Eliana Willis

Judges weigh social media posts in criminal sentences for US Capitol attackMuch of the evidence has come from rioters’ own words and videos, as many used social media to celebrate the violence For many insurrectionists who stormed the US Capitol on 6 January, self-incriminating messages, photos and videos that they broadcast on social media before, during and after the attack are influencing their criminal sentences.Earlier this month, US district judge Amy Jackson read aloud some of Russell Peterson’s posts before she sentenced the Pennsylvania man to 30 days imprisonment.“Overall I had fun lol,” Peterson had posted on Facebook, using the social media abbreviation for “laugh out loud”.The judge told Peterson that his posts made it “extraordinarily difficult” for her to show him leniency.“The ‘lol’ particularly stuck in my craw because, as I hope you’ve come to understand, nothing about January 6th was funny,” Jackson added. “No one locked in a room, cowering under a table for hours, was laughing.”Among the biggest takeaways so far from the justice department’s prosecution of the insurrection is how large a role social media has played, with much of the most damning evidence coming from rioters’ own words and videos, in addition to evidence of entering the Capitol, destroying property or hurting people.Extremist supporters of Donald Trump broke into the Capitol following days of build-up among the rightwing and after a rally in Washington, DC, where the then president urged the crowd to try to stop the official certification by Congress of Democrat Joe Biden’s victory in the November 2020 presidential election.FBI agents have identified scores of rioters from public posts and records subpoenaed from social media platforms. Prosecutors used posts to build cases and judges are now weighing them in favor of tougher sentences.As of last Friday, more than 50 people have been sentenced for federal crimes related to the insurrection.In at least 28 of those cases, prosecutors factored a defendant’s social media posts into their requests for stricter sentences, according to an Associated Press review of court records.Many insurrectionists used social media to celebrate the violence or spew hateful rhetoric. Others used it to spread misinformation, promote baseless conspiracy theories or play down their actions.Prosecutors also have accused a few defendants of trying to destroy evidence by deleting posts.Approximately 700 people have been charged with federal crimes related to the riot. About 150 of them have pleaded guilty.More than 20 defendants have been sentenced to jail or prison terms or to time already served behind bars. Over a dozen others received home confinement sentences.Prosecutors recommended probation for Indiana hair salon owner Dona Sue Bissey, but the judge in the case, Tanya Chutkan, sentenced her to two weeks in jail for her participation in the riot.The judge noted that Bissey posted a screenshot of a Twitter post that read: “This is the First time the U.S. Capitol had been breached since it was attacked by the British in 1814.”Chutkan said: “When Ms. Bissey got home, she was not struck with remorse or regret for what she had done. She’s celebrating and bragging about her participation in what amounted to an attempted overthrow of the government.”‘A roadmap for a coup’: inside Trump’s plot to steal the presidencyRead moreFBI agents obtained a search warrant for Andrew Ryan Bennett’s Facebook account after getting a tip that the Maryland man live-streamed video from inside the Capitol.Two days before the riot, Bennett posted a Facebook message that said: “You better be ready chaos is coming and I will be in DC on 1/6/2021 fighting for my freedom!”Judge James Boasberg singled out that post as an “aggravating” factor weighing in favor of house arrest instead of a fully probationary sentence.“The cornerstone of our democratic republic is the peaceful transfer of power after elections,” the judge told Bennett. “What you and others did on January 6th was nothing less than an attempt to undermine that system of government.”Meanwhile, videos captured New Jersey gym owner Scott Fairlamb punching a police officer outside the Capitol. His Facebook and Instagram posts showed he was prepared to commit violence there and had no remorse for his actions, prosecutors said.Senior Judge Royce Lamberth said other rioters in Fairlamb’s position would be “well advised” to join him in pleading guilty.“You couldn’t have beat this if you went to trial on the evidence that I saw,” Lamberth said before sentencing Fairlamb to 41 months in prison.The role of social media has drawn criticism of the tech companies behind the relevant platforms. Facebook was shown to have ignored warning signs in the build-up to the attack.TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsUS crimeLaw (US)Social medianewsReuse this content More

