US Politics

A decision on the public release of Donald Trump’s tax returns is imminent after a key congressional panel came to order on Tuesday afternoon for a vote.Richard Neal, the Massachusetts Democrat who chairs the House ways and means committee, immediately ordered the hearing into “executive session”, which means the room was cleared for the hearing to proceed in private.But the panel voted unanimously to approve a motion by Republican ranking member Kevin Brady of Texas for “the entirety of today’s executive transcript” later be made public, presumably subject to redactions of any sensitive information the panel feels shouldn’t be available.Neal is updating members now on developments since the supreme court ruled last month to clear the delivery of the six years of Trump’s returns from the treasury department.That decision ended a three-year fight by the former president to shield many of his closest financial secrets.The committee’s vote is not expected until later this afternoon, but many analysts expect it to be a formality that the panel will release at least some of the information. What is unclear is what form that release might take.Neal would not give details to reporters before today’s meeting, offering instead only a statement:.css-cumn2r{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Nearly four years ago, the ways and means committee set out to fulfill our legislative and oversight responsibilities, and evaluate the Internal Revenue Service’s mandatory audit program.
As affirmed by the supreme court, the law was on our side, and on Tuesday, I will update the members of the Committee.Given that Democrats have been fighting so hard to get it, and their majority in the House is in its final days, it’s reasonable to assume we’ll see something soon.Some analysts expect to see an executive summary of the returns, while others say the full documents attached to a committee report are likely.Of course, both could still happen. A vote this afternoon for any kind of public release would be another blow for the former president, who was referred to the justice department on Monday on four criminal charges relating to his insurrection over his 2020 election defeat.As we reported earlier this month, the House committee first requested Trump’s returns in 2019. Trump, who on 15 November began his third consecutive run for the presidency, dragged the issue through the court system.It was long customary, though not required, for major party presidential candidates to release their tax records. Trump was the first such candidate in four decades not to do so.We don’t know what’s being said during this afternoon’s private session of the House ways and means committee discussing releasing Donald Trump’s tax returns. But we do know that Republican Kevin Brady, the ranking member from Texas, is not thrilled at the prospect.He spoke with reporters shortly before the meeting convened, complaining that releasing the documents publicly would give politicians the “power to embarrass, harass, or destroy Americans through disclosure of their tax returns”.“No party in Congress should have that power. No individuals in Congress should have that power,” Brady says.Kevin Brady (R-TX) warns that releasing Trump’s tax returns could lead to the release of tax returns of Supreme Court Justices pic.twitter.com/ggwOPFKvFj— Acyn (@Acyn) December 20, 2022
The House January committee that on Monday referred Donald Trump for criminal charges has been “extensively cooperating” with the justice department’s own investigation, according to a new report.Punchbowl said Tuesday afternoon that the bipartisan committee began sending documents and transcripts of witness testimony last week after receiving a request from the justice department’s special prosecutor Jack Smith.Punchbowl says it has reviewed Smith’s letter, sent on 5 December, asking for the entirety of the panel’s materials from its 18-month probe. The committee held its final meeting on Monday, issuing four criminal referrals for Trump over his efforts to reverse his 2020 defeat to Joe Biden, and is expected to release its final report on Wednesday.Representatives of the committee declined to comment, Punchbowl says, but the development would be a reversal of its previous position. Politico reported in June there was “tension” between the justice department and committee members after the panel refused to hand over its evidence.Committee chair Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat, said at the time he thought the move would be “premature”.Punchbowl says most of the evidence handed over in the last week “is in relation to former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and John Eastman, the Trump lawyer at the center of the ‘fake electors’ scheme’.”Eastman was also referred for criminal prosecution by the panel.Additionally, Punchbowl says, the panel has transmitted all of Meadows’ text messages and related evidence, and transcripts of interviews with several witnesses related to the fake electors scheme, and “the efforts by Trump and his allies to pressure states to overturn their election results, specifically in Georgia”.The House panel interviewed more than 1,000 witnesses and reviewed over a million documents during its inquiry.Read more:What has the January 6 House panel done so far – and what’s next?Read moreA decision on the public release of Donald Trump’s tax returns is imminent after a key congressional panel came to order on Tuesday afternoon for a vote.Richard Neal, the Massachusetts Democrat who chairs the House ways and means committee, immediately ordered the hearing into “executive session”, which means the room was cleared for the hearing to proceed in private.But the panel voted unanimously to approve a motion by Republican ranking member Kevin Brady of Texas for “the entirety of today’s executive transcript” later be made public, presumably subject to redactions of any sensitive information the panel feels shouldn’t be available.Neal is updating members now on developments since the supreme court ruled last month to clear the delivery of the six years of Trump’s returns from the treasury department.That decision ended a three-year fight by the former president to shield many of his closest financial secrets.The committee’s vote is not expected until later this afternoon, but many analysts expect it to be a formality that the panel will release at least some of the information. What is unclear is what form that release might take.Neal would not give details to reporters before today’s meeting, offering instead only a statement:.css-cumn2r{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Nearly four years ago, the ways and means committee set out to fulfill our legislative and oversight responsibilities, and evaluate the Internal Revenue Service’s mandatory audit program.
As affirmed by the supreme court, the law was on our side, and on Tuesday, I will update the members of the Committee.Given that Democrats have been fighting so hard to get it, and their majority in the House is in its final days, it’s reasonable to assume we’ll see something soon.Some analysts expect to see an executive summary of the returns, while others say the full documents attached to a committee report are likely.Of course, both could still happen. A vote this afternoon for any kind of public release would be another blow for the former president, who was referred to the justice department on Monday on four criminal charges relating to his insurrection over his 2020 election defeat.As we reported earlier this month, the House committee first requested Trump’s returns in 2019. Trump, who on 15 November began his third consecutive run for the presidency, dragged the issue through the court system.It was long customary, though not required, for major party presidential candidates to release their tax records. Trump was the first such candidate in four decades not to do so.Here’s a look at the overhaul of the Electoral Count Act that’s incorporated within the bipartisan $1.7tn omnibus government spending bill, courtesy of the Associated Press, which says it’s the the most significant policy response so far to Donald Trump’s insurrection.Led by Republican senators Susan Collins of Maine, and Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia, along with members of the House January 6 panel, the legislation was added to the massive year-end spending bill unveiled early Tuesday, and which will be voted on this week.The bill would amend the 19th century law that governs, along with the Constitution, how states and Congress certify electors and declare presidential election winners, ensuring that the popular vote from each state is protected from manipulation and that Congress does not arbitrarily decide presidential elections when it meets to count the votes every four years.Here’s what it would do:
Clarify the vice-president’s role. Trump and his supporters falsely insisted vice-president Mike Pence could intervene and refuse to certify Joe Biden’s win in the 2020 election. The bill confirms the vice-president’s purely ceremonial role presiding over the certification every January 6 after a presidential election, and that the VP has no power to determine the results of the election.
Make it more difficult to object. Under current law, just one member of the Senate and one member of the House need to lodge an objection to automatically trigger votes in both chambers on whether to overturn or discard a state’s presidential election results. The bill would significantly raise that threshold, requiring a fifth of each chamber to object before votes would be held.
No fake electors. The bill would ensure that there is only one slate of electors, a response to Trump allies’ unsuccessful efforts to create alternate, illegitimate slates of Trump electors in states that Biden narrowly won in 2020. Each state’s governor would be required to submit the electors, which are sent under a formal process to Congress and opened at the rostrum during the joint session. Congress could not accept a slate submitted by a different official, so there could not be competing lists of electors from one state.
Catastrophic events. The legislation would revise language in current law that wasn’t used during the 2020 election, but which lawmakers think could be abused. Presently, state legislatures can override the popular vote in their states by calling a “failed election,” but the term is not defined under the law. The bill says a state could only move its presidential election day if there are “extraordinary and catastrophic” events, such as natural disasters, that necessitate that.
