Storming of the US Capitol (Jan, 2021)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Adam Schiff: Don’t Forget That Many Republicans in Congress Enabled Trump’s Big Lie

      by

      On Dec. 27, 2020, more than six weeks after losing re-election, an infuriated President Donald Trump telephoned his acting attorney general, Jeffrey Rosen. Mr. Trump’s former attorney general, Bill Barr, had announced his resignation less than two weeks earlier, after telling the president that the claims of election fraud Mr. Trump had been trumpeting were — as Mr. Barr later bluntly put it in testimony — “bullshit” and publicly affirming that there was no fraud on a scale that would affect the outcome of the election.With Mr. Rosen’s deputy, Richard Donoghue, also on the line, Mr. Trump launched into the same tired, disproved and discredited allegations he had propagated so often at rallies, during news conferences and on social media. None of it was true, and Mr. Donoghue told him so. According to Mr. Donoghue, Mr. Trump, exasperated that his own handpicked top appointees at the Justice Department would not affirm his baseless allegations, responded: “Just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.”It was a remarkable statement, even for a president who had serially abused the powers of his office. Having been told by the very department that had investigated his claims of fraud that they were untrue, Mr. Trump told the acting attorney general and his deputy to lie about it and said he would take it from there.That Mr. Trump was willing to lie so baldly about a matter at the heart of our democracy — whether the American people can rely on elections to ensure the peaceful transfer of power — now seems self-evident, even unremarkable, when we consider the violent attack on the Capitol he incited days later. But Americans shouldn’t lose sight of how this behavior indicts the former president, and not just the former president but the Republican members of Congress whom he knew would go along with his big lie.The report released Thursday from the Jan. 6 committee, on which I served, makes abundantly clear that there were multiple lines of effort to overturn the 2020 election. Some involved attempts to pressure state legislatures to declare the loser to be the winner. Others involved a fake electors plot, pressure on the vice president to violate his constitutional duty and efforts to force an elections official to “find” thousands of votes that didn’t exist. It was only when all of these other efforts failed that the president resorted to inciting mob violence to try to stop the transfer of power.But one line of effort to overturn the election is given scant attention, and that involved the willingness of so many members of Congress to vote to overturn it. Even after Capitol Police and Metropolitan Police put down the insurrection at great cost to themselves, the majority of Republicans in the House picked up right where they left off, still voting to overturn the results in important states.At one of our Jan. 6 committee hearings, the committee vice chair Liz Cheney, a Republican, called out her colleagues in Congress for their duplicity in the most searing terms: “There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain.”With our work on the committee largely concluded, it will now fall to the Justice Department to ensure a form of accountability that Congress is not empowered to provide, and to vindicate the rule of law in a manner beyond our reach: through prosecution. Multiple laws were violated in the course of a broad attempt to overturn the election, and not just by the foot soldiers who broke into the Capitol building that day and brutally assaulted police officers, but also by those who incited them, encouraged them and, when it was all over, gave them aid and comfort. Bringing a former president to justice who even now calls for the “termination” of our Constitution is a perilous endeavor. Not doing so is far more dangerous.There is a growing disdain for the law and for our country’s institutions, and a frightening acceptance of the use of violence to resolve political disputes. Mr. Trump’s big lie has been one of the most powerful instigators of political violence, since it persuaded millions of people that the election they lost must have been rigged or fraudulent. If people can be convinced of that, what is left but violence to decide who should govern? The attack on the Capitol was an all too foreseeable consequence of Mr. Trump’s relentless effort to alienate the people from their government and from the most important foundation of governance: their right to vote.Even the Constitution cannot protect us if the people sworn to uphold it do not give meaning to their oath of office, if that oath is not informed by ideas of right and wrong, and if people are unwilling to accept the basic truth of things. None of it will be enough.But if we allow ourselves to be guided by facts — not factions — and if we choose our representatives based on their allegiance to the law and to the Constitution, then we should have every confidence that our proud legacy of self-government will go on. It is our hope that this report will make a small contribution to that effort. Our country has never before faced the kind of threat we documented. May it never again.Adam B. Schiff is a Democratic member of Congress from California and the author, most recently, of “Midnight in Washington: How We Almost Lost Our Democracy and Still Could.”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

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Cassidy Hutchinson Told Jan. 6 Panel That Lawyer Tried to Influence Her Testimony