Capitol attack panel set to recommend contempt charges against Mark MeadowsMove comes as lawmakers release new details about thousands of emails and texts he has handed over to the committee The House panel investigating the 6 January insurrection at the US Capitol is set to recommend contempt charges against former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows on Monday as lawmakers are releasing new details about thousands of emails and texts he has handed over to the committee.In laying out the case for the contempt vote, the nine-member panel released a 51-page report late on Sunday that details its questions about the documents he has already provided – including 6,600 pages of records taken from personal email accounts and about 2,000 text messages.The panel did not release the documents but described some of them. The report gives details about Meadows’s efforts to help Donald Trump overturn his defeat in the presidential election, communications with members of Congress and organizers of a rally held the morning of the insurrection and frantic messages among aides and others as the violent attack unfolded that day.The panel says it also wants to know more about whether Trump was engaged in discussions regarding the response of the National Guard, which was delayed for hours as the violence escalated and the rioters brutally beat police guarding the Capitol building.The report says that the documents provided by Meadows show that he sent an email to an unidentified person saying that the guard would be present to “protect pro-Trump people” and that more would be available on standby. The committee does not give any additional details about the email.The committee says in the report that Trump’s former top White House aide “is uniquely situated to provide key information, having straddled an official role in the White House and unofficial role related to Mr. Trump’s reelection campaign.”The contempt vote comes after more than two months of negotiations with Meadows and his lawyer and as the panel has also struggled to obtain information from some of Trump’s other top aides, such as his longtime ally Steve Bannon.The House voted to recommend charges against Bannon in October, and the Department of Justice indicted him on two counts of contempt last month.The panel is aiming to develop the most comprehensive record yet of the violent attack, in which hundreds of Trump’s supporters violently pushed past the law enforcement officers, broke into the Capitol and interrupted the certification of Biden’s victory.Meadows’s testimony could be key, as he was Trump’s top aide at the time and was with him in the White House as the rioters breached the building.The committee’s chairman, Democratic representative Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, scheduled the vote last week after Meadows failed to show up at his deposition.TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More

Capitol attack panel obtains PowerPoint that set out plan for Trump to stage coupPresentation turned over by Mark Meadows made several recommendations for Trump to pursue to retain presidency Former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows turned over to the House select committee investigating the 6 January Capitol attack a PowerPoint recommending Donald Trump to declare a national security emergency in order to return himself to the presidency.Capitol attack committee issues new subpoenas to two ex-Trump aidesRead moreThe fact that Meadows was in possession of a PowerPoint the day before the Capitol attack that detailed ways to stage a coup suggests he was at least aware of efforts by Trump and his allies to stop Joe Biden’s certification from taking place on 6 January.The PowerPoint, titled “Election Fraud, Foreign Interference & Options for 6 Jan”, made several recommendations for Trump to pursue in order to retain the presidency for a second term on the basis of lies and debunked conspiracies about widespread election fraud.Meadows turned over a version of the PowerPoint presentation that he received in an email and spanned 38 pages, according to a source familiar with the matter.The Guardian reviewed a second, 36-page version of the PowerPoint marked for dissemination with 5 January metadata, which had some differences with what the select committee received. But the title of the PowerPoint and its recommendations remained the same, the source said.Senators and members of Congress should first be briefed about foreign interference, the PowerPoint said, at which point Trump could declare a national emergency, declare all electronic voting invalid, and ask Congress to agree on a constitutionally acceptable remedy.The PowerPoint also outlined three options for then vice-president Mike Pence to abuse his largely ceremonial role at the joint session of Congress on 6 January, when Biden was to be certified president, and unilaterally return Trump to the White House.Pence could pursue one of three options, the PowerPoint said: seat Trump slates of electors over the objections of Democrats in key states, reject the Biden slates of electors, or delay the certification to allow for a “vetting” and counting of only “legal paper ballots”.The final option for Pence is similar to an option that was simultaneously being advanced on 4 and 5 January by Trump lieutenants – led by lawyers Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman, as well as Trump strategist Steve Bannon – working from the Willard hotel in Washington DC.The Guardian revealed last week that sometime between the late evening of 5 January and the early hours of 6 January, after Pence declined to go ahead with such plans, Trump then pressed his lieutenants about how to stop Biden’s certification from taking place entirely.The recommendations in the PowerPoint for both Trump and Pence were based on wild and unsubstantiated claims of election fraud, including that “the Chinese systematically gained control over our election system” in eight key battleground states.The then acting attorney general, Jeff Rosen, and his predecessor, Bill Barr, who had both been appointed by Trump, by 5 January had already determined that there was no evidence of voter fraud sufficient to change the outcome of the 2020 election.House investigators said that they became aware of the PowerPoint after it surfaced in more than 6,000 documents Meadows turned over to the select committee. The PowerPoint was to be presented “on the Hill”, a reference to Congress, the panel said.The powerpoint was presented on 4 January to a number of Republican senators and members of Congress, the source said. Trump’s lawyers working at the Willard hotel were not shown the presentation, according to a source familiar with the matter.But the select committee said they did find in the materials turned over by Meadows, his text messages with a member of Congress, who told Meadows about a “highly controversial” plan to send slates of electors for Trump to the joint session of Congress.Meadows replied: “I love it.”Trump’s former White House chief of staff had turned over the materials to the select committee until the cooperation deal broke down on Tuesday, when Meadows’ attorney, Terwilliger, abruptly told House investigators that Meadows would no longer help the investigation.The select committee announced on Wednesday that in response, it would refer Meadows for criminal prosecution for defying a subpoena. The chairman of the select committee, Bennie Thompson, said the vote to hold Meadows in contempt of Congress would come next week.“The select committee will meet next week to advance a report recommending that the House cite Mr Meadows for contempt of Congress and refer him to the Department of Justice for prosecution,” Thompson said in a statement.TopicsUS Capitol attackDonald TrumpUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

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

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

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

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

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