There’s an interesting take on the bipartisan Senate agreement of a $1.7tn government spending bill from Politicus USA, which says the deal has taken away an opportunity for House Republicans to hold Joe Biden hostage.The article suggests the House GOP was keen to provoke a crisis over the spending bill, hoping for a government shutdown that would allow them to flex their economic muscles when they take the majority next month.But with a deal now, which would likely pass the House in the waning days of the Democratic majority, their next chance to cause mischief over spending will be at least a year away, Politicus says.”Any hopes that House Republicans had of provoking a government shutdown and an economic crisis when they took back the majority vanished with the bipartisan government funding bill.”https://t.co/zQuk8mXf9K via @politicususa— Sarah Reese Jones (@PoliticusSarah) December 20, 2022
And that, it asserts, “means that any drama caused by House Republicans will spill into the 2024 election year”.“House Republicans were targeting 2023 because they wanted to make a big publicity-getting splash with their new majority while having enough time for any potential government shutdown backlash to blow over,” Politicus reporter Jason Easley writes.“If House Republicans try to shut down the government next year at this time, they will be doing so with the ticking 2024 election clock hanging over their heads.”You can read the article here.There appears to have been a falling out between Marjorie Taylor-Greene and Lauren Boebert, two of the most obstreperous Republican extremists in the House of Representatives.Once seemingly joined at the hip in their devotion to Donald Trump and the former president’s Maga (make America great again) movement, their split seems to be over House minority leader Kevin McCarthy’s quest for the Speaker’s gavel, which Greene has been warming to, and Boebert remains steadfastly against.A tweet by Georgia congresswoman Greene on Monday accused Boebert, of Colorado, of engaging in petty feuding, while also taking a dig at her narrow margin of re-election last month, Business Insider reports.I’ve supported and donated to Lauren Boebert. President Trump has supported and donated to Lauren Boebert. Kevin McCarthy has supported and donated to Lauren Boebert. She just barely came through by 500 votes.1/3 pic.twitter.com/89r5jw9j0t— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) December 19, 2022
“I’ve supported and donated to Lauren Boebert. President Trump has supported and donated to Lauren Boebert. Kevin McCarthy has supported and donated to Lauren Boebert. She just barely came through by 500 votes,” Greene wrote.“She gladly takes our $$$ but when she’s been asked: Lauren refuses to endorse President Trump, she refuses to support Kevin McCarthy, and she childishly threw me under the bus for a cheap sound bite.”Greene’s ire was stoked by a video showing Boebert with Turning Point founder Charlie Kirk at its AmericaFest event, according to the article.Kirk asked Boebert and another “Never Kevin” antagonist Matt Gaetz, the Florida congressman, what they thought of Greene’s endorsement of McCarthy.Gaetz said he wasn’t a fan, while Boebert’s answer was directed at Greene: “I’ve been aligned with Marjorie and accused of believing a lot of the things that she believes in,” she said.“I don’t believe in this, just like I don’t believe in Russian space lasers, Jewish space lasers and all of this.”In 2021, Greene infamously declared a belief that space lasers controlled by Jewish politicians were responsible for wildfires in California.So far, Boebert hasn’t responded to Green’s Twitter attack.It’s lunchtime, and an opportunity to look at where we stand on a busy Tuesday in US politics. The House ways and means committee will meet shortly to discuss and vote on releasing Donald Trump’s tax returns to the public.Here’s what else we’ve been looking at:
The fallout continues from Monday’s bombshell criminal referral by the House January 6 panel of former President Trump on charges including insurrection. Some Republicans don’t seem to be happy.
Long-serving Democratic senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont delivered an emotional farewell speech to the chamber, condemning the January 6 Capitol riot as an assault on democracy, and calling on colleagues to return to a more civil age of bipartisanship.
Details have emerged of the $1.7tn omnibus government spending package agreed by congressional leaders in Tuesday’s early hours. The bill includes more financial aid for Ukraine, more visas for Afghans who helped the US, and banning the TikTok app on government devices.
Please stick with us for the afternoon session. The long-serving Democratic senator Patrick Leahy has delivered an emotional farewell speech on the Senate floor, including an ill-disguised dig at Donald Trump and a call for a return to the bipartisan collaboration of another era.Leahy, 82, the Senate president pro tempore, is standing down after 48 years in the chamber, a tenure than began with the Watergate scandal and concludes in a highly partisan era in which he said the scoring “of political points have reduced debate oratory to bumper sticker slogans”:.css-cumn2r{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}When I arrived here, bipartisan cooperation was the norm, not the exception.
Make no mistake, the Senate of yesterday was far from perfect. [But] the Senate I entered had one remarkable, redeeming quality. The overwhelming majority of senators of both parties believed they were here to do a job.
Bills had nothing to do with whether a senator was a Democrat or a Republican. Each one of them understood that to do our jobs, the right way, we had to work together. And we did.In a look back at his political career, Leahy did not mention Trump’s name. But it was clear that the January 6 Capitol riot incited by the former president was a defining moment..css-cumn2r{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}I began my time in the Senate in the aftermath of a constitutional crisis. We faced the nation broken by the Watergate scandal, the resignation of President Nixon and an endless war in Vietnam.
And as I leave in a few days, the nation is coping with strains and challenges of other kinds. Of very real threats to the whole concept of a working democracy, the sanctity of our Constitution, our elections and the strength of the rule of law.
Another thing I could never imagine as that young law student sitting up there in the gallery is that one day this chamber itself, and the Capitol, would be stormed by a lawless and violent mob.Leahy spoke for 30 minutes and was given a standing ovation at the conclusion.In his own tribute, Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer said Leahy was “an institution all of his own”, and that this period of history in the chamber would come to be known as “the Leahy era”.Another provision within the $1.7tn government spending package is one to grant 4,000 more visas for Afghans who worked with the US during its 20-year occupation of Afghanistan, along with an extension of the special immigrant visa (SIV) program until 2024, Reuters reports.SIVs are available to many Afghans who aided US forces as interpreters and translators, as well as in other roles, and who fear reprisals by the Taliban, the Islamist militant group that swiftly seized the country following the US withdrawal in August 2021.Thousands have come to the US under the program, but an estimated 60,000 remain in the country, delayed by a complicated vetting process.The program’s inclusion in the omnibus means it will not expire next year, which was a risk after it was not extended in the annual National Defense Authorization Act passed this month.“This is about upholding the vow we made to the brave individuals who risked their lives and the safety of their families for the US mission,” Democratic New Hampshire senator Jeanne Shaheen, who advocated for the measure, said in a statement.A measure to ban TikTok from most government devices is included in the $1.7tn spending package unveiled by congressional leaders on Tuesday.The bill requires the Biden administration to prohibit most uses of the Chinese-owned social media app, or any other created by its owner, ByteDance Ltd, according to the Associated Press.The requirements would apply to the executive branch with exemptions for national security, law enforcement and research purposes and don’t appear to cover Congress, where only a handful of lawmakers maintain TikTok accounts.TikTok is the second-most popular domain in the world but there has been concern in Washington that Beijing would use legal and regulatory power to seize American user data, or try to push pro-China narratives or misinformation.Separately, the Senate voted last week on a bill that would achieve the same goal. A number of states have already banned TikTok from official devices.A rare “firehouse primary” is taking place in Virginia today to find a Democratic nominee fill a House seat vacated by the death last month of veteran congressman Donald McEachin.The vote is unusual because it’s organized by a political party rather than the state’s office of elections. Party members will gather at a variety of locations, but no actual firehouses, to canvass and choose a candidate to run in February’s special election.Republicans in Virginia’s 4th congressional district employed a similar method on Saturday to pick their nominee, Leon Benjamin.Virginia Democrats will choose a nominee for the special election to fill the term of the late Rep. Donald McEachin, who died in November just weeks after winning reelection.https://t.co/wHxo5Vzl9b— CNN (@CNN) December 20, 2022
The favorite for the Democratic nod is state senator Jennifer McClellan, who lost in a primary for Virginia governor earlier this year. McClellan, who is endorsed by Nancy Pelosi, would be the first Black congresswoman from Virginia.McEachin won re-election easily in November, and the seat is a Democratic stronghold, so unlikely to have any effect on the narrow majority Republicans will hold when they assume control of the House next month.It’s also worth a look at how events could unfold now that Donald Trump has been referred to the justice department over his insurrection. Hugo Lowell reports:The House January 6 select committee outlined criminal referrals against Donald Trump for charges that experts believe the justice department could definitely pursue should it move forward with prosecuting the former US president over his efforts to stop the congressional certification of the 2020 election.The panel voted at its final public session on Monday to recommend prosecution for Trump for four possible crimes: obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the US, conspiracy to make a false statement and incitement of insurrection.The criminal referrals are largely symbolic since Congress has no ability to compel the justice department to seek charges, and federal prosecutors for months have been running their own parallel investigation into the Capitol attack and Trump’s efforts to overturn his defeat.But the referrals, which provided an analysis of the possible criminal conduct and supporting evidence not dissimilar to internal prosecution memos produced by the department prior to indictments, included several statutes that the new special counsel is almost certain to consider, according to two former US attorneys.Dec. 19, 2020: Trump tweets about wild protest on Jan. 6 Dec. 19, 2022: Trump referred to DOJ for inciting insurrection— Hugo Lowell (@hugolowell) December 20, 2022