      by

      Cassidy Hutchinson recounted to the House select committee how a lawyer with ties to former President Donald J. Trump said to her that she should “focus on protecting the president.”WASHINGTON — Cassidy Hutchinson, a former White House aide who was a standout witness of the House Jan. 6 committee investigation, told the panel in an interview in September that a lawyer aligned with former President Donald J. Trump had tried to influence her testimony, the latest example of what the committee says was an effort to stonewall its inquiry.“We just want to focus on protecting the president,” Ms. Hutchinson recalled Stefan Passantino, a former Trump White House lawyer who represented her during her early interactions with the committee, telling her.“We all know you’re loyal,” she said Mr. Passantino told her. “Let’s just get you in and out, and this day will be easy, I promise.”The revelation was included in transcripts of Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony the panel released on Thursday as it prepared to publish its lengthy final report into the Capitol riot and the attempt to overturn the 2020 election. The transcripts were of closed-door interviews Ms. Hutchinson conducted with the committee after she had parted ways with Mr. Passantino, whose legal fees were being covered by allies of Mr. Trump, and hired a different lawyer.Ms. Hutchinson would go on to provide the Jan. 6 committee with some of its most explosive testimony at a widely watched televised hearing during which she detailed — relying at times on secondhand accounts — how Mr. Trump raged against Secret Service agents, demanded to join a crowd of his supporters at the Capitol, showed approval for his supporters carrying weapons and endorsed chants of hanging his own vice president.Ms. Hutchinson told the committee that she had been told by several allies of Mr. Trump that he knew he had lost the election two weeks after Election Day but continued to push for any way he could try to overturn the results, first through lawsuits but then through increasingly extreme plans.Ms. Hutchinson testified that Mark Meadows, her boss and the White House chief of staff, spoke with her on Jan. 2, 2021, after Mr. Trump had sought to persuade Georgia election officials to swing the election in his favor.“He said something to the effect of: ‘He knows it’s over. He knows he lost. But we are going to keep trying,’” Ms. Hutchinson recalled Mr. Meadows saying, referring to Mr. Trump.Another time, Mr. Meadows described Mr. Trump as in a constant state of fury over his election loss.“Mark said something to the effect of: ‘He’s just so angry at me all the time. I can’t talk to him about anything post-White House without him getting mad that we didn’t win,’” she said Mr. Meadows told her.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.A lawyer for Mr. Meadows did not respond to a call seeking comment.Ms. Hutchinson also recalled John Ratcliffe, the former director of national intelligence, telling her Mr. Trump knew he lost but did not want to concede.The statements were among a batch of transcripts the committee released on Thursday that also included notable testimony from Sarah Matthews, a former White House deputy press secretary. Ms. Matthews told the committee that on Jan. 5, 2021, Mr. Trump asked his staff to provide ideas on persuading lawmakers he called RINOs, for “Republicans in name only,” to “do the right thing” and join him in overturning the election.Ms. Matthews recalled that, as crowds began to amass in Washington, eager to attend Mr. Trump’s rally the next day, he grew excited and opened the door of the Oval Office on a frigid night to hear them.“You could tell how excited he was that the crowd was already assembled and ready for the following day,” she said.But it was Ms. Hutchinson’s transcript release that captured the most attention on Capitol Hill. The document shows Mr. Passantino was not the only person who Ms. Hutchinson claimed wanted her to protect Mr. Trump.She told the committee that on the night before her initial interview, another aide to Mr. Meadows, Ben Williamson, called her with a message.“Mark wants you to know that he knows you’re loyal and he knows you’ll do the right thing tomorrow and that you’re going to protect him and the boss,” she quoted Mr. Williamson as saying, in an apparent reference to Mr. Trump. “You know, he knows that we’re all on the same team and we’re all a family.”Mr. Williamson did not respond to a message seeking comment.Ms. Hutchinson said that Mark Meadows, the former White House chief of staff, described Donald J. Trump as in a constant state of fury over his election loss. Doug Mills/The New York TimesMs. Hutchinson also said Mr. Passantino was working to “protect” Eric Herschmann, another lawyer for Mr. Trump, who also emerged as a standout of the Jan. 6 committee hearings for his colorful and profane put-downs of the attempts to overturn the 2020 election.In a statement through a spokesman, Mr. Herschmann disputed parts of Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony.“She told Mr. Herschmann that she was desperate, had no money and needed to find a lawyer,” the statement said. “Mr. Herschmann never put her in contact with any lawyer. No one discussed her testimony with Mr. Herschmann, nor did anyone ever try to confirm with him whether her testimony was accurate. The only thing he ever said to her about her testimony was to be truthful.”In her two most recent interviews with the committee, Ms. Hutchinson repeatedly suggested that Mr. Passantino sought to shape her testimony and encouraged her to avoid mentioning events that might embarrass Mr. Trump. She said she was concerned in particular about being asked about an episode in which Mr. Trump was said to have lunged at a Secret Service agent who refused to take him to the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.According to Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony, Mr. Passantino advised her to say that she did not recall the event if she was asked about it. “The less you remember, the better,” she quoted him as saying.Mr. Passantino left the White House Counsel’s Office midway through Mr. Trump’s term. But he maintained ties to Mr. Trump’s world, including appearing in court as a lawyer for the Trump Organization regarding some of Mr. Trump’s legal matters.His representation of Ms. Hutchinson was unorthodox from the start.According to her testimony, she hired him without a formal engagement letter — a move he told her that she did not have to worry about. “We have you taken care of,” she quoted him as saying.Mr. Passantino also told Ms. Hutchinson that she would not have to pay his bills. “We’re not telling people where funding is coming from right now,” he said by her account. “Don’t worry. We’re taking care of you.”Mr. Passantino took a leave of absence from his law firm this week and defended himself against what he said were false insinuations by the panel that he had interfered with his client’s testimony.In a statement, Mr. Passantino said he “believed Ms. Hutchinson was being truthful and cooperative with the committee throughout the several interview sessions in which I represented her.”He added: “External communications made on Ms. Hutchinson’s behalf while I was her counsel were made with her express authorization. Unfortunately, the committee never reached out to me to get the facts.”In early March, on the day of her first closed-door appearance before the committee, Ms. Hutchinson said she was nervous, feeling as if “I had Trump looking over my shoulder.”She said her anxiety grew worse when the panel asked about the episode with Mr. Trump and the Secret Service agent and, following Mr. Passantino’s advice, she said on several occasions that she did not recall it.Seemingly in a panic, she took a break from the interview and told Mr. Passantino in a hallway that she felt as though she had lied to the committee by avoiding talking about the incident. Mr. Passantino tried to assuage her, she testified, arguing that saying she did not recall was not the same as lying.“They don’t know what you know, Cassidy,” she quoted him as saying. “They don’t know that you can recall some of these things.”After the interview, Ms. Hutchinson said, Mr. Passantino told her that he would help her get her “a really good job in Trump world.”“We’re going to get you taken care of,” she quoted him as saying. “We want to keep you in the family.”Still feeling as though she had lied to the committee, Ms. Hutchinson arranged for a friend from the White House, Alyssa Farah Griffin, Mr. Trump’s former director of strategic communications, to quietly reach out to the panel and have her return for another interview to explore the incident involving Mr. Trump and the Secret Service.After that interview, Ms. Hutchinson said, Mr. Passantino, who still represented her at that point, was stunned that investigators knew about the episode. He later related what had happened during the interview to Mr. Meadows’s lawyers even though Ms. Hutchinson had asked him not to.The committee has so far released transcripts of more than 40 of its hundreds of witness interviews. The transcripts are also going to the Justice Department, which has been pursuing a criminal investigation into the efforts to keep Mr. Trump in power despite his election loss. More

