Eliana Willis

Appear before 6 January panel or risk prosecution, ex-Trump chief of staff toldMark Meadows threatened with criminal contempt referral to DoJ should he refuse to show for deposition on Friday morning Former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows is facing a criminal referral to the justice department for contempt of Congress should he refuse to appear for an immediate deposition on Friday morning before the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack.Republican lawsuits unlikely to halt US worker vaccine mandates, experts sayRead moreThe move to threaten criminal prosecution for Meadows amounts to an abrupt and sharp escalation for the select committee as it seeks to enforce its subpoena against one of Donald Trump’s closest aides first issued in September.Bennie Thompson, the chairman of the select committee, said in a letter to Meadows’s attorney on Thursday that the panel had exhausted its patience with Meadows, and his failure to appear at the deposition would be viewed as an instance of willful noncompliance.The chairman said that would force the select committee to “consider invoking contempt of Congress procedures” that could result in a criminal referral to the justice department, as well as the possibility of a civil action to enforce the subpoena.But despite the threat of criminal prosecution, Meadows was not expected to attend his deposition, scheduled to take place with select committee counsel in a nondescript House office building on Capitol Hill, according to a source familiar with the matter.The select committee is targeting Meadows since his role as Trump’s former White House chief of staff means he is likely to hold the key to uncover Trump’s involvement in efforts on 6 January 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 instructed his former aides to defy the subpoenas on grounds of executive privilege, Meadows moved to negotiate with the select committee about the scope of his cooperation – which members on the panel suspect was an effort to stall the inquiry.Those suspicions among members on the select committee appeared to be bolstered on Thursday after Meadows’s attorney, George Terwilliger, said in a statement that Meadows was “immune” from congressional testimony under justice department opinions.“Mr Meadows remains under the instructions of former President Trump to respect long-standing principles of executive privilege. It now appears the courts will have to resolve this conflict,” Terwilliger added.Thompson said in the letter that rejected the notion that Meadows was immune from testifying to the select committee, noting that every federal court has ruled that presidential aides have no such protections in spite of the justice department opinions.The chairman also noted that Meadows had not produced any materials demanded in his subpoena – including those not covered by executive privilege – though weeks had passed since Terwilliger indicated he would review which records to release.Thompson said in the letter that his patience had expired and demanded that Meadows appear with the requested documents at a deposition on Friday. Noncompliance by Meadows would force the select committee to pursue contempt proceedings, he added.The White House on Thursday backed Thompson, notifying Terwilliger in a separate letter that Biden would not assert executive privilege – a power wielded by sitting presidents – or immunity over the documents and deposition requested by the select committee.“President Biden has determined that he will not assert immunity to preclude your client from testifying before the select committee,” deputy White House counsel Jonathan Su said in an office of legal counsel letter first reported by the Washington Post.Thompson’s warning on Thursday was his third threat against a recalcitrant witness since House investigators starting issuing subpoenas to dozens of top former Trump administration officials and pro-Trump activists connected to the 6 January insurrection.The chairman last week raised the possibility of holding former Trump justice department official Jeffrey Clark in contempt of Congress after he appeared for a deposition pursuant to a subpoena but refused to answer any questions, citing attorney-client privilege.Last month, the House voted to refer Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon to the justice department for prosecution after the select committee unanimously recommended his referral after he ignored his September subpoena in its entirety.TopicsUS Capitol attackRepublicansUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

