Eliana Willis

More stories

  • 138 Shares119 Views

    in Elections

    Trump double negative: Twitter sees proof positive of no electoral fraud

    Trump double negative: Twitter sees proof positive of no electoral fraudCritics pounce on statement that ‘anybody that doesn’t think’ 2020 election was rigged ‘is either very stupid or very corrupt’

    Trump rails against Meadows for revealing Covid cover-up
    The double negative, a common grammatical elephant trap, claimed a high-profile victim on Saturday night. Donald Trump.Trump social media company claims to raise $1bn from investorsRead moreIn a statement, the former president said: “Anybody that doesn’t think there wasn’t massive election fraud in the 2020 presidential election is either very stupid, or very corrupt!”There was no massive election fraud in the 2020 presidential election, which Trump lost to Joe Biden by 306-232 in the electoral college and by more than 7m ballots in the popular vote.But Trump thinks, or at least says, that there was massive election fraud. Though his own formula would therefore make him “very stupid, or very corrupt”, his claims have had deadly effect, stoking the attack on the US Capitol on 6 January.That led to Trump’s expulsion from social media, which is why he now communicates by statement, nominally a means of communication less open to spontaneous error.As it happens, Trump has some sort of form with double negatives and the dangers they pose.In July 2018, in Helsinki, he famously stood next to Vladimir Putin of Russia and said “I don’t see any reason why it would be” Russia, which interfered in the 2016 US election.Under fire for that remark, Trump said: “The sentence should have been: ‘I don’t see any reason why I wouldn’t’ or ‘why it wouldn’t be Russia’. Sort of a double negative.”Mockery was delighted and swift. So it was again on Saturday night, on Twitter, perhaps the lost platform most costly to Trump.Kyle Cheney, a reporter for Politico, wrote: “This… doesn’t say what Donald Trump thinks it does.”The ABC correspondent Jon Karl, author of a bestselling book on the end of Trump’s presidency, offered a slice of wishful thinking: “He finally conceded …”And George Conway, a conservative critic married to a loyal Trump adviser, Kellyanne Conway, wrote: “Seriously, I usually don’t find it unsurprising when he says something that’s not inaccurate, but no one – not even the former guy – can be not correct all the time.”TopicsDonald TrumpUS politicsUS elections 2020RepublicansnewsReuse this content More

  • 138 Shares119 Views

    in Elections

    Nevada man arrested for allegedly assaulting police at US Capitol attack

    Nevada man arrested for allegedly assaulting police at US Capitol attack
    Josiah Kenyon allegedly beat officers with table leg and flag staff
    ‘Handful of fanatics’ to blame for Capitol attack, says Meadows
    A 34-year-old Nevada man has been arrested and held on multiple charges related to the 6 January riot at the US Capitol, including assaulting law officers with what prosecutors say appeared to be a table leg with a protruding nail. Trump rails against Meadows for revealing Covid test cover-up – reportRead moreA US magistrate in Reno on Friday ordered Josiah Kenyon of Winnemucca to remain jailed without bail, until he is transported to Washington to face charges. Charges include engaging in physical violence in a restricted building or grounds, civil disorder and assaulting, resisting or impeding officers with a dangerous weapon. Kenyon was arrested on Wednesday in Reno. He made his initial appearance in US district court via a video-hookup along with his court-appointed lawyer, Lauren Gorman. She asserted Kenyon’s constitutional rights to remain silent and have his attorney present. She did not immediately respond to a request for comment.A federal criminal complaint filed by the US attorney’s office for the District of Columbia says photographs and video show Kenyon was among rioters who entered the Capitol in support of Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn his election defeat by Joe Biden. More than 670 people have been charged with federal crimes related to the riot. At least 140 have pleaded guilty, mostly to misdemeanor charges. On 6 January, Kenyon was wearing a red Make America Great Again hat and a Jack Skellington costume, based on a character from the movie The Nightmare Before Christmas, the complaint said. He tried to break a Capitol window with a flag staff and assaulted officers with several objects including the table leg. Images show Kenyon strike numerous officers with the table leg, including one riot-gear clad officer in the head, the complaint said. “The protruding nail appears to become momentarily stuck between the top of the officer’s face shield and helmet,” FBI special agent Matthew Lariccia said in a statement filed with the complaint. FBI agents interviewed three witnesses in the Washington area who believed Kenyon was the person in the photos, Larricia said. Two others, including a relative, positively identified a photo in April, and in September the Washington Metro transit authority confirmed fare and bank records consistent with his presence at the uprising.TopicsUS Capitol attackUS crimenewsReuse this content More