    • 150 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      How a Bipartisan Senate Group Addressed a Flaw Exposed by Jan. 6

      by

      Democrats and Republicans managed to come together to update the archaic Electoral Count Act after they recognized it could again be abused to subvert the presidential vote.WASHINGTON — Like most members of Congress, Senator Susan Collins was rocked by the events of Jan. 6, 2021, as a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol and violently disrupted the ceremonial tally of presidential electoral votes.Almost exactly a year later, Ms. Collins, Republican of Maine, happened upon an article by a prominent Republican election law expert proposing changes in the way Congress counted electoral votes, in the hopes of preventing a recurrence. She headed into the regular private weekly party luncheon last Jan. 4 and spontaneously raised the idea of overhauling the antiquated 135-year-old law, the Electoral Count Act.She found a ready audience among some fellow Republicans who recognized the threat.“Our system was clearly at risk,” Ms. Collins said of the prospect that ambiguities in the archaic law could again be exploited to try to overturn a presidential election and halt the peaceful transfer of power.There was one significant problem. Senate Democrats had election-related goals of their own aimed at countering attempts at voter suppression in some Republican-led states. They saw the new proposal as a subterfuge intended to sabotage their much broader legislation.As word got out that Ms. Collins, with early encouragement from Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader and always a figure of suspicion among Democrats, was pursuing changes in the electoral count law, the Senate’s top Democrat objected sharply.“The McConnell plan, that’s what it is, is unacceptable, unacceptably insufficient and even offensive,” Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, said as he blistered the “cynical” idea on the Senate floor on the anniversary of the Jan. 6 assault. “Score keeping matters little if the game is rigged.”Now, another year later, Congress is poised to approve changes to the law in an effort to better secure the presidential election system that was severely tested when President Donald J. Trump and his supporters sought to exploit uncertainty in the law to hold on to power.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.It took the efforts of a bipartisan group of 15 senators, months of intense negotiations, the endorsement of outside experts aligned with both parties and a stark realization that the outdated law could again be misused if changes weren’t made. And the results the next time could be worse.“It has been lying there like unexploded ordnance since 1887,” said Bob Bauer, an election law specialist who had served as White House counsel to President Barack Obama, referring to the existing law. “It just cried out for attention.”It also required an acceptance by Democrats that the law needed to be strengthened even if they could not obtain much broader voter protections they were pursuing. Democrats failed in that push because of Republican resistance and a refusal by two Democrats to eliminate the filibuster to impose the voting changes.Congress is poised to approve changes to the law in an effort to assure that it cannot be used to subvert the counting of electoral votes.Kenny Holston/The New York Times“It finally got down to what can we do truly to address this horrific insurrection,” said Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, Ms. Collins’s initial bipartisan partner in the effort. “How do we prevent this from ever happening again? And that’s really how we got down to the basics.”Under the legislation, which was deemed urgent enough to be added to the huge year-end spending bill now heading toward final approval, the role of the vice president in overseeing the quadrennial counting is spelled out as strictly ceremonial. That provision was a response to Mr. Trump’s unsuccessful effort to convince Vice President Mike Pence that the law gave him the power to reject electoral votes from some states and block or delay certification of Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory in the 2020 election.The new legislation also raises the threshold for objecting to a state’s electoral votes to one-fifth of both the House and Senate. Until now, just one House member and one senator could force the House and the Senate to consider objections, and members of both parties have raised objections over the years with little to no evidence to back them up. The legislation also seeks to prevent competing slates of electors from being presented to Congress.The article that spurred Ms. Collins was written by Ben Ginsberg, a well-known Republican election lawyer who served as counsel to the 2000 presidential campaign of George W. Bush and was deeply involved in the Florida recount.He argued in National Review that Republicans and even Mr. Trump himself should want the law rewritten because the Jan. 6 assault had essentially provided a “blueprint” for future efforts to undermine an election, noting that in 2024 a Democratic vice president would be presiding over the counting of the ballots.After opening the door to a potential rewrite, Ms. Collins immediately began meeting with a core group of senators who are typically part of bipartisan Senate efforts, including Mr. Manchin, the Democrats Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona (now an independent), and the Republicans Mitt Romney of Utah and Thom Tillis of North Carolina.The group quickly expanded to include the Republicans Todd Young of Indiana, Rob Portman of Ohio, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, along with two more Democrats, Chris Coons of Delaware and Mark Warner of Virginia.As their work was proceeding behind the scenes, Democrats were pushing ahead with an ambitious plan to counter what they saw as a pervasive effort in Republican-led states to make it more difficult to vote after an expansion of vote-by-mail efforts and other pandemic-releated changes led to Democratic victories in 2020. Democrats said the state voting law changes were aimed mainly at minorities, and President Biden infuriated Republicans when he referred to the new laws as “Jim Crow 2.0.”The Democratic legislation encountered united Republican opposition in the Senate and died after Mr. Manchin and Ms. Sinema refused to support a change in Senate rules to gut the filibuster. Mr. Manchin said he sought to incorporate some of the more general electoral provisions in the rewrite of the electoral count law but was rebuffed by Republicans.Ms. Collins said the bipartisan group needed to remain focused on the electoral count or risk a shattering of the coalition.“If we got sidetracked and started re-litigating the Voting Rights Act, we would lose the Republican support, and the effort would go nowhere,” she said in an interview. “And an opportunity to really make a difference in future presidential elections would be lost.”With Democrats unhappy about the fate of their broader bill, Ms. Shaheen encouraged Ms. Collins to add more Democrats to the group to increase chances that Democrats could ultimately be persuaded to back it. Senators Christopher S. Murphy of Connecticut and Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, both Democrats, came aboard as Ms. Collins said she realized she needed to broaden the ideological base “beyond the usual suspects.”Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, said he unsuccessfully sought to incorporate some of the more general voting rights provisions favored by his party in the rewrite of the electoral count law.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesMs. Shaheen said she suggested “that having them involved from the beginning in the discussion would be very helpful in persuading the rest of the Democratic caucus that this was a serious effort and we needed to do this even though we couldn’t get some of the changes people wanted.”Members of the bipartisan group also kept in regular contact with the leaders of the Rules Committee, Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, the Democrat who leads the panel, and Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, its top Republican, to ease the way for the panel’s review of the legislation and avoid criticism they were operating outside of normal channels.Ms. Collins also briefed top White House officials on the legislation to assure them it was both in good faith and a necessary effort. And the group enlisted respected legal experts like Mr. Bauer and Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor and a senior lawyer in the administration of George W. Bush, to advise the lawmakers and publicly back the legislation.The Rules Committee ultimately voted 14 to 1 on Sept. 27 to send the legislation to the floor with just Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, objecting and Mr. McConnell voting in favor. Even Mr. Schumer got on board despite his early skepticism.“I worked to get this legislation included in the omnibus because we must prevent the electoral count process from being used as a trigger point for insurrection again,” said Ms. Klobuchar, adding that Senate approval means “we are one step closer to protecting our country from the chaos we saw on Jan. 6.” More

