Storming of the US Capitol (Jan, 2021)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Pressing for Evidence, Jan. 6 Panel Argues That Trump Committed Fraud

      by

      The argument was a response to a lawsuit filed by John Eastman, who is seeking to shield his communications with former President Donald J. Trump.WASHINGTON — The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol on Tuesday laid out its theory for potential criminal charges against former President Donald J. Trump, arguing before a federal judge that he and the conservative lawyer John C. Eastman were involved in a conspiracy to perpetrate a fraud on the American public as part of a plan to overturn the 2020 election.The allegations, which the committee first leveled against the men last week in response to a lawsuit filed by Mr. Eastman, could determine just how deeply the panel can dig into emails, correspondence and other documents of lawyers close to Mr. Trump who have argued that such material should be shielded from scrutiny because of attorney-client privilege.They also form the core of the panel’s strategy for potentially holding Mr. Trump and his allies criminally liable for what happened on Jan. 6, 2021, one that turns on the notion that they knowingly sought to invalidate legitimate election results.“We’re talking about an insurrection that sadly came very close to succeeding to overturn a presidential election,” Douglas N. Letter, the general counsel of the House, told Judge David O. Carter of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, during arguments in Mr. Eastman’s case.The House committee’s argument is a risky one. If Judge Carter were to reject its claims, the inquiry’s legal team would be less likely to win support for a criminal prosecution unless investigators unearthed new evidence.In court on Tuesday, Mr. Letter repeatedly chastised Mr. Eastman for writing a memo that some in both parties have likened to a blueprint for a coup. The document encouraged Vice President Mike Pence to reject electoral votes from swing states won by President Biden, even as Mr. Eastman conceded that the maneuver was likely illegal.“Violate the law — and let them sue,” Mr. Letter said, characterizing Mr. Eastman’s counsel. “Boy, that’s not legal advice that I’ve ever given.”The committee in recent weeks has issued subpoenas to lawyers, including Rudolph W. Giuliani and Sidney Powell, who worked closely with Mr. Trump as they pursued various efforts to keep the former president in power despite losing the election. They offered up false slates of electors claiming Mr. Trump had won politically competitive states that he had lost, and explored the seizure of voting machines.Among them was Mr. Eastman, whom the committee says could potentially be charged with criminal violations including obstructing an official proceeding of Congress and conspiracy to defraud the American people.Charles Burnham, Mr. Eastman’s lawyer, said the committee’s accusations against the former president are “groundbreaking criminal allegations,” but he argued that both Mr. Eastman and Mr. Trump genuinely believed the claims of a stolen election — despite being told repeatedly that such statements were false.“Dr. Eastman and others absolutely believed that what they were doing was well-grounded in law and fact, and was necessary for what they believed was the best interest of the country,” Mr. Burnham said.In a filing in Mr. Eastman’s case last week, the committee first revealed the basis of what its investigators believe could be a criminal referral to the Justice Department against Mr. Trump. Central to the case is the argument that, in repeatedly rejecting the truth that he had lost the 2020 election — including the assertions of his own campaign aides, White House lawyers, two successive attorneys general and federal investigators — Mr. Trump was not just being stubborn or ignorant, he was knowingly perpetrating a fraud on the United States.The panel turned over to the court hundreds of pages of arguments, exhibits and court transcripts from Trump advisers telling him there was no widespread fraud in the 2020 election. But Mr. Burnham also said that Mr. Trump was given conflicting legal advice.“Multiple presidential advisers were counseling the president that there were issues with the 2020 election — fraud, illegality, and so forth,” he said.Mr. Burnham cited a book recently published by former Attorney General William P. Barr, who recounted how he tried to break through to Mr. Trump to tell him his wild fantasies about election fraud weren’t true, even as others informed the president he was right.“After the election,” Mr. Barr wrote, “he was beyond restraint. He would only listen to a few sycophants who told him what he wanted to hear. Reasoning with him was hopeless.”The arguments in court were prompted by Mr. Eastman’s attempt to shield from release documents he said were covered by attorney-client privilege. The committee responded that under the legal theory known as the crime-fraud exception, the privilege does not cover information conveyed from a client to a lawyer if it was part of furthering or concealing a crime.Capitol Riot’s Aftermath: Key DevelopmentsCard 1 of 3The first trial. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Alex Jones and Donald Trump: A Fateful Alliance Draws Scrutiny

