House of Representatives

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump-backed Alex Mooney wins GOP nod for West Virginia’s House seat

      by

      Trump-backed Alex Mooney wins GOP nod for West Virginia’s House seatTuesday’s races in West Virginia and Nebraska seen as a measure of the former president’s grip on Republican voters A Trump-endorsed congressional candidate has won the Republican primary in West Virginia, while the former president’s favored candidate fell short in Nebraska’s primary election for governor.Alex Mooney on Tuesday beat fellow incumbent David McKinley in West Virginia’s second congressional district Republican primary on Tuesday.“Donald Trump loves West Virginia, and West Virginia loves Donald Trump,” Mooney said in his victory speech.Dr Oz embraced Trump’s big lie – will Maga voters reward him in Senate race?Read moreMcKinley was sharply criticized by the former president when he broke with his party as one of 13 Republicans to vote with the Democrats to support Joe Biden’s $1.2tn infrastructure bill. Trump called McKinley a Rino, or “Republican in Name Only”, and endorsed Mooney the day Biden signed the infrastructure law.The two incumbents, who have taken dramatically different approaches to their time in office, were pitted against each other in the state’s second congressional district after population losses cost West Virginia a US House seat.In Nebraska, Trump’s choice for governor, Charles Herbster, lost to an official at a university, according to US media reports, even though Trump had hosted a rally for him a little more than a week earlier.The Nebraska contest had been dominated in recent weeks by accusations that Herbster, an agriculture executive, had sexually harassed several women, which he has denied.US media outlets projected rival Jim Pillen, a hog farmer and university board member, would defeat Herbster and win the nomination.Also in Nebraska, Representative Don Bacon was on track to win the Republican primary after Edison Research predicted he would hold off challenger Steve Kuehl. Trump had urged voters to reject Bacon due to his criticism of Trump’s role in the January 6 2021 attack on the US Capitol. Bacon will face a competitive November election in the Omaha-based district against Democrat Tony Vargas, who was projected by Edison Research to win his party’s primary.The races in Nebraska and West Virginia have provided some measure of the former president’s enduring sway with GOP voters. They come on the heels of a victory in Ohio by JD Vance, author of the bestselling memoir “Hillbilly Elegy”, who defeated six other candidates to win the Republican primary for US Senate last week. Vance was also endorsed by Trump.The former US president is facing some of the biggest tests of his influence in Republican primary elections later this month. In Pennsylvania, his endorsed Senate candidate, Dr Mehmet Oz, is locked in a competitive race against former hedge fund CEO David McCormick and five others, while his candidate in North Carolina, US representative Ted Budd, is competing in a field that includes a dozen other Republicans.In Georgia, Trump has endorsed primary challengers to governor Brian Kemp and secretary of state Brad Raffensperger, both of whom defied him by rejecting his false claims of voter fraud in the 2020 election.In a story last month, the Nebraska Examiner interviewed six women who claimed Herbster had groped their buttocks, outside of their clothes, during political events or beauty pageants. A seventh woman said Herbster once cornered and forcibly kissed her.In Nebraska, the allegations against Herbster, a longtime supporter of Trump’s, didn’t stop the former president from holding a rally with him earlier this month.“I really think he’s going to do just a fantastic job, and if I didn’t feel that, I wouldn’t be here,” Trump said at the rally at a racetrack outside Omaha.Some voters said the allegations didn’t dissuade them from backing Herbster either.As she voted at an elementary school in northwest Omaha on Tuesday, Joann Kotan said she was “upset by the stories, but I don’t know if I believe them”. Ultimately, the 74-year-old said she voted for Herbster “because President Trump recommended him”.The Associated Press contributed reportingTopicsWest VirginiaHouse of RepresentativesUS politicsDonald TrumpRepublicansnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Marjorie Taylor Greene is qualified to run for re-election, Georgia official says

