More stories

  • in

    Capitol attack panel faces pivotal moment as Trump allies stonewall

    US Capitol attackCapitol attack panel faces pivotal moment as Trump allies stonewallQuestions about Trump’s role in 6 January may go unanswered unless House investigators can secure a breakthrough to obtain documents and testimony Hugo Lowell in WashingtonFri 29 Oct 2021 06.00 EDTLast modified on Fri 29 Oct 2021 16.20 EDTThe House select committee investigating the Capitol attack is confronting a pivotal moment as resistance from top Trump administration aides threatens to undermine their efforts to uncover the extent of the former president’s involvement in the 6 January insurrection.The select committee remains in the evidence-gathering phase of the investigation that now encompasses at least five different lines of inquiry from whether Donald Trump abused the presidency to reinstall himself in office or coordinated with far-right rally organizers.These Trump fans were at the Capitol on 6 January. Now they’re running for officeRead moreBut unless House investigators can secure a breakthrough to obtain documents and testimony from Trump’s White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and others in the next few weeks, the most pressing questions about Trump’s role in 6 January may go unanswered, two sources said.The select committee has designated its “gold” team to examine the extent of Trump’s personal involvement in the events that left five dead and more than 140 injured as his supporters stormed the Capitol in his name, the sources said.One major focus of the investigation is whether Trump had advance knowledge of the insurrection, the sources said – since if they uncover evidence of conspiracy to violently stop the certification of Joe Biden’s election win, that could constitute a crime.But to make that kind of case, which would then guide Congress on how to draft laws to avert a repeat of the Capitol attack, may be impossible without clear insight into Trump’s movements inside the White House both on 6 January and the days before, the sources said.The select committee, the sources said, effectively needs to know what Trump’s top aides know about what the former president thought would allow him to remain in office – and whether that extended to encouraging surrogates to physically stop the certification.To that end, House investigators last month subpoenaed Meadows, his deputy, Dan Scavino, former chief strategist Steve Bannon and defense department aide Kash Patel, while asking the National Archives to turn over Trump White House records.Meadows is of special interest since he remained by Trump’s side as the Capitol attack unfolded and, in the final weeks of the administration, sat in on 6 January strategy meetings with the former president.The former chief strategist Bannon was similarly subpoenaed for documents and testimony as he was in constant contact with Trump in the days before the Capitol attack, and played a major role in drawing up the legal arguments for Pence to return Trump to office.Bannon also appeared to have prior knowledge of the Capitol attack, which former White House aides say would not have escaped Trump’s attention. “All hell is going to break loose tomorrow,” Bannon said on his War Room podcast the day before the insurrection.The select committee, meanwhile, also asked the National Archives for Trump White House materials since they are the custodian for visitor logs and Oval Office memoranda – records that could shed light on the interactions Trump was having with Meadows and Bannon.But under orders from Trump to defy the subpoenas on grounds of executive privilege, the select committee is yet to obtain any materials or testimony from the four aides, while the National Archives is unable to release records until Trump’s lawsuit on the issue is resolved.The collective efforts from Trump and his aides mean that unless House investigators can find a way to circumvent the logjam, the gold team may ultimately find themselves unable to ever uncover whether 6 January was a White House-sponsored insurrection.Bannon, for instance, was last week referred to the justice department for prosecution after he defied his subpoena in its entirety, but a source at the US attorney’s office cautioned a decision on his case could take months of deliberations.The delay stems in part from the fact that the justice department is now examining whether they can successfully secure an indictment in the Bannon case and are indifferent to the select committee’s need to finish a report before the 2022 midterms, the source said.The US attorney’s office, the source added, may not be able to proceed with a potential prosecution against Bannon until the justice department first resolves other constitutional complaints raised by Trump in his lawsuit against the National Archives.Taken together, staff on the gold team are now starting to think the most likely avenue for securing Trump White House materials is not through the former president’s aides but through the National Archives request, since Biden has the final say over executive privilege.Still, given Trump’s pending lawsuit lodged against the National Archives – a move described by a source close to the Trump legal effort as a way to stymie the investigation – the select committee may run out of time before being able to examine the materials.Tim Mulvey, a spokesperson for the select committee, on Friday rejected the internal concerns, saying in a statement: “While we don’t comment on the specifics of our investigation, we are moving ahead expeditiously to uncover the facts, get answers for the American people, and make legislative recommendations to help ensure nothing like January 6th ever happens again.”“The select committee won’t be derailed by those seeking to obstruct our investigation, and we won’t be distracted by anonymous sources posing as experts and insiders,” Mulvey added.The select committee’s struggle to enforce orders against the Trump aides shows the lack of teeth carried by congressional subpoenas, with its power systematically eroded by a Trump administration that has found, since 2016, that defiance carries scant penalties.But the difficulty in obtaining any formal Trump White House materials – either through the former president’s aides or even through the National Archives – also underscores how what could be the most consequential lines of inquiry appear to be dangling by a thread.The select committee has had success eliciting information elsewhere, most notably with individuals connected to the Trump-supporting Women for America First organization that planned the 6 January “Stop the Steal” rally subpoenaed earlier in October.House investigators also heard voluminous testimony from Trump’s former acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen over seven hours of voluntary testimony, that could help the gold team establish whether the former president unlawfully pressured the justice department.But without knowing what Trump’s top aides know of the former president’s connections to the Capitol attack, the sources said, it could mean that Congress is left unable to write legislation to avert a different effort to stop the certification in 2024.TopicsUS Capitol attackHouse of RepresentativesDonald TrumpTrump administrationUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More