The first referral for obstruction of an official proceeding, legal experts said, appeared to be the most likely charge that federal prosecutors might consider with respect to charging Trump over his attempts to delay the 6 January certification of Joe Biden’s election win.The panel said that Trump appeared to meet the elements of the offense – “corruptly” seeking to “impede any official proceeding” – when he pressured his vice-president, Mike Pence, to refuse to count electoral college votes for Biden when he had been told that the plan was illegal.While Trump’s efforts to get Pence to stop the certification alone was sufficient for a charge, the panel added, Trump could be prosecuted for trying to create fake electoral college slates since they were done ultimately as cover for Pence to decertify Biden votes.The second referral for conspiracy to defraud was another possible charge that is likely to be considered by federal prosecutors, the experts said, since it does not need to be connected to an underlying crime besides impairing a lawful government function through dishonest means.Partly overlapping with the first referral, the panel suggested Trump could be charged with conspiracy because his attempts to stop the 6 January certification were done “dishonestly” – as the plot to get Pence to decertify election wins for Biden were “manifestly (and admittedly) illegal”.While the justice department has previously looked at the conspiracy to defraud statute, most recently by Robert Mueller, whether it would make a case against Trump is less clear given that the supreme court has interpreted the statute more narrowly to deal with money, rather than public corruption.Read the full story:Donald Trump: how will prosecutors pursue the House panel’s charges?Read moreThe fallout from Monday’s historic referral of Donald Trump on criminal charges including insurrection continues. My colleague Kira Lerner takes a look at some of the reaction:Democrats in Congress on Monday praised the House January 6 select committee for referring former president Donald Trump to the justice department for violating at least four criminal statutes, while Republicans called the committee’s work a “political stunt”.In its last public meeting, the committee chose to refer Trump for charges on obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to make a false statement, and assisting, aiding or comforting an insurrection. Though the unprecedented criminal referrals are largely symbolic as the justice department will decide whether to prosecute Trump, they will give the justice department a road map should it choose to proceed.The committee also referred four House Republicans – understood to be Kevin McCarthy, Jim Jordan, Scott Perry and Andy Biggs – to the House ethics committee for failure to comply with subpoenas. And John Eastman, Trump’s attorney, was also referred for prosecution.Republicans called the investigation a “witch hunt” and played down the criminal allegations concerning the riots that led to at least five deaths.Russell Dye, a spokesperson for Representative Jim Jordan, a Trump ally from Ohio, called the referrals “just another partisan and political stunt”, in a statement to the Guardian, adding that the committee “failed to respond to Mr Jordan’s numerous letters and concerns surrounding the politicization and legitimacy of the committee’s work”.Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Georgia Republican and far-right conspiracy theorist, shared screenshots of polling of Republican primary voters, claiming the “real reason” for the criminal referrals is because committee members think Trump will be unbeatable in his run for president in 2024. She likened the United States to a communist country where people steal elections and then “weaponize the government against their political enemies and the people who support them”.Representative Troy Nehls, a Republican from Texas, retweeted a Fox News contributor who said that the committee is illegitimate. He also called it a “partisan witch hunt”, and said that “the American people are sick of it”.Read the full story:Democrats praise January 6 panel’s work as Republicans call it ‘witch hunt’Read moreIt was a late night for congressional leaders negotiating a long-term government spending package, an agreement coming in the early hours Tuesday on a $1.7tn deal.Senators are discussing the deal today. According to the Associated Press, the package includes another large round of aid to Ukraine, a nearly 10% boost in defense spending, and roughly $40bn to assist communities across the country recovering from drought, hurricanes and other natural disasters.The bill, which runs for 4,155 pages, includes about $772.5bn for non-defense discretionary programs, and $858bn in defense funding and would last through the end of the fiscal year in September.Lawmakers are racing to complete passage before a midnight Friday deadline, or face the prospect of a partial government shutdown going into the Christmas holiday.The package includes about $45bn emergency assistance to Ukraine as it battles Russia’s invasion, according to Democratic Vermont senator Patrick Leahy, chair of the Senate appropriations committee. It would be the biggest US infusion of assistance yet. Previous rounds of military, economic and humanitarian assistance have totaled about $68bn.The legislation also includes historic revisions to federal election law that aim to prevent any future presidents or presidential candidates from trying to overturn an election. The bipartisan overhaul of the Electoral Count Act is in direct response to former president Donald Trump’s efforts to convince Republican lawmakers and then-vice president Mike Pence to object to the certification of Joe Biden’s 2020 victory.Support from at least 10 Republican senators will be needed for the agreement to pass and head for consideration by the House. And that is not a guarantee.“We still haven’t seen a single page of the bill… and they’re expecting us to pass it by the end of this week. It’s insane,” Florida Republican senator Rick Scott said in a tweet.We still haven’t seen a single page of the Pelosi-Schumer spending bill, and they’re expecting us to pass it by the end of this week. It’s insane. Congress should NEVER spend YOUR MONEY on a bill we haven’t read.— Rick Scott (@SenRickScott) December 20, 2022
If Monday was a day of reckoning for Donald Trump in Congress, Tuesday is likely to be another when a House committee meets this afternoon to vote on whether to release six years of his tax returns to the public.A Supreme Court ruling last month cleared the treasury department to hand the documents to the ways and means committee, ending a three-year fight by the former president to shield many of his closest financial secrets.The committee is almost certain to vote later this afternoon to release at least some of the information, although when, and in what form, is still uncertain. But given that Democrats have been fighting so hard to get it, and their majority in the House is in its final days, it’s reasonable to assume we’ll see something soon.House Ways and Means Committee meets this afternoon and will go into closed session to discuss Trump’s tax returns that were turned over to Congress after years of court battles. With a few days left in their majority, Ds – led by Chairman Neal – need to decide how to handle them— Manu Raju (@mkraju) December 20, 2022
A big question for panel chair Richard Neal, a Massachussetts Democrat, is how far to go with the documents. Some analysts expect to see an executive summary of the returns, while others say the full documents attached to a committee report are likely.Of course, both could still happen. A vote this afternoon for any kind of public release would be another blow for the former president, who was referred to the justice department on Monday on four criminal charges relating to his insurrection over his 2020 election defeat. As we reported earlier this month, the House committee first requested Trump’s returns in 2019. Trump, who on 15 November began his third consecutive run for the presidency, dragged the issue through the court system.It was long customary, though not required, for major party presidential candidates to release their tax records. Trump was the first such candidate in four decades not to do so.Read more:US supreme court allows Congress to view Trump’s tax returnsRead moreGood morning US politics blog readers! It’s another day of peril for Donald Trump on Capitol Hill as a House committee meets this afternoon to vote on whether to release six years of the former president’s tax returns to the public.It’s a reasonable bet Trump didn’t wake in good spirits anyway after Monday’s referral to the justice department on four criminal charges relating to his insurrection, and today’s meeting of the ways and means committee is unlikely to lighten his mood.He’s spent years trying to shield his tax returns, and Democrats in Congress could blow that up in the waning days of their majority. But it’s unclear when, or in what form, we would see those returns in the event of a yes vote.Here’s what else we’re watching today:
The Senate will discuss funding to keep the government running, not quite a week after the last time. But today they’re talking about a $1.7tn spending package agreed in the early hours that will avert a shutdown for at least another year.
Voters are at the polls in Virginia to elect a Democratic nominee to fill the unexpired term of congressman Donald McEachin, who died of cancer last month after winning re-election.
Joe Biden has a quiet day planned, with no events on his public schedule. As things stand, no briefing from White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre is scheduled either, but things could change.
Please stick with us. We’ve a lot coming up today, including more analysis of the historic criminal referral for former President Trump. More