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      The Last Lesson of the Jan. 6 Committee

      by

      The hearings of the House select committee on the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol presented a careful, convincing and disturbing account of former President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. They provided an abundance of detail about what we’ve long known: that Mr. Trump and his allies engaged not only in an assault on Congress, but on democracy itself.The work done by the committee over the past 18 months may be even more important than its report, which is expected to be released Thursday. The long months of scouring investigation and the carefully staged hearings, in which the evidence of Mr. Trump’s malfeasance was presented to the public, were critical elements in the nation’s full understanding of the attack on the Capitol. Through the work of these hearings, Congress showed that the best possible answer to political violence lay in the tools that were right at hand: the rule of law, checks and balances, testimony given under oath and the careful process of bureaucracy.Like a slow-motion replay, the committee’s work also gave Americans a second chance to comprehend the enormity of what transpired on Jan. 6. It seems plausible, as some members of the panel have asserted, that the hearings made protecting democracy a significant issue in the midterm elections and helped to persuade voters to reject some election deniers who ran for state offices. The sustained attention on Mr. Trump’s conduct in his final days in office is also valuable as he mounts a renewed campaign for the presidency. And the hearings focused the attention of the public and policymakers on the extremist groups that participated in the attack on the Capitol and that pose a threat of renewed violence.Congressional hearings are often filled with the distraction of partisan squabbling, grandstanding and detours into tangential subjects. The Jan. 6 committee was different, and the American people were better off for it. Mr. Trump and others refused to answer subpoenas from the committee, which would have given them an opportunity to answer questions and make their case. Their refusal is unfortunate; they deserve the chance to defend themselves and present their account of the facts, and Americans deserve the chance to hear from them. They’re still due that chance, and Mr. Trump may still have his say in a court of law.The seven Democrats and two Republicans who served on the committee captured the attention of Americans who may not have been sufficiently informed or alarmed about Mr. Trump’s role in the events of Jan. 6 to take notice. The two Republicans on the committee, Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, deserve particular credit for defying their own party to participate. Their presence, and the damning testimony delivered by Mr. Trump’s own aides and allies, conveyed the message that some things are necessarily more important than loyalty to a political party.Americans have also learned, thanks to these hearings, exactly how close this country came to even greater tragedies. Rioters came within 40 feet of Vice President Mike Pence. A Justice Department official, Jeffrey Clark, in late December 2020 sought to send a letter — based on lies — to officials in Georgia and potentially several other key states that warned of election irregularities and called for a special legislative session to select alternate slates of presidential electors.The lesson, in part, is that our democracy is inescapably fragile. It requires Americans, and those who serve them as elected officials and in law enforcement, to act in good faith. The committee rightly spent many hours of its work documenting the actions of all those local, state and federal officials who defied Mr. Trump’s demands and acted in many different ways to protect democracy.The dangers remain clear and present, so this work is not complete. House Republicans will be in the majority come January, including many who sought to overturn President Biden’s victory, and some who encouraged the rioters.Political violence is on the rise, especially among right-wing extremists.And Mr. Trump is running for president again on a platform of his grievances, still insistent that he did not lose the last election, still refusing to accept the rule of law. He is, in fact, escalating his rhetoric.The nation needs to respond to these threats. Congress needs to pass the reforms to the electoral process that are included in the year-end omnibus spending bill. Law enforcement can do more to crack down on extremist violence. Voters should reject Mr. Trump at the polls.As the select committee’s chairman, Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi, emphasized at its final hearing on Monday, the government should continue to pursue those responsible for the Jan. 6 attack and to hold them accountable.More than 900 people already have been charged with crimes related to the attack on the Capitol, and several hundred of those have either been convicted or pleaded guilty. Stewart Rhodes, the founder of the extremist Oath Keepers group, was convicted of seditious conspiracy in November. Jury selection has begun in the federal trial of Enrique Tarrio, the former leader of the Proud Boys, another extremist group, who faces similar charges.The committee called upon the Justice Department to also bring criminal charges against Mr. Trump and the lawyer John Eastman, for their efforts to overturn the 2020 election, including Mr. Trump’s role in the Jan. 6 attack. The Justice Department is still engaged in its own investigation. As we wrote in August, if there is sufficient evidence to establish Mr. Trump’s guilt on a serious charge in a court of law, then he should be charged and tried; the same goes for all of the others whom the committee referred to the Justice Department.Mr. Thompson, urging action on all these fronts, said that as a nation, “We remain in strange and uncharted waters.” Yet the hearings also underscored that the country is better off with clarity and truth.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