  • 138 Shares119 Views

    in Elections

    Trump rails against Meadows for revealing Covid test cover-up – report

    Trump rails against Meadows for revealing Covid test cover-up – reportGuardian revealed explosive claims in chief of staff’s memoirTrump slams ‘fake news’ but in private says aide ‘fucking stupid’ In a blurb on the cover of Mark Meadows’ new book, Donald Trump calls the former congressman a “great chief of staff – as good as it gets” and predicts “a great future together”. The former president has also promoted the book to his followers.Trump tested positive for Covid few days before Biden debate, chief of staff says in new bookRead moreNow the book is in the public domain, however, the former president reportedly thinks it is “garbage” and that Meadows was “fucking stupid” to write it.Influential members of the House committee investigating the deadly Capitol attack, meanwhile, have said Meadows may have undermined his own defence when seeking to block their inquiries.The Chief’s Chief will be published next week. This week, the Guardian broke the news that according to Meadows, Trump tested positive for Covid three days before the first presidential debate with Joe Biden in September last year.Meadows also details how that test, like another which came back negative, was covered up. Trump eventually announced a positive test on 2 October, the day he was admitted to hospital in Maryland. The White House said that positive result was announced within an hour.This week, amid huge controversy over whether Trump had endangered not only Biden but the White House press corps, debate staff, the families of fallen US service members, businessmen and more, Trump called the Guardian report “fake news” – a judgment with which Meadows, bizarrely, agreed.But outlets including the New York Times and the Washington Post confirmed the cover-up.Late on Friday, the Daily Beast cited three anonymous sources as saying Trump had spent “an inordinate amount of the past few days privately railing against Meadows, the revelation in the memoir, and, of course, the extensive media coverage of the matter”.Trump, the Beast said, was now “aggressively scolding” his former chief of staff – whose book is filled with effusive expressions of loyalty – and had said he did not know the “garbage” about the positive test would be included in Meadows’ memoir.A source close to the ex-president, the Beast said, said he “bemoaned that Meadows had been so – in Trump’s succinct phrasing – ‘fucking stupid’ with his book”.The Beast also reported that Meadows was horrified by the turn of events.“He thought Trump was going to love it,” the website quoted a source as saying.Meadows may not love what may be coming his way from the House committee investigating the Capitol attack – also as a result of his book.The Guardian obtained Meadows’ book the same day he agreed to cooperate with the panel, under threat of a charge of contempt of Congress.But though Meadows’ discussion of 6 January is highly selective and seeks to play down the attack – which as the Guardian first reported he claims was carried out by a “handful of fanatics” – it could yet prove important.Like other Trump aides and Trump himself, Meadows has claimed executive privilege, covering communications between a president and his staff, shields him from scrutiny by the select committee.‘Handful of fanatics’ to blame for Capitol riot, Trump ally Meadows says in bookRead moreAdam Schiff of California, the chair of the House intelligence committee and a member of the 6 January panel, told Politico: “It’s … very possible that by discussing the events of 6 January in his book … [Meadows is] waiving any claim of privilege.“So, it’d be very difficult for him to maintain ‘I can’t speak about events to you, but I can speak about them in my book.’”Jamie Raskin of Maryland, another Democrat on the panel, said: “You can’t assert a privilege that you have waived by virtue of your other actions.”Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the committee chair, told reporters he had seen coverage of Meadows’ memoir.“Some of what we plan to ask him is in the excerpts of the book,” Thompson said.TopicsTrump administrationDonald TrumpUS Capitol attackHouse of RepresentativesnewsReuse this content More