      by

      Marjorie Taylor Greene is qualified to run for re-election, Georgia official saysSecretary of state Brad Raffensperger accepts judge’s findings and says far-right congresswoman, a Trump ally, is eligible to run The Georgia secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, has accepted a judge’s findings and said the far-right Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene is qualified to run for re-election.Georgia sees first major test for a Republican defending democracy | The fight to voteRead moreA group of voters filed a challenge saying Greene should be barred under a seldom-invoked provision of the 14th amendment concerning insurrection, over her links to the January 6 attack on the US Capitol by supporters of Donald Trump.A state administrative law judge, Charles Beaudrot, last month held a hearing on the matter and found that Green was eligible. He sent his findings to Raffensperger, who was responsible for the final decision.It was an awkward position to be in for the secretary of state who drew the ire of Trump after he resisted pressure to overturn Joe Biden’s victory in Georgia.Greene has been a staunch Trump ally and has won his endorsement for her reelection bid while continuing to spread unproven claims about the 2020 election being “stolen”.Raffensperger has defended the integrity of the election in Georgia but is facing a tough primary challenge from a Trump-backed US congressman, Jody Hice.Beaudrot held a day-long hearing last month that included arguments from lawyers for the voters and for Greene and questioning of Greene herself.During the hearing, Ron Fein, a lawyer for the voters, noted that in a TV interview the day before the attack at the Capitol, Greene said the next day would be “our 1776 moment”.“In fact, it turned out to be an 1861 moment,” Fein said, alluding to the start of the civil war.Greene has become one of the GOP’s biggest fundraisers by stirring controversy and pushing baseless conspiracy theories. During the hearing, she was defiant and combative under oath.She repeated the unfounded claim that fraud led to Trump’s loss, said she didn’t recall incendiary statements and social media posts and denied supporting violence.While she acknowledged encouraging a rally to support Trump, she said she wasn’t aware of plans to storm the Capitol or to disrupt the electoral count using violence.Greene said she feared for her safety during the riot and used social media to encourage people to remain calm.Marjorie Taylor Greene accused of lying in hearing in Capitol attack caseRead moreThe challenge is based on a section of the 14th amendment that says no one can serve in Congress “who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress … to support the constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same”.Ratified after the civil war, it was meant in part to keep out representatives who had fought for the Confederacy.James Bopp, a lawyer for Greene, argued that his client engaged in protected political speech and was herself a victim of the Capitol attack. He also argued the administrative law proceeding was not the appropriate forum to address such weighty allegations.The challenge amounted to an attempt “to deny the right to vote to the thousands of people living in the 14th district of Georgia by removing Greene from the ballot”, Bopp said.TopicsUS Capitol attackRepublicansGeorgiaUS politicsThe far rightUS CongressHouse of RepresentativesnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump ally Marjorie Taylor Greene can run for reelection, Georgia judge says

      by

      Marjorie Taylor Greene is qualified to run for re-election, Georgia official saysSecretary of state Brad Raffensperger accepts judge’s findings and says far-right congresswoman, a Trump ally, is eligible to run The Georgia secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, has accepted a judge’s findings and said the far-right Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene is qualified to run for re-election.Georgia sees first major test for a Republican defending democracy | The fight to voteRead moreA group of voters filed a challenge saying Greene should be barred under a seldom-invoked provision of the 14th amendment concerning insurrection, over her links to the January 6 attack on the US Capitol by supporters of Donald Trump.A state administrative law judge, Charles Beaudrot, last month held a hearing on the matter and found that Green was eligible. He sent his findings to Raffensperger, who was responsible for the final decision.It was an awkward position to be in for the secretary of state who drew the ire of Trump after he resisted pressure to overturn Joe Biden’s victory in Georgia.Greene has been a staunch Trump ally and has won his endorsement for her reelection bid while continuing to spread unproven claims about the 2020 election being “stolen”.Raffensperger has defended the integrity of the election in Georgia but is facing a tough primary challenge from a Trump-backed US congressman, Jody Hice.Beaudrot held a day-long hearing last month that included arguments from lawyers for the voters and for Greene and questioning of Greene herself.During the hearing, Ron Fein, a lawyer for the voters, noted that in a TV interview the day before the attack at the Capitol, Greene said the next day would be “our 1776 moment”.“In fact, it turned out to be an 1861 moment,” Fein said, alluding to the start of the civil war.Greene has become one of the GOP’s biggest fundraisers by stirring controversy and pushing baseless conspiracy theories. During the hearing, she was defiant and combative under oath.She repeated the unfounded claim that fraud led to Trump’s loss, said she didn’t recall incendiary statements and social media posts and denied supporting violence.While she acknowledged encouraging a rally to support Trump, she said she wasn’t aware of plans to storm the Capitol or to disrupt the electoral count using violence.Greene said she feared for her safety during the riot and used social media to encourage people to remain calm.Marjorie Taylor Greene accused of lying in hearing in Capitol attack caseRead moreThe challenge is based on a section of the 14th amendment that says no one can serve in Congress “who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress … to support the constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same”.Ratified after the civil war, it was meant in part to keep out representatives who had fought for the Confederacy.James Bopp, a lawyer for Greene, argued that his client engaged in protected political speech and was herself a victim of the Capitol attack. He also argued the administrative law proceeding was not the appropriate forum to address such weighty allegations.The challenge amounted to an attempt “to deny the right to vote to the thousands of people living in the 14th district of Georgia by removing Greene from the ballot”, Bopp said.TopicsUS Capitol attackRepublicansGeorgiaUS politicsThe far rightUS CongressHouse of RepresentativesnewsReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Giuliani Pulls Out of Interview With Jan. 6 Committee

