US Politics

‘It was a war scene’: Caroline Edwards describes Capitol attack violenceThe Capitol police officer, who was injured in the insurrection, said she saw colleagues ‘bleeding, on the ground, throwing up’ Caroline Edwards, a Capitol police officer who sustained a brain injury during the January 6 attack, gave a chilling recollection of the brutal violence of that day on Thursday, telling the committee investigating the attack it was a “war scene”.Her testimony offered key evidence for underscoring the stakes of the congressional hearing. It showed viewers at home that the attack on the Capitol in Washington DC was not an accident, but rather an intentional effort to inflict violence.“I can remember my breath catching in my throat because what I saw was a war scene,” she told the committee. “Officers on the ground. They were bleeding, on the ground, throwing up,” she said.January 6 hearing: Trump was at heart of plot that led to ‘attempted coup’Read more“I was slipping in people’s blood,” she added. “I was catching people as they fell. It was carnage. It was chaos. I can’t even describe what I saw.”Edwards is believed to have been one of the first officers injured during the attack, the New York Times reported last year. The committee played several clips of her being attacked.She described standing near a barricade as members of the Proud Boys, a far-right group that played a key role in the violence, escalated their attack. She described telling her sergeant they would need more people to defend the Capitol before a bike rack was thrown on top of her and she hit her head on nearby stairs, causing her to black out.But after regaining consciousness, Edwards, then 31, returned to defending the Capitol. “Adrenaline kicked in. I ran towards the west front, and I tried to hold the line at the Senate steps at the lower west terrace. More people kept coming at us.”In her testimony, she recalled seeing a fellow police officer, Brian Sicknick, after he had been pepper-sprayed and how he was pale. “He was ghostly pale, which I figured at that point that he had been sprayed and I was concerned,” she said.Sicknick died in the immediate aftermath of the attack but a medical examiner ultimately determined he died of a stroke. His mother and girlfriend attended the hearing on Thursday. After the hearing concluded, Edwards turned to his girlfriend, Sandra Garza, and said “I’m so sorry,” and hugged her, according to the Wall Street Journal.Edwards didn’t hesitate when she was asked to recall a memory that stuck out to her from that day.“It was something I’d seen out of the movies,” she said. “I saw friends with blood all over their faces,” she said. “Never in my wildest dreams did I think that as a police officer, as a law enforcement officer, I would find myself in the middle of a battle.”“I’m trained to detain a couple of subjects and handle a crowd, but I’m not combat trained,” She said. “That day, it was just hours of hand-to-hand combat.”TopicsUS Capitol attackUS policingThe far rightUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

Panel to connect Proud Boys and Oath Keepers in Capitol attack conspiracySources say investigators intend to show far-right militias coordinated in effort to storm US Capitol on January 6 last year The House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack is expected at its first hearing on Thursday evening to connect the far-right Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers militia groups in the same seditious conspiracy, according to two sources familiar with the matter.The move by the panel and chief investigative counsel Tim Heaphy could be one of the major revelations that comes from the hearing, which is expected to focus on the militia groups and how they made plans to storm the Capitol, the sources said.US braces for House committee’s primetime January 6 hearings – liveRead moreTop members of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers have been charged separately by the justice department with seditious conspiracy, but the select committee’s intention to show that their efforts were connected would escalate the gravity of the plans to attack the Capitol.The panel is understood to be able to connect the two groups in part as it got access to the Oath Keepers’ encrypted Signal messaging chats, while the first witness at the hearing, documentarian Nick Quested, who filmed the Proud Boys, overheard their planning.Text messages released by the justice department have also shown that the two groups were in touch before January 6. Meanwhile at least one person, Joshua James, appears to have simultaneously been both a member of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers.It could not be confirmed ahead of the hearing whether the select committee had the evidence to tie Donald Trump into the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers’ conspiracy. But the panel is not expected to tie Roger Stone to the conspiracy, having been unable to find any such evidence.The role of the militia groups in the story of January 6 is important because they specifically planned to storm the Capitol to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s election win – what Trump wanted and needed after his other efforts to overturn the election failed.The panel is expected to make its case that there was coordination between the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers – something the panel has long believed – over