      by

      The Infowars host tormented Sandy Hook families and helped elect President Donald J. Trump. His role in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack is now of growing interest to congressional investigators.The day President Donald J. Trump urged his supporters to “be there, will be wild!” at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, Alex Jones spread the message to millions.“This is the most important call to action on domestic soil since Paul Revere and his ride in 1776,” Mr. Jones, the Infowars broadcaster, said on his Dec. 19, 2020, show, which airs live online and on a network of radio stations. Mr. Jones, whose lies about the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting fueled years of threats against the 26 victims’ families, urged his listeners to take action.A little more than two weeks later, Mr. Jones joined his followers at the Capitol as a behind-the-scenes organizer — a crucial role in the riot that is under increasing scrutiny by congressional investigators.It is part of a reckoning Mr. Jones faces on multiple fronts. He is still fighting a half-dozen defamation lawsuits filed by the targets of his false claims, including the relatives of 10 Sandy Hook victims. Late last year the Sandy Hook families won four default judgments against him after he for years resisted court orders, and in upcoming trials, juries will decide how much he must pay them.For Jan. 6, Mr. Jones helped secure at least $650,000 from a Publix grocery-store heiress, Julie Fancelli, an Infowars fan, to underwrite Mr. Trump’s rally on the Ellipse the morning of the attack, $200,000 of which was deposited into one of Mr. Jones’s business accounts, the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack said. The night before the riot Mr. Jones was at the Willard Intercontinental Hotel in Washington, where Trump aides and allies had set up an outpost. He has longtime ties to at least a half-dozen people arrested after the riot, including the founder of the far-right Oath Keepers militia, Stewart Rhodes, still a regular guest on Infowars, and Joseph Biggs, a former Infowars employee and Proud Boys leader.The House committee has subpoenaed Mr. Jones, and included a three-page list seeking his related communications and financial records. The panel is also seeking Mr. Jones’s communications with Mr. Trump, his family and anyone from the White House or Congress in the days before the riot. Questioned by the panel this year, Mr. Jones invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination more than 100 times, and is trying to block the committee’s demand for records in court.Whatever the outcome of the Jan. 6 investigation, Mr. Jones’s journey from Sandy Hook to the assault on the Capitol is a reflection of how conspiracy theories in the United States have metastasized and corroded public discourse in the digital age. A defender of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and a former regular on RT, the Kremlin-funded international television outlet, Mr. Jones espoused such extreme views of American democratic society — he has cast airport security screenings as a plot to usurp Americans’ freedoms — that in 2011 RT stopped inviting him on air.But after Mr. Trump appeared live in an interview on Infowars’ website in December 2015, Mr. Jones traveled from the fringes to become part of a newly radicalized Republican Party. Infowars grossed more than $50 million annually during the Trump presidency by selling diet supplements, body armor and other products on its website, records filed in court indicate. During and after the Jan. 6 riot, Infowars promoted its merchandise alongside graphic videos, including footage by an Infowars cameraman of the shooting death of a pro-Trump rioter, Ashli Babbitt, by a Capitol Police officer during the attack.Mr. Jones did not respond to messages seeking comment. His lawyer, Norm Pattis, said his client had done nothing wrong on Jan. 6. Video footage from the Capitol that day shows Mr. Jones using a bullhorn to try to discourage people from rioting.