raskin delivered an emotional rebuke of the supposed executive privilege arguments.“This is America, and there’s no executive privilege here for presidents, much less trained advisors, to plan coups and organize insurrections against the people’s government in the people’s constitution and then to cover up the evidence of their crimes.“These two men,” Raskin said of Navarro and Scavino, “are in contempt of Congress and we must say, both for their brazen disregard for their duties and for our laws and our institutions.”Attending an event featuring Trump at Mar-a-Lago on Tuesday night, Navarro made a point of appearing aloof to his impending referral to the justice department. “Oh that vote,” Navarro said dismissively, the Washington Post reported.TopicsDonald TrumpUS Capitol attackUS politicsHouse of RepresentativesUS CongressnewsReuse this content More

Trump lawyer discussed plans to block Biden victory, emails revealJanuary 6 panel receives 101 emails belonging John Eastman, concerning plans to obstruct certification of 2020 election result The House select committee investigating the January 6 insurrection at the US Capitol has received a cache of emails belonging to Donald Trump’s lawyer, John Eastman, federal court documents filed on Tuesday show.The 101 emails were released to the committee after Judge David Carter ruled in federal court in California last week that Eastman, a hard-right supporter of the former US president, had not made a sufficient claim to attorney-client privilege.The cache of documents, sent between 4 and 7 January 2021, contains extensive communications between Eastman and others about plans to obstruct the certification of Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election.These included proposed efforts to push Trump’s former vice-president, Mike Pence, to reject or delay counting electoral college votes and weaponizing false allegations of voter fraud in numerous state lawsuits.In one email, which includes a draft memo for Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, recommending Pence reject some states’ electors during the 6 January congressional meeting, Carter ruled for disclosure as the communications were being used to plan criminal activity.“The draft memo pushed a strategy that knowingly violated the Electoral Count Act, and Dr Eastman’s later memos closely track its analysis and proposal,” the ruling says. “The memo is both intimately related to and clearly advanced the plan to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.”Neither Trump nor Eastman have been charged with crimes relating to 6 January and the order on Eastman’s emails was made in civil court.Others references to emails in the judge’s ruling allude to other plans Eastman was involved in.“In a different email thread,” Carter writes, “Dr Eastman and a colleague consider how to use a state court ruling to justify Vice-President Pence enacting the plan. In another email, a colleague focuses on the ‘plan of action’ after the January 6 attacks, not mentioning future litigation.”The sprawling select committee investigation, chaired by the Democratic congressman Bennie Thompson from Mississippi, has interviewed more than 800 people as part of its investigation into the events on January 6.On Tuesday, Thompson confirmed that Ivanka Trump, the former president’s daughter, had appeared before the committee, marking the first time a member of the immediate Trump family had appeared.Reports indicated her testimony lasted about eight hours. The testimony followed an appearance before the committee by her husband, Jared Kushner, the previous week.TopicsDonald TrumpUS Capitol attackHouse of RepresentativesUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

Barack Obama jokingly referred to Joe Biden as ‘vice-president’ on his return to the White House for the first time since 2017. The 44th president was there to celebrate the Affordable Care Act and offered Biden a potential boost ahead of the midterm elections

Back to the future as Obama sprinkles some stardust on Biden White House More