More stories

  • in

    Top Trump aides set to defy subpoenas in Capitol attack investigation

    US Capitol attackTop Trump aides set to defy subpoenas in Capitol attack investigationSource says Meadows, Bannon and others will move to undercut House select committee inquiry – under instructions from Trump Hugo Lowell in WashingtonWed 6 Oct 2021 01.30 EDTLast modified on Wed 6 Oct 2021 01.32 EDTFormer Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and other top aides subpoenaed by the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack are expected to defy orders for documents and testimony related to 6 January, according to a source familiar with the matter.The move to defy the subpoenas would mark the first major investigative hurdle faced by the select committee and threatens to touch off an extended legal battle as the former president pushes some of his most senior aides to undercut the inquiry.All four Trump aides targeted by the select committee – Meadows, deputy chief of staff Dan Scavino, strategist Steve Bannon and defense department aide Kash Patel – are expected to resist the orders because Trump is preparing to direct them to do so, the source said.Capitol attack committee issues fresh subpoenas over pre-riot Trump rally Read moreThe select committee had issued the subpoenas under the threat of criminal prosecution in the event of non-compliance, warning that the penalty for defying a congressional subpoena would be far graver under the Biden administration than during the Trump presidency.But increasingly concerned with the far-reaching nature of the 6 January investigation, Trump and his legal team, led by former deputy White House counsel Patrick Philbin, are moving to instruct the attorneys for the subpoenaed aides to defy the orders.The basis for Trump’s pressing aides to not cooperate is being mounted on grounds of executive privilege, the source said, over claims that sensitive conversations about what he knew in advance of plans to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s election victory should remain secret.Philbin appears less convinced than Trump about the strength of the legal argument, the sources said, in part because the justice department previously declined to assert the protection for 6 January testimony, suggesting it did not exist to protect Trump’s personal interests.The former president’s lawyer, sources said, instead seems to view the strategy more as an effective way to slow-walk the select committee, which is aiming to produce a final report before the 2022 midterm elections, to keep the inquiry non-partisan.It was not clear on Tuesday whether Trump would push aides to defy all elements of the subpoenas, the source cautioned – access to some emails or call records demanded by the select committee might be waived.But Trump’s strategy mirrors the playbook he used to prevent House Democrats from deposing his top advisors during his presidency. Former White House counsel Don McGahn, for instance, only testified to congress about the Mueller inquiry once Trump left office.House select committee investigators had demanded that the four Trump aides turn over emails, call records and other documents related to the Capitol attack by Thursday and then appear before the panel for closed-door depositions next week.But with the former president expected to insist to Philbin that Meadows, Scavino, Bannon and Patel mount blanket refusals against the subpoenas, the sources said, the select committee at present appears likely to see none of the requests fulfilled.The move means that House select committee investigators now face the key decision over how to enforce the orders – and whether they make a criminal referral to the justice department after the Thursday deadline for documents or next week’s crunch date for testimony.House select committee chairman Bennie Thompson told reporters recently that he was prepared to pursue criminal referrals to witnesses who defied subpoenas and subpoena deadlines, as the panel escalates the pace of its evidence-gathering part of its investigation.“We’ll do whatever the law allows us to do,” Thompson said last Friday on the subject of prosecuting recalcitrant witnesses. “For those who don’t agree to come in voluntarily, we’ll do criminal referrals.”A spokesperson for the select committee declined to comment about how the panel intended to secure compliance. The legal battle to force some of Trump’s most senior White House aides to comply with the subpoenas – however it is manifested – is likely to lead to constitutional clashes in court that would test the power of Congress’s oversight authority over the executive branch.But members of the select committee in recent days have expressed quiet optimism at least about the potential prosecution of witnesses who might defy subpoenas, in part because of the Biden administration’s public support for the investigation.The select committee said in the subpoena letters to Meadows, Bannon, Scavino and Patel that they were key persons of interest over what they knew about the extent of Trump’s involvement in the Capitol attack, which left five dead and more than 140 injured.Meadows, the former White House chief of staff, remains of special interest to House select committee investigators since he was involved in efforts to subvert the results of the 2020 election and remained by Trump’s side as rioters stormed the Capitol in his name.He was also in contact with Patel over at the defense department, the select committee asserted, and communicated with members of the Women for America First group that planned the ‘Stop the Steal’ rally that deteriorated into the 6 January insurrection.Scavino, the former White House deputy chief of staff, became a person of interest after it emerged that he met with Trump the day before the Capitol attack to discuss how to persuade members of Congress not to certify the election, according to his subpoena letter.The select committee said in the subpoena letter to Bannon that they wanted to hear from Trump’s former chief strategist, who was present at the Willard Hotel on 5 January to strategize with Trump campaign officials how to stop the election certification.Patel, meanwhile, is under scrutiny since he was involved in Pentagon discussions about security at the Capitol before and after the riot. The select committee added they were also examining reports Trump tried to install him as deputy CIA director.TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsDonald TrumpTrump administrationRepublicansHouse of RepresentativesUS CongressnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Mike Pence: media’s focus on Capitol attack is attempt to distract from Biden failures