“Over many years Infowars has become a go-to source for people deeply suspicious of the government, so it should come as no surprise that many of the attendees at the rally had passed through Infowars’ doors,” Mr. Pattis said. “But that doesn’t mean any of them are guilty of criminal conspiracy or misconduct.”Dan Friesen, whose podcast, “Knowledge Fight,” explores Mr. Jones’s place in America’s conspiracist tradition, said that people should not be shocked by what happened on Jan. 6, given Mr. Jones’s history. “This kind of flare-up just seemed inevitable,” he said.A Trump campaign rally in Dallas in 2019.Andrew Harnik/Associated PressMr. Jones owes some of his core conspiracy themes to Gary Allen, a speechwriter for the former Alabama governor George Wallace who in the 1960s and 1970s was one of the far-right John Birch Society’s most revered writers and thinkers. As a teenager, Mr. Jones found Mr. Allen’s 1971 “None Dare Call It Conspiracy” on his father’s bookshelf, and came to share Mr. Allen’s view that a cabal of global bankers and power brokers, not elected officials, controlled American policy. Mr. Allen, who died in 1986, sold his theories by mail order in books, filmstrips and cassettes, a marketing model later adopted by Infowars.Mr. Jones got his start in broadcasting in the early 1990s with simultaneous shows on the Austin radio station KJFK and on Austin community access TV. In 1993, a siege by federal law enforcement ended in an inferno at the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Texas, killing about 80 Davidians and four law enforcement officers. Mr. Jones asserted, evidence to the contrary, that the sect and its leader, David Koresh, were a peaceful religious community marked by the government for murder. He raised $93,000 from his listeners to rebuild the compound’s church.The deed made Mr. Jones a celebrity among “patriot” militia members, including some involved in armed standoffs with the federal government. In 1995, Mr. Jones pushed bogus claims that the government plotted the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City that killed 168 people, including 19 children. The perpetrator, Timothy McVeigh, had also expressed rage at the Branch Davidian compound’s destruction.Mr. Jones and his wife at the time, Kelly Jones, founded Infowars around 1999, when they began producing feature-length, conspiracy-themed videos that they sold by mail or gave away, urging people to pass them around and spread the word.After December 2012, when Mr. Jones falsely claimed that the Sandy Hook shooting was a government pretext for draconian gun control measures, traffic to his website surged. In 2013, at a gathering in Dallas marking the 50th anniversary of John F. Kennedy’s assassination, Mr. Jones met Roger J. Stone Jr., a Trump friend and adviser shunned by mainstream Republicans.Mr. Stone, who saw a valuable new constituency for Mr. Trump in Infowars’ disaffected audience, joined the show as a host and brokered Mr. Trump’s December 2015 interview with Mr. Jones. In that interview, broadcast on the Infowars website, Mr. Trump joined Mr. Jones in casting America as a nation besieged by “radical Muslims” and immigrants, and predicted he would “get along very well” with Mr. Putin. He ended by praising Mr. Jones’s “amazing reputation.”The next year Mr. Jones was a V.I.P. invitee to Mr. Trump’s speech accepting the presidential nomination at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, where the Infowars broadcaster stood on the convention floor with tears streaming down his face as Mr. Trump spoke.Mr. Jones on the first day of the Republican National Convention in 2016.Hilary Swift for The New York TimesThe Trump era also brought Mr. Jones new scrutiny. In 2017, he dodged a lawsuit by publicly apologizing and removing from Infowars his shows promoting Pizzagate, the lie that top Democrats were trafficking children from Comet Ping Pong, a Washington pizzeria. The conspiracy theory inspired a gunman to enter the restaurant and fire a rifle inside. No one was hurt, but the episode shocked the capital and many Americans. By 2019, Mr. Jones had been barred from all major social media platforms for violating rules banning hate speech.Capitol Riot’s Aftermath: Key DevelopmentsCard 1 of 3The potential case against Trump. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Panel Suggests Trump Knew He Lost the Election, Eyeing Criminal Case