The fight to voteGeorgiaBrad Raffensperger: ‘I haven’t talked to Trump. I don’t expect that’ll happen’ Georgia’s top election official was pressured by Trump to ‘find’ enough votes to overturn Biden’s victory. What does he think about it now?The fight to vote is supported byAbout this contentSam Levine in New YorkThu 11 Nov 2021 05.00 ESTLast modified on Thu 11 Nov 2021 10.21 ESTBrad Raffensperger, Georgia’s top election official, was sitting at his kitchen counter with his wife, Tricia, in early January, his cell phone on a metal stand so he could take notes. On the other line was Donald Trump, who had lost Georgia to Joe Biden in November, a result confirmed by multiple recounts.The president had a blunt and unimaginable request for Raffensperger: find enough votes to flip the results of the election in Georgia.Raffensperger, a mild-mannered engineer by training, refused to go along with the president’s request, but saw it as a threat, he writes in his new book Integrity Counts.He and his family have since been subject to a barrage of harassment, including death threats, from Trump and his supporters. Republicans in the Georgia state legislature have stripped him of his role as the chair of the state election board. Now, he’s running for re-election next year in what is expected to be an extremely difficult primary for him, in a field that includes at least one candidate, endorsed by Trump, who tried to overturn the 2020 election results.The Guardian spoke to Raffensperger about the January phone call with Trump, threats to election officials, and whether he thinks there’s a place in the Republican party today for officials who resist attempts to undermine the 2020 election results.Have you talked to Trump since that January call? Do you expect to ever talk to him again?No, I haven’t talked to him, and don’t expect that’ll happen in the future.Were you scared in the moment of [the phone call]? You have the president of the United States, the leader of your party, in a very heated environment in the days after the election, pressuring you to do something that could affect whether he serves another term. And did you ever doubt yourself in what you were doing?I wanted to make sure that we had all the facts. That we weren’t missing something. Our team was continuously asked by me: “What about this? What about that?” And so we ran down every single allegation. Then I sent a letter to Congress, it’s a 10-page letter, which I put in the book – they got it on 6 January and I know they were busy with other things. But it really goes through, point by point, every single allegation that was made.I understand my side is grieving and has difficulty understanding this, but 28,000 people, 28,000 Georgians, did not vote for anyone for president. They skipped that and yet they voted down-ballot. And when I give those three data points to Republicans it starts to really dawn on them, they start to understand that there was [tail-off] at the top of the ticket.But people are still talking about the ballots that were stuffed in the suitcase and whatever else. People don’t seem to be persuaded by facts.I think that everyone is best served when they have intellectual honesty. And to get intellectual honesty you have to have intellectual curiosity. That you actually want to uncover the facts and have the courage to actually look into it and maybe have your paradigm shifted and challenged because what you’ve been told has been wrong.At some point, I know that if I was lied to by all these people, and they know that they’ve been lying to people, I think that they may rise up in anger and really understand that they’ve been played.Does it worry you to see the Republican party flirting with these claims, and in some cases not disavowing them and even embracing them?Well, let’s be fair and balanced. It bothers me that both parties are doing that. Because Stacey Abrams was in Virginia less than three weeks ago, and she said “just because you win doesn’t mean you’ve won”. Her narrative of voter suppression has been parroted by many people, from Hillary Clinton to many other notable national figures. (Note: Abrams has strongly repudiated attempts by Raffensperger and others to equate her decision not to concede Georgia’s 2018 gubernatorial race to Trump’s efforts to overturn the election.)So it’s actually both sides are guilty of this. And both sides need to pull back, stop, and walk that line of integrity. When you walk that line of integrity, then you can start rebuilding trust.Are you continuing to get threats?Every once in a while, now that the book’s out, you get a text or a voicemail. It’s people that really don’t want to know the truth and don’t want to dig into the truth. I understand where they’re coming from. They’re not happy with losing an election. They’re not happy with the direction of the country and they’re not pleased probably with President Biden. There’s a lot that’s happened in the last year under his leadership that is very disappointing and alarming.Are you concerned about experienced election officials leaving their jobs?I’m concerned that we have seen in Georgia, probably less than a handful of county election directors leave, retire a little bit early.And so you hate to see