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      A Common Answer to Jan. 6 Panel Questions: The Fifth

      by

      Transcripts released by the House Jan. 6 committee showed nearly two dozen witnesses invoking their right against self-incrimination, underscoring the hurdles to the investigation.WASHINGTON — The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol released a batch of 34 transcripts on Wednesday that showed witnesses repeatedly stymying parts of the panel’s inquiry by invoking their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.The conservative lawyer John Eastman, who advised former President Donald J. Trump on how to try to overturn the 2020 election, cited his Fifth Amendment right 155 times.The political operative Roger J. Stone Jr. did so in response to more than 70 questions, including ones regarding his communications with Mr. Trump and his role in the events of Jan. 6. The activist Charlie Kirk took a similar stance, citing the potential for self-incrimination in response to most of the committee’s questions, even about his age and education (he was willing to divulge the city in which he resides).Time and again, the panel ran into roadblocks as it tried to investigate the effort to overturn the election, the transcripts show.“Trump lawyers and supporters Jenna Ellis, John Eastman, Phil Waldron and Michael Flynn all invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when asked by the select committee what supposed proof they uncovered that the election was stolen,” the committee wrote in an executive summary of its final report. “Not a single witness — nor any combination of witnesses — provided the select committee with evidence demonstrating that fraud occurred on a scale even remotely close to changing the outcome in any state.”The transcripts released on Wednesday do shine some light on previously unknown aspects of the committee’s investigation. As part of their questioning, the committee’s lawyers referred to emails or text messages they had obtained through subpoenas, quoting aloud in hopes of eliciting more information from the recalcitrant witnesses.During the questioning of Mike Roman, director of Election Day operations for Mr. Trump’s campaign, a committee lawyer revealed communications that investigators said showed that Mr. Roman sent Gary Michael Brown, who served as the deputy director, to deliver documents to the Capitol related to a plan to put forward false slates of pro-Trump electors.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.After doing so, Mr. Brown sent a photo of himself wearing a suit and a mask with the U.S. Capitol over his shoulder. “Mission accomplished,” he wrote.Investigators also asked Kelli Ward, the chair of the Arizona Republican Party, who sued to try to block the committee’s subpoena, about a text she sent to a member of the Maricopa County board of supervisors that said: “We need you to stop the counting.”And investigators revealed how disputes broke out among organizers over the financing of the rally that preceded the violence on Jan. 6, including a payment of $60,000 to Kimberly Guilfoyle, the fiancée of Donald Trump Jr., for her brief speech.“You’re done for life with me because I won’t pay you a $60,000 speaking fee for an event you aren’t speaking at?” Caroline Wren, a Trump fund-raiser, wrote, as she implored Ms. Guilfoyle to call and thank Julie Jenkins Fancelli, an heir to the Publix supermarket fortune who had donated millions to put on the rally. “This poor woman has donated $1 million to Don’s Senate PAC and $3 million to this rally and you’ll can’t take five minutes out of your day to thank her. It’s so humiliating. And then you have the audacity to ask me why I won’t have her pay you $60,000?”The transcripts also show the combative stance some witnesses and their lawyers took during questioning. For instance, a lawyer for the white nationalist Nick Fuentes repeatedly challenged the committee’s investigators and accused them of grandstanding.“I will note the irony of an accusation of grandstanding in a deposition of Mr. Fuentes,” a lawyer for the committee shot back.Another time, Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland, asked Mr. Stone if he believed “coups are allowed in our constitutional system.”Mr. Stone replied: “I most definitely decline to respond to your question.”The release of the transcripts came a day ahead of the committee’s planned release of its more than 800-page final report, likely the final act of an 18-month investigation during which the lawmakers interviewed more than 1,000 witnesses.Hundreds more transcripts are expected to be released before the end of the year, including those in which witnesses provided extensive testimony used by the committee in reaching its decision to make criminal referrals to the Justice Department for Mr. Trump, Mr. Eastman and others involved in the effort to keep Mr. Trump in power after his 2020 election loss.In an attempt to rebut the committee’s final report, five House Republicans led by Representative Jim Banks of Indiana released their own report into the attack on the Capitol. That 141-page document criticizes law enforcement failures, accuses Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her senior team of bungling Capitol security and tries to recast Mr. Trump’s role in the events of Jan. 6 as a voice for peace and calm.“Leadership and law enforcement failures within the U.S. Capitol left the complex vulnerable on Jan. 6, 2021,” the Republican report stated. “The Democrat-led investigation in the House of Representatives, however, has disregarded those institutional failings that exposed the Capitol to violence that day.”A bipartisan Senate report last year also detailed Capitol security failures but did not find any blame in the actions of Ms. Pelosi or her staff, who fled from a mob of Trump supporters chanting her name as the speaker tried to get the National Guard to respond to the violence.The Senate report found top federal intelligence agencies failed to adequately warn law enforcement officials before the Jan. 6 riot that pro-Trump extremists were threatening violence, including plans to “storm the Capitol,” infiltrate its tunnel system and “bring guns.”An F.B.I. memo on Jan. 5 warning of people traveling to Washington for “war” at the Capitol never made its way to top law enforcement officials.The Capitol Police failed to widely circulate information its own intelligence unit had collected as early as mid-December about the threat of violence on Jan. 6, including a report that said right-wing extremist groups and supporters of Mr. Trump had been posting online and in far-right chat groups about gathering at the Capitol, armed with weapons, to pressure lawmakers to overturn his election loss.A spokesman for the House Jan. 6 committee declined to comment.Catie Edmondson More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      An Early Trump Backer’s Message to the Republican Party: Dump Him