  • in

    Exxon CEO accused of lying about climate science to congressional panel

    Climate crimesEnvironmentExxon CEO accused of lying about climate science to congressional panelCongresswoman Carolyn Maloney likens oil company bosses’ responses to those of tobacco industry at historic hearing Supported byAbout this contentChris McGrealThu 28 Oct 2021 17.05 EDTFirst published on Thu 28 Oct 2021 16.33 EDTThe chief executive of ExxonMobil, Darren Woods, was accused of lying to Congress on Thursday after he denied that the company covered up its own research about oil’s contribution to the climate crisis.For the first time, Woods and the heads of three other major petroleum companies were questioned under oath at a congressional hearing into the industry’s long campaign to discredit and deny the evidence that burning fossil fuels drove global heating. When pressed to make specific pledges or to stop lobbying against climate initiatives, all four executives declined.Joe Manchin leads opposition to Biden’s climate bill, backed by support from oil, gas and coalRead moreThe chair of the House oversight committee, Representative Carolyn Maloney, pressed Woods about statements by his predecessor, Exxon CEO Lee Raymond, who in the 1990s said the scientific evidence for climate change was “inconclusive” and that “the case for global warming is far from air tight”. In 2002, Exxon ran advertisements in the New York Times calling climate science “unsettled”.Malone put it to Woods that Exxon’s own scientists had repeatedly warned the company about the threat from burning fossil fuels as far back as the 1970s.“There is a clear conflict between what Exxon CEO told the public and what Exxon scientists were warning privately for years,” she said.Woods denied that Raymond or Exxon misled anyone.“I do not agree that there was an inconsistency,” he said.Maloney said the response reminded her of “another hearing that we had with the tobacco industry”.“They said they did not believe that nicotine was addictive. Well, it came out that they lied. Tobacco nicotine was very addictive. And now I’m hearing from you that the science that was reported publicly, where your executives were denying climate change, we know that your scientists internally were saying that it’s a reality,” she said.“So I was hoping that you would not be like the tobacco industry was and lie about this.”The heads of the American operations of the other oil companies – Shell, Chevron and BP – were also firm in resisting pressure to admit they misrepresented climate science or deceived the public.They each said that they recognised global heating was a reality and a major challenge. But the executives did not accept that their companies had failed to take it seriously or that they were undermining attempts to cut greenhouse gases by funding trade groups pouring millions of dollars into lobbying Congress against tighter environmental laws.“We accept the scientific consensus,” said Michael Wirth, the CEO of Chevron. “Climate change is real. Any suggestion that Chevron is engaged in disinformation and to mislead the public on these complex issues is simply wrong.”But Maloney accused the oil companies of continuing the cover-up, including by hiding documents. She said she would take the unusual step of issuing subpoenas to force the firms to reveal what they knew.“We need to get to the bottom of the oil industry’s disinformation campaign and with these subpoenas we will,” she said.The oil and gas industry, which spent about $100m on political lobbying last year, was strongly backed by a number of Republicans on the committee who sought to distract by denouncing Joe Biden’s energy policies.Republicans called their own witness, Neal Crabtree, who said he lost his job as a welder within three hours of Biden being sworn in as president because the Keystone pipeline was cancelled. Crabtree was used to portray Biden as colluding with China and Russia against America’s oil industry.The highest-ranking Republican on the committee, Representative James Comer, questioned the legitimacy of the investigation. He said the committee would be better off spending its time investigating the White House’s handling of inflation, illegal immigration and the US military withdrawal from Afghanistan.In a hearing meant to focus on climate misinformation, several Republican members openly questioned the urgency of the climate crisis. Representative Clay Higgins called the hearing “a threat from within” because the American way of life was built on oil.Another Republican member said Maloney owed the oil executives an apology for intruding on their right to free speech by pressing them to make a commitment that their firms will “no longer spend any money, either directly or indirectly, to oppose efforts to reduce emissions and address climate change”.None of the executives would make a direct commitment.Maloney showed the hearing a video secretly recorded by Greenpeace earlier this year of an Exxon lobbyist describing the oil giant’s backing for a carbon tax as a public relations ploy intended to stall more serious measures to combat the climate crisis.“How did Exxon respond?” asked Maloney. “Did they come clean about this shocking conduct? No. Mr Woods called Mr McCoy’s comments inaccurate and then they fired him. And they are obviously lying like the tobacco executives were.”While the oil executives largely maintained a united front, Representative Ro Khanna, a leading critic of the petroleum industry on the committee, drew out testimony that showed the European companies, Shell and BP, were working to cut production while the US firms, Exxon and Chevron, intended to increase drilling in the coming years.Wirth said that his company would raise oil production while cutting carbon admissions.The hearing also questioned the leaders of two powerful lobby groups accused of acting as front organisations for big oil, the American Petroleum Institute and the US Chamber of Commerce.Khanna noted that API was heavily funded by oil company money as it resisted the expansion of infrastructure for electric vehicles and opposed a methane fee backed by Biden, including flooding Facebook with advertisements in recent months.Khanna challenged each of the oil executives in turn to resign from API over its position on electric vehicles or to tell it to stop its opposition to a methane fee. All of them declined to do so.TopicsEnvironmentClimate crimesExxonMobilBPRoyal Dutch ShellChevronOil and gas companiesOilnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Cori Bush and AOC Are Right About Jan. 6 and 1866