      by

      At the core of the theory of a possible criminal case against former President Donald J. Trump is the argument that he knew he had lost the election and sought to overturn it anyway.WASHINGTON — Shortly after the 2020 election, as ballots were still being counted, the top data expert in President Donald J. Trump’s re-election campaign told him bluntly that he was going to lose.In the weeks that followed, as Mr. Trump continued to insist that he had won, a senior Justice Department official told him repeatedly that his claims of widespread voting fraud were meritless, ultimately warning him that they would “hurt the country.”Those concerns were echoed by the top White House lawyer, who told the president that he would be entering into a “murder-suicide pact” if he continued to pursue extreme plans to try to invalidate the results of the 2020 election.Yet Mr. Trump — time and again — discounted the facts, the data and many of his own advisers as he continued to promote the lie of a stolen election, according to hundreds of pages of exhibits, interview transcripts and email correspondence assembled by the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack for a legal filing released late Wednesday.In laying out the account, the panel revealed the basis of what its investigators believe could be a criminal case against Mr. Trump. At its core is the argument that, in repeatedly rejecting the truth that he had lost the 2020 election — including the assertions of his own campaign aides, White House lawyers, two successive attorneys general and federal investigators — Mr. Trump was not just being stubborn or ignorant about his defeat, he was knowingly perpetrating a fraud on the United States.It is a bold claim that could be difficult to back up in court, but in making it, the House committee has compiled an elaborate narrative of Mr. Trump’s extraordinary efforts to cling to power.In it, Mr. Trump emerges as a man unable — or unwilling — to listen to his advisers even as they explain to him that he has lost the election, and his multiple and varied claims to the contrary are not grounded in fact.At one point, Mr. Trump did not seem to care whether there was any evidence to support his claims of election fraud, and questioned why he should not push for even more extreme steps, such as replacing the acting attorney general, to challenge his loss.“The president said something to the effect of: ‘What do I have to lose? If I do this, what do I have to lose?’” Richard P. Donoghue, a former top Justice Department official, told the committee in an interview. “And I said: ‘Mr. President, you have a great deal to lose. Is this really how you want your administration to end? You’re going hurt the country.’”Pat A. Cipollone, the White House counsel, also tried to get Mr. Trump to stop pursuing baseless claims of fraud. He pushed back against a plan from a rogue Justice Department lawyer, Jeffrey Clark, who wanted to distribute official letters to multiple state legislatures falsely alerting them that the election may have been stolen and urging them to reconsider certified election results.“That letter that this guy wants to send — that letter is a murder-suicide pact,” Mr. Cipollone told Mr. Trump, according to Mr. Donoghue. “It’s going to damage everyone who touches it. And we should have nothing to do with that letter. I don’t ever want to see that letter again.”The account is part of a court filing in a civil case in California, in which the committee’s lawyers for the first time laid out their theory of a potential criminal case against the former president. They said they had evidence demonstrating that Mr. Trump, the lawyer John Eastman and other allies could be charged with obstructing an official proceeding of Congress, conspiracy to defraud the American people and common law fraud.The committee’s filing shows how some of Mr. Trump’s aides and advisers repeatedly — and passionately — tried to get him to back down from his various false claims and plans to try to stay in power.It started almost immediately after the polls closed in November 2020, when members of Mr. Trump’s campaign data team began trying to break through to the president to impress upon him that he had been defeated.During a conversation in the Oval Office, Mr. Trump’s lead campaign data guru “delivered to the president in pretty blunt terms that he was going to lose,” Jason Miller, another top campaign aide, told the panel. The president said he disagreed with the data expert’s analysis, Mr. Miller said, because he thought he could win in court.Mr. Miller also told the committee that he agreed with Attorney General William P. Barr’s analysis that there had not been widespread fraud in the election, and “said that to the president on multiple occasions,” the panel wrote in its filing.In the chaotic postelection period, Mr. Trump’s legal team set up a hotline for fraud allegations and was flooded with unverified accounts from people across the country who claimed they had evidence. A Postal Service truck driver from Pennsylvania asserted without evidence that his 18-wheeler had been filled with phony ballots. Republican voters in Arizona complained that some of their ballots had not been counted because they used Sharpie pens that could not be read by voting machines.Mr. Trump appeared to be aware of many of these reports, and would speak about them often with aides and officials, raising various theories about voting fraud even as they debunked them one by one.“When you gave him a very direct answer on one of them, he wouldn’t fight us on it,” Mr. Donoghue, the Justice Department official, told the committee. “But he would move to another allegation.”Mr. Donoghue recalled, for instance, how he told Mr. Trump that Justice Department investigators had looked into, and ultimately discounted, a claim that election officials in Atlanta had wheeled a suitcase full of phony ballots into their counting room on Election Day.Instead of accepting Mr. Donoghue’s account, Mr. Trump abruptly switched subjects and asked about “double voting” and “dead people” voting, then moved on to a completely different claim about how, he said, “Indians are getting paid” to vote on Native American reservations.Richard P. Donoghue, a former top Justice Department official, repeatedly informed Mr. Trump that both his specific and general claims of fraud were false.Richard Drew/Associated PressAfter Mr. Donoghue sought to knock down those complaints as well, he told the committee, Mr. Trump changed topics again and wondered aloud why his numerous legal challenges to the election had not worked.Jeffrey A. Rosen, another top Justice Department lawyer who became the acting attorney general after Mr. Barr left the agency, fielded this question, according to Mr. Donoghue’s account, telling the president that he was “free to bring lawsuits,” but that the department could not be involved.Even though none of Mr. Trump’s persistent claims about election fraud turned out to be true, prosecutors will most likely have to grapple with the question of his state of mind at the time — specifically, the issue of whether he believed the claims were true, said Alan Rozenshtein, a former Justice Department official who teaches at the University of Minnesota Law School.Capitol Riot’s Aftermath: Key DevelopmentsCard 1 of 3The potential case against Trump. More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Jan. 6 Committee Lays Out Potential Criminal Charges Against Trump