the course of a hearing that will specifically zero in on the role of the Proud Boys in the Capitol attack.A member of the Proud Boys was the first person to breach the Capitol by using a police riot shield to break through a window on the Senate side of the Capitol, and another member of the Proud Boys appeared to precipitate the first breach of police lines on January 6.The inaugural hearing is expected to focus on Quested’s video footage of the moment that Joseph Biggs, a member of the Proud Boys indicted for seditious conspiracy on Monday, had a brief exchange with another man near the Peace Monument at the foot of Capitol Hill.Biggs’ exchange with that man, Ryan Samsel, is widely seen as the tipping point that precipitated the riot. Samsel, who has been charged with attacking police, then walks up alone to the barricade and confronts US Capitol police officers before pushing it over.The inaugural hearing is also expected to focus on Quested’s video of the Proud Boys charging up Capitol Hill towards the lower west plaza of the Capitol and the inaugural ceremony platform, where Proud Boys member Dominic Pezzola smashes the window with the shield.Also during the inaugural hearing, the select committee is expected to play previously unreleased video of Trump’s top aides and family members testifying before the panel. The panel intends to show Trump was at the center of a multi-step effort to overturn the election.TopicsUS Capitol attackRepublicansUS politicsThe far rightnewsReuse this content More

Michigan candidate for governor arrested for participating in Capitol riotRepublican Ryan Kelley was caught on video shouting ‘this is war’ on the steps of the Capitol A Republican standing for governor of Michigan has been arrested by the FBI for disorderly and disruptive conduct related to his alleged involvement in the storming of the US Capitol building on 6 January 2021.Ryan Kelley was arrested on Thursday morning while his house near Grand Rapids was searched by federal agents, the Detroit News reported. An indictment released by the US district court for Washington DC, which is handling most of the criminal cases arising out of the January 6 insurrection, charged Kelley with “disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds”.Kelley, a real estate agent, is one of five Republican candidates remaining in Michigan’s primary gubernatorial race, which will be held in August. His arrest throws the contest into further disarray: five other Republican candidates have already been disqualified having been accused of submitting fraudulent petitions to get on to the ballot.Video footage captured during the storming of the US Capitol on January 6 appears to show Kelley climbing the outer steps of the compound shouting: “Come on, let’s go! This is it! This is war baby!”The criminal complaint against Kelley said that as Mike Pence was beginning the certification process of Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election, a large crowd gathered outside the US Capitol. It says that an anonymous tipster contacted the FBI with photos of a man in a black coat, backwards black baseball cap and aviator sunglasses who appeared to be Kelley.The FBI said that it had positively identified Kelley as the man in the photographs using witnesses. According to the charges, Kelley was part of the crowd that pushed its way into the Capitol, at one point standing on an architectural feature next to the north-west stairs and indicating “by waving his hand that the crowd behind him should move towards the stairs leading into the UC Capitol building”.Kelley’s arrest and prosecution comes just hours before the House select committee that is investigating the January 6 insurrection holds the first of six televised hearings. With less than two months to go before the August primary, the Republican primary race in Michigan is now in turmoil.The five other candidates who have already been thrown off the ballot were disqualified last month after thousands of allegedly fraudulent signatures were found on petitions for the individuals to be nominated into the primary race. To be considered, each candidate had to gather at least 15,000 valid signatures.But according to election authorities in the state, thousands of invalid signatures were discovered. The elections bureau said it did not suspect the candidates of being aware of the fraud, but penalised them for failing to ensure that their petitions were legitimate.The Michigan Democratic party responded swiftly to Kelley’s arrest. Lavora Barnes, the party chair, told the Detroit Free Press: “Just days after their field was cut in half due to corruption and mass fraud, Republican gubernatorial candidates’ callous disregard for the principles of democracy was on full display again today.”TopicsMichiganUS Capitol attackUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