    Mike PenceMike Pence: media’s focus on Capitol attack is attempt to distract from Biden failuresFormer vice-president says media ‘wants to use one day to demean the character of 74 million Americans who believe we could be strong again’

    Criminal inquiry into Trump’s Georgia interference gathers steam
    Martin Pengelly in New York@ More

  • in

    Trump seeking to elevate Republicans who refuse to accept Biden victory

    The fight to voteDonald TrumpTrump seeking to elevate Republicans who refuse to accept Biden victory Ex-president has endorsed Republican secretary of state candidates who would wield enormous power over elections The fight to vote is supported byAbout this contentSam Levine in New YorkMon 4 Oct 2021 04.00 EDTLast modified on Mon 4 Oct 2021 04.01 EDTSign up for the Guardian’s Fight to Vote newsletterDonald Trump and allies are seeding one of their most dangerous efforts to undermine US elections to date, seeking to elevate candidates who refuse to accept Joe Biden’s victory in 2020 to crucial offices where they could do significant damage in overturning the 2024 elections.The former president has endorsed several Republican candidates running to be the secretary of state, the chief election official, in their respective states. If elected, these candidates would wield enormous power over elections, and could both implement policies that would make it harder for Americans to cast a ballot and block the official certification of election results afterwards. Ten of the 15 candidates running for secretary of state in the battleground states of Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan and Nevada have either said the 2020 results were stolen or that they need to be further investigated, Reuters reported earlier this month.The endorsements from the former president underscore the enormous power that secretaries of state have over election rules and procedures, both before and after the election. One of the main reasons Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election failed in many places were election officials, including Republican and Democratic secretaries of state, who refused to go along with his effort. If those officials are voted out of office next year, it would be a serious blow to the guardrails of US democracy.“It is really troubling that Trump’s grip on the base of the Republican party may lead to the election of people who say that they believe the 2020 election was stolen from Trump,” Richard Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Irvine, wrote in an email. “That’s demonstrably false, but it does undermine the integrity of any elections that these people would be involved in running should they be elected.”The candidates are seeking votes from a Republican electorate that continues to embrace the false belief that the 2020 election was stolen. Seventy-eight per cent of Republicans believe Biden did not win the election, according to a recent CNN poll. More than half of Republicans believe there is solid evidence Biden did not win, the poll found, even though no evidence exists.Earlier this year, Trump endorsed Jody Hice, a Republican congressman in Georgia running to oust Brad Raffensperger, the current GOP secretary of state who rebuffed Trump’s efforts to get the election overturned. Hice, who appeared at a rally with Trump last weekend, objected to the counting of Georgia’s electoral votes and said he was not convinced Biden won Georgia, even though several recounts affirmed Biden’s victory there. Hice posted a photo on the morning of 6 January describing the day as “our 1776 moment”.Trump has also endorsed Mark Finchem, an Arizona state representative he described as a “true warrior”. Finchem was at the Capitol on 6 January, and though he has said he did not enter the building, records show he was in contact with organizers of the “Stop the Steal” rally. “When you steal something, that’s not really a win; that’s a fraud,” Finchem said at a 5 January pre-rally. Finchem was also one of the most-vocal supporters of a shoddy, Republican-backed review of the 2020 election in Arizona’s largest county, celebrated by Trump, that failed to turn up substantial evidence of fraud.In Michigan, Trump has endorsed Kristina Kamaro, who as a poll watcher in Detroit in 2020 and made unsubstantiated claims of fraud. More than 250 local audits and a Republican-led legislative inquiry have affirmed Biden’s win in Michigan.“Donald Trump has made it his mission to sow doubt in our democracy. His endorsement of Secretaries of State who believe and spread the Big Lie is the next step in the effort to tip the scales in future elections,” said Jena Griswold, Colorado’s top election official and the chair of the Democratic Association of Secretaries of State. “More than ever we need election administrators who will respect the will of voters no matter the outcome of an election – our democracy is on the ballot in 2022.”TopicsDonald TrumpThe fight to voteUS elections 2024US politicsRepublicansnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    I’ll Take Your Questions Now review: Stephanie Grisham’s tawdry Trump tell-all