  • 138 Shares109 Views

    in Elections

    Sidney Powell filed false incorporation papers for non-profit, grand jury finds

    Sidney Powell filed false incorporation papers for non-profit, grand jury findsTrump’s lawyer falsely claimed two men as fellow directors of Defending the Republic in an apparent effort to attract donors A federal grand jury investigating Donald Trump’s former attorney Sidney Powell has uncovered evidence that Powell filed false incorporation papers with the state of Texas for a non-profit she heads, Defending the Republic, according to sources close to the investigation.In the incorporation papers, Powell – who filed lawsuits across the US questioning the 2020 election result which Trump lost to Joe Biden – listed two men whom she said served with her on the organization’s board of directors, even though neither one of them gave Powell permission to do so.Revealed: how Sidney Powell could be disbarred for lying in court for TrumpRead moreAs a private attorney, Powell, in the service of Trump, has gained notoriety as she has increasingly embraced implausible conspiracy theories such as that the FBI had attempted to frame Trump to drive him from office, and that Joe Biden’s election as president of the United States was illegitimate. Her lawsuits to overturn the outcome of the 2020 presidential election have all failed, often met with scathing criticism from judges who have overseen them, one of whom sanctioned her for alleged ethical misconduct and referred her to the Texas state bar for investigation.Powell did not respond to multiple requests for comment for this story.The broader federal criminal inquiry into Powell, led by the United States attorney for the District of Columbia, has since last fall been examining allegations of fundraising and financial fraud by Powell in the running of the group, according to documents reviewed by the Guardian.Incorporation papers Powell filed with the Texas secretary of state on 1 December 2020 for Defending the Republic (DTR), listed only three people as comprising the group’s initial board: Powell herself, the Georgia attorney Linn Wood; and Brannon Castleberry, a Beverly Hills-based businessman and consultant.The federal grand jury has reviewed extensive documentation that neither Wood nor Castleberry ever consented to serve on DTR’s board. One of the two men has said he wasn’t notified, even after the fact, that Powell had named him as a board member. The grand jury is investigating whether Powell misrepresented the makeup of her board in an effort to attract more donors.The federal investigators are also trying to determine whether Powell diverted money from DTR for her own personal use.They are also looking into whether Powell defrauded donors by falsely claiming their donations to DTR were used to finance lawsuits Powell filed to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Powell has said the mission of DTR has been to “protect the integrity of elections in the United States”, but to do so required that “millions of dollars must be raised”. But investigators have only found a single instance in which DTR funds were used to finance one of Powell’s numerous high-profile election cases.In testimony given in a civil defamation lawsuit, Brandon Johnson, an attorney for DTR, confirmed that Wood and Castleberry were listed in the non-profit’s Texas incorporation records as the group’s only other two original board members besides Powell.During a sworn deposition in the case, Johnson testified: “That’s an important area to clarify. Apparently, the paperwork was corrected. Neither Brannon Castleberry nor Linn Wood served as directors. This was subsequently corrected.” Johnson further testified that neither Wood nor Castleberry had ever served DTR in any other capacity.Johnson’s testimony was given in a defamation lawsuit brought against Powell by Eric Coomer, a former Dominion Voting Systems employee, against whom Powell made baseless and since throroughly debunked allegations, claiming that Coomer had conspired with antifa, the amorphous and leaderless anti-fascist movement, to steal the 2020 presidential election from Trump.Ironically, the federal investigation is also looking into whether Powell improperly used funds from DTR to defend herself in defamation cases brought against her by both Coomer and Dominion.Powell’s misrepresentations regarding her board are strikingly similar to other incidents during that same period.The Guardian disclosed on Thursday that Powell had also named several individuals as plaintiffs or co-counsel in her election-related cases without their permission. Several said that they only found out that Powell had named them once the cases were already filed.During this same time-span, Powell also named several other lawyers – albeit, with their permission in those instances – as co-counsel in her election-related cases, despite the fact that they played little or no role in bringing or litigating those cases.A former consultant to DTR told the Guardian that Powell’s actions in lying about who was on her board, who were co-counsel or plaintiffs in her cases, and also exaggerating the nominal role of others assisting her, was to convey the appearance to potential donors that she was at the helm of an “elite strike force” who would overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.TopicsUS newsUS elections 2020newsReuse this content More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Elections