Washington Commanders coach sorry after calling Capitol attack a ‘dust-up’Jack Del Rio referred to Capitol riots as ‘dust-up’ in tweetWashington defensive coordinator joined staff in 2020 An assistant coach for the NFL’s Washington Commanders issued an apology for his word choice after doubling down on a comparison he made on social media between the violent attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, and the protests in the wake of the police killing of George Floyd.Washington coach defends comparing Floyd protests to January 6 riotsRead moreJack Del Rio, a former linebacker who now runs Washington’s defense, downplayed the deadly insurrection and questioned why the summer of 2020 protests were not receiving the same scrutiny. His comments Wednesday after an offseason practice came a day before a House committee investigating the pro-Donald Trump disruption of Congress 17 months ago begins public hearings on the matter.“People’s livelihoods are being destroyed, businesses are being burned down, no problem,” Del Rio said. “And then we have a dust-up at the Capitol, nothing burned down, and we’re going to make that a major deal. I just think it’s kind of two standards.”Amid backlash for his comments, Del Rio released a statement on Twitter Wednesday afternoon apologizing his word choice. Del Rio said it was “irresponsible and negligent” to call the riot a “dust-up.” But he said he stood by comments “condemning violence in communities across the country.”His comments followed a Twitter post Monday night in which he said, “Would love to understand ‘the whole story’ about why the summer of riots, looting, burning and the destruction of personal property is never discussed but this is ???” He was responding to a tweet about the Congressional hearings into Jan. 6.Del Rio and coach Ron Rivera say they aren’t concerned if the opinion will upset Black players who make up the majority of their team, some of whom spoke out about police brutality and racism in the wake of Floyd’s killing two years ago.“If they are (concerned) and they want to talk about it, I’d talk about it with anybody,” Del Rio said. “No problem. At any time. But they’re not. I’m just expressing myself and I think we all as Americans have a right to express ourselves, especially if you’re being respectful. I’m being respectful.”Washington defensive back Kendall Fuller, a Black player, said he was not aware of Del Rio’s tweet. After a reporter read it to him, Fuller said: “I don’t have a reaction right now. If I have a reaction, a feeling, towards something, I’ll express that with him.”Del Rio, 59, has posted conservative opinions to his verified Twitter account numerous times since joining Rivera’s staff in Washington in 2020.“Anything that I ever say or write, I’d be comfortable saying or writing in front of everybody that I work with, players and coaches,” Del Rio said. “I express myself as an American. We have that ability. I love this country and I believe what I believe and I’ve said what I want to say. Every now and then, there’s some people that get offended by it.”The remarks generated a prompt backlash from some Virginia lawmakers, who for months have been considering whether to pass legislation intended to incentivize the team to build a new stadium in the commonwealth by offering generous tax incentives. Two northern Virginia Democratic senators who had previously been enthusiastic supporters of the measure expressed concerns about Del Rio’s comments.Jeremy McPike tweeted a clip of Del Rio speaking with the message: “Yup. Just sealed the deal to cast my vote as a NO. I think what’s burning down today is the stadium bill.” Scott Surovell predicted there would be no more “votes on stadium bills this year.”Senate majority leader Dick Saslaw, a sponsor of the bill, said the comments were “not helpful” but talks over the legislation would continue. The measure initially cleared the state with broad Senate support, but other defectors had raised concerns even before Del Rio’s remarks.With five years left until their current lease at FedEx Field is set to expire, the Commanders have no stadium deal in place with Virginia, Maryland or the District of Columbia.Rivera, who hired Del Rio to run Washington’s defense without any prior relationship, said he would not discuss anything he talks about with his staff.“Everybody’s entitled to their opinion, though,” Rivera said. “If it ever becomes an issue or a situation, we’ll have that discussion. Right now, it’s something that I will deal with when it comes up.”Del Rio played 11 NFL seasons from 1985-95. He has coached in the league since 1997, including stints as the head coach of the Jacksonville Jaguars from 2003-11 and Oakland Raiders from 2015-17.Washington’s defense ranked 22nd out of 32 teams last season after being the league’s second-best in 2020. Del Rio said he likes his players and welcomes any dialogue with them.“Let’s have a discussion. We’re Americans,” he said. “Let’s talk it through. I’m for us having a great opportunity having a fulfilled life every which way I can. When I’m here it’s about love and respect. I love my guys, I respect my guys but I also love the fact that I’m an American and that means I’m free to express myself. I’m not afraid to do that.”TopicsWashington CommandersNFLUS Capitol attackUS politicsUS sportsReuse this content More