    BooksI’ll Take Your Questions Now review: Stephanie Grisham’s tawdry Trump tell-allThe press secretary who wouldn’t brief the press wants to talk. Like all else to do with Donald and Melania, truth is a casualty Lloyd GreenSun 3 Oct 2021 02.00 EDTLast modified on Sun 3 Oct 2021 02.02 EDTIn 2015, Donald Trump boasted that his administration would be filled with only “the best and most serious people … top-of-the-line professionals”.Stephanie Grisham: Trump turncoat who may be most damaging yetRead moreMeet Stephanie Grisham, Trump’s third press secretary and sixth communications director, Melania Trump’s first spokeswoman and second chief of staff. All that in less than four years.Before Trump, Grisham reportedly lost one job for padding expense reports and another over plagiarism and was twice cited for driving under the influence. As White House press secretary, she never delivered a formal briefing. Instead, she ladled out interviews to Fox News and OAN.Grisham even went so far as to issue a statement proclaiming that John Kelly, a retired four-star general and past chief of staff, “was totally unequipped to handle the genius of our great president”. As Grisham recounts, MSNBC said that statement, which she says was dictated by Trump, had “a decidedly North Korean tone”. It had a point.Finally, on 6 January 2021, Grisham resigned. The insurrectionists who attacked the US Capitol had claimed an unintended scalp. On the page, Grisham lets it be known that the election was not stolen, that she urged the first lady to denounce the storming of the Capitol, and that Melania demurred because she was more concerned with setting up a photo shoot for a rug. That, Grisham writes, was when she decided enough was finally enough.Like most things Trump, reality is a casualty. Text messages obtained by Politico indicate that Grisham was fine with challenging election results – until she wasn’t.Grisham follows into print Michael Cohen, Trump’s ex-lawyer; Omarosa, former Apprentice contestant and Trump White House refugee; Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, former friend and aide to Melania and rival to Grisham; and Stormy Daniels, adult film star and alleged recipient of $130,000 in Trump hush-money.To know Trump is to blab. As Grisham frames things, working near and for the first couple was akin to being in a “Hunger Games-style environment” and Melania morphed into a modern-day Marie Antoinette: “Dismissive. Defeated. Detached.”Grisham’s book is salacious and score-settling – but not entertaining. Yes, Grisham discusses the state of Trump’s “junk” and shares the first couple’s reactions when Daniels immortalized “Mushroom Mario”. Even so, her tone is mirthless.“Not in two million years had I ever thought I’d have a conversation with the president of the United States about his penis,” she writes. Perhaps she forgot Bill Clinton.She also portrays Rudy Giuliani as off-putting and not-quite-right. The New York mayor turned Trump lawyer “gave off weird vibes when he was around the president”, she writes. Being in a meeting with Giuliani was tantamount to “being cross-examined about it later by some committee”. Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, criminally charged Giuliani associates, would surely agree.Grisham has other targets. Mark Meadows, Trump’s final chief of staff, is presented as a treacherous boot-licker, instrumental in driving Grisham from her job as White House press secretary and back to the sole employ of Melania. Lindsey Graham was a two-faced leech, “Senator Freeloader” as the author has it. Both Meadows and Graham, she writes, helped undercut Mick Mulvaney as chief of staff.Where are they now? Giuliani is suspended from the bar and reportedly in prosecutors’ crosshairs. Meadows is facing a congressional subpoena over his role on 6 January. Graham is in Trump’s doghouse again.The spotlight on Melania is unsparing. Grisham says the first lady was unofficially called “Rapunzel” by the Secret Service, for her reluctance to leave her personal quarters. Unlike Michelle Obama and Laura Bush, Melania seldom ventured near her East Wing office. Some agents sought to be assigned to Melania, Grisham says, because her “limited movements and travel meant that they could spend more time at home with their families”. But Melania did care deeply about the White House Easter egg roll. We all have our priorities.In Grisham’s telling, Melania was taken aback by racial animus voiced in Charlottesville in August 2017 by white supremacists, and deplored racism herself. Intentionally or otherwise, Grisham omits the fact her former boss was a “birther” who helped her husband stoke the lie that Barack Obama was born in Kenya.Yet Grisham reserves her harshest takes for Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, the “interns”, as Grisham says they came to be known. As she saw it, the pair repeatedly conflated being born on third base with wisdom, aesthetic grace with entitlement to whatever they wanted.Grisham describes how the pair attempted to shoehorn themselves into a meeting with the Queen, how Jared offered opinions on the Mexican border and on combating Covid. Grisham appears to relish recounting Kushner’s difficulties in obtaining a security clearance and the fact he needed Trump to get it done.Still, Kushner was de facto chief of staff and no one who crossed him could hope to survive. Sure, Steve Bannon eked out a last-minute pardon, just like Charlie Kushner, Jared’s dad. But Bannon was gone from the White House in months.Wildland review: Evan Osnos on the America Trump exploitedRead moreGrisham has written a tell-all but it is also an exercise in self-pity. She tags an unnamed boyfriend for assorted bad behavior. She suspects there was another woman and regrets her choice of men. The profile matches that of Max Miller, a White House staffer now Trump’s pick for an Ohio congressional seat.Miller reportedly pushed Grisham against a wall and slapped her, allegations he denies. In 2007, he was charged with assault, disorderly conduct, resisting arrest and fleeing from the cops. He pleaded no contest to two misdemeanor charges before the case was dismissed.Trump reportedly assaulted his first wife, Ivana, and faces a defamation lawsuit in connection with the alleged sexual assault of the writer E Jean Carroll. He too denies all allegations. So it goes.Grisham laments the state of the Republican party, lauds Liz Cheney and argues that the GOP is “not one man”. Reasonable people can differ. A recent poll shows most Republicans want Trump to continue as their leader.
    I’ll Take Your Questions Now is published by Harper Collins
    TopicsBooksDonald TrumpTrump administrationUS politicsRepublicansPolitics booksreviewsReuse this content More