The Guardian view on the January 6 committee: Trump’s terrible, no-good yearEditorialThe referral of the former president to the justice department on four criminal charges is largely symbolic, but increases his woes In its closing months, 2022 is looking like an annus horribilis for Donald Trump – or to put it in the former president’s terms, a terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad year. The January 6 committee’s recommendation on Monday that criminal charges be brought against him over his attempt to subvert the 2020 election results and the deadly storming of the Capitol was unprecedented – the first time that Congress has referred a former president to the Department of Justice. Though largely symbolic, it has set down a marker. And it is the latest in a string of recent setbacks.His candidates triumphed in Republican primaries, but then tanked in the midterms. His announcement on his 2024 bid was lacklustre and bathetic. A New York jury found his business guilty of tax fraud. On Tuesday, a House committee was set to vote on whether to release six years of his tax returns to the public. And, of course, the list of civil actions and criminal investigations targeting him is growing.The congressional committee’s referral does not change the legal position, though some of the evidence it turned over to the justice department theoretically could. In its impact on public opinion, however, it may have an indirect effect on whether charges are brought. The evidence the committee amassed and its presentation of the facts are compelling. In televised hearings and presentations, in the executive summary published on Monday, and presumably in the full report to follow this week, it has shone an unflinching light on the brutality of that day and Mr Trump’s culpability.His own aides have testified that he was repeatedly told he had lost, and that they urged him to tell the crowd to be peaceful. Instead, he pressed Republican officials to overturn the results, then his vice-president to block Congress from approving Joe Biden’s victory. When those attempts failed, he summoned a crowd to Washington, urged it to the Capitol and for hours failed to call off supporters as they rampaged and hunted down elected politicians. Unlike Mr Trump himself, at least some participants have since admitted their responsibility. One described his involvement as “part of an attack on the rule of law”; another conceded that “I guess I was [acting] like a traitor”.The referral will, if anything, spur on Mr Trump’s fight for the Republican candidacy, further convincing him that power is the best form of protection. Charges, if laid, may reinforce rather than shift the minds of his diehard supporters. More than two-thirds of Republicans still believe that Mr Biden’s victory was illegitimate. Nonetheless, they are turning away from the former president in the polls. A large majority of Republican voters or independents who lean towards the party think someone else should be its candidate in 2024. Mr Trump wanted to clear the field, to run unchallenged. But those who trade on a strongman image cannot afford to look weak. Support for Ron DeSantis, the Florida governor, has surged. Mr Trump’s media cheerleaders, every bit as cynical as the ex-president, have turned on him. Ivanka Trump wants nothing to do with her father’s 2024 bid.It would be immensely foolish to write off the 45th president. For years he has defied the laws of political gravity, surviving scandals and offences that individually would have sunk any other candidate or office-holder. The Republican elite remain notably silent or mealy-mouthed about him. Even if he cannot recover, others are already using his playbook. Yet the prospect that he will rebound, or another like him take his place, is all the more reason to establish the full record of his actions – whether or not they ultimately lead to legal consequences.TopicsDonald TrumpOpinionJanuary 6 hearingsUS Capitol attackRon DeSantisJoe BidenUS elections 2024US justice systemeditorialsReuse this content More