      by

      The former personal lawyer to Donald J. Trump withdrew from an interview scheduled for Friday after the panel would not let him record it, his lawyer said.WASHINGTON — Rudolph W. Giuliani, who helped lead President Donald J. Trump’s effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election as his personal lawyer, on Thursday abruptly pulled out of a scheduled Friday interview with the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol after the panel refused to let him record the session.Mr. Giuliani has been negotiating with the panel about testifying for months, and had finally reached an agreement to speak about matters other than his conversations with Mr. Trump or any other topic he believes is covered by attorney-client privilege, said his lawyer, Robert J. Costello.Mr. Giuliani’s sudden withdrawal threatens what could have been a major breakthrough for the investigation. His testimony could have included details about interactions with members of Congress and others involved in the plans who were not Mr. Giuliani’s clients, Mr. Costello said. And with Mr. Giuliani under a subpoena to testify, the standoff raises the specter of yet another protracted legal battle between the committee and a former Trump aide.The impasse began when Mr. Costello told the committee on Thursday that Mr. Giuliani intended to record the interview on video. When the panel’s lawyers refused to allow him to do so, he canceled the meeting, Mr. Costello said.“He’s willing to talk about anything that is not privileged,” Mr. Costello said. “The only sticking point we’ve had is recording the interview. Now, that tells me they’re more interested in keeping things secret than getting to the so-called truth. If you’re interested in the person’s testimony, why would you not agree to this?”Mr. Costello said that Mr. Giuliani’s testimony was not yet off the table, and that he would continue to negotiate with the panel’s lawyers. He said that Mr. Giuliani, a former New York mayor, “simply doesn’t trust” members of the committee, specifically Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California, and believes that they will selectively edit his testimony.“If they changed their mind and they said, ‘Listen, we’ll jointly record the interview,’ then we would participate,” Mr. Costello said.Tim Mulvey, a spokesman for the committee, said the panel would consider enforcement actions against Mr. Giuliani if he does not change course and comply with the committee’s subpoena.“Mr. Giuliani had agreed to participate in a transcribed interview with the select committee. Today, he informed committee investigators that he wouldn’t show up unless he was permitted to record the interview, which was never an agreed-upon condition,” Mr. Mulvey said. “Mr. Giuliani is an important witness to the conspiracy to overthrow the government, and he remains under subpoena. If he refuses to comply, the committee will consider all enforcement options.”The committee has interviewed more than 970 witnesses and has recommended criminal contempt of Congress charges against four of Mr. Trump’s closest allies, who have refused to fully cooperate.Mr. Trump’s final chief of staff, Mark Meadows, has been referred to the Justice Department for possible criminal charges after refusing an interview with the committee. Another former aide, Stephen K. Bannon, was indicted in November after refusing to provide information to congressional investigators.Last month, the House voted to recommend criminal contempt of Congress charges against Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino Jr., two other close allies of Mr. Trump, after the pair defied subpoenas from the committee.The Justice Department has yet to act on the referrals for Mr. Meadows, Mr. Navarro and Mr. Scavino.As a key figure in Mr. Trump’s attempts to stave off electoral defeat, Mr. Giuliani would be in a position to tell investigators about a series of extraordinary measures undertaken last fall and winter in a bid to maintain the losing president’s grip on power.Among those efforts was a scheme to disrupt the normal workings of the Electoral College by persuading lawmakers in contested swing states to draw up alternate slates of electors showing Mr. Trump was victorious in states that were actually won by President Biden.Mr. Giuliani was also instrumental in vetting a plan to use the Department of Homeland Security to seize voting machines and examine the data housed inside them for supposed evidence of fraud. At Mr. Trump’s direction, Mr. Giuliani asked a top homeland security official if the department could legally take control of the machines — a notion the official shot down. Mr. Giuliani later opposed an even more explosive proposal to have the military seize the machines.Mr. Giuliani was subpoenaed with other members of a legal team that billed itself as an “elite strike force” and pursued a set of lawsuits on behalf of Mr. Trump in which they promulgated conspiracy theories and made unsubstantiated claims of fraud in the election.The committee’s subpoena sought all documents that Mr. Giuliani had detailing the pressure campaign that he and other Trump allies initiated targeting state officials, the seizure of voting machines, contact with members of Congress, any evidence to support the conspiracy theories he pushed and any arrangements for his fees.On Jan. 6, speaking to a crowd of Trump supporters before a pro-Trump mob attacked the Capitol, Mr. Giuliani called for “trial by combat.” Later, after the building was under siege, both he and Mr. Trump called lawmakers in an attempt to delay the certification of Mr. Biden’s victory. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      When Will We Have Results in Ohio and Indiana’s Primary Contests?