      by

      In a court filing, the panel said there was enough evidence to suggest that the former president might have engaged in a criminal conspiracy as he fought to remain in office.WASHINGTON — The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol said on Wednesday that there was enough evidence to conclude that former President Donald J. Trump and some of his allies might have conspired to commit fraud and obstruction by misleading Americans about the outcome of the 2020 election and attempting to overturn the result.In a court filing in a civil case in California, the committee’s lawyers for the first time laid out their theory of a potential criminal case against the former president. They said they had accumulated evidence demonstrating that Mr. Trump, the conservative lawyer John Eastman and other allies could potentially be charged with criminal violations including obstructing an official proceeding of Congress and conspiracy to defraud the American people.The filing also said the men might have broken a common law statute against fraud through Mr. Trump’s repeated lies that the election had been stolen.The filing disclosed only limited new evidence, and the committee asked the judge in the civil case to review the relevant material behind closed doors. In asserting the potential for criminality, the committee largely relied on the extensive and detailed accounts already made public of the actions Mr. Trump and his allies took to keep him in office after his defeat.The committee added information from its more than 550 interviews with state officials, Justice Department officials and top aides to Mr. Trump, among others. It said, for example, that Jason Miller, Mr. Trump’s senior campaign adviser, had said in a deposition to the committee that Mr. Trump had been told soon after Election Day by a campaign data expert “in pretty blunt terms” that he was going to lose, suggesting that Mr. Trump was well aware that his months of assertions about a stolen election were false.The evidence gathered by the committee “provides, at minimum, a good-faith basis for concluding that President Trump has violated” the obstruction count, the filing, written by Douglas N. Letter, the general counsel of the House, states, adding: “The select committee also has a good-faith basis for concluding that the president and members of his campaign engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States.”The filing said that a “review of the materials may reveal that the president and members of his campaign engaged in common law fraud in connection with their efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.”Representatives of Mr. Trump and Mr. Eastman did not immediately respond to requests for comment.The panel, which is controlled by Democrats, is a legislative committee and has no authority to charge the former president — or anyone else — with a crime.But the filing contains the clearest indication yet about the committee’s direction as it weighs making a criminal referral to the Justice Department against Mr. Trump and his allies, a step that could put pressure on Attorney General Merrick Garland to take up the case. The Justice Department has so far said little of substance about whether it might ultimately pursue a case.The filing laid out a sweeping if by now well-established account of the plot to overturn the election, which included false claims of election fraud, plans to put forward pro-Trump “alternate” electors, pressure various federal agencies to find irregularities and ultimately push Vice President Mike Pence and Congress to exploit the Electoral Count Act to keep a losing president in power.“As the president and his associates propagated dangerous misinformation to the public,” the filing said, Mr. Eastman “was a leader in a related effort to persuade state officials to alter their election results based on these same fraudulent claims.”The court filing stemmed from a lawsuit filed by Mr. Eastman, who is trying to persuade a judge to block the committee’s subpoena for documents in his possession, claiming “a highly partisan” invasion of his privacy. The committee issued a subpoena to Mr. Eastman in January, citing a memo he wrote laying out how Mr. Trump could use the vice president and Congress to try to invalidate the 2020 election results.As part of the suit, Mr. Eastman sought to shield from release documents he said were covered by attorney-client privilege. In response, the committee argued — under the legal theory known as the crime-fraud exception — that the privilege does not cover information conveyed from a client to a lawyer if it was part of furthering or concealing a crime.Mr. Eastman then argued the committee had offered “no evidence” of the existence of a crime-fraud exception, prompting the committee’s latest filing.“The evidence supports an inference that President Trump, plaintiff and several others entered into an agreement to defraud the United States by interfering with the election certification process, disseminating false information about election fraud, and pressuring state officials to alter state election results and federal officials to assist in that effort,” the filing states.It also made reference to a recent ruling in a civil suit in Washington, D.C., in which Judge Amit P. Mehta of the Federal District Court found that it was “plausible to believe that the president entered into a conspiracy with the rioters on Jan. 6, 2021.”“In addition to the legal effort to delay the certification, there is also evidence that the conspiracy extended to the rioters engaged in acts of violence at the Capitol,” the filing said.Capitol Riot’s Aftermath: Key DevelopmentsCard 1 of 3Subpoenaed lawyers. More