US House to decide whether to release details of Trump’s tax returnsHouse committee to make decision after January 6 panel referred Donald Trump to the justice department to face criminal charges A Democratic-led US House of Representatives committee on Tuesday is due to decide whether to release details of Donald Trump’s tax returns, after a years-long court fight and just two weeks before their party surrenders power to Republicans.House committee to vote on releasing Trump’s tax returns – liveRead moreThe House ways and means committee is due to examine them behind closed doors at 3pm ET, the day after the House investigation of the January 6 assault on the Capitol by Trump supporters urged the justice department to prosecute the Republican for his role in sparking the riot.Trump, unlike previous presidential candidates, refused to make his tax returns public as he sought to keep secret the details of his wealth and the activities of his real estate company, the Trump Organization, and he fought Democrats’ efforts to get access to them.Candidates are not required by law to release their tax returns, but previous presidential hopefuls of both parties have voluntarily done so for several decades.Trump’s tax returns are still subject to confidentiality restrictions, but Democrats who control the committee could vote to make some details public.Democrats on the ways and means committee have said they need to see those records to assess whether the Internal Revenue Service is properly auditing presidential tax returns, and to gauge whether new legislation is needed. The committee’s chairman, Representative Richard Neal, has not said whether he supports making them public.They have little time to act, as Republicans are due to take control of the committee, along with the full House, in January.Another House committee on Monday asked federal prosecutors to charge Trump with obstruction and insurrection for sparking the deadly Capitol attack. Republicans are expected to dissolve or redirect that panel when they take control of the chamber.Release of any financial details could lead to more unwelcome scrutiny for Trump as he seeks the Republican nomination to run for the White House again in 2024.Trump, who served as president from 2017 to 2021, reported heavy losses from his business enterprises over several years to offset hundreds of millions of dollars in income, according to news media reporting and trial testimony about his finances. That allowed him to pay very little in taxes.The Trump Organization was found guilty on 6 December in New York of carrying out a 15-year criminal scheme to defraud tax authorities. The company faces up to $1.6m in fines, though Trump himself is not personally liable. He has said the case was politically motivated and the company plans to appeal.He also faces a separate fraud suit in New York that accuses him of artificially inflating the value of his assets.During his presidency, he faced persistent questions about conflicts of interest, as foreign dignitaries and Republican Party officials spent money in his luxury hotels. TopicsDonald TrumpHouse of RepresentativesUS politicsJanuary 6 hearingsUS Capitol attacknewsReuse this content More