that happen. And you just hope they’ll have a team in place that’ll pick up that mantle and lead with strong leadership.I wanted to ask you a little bit about the provisions of Georgia’s new election law that dealt with your authority specifically on the state elections board. How concerned are you about efforts to give legislatures in Georgia and elsewhere more control over the bodies like the state elections board and election administration?I’ve always believed that these boards should be held accountable to the voters.If you look in Georgia, the state elections board chair has always been an elected position. And so for that reason alone, I don’t believe it was wise. I believe in some point in the future, they’ll regret the decision they made. But it was made with the thought of payback, petty retribution, blame-shifting, to placate people looking for, you know, a head on a platter.So you’re still very opposed to it?Well it’s bad policy. I don’t support bad policy.You’re in a competitive primary with at least one opponent who has voiced serious doubts about the integrity of the 2020 election. How concerned are you that someone could get into power that gets a call from the president or someone else and is willing to go along with the kind of thing that you weren’t willing to go along with in 2020?I believe that Americans overwhelmingly are good, honest, people. And they’re looking for honest government. And they’re looking for people that will stand in the gap and do the right thing. And I’ve shown that I will make the tough calls to make sure that we follow the constitution, we follow state law.I talk to Republicans. I talk to a lot of them. And yes I get dog-cussed by a few. But many Republicans support what I did. They’re disappointed in the results. They wish that the president would have won. That runs the whole gamut. But people recognize that when people do what is right, even when it can appear to be difficult, that that is really something that should be modeled and esteemed.I’m curious what message you think it would send if people didn’t vote for that. If what you did in 2020 wound up costing you the election next year, what message would that send?Well, people have to decide individually and corporately what they want our country to look like. And I think that Americans, as I said, the vast majority are good, honest, taxpaying, law-abiding Americans. And what they want is people who will make the right decision.TopicsGeorgiaThe fight to voteUS elections 2020US politicsUS voting rightsnewsReuse this content More

US Capitol attackProsecutors seek strongest sentences yet for US Capitol insurrectionistsA judge will decide on Wednesday if Scott Fairlamb should serve 44 months, as prosecutors seek a 51-month term for Jacob Chansley Guardian staff and agenciesWed 10 Nov 2021 09.38 ESTLast modified on Wed 10 Nov 2021 10.00 ESTUS prosecutors are seeking the stiffest punishments yet for participants in the deadly 6 January insurrection at the US Capitol by extremist supporters of Donald Trump, urging judges to make an example out of a man filmed punching a police officer and another who stormed the Senate chamber wearing a horned headdress.At a court hearing on Wednesday, government lawyers will ask a judge to hand down a 44-month prison sentence for Scott Fairlamb, a former mixed martial arts fighter from New Jersey, who pleaded guilty in August to assaulting a police officer.White supremacists declare war on democracy and walk away unscathed | Carol AndersonRead moreHe was screaming at officers, in footage caught by their body-worn cameras, before shoving one and then punching him in the face.He is to be sentenced by federal judge Royce Lamberth in Washington DC on Wednesday morning.Separately, prosecutors in a late-night court filing recommended a four-year, three-month sentence for Jacob Chansley, the intruder at the Capitol attack who was seen around the world invading Congress, shirtless, wearing a horned headdress and furs, and heavily tattooed.Chansley, of Phoenix, Arizona, was known to some at the time as the so-called “QAnon Shaman”.He pleaded guilty in September to obstructing an official proceeding when he took part in the assault.Lamberth, who is also handling Chansley’s case, will sentence him on 17 November.In a court filing, Fairlamb’s defense lawyer asked the judge to “take into consideration the approximate 11 months the defendant has already served in custody” and not add additional time.Attorney Harley Breite said his client had accepted responsibility for his actions.Chansley’s attorney, Albert Watkins, said in a Tuesday court filing that Chansley should be released “as soon as possible”, noting that Chansley will have spent more than 10 months in pre-trial detention.“I can say with confidence that Mr Chansley is in dire need of mental health treatment,” Watkins stated.About 700 people have been arrested over the attack on the Capitol where Congress was meeting to certify Joe Biden’s November 2020 victory over Trump in the presidential election.So far, about 120 people have pleaded guilty and two dozen have been sentenced. Most of the guilty pleas have involved non-violent misdemeanor offenses carrying short jail sentences or probationary sentences.TopicsUS Capitol attacknewsReuse this content More