    When, in the early morning hours of Jan. 7, Congress finally certified the 2020 Electoral College count, more than 140 Republican members of Congress had voted, in one way or another, to reject the outcome. They had embraced the spirit of the mob that stormed the Capitol the day before, even if they had not physically joined it.With that said, there was a smaller number of congressional Republicans who may have gone further than simply casting a vote the way President Donald Trump wanted them to, in the days leading up to Jan. 6. According to a new report by Hunter Walker in Rolling Stone, “Multiple people associated with the March for Trump and Stop the Steal events that took place during this period communicated with members of Congress throughout this process.”Walker’s sources, two unnamed organizers who say they helped plan the rallies, claim that Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene, Andy Biggs, Paul Gosar, Lauren Boebert, Mo Brooks, Madison Cawthorn and Louie Gohmert or members of their staffs spoke to or collaborated with pro-Trump activists in the days, weeks and months before the attack on the Capitol. Gosar, a staunch defender of the former president, reportedly told potential rally goers that Trump would give them a “blanket pardon” for their activities.Greene, Gohmert, Boebert, Brooks, Cawthorn and Biggs have all pushed back strongly on the Rolling Stone report, which appeared over the weekend. Gosar called it “categorically false and defamatory.”“There was a meeting at the White House about voter fraud and election theft activity,” Brooks said. “But I have no recollection of any kind of organizational activity regarding the speeches on Jan. 6.”For his part, Gohmert released a statement Monday: “No one in my office, including me, participated in the planning of the rally or in any criminal activity on Jan. 6. We did not attend or participate at all.”Boebert also issued a statement on Monday: “Let me be clear. I had no role in the planning or execution of any event that took place at the Capitol or anywhere in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6th.”The organizers who spoke to Rolling Stone apparently plan to testify before the Jan. 6 select committee to provide more details about what they say was collaboration between Republican lawmakers and the pro-Trump activists who planned the events that ultimately led to the attack.In the meantime, some Democrats are already calling for their removal from office.“Any member of Congress who helped plot a terrorist attack on our nation’s Capitol must be expelled,” Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wrote on Twitter. “Those responsible remain a danger to our democracy, our country, and human life in the vicinity of our Capitol and beyond.”Likewise, Representative Cori Bush of Missouri said on Twitter that the House must “investigate and expel members of Congress who helped incite the deadly insurrection on our Capitol.”Bush had actually introduced a House resolution for this purpose just days after the attack. “There is no place in the people’s House for these heinous actions,” she said at the time, referring to “members who attempted to disenfranchise voters and incited this violence.”