FTX seeks to claw back donations to politicians and charitiesCollapsed cryptocurrency exchange had reputation for corporate philanthropy to tune of hundreds of millions of dollars FTX, the collapsed cryptocurrency exchange founded by Sam Bankman-Fried, has started trying to claw back payments made by its former management to politicians, celebrities and charities, as it continues to progress through bankruptcy proceedings in the US.FTX “intends to commence actions before the bankruptcy court to require the return of such payments, with interest accruing from the date any action is commenced”, the company said, sharing an email address – [email protected] – that recipients could use to voluntarily return money.“Recipients are cautioned that making a payment or donation to a third party (including a charity) in the amount of any payment received from a FTX contributor does not prevent the FTX debtors from seeking recovery from the recipient or any subsequent transferee,” FTX added in a statement.Bankman-Fried, other members of FTX leadership and a number of members of the FTX group all developed reputations for corporate philanthropy to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.FTX billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried funneled dark money to RepublicansRead moreHe was one of the largest political donors in the United States, giving directly to Democratic politicians and to Republican causes. Other members of the FTX inner circle were also high-profile donors, such as Ryan Salame, the co-chief executive of FTX’s Bahamian subsidiary.As well as political causes, Bankman-Fried donated large sums to charities, endowing the FTX Foundation and FTX Future Fund to promote his interests.The FTX Foundation had given away $140m (£115m), the organisation reported in October, of which $90m had gone to the Future Fund.In criminal charges filed in the state of New York, the Department of Justice has alleged that the donations were the result of criminal money laundering, since the money was effectively taken from customer accounts.The charges also allege campaign finance violations, arguing that Bankman-Fried “and others known and unknown” broke donation limits by making contributions in the names of other people.Clawing back payments made to politicians and charities is likely to be one of the easier parts of the bankruptcy process.Under US law, payments or transfers made within 90 days of bankruptcy are presumed to be preferential if they result in a creditor getting more than it would have been entitled to at the end of the bankruptcy process, and a “clawback” can attempt to recover the difference in the payments.With FTX, which lost more than $8bn from customer withdrawals in a day less than a week before it declared bankruptcy, there could be billions of dollars that the court decides were distributed unfairly.Retail depositors, however, will be hoping that they aren’t treated as typical creditors. In FTX’s terms of service, the company said depositors didn’t hand over ownership of their deposits, which has led some creditors to argue that the crypto they placed in the exchange should not be used to pay the company’s bills.In another crypto bankruptcy, for BlockFi, a shadow bank that went bust after FTX, the court is now ruling on that question.BlockFi filed a motion on Monday with the New Jersey bankruptcy court arguing: “The BlockFi Wallet terms of service are clear. They provide that ‘title to the cryptocurrency held in your BlockFi Wallet shall at all times remain with you and shall not transfer to BlockFi.’“The debtors have no legal or equitable interest in cryptocurrency that was present in the Wallet accounts as of platform pause, and clients should be able to withdraw such assets from the platform if they choose.”As such, normal retail depositors should be able to withdraw their assets, the shadow bank said.TopicsSam Bankman-FriedFTXCryptocurrenciesE-commerceUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

More ways to listen

Apple Podcasts

Google Podcasts

Spotify

RSS Feed

Download

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share via Email

On Monday, the House January 6 select committee held its final meeting, voting to formally adopt the report it had been working on for the last 18 months, referring the former president and some of his top advisers to the justice department for efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
Jonathan Freedland speaks to Hugo Lowell about what the committee found and what is likely to happen next

How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

The Guardian and Observer charity appeal for 2022 is the cost of living crisis, and you can donate here Send your questions and feedback to [email protected] Help support the Guardian by going to theguardian.com/supportpodcasts More

After 18 months investigating, the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol held its final public meeting on Dec. 19, 2022. The panel recommended that the U.S. Department of Justice bring criminal charges against former President Donald Trump for his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.

The House committee recommended that the Justice Department pursue four main charges against Trump – obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the U.S., conspiracy to make a false statement and inciting or assisting an insurrection. The committee also recommended that the House Ethics Committee sanction four Republican members of Congress who refused the committee’s subpoena requests to provide information about the events of Jan. 6.

But what does that all mean? The Conversation asked Margaret Russell, professor of constitutional law at Santa Clara University, to help explain why these recommended charges are important, where they fall short – and what could come next.

U.S. Rep. Bennie Thompson, chairman of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol, talks to reporters in November 2022.
Drew Angerer/Getty Images

1. What are the biggest takeaways from these referrals?

People have wondered whether the proceedings would have any strong result. Now it is clear that the committee does not see these proceedings as primarily about making a historical record. They have done more than that.

One big takeaway is that Trump is at the top of the pile. When the proceedings began it was not clear – though many people suspected and alleged – how much he knew, when he knew it, what he said before Jan. 6, what he knew and said before the election’s certification, and whether he knew he really had not won the election. It is now clear Trump was the architect of most of this conspiracy – and the committee is urging specific accountability for him and other people who played a part in it.