      by

      As we have said before, predicting the timing of election results is not an exact science. It can be downright messy. And surely, every election night is different.Many factors can contribute to how late, or how early, results are reported: when polls close, what time election officials can start tabulating absentee ballots and how close races are, to name a few.For the marquee races in Ohio, like the closely watched U.S. Senate primary, the secretary of state said it would begin posting unofficial results on its website at 8 p.m. Eastern time, half an hour after voting ends. In 2020, about half the vote had been counted by 8:30 p.m. in Ohio, said Stephen Ohlemacher, the election decision editor for The Associated Press.Absentee ballots can’t be tabulated in Ohio until the polls close, and are then counted first, according to Rob Nichols, a spokesman for the secretary of state. As of Friday, about 162,000 ballots had already been cast in Ohio through the mail or via early, in-person voting, which ended on Monday, according to The A.P. In 2018, there were about 280,000 ballots cast before the primary in Ohio, which The A.P. estimated was 17 percent of the total vote.Results for U.S. House races in Ohio will appear on county-level board of election websites before the secretary of state’s, putting the onus on the candidates, political parties and news media to tally results for each county in a congressional district. The secretary of state’s office cited Ohio’s back-and-forth on redrawing congressional maps as the root cause of the delay in updating their website.Indiana expects to start posting results on the secretary of state’s website shortly after polls close — which is 6 p.m. local time, whether in the part of the state that is in the Eastern time zone or in the Central time zone. Election officials in the state can begin counting absentee ballots on the day of an election, but cannot post any results until after the polls close.As of Monday morning, 146,365 ballots had been cast statewide, both through the mail and early, in-person voting, which ended on Monday in Indiana, according to The A.P. The total ballots cast in the 2018 primary was 173,000. More

    • 88 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      What Do the Midterms Mean for Biden?

      by

      For President Biden, the outcome of the midterm elections will be critical, both for the fate of his policy agenda and for his ability to function without partisan distractions for the next two years.The president has already struggled to pass legislation he promised as a candidate because Democrats hold a bare majority in the House and the ability to break a 50-50 tie in the Senate. But that difficulty will become a near-impossibility if Republicans take control of the House or the Senate — or both. Republicans would not only have enough votes to defeat most of Mr. Biden’s proposed legislation, but they would be able to keep Democratic measures from even being considered.Furthermore, Republican control of Congress would put Mr. Biden’s political enemies in charge of investigative and oversight committees. Republicans have already vowed to use those positions to conduct high-profile inquiries into Hunter Biden, the president’s son; the administration’s handling of migrants at the border; and the chaotic exit of U.S. troops from Afghanistan.The result would most likely be a White House in a defensive crouch, constantly forced to respond to demands for information from congressional committees. Some White House staff would hire lawyers to defend themselves against subpoenas requested by Republican-led investigations. And White House briefings would be filled with questions about the newly empowered Republican majority.Previous presidents have faced the same situation. President George W. Bush called the 2006 midterms a “thumping” after Democrats won control of both chambers. In 2010, Republicans won back the House in what President Barack Obama called a “shellacking” by his adversaries. In both cases, the shift in the majorities hampered the presidents’ agendas and ratcheted up the partisan attacks from Capitol Hill.— More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Jan. 6 Panel Seeks to Interview Three More G.O.P. Lawmakers