    Capitol attack panel recommends contempt prosecution for Jeffrey Clark

    Capitol attack panel recommends contempt prosecution for Jeffrey ClarkFormer Trump DoJ official punished for refusal to comply with subpoena but gets last chance after 11th-hour statement The House select committee investigating the Capitol attack recommended on Wednesday the criminal prosecution of the former Trump justice department official Jeffrey Clark, over his refusal to comply with a subpoena in the inquiry into the 6 January insurrection.The select committee approved the contempt of Congress report unanimously. The resolution now heads to the full House of Representatives, which could refer Clark for prosecution in a vote that could come as soon as next week.Bennie Thompson, the chairman of the select committee, said at the vote to report Clark in contempt that the panel was seeking his criminal prosecution to demonstrate their resolve in enforcing subpoenas, and to warn other Trump aides about the penalties for non-compliance.Trump called aides hours before Capitol riot to discuss how to stop Biden victoryRead more“The select committee has no desire to be placed in this situation but Mr Clark has left us no other choice. He chose this path. He knew what consequences he might face if he did so. This committee and this House must insist on accountability,” Thompson said.But the select committee gave Clark one final opportunity to escape a referral to the justice department for prosecution by appearing at a new deposition on Saturday, after his attorney said in an 11th-hour letter that Clark now intended to claim the fifth amendment.“The committee would certainly consider that we will not finalize his contempt process if Mr Clark genuinely cures his failure to comply with the subpoena this Saturday,” the vice-chair of the select committee, Liz Cheney, said at the vote.The reprieve for Clark means that the select committee may ultimately take no action against him, even if he claims the fifth amendment – his right to protect himself against self-incrimination – for almost every question put before him at the deposition on Saturday.“The fifth amendment is part of the constitution. Our committee is here to defend the constitution against a violent assault,” said the select committee member Jamie Raskin. “So we’re not going to begrudge anyone an honest invocation of the fifth amendment.”“If he thinks that his communications with Trump or anyone else reveal criminal activity, and he has a reasonable fear that that can be used against him, then he’s got an opportunity to exercise the fifth amendment,” Raskin said. That could mean House investigators learn nothing more about Clark’s role in Trump’s scheme. But if Clark testifies under immunity, he would then have to respond truthfully to all questions asked by the select committee.Raskin told reporters after the vote that the contempt report would next go to the House rules committee, which would prepare it for a full House vote, which remains on the table should Clark not cooperate to a satisfactory degree at his new deposition.The select committee’s recommendation could bring grave consequences for Clark: if the report is passed by the House, the justice department is required to take the matter before a federal grand jury, which last month indicted the former Trump adviser Steve Bannon over his subpoena defiance.In his opening statement before the vote, Thompson noted that Clark’s attorney had sent a letter to the select committee late on Monday night stating that Clark had experienced a late change of mind and would claim fifth amendment protection.But Thompson said even though the select committee would provide Clark an opportunity to assert that protection at a second deposition on Saturday, he viewed the move as “a last-ditch attempt to delay the select committee’s proceedings” and would proceed with the vote to recommend his prosecution.The select committee would only move to halt the contempt of Congress proceeding if Clark demonstrated that he intended to fully cooperate with House investigators, Liz Cheney, the vice chair of the select committee said in her opening statement.A successful