Pressure mounts on Senate to act on gun safety amid Republican resistanceRelatives of victims urge action while group of over 220 CEOS send joint letter pushing Senate to address gun violence Pressure is mounting on the US Senate to act on gun safety in the wake of the Uvalde and Buffalo massacres, as Republican intransigence continues to stand in the way of all but modest reforms.On Wednesday the House of Representatives passed a package of gun safety measures designed to staunch the disaster of mass shootings. The extent of Republican resistance was underlined by the fact that only five out of 208 House Republicans voted for the legislation.Uvalde survivor, 11, tells House hearing she smeared herself with friend’s blood Read moreNow the focus – and with it the anger of victims’ families and gun safety advocates – turns to the Senate. With the chamber divided 50-50, and 60 votes needed to overcome the filibuster, there is no chance of Democrats passing any changes unless they can bring Republican leaders with them.As compromise talks continue, there are tentative hopes that a deal might be in the offing. But the outcome is likely to be dictated by Republican refusal to contemplate anything other than limited steps.The most promising proposals under discussion include plans to increase resources for mental health treatment, school safety provisions and money to encourage states to introduce “red flag laws” that remove guns from those who might harm themselves or others.On Thursday a group of more than 220 CEOs from some of the biggest brands in the US sent a joint letter to the Senate in which they lamented what they called the “public health crisis” of gun violence. “We urge the Senate to take immediate action … Transcend partisanship and work together to pass bold legislation to address gun violence in our country,” the letter said.Among the signatories were business leaders of some of the most familiar corporations, including Levi Strauss & Co, Lyft, Unilever US, Yelp and the Philadelphia Eagles.Chip Bergh, CEO of Levi Strauss, said in a statement that it was time for senators to act. “Inaction on federal legislation has made gun violence a uniquely American problem,” he said.Gun safety groups are also piling on the pressure on the Senate. Kris Brown, president of the Brady campaign, pointed out that the Senate has sat on legislation to tighten federal background checks on gun sales for the past 15 months.“That’s 15 months of lethal inaction,” he said.The most visceral cries for something to be done are coming from relatives of those who died in the recent massacres. Kimberly Rubio, the mother of Lexi, 10, who was killed in last month’s mass shooting in Uvalde elementary school in Texas, told a House committee this week that it was time for a ban on assault rifles of the sort used to murder her daughter.“We understand for some reason, to some people – to people with money, to people who fund political campaigns – that guns are more important than children. So at this moment, we ask for progress,” she said.A ban on AR-15 style rifles – the sort used in both Uvalde, where 19 children and two teachers were killed, and in Buffalo, New York, where 10 Black people were killed at a grocery store – is not on the agenda for the Senate compromise talks. The discussions, which are being led by the Democratic senator from Connecticut Chris Murphy and his Republican counterpart John Cornyn from Texas, are focusing on more granular measures that have greater hope of moving forward.Other ideas on the table are a proposal to introduce juvenile records into federal background checks for anyone under 21 trying to buy a firearm. Senate Republicans will not countenance raising the age limit to buy AR-15s to 21, even though both the Uvalde and alleged Buffalo shooters were aged 18.Mass shootings continue to be an epidemic in the US, occurring far more frequently than high-profile disasters such as Uvalde and Buffalo. The Gun Violence Archive, which tracks mass shootings, defined as events in which four or more people are shot or killed, counts 251 such incidents in the US so far this year.TopicsUS SenateUS gun controlUS politicsRepublicansDemocratsHouse of RepresentativesnewsReuse this content More

What to know about the public January 6 committee hearingsHouse panel investigating the Capitol attack will hold six public hearings where it will unveil new evidence against Trump The House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack is scheduled on Thursday to hold the first of six public hearings where it will unveil new evidence collected against Donald Trump and a range of other operatives over the course of its 10-month inquiry.The congressional investigation into the events of January 6, when a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s election win, has said it has evidence to suggest Trump violated the law to overturn the 2020 election results.What are the January 6 committee hearings?Likened to the Watergate hearings, the select committee is holding six public hearings to reveal the mountain of evidence it acquired over the course of the sprawling investigation, which interviewed more than 1,000 people and reviewed more than 125,000 documents.The first and last hearings are due to be shown in prime time in America in a move that may cement them in popular culture as a genuine and high-profile effort to warn of a past and ongoing threat to US democracy.When will they occur?The hearings are expected to take place over two weeks. According to a draft schedule first obtained by the Guardian, the panel is looking to hold the first and last hearings in at 8pm ET, and the middle four hearings in the morning at 10am ET.On 9 June, at the inaugural hearing taking place on Capitol Hill, the select committee is expected to make opening arguments, outline a roadmap for the hearings, and then immediately dive into around two hours of events leading up to the Capitol attack.The middle four hearings – tentatively scheduled for 13, 15, 16 and 21 June – are likely to focus on themes like Trumps’ false claims of voter fraud undermining US elections, and how he tried to use fake electors to deceive Congress into returning him to