      by

      Tom Marino, one of the first members of Congress to support Trump, now says the G.O.P. “has to do whatever it has to do” to get away from him.The greatest threat to Donald Trump’s grip on the Republican Party has always come from the ranks of his own supporters, rather than those who disliked him all along. So it’s significant that one of his earliest backers is coming out swinging against him.In February 2016, when Representative Tom Marino became one of the first Republican members of Congress to endorse Trump, he called the decision “one of my life-changing moments” and hailed the presidential candidate as a fresh voice who was not beholden to Wall Street.At the time, Trump was still locked in a tight nomination battle with Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, and he was struggling to attract support from elected officials. Marino, a former prosecutor who represented a rural district in northern Pennsylvania, didn’t just endorse him. He was a loud and proud Trump booster who helped steer his campaign in the state and joined his presidential transition team after he won.Trump expressed fondness for Marino and Lou Barletta, a fellow member of Congress and co-chairman of Trump’s campaign in Pennsylvania, calling them “thunder and lightning.”As president, Trump tapped Marino to be director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, though Marino withdrew after questions about his record on opioids. He resigned from Congress in 2019 soon after beginning his fifth term, citing recurring kidney problems.During this year’s Republican primary for governor in Pennsylvania, Marino sharply criticized Trump for refusing to endorse Barletta, who lost that race to Doug Mastriano. Now, he is urging his fellow Republicans to move on.“I think the Republican Party has to do whatever it has to do to get away from Trump,” Marino said in an interview. “He certainly, I think, has cost the party losses in this election that we had in November. I’m deeply disappointed in him.”In an unpublished letter that he shared with The New York Times, Marino castigated Trump for “acting like a childish bully” by attacking Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, whom the former president ripped as “Ron DeSanctimonious” as Republicans began to coalesce around a possible alternative for 2024.To secure his support, Marino wrote, Trump would have had to “grow up and act presidential and refrain from calling potential candidates derogatory names.”Trump, he added, “has thrown several people that were close to him under the bus”; “has no idea what loyalty means”; and “severely lacks character and integrity.”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.“I will not support Trump, in fact, I will campaign against him,” Marino’s letter concluded. “Our country deserves a person who is mature, respects others and is honest to lead our nation.”Trump’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.Trump keeps sinkingThe evidence that Trump is getting weaker within the Republican Party is mounting by the day, and Marino’s letter is just the latest indicator.“G.O.P. primary voters are moving,” said Mike DuHaime, a Republican strategist, nodding to Trump’s worsening poll numbers in hypothetical 2024 matchups. “They are exhausted having to defend his every word and action,” he added, and want “similar policies and fight without all the drama.”Consider the party’s less-than-full-throated reaction to Monday’s big news: the Jan. 6 committee’s call to the Justice Department to prosecute Trump. The panel also issued a damning, 154-page executive summary of its final report, which comes out in full on Wednesday.“That evidence has led to an overriding and straightforward conclusion: The central cause of Jan. 6 was one man, former President Donald Trump, who many others followed,” the summary reads. “None of the events of Jan. 6 would have happened without him.”Trump responded with typical bluster. “These folks don’t get it that when they come after me,” he posted on Truth Social, “people who love freedom rally around me.”He went on: “It strengthens me. What doesn’t kill me makes me stronger.”There are no signs of that so far. As Maggie Haberman writes in assessing the damage wrought both by the former president’s recent actions and by the committee’s investigation, “Trump is significantly diminished, a shrunken presence on the political landscape.”Two possible presidential contenders — former Vice President Mike Pence and Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas — took the position that Trump had acted recklessly on Jan. 6, though they argued that he should not be criminally prosecuted.In the Senate, Trump also didn’t get much political cover on Monday. Only one Republican senator, Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, has endorsed his presidential bid.“The entire nation knows who is responsible for that day,” Senator Mitch McConnell, the minority leader, told reporters at the Capitol. “Beyond that, I don’t have any immediate observations.”Senator John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, said the panel had “interviewed some credible witnesses.” Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, while criticizing what she called a “political process,” said that Trump “bears some responsibility” for the riot.And even in the House — which is still very much Trump country — the reaction was well short of thorough, orchestrated pushback.Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the top Republican in the House, perhaps mindful that he needs moderate Republicans to support his bid for speaker just as badly as he needs pro-Trump die-hards, said nothing.McCarthy’s lieutenants dutifully attacked the Jan. 6 panel, but there was no phalanx of pro-Trump surrogates holding court for reporters at the Capitol, no point-by-point rebuttal of the committee’s key findings.Representative Elise Stefanik of New York, who is in charge of Republicans’ message, put out a single tweet calling the Jan. 6 investigation a “partisan charade.” Representative Jim Jordan, the incoming chairman of the House Oversight Committee, complained that McCarthy hadn’t been allowed to put his allies on the panel, which he boycotted after Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected his first two choices. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia went after “communist” Democrats and attacked Representative Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, one of just two Republicans on the committee, as “crybaby Adam.”More often, Republicans preferred to change the subject to anything else — the year-end spending bill that many on the right oppose, the recent surge of migrants along the border, Twitter’s handling of articles about Hunter Biden’s laptop in 2020 or the effects of inflation.Trump appeared on a screen during the hearing of the Jan. 6 committee on Monday. A new poll suggested that the panel’s findings had at least some effect on the midterm elections.Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesDid the Jan. 6 hearings hurt Trump?Democrats tend to view Republicans’ attitude toward Trump as cynical rather than principled in nature, remembering how a good chunk of the party rallied to his side in early 2021 — then eagerly sought his endorsement in 2022.“If the G.O.P. had won the House by a large margin and taken the Senate on the backs of Trump’s candidates, the reaction to these recent troubles would be very, very different,” Dan Pfeiffer, a former communications director for President Barack Obama, wrote Tuesday in his Substack newsletter.What this misses, though, is that the Jan. 6 committee — especially its slickly produced prime-time hearings over the summer, which riveted millions of viewers — does seem to have been at least a minor factor in Republicans’ losses this year.One of the few polls to try to isolate the question came out this week. In surveys commissioned by Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan watchdog group, 46 percent of voters in five battleground states said that the Jan. 6 hearings were a factor in their decision. And a larger group — 57 percent — said they had been at least some exposure to the hearings.The poll zeroed in on so-called ticket-splitters — Republicans and independents who voted for a Democrat in one race and a Republican in another. In Arizona, 20.9 percent of those ticket-splitters said that Jan. 6 was a top factor in their vote. In Pennsylvania, that number was just 8.5 percent. Those numbers are pretty modest, but every vote counts.When I recently asked Sarah Longwell, a Republican consultant who worked to defeat election deniers in places like Arizona and Pennsylvania, to assess the role democracy played in the midterms, she was cautious.“I do think we’ve just won an important battle and sent a message to Republicans that election denialism and extremism is a loser with swing/independent voters in states that hold the keys to political power,” she said in an email. But it was too soon, she said, to say that American democracy was “out of the woods.”So far, the most potent argument within the base of the Republican Party has not been Trump’s behavior in office, but the increasingly dominant view that his obsession with the 2020 election cost the G.O.P. crucial seats this year.That could be the most powerful anti-Trump argument of all, said John Sides, a political scientist at Vanderbilt University: that election denial is a political loser.“All that matters is the interpretation,” Sides said. “If that perception takes root, then it really doesn’t matter what the real reason is.”What to readTop lawmakers in Washington unveiled a sprawling spending package that would keep the government open through next fall after reaching a compromise on billions of dollars in federal spending, Emily Cochrane reports. Congress faces a midnight Friday deadline to fund the government or face a shutdown.The House Ways and Means Committee today is considering the release of Trump’s tax returns. Such a move would risk reprisals from Republicans, Alan Rappeport writes.Congress has proposed $1 billion to help poor countries cope with climate change, a figure that falls significantly short of what President Biden promised, Lisa Friedman reports.Thank you for reading On Politics, and for being a subscriber to The New York Times. — BlakeRead past editions of the newsletter here.If you’re enjoying what you’re reading, please consider recommending it to others. They can sign up here. Browse all of our subscriber-only newsletters here.Have feedback? Ideas for coverage? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com. More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Key Findings From the Jan. 6 Committee’s Report, Annotated