Prince HarryPrince Harry says he warned Twitter boss a day before Capitol riot‘I warned him his platform was allowing a coup to be staged. I haven’t heard from him since,’ Harry says01:18Sarah Marsh@sloumarshWed 10 Nov 2021 06.24 ESTLast modified on Wed 10 Nov 2021 08.55 ESTPrince Harry has said he warned Twitter’s boss Jack Dorsey about his platform allowing political unrest a day before the Capitol riot that led to five deaths.The Duke of Sussex made the comments at the RE:WIRED tech forum in the US. He said: “I warned him his platform was allowing a coup to be staged. That email was sent the day before. And then it happened and I haven’t heard from him since.”On the day of the 6 January riots, Donald Trump tweeted allegations of vote fraud before a rally in Washington DC. Members of the Proud Boy movement, a rightwing militia, stormed the Capitol to disrupt the official certification of Joe Biden’s victory in the White House race, as part of an attempt to overturn the election result.Harry was speaking via video chat at a session discussing whether social media was contributing to misinformation and online hatred. Dorsey, who is Twitter’s chief executive, has so far not commented.A study released in October by the social media analytics service Bot Sentinel identified 83 accounts on Twitter that it said were responsible for 70% of hateful content and misinformation aimed at Harry and his wife, Meghan.Harry said that “perhaps the most disturbing part of this [study] was the number of British journalists who were interacting with them and amplifying the lies. But they regurgitate these lies as truth.”He said social media companies were not doing enough to stop the spread of misinformation, and the internet was “being defined by hate, division and lies”.He also argued that the word “Megxit”, used by the British press to describe the couple’s decision to quit their royal duties, was misogynistic.Harry said the word was an example of online and media hatred. “Maybe people know this and maybe they don’t, but the term ‘Megxit’ was or is a misogynistic term, and it was created by a troll, amplified by royal correspondents, and it grew and grew and grew into mainstream media. But it began with a troll,” he said. He did not elaborate.Harry and Meghan moved to California last year to lead a more independent life. He has said that part of the reason for their departure was the racist treatment of Meghan, whose mother is black and whose father is white, by the British tabloid media.TopicsPrince HarryTwitterJack DorseyUS Capitol attacknewsReuse this content More

Prince Harry says he warned Twitter’s boss, Jack Dorsey, that the platform was ‘allowing a coup to be staged’, a day before the Capitol riot on 6 January. Speaking on a panel called the Internet Lie Machine, organised by Wired magazine, Harry says he had been in contact with Dorsey via email, but never received a reply after the storming of the Capitol. 
He also says the word ‘Megxit’, used to describe his decision to quit royal duties with his wife, Meghan, was a misogynistic term that had been created by a troll

Prince Harry says ‘Megxit’ is a misogynistic term aimed at his wife Meghan More

Donald TrumpTrump ‘throws sand’ in gears of Capitol attack inquiry amid legal setbacks Ex-president wages a court battle to thwart House committee from obtaining White House records for inquiry into the Capitol assaultPeter Stone in WashingtonTue 9 Nov 2021 06.00 ESTLast modified on Tue 9 Nov 2021 06.03 ESTDonald Trump has suffered a series of legal setbacks and more loom, as he wages a court battle to thwart a House committee from obtaining White House records for its inquiry into the 6 January Capitol assault and a new grand jury begins hearing evidence about possible crimes by his real estate firm.Former justice officials and legal scholars say Trump’s long-standing penchant for using lawsuits to fend off investigations and opponents is looking weaker now that he’s out of the White House and facing legal threats on multiple fronts.The list of significant legal setbacks is lengthy for the former president and real estate mogul who has long had a reputation for threatening to sue his foes.Early this year, for example, Manhattan district attorney Cyrus Vance Jr won a lengthy legal fight to obtain Trump’s tax returns, and in July charged two Trump companies and the Trump Organization’s chief financial officer with a 15 year tax fraud scheme, which the companies and the CFO have denied in pleas.On 4 November, a second grand jury was convened by Vance to hear