“I firmly believe,” she went on, “that these members are in breach of their sworn Oath of Office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. They must be held accountable.”They weren’t. There was simply no appetite, among House leadership, for such drastic and decisive action. There still isn’t. But it was a serious demand, and we should take it seriously.Bush’s resolution rests on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which cleared Congress in 1866 and was ratified in 1868:No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.In plain English, Congress has the power and authority to expel from office any constitutional officer who engages in sedition and takes up arms against the Constitution of the United States.The original context for this, obviously, was the Civil War and its immediate aftermath. By the summer of 1865, President Andrew Johnson, a conservative unionist from Tennessee, had taken charge of Reconstruction with a plan to restore the Southern states as equals, their political and constitutional status essentially unchanged from what it was before the war.Under Johnson’s arrangement, the former Confederate states could operate under their antebellum constitutions, the end of slavery notwithstanding. All-white electorates could elect all-white legislatures and send all-white delegations to Washington. Some of these men were, like Johnson, conservative unionists. Many more were former rebel leaders. Alexander Stephens — of the infamous Cornerstone Speech — was elected to represent Georgia in the Senate in 1866 after he was arrested and imprisoned as the former vice president of the Confederacy in 1865.Either way, neither group supported anything like fundamental change to the social and political fabric of the South. If seated, these delegations to Congress would stymie and block any Republican effort to reconstruct the South as an open society with free labor.Indeed, had every Southern representative been seated, Republicans would not have had the votes to get the 14th Amendment through Congress in the first place, on account of the two-thirds majority requirement for passage.Worse than potential obstruction was the real chance that the South would re-enter Congress with as much, or more, political power than it had before the war. The 13th Amendment had abolished chattel slavery, which effectively gutted the three-fifths compromise. And thanks to Johnson, recalcitrant Southern elites could form new governments without extending the vote to free and recently freed Blacks. When the 14th Amendment repealed the three-fifths compromise outright, the effect would be to give the South a considerable bonus in Congress.“Beginning with the reapportionment of 1870,” the legal scholar Garrett Epps writes in “The Antebellum Political Background of the Fourteenth Amendment,” “the Southern states would receive full representation for each freed slave rather than a mere sixty percent, a change that would give the region thirteen more House seats and electoral votes without the extension of minimal political rights, much less the franchise, to the freed slaves who formed the basis of the representation.”To head off this threat, Republicans took two steps. First, they refused to recognize, much less seat, members from the states readmitted under Johnson’s policies. And then, looking to the future, they wrote this prohibition on former Confederate leaders into the Constitution as Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Republicans would prevent the re-ascendence of this “slave power” with a blockade of federal office deployed against Southern elites.If the ultimate goal of Section 3, in other words, was to preserve the integrity of Congress against those who would capture its power and plot against the constitutional order itself, then Representative Bush is right to cite the clause against any members of Congress who turn out to have collaborated with the plotters to overturn the election and whose allies are still fighting to “stop the steal.”There is a movement afoot to undermine electoral democracy for the sake of a would-be strongman. We have the tools to stop it. Congress, and by this I mean the Democratic majority, should use them.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