contempt prosecution could result in up to a year in federal prison, $100,000 in fines, or both – although the misdemeanor offense may not ultimately lead to his cooperation, and pursuing the charge could still take years.The select committee subpoenaed Clark last month as it sought to uncover the extent of his role in Donald Trump’s scheme to subvert the results of the 2020 election and stop the certification of Joe Biden’s election win on 6 January.Thompson said at the time that the subpoena, which followed a Senate judiciary committee report detailing Clark’s efforts to abuse the justice department for Trump, also sought to identify who else in the Trump administration had been involved in the scheme.But after Trump issued a directive to former aides to refuse to cooperate with the investigation, even though Clark agreed to appear before investigative counsel at a deposition, he declined to answer questions broadly citing attorney-client and executive privileges.The select committee on Tuesday rejected those arguments, saying Clark had no basis to refuse his subpoena on grounds of privilege because Trump had never formally asserted the protections – but also because Clark tried to use executive privilege for non-privileged material.“Mr Clark refused to answer questions regarding whether he used his personal phone or email for official business, when he met a specific member of Congress, and what statements he made to media,” the contempt report said, “none of which involve presidential communication.”The contempt report added that even if the select committee had accepted his executive privilege claim, the law made clear that even senior White House officials advising sitting presidents don’t have the kind of immunity from congressional inquiries being claimed by Clark.The select committee also objected to the argument by Clark’s counsel that he could not respond to the panel’s questions until the courts resolved whether Trump could use executive privilege to block the National Archives from turning over White House documents.“This is not a valid objection to a subpoena, and the select committee is not aware of any legal authority that supports this position,” the report said. “The issues raised in the National Archives litigation are wholly separate and distinct from those raised by Mr Clark.”Ahead of the select committee’s vote to recommend prosecution, Clark’s attorney, Harry MacDougal, disagreed and told Thompson in a letter that Clark could not testify until the National Archives case was decided.“He is duty-bound not to provide testimony to your committee covering information protected by the former president’s assertion of executive privilege,” MacDougalsaid of Clark in the letter. “Mr Clark cannot answer deposition questions at this time.”The Senate report found Clark had played a leading role in efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, leveraging his role at the justice department to do Trump’s bidding and pressure the then acting attorney general, Jeff Rosen, to avow debunked claims of fraud.It detailed, for instance, a 2 January confrontation during which Clark demanded that Rosen send Georgia election officials a letter that falsely claimed the justice department had identified fraud – and threatened to push Trump to fire him if he refused.The move to recommend the criminal prosecution of Clark for contempt marks the second such confrontation, after the select committee last month voted unanimously to hold Bannon in contempt of Congress for also ignoring his subpoena in its entirety.Bannon also cited Trump’s directive, first reported by the Guardian, for former aides and advisers to defy subpoenas and refrain from turning over documents, in his refusal to cooperate with the select committee’s investigation.Bannon was indicted on two counts of contempt of Congress by a federal grand jury earlier in November. He has pleaded not guilty and vowed to “go on the offense” against Biden and the select committee.TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

  • 175 Shares189 Views

    in Elections

    Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to testify before Capitol attack committee

    Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to testify before Capitol attack committeeMeadows will appear for a deposition and provide documents exempt from executive privilege before the committee The former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows will testify before the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack as part of an initial cooperation agreement reached with his lawyer, the panel’s chairman, Bennie Thompson, announced on Tuesday.Michael Cohen: prosecutors could ‘indict Trump tomorrow’ if they wantedRead moreThe agreement involves Meadows appearing for a deposition and providing documents that are not protected by executive privilege. The move is aimed at staving off the threat of criminal prosecution for defying a subpoena in its entirety.“Meadows has been engaging with the select committee,” Thompson said. “He has produced records to the committee and will soon appear for an initial deposition. The committee will continue to assess his degree of compliance with our subpoena after the deposition.”The select committee is seeking to hear from Meadows since his role as White House chief of staff means he may hold the key to unlocking the extent of Trump’s involvement in efforts to stop the congressional certification of Joe Biden’s election victory.The select committee also believes that Meadows remained by Trump’s side for most of 6 January and was therefore in a unique position to know what the former president was privately thinking and doing at the White House as the deadly attack on the Capitol unfolded.But after Trump directed his former aides to defy subpoenas issued by the select committee on grounds of executive privilege, Meadows refused to appear for depositions or turn over materials while he negotiated the scope of his cooperation with the committee.That left Meadows vulnerable to criminal prosecution for defying his subpoena first issued in September, but Thompson said in a statement on Tuesday that the select committee had at least tentatively resolved that impasse.Still, the agreement is understood to be delicate and Thompson appeared to suggest that Meadows still risked facing contempt of Congress charges alongside the former Trump adviser Steve Bannon and Trump Department of Justice official Jeffrey Clark, if he violated the deal.As part of the deposition arrangement, the select committee did not agree to take any topics for questioning off the table. Meadows also retains the ability to invoke executive privilege and refuse to respond over the course of his testimony.“As we have from the beginning, we continue to work with the select committee and its staff to see if we can reach an accommodation that does not require Mr Meadows to waive executive privilege,” Meadows’s attorney George Terwilliger said in a statement.The acknowledgment of the agreement, first reported by CNN, means the select committee may depose its first Trump White House aide before the end of the year after struggling to compel the cooperation of any other top Trump administration official.The select committee is expected to vote unanimously on Wednesday to hold Clark, the former Trump DoJ official, in contempt of Congress after he ignored a subpoena demanding documents and testimony in its entirety, citing vague claims of attorney-client privilege.The full House of Representatives earlier referred Bannon, Trump’s former adviser, to the justice department for prosecution after he also defied a subpoena. Bannon pleaded not guilty to two contempt of Congress charges and is expected to fight his indictment.TopicsUS Capitol attackDonald TrumpHouse of RepresentativesTrump administrationnewsReuse this content More

  • 138 Shares99 Views

    in Elections

    Trump challenges media and Democrats to debate his electoral fraud lie

    Trump challenges media and Democrats to debate his electoral fraud lie
    Former president issues typically rambling statement
    Capitol attack: Schiff says Meadows contempt decision soon
    Donald Trump has challenged leading editors and politicians to debate him in public over his lie that Joe Biden beat him in 2020 through electoral fraud.In a typically rambling statement on Sunday, the former president complained about “the heads of the various papers [and] far left politicians” and said: “If anyone would like a public debate on the facts, not the fiction, please let me know. It will be a ratings bonanza for television!”Can the Republican party escape Trump? Politics Weekly Extra – podcastRead moreDespite Trump’s insistence that “the 2020 election was rigged and stolen” – and his well-known fixation on TV ratings – it was not.Even William Barr, an attorney general widely seen as willing to run interference for Trump, publicly stated there was no evidence of widespread electoral fraud.Biden beat Trump by more than 7m in the popular vote and by 306-232 in the electoral college, a result Trump called a landslide when he beat Hillary Clinton by it in 2016. Clinton also beat him in the popular vote.Trump’s proposal of a public debate – which seemed unlikely to bear fruit – extended to what he called “members of the highly partisan unselect committee of Democrats who refuse to delve into what caused the 6 January protest”.The attack on the US Capitol, Trump said, was caused by “the fake election results”.In a way, he was right. It was his lies about the election which led to the deaths of five people around the attack on Congress by a mob seeking to stop certification of Biden’s win, some chanting that Trump’s vice-president, Mike Pence, should be hanged.At a rally near the White House shortly before the riot, Trump told supporters to “fight like hell” in his cause. He was impeached for inciting an insurrection but acquitted when only seven GOP senators found him guilty, not enough to convict.On Sunday, Adam Schiff, the Democratic chair of the House intelligence committee and a member of the 6 January panel, told CNN: “We tried to hold the former president accountable through impeachment. That’s the remedy that we have in Congress. We are now trying to expose the full facts of the former president’s misconduct as well as those around him.”To adapt the Tennessee Republican Howard Baker’s famous question about Richard Nixon and Watergate, the House committee is focusing on what Trump knew about plans for protest and possible violence on 6 January – and when he knew it.00:45Numerous Trump aides and allies have been served with subpoenas. Most, like the former White House strategist Steve Bannon, who has pleaded not guilty to contempt of Congress in the first such case since 1983, have refused to cooperate.‘The goal was to silence people’: historian Joanne Freeman on congressional violenceRead moreSchiff said a decision on a possible contempt charge for Mark Meadows, Trump’s last White House chief of staff, would likely be made in the coming week.It seems unlikely any senior figure in the US media or among Democrats in Congress or state governments will take up Trump’s challenge to debate him in public.Observers including the former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, who helped Trump prepare for his debates against Biden, agree that a near-berserk performance in the first such contest did significant damage to Trump’s chances of re-election.At one point on a chaotic evening in Cleveland in September, Biden was so exasperated as to plead: “Would you shut up, man? This is so unpresidential.”TopicsDonald TrumpUS Capitol attackUS elections 2020US politicsUS CongressUS press and publishingDemocratsnewsReuse this content More