      by

      All three quickly declined. The panel also said it had evidence that some House Republicans sought pardons from President Donald J. Trump in connection with the effort to overturn the election.WASHINGTON — The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol sent letters on Monday seeking interviews with three Republican members of Congress, and the panel said it had gathered evidence that some House Republicans sought presidential pardons in the aftermath of the violence that engulfed the Capitol.The committee requested interviews with Representative Andy Biggs of Arizona, the former leader of the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus; Representative Mo Brooks of Alabama, who has said former President Donald J. Trump has continued to seek reinstatement to office; and Representative Ronny Jackson of Texas, Mr. Trump’s former White House doctor. All three quickly declined, seeking to paint the committee’s work as illegitimate.In a letter to Mr. Biggs, the committee’s leaders wrote that they wanted to question him about evidence they had obtained on efforts by certain House Republicans to seek a presidential pardon after Jan. 6 in connection with Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election.“Your name was identified as a potential participant in that effort,” Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi, and Representative Liz Cheney, Republican of Wyoming, the leaders of the committee, wrote to Mr. Biggs. “We would like to understand all the details of the request for a pardon, more specific reasons why a pardon was sought and the scope of the proposed pardon.”The committee also said it wanted to interview Mr. Biggs about a Dec. 21, 2020, meeting he attended at the White House with several other members of the Freedom Caucus. There, the discussion included a plan in which former Vice President Mike Pence would unilaterally refuse to count certain states’ certified electoral votes on Jan. 6.Investigators said they also had evidence about Mr. Biggs’s efforts to persuade state legislators to join Mr. Trump’s push to overturn the 2020 election.The panel also wants to question Mr. Biggs about Ali Alexander, a prominent organizer of so-called Stop the Steal rallies with ties to far-right members of Congress who sought to invalidate the 2020 election results. Mr. Alexander has said that he, along with Mr. Biggs, Mr. Brooks and Representative Paul Gosar of Arizona, set the events of Jan. 6 in motion.Investigators also want to question Representative Mo Brooks of Alabama about his statement that former President Donald J. Trump has repeatedly asked him to remove President Biden and force a special election.Elijah Nouvelage/Reuters“We four schemed up of putting maximum pressure on Congress while they were voting,” Mr. Alexander said in a since-deleted video posted online. He added that even if they couldn’t lobby the lawmakers, “we could change the hearts and the minds of Republicans who were in that body, hearing our loud roar from outside.”The committee described Mr. Alexander as “an early and aggressive proponent of the Stop the Steal movement who called for violence before Jan. 6.”“We would like to understand precisely what you knew before the violence on Jan. 6 about the purposes, planning and expectations for the march on the Capitol,” Mr. Thompson and Ms. Cheney wrote to Mr. Biggs.Mr. Brooks, who wore body armor onstage that day as he told the crowd to “start taking down names and kicking ass,” and Mr. Biggs, who provided a video message for Mr. Alexander to play at a Dec. 19 rally, have denied coordinating event planning with Mr. Alexander.The panel wants to question Mr. Brooks about statements he made in March claiming that Mr. Trump had asked him repeatedly in the months since the election to illegally “rescind” the results, remove President Biden and force a special election.Mr. Brooks said Mr. Trump had made the request of him on multiple occasions since Sept. 1, 2021. He said the former president did not specify exactly how Congress could reinstall him, and that Mr. Brooks repeatedly told him it was impossible.“I told President Trump that ‘rescinding’ the 2020 election was not a legal option. Period,” Mr. Brooks said.Investigators said they had questions for Mr. Jackson, the former White House doctor who is now a member of Congress, about why he was mentioned in encrypted messages from the Oath Keepers, a militia group, some of whose members have been charged criminally in connection with the attack. In the messages, the militia members appear to have Mr. Jackson’s cellphone and say he is “on the move” and “needs protection” as the violence was underway.Members of the Oath Keepers, including its leader, Stewart Rhodes, exchanged encrypted messages asking members of the organization to provide Mr. Jackson personally with security assistance, suggesting that he has “critical data to protect,” according to federal prosecutors.“Why would these individuals have an interest in your specific location? Why would they believe you ‘have critical data to protect’?” Mr. Thompson and Ms. Cheney wrote to Mr. Jackson. “Why would they direct their members to protect your personal safety? With whom did you speak by cellphone that day?”On Jan. 6, Mr. Jackson posted photographs of himself at Mr. Trump’s rally on the Ellipse that preceded the violence, and posted to Twitter: “American Patriots have your BACK Mr. President! We will FIGHT for YOU and we will fight for OUR country!!”Mr. Thompson and Ms. Cheney wrote to Mr. Jackson: “We would like to discuss how and when you returned from the Ellipse to the Capitol, and the contacts you had with participants in the rally or the subsequent march from the Ellipse to the Capitol.”In a statement, Mr. Jackson denied being in contact with the members of the Oath Keepers.“I do not know, nor did I have contact with, those who exchanged text messages about me on Jan. 6,” Mr. Jackson said. “In fact, I was proud to help defend the House floor from those who posed a threat to my colleagues. The committee’s witch hunt against me is nothing more than a coordinated attempt to do the media’s work on taxpayers’ dime.”Capitol Riot’s Aftermath: Key DevelopmentsCard 1 of 3Trump allies’ involvement. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Capitol attack committee requests cooperation from key Republican trio