more evidence about the financial practices of the Trump Organization and possibly bring more charges, according to the Washington Post.Trump suffered another legal setback when a New York court ordered him to give a deposition in October that lasted more than four hours in an old lawsuit by men alleging they were attacked in 2015 by Trump security guards at a demonstration outside Trump Tower in Manhattan.Meanwhile, in his latest high stakes court fight, Trump’s attorneys have launched a legal blitz invoking executive privilege to block the House select committee from obtaining hundreds of pages of documents from the National Archives the committee seeks as it investigates the 6 January Capitol riot and what role Trump played in it.A federal judge at a hearing on Trump’s legal challenges on 4 November voiced strong scepticism about his lawyers’ executive privilege claims to keep the committee from getting most of the records it wants, noting that President Joe Biden approved turning them over.Trump’s many reverses in court and his efforts to blunt the bipartisan House committee’s inquiry, underscore the growing legal threats Trump is facing that pose new financial and political risks, say former justice department lawyers and legal scholars.Historically, Trump has relied on lawsuits as a delaying tactic to benefit his business interests, or to claim executive privilege or immunity to stymie congressional, state and other investigations when he was president, according to legal analysts.Likewise, after his loss to Joe Biden last year, Trump’s campaign and allies filed more than 60 lawsuits claiming widespread fraud that were rejected by various courts.To back his fights Trump boasts a legal arsenal with a shifting cast of lawyers, in part because Trump has been rebuffed by several high-profile attorneys this year, according to a CNN report and legal sources.“Trump is going pretty deep down the bench to find lawyers,” said one former DOJ prosecutor and GOP white collar attorney. “I think a lot of established lawyers would have trouble getting approval from their firms because of political blowback and risk of non-payment.”DoJ lawyers and experts say that Trump’s legal fortunes now look grimmer, and that his current battle royale to block the House inquiry into the Capitol riot by his allies seems quite weak, though it may delay the inquiry for months.“Trump’s current assertions of a privilege against the disclosures are almost identical to the baseless claims of an absolute immunity that he advanced repeatedly – and the supreme court rejected – when he was president,” said Donald Ayer, a former deputy attorney general in the George HW Bush administration, in a Guardian interview.Ayer added that “Trump is just blowing smoke and trying to throw sand in the gears of the select committee investigation. Congress, the administration, and the courts need to quickly and emphatically say no and press ahead with the investigation.”Other DoJ veterans agree that Trump’s legal case looks flimsy, but say it could stall the House inquiry.“The executive privilege claim against the National Archives is extremely weak,” said former federal prosecutor Paul Rosenzweig. “The question is whether he can game the system to run out the clock and make the requests moot.”That may well be the point. Trump’s regular use of litigation to delay federal and state inquiries echo his modus operandi when he was president and in the business world, say experts.“Likelihood of success on Trump’s legal claims is not always or often the primary goal,” said Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University. “The primary goal, at least for the farfetched claims, is delay. If there’s also a partial victory, so much the better.”More legal battles are pending for Trump, including claims by two women, ex- Apprentice candidate Summer Zervos and writer E Jean Carroll, who, respectively, have alleged they were sexually harassed or raped by Trump, charges he has denied.Zervos has sued Trump for defamation and Trump, who has threatened to counter sue, faces a court order to sit for a deposition by Christmas. Similarly, a New York judge in September denied a Trump lawyer’s request to pause a defamation lawsuit by Carroll against Trump.But Trump’s legal armada now seems focused on blocking White House records from the House committee investigating the deadly 6 January attack on Congress, which followed a Trump rally where he told a large crowd of loyalists to “fight like hell”, as Congress was poised to certify Biden’s win.Trump’s legal tactics fit his old playbook. “He is behaving now as he long behaved as a real estate investor and builder in the high stakes and often vicious world of New York commercial real estate,” Gillers said. “When the same tactics are employed in national politics, the victims are democracy and the nation.”TopicsDonald TrumpUS politicsUS Capitol attacknewsReuse this content More