House of Representatives

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      House committee votes to release Trump’s tax returns to the public

      by

      House committee votes to release Trump’s tax returns to the publicAs a presidential candidate in 2016, Trump broke decades of precedent by refusing to release his tax forms to the public A powerful congressional committee on Tuesday voted to publicly release Donald Trump’s tax returns in a move that is sure to ignite a political row as well as anger among some privacy experts in America.The Democratic-controlled House ways and means committee decided to release the documents, which the former US president has long tried to shield, after several hours of debate.The New York Times previously released extensive chunks of Trump’s tax returns which showed how the real estate mogul and reality TV star had suffered serious losses and engaged in extensive tax avoidance.The decision by the panel comes after a long battle that ultimately resulted in the supreme court clearing the way last month for the treasury department to send the returns to Congress. The committee received six years of tax returns for Trump and some of his businesses.As a presidential candidate in 2016, Trump broke decades of precedent by refusing to release his tax forms to the public. He bragged during a presidential debate that year that he was “smart” because he paid no federal taxes and later claimed he wouldn’t personally benefit from the 2017 tax cuts he signed into law that favored people with extreme wealth, asking Americans to simply take him at his word.Tax records would have been a useful metric for judging his success in business. The image of a savvy businessman was key to a political brand honed during his years as a tabloid magnet and star of The Apprentice television show. They also could reveal any financial obligations – including foreign debts – that could influence how he governed.But Americans were largely in the dark about Trump’s relationship with the IRS until October 2018 and September 2020, when The New York Times published two separate series based on leaked tax records.The Pulitzer Prize-winning 2018 articles showed how Trump received a modern equivalent of at least $413m from his father’s real estate holdings, with much of that money coming from what the Times called “tax dodges” in the 1990s.Trump sued the Times and his niece, Mary Trump, in 2021 for providing the records to the newspaper. In November, Mary Trump asked an appeals court to overturn a judge’s decision to reject her claims that her uncle and two of his siblings defrauded her of millions of dollars in a 2001 family settlement.The 2020 articles showed that Trump paid just $750 in federal income taxes in 2017 and 2018. Trump paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the past 15 years because he generally lost more money than he made.Details about Trump’s income from foreign operations and debt levels were also contained in the tax filings, which the former president derided as “fake news”.The Manhattan district attorney’s office also obtained copies of Trump’s tax records in February 2021 after after a protracted legal fight that included two trips to the supreme court.The office, then led by District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr, had subpoenaed Trump’s accounting firm in 2019, seeking access to eight years of Trump’s tax returns and related documents.The DA’s office issued the subpoena after Trump’s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen told Congress that Trump had misled tax officials, insurers and business associates about the value of his assets. Those allegations are the subject of a fraud lawsuit that New York attorney general Letitia James filed against Trump and his company in September.Trump’s longtime accountant, Donald Bender, testified at the Trump Organization’s recent criminal trial that Trump reported losses on his tax returns every year for a decade, including nearly $700m in 2009 and $200m in 2010.The Trump Organization was convicted earlier this month on tax fraud charges for helping some executives dodge taxes on company-paid perks such as apartments and luxury cars.Republicans, meanwhile, have railed against the potential release, arguing that it would set a dangerous precedent.Trump has argued there is little to be gleaned from the tax returns even as he has fought to keep them private. “You can’t learn much from tax returns, but it is illegal to release them if they are not yours!” he complained on his social media network last weekend.Congressman Kevin Brady of Texas, the ways and means committee’s Republican leader, has accused Democrats on the committee of “unleashing a dangerous new political weapon that reaches far beyond President Trump, and jeopardizes the privacy of every American”.The Associated Press contributed to this reportTopicsDonald TrumpUS politicsUS CongressHouse of RepresentativesnewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      What’s In (and Not In) the $1.7 Trillion Spending Bill