It is also interesting to think about the committee urging criminal prosecution. It really means it reached the brink. This bipartisan committee, which comprised seven Democrats and two Republicans, decided unanimously that backing away from criminal charges would be a dereliction of its duty to recommend, based on what it has found. Committee members are not telling the Department of Justice what it has to do – they can’t. But in their investigatory role they concluded that in order for there to be accountability, they needed to recommend charges.

2. Do these referrals have any legal teeth?

The magnitude of these recommended charges, particularly the insurrection one, is unprecedented. Rather than saying they don’t have legal teeth, I think they certainly have very strong teeth in the sense of urging the Department of Justice to make sure that there is accountability. Accountability is a word that jumped out to me in committee members’ statements on Dec. 19 – there must be accountability, even though this committee, of course, cannot force the Department of Justice to do anything.

The charges, of trying to overthrow the government, essentially, go right to the heart of the Constitution. There is no historical precedent for this. The Justice Department’s determination to pursue the referrals would depend on the validity of the House commitee’s findings. And since the department has been doing its own investigation of Trump, it wouldn’t be starting from ground zero. The committee’s work could be added to what it has.

A rioter at the Capitol attacks on Jan. 6, 2021, holds up a bust of Donald Trump.
Roberto Schmidt/AFP via Getty Images

3. Will the new GOP Congress have any say in these referrals?

Now that the report has been handed over and the referrals made, I would imagine the Department of Justice will start considering it. And, so, when there is a difference in leadership of the House there won’t be any way to undo it. The House can conduct its own investigations, but it cannot stop the Department of Justice and it cannot undo this report and its recommendations. Attorney General Merrick Garland has clearly sent a message that the department he runs is not influenced by outside factors. And he has tried to insulate any prosecutions from accusations of political influence by appointing a special counsel to oversee the Trump investigations.

4. Were lawmakers who ignored the subpoenas legally required to obey the committee’s request for testimony?

I think the answer is yes. The Constitution (Article I, Section 5) states that each chamber makes its own rules that bind its members. The Supreme Court has underscored this constitutional power as well as the legal legitimacy of the congressional subpoena. The consequences of ignoring a congressional subpoena might ultimately wind up within the purview of the Ethics Committee, but there are consequences.

5. Does the House committee’s report increase the likelihood that Trump will be charged?

I think it makes a strong argument in the public sphere for the prosecution of Trump, which is what a lot of people have been waiting for. It doesn’t guarantee a prosecution, but it spells out, I think meticulously, why Trump is included in this and at the forefront.

The House committee’s message of accountability – that if the nation is to consider itself to be a democracy that works there must be accountability for Trump and others – was made very powerfully. As committee member Adam Schiff said on Dec. 19, “I think the day we start giving passes to presidents or former presidents or people of power or influence is the day we can say that this was the beginning of the end of our democracy.” More

Analysis10 hearings, 1,000 interviews, millions of documents: the House panel has spokenDavid Smith in WashingtonThe evidence points to the fact that the former commander-in-chief is likely a criminal who committed a ‘crime against democracy’ Whodunnit? He did it.Donald Trump – businessman, celebrity president, golfer and digital trading card star – is also a likely criminal, the congressional panel investigating the January 6 attack on the US Capitol concluded on Monday.A very American coup attempt: Jan 6 panel lays bare Trump’s bid for powerRead moreThe committee’s referral of Trump to the justice department on multiple potential charges could not be described as a surprise after a year and half of work that spanned 10 public hearings, more than a thousand interviews, millions of documents and some recent leaks to the media.Yet take a step back and consider how it will look to future historians. A former president of the United States stands accused by Congress of obstructing an official proceeding, conspiring to defraud the United States, conspiring to make a false statement and inciting, assisting or aiding or comforting an insurrection.“We understand the gravity of each and every referral we are making today just as we understand the magnitude of the crime against democracy that we describe in our report,” said congressman Jamie Raskin with flinty authority, as if pronouncing a verdict in a hushed courtroom. “But we have gone where the facts and the law lead us, and inescapably they lead us here.”The committee’s work has often earned comparisons to a television thriller or true crime podcast with help from producer James Goldston, the former president of ABC News. On Monday, at a meeting that lasted about 70 minutes, it served up its denouement and did not disappoint. Along with the style, there was serious substance.Just as before, congressional aides, journalists and members of the public gathered in a caucus room measuring 74ft long by 54ft feet wide with six windows, two crystal chandeliers hanging from a double-height ceiling decorated with classical motifs. It once was the site of some of the most publicised hearings of the House Un-American Activities Committee in the 1950s.It was also recently renamed the Speaker Nancy Pelosi caucus room – exquisitely fitting since it was the House speaker, not Trump, who acted in a presidential manner on January 6, seeking to rally security forces and keep democracy running even as the actual president tried to burn it all down.Bennie Thompson, the bald, bespectacled, white-bearded chairman, hammered the now familiar gavel for the last time. He spoke of a country that remains “in strange and uncharted waters” and warned that, if America is to survive as a nation of laws and democracy, “this can never happen again”.He handed over to vice-chairwoman Liz Cheney, who unexpectedly emerged as many liberals’ favorite conservative during the hearings, given her unyielding denunciations of Trump and his allies. She paid the ultimate price by losing her congressional seat to a pro-Trump Republican in Wyoming.On Monday, she did little to quell suspicions that she has a presidential run in her future by speaking of her great-great grandfather’s service during the civil war and quoting Ronald Reagan. As for Trump’s conduct around January 6, Cheney was scathing: “No man who would behave that way at that moment in time can ever serve in any position of authority in our nation again. He is unfit for any office.”The panel of seven Democrats and five Republicans served up a helpful montage of video clips that functioned as a reminder of both Trump’s malfeasance and its own excellent work over the past 18 months. It began with scenes of chaos outside the Capitol and testimony from Capitol police officer Caroline Edwards: “There were officers on the ground; they were bleeding. They were throwing up … I saw friends with blood all over their faces. I was slipping in people’s blood.”It also gave a summing up of points so pithy that they could be written on the back of a digital trading card: Trump knew he lost; Trump pressured state officials to overturn the election; Trump pressured vice-president Pence to overturn the election (once again chants of “Hang Mike Pence!” filled the room); Trump summoned the mob; 187 minutes. Dereliction of duty.The film ended with Trump’s pathetic statement to a camera on 7 January: “I don’t want to say the election’s over.”Individual members of the committee then took turns to present a different facet of the evidence. Congressman Adam Schiff, another emerging star, showed a striking image of real electoral certificates juxtaposed with the fake ones that Trump and his allies hoped to deploy instead. He described the treatment of Georgia election worker Ruby Freeman and others as “callous, inhuman, inexcusable and dangerous – and those responsible should be held accountable”.There was also some new evidence, including a recent interview with longtime Trump aide Hope Hicks.She testified that both she and Eric Herschmann, a former White House lawyer, had urged Trump to tell his supporters to be peaceful before the Capitol riot but “he refused”.Describing a conversation she had with Trump, she said he told her that no one would care about his legacy if he lost the election. Hicks told the committee that Trump told her: “The only thing that matters is winning.”Appropriately, it fell to Raskin to “bring it home”. The Maryland congressman had emerged as a clarion voice of moral clarity as he led a second senate impeachment trial of Trump. He continued to show a penetrating intelligence and an ardent faith in the constitution during the committee hearings.When he spoke forcefully on Monday, outlining the referrals of Trump to the justice department on criminal charges, the atmosphere in the room shifted to a more sombre one. The referrals are mostly symbolic with the department ultimately deciding whether to prosecute Trump or others.House January 6 panel found Trump lawyers tried to influence witnessesRead moreBut they provide another wake-up call for the Republican party. Since the last January 6 hearing, Trump has announced that he is running for the White House again while his handpicked election-denying candidates have been routed in the midterm elections. The ghosts of elections past, present and future are converging. There has seldom been a better opportunity for Republicans to disown him.The committee, which will dissolve on 3 January with the new Republican-controlled House, voted to approve its final report, expected later this week. Thompson brought down the gavel and people in the public gallery broke into polite but heartfelt applause. After a year and a half wading through obstruction, hype and scepticism, the chairman and his team delivered the goods.TopicsUS politicsJanuary 6 hearingsDonald TrumpTrump administrationanalysisReuse this content More