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Elections

    Group’s 6 January donation shows Trump’s grip on attorneys general

    Group’s 6 January donation shows Trump’s grip on attorneys generalWatchdogs and ex-prosecutors have strongly criticised the Republican Attorneys General Association’s $150,000 donation A key group of Republican attorneys general that donated $150,000 to co-sponsor the 6 January rally where Donald Trump pushed his false claims of election fraud before the Capitol attack could draw scrutiny from a House committee investigating the events on or in the lead-up to the riot.The group – a part of the Republican Attorneys General Association (Raga) called the Rule of Law Defense Fund – has attracted strong criticism from watchdogs and ex-prosecutors even as Raga looks forward to next year’s midterm elections and many of its members are fighting on numerous fronts against Joe Biden’s agenda.The controversy around Raga appears to be yet another way that Trump and his supporters have increased their grip on more mainstream elements of the Republican party, and involved them in efforts to further their agenda.The RLDF, the policy arm of Raga, ponied up $150,000 for the 6 January rally, and arranged robocalls the day before informing people that “we will march to the Capitol and tell Congress to stop the steal,” a message that was probably reinforced by Texas’s attorney general, Ken Paxton, who told Trump’s rally: “We will not quit fighting.”Watchdog criticism of the Raga policy arm that backed the rally stresses that the group’s funding and robocalls occurred after dozens of court rulings rejected Trump’s claims of fraud. They say it undermines respect for the nation’s laws, as well as departing from the group’s main focus of helping get Republican attorneys general elected.Further, the rally funding and robocalls by the RLDF sparked resignations of high-level officials, including the Raga chairman, the Georgia attorney general, who broached concern about the group’s direction when he stepped down.The controversies about Raga’s rally activities come as the group has received a hefty $5.5m from the dark money Concord Fund since the start of 2020, which can help Republican attorneys general in the 2022 elections, and as many Republican attorneys general including Paxton have filed lawsuits to thwart Biden’s energy, immigration and vaccine policies.The $150,000 check that the RLDF donated to the rally came from the Publix supermarket heir Julie Jenkins Fancelli, funds that ProPublica reported were arranged by the Republican fundraiser Caroline Wren, a “VIP adviser” to the rally who has been subpoenaed by the House committee investigating the 6 January Capitol attack.Asked about scrutiny of Raga and its big donation for the rally, a House select committee spokesperson told the Guardian that it “is seeking information about a number of events that took place in the lead-up to the 6 January attack, including details about who planned, coordinated, paid, or received funds related to those events”.Some watchdog groups deplore Raga’s role in the rally. “It was clear before 6 January that the planned rally was based on lies, partisanship, and disrespect for the rule of law,” Austin Evers, the executive director of American Oversight said in a statement.“That’s what Raga and its corporate sponsors chose to fund. The fact that the rally turned into a violent assault on democracy itself makes Raga’s involvement worse … Raga and its funders should be held accountable.”Likewise, some ex-prosecutors express strong concerns about the message that the robocalls by Raga’s political arm conveyed.