    • 75 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Jan. 6 Panel Subpoenas Trump's Lawyers

      by

      The House committee issued six subpoenas to people who worked on legal aspects of the former president’s bid to invalidate the 2020 election.WASHINGTON — The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol on Tuesday subpoenaed a half-dozen lawyers and other allies of former President Donald J. Trump who promoted false claims about widespread fraud in the 2020 election and worked to overturn his loss.Those who were sent subpoenas for documents and testimony participated in a range of attempts to invalidate Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory, including filing lawsuits, pressuring local election officials to change the results and drafting proposed executive orders to seize voting machines.“The select committee is seeking information about attempts to disrupt or delay the certification of electoral votes and any efforts to corruptly change the outcome of the 2020 election,” Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and the chairman of the committee, said in a statement. “The six individuals we’ve subpoenaed today all have knowledge related to those matters and will help the select committee better understand all the various strategies employed to potentially affect the outcome of the election.”More than 550 witnesses have testified before the committee, which is tasked with writing an authoritative report about the violence of a year ago that left more than 150 police officers injured and resulted in several deaths.The committee also intends to make recommendations to prevent such an episode from happening again, and is considering making criminal referrals should its investigators uncover any crimes not already charged by the Justice Department.The subpoenas issued on Tuesday direct the witnesses to sit for interviews in March.Among those summoned was Cleta Mitchell, a lawyer who the panel said “promoted false claims of election fraud to members of Congress” and participated in a call in which Mr. Trump tried to pressure Georgia’s secretary of state to “‘find’ enough votes to reverse his loss there.”Ms. Mitchell was also in contact with Mr. Trump on Jan. 6 and the days before, the committee said it had learned.Kenneth Chesebro, another lawyer who was subpoenaed on Tuesday, promoted legal theories within the Trump campaign supporting the use of slates of bogus electors in states the former president lost. Mr. Chesebro told the Trump campaign his efforts would “‘bolster’ the argument for delaying the electoral certification” and make the public believe the election “‘was likely rigged, and stolen by Biden and Harris, who were not legitimately elected,’” the committee wrote in a letter accompanying Mr. Chesebro’s subpoena.The committee also issued a subpoena to Christina Bobb, who works for One America News Network and was reportedly involved in efforts to draft an executive order for Mr. Trump that would have directed federal agencies to seize voting machines in numerous states. Ms. Bobb was present in the “war room” of Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, in the Willard Hotel on Jan. 6, the committee said.Ms. Bobb is said to be writing a book about Jan. 6 and interviewed Mr. Trump for the project, meaning she would most likely have notes that the committee could obtain through a subpoena.Capitol Riot’s Aftermath: Key DevelopmentsCard 1 of 3The first trial. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Jan. 6 Panel Subpoenas Lawyers Who Worked to Overturn Trump’s Loss

      by

      The House committee issued six subpoenas to people who worked on legal aspects of the former president’s bid to invalidate the 2020 election.WASHINGTON — The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol on Tuesday subpoenaed a half-dozen lawyers and other allies of former President Donald J. Trump who promoted false claims about widespread fraud in the 2020 election and worked to overturn his loss.Those who were sent subpoenas for documents and testimony participated in a range of attempts to invalidate Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory, including filing lawsuits, pressuring local election officials to change the results and drafting proposed executive orders to seize voting machines.“The select committee is seeking information about attempts to disrupt or delay the certification of electoral votes and any efforts to corruptly change the outcome of the 2020 election,” Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and the chairman of the committee, said in a statement. “The six individuals we’ve subpoenaed today all have knowledge related to those matters and will help the select committee better understand all the various strategies employed to potentially affect the outcome of the election.”More than 550 witnesses have testified before the committee, which is tasked with writing an authoritative report about the violence of a year ago that left more than 150 police officers injured and resulted in several deaths.The committee also intends to make recommendations to prevent such an episode from happening again, and is considering making criminal referrals should its investigators uncover any crimes not already charged by the Justice Department.The subpoenas issued on Tuesday direct the witnesses to sit for interviews in March.Among those summoned was Cleta Mitchell, a lawyer who the panel said promoted false claims of election fraud to members of Congress and participated in a call in which Mr. Trump tried to pressure Georgia’s secretary of state to “find” enough votes to reverse his loss there.Ms. Mitchell was also in contact with Mr. Trump on Jan. 6 and the days prior, the committee said it had learned.Kenneth Chesebro, another lawyer who was subpoenaed on Tuesday, promoted legal theories within the Trump campaign supporting the use of slates of bogus electors in states the former president lost. Mr. Chesebro told the Trump campaign his efforts would “‘bolster’ the argument for delaying the electoral certification” and make the public believe the election “‘was likely rigged, and stolen by Biden and Harris, who were not legitimately elected,’” the committee wrote in a letter accompanying Mr. Chesebro’s subpoena.The committee also issued a subpoena to Christina Bobb, who works for One America News Network and was reportedly involved in efforts to draft an executive order for Mr. Trump that would have directed federal agencies to seize voting machines in numerous states. Ms. Bobb was present in the “war room” of Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, in the Willard Hotel on Jan. 6, the committee said.Ms. Bobb is said to be writing a book about Jan. 6 and interviewed Mr. Trump for the project, meaning she would most likely have notes that the committee could obtain through a subpoena.Capitol Riot’s Aftermath: Key DevelopmentsCard 1 of 3The first trial. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Courting G.O.P.’s Mainstream and Extreme, McCarthy Plots Rise to Speaker

      by

      The top House Republican is attempting a series of political contortions to try to secure his place in a party that has shifted under his feet.WASHINGTON — Over a breakfast of bacon and eggs in his California district last week, Representative Kevin McCarthy, the House Republican leader, tried to calm the nerves of a small group of longtime donors who raised questions about the extremists in his conference.Some of the lawmakers’ comments and views may seem outrageous, he told the donors gathered at a restaurant overlooking a golf course. But on visits to congressional districts, he said, it was clear to him that the right-wing lawmakers were merely doing what the voters who sent them to Washington wanted.Hours later, Mr. McCarthy did what the fringe wanted: He endorsed the woman running in Wyoming’s Republican primary to oust the far right’s archnemesis, Representative Liz Cheney, a former member of his leadership team who has earned pariah status in her party by speaking out against former President Donald J. Trump and the deadly attack on the Capitol that he helped inspire with lies of a stolen election.The day exemplified the tightrope Mr. McCarthy is walking as he plots a path to become the next speaker of the House. Even as he courts the mainstream elements of his party, he has defended Republicans who have called the Jan. 6 riot a righteous cause. And he sided against a member of his own conference in throwing his support behind the Wyoming primary challenger, Harriet Hageman, whose central message is that Ms. Cheney should be ousted for breaking with Mr. Trump and daring to investigate the most brutal attack on the Capitol in centuries.Mr. McCarthy has endorsed Harriet Hageman, who is challenging Representative Liz Cheney in Wyoming.Kim Raff for The New York TimesIf Republicans win the majority this fall, Mr. McCarthy will need the support of the whole party, including the big donors who fund it, a dwindling number of center-right traditionalists and a larger group of quiet conservatives.But he will also need the smaller but more powerful faction of extremist members who are aligned with Mr. Trump and want to define their party in his image. They are skeptical of the brand of mainstream Republicanism that propelled Mr. McCarthy’s rise; some are openly hostile to it.So Mr. McCarthy has been engaging in a series of political contortions to try to secure a foothold in a party that has shifted under his feet, catering to a group that may ultimately be his undoing. In doing so, he has both empowered the hard-right fringe and tethered his fate to it, helping to solidify its dominance in today’s Republican Party.“There was probably a time when it made sense to have someone like Kevin McCarthy, but we need new leadership in the House,” said Joe Kent, a square-jawed former Special Forces officer who is trying to unseat Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler in Washington, one of 10 Republicans who voted to impeach Mr. Trump after the Capitol attack. “He’s used to a different era.”He added, “Our job is to obstruct and impeach, not to cut any deals.”One Republican House member who backs Mr. McCarthy, who insisted on anonymity to discuss his predicament candidly without fear of a backlash from colleagues or constituents, said that as hard as Mr. McCarthy was working to maintain control, some in the party were so extreme that his position had become all but untenable.How Donald J. Trump Still LoomsGrip on G.O.P.: Mr. Trump remains the most powerful figure in the Republican Party. However, there are signs his control is loosening.Power Struggle: Led by Senator Mitch McConnell, a band of anti-Trump Republicans is maneuvering to thwart the ex-president.Midterms Effect: Mr. Trump has become a party kingmaker, but his involvement in state races worries many Republicans.Post-Presidency Profits: Mr. Trump is melding business with politics, capitalizing for personal gain.Just the Beginning: For many Trump supporters who marched on Jan. 6, the day was not a disgraced insurrection but the start of a movement.Last week, the former Fox Business personality Lou Dobbs, who carries sway with Mr. Trump, was musing on a podcast with one of the right’s most pro-Trump voices, Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida, that Mr. McCarthy was a “RINO” — one of the former president’s favorite insults for people he considers to be “Republican in name only” — who had no business being speaker.Mr. McCarthy has been trying to influence former President Donald J. Trump on which candidates to support in the midterm elections, with limited effect. Doug Mills/The New York Times“The party needs strength,” Mr. Dobbs told Mr. Gaetz, who is under federal investigation for possible sex trafficking of a minor. “It needs vision. It needs energy, vibrancy and new blood in leadership. It’s that simple.”With his political future in many ways out of his hands, Mr. McCarthy is leaving little to chance. His sunny disposition, prodigious fund-raising and ability to remember the names of the children of every House Republican are well known among his colleagues. And he has toiled to transform himself from a glad-handing, business-backed Republican from Bakersfield, Calif., into a credible leader of House’s far right, even as he assures donors that he remains an ally who knows how to navigate a debt ceiling increase and bills to fund the government.Still, he faces unique troubles, including the prospect that he could face a subpoena from the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, which regards him as a crucial witness because of