  • in

    Marjorie Taylor Greene fined third time for refusing to wear mask on House floor

    RepublicansMarjorie Taylor Greene fined third time for refusing to wear mask on House floorAndrew Clyde, who claimed Capitol rioters behaved like ‘normal tourists’, also fined by House committee for failure to wear a mask Martin Pengelly@MartinPengellyTue 26 Oct 2021 08.58 EDTLast modified on Tue 26 Oct 2021 10.10 EDTA Georgia Republican who compared rules on mask-wearing against Covid-19 to the Holocaust and another who said Trump supporters who invaded the Capitol on 6 January behaved like “normal tourists” have been fined for failing to wear masks on the floor of the House.Fossil fuel messaging has won over Republican voters, poll revealsRead moreMarjorie Taylor Greene, who apologised for the Holocaust comparison in June, and Andrew Clyde, who made his claim about the rioters in May, were fined by the House ethics committee on Monday.The House mask mandate was introduced last year, lifted in June then re-applied in July, to Republican protests.First offences merit a warning, second offences attract a $500 fine and subsequent offences are fined $2,500.Greene had already been fined twice for failing to wear a mask. On Monday, she said: “I’m taking a stand on the House floor because I don’t want the people to stand alone.”The committed conspiracy theorist and partisan bomb thrower has relentlessly courted controversy since her election last year. In February, she was stripped of committee assignments.She compared House Covid-19 rules to “a time and history where people were told to wear a gold star … put in trains and taken to gas chambers in Nazi Germany”.Apologising, she said she was “truly sorry for offending people with remarks about the Holocaust” and had visited the US Holocaust Memorial Museum.“There’s no comparison and there never ever will be,” she said.Clyde did not immediately comment about his mask fine. It was reported in July that the navy veteran and gun store owner had changed the structure of his congressional pay, as a way to avoid fines over masks and bypassing metal detectors during security checks.Clyde made his infamous comment about the 6 January Capitol attack, around which five people died as supporters of Donald Trump attempted to overturn the election, in May.Though he said “an undisciplined mob” had been at the Capitol, and “there were some rioters and some who committed acts of vandalism”, Clyde downplayed the events of the day.“Watching the TV footage of those who entered the Capitol and walked through Statuary Hall showed people in an orderly fashion staying between the stanchions and ropes, taking videos and pictures,” Clyde said.“You know, if you didn’t know the TV footage was a video from 6 January, you would actually think it was a normal tourist visit.”Some rioters looked for lawmakers, including the then vice-president, Mike Pence, and the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, to kidnap and possibly kill. As the Washington Post reported, pictures from 6 January show Clyde among representatives rushing to barricade a door to the chamber, lest rioters break in.Michael Fanone, a police officer injured in the riot, later said Clyde “ran as quickly as he could, like a coward” when approached for comment on Capitol Hill.TopicsRepublicansCoronavirusHouse of RepresentativesUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Pelosi ‘very confident’ Democrats will reach deal to salvage Biden agenda