“Attorneys general are supposed to support adherence to the law,” said Paul Pelletier, a former acting chief of the fraud section at the DoJ. “By the time of the rally every court in the country had affirmed the lawfulness of the election results and had specifically rejected charges of fraud. At that stage, it seems Raga, by urging protesters to ‘stop the steal’, was simply promoting an unlawful attack on our democracy – the antithesis of their mission.”Raga’s then executive director, who resigned soon after the Capitol attack, denounced the violence by the mob, which resulted in several deaths and ore than 140 injured police officers, and in a sweeping denial stated that neither Raga nor the RLDF had any “involvement in the planning, sponsoring or the organization of the protest”.But campaign finance watchdogs don’t buy Raga’s denial.“Raga’s policy arm and other groups helped organize a rally that preceded a riot and an attack on democracy,” said Sheila Krumholz, the executive director of Open Secrets.The fallout at Raga over its 6 January role increased in April when Chris Carr, the Georgia AG who chaired the overall group, announced suddenly he was stepping down as chair, and noted a “significant difference of opinion” about Raga’s direction in a resignation letter.Later in April, Raga announced that Peter Bisbee, who had overseen the RLDF when the robocalls occurred, was being promoted to become Raga’s executive director.Since Biden took office many Raga members, including Paxton and others from Missouri and Louisiana, have filed a wave of lawsuits to block several Biden priorities.The surge of lawsuits is seen as potentially helpful in the runup to 2022 campaigns when 30 Republican and Democratic attorneys general will be running for re-election after serving four-year terms. In the 2020 elections, Raga for the first time targeted incumbent Democratic attorneys general with ads, and may try to oust Democratic attorneys general who were key Biden allies last year in states such as Pennsylvania and Michigan where Trump and his allies pushed false claims of fraud.While Raga this year witnessed some corporate backers hold back checks after 6 January, its fundraising was bolstered when it pulled in $2.5m, by far its largest contribution and more than a third of the total raised for the first half of 2021, from the dark money Concord Fund, which the Federalist Society executive Leonard Leo helped create.Raga also received $3m in 2020 from the Concord Fund.Raga roped in low-six-figure checks in 2021 from oil and gas giants like Koch Industries and the Anschutz Corp and the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity.Over the years, Raga has garnered financial support from industries, including fossil fuels and pharmaceuticals, which GOP AGs have backed in major litigation.Trump himself is slated to host a fundraiser next month at his Mar-a-Lago club for Paxton, which appears to underscore his gratitude and the tough re-election campaign the former Raga chairman is facing as three Republican challengers to him have emerged. Those opponents are focusing on Paxton’s legal problems: he was indicted on securities fraud six years ago and the FBI reportedly has been investigating allegations of bribery and other misconduct.Last fall, some of Paxton’s former deputies accused him of improperly helping an Austin real estate developer and donor, prompting more FBI scrutiny.Paxton, who has not been charged, has broadly denied any wrongdoing. Paxton’s office this August released an unsigned 374-page report rebutting the charges of former aides and claiming he was exonerated, but attorneys for the ex-employees responded the report was “full of half truths, outright lies and glaring omissions”.TopicsRepublicansUS Capitol attacknewsReuse this content More