The House panel investigating Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat has referred the former president for four criminal charges, including engaging in an insurrection, in what the committee’s chair says is a “roadmap to justice”.01:51The stunning, unprecedented referral of an ex-president came at the final meeting of the bipartisan panel on Monday afternoon. The nine members also voted unanimously to approve the final report of the 18-month investigation, which will be released on Wednesday.The committee alleged violations of four criminal statutes by Trump, in both the run-up to the January riot and during his efforts to remain in power after his defeat by Joe Biden.The panel is also referring four Republican members of Congress to the House ethics committee for refusing to comply with subpoenas.The Trump referrals are for “influencing or impeding a an official proceeding of the US government”, “conspiring to defraud the US”, “unlawfully, knowingly or willingly making false statements to the federal government”, and “assisting or engaging in insurrection against the United States”.Mississippi Democrat Bennie Thompson, the panel chair, said the referrals will be transmitted to the justice department in very short order.They are largely symbolic, as attorney general Merrick Garland will make his own decision on charges at the conclusion of the justice department’s own investigations, headed by special prosecutor Jack Smith.But, speaking to CNN after the session, Thompson said:.css-cumn2r{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}I’m convinced the justice department will charge former president Trump. No-one, including the former president, is above the law.In his opening remarks to the meeting, Thompson said: “We have every confidence that the work of this committee will help provide a roadmap to justice.”John Eastman, Trump’s attorney, whom the panel said had helped Trump in his conspiracy to stay in power, was also referred. Unnamed others are also likely to face referrals, including former chief of staff Mark Meadows, Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, and former department of justice official Jeffrey Clark.Maryland Democrat Jamie Raskin announced the referrals. “Ours is not a system where foot soldiers go to jail, and the masterminds and ringleaders get a free pass,” Raskin said:.css-cumn2r{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}The president has an affirmative and primary constitutional duty to act to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Nothing could be a greater betrayal of this duty than to assist in insurrection against the constitutional order.Unanswered questions, ‘unsolved crimes’: the 6 January pipe bombs After more than a year of work, there are still key questions about 6 January that remain unanswered, including: who was responsible for placing the “viable” pipe bombs outside the Democratic and Republican national committee headquarters that were discovered that day? Amazed that there’s not a single mention of the pipe bombs in all 161 pages of the J6 Select Committee’s exec summary of their findings, or in their final hearing. Have we all forgotten about the bombs found on J6 – or the fact that the bomb-maker remains at large?— Tess Owen (@misstessowen) December 19, 2022
Asked about that issue, congressman Jamie Raskin said “I don’t believe there have been any updates since we first looked int to. Those are unsolved crimes,” CNN reported. #FBIWFO continues to work with @ATFWashington, @CapitolPolice, @DCPoliceDept to identify the person responsible for placing pipe bombs near the Democratic National Committee Headquarters & Republican National Committee Headquarters on 1/5, the night before the Capitol riots. 1/3— FBI Washington Field (@FBIWFO) January 6, 2022
January 6 committee Democrat who lost her House seat: ‘It’s all been worth it.’This is Lois Beckett, picking up our live politics coverage from Los Angeles.Democratic congresswoman Elaine Luria of Virginia, a member of the January 6 House committee, lost her reelection bid to her Republican opponent.As Luria recapped the January 6 committee’s recommendations this afternoon, CNN’s Jake Tapper asked her if she thought the committee’s work had played a role in her loss.Luria said she believed it had, but that she felt preventing another event like January 6 was more important than her individual political career.“It’s all been worth it,” she said.Luria also emphasized that the 2022 midterms more broadly had not produced a wave of victories for the most pro-Trump candidates, as the former president had hoped. “The most emphatic election deniers — they did not win,” she said.Donald Trump lit the flame, poured gasoline on the fire, and sat in the White House dining room for hours watching the fire burn as rioters attacked the U.S. Capitol. Today, he continues to fan those flames. This was his dereliction of duty. pic.twitter.com/2bj4zZfmC8— Rep. Elaine Luria (@RepElaineLuria) December 19, 2022
Luria and other Democrats told the New York Times they believed the January 6 committee’s work had more importance for midterm voters than polls had indicated.Four law enforcement officers who came under attack during the January 6 Capitol riot have just been on CNN, sharing their thoughts about the criminal referrals for Donald Trump handed down this afternoon by the January 6 House committee.Daniel Hodges, DC Metropolitan Police:.css-cumn2r{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}It’s entirely appropriate. I don’t think anything is really surprising about the charges. The chatter was whether it would be meaningful at all for the committee to make these referrals and I think it is, even if it’s just symbolic.
Symbols have meanings, symbols of power, and, you know, future generations [will] look back and say that this branch of Congress, this branch of government, did the best they could to make accountability happen.Michael Fanone, DC Metropolitan police:.css-cumn2r{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}I think it was appropriate having sat through each and every one of the committee’s hearings. This was the inevitable outcome. Again, you know, it is symbolic and it’s up to the Department of Justice, ultimately, to seek criminal accountability for those responsible for the January 6 insurrection.Aquilino Gonell, US Capitol Police:.css-cumn2r{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}It’s been very meaningful to have that coming from Congress, given the amount of evidence that they uncovered, and it’s appropriate.Harry Dunn, US Capitol Police:.css-cumn2r{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}I’m glad that they did it. But respectfully to the January 6 committee, it’s been two years. We knew what they announced today on January 7, 2021.
I really appreciate all the work that they’ve done and they’re continuing to do, and the justice department is doing. But I don’t even want to get into the what ifs if they don’t [charge Trump].Here’s our full story about this afternoon’s House January 6 committee meeting that approved criminal referrals for Donald Trump. Chris Stein reports:The January 6 committee has referred Donald Trump to the justice department to face criminal charges, accusing the former president of fomenting an insurrection and conspiring against the government over his attempt to subvert the outcome of the 2020 election, and the bloody attack on the US Capitol.The committee’s referrals approved by its members Monday are the first time in American history that Congress has recommended charges against a former president. It comes after more than a year of investigation by the bipartisan House of Representatives panel tasked with understanding Trump’s plot to stop Joe Biden from taking office.“The committee believes that more than sufficient evidence exists for a criminal referral of former President Trump for assisting or aiding and comforting those at the Capitol who engaged in a violent attack on the United States,” congressman Jamie Raskin said as the committee held its final public meeting.“The committee has developed significant evidence that President Trump intended to disrupt the peaceful transition of power under our Constitution. The president has an affirmative and primary constitutional duty to act to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Nothing could be a greater betrayal of this duty than to assist in insurrection against the constitutional order.”The committee accused Trump of breaching four federal criminal statutes, including those relating to obstructing an official proceeding of Congress, assisting an insurrection and conspiring to defraud the United States. It also believed Trump committed seditious conspiracy — the same charge for which two members of the rightwing Oath Keepers militia group were found guilty of by a jury last month.The lawmakers also referred four Republican House representatives to the chamber’s ethics committee. The group includes Kevin McCarthy, the GOP leader who is expected to run for speaker of the House when the party takes control of the chamber next year.Read the full story:House January 6 panel recommends criminal charges against Donald TrumpRead moreDonald Trump could face up to 25 years in prison if he is convicted of the four criminal charges for which a House panel this afternoon referred him to the justice department.The US code on assisting with or engaging in an insurrection allows for a sentence of up to 10 years, and disqualification from holding or running for “any office under the United States” for anyone convicted.The former president announced his third run for the White House as a Republican last month.As for the other three charges Trump could face, all carry prison terms of up to five years, “conspiracy to defraud the US”, “unlawfully, knowingly or willingly making false statements to the federal government”; and “influencing or impeding a an official proceeding of the US government”.There is, of course, uncertainty over whether the justice department will charge Trump with these crimes, far more whether he would be convicted. But this is the first time we know of the potential penalties Trump faces for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.We’ll see the full report (hopefully) on Wednesday, but here’s the executive summary of the January 6 House panel’s findings, published this afternoon at the conclusion of its final meeting.It gives an outline of the 18-month investigation and key findings that resulted in a criminal referral for Donald Trump on four federal charges today, including assisting in or engaging in an insurrection.You can read the panel’s summary here.The House panel investigating Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat has referred the former president for four criminal charges, including engaging in an insurrection, in what the committee’s chair says is a “roadmap to justice”.01:51The stunning, unprecedented referral of an ex-president came at the final meeting of the bipartisan panel on Monday afternoon. The nine members also voted unanimously to approve the final report of the 18-month investigation, which will be released on Wednesday.The committee alleged violations of four criminal statutes by Trump, in both the run-up to the January riot and during his efforts to remain in power after his defeat by Joe Biden.The panel is also referring four Republican members of Congress to the House ethics committee for refusing to comply with subpoenas.The Trump referrals are for “influencing or impeding a an official proceeding of the US government”, “conspiring to defraud the US”, “unlawfully, knowingly or willingly making false statements to the federal government”, and “assisting or engaging in insurrection against the United States”.Mississippi Democrat Bennie Thompson, the panel chair, said the referrals will be transmitted to the justice department in very short order.They are largely symbolic, as attorney general Merrick Garland will make his own decision on charges at the conclusion of the justice department’s own investigations, headed by special prosecutor Jack Smith.But, speaking to CNN after the session, Thompson said:.css-cumn2r{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}I’m convinced the justice department will charge former president Trump. No-one, including the former president, is above the law.In his opening remarks to the meeting, Thompson said: “We have every confidence that the work of this committee will help provide a roadmap to justice.”John Eastman, Trump’s attorney, whom the panel said had helped Trump in his conspiracy to stay in power, was also referred. Unnamed others are also likely to face referrals, including former chief of staff Mark Meadows, Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, and former department of justice official Jeffrey Clark.Maryland Democrat Jamie Raskin announced the referrals. “Ours is not a system where foot soldiers go to jail, and the masterminds and ringleaders get a free pass,” Raskin said:.css-cumn2r{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}The president has an affirmative and primary constitutional duty to act to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Nothing could be a greater betrayal of this duty than to assist in insurrection against the constitutional order.Here are some more tweets from the House January 6 committee session today:Congresswoman Elaine Luria: “President Trump lit the flame, he poured gasoline on the fire and sat back in the White House dining room for hours watching the fire burn.”— David Smith (@SmithInAmerica) December 19, 2022
“Our Committee had the opportunity last Spring to present much of our evidence to a federal judge… The judge concluded that both former President Donald Trump and John Eastman likely violated two federal criminal statutes.”-@RepRaskin— January 6th Committee (@January6thCmte) December 19, 2022
Liz Cheney: “Every president in our history has defended this orderly transfer of authority except one.” pic.twitter.com/HmGcnjLbBq— Republicans against Trumpism (@RpsAgainstTrump) December 19, 2022
The January 6 Committee has just referred Donald John Trump to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution.There is sufficient evidence that he committed multiple crimes. And it’s past time for him to face justice.— Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) December 19, 2022
The four Republican congressmen who have been referred to the House ethics committee for refusing to comply with the January 6 panel’s subpoenas are Kevin McCarthy, the House minority leader and would-be speaker from California; Jim Jordan of Ohio; Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and Andy Biggs of Arizona.New: Jan. 6 referrals subcommittee chair Jamie Raskin recommends referring House Republicans — understood to be Kevin McCarthy, Jim Jordan, Scott Perry and Andy Biggs — to the House Ethics Committee for failure to comply with lawful subpoenas— Hugo Lowell (@hugolowell) December 19, 2022
Illinois Republican and penal member Adam Kinzinger appears to have hit his tweet button within seconds of the hearing ending:Our work on the @January6thCmte has led us to criminally refer Donald Trump to DOJ. We now turn to the criminal justice system to ensure Justice under the law. The American people can ensure he’s never elected again.— Adam Kinzinger (@RepKinzinger) December 19, 2022
The final act of the members of the January 6 House panel was to vote unanimously to approve its final report, which will be released on Wednesday.But the “wow” moment of the hearing, which lasted a little more than one hour, was undoubtedly the historic, unprecedented criminal referral to the justice department of former president Donald Trump, including for assisting with or engaging in an insurrection against the United States.We’ll have plenty more reaction and analysis coming up. Please stick with us. The January 6 House panel is recommending criminal referrals for Donald Trump, his lawyer John Eastman and others for violating four federal criminal statutes, Maryland Democrat Jamie Raskin says.They are “influencing or impeding a an official proceeding of the US government”, “conspiring to defraud the US”, “unlawfully, knowingly or willingly making false statements to the federal government”, and “assisting or engaging in insurrection against the United States”.Four members of Congress will also be referred to the House ethics committee for refusing to comply with subpoenas, he says.“Ours is not a system where foot soldiers go to jail, and the masterminds and ringleaders get a free pass,” Raskin said.The referrals will be sent to the justice department in short order, panel chair Bennie Thompson says.More details to come… More