    Joe BidenPelosi ‘very confident’ Democrats will reach deal to salvage Biden agendaDemocratic infighting has threatened to upend Biden’s ambitious domestic agenda less than a year after taking office Richard Luscombe@richluscSun 24 Oct 2021 15.44 EDTLast modified on Sun 24 Oct 2021 15.45 EDTHouse speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed confidence on Sunday that a deal between Democrats to salvage Joe Biden’s ambitious social agenda was “pretty much there”, paving the way for a possible vote in Congress later this week.Her upbeat words came as the president was meeting in Delaware with the Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer and Democratic holdout Joe Manchin to put the finishing touches on what has become a scaled-back package central to Biden’s Build Back Better initiative.Manchin, of West Virginia, was one of two moderate Senate Democrats, along with Arizona’s Kyrsten Sinema, resisting the original $3.5tn cost of the social spending bill. Manchin had indicated he would be more comfortable with something closer to $1.5tn, and raised objections over Biden’s flagship clean power plan (CPP) that would have imposed emission controls on power companies.“We will have something that will meet the president’s goals, I feel very confident about that,” Pelosi said on CNN’s State of the Union.“We’re almost certain [we have a deal], it’s just the language of it. It will not offend, shall we say, the concern that Senator Manchin had about the CPP. The point is to reach your goals, and the president’s goals of reaching the emissions, the pollution and all the rest … there are other ways to reach the goal.”The Democratic infighting had threatened to upend Biden’s domestic agenda less than a year after taking office. The votes of both Manchin and Sinema, who has insisted she would oppose any effort to reverse Trump-era tax cuts for wealthy individuals and corporations, are crucial in a divided 50-50 Senate.Adding to the administration’s frustration has been the blocking by Democratic House progressives of a parallel $1tn bipartisan infrastructure bill until the Senate approves the massive social spending package touted by those on the left of the party, particularly the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders.Pelosi, who had set a 31 October deadline for the infrastructure bill to pass, did not disclose what elements of the original social safety net bill would have to be compromised or dropped to meet the lower price tag acceptable to the moderates. But she indicated that welfare components such as expanded healthcare and the child tax credit would likely survive.Possibly on the chopping block, however, were long-held Democratic goals such as paid family leave and expanding Medicare for hearing, vision and dental. Pressed on whether those elements would survive, Pelosi was non-committal, using phrases including: “That’s our hope,” and “That’s what we’re fighting for.”“Right now Senate leader Schumer, Senator Manchin and the president are having the meeting on some of the particulars that need to be finalized, and I’m optimistic that we can do that,” Pelosi said. “One basket was climate, the jobs bill, a bill for the children, for the future of healthcare, strengthening the affordable care act, expanding Medicaid and Medicare.”Pelosi also insisted that the administration had “an array” of alternative options to “probably more than pay for the plan” even if Sinema’s opposition ruled out a reversal of the Trump tax cuts.“We had the rescue package at $1.9tn, we have the infrastructure bill over a trillion dollars, [so] that’s around $3tn. And we’ll have this in at $2tn,” she said. “Nobody has done anything that remarkable. So while it isn’t everything that was put out originally, it takes us down a path where we can continue investments.”Pelosi was asked if she supported the prosecution and jailing of those who resisted congressional subpoenas to testify before the House committee investigating the 6 January insurrection. Last week the House held Trump ally and former adviser Steve Bannon in criminal contempt for ignoring a subpoena.“I do,” she said. “People said well, this hasn’t happened before, [but] we haven’t had an insurrection incited by the president of the United States and [with] one of his toadies having advanced knowledge.“It’s important for us to find the truth about what happened on 6 January and the assault on the constitution, our congress and our capital, but it’s also important in terms of the separation of power and the checks and balances of the constitution.”TopicsJoe BidenNancy PelosiUS politicsUS CongressDemocratsHouse of RepresentativesUS SenatenewsReuse this content More