      by

      A big boost for the military, more aid for Ukraine, a preference for the lobster industry over whales and an overhaul of the Electoral Count Act are among the provisions in the 4,155-page bill lawmakers expect to pass this week.WASHINGTON — Billions of dollars in emergency aid to war-torn Ukraine and communities ravaged by natural disasters. A bipartisan proposal to overhaul the archaic law at the heart of former President Donald J. Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election. And a divisive oceanic policy that will change federal protections for whales in an effort to protect the lobster industry in Maine.In compiling the roughly $1.7 trillion catchall spending package that will keep the government open through September, lawmakers inserted several new funding and legislative proposals to ensure their priorities and policies become law before the end of the year.It includes funding that will guarantee the enactment of policies first authorized in bipartisan legislation approved earlier in this Congress, including money for innovation hubs established in the semiconductor manufacturing law and projects in the infrastructure law. The package also includes a round of earmarks, rebranded as community project funding, that allow lawmakers to redirect funds to specific projects in their states and districts.Here is a look at some of the provisions that would go into effect if enacted.Military spending is the big winner.The Defense Department would see an extraordinary surge in spending when adding its regular 2023 fiscal year budget together with additional funds being allocated to help respond to the war in Ukraine.All together, half of the $1.7 trillion in funding included in the package goes to defense, or a total of $858 billion. It comes after lawmakers bucked a request from President Biden and approved a substantial increase in the annual defense policy bill passed this month.The 2023 budget just for the Defense Department would total $797.6 billion in discretionary spending — a 10 percent increase over last year’s budget — representing an extra $69.3 billion in funds for the Pentagon, which is $36.1 billion above the president’s budget request.Sprinkled throughout the spending bill are hundreds of high-ticket add-ons that Congress wants to make to the president’s original Defense Department budget, such as an additional $17.2 billion for procurement that the Pentagon can largely distribute to military contractors to buy new ships, airplanes, missile systems and other equipment. The overall Pentagon procurement budget with these additional funds would be $162 billion.One of the biggest chunks of that extra money is for shipbuilding — an extra $4 billion that brings the Navy’s overall shipbuilding budget to $31.96 billion. That will allow it to buy 11 new ships, including three guided missile destroyers and two attack submarines.But that is just the start. There is $8.5 billion to buy 61 F-35 fighter jets made by Lockheed Martin and another $2.5 billion to buy 15 of Boeing’s new aerial refueling planes known as KC-46 tankers.There is also an extra $27.9 billion to help cover Defense Department costs associated with the war in Ukraine, as part of an emergency aid package to the country. That includes an extra $11.88 billion to replenish U.S. stocks of equipment sent to Ukraine — money that again will largely be used to purchase products from military contractors. That supplemental appropriation also includes $9 billion to assist Ukraine with training, equipment and weapons, as well as an extra $6.98 billion to cover U.S. military operations in Europe.— Eric Lipton and John IsmayMaking it easier (for some) to save for retirement.The package also includes a collection of new rules aimed at helping Americans save for retirement. The bill would require employers to automatically enroll eligible employees in their 401(k) and 403(b) plans, setting aside at least 3 percent, but no more than 10 percent, of their paychecks. Contributions would be increased by one percentage point each year thereafter, until it reaches at least 10 percent (but not more than 15 percent). But this applies only to new employer-provided plans that are started in 2025 and later — existing plans are exempt.Another provision would help lower- and middle-income earners saving for retirement by making changes to an existing tax credit, called the saver’s credit, now available only to those who owe taxes. In its new form, it would amount to a matching contribution, from the federal government, deposited into taxpayers’ retirement accounts.People struggling with student debt would also receive a new perk: Employees making student debt payments would qualify for employer matching contributions in their workplace retirement plan, even if they were not making plan contributions of their own.What to Know About Congress’s Lame-Duck SessionCard 1 of 5A productive stretch. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      House committee convenes to vote on releasing Trump’s tax returns – live

      by

      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

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      US House to decide whether to release details of Trump’s tax returns

      by

      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

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      In Virginia, Democrats Sprint to Select Nominee for Special House Election