      by

      Capitol attack committee requests cooperation from key Republican trioMo Brooks, Andy Biggs and Ronny Jackson receive letters as panel looks to establish extent of role in Trump’s bid to overturn election The House select committee investigating the US Capitol attack on Monday asked three Republican members of Congress to assist its inquiry, as it seeks to establish the extent of their roles in Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election.This Will Not Pass review: Trump-Biden blockbuster is dire reading for DemocratsRead moreThe panel sent letters requesting voluntary cooperation to Mo Brooks, Andy Biggs and Ronny Jackson, three congressmen who strategised ways to stop certification of Joe Biden’s election win or appeared to have connections to elements involved in the Capitol attack.Bennie Thompson, the Democratic committee chair, told the Guardian last week the panel wanted to conduct interviews with Republicans so it could consider their testimony for its report, due to be published in September.The panel opted against issuing subpoenas compelling testimony in the first instance, since that could cause the Republicans to attack, whereas an informal interview might at least yield some information, two sources close to the matter said.In a statement, Jackson refused to cooperate.“I will not participate in the illegitimate committee’s ruthless crusade against President Trump and his allies,” he said, hours after a Trump-appointed judge ruled in separate January 6 litigation that the panel was, in fact, legitimate.House investigators are expected to issue further letters to Republican members of Congress, sources said. The Guardian first reported the committee was considering letters to Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert and Paul Gosar, in addition to Biggs and Brooks.The panel made a particularly expansive request to Biggs, the former head of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus, outlining four lines of inquiry that investigators want to pursue with respect to his role in the weeks before 6 January.Thompson told Biggs the committee wanted to ask him about a crucial 21 December meeting at the White House between Trump and dozens of Republicans, which produced a plan to have the then vice-president, Mike Pence, refuse to certify Biden’s win.The letter also said the panel wanted to ask what Biggs knew of plans to stage a march from the Ellipse, near the White House, to the Capitol on 6 January, through his purported contacts with the pro-Trump activist Ali Alexander, who led the “Stop the Steal” movement after the 2020 election.Biggs’s potential contacts with Alexander are of special interest to the investigation, the sources said.The committee is trying to untangle claims by Alexander that he “schemed up putting maximum pressure on Congress while they were voting” with Brooks, Biggs and Gosar, and his testimony that he spoke to Biggs’s staff and the congressman himself.Alexander obtained a permit for a 6 January rally near the Capitol. But the rally never took place – although a separately organised event did – and Alexander was instead filmed going up the Capitol steps with members of the Oath Keepers militia group.Thompson said the panel also wanted to ask Biggs about his efforts to pressure legislators to create “alternate” slates of electors for Trump in states he lost, as well as an alleged request he made to Trump for a pardon in the days after the Capitol attack.In a letter to Brooks, the select committee said it wanted to ask him about his recent public comments, how Trump supposedly asked him on several occasions to “help rescind the election” and that “we’ve got to take Joe Biden down and put me in now”.In the letter to Jackson, the panel indicated they would ask Trump’s former White House physician about why his name came up in encrypted text messages among members of the Oath Keepers as the Capitol attack was under way.According to text messages in a recent court filing, an unidentified Oath Keeper messaged a group chat in the afternoon of 6 January that “Ronnie [sic] Jackson (TX) office inside Capitol – he needs OK help. Anyone inside?”‘JP, right?’ Donald Trump appears to forget name of candidate he endorsedRead moreThe same Oath Keeper provided an update less than 10 minutes later: “Dr Ronnie Jackson – on the move. Needs protection. If anyone inside cover him. He has critical data to protect.”The Oath Keepers leader, Stewart Rhodes, responded: “Give him my cell.”The extraordinary exchange raises the notion that members of the Oath Keepers – two of whom are among those who have been indicted on charges of seditious conspiracy for storming the Capitol – were close enough to Jackson to know his whereabouts and condition in real time.To that extent, the letter to Jackson said, the select committee wants to ask him about whether he had contacts with the Oath Keepers, how the militia group could have known that he needed protection or, in another text, knew he had “critical data to protect”.TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsHouse of RepresentativesRepublicansnewsReuse this content More