  • in

    ‘We’re going to get it done’: Biden vows to break impasse after Capitol Hill talks

    Joe Biden‘We’re going to get it done’: Biden vows to break impasse after Capitol Hill talks President meets Democrats with domestic agenda in jeopardyHopes of truce dashed after moderate condemns Pelosi’s tactics David Smith and Lauren Gambino in WashingtonFri 1 Oct 2021 20.03 EDTLast modified on Fri 1 Oct 2021 23.30 EDTJoe Biden has made a rare visit to Capitol Hill to meet privately with House Democrats amid a stalemate that has put his sprawling domestic agenda in jeopardy.Pledging to “get it done” after days of frantic negotiations that saw the party fail to strike an internal deal on a scaled-back version of Biden’s $3.5tn social and environmental policy overhaul, the president hoped to break an impasse even as hopes of compromise before the weekend faded.Far-right militia group membership surged after Capitol attack, hack showsRead more“It doesn’t matter when – it doesn’t matter whether it’s in six minutes, six days, or six weeks – we’re going to get it done,” Biden said, as he exited the caucus room.The visit comes a day after after the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, delayed a vote on part of his economic agenda, a bipartisan $1tn public works measure, in an embarrassing setback. Democrats returned to the Capitol on Friday deeply divided but determined to make progress on Biden’s ambitious economic vision.Pelosi had earlier promised that there would a “vote today” on the infrastructure measure, which progressive House lawmakers have maintained they would not support unless it is passed in tandem with the far more expansive $3.5tn package.But hopes that Biden had forged a truce among Democrats were dashed on Friday night when Josh Gottheimer, a leading moderate in the House, publicly condemned Pelosi for delaying the infrastructure vote.“It’s deeply regrettable that Speaker Pelosi breached her firm, public commitment to Members of Congress and the American people to hold a vote and to pass the once-in-a-century bipartisan infrastructure bill on or before September 27,” the congressman from New Jersey said in a statement.Gottheimer added: “We cannot let this small faction on the far left — who employ Freedom Caucus tactics, as described by the New York Times today — destroy the President’s agenda and stop the creation of two million jobs a year — including for the millions of hard-working men and women of labor.”The language appeared deliberately inflammatory. The reference to a “small faction on the far left” was sure to infuriate progressives who claim to have the White House and the vast majority of the Democratic caucus on their side. The Freedom Caucus is a group of conservative Republicans intent on pushing party leadership to the right.Gottheimer said: “This far left faction is willing to put the President’s entire agenda, including this historic bipartisan infrastructure package, at risk. They’ve put civility and bipartisan governing at risk.”In a further sign of internal tensions, Congressman Sean Patrick Maloney of New York issued a sharp response to Gottheimer’s assertions, tweeting that Biden had stood with Pelosi and 95% of House Democrats “and said the opposite: that his historic vision for America first requires a Build Back Better reconciliation deal. That’s the way a bipartisan infrastructure bill will win the votes to become law.”Pelosi confirmed there would be no infrastructure vote as more time was needed to negotiate.“While great progress has been made in the negotiations to develop a House, Senate and White House agreement on the Build Back Better Act, more time is needed to complete the task,” the House speaker said in a statement.Democrats remained deeply at odds over the scale and structure of the more expansive package which contains a host of progressive priorities, provisions to expand health care access, establish paid leave, combat climate change and reduce poverty – all underwritten by tax increases on wealthy Americans and corporations.Democrats are trying to score a major legislative victory with razor-thin majorities in both chambers. Failure would deny Biden much of his domestic agenda, leaving the party with little to show for their time controlling the White House, the Senate and House.Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia has proposed a spending package of about $1.5tn – less than half the size of the proposal put forward by the president and Democratic leaders. Another Democratic centrist, Senator Kyrsten Sinema, declined to say whether she agreed with Manchin’s proposal.In the private meeting with House lawmakers, Biden reportedly discussed a compromise topline of $1.9tn to $2.3tn, according to a person in the room who spoke with the Associated Press.Congresswoman Madeleine Dean told MSNBC that Biden was “pragmatic” and “realistic” in the closed-door meeting with lawmakers. “He said, ‘Look, clearly I have to be straight up with you. It is not going to be the $3.5tn number that we would all like, or many many of us would like … What I ask of you are the programmatic things that must be in the bill, and then we can do the math from there’,” Dean said.Huddled together in an hours-long caucus meeting, Pelosi tried to steer the feuding factions within her party toward common ground after Thursday’s marathon negotiating session generated deepening acrimony and no deal.Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, emerged from the morning gathering optimistic that Democrats would eventually pass both bills. But she remained firm in her position – and confident in her members – that there the infrastructure bill would not move forward without assurances that the Senate would pass Biden’s larger bill.“We’ve seen more progress in the last 48 hours than we’ve seen in a long time on reconciliation,” she said, crediting progressives’ infrastructure revolt for forcing Manchin and Sinema to the negotiating table.The decision to postpone the infrastructure vote was seen as a victory for progressives who were unwavering in their resolve to “hold the line” and vote against the bill unless they received “ironclad” commitments that Biden’s proposed $3.5tn social and environmental package would also pass.Many progressives also say they will withhold support for the infrastructure bill until the Senate passes the second piece of Biden’s economic agenda, legislation that has yet to be written. Jayapal made clear this was her preference, but later left the door open to the possibility that the party could reach an agreement without a vote.“If there’s something else that’s short of a vote … that gives me those same assurances, I want to listen to that,” she told reporters.Why is Trump still making headlines? Politics Weekly Extra podcastRead moreThe stalemate also laid bare deep ideological fractures within the party. Unlike the debate over Barack Obama’s healthcare legislation a decade ago, progressives appear to be more closely aligned with the president and able to flex their political muscles. On Thursday they were united in making the case that centrists are now in the minority.Both pieces of legislation are critical to Biden’s economic vision. While he has staked his domestic agenda – and his legacy – on a $3.5tn social policy package, he invested precious political capital in courting Republicans to support the infrastructure bill, part of a campaign promise to usher in a new era of bipartisanship in Congress. The bill passed the Senate in August, with 19 Republican votes and great fanfare.But the spirit of bipartisanship dissipated quickly. In the House, Republican leaders lobbied members to vote against the bipartisan bill, forcing Democrats to come up with the votes on their own. Republicans are unified in opposition to the president’s broader spending-and-tax plan.The House is scheduled to leave Washington at the end of this week for a two-week recess but this could be delayed if no deal has been reached. Congress must also find a way to raise the debt ceiling to avoid the US defaulting for the first time in its history.TopicsJoe BidenUS politicsUS domestic policyDemocratsUS CongressUS SenateRepublicansnewsReuse this content More