office.The panel is then likely to reserve its most explosive revelations for the final hearing in prime time, where the select committee members Adam Kinzinger and Elaine Luria are expected to run through Trump’s actions and inactions as the January 6 attack unfolded.What is the point of the hearings and what evidence do they have?The select committee’s ambitions for the hearings are twofold: presenting the basis for alleging Trump broke the law, and placing the Capitol attack in a broader context of efforts to overturn the election, with the ex-president’s involvement as the central thread.Among some of the evidence that has already become public include admissions from Trump’s top former legal adviser John Eastman, who admitted in emails obtained by the panel that his plan to obstruct Biden’s certification was unlawful – but pressed ahead anyway.The select committee has also obtained White House records that Trump attempted to hide from the inquiry, before he was overruled by the supreme court, that indicated he lied to his supporters that he would march with them to the Capitol to send them to the building.House investigators have also obtained testimony and photo and video from inside the White House as the pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol, including about how he appeared to obstruct the certification through inaction by refusing to tell the rioters to leave Capitol Hill.The panel also expects to chart the re-emergence of the “Stop the Steal” movement by the Trump activist Ali Alexander and others, and how leaders of militia groups like the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and the First Amendment Praetorian coalesced before January 6.How will the hearings unfold and how will its argument be presented?The select committee is aiming to use the public hearings to tell the story of January 6 – and how the Capitol attack was the culmination of months of efforts by Trump and his allies to first reverse his election defeat, and then stop Biden becoming president at any cost.In order to tell that story, the select committee intends to have its senior investigative counsels reveal previously secret White House records, photos and videos that will be presented, in real time, to starkly illustrate the live witness testimony.One of the members on the select committee will lead each of the hearings, but it will be top committee counsel who are intimately familiar with the material that will primarily conduct the questioning of witnesses, to keep testimony tightly on track.And as the panel has witnesses testify under oath, committee counsel will simultaneously flash texts and emails, as well as new photos and videos to illustrate the testimony in real time.Where it will be shown?The hearings will be televised. MSNBC will have an hour “pre-game” before the primetime hearings, carry the events live, and then an hour “post-game” afterwards. MSNBC’s streaming service, Peacock, will follow the same format. CNN and CBS will also carry them live.Fox News is the only network that will not show the hearings. For the first and final hearings, Fox News’ highest-rated host Tucker Carlson will run his regular show to deliver “counter-programming” to undercut the evidence presented by the select committee.TopicsUS Capitol attackHouse of RepresentativesUS politicsexplainersReuse this content More

Why the televised hearings on the January 6 insurrection will be historicRobert ReichThey will mark a milestone in the battle between democracy and autocracy. Everyone should tune in and watch them The televised hearings of the House select committee on the January 6 insurrection, which begin on Thursday, mark an historic milestone in the battle between democracy and autocracy. The events that culminated in the attack on the Capitol constitute the first attempted presidential coup in our nation’s 233-year history.To a large degree, the success of these hearings will depend on the Wyoming Republican congresswoman and vice-chair of the committee, Liz Cheney.The select committee’s inquiry is the most important congressional investigation of presidential wrongdoing since the Senate investigation of the Watergate scandals in the 1970s.I vividly recall the televised hearings of the Senate Watergate committee, which began nearly a half-century ago, on 17 May 1973. More than a year later, on 8 August 1974 – knowing that he would be impeached in the House and convicted in the Senate – Nixon resigned.I was just finishing law school when the Watergate hearings began. I was supposed to study for final exams but remained glued to my television. I remember the entire cast of characters as if the hearings occurred yesterday, and I’m sure many of you do, too – the North Carolina senator Sam Ervin, a Democrat, who served as the committee’s co-chair; John Dean, the White House counsel who told the committee about Nixon’s attempted cover-up; and Alexander Butterfield, Nixon’s deputy assistant, who revealed that Nixon had taped all conversations in the White House.But to my young eyes, the hero of the Watergate hearings was the committee’s Republican co-chair, the Tennessee senator Howard Baker Jr.Baker had deep ties to the Republican party. His father was a Republican congress­man and his father-in-law was Senate minor­ity leader for a decade.Notwithstanding those ties, Baker put his loyalty to the constitution and rule of law ahead of his loyalty to his party or the president. His steadiness and care, and the tenacity with which he questioned witnesses, helped America view the Watergate hearings as a search for truth rather than a partisan “witch-hunt”, as Nixon described them.It was Baker who famously asked Dean, “what did the president know and when did he know it?” And it was Baker who led all the other Republicans on the committee to join with Democrats in voting to subpoena the White House tapes – the first time a congres­sional commit­tee had ever issued a subpoena to a pres­ident, and only the second time since 1807 that anyone had subpoenaed the chief exec­ut­ive.Fast forward 49 years. This week, Baker’s role will be played by Cheney.Her Republican pedigree is no less impressive than Baker’s was: she is the elder daughter of former vice-president Dick Cheney and second lady Lynne Cheney. She held several positions in the George W Bush administration.She is a staunch conservative. And, before House Republicans ousted her, she chaired the House Republican conference, the third-highest position in the House Republican leadership.Cheney’s responsibility this week will be similar to Baker’s 49 years ago – to be the steady voice of non-partisan common sense, helping the nation view the hearings as a search for truth rather than a “witch-hunt”, as Trump has characterized them.In many ways, though, Cheney’s role will be far more challenging than Baker’s. Forty-nine years ago, American politics was a tame affair compared with the viciousness of today’s political culture.Republican senators didn’t threaten to take away Howard Baker’s seniority or his leadership position. The Tennessee Republican party didn’t oust him. Nixon didn’t make threatening speeches about him. Baker received no death threats, as far as anyone knows.It will be necessary for Cheney to show – as did Baker – more loyalty to the constitution and the rule of law than to her party or the former president. But she also will have to cope with a nation more bitterly divided over Trump’s big lie than it ever was over Nixon and his cover-up of the Watergate burglary.She will have to face a Republican party that has largely caved in to Trump’s lie – enabling and encouraging it. Baker’s Republican party never aligned itself with Nixon’s lies. Meanwhile, Cheney’s career has suffered and her life and the lives of her family have been threatened.The criminal acts for which Richard Nixon was responsible – while serious enough to undermine the integrity of the White House and compromise our system of government – pale relative to Trump’s. Nixon tried to cover up a third-rate burglary. Trump tried to overthrow our system of government.The January 6 insurrection was not an isolated event. It was part of a concerted effort by Trump to use his lie that the 2020 election was stolen as a means to engineer a coup, while whipping up anger and distrust among his supporters toward our system of government. Yet not a shred of evidence has ever been presented to support Trump’s claim that voter fraud affected the outcome of the 2020 election.Consider (to take but one example) Trump’s phone call to Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, in which he pressured Raffensperger to change the presidential vote count in Georgia in order to give Trump more votes than Biden.“All I want to do is this,” Trump told Raffensperger in a recorded phone call. “I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.” Trump threatened Raffensperger with criminal liability if he did not do so. Trump’s actions appear to violate 18 USC § 371, conspiracy to defraud the United States, and 18 USC § 1512, obstruction of Congress.The justice department is conducting a criminal investigation into these activities. The attorney general, Merrick Garland, has said that the justice department will “follow the facts and the law wherever they may lead”. As with Watergate, the facts will almost certainly lead to the person who then occupied the Oval Office.This week’s televised committee hearings are crucial to educating the public and setting the stage for the justice department’s prosecution.Federal district court judge David Carter in a civil case brought against the committee by John Eastman, Trump’s lawyer and adviser in the coup attempt, has set the framework for the hearings. Judge Carter found that it was.css-f9ay0g{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C74600;}more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021,” and concluded that Trump and Eastman “launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history […] The illegality of the plan was obvious.”Those who claim that a president cannot be criminally liable for acts committed while in office apparently forget that Richard Nixon avoided prosecution only because he was pardoned by his successor, Gerald Ford.Those who argue that Trump should not be criminally liable because no president in American history has been criminally liable, overlook the fact that no president in history has staged an attempted coup to change the outcome of an election.Without accountability for these acts, Trump’s criminality opens wide the door to future presidents and candidates disputing election outcomes and seeking to change them – along with ensuing public distrust, paranoia and divisiveness.Liz Cheney bears a burden far heavier than Howard Baker bore almost a half-century ago. Please watch this Thursday’s January 6 committee televised hearings. And please join me in appreciating the public service of Liz Cheney.
Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and the author of Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few and The Common Good. His new book, The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It, is out now. He is a Guardian US columnist. His newsletter is at robertreich.substack.com
TopicsUS Capitol attackOpinionUS politicscommentReuse this content More

Republicans keep passing extreme anti-abortion bans without popular support. Here’s whyMost Americans don’t want abortion bans but gerrymandering allows politicians to face little accountability Hello, and happy Thursday,As states have passed a wave of increasingly extreme abortion restrictions in recent years, a sort of puzzling contradiction has emerged. The American public broadly supports the right to an abortion, public polling has shown, yet politicians who pass these controversial restrictions are consistently re-elected. Why is that?US braces for House committee’s primetime January 6 hearings – liveRead moreYesterday, we published a story that seeks to answer that question. A big part of why politicians face little accountability is gerrymandering. State lawmakers, who have the power to draw the boundaries of their own districts in most places, can pick which voters they represent and virtually guarantee their re-election.It’s more important than ever to understand this dynamic. In his draft opinion overturning Roe v Wade, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that abortion is an issue that should be resolved by the political process, not the courts. By insulating politicians from accountability, extreme gerrymandering prevents the political process from doing that. In 2019, Alito joined four of the court’s conservative justices in saying there was nothing federal courts could do to police even the most extreme gerrymandering.Few places better capture the link between partisan gerrymandering and extreme anti-abortion measures than Ohio.In 2010, Republicans won control of the Ohio legislature and drew new maps that allowed them to hold a veto-proof majority for the next decade. In 2011, the legislature began to pass a series of restrictions on abortion. Republicans enacted a new law that banned abortion after a fetus was viable and required viability testing after 20 weeks. They passed another measure that prohibited taxpayer-funded hospitals from entering into patient transfer agreements with clinics, making it harder for the clinics to operate. In 2019, the state had banned abortion after six weeks, one of the most restrictive laws in the country. (The Ohio Policy Evaluation Network, which tracks abortion access in Ohio has a good timeline of these bills).When Ohio lawmakers were passing these measures, there wasn’t overwhelming public support for them. Ohio voters are closely divided on abortion and a majority did not support the six week ban (one poll after it passed in 2019 showed that a majority of people opposed it). Even so, Ohio Republicans have maintained their majorities in the state legislature.“That mismatch between what we see in public opinion and what we see at the statehouse, really suggests that what citizens are thinking about abortion access really is not reflected in their statehouse,” Danielle Bessett, a sociology professor at the University of Cincinnati, who closely studies abortion care in Ohio, told me. “That suggests that there isn’t a concern about this being sort of something that they’re going to get held accountable for at the polls.”It’s an imbalance that exists across the country. Nationally, 61% of Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, but states are enacting a blitz of increasingly extreme restrictions, including several that are considering outright bans. Republicans continue to control more state legislative chambers than Democrats do, and very few are expected to flip partisan control (fewer than 1 in 5 state legislative districts are estimated to be competitive this year).In Ohio, Republicans have once again engineered maps that preserve their advantage. After the state supreme court struck down five proposals for a new legislative map because they were too gerrymandered, lawmakers ran out the clock. They convinced a federal court to impose a map for the 2022 elections that will allow them to maintain, at minimum, 54% of the seats in the state legislature.“It’s frustrating. In some ways it’s hopeful that people do think that abortion should be a right and should exist for people in Ohio,” Sri Thakkilapati, the interim executive director of PreTerm, an abortion clinic in Cleveland told me. “It’s helpful to know that there are more of us. But in some ways it’s very disheartening…It feels like it’s not gonna make a difference.”Also worth watching…
Jim Marchant, a QAnon linked candidate running to be Nevada’s chief election official, is seeking his party’s nomination in the GOP primary on Tuesday.
Voters with disabilities are suing Alabama for offering inadequate access to absentee ballots for people who are blind
TopicsUS newsFight to voteUS politicsAbortionOhioRoe v WadefeaturesReuse this content More