      by

      The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol outlined 17 specific findings on Monday in the executive summary of its final report. Here are the findings, with additional context.1. Beginning election night and continuing through Jan. 6 and thereafter, Donald Trump purposely disseminated false allegations of fraud related to the 2020 presidential election in order to aid his effort to overturn the election and for purposes of soliciting contributions. These false claims provoked his supporters to violence on Jan. 6.Annotation: This reflects the committee’s finding that Mr. Trump’s repeated false claims that the election was rigged had both a political and financial motive. During its second hearing, the panel introduced evidence that Trump supporters donated nearly $100 million to Mr. Trump’s so-called Election Defense Fund but that the money flowed instead into a super PAC the president had created. It was not just “the big lie,” the committee said. It was also “the big rip-off.”2. Knowing that he and his supporters had lost dozens of election lawsuits, and despite his own senior advisers refuting his election fraud claims and urging him to concede his election loss, Donald Trump refused to accept the lawful result of the 2020 election. Rather than honor his constitutional obligation to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” President Trump instead plotted to overturn the election outcome.Annotation: Mr. Trump and his allies filed more than 60 lawsuits challenging the results of the election and lost all but one of them. Many of the suits, the committee determined, were brought even after some of Mr. Trump’s closest aides — including his campaign manager, Bill Stepien, and his attorney general, William P. Barr — told him that there was no fraud that could have changed the outcome of the race.3. Despite knowing that such an action would be illegal, and that no state had or would submit an altered electoral slate, Donald Trump corruptly pressured Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to count electoral votes during Congress’s joint session on Jan. 6.Annotation: The committee discovered that the lawyer John Eastman had advised Mr. Trump to undertake a campaign to push Mr. Pence into single-handedly deciding the election in his favor even though there was evidence that Mr. Eastman knew the plan was illegal. Some of Mr. Pence’s own aides told Mr. Trump the same, but he pressured Mr. Pence nonetheless.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.4. Donald Trump sought to corrupt the U.S. Department of Justice by attempting to enlist department officials to make purposely false statements and thereby aid his effort to overturn the presidential election. After that effort failed, Donald Trump offered the position of acting attorney general to Jeff Clark knowing that Clark intended to disseminate false information aimed at overturning the election.Annotation: After leaders in the Justice Department — including Jeffrey Rosen, the acting attorney general, and Richard Donoghue, his deputy — told Mr. Trump that he was wrong about his claims concerning fraud in the election, Mr. Trump wanted to appoint Mr. Clark, a loyalist, to run the department. Mr. Clark had promised to send out letters to leaders in key swing states saying that prosecutors had in fact found fraud in the election. The president decided not to appoint Mr. Clark only after several senior department officials threatened to quit if he did.5. Without any evidentiary basis and contrary to state and federal law, Donald Trump unlawfully pressured state officials and legislators to change the results of the election in their states.Annotation: In the weeks that followed the election, Mr. Trump and his allies had calls and meetings with local officials in key swing states like Michigan and Arizona in which they pressured the officials to use their powers to assign electors from the states to him. More famously, Mr. Trump also asked Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s secretary of state, to help him “find” the 11,000 votes he needed to win the election there.6. Donald Trump oversaw an effort to obtain and transmit false electoral certificates to Congress and the National Archives.Annotation: This refers to one of Mr. Trump’s most expansive schemes to maintain his grip on power: a plan to have state officials create and submit fake electors pledged to him in seven swing states that were actually won by Joseph R. Biden Jr.7. Donald Trump pressured members of Congress to object to valid slates of electors from several states.Annotation: The committee found that Mr. Trump also played a role in a plan closely related to the fake-electors scheme: He helped to persuade 139 House Republicans to dispute the Electoral College count on the day the Capitol was attacked.8. Donald Trump purposely verified false information filed in federal court.Annotation: In December 2020, Mr. Trump filed a lawsuit in Fulton County, Ga., contending that thousands of votes had been improperly counted and citing specific numbers of dead people, felons and unregistered voters who had cast ballots. Mr. Trump signed an official attestation attached to the suit swearing that the data in it was accurate despite the fact that one of his own lawyers, Mr. Eastman, had determined it was false.9. Based on false allegations that the election was stolen, Donald Trump summoned tens of thousands of supporters to Washington for Jan. 6. Although these supporters were angry and some were armed, Donald Trump instructed them to march to the Capitol on Jan. 6 to “take back” their country.Annotation: The committee determined that a tweet posted by Mr. Trump on Dec. 19, 2020, announcing a “wild” protest in Washington on Jan. 6 was heard as a clarion call by both far-right extremists and ordinary Trump supporters who sprang into action preparing for the event. When they got to Washington for the rally, Mr. Trump’s speech calling on them to “fight like hell” was a central driver in sending them on toward the Capitol.10. Knowing that a violent attack on the Capitol was underway and knowing that his words would incite further violence, Donald Trump purposely sent a social media message publicly condemning Vice President Pence at 2:24 p.m. on Jan. 6.Annotation: The tweet the committee is referring to here said, “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution.” Court papers show that some rioters at the Capitol responded directly to it by pushing toward and ultimately into the building.11. Knowing that violence was underway at the Capitol, and despite his duty to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed, Donald Trump refused repeated requests over a multiple-hour period that he instruct his violent supporters to disperse and leave the Capitol, and instead watched the violent attack unfold on television. This failure to act perpetuated the violence at the Capitol and obstructed Congress’s proceeding to count electoral votes.Annotation: The committee accused Mr. Trump of “a dereliction of duty” for letting nearly three hours pass between learning that the Capitol was under siege and calling for his supporters to leave the Capitol grounds. During that time, several people close to him — including his daughter Ivanka — begged Mr. Trump to issue a statement that would calm down the crowd.12. Each of these actions by Donald Trump was taken in support of a multipart conspiracy to overturn the lawful results of the 2020 presidential election.13. The intelligence community and law enforcement agencies did successfully detect the planning for potential violence on Jan. 6, including planning specifically by the Proud Boys and Oath Keeper militia groups who ultimately led the attack on the Capitol. As Jan. 6 approached, the intelligence specifically identified the potential for violence at the Capitol. This intelligence was shared within the executive branch, including with the Secret Service and the president’s National Security Council.14. Intelligence gathered in advance of Jan. 6 did not support a conclusion that antifa or other left-wing groups would likely engage in a violent counterdemonstration, or attack Trump supporters on Jan. 6. Indeed, intelligence from Jan. 5 indicated that some left-wing groups were instructing their members to “stay at home” and not attend on Jan. 6. Ultimately, none of these groups was involved to any material extent with the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6.15. Neither the intelligence community nor law enforcement obtained intelligence in advance of Jan. 6 on the full extent of the ongoing planning by President Trump, John Eastman, Rudolph Giuliani and their associates to overturn the certified election results. Such agencies apparently did not (and potentially could not) anticipate the provocation President Trump would offer the crowd in his Ellipse speech, that President Trump would “spontaneously” instruct the crowd to march to the Capitol, that President Trump would exacerbate the violent riot by sending his 2:24 p.m. tweet condemning Vice President Pence, or the full scale of the violence and lawlessness that would ensue. Nor did law enforcement anticipate that President Trump would refuse to direct his supporters to leave the Capitol once violence began. No intelligence community advance analysis predicted exactly how President Trump would behave; no such analysis recognized the full scale and extent of the threat to the Capitol on Jan. 6.Annotation for 13, 14 and 15: The committee has faced criticism, especially from Republicans, for not focusing more attention on the failures by intelligence and law enforcement officials on Jan. 6 and in the weeks leading up to the Capitol attack. But the panel did present some preliminary findings and may ultimately issue a separate report.16. Hundreds of Capitol and D.C. Metropolitan Police officers performed their duties bravely on Jan. 6, and America owes those individual immense gratitude for their courage in the defense of Congress and our constitution. Without their bravery, Jan. 6 would have been far worse. Although certain members of the Capitol Police leadership regarded their approach to Jan. 6 as “all hands on deck” the Capitol Police leadership did not have sufficient assets in place to address the violent and lawless crowd. Capitol Police leadership did not anticipate the scale of the violence that would ensue after President Trump instructed tens of thousands of his supporters in the Ellipse crowd to march to the Capitol, and then tweeted at 2:24 p.m. Although Chief Steven Sund raised the idea of National Guard support, the Capitol Police Board did not request Guard assistance prior to Jan. 6. The Metropolitan Police took an even more proactive approach to Jan. 6, and deployed roughly 800 officers, including responding to the emergency calls for help at the Capitol. Rioters still managed to break their line in certain locations, when the crowd surged forward in the immediate aftermath of Donald Trump’s 2:24 p.m. tweet. The Department of Justice readied a group of federal agents at Quantico and in the District of Columbia, anticipating that Jan. 6 could become violent, and then deployed those agents once it became clear that police at the Capitol were overwhelmed. Agents from the Department of Homeland Security were also deployed to assist.17. President Trump had authority and responsibility to direct deployment of the National Guard in the District of Columbia, but never gave any order to deploy the National Guard on Jan. 6 or on any other day. Nor did he instruct any federal law enforcement agency to assist. Because the authority to deploy the National Guard had been delegated to the Department of Defense, the secretary of defense could, and ultimately did, deploy the Guard. Although evidence identifies a likely miscommunication between members of the civilian leadership in the Department of Defense impacting the timing of deployment, the committee has found no evidence that the Department of Defense intentionally delayed deployment of the National Guard. The select committee recognizes that some at the department had genuine concerns, counseling caution, that President Trump might give an illegal order to use the military in support of his efforts to overturn the election.Annotation: The question of why it took so long to deploy the National Guard to the Capitol is one of the enduring mysteries of Jan. 6. While the committee sharply criticized Mr. Trump for failing to taking action that day, it also found that there was no evidence the deployment of the Guard was delayed for political reasons. 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