      by

      After a congressman’s death last month, Jennifer McClellan, a state senator who lost a bid for governor in 2021, is the front-runner and could become the first Black woman to represent Virginia in Congress.Democrats in Richmond, Va., the state capital, are scrambling to organize a primary election on Tuesday after the death of a congressman just weeks ago, and the race’s front-runner could become the first Black woman to represent Virginia in Congress since the state was founded in 1788.Representative A. Donald McEachin, a Democrat who overwhelmingly won re-election in the midterms last month, died on Nov. 28 at the age of 61, following a yearslong battle with colorectal cancer.Gov. Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, set the special election for Mr. McEachin’s seat for Feb. 21. Because Mr. McEachin’s district leans Democratic — the Fourth Congressional District is a predominantly Black and Latino region that stretches from Richmond into rural counties along the North Carolina border — the winner of Tuesday’s Democratic primary is highly favored to win the special election in February. Mr. McEachin defeated his Republican opponent by 30 points in November.Democrats organized Tuesday’s party-run primary for just one week after the governor’s announcement, a rushed timeline made all the more complicated by holding an election five days before Christmas.“The governor definitely chose the shortest amount of time, which has made us have to put together this nomination contest on the shortest time frame,” said Alexsis Rodgers, chairwoman of the Fourth Congressional District Democratic Committee.A New U.S. Congress Takes ShapeFollowing the 2022 midterm elections, Democrats maintained control of the Senate while Republicans flipped the House.Who Is George Santos?: The G.O.P. congressman-elect from New York says he’s the “embodiment of the American dream.” But his résumé appears to be mostly fiction.McCarthy’s Fraught Speaker Bid: Representative Kevin McCarthy has so far been unable to quash a mini-revolt on the right that threatens to imperil his effort to secure the top House job.The G.O.P.’s Fringe: Three incoming congressmen attended a gala that drew white nationalists and conspiracy theorists, raising questions about the influence of extremists on the new Republican-led House.Kyrsten Sinema: The Arizona senator said that she would leave the Democratic Party and register as an independent, just days after the Democrats secured an expanded majority in the Senate.A front-runner quickly emerged: State Senator Jennifer McClellan, a veteran lawmaker who unsuccessfully ran for governor in 2021. In the first 24 hours of declaring her candidacy, she raised more than $100,000, according to her campaign.Two of the state’s top Black elected officials initially expressed interest, Ms. McClellan and Lamont Bagby, a state delegate. They lead the influential Virginia Legislative Black Caucus — Mr. Bagby is the caucus chair and Ms. McClellan is the vice chair.Last week, however, Mr. Bagby dropped out and endorsed Ms. McClellan. Other Democrats soon followed with endorsements of Ms. McClellan, including all eight members of Virginia’s Democratic congressional delegation, Mr. McEachin’s widow and scores of national Democratic groups.A flag at the U.S. Capitol marked the death of Representative A. Donald McEachin in late November.Leigh Vogel for The New York TimesMs. McClellan, who has run what she called a one-week get-out-the-vote campaign and has knocked on doors with several state leaders, centered her message on her Virginia roots and legislative accomplishments. In an interview on Friday, she said being a Black woman helped shape her policies, particularly on workers’ rights and maternal health.“I bring a new perspective to the office that will help me represent the district and those who have not had a voice, in ways that other candidates cannot,” she said. She listed her noteworthy firsts — she was the first Black woman to hold her State Senate seat and was the first person to serve in the State House of Delegates while pregnant.Democrats in the district will hold a so-called firehouse primary on Tuesday. Named for the polling places where they are typically held, such elections are organized and funded by party representatives rather than local or state election officials. Democratic voters in the primary will be required to sign a pledge stating they will vote for the party’s nominee during the general election.Ms. McClellan’s main Democratic opponent is State Senator Joe Morrissey, a self-described rebel within the party. Mr. Morrissey, a former defense lawyer, was disbarred twice and spent time in jail for aiding the delinquency of a minor in 2014. The minor involved later became his wife. In January 2022, then-Gov. Ralph Northam pardoned Mr. Morrissey for his conviction in the case.Mr. Morrissey has voted against Democratic policies and has signaled his opposition to proposed state policies protecting abortion access. John Fredericks, a prominent Virginia Republican and radio host, cut an ad for Mr. Morrissey and has been encouraging his listeners to vote for him in the Democratic primary.State Senator Joe Morrissey has voted against Democratic priorities and has the support of a prominent Virginia Republican.Daniel Sangjib Min/Richmond Times-Dispatch, via Associated PressHowever, Mr. Morrissey’s criminal justice work in Richmond’s Black communities has earned him support in the district. He has also won against tough odds before. In 2019, he defeated an incumbent Democratic state senator.Representatives for Mr. Morrissey did not respond to requests for comment.During an episode of his radio show on Thursday, Mr. Morrissey railed against Democrats’ handling of the primary, saying that setting the primary election on a weekday instead of the weekend, as well as by placing zero voting locations in his home district, unfairly disadvantaged his supporters.“I don’t care that you don’t like me,” he said, addressing Democrats in the district. “That’s fine. That’s your prerogative. Go vote against me.” He added, “But what you’ve done is you have set back the voting gains that we’ve made for the last 10 years in order to get the person you want.”Other Democrats in the race include Joseph Preston, a former state delegate who served for one year, and Tavorise Marks, a businessman from the area.Virginia Republicans have already elected their nominee for the seat. Leon Benjamin, a pastor and Navy veteran whom Mr. McEachin handily defeated in November, won the Republican nomination on Saturday, in a ranked-choice primary held by the district G.O.P. committee. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      George Santos Dodges Questions as Democrats Label Him ‘Unfit to Serve’

      by

      Democratic House leaders stopped short of calling for the resignation of Mr. Santos, a Republican, who may have misrepresented himself in his résumé.Representative-elect George Santos on Monday faced a barrage of questions, as well as an uncertain future, after an article in The New York Times revealed that he may have misrepresented key parts of his résumé on the campaign trail.The Times’s report found that Mr. Santos, a Republican whose victory in Long Island and northeast Queens last month helped his party clinch a narrow majority in the House of Representatives, may have misled voters about his college graduation and his purported career on Wall Street and omitted details about his business from financial disclosures forms.House Republicans and state party leaders were largely silent on Monday. But Joseph G. Cairo Jr., the Nassau County Republican chairman, said in a statement that The Times’s reporting raised “serious” issues that he believed Mr. Santos should address.“Every person deserves an opportunity to ‘clear’ his/her name in the face of accusations,” Mr. Cairo said. “I am committed to this principle, and I look forward to the congressman-elect’s responses to the news reports.”Mr. Santos, 34, has declined numerous requests to be interviewed. On Monday evening, he used Twitter to recirculate a short statement that his lawyer, Joseph Murray, had released on Friday, with one small addition. On Monday, Mr. Murray characterized the Times article as a “shotgun blast of attacks,” but did not provide specific criticisms of what he had called The Times’s “defamatory allegations.”The statement was Mr. Santos’s first public acknowledgment of the questions surrounding his background since Sunday night, when — hours after he had been notified of The Times’s plans to publish its findings — Mr. Santos said on Twitter that he enthusiastically backed Representative Kevin McCarthy of California to be the next House speaker.Mr. McCarthy has been working to quell an effort by hard-right lawmakers to threaten his bid to become speaker when Republicans take control of the House. He has not addressed Mr. Santos’s remarks or The Times’s reporting. A spokesman did not respond to emails and phone calls asking for an interview.A New U.S. Congress Takes ShapeFollowing the 2022 midterm elections, Democrats maintained control of the Senate while Republicans flipped the House.McCarthy’s Fraught Speaker Bid: Representative Kevin McCarthy has so far been unable to quash a mini-revolt on the right that threatens to imperil his effort to secure the top House job.The G.O.P.’s Fringe: Three incoming congressmen attended a gala that drew white nationalists and conspiracy theorists, raising questions about the influence of extremists on the new Republican-led House.Kyrsten Sinema: The Arizona senator said that she would leave the Democratic Party and register as an independent, just days after the Democrats secured an expanded majority in the Senate.A Looming Clash: Congressional leaders have all but abandoned the idea of acting to raise the debt ceiling before Democrats lose control of the House, punting the issue to a new Congress.Representative Eric Swalwell, a Democrat of California, questioned on Twitter whether Mr. McCarthy might “strike a corrupt bargain” with Mr. Santos, suggesting that Mr. McCarthy would refrain from taking action against Mr. Santos in exchange for his vote as House speaker.Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, who will be the House Democrats’ leader when the next Congress begins in January, said in a statement that Mr. Santos was “woefully unqualified” and “clearly unfit to serve.”But Mr. Jeffries, whose caucus is days away from falling out of power, stopped short of calling for action on the part of Republican leaders, even as some state Democrats pushed for further investigation.Susan Lerner, the executive director of the government reform group Common Cause, called on Mr. Santos to step down and urged the bipartisan Office of Congressional Ethics and federal prosecutors to investigate.With a razor-thin majority, Republicans have few reasons for challenging or investigating Mr. Santos, and many for defending him. If Mr. Santos were to resign, there is no guarantee that a Republican would win a special election to fill his seat.Mr. Santos, who ran unopposed in his primary this year, was already expected to face a challenging re-election in 2024 in a largely suburban district that, until this year, had recently favored Democrats.Over the course of his campaigns, Mr. Santos claimed to have graduated from Baruch College in 2010 before working at Citigroup and, eventually, Goldman Sachs. But officials at Baruch said they could find no record of his having graduated that year, and representatives from Citigroup and Goldman Sachs could not locate records of his employment.Experts in ethics noted that Mr. Santos’s campaign disclosures revealed little about the source of his fortune, in particular failing to name any client who paid more than $5,000 to his company, the Devolder Organization. Such an omission could be problematic if it were to become clear that he had intentionally avoided disclosing his clientele.Mr. Santos’s candidate disclosures show that he paid himself $750,000 annually, and earned dividends of more than $1 million while running for Congress.There are several avenues by which an ethics investigation could take place within the House of Representatives, but none would be likely to affect Mr. Santos’s ability to assume office in January.Any process would require bipartisan cooperation and would be likely to be lengthy. There is also the question of whether the House would claim jurisdiction over behavior that took place before the subject assumed office, though some recent actions suggest that they might be inclined to take a more expansive approach, if the behavior was campaign-related.Jay Jacobs, the state Democratic Party chair, said that Mr. McCarthy should delay seating Mr. Santos pending an investigation. The state party has been under siege since Democrats underperformed in November, particularly on Long Island, and faced new criticism on Monday over its failure to identify or effectively publicize the inconsistencies in Mr. Santos’s résumé before Election Day.Mr. Jacobs acknowledged that the revelations would have had more impact during the campaign. “The opposition research wasn’t as complete as the Times investigation,” he said, but said that attention would be more appropriately directed at Mr. Santos rather than the party.Several of Mr. Santos’s future constituents said they were shocked and disappointed at the disclosures of his apparent misrepresentations.Andres Thaodopoulos, 36, the owner of a Greek restaurant in the Whitestone neighborhood of Queens, said that he did not vote in November, but that he had welcomed Mr. Santos’s promises to fight crime and cut taxes.“I feel disappointed because the people trust our lives to these leaders,” he said.On Monday night, after Mr. Santos posted his lawyer’s statement, Mr. Swalwell criticized it for insufficiently addressing the questions raised by The Times’s story, including a criminal case for check fraud in Brazil that officials there said remained unresolved.Of the 132 words in the statement, Mr. Swalwell said, “not one addresses the mountain of evidence that you’re a wanted international criminal who lied about graduating college and where you worked.”Others pointed to another seeming inaccuracy. In the last sentence of his statement, Mr. Santos’s lawyer closed with a quote he attributed to Winston Churchill: “You have enemies? Good. It means that you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.”According to the fact-checking website PolitiFact, the words probably were not said by Churchill. PolitiFact instead attributed the original sentiment to the French writer Victor Hugo.Nate Schweber More

    • 88 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      A Diminished Trump Meets a Damning Narrative

      by

      Former President Donald Trump’s current woes extend beyond the report by the House Jan. 6 committee, but the case the panel laid out against him further complicates his future.As the summer and the House Jan. 6 committee’s hearings began, former President Donald J. Trump was still a towering figure in Republican politics, able to pick winners in primary contests and force candidates to submit to a litmus test of denialism about his loss in the 2020 election.Six months later, Mr. Trump is significantly diminished, a shrunken presence on the political landscape. His fade is partly a function of his own missteps and miscalculations in recent months. But it is also a product of the voluminous evidence assembled by the House committee and its ability to tell the story of his efforts to overturn the election in a compelling and accessible way.In ways both raw and easily digested, and with an eye for vivid detail, the committee spooled out the episodic narrative of a president who was told repeatedly he had lost and that his claims of fraud were fanciful. But Mr. Trump continued pushing them anyway, plotted to reverse the outcome, stoked the fury of his supporters, summoned them to Washington and then stood by as the violence played out.It was a turnabout in roles for a president who rose first to prominence and then to the White House on the basis of his feel for how to project himself on television.Guided by a veteran television executive, the committee sprinkled the story with moments that stayed in the public consciousness, from Mr. Trump throwing his lunch in anger against the wall of the dining room just off the Oval Office to a claim that he lunged at a Secret Service agent driving his car when he was denied his desire to join his supporters at the Capitol.On Monday — the second anniversary of Mr. Trump’s Twitter post urging his followers to come to Washington to protest his loss, promising it “will be wild!” — the committee wrapped up its case by lending the weight of the House to calls for Mr. Trump to be held criminally liable for his actions and making the case that he should never again be allowed to hold power.“No man who would behave that way at that moment can ever serve in any position of authority in our nation again,” said Representative Liz Cheney, the Wyoming Republican who served as the committee’s vice chairwoman, referring to Mr. Trump’s unwillingness to intervene to stop the violence on Jan. 6, 2021. “He’s unfit for office.”Understand the Events on Jan. 6Timeline: On Jan. 6, 2021, 64 days after Election Day 2020, a mob of supporters of President Donald J. Trump raided the Capitol. Here is a close look at how the attack unfolded.A Day of Rage: Using thousands of videos and police radio communications, a Times investigation reconstructed in detail what happened — and why.Lost Lives: A bipartisan Senate report found that at least seven people died in connection with the attack.Jan. 6 Attendees: To many of those who attended the Trump rally but never breached the Capitol, that date wasn’t a dark day for the nation. It was a new start.To emphasize that point, the committee did something Congress had never done before: It referred a former president to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution, a largely symbolic step but one that only added to the sense that Mr. Trump is starting his 2024 presidential campaign under a number of very dark legal clouds.Federal prosecutors are investigating not only Mr. Trump’s efforts to thwart the results of the election, but also his mishandling of presidential records and classified material that he took with him when he left the White House. A prosecutor in Georgia is barreling ahead with an investigation of his efforts to reverse his election loss in that state, and his company, the Trump Organization, was convicted in New York this month of tax fraud.Whether Mr. Trump’s legal woes and political missteps will keep him from winning his party’s nomination again is another matter.Mr. Trump still has a durable base of support within the party, though just how large it is at this point is up for debate after a handful of public polls have shown more Republican voters backing Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida as an alternative. Other potential candidates are also watching carefully, weighing their chances if they get into a race with a weakened Mr. Trump.To some, the talk of Mr. Trump’s current fortunes is like a movie they have seen before, one in which the lead figure is left for dead only to rise again.“There’s still a lot of people that support Donald Trump; there’s just no question about that,” said Rob Gleason, the former chairman of the Pennsylvania Republican Party. He pointed to stories that have dominated headlines, such as the number of Republicans whom Mr. Trump backed who lost their races, that he said simply have not seeped into the consciousness of his supporters.“We assume people know too much,” he said. “They’re not following a lot of this stuff.”Indeed, some Republicans said privately that the House select committee’s criminal referrals could serve to galvanize Mr. Trump’s supporters behind him, as was the case for a short time after the F.B.I. searched his club, Mar-a-Lago, in August, looking for additional classified documents.Some other Republicans are more skeptical.“I don’t think that anything can save Donald Trump,” said former Representative Carlos Curbelo, Republican of Florida. “He’s decidedly on the path to irrelevance. He reduces himself by the day.”The rally speeches Mr. Trump gave at events during the midterm elections and his 2024 campaign announcement were largely centered on his grievances about 2020 or the investigations into his conduct — a formulation that some Republicans say is increasingly out of step with voters.“This time is different,” Mr. Curbelo said, adding that six years ago, Mr. Trump was “new and interesting” and that people were curious what kind of leader he would be. “Now Donald Trump is old, predictable, obviously petty.”Some of the candidates who most closely identified with Mr. Trump’s false claims about the 2020 election performed poorly in the midterm elections, and Republicans barely captured a House majority, despite a sitting Democratic president whose approval rating has been depressed.“I think he’s been a diminishing figure for some time,” said former Representative Charlie Dent, Republican of Pennsylvania and a longtime critic of Mr. Trump.Mr. Trump insisted on declaring a 2024 presidential campaign a week after the midterms, against the advice of nearly all his aides and allies, delivering a lackluster speech he read with minimal emotion from a teleprompter. He has held no public political events in the nearly five weeks since.Instead, he has gotten attention for hosting a dinner at his members-only club and home in Florida with a Holocaust denier and Kanye West, the rap artist who has made a rapid descent into peddling antisemitism.For many members of a party that would like to recover from three bruising election cycles, Mr. Trump has never felt more like a product of the past.“Ironically, this is not too different from a reality TV series that’s run its course,” Mr. Curbelo said. “And people are just kind of over it, even his supporters.” More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Jan 6 committee refers Donald Trump for criminal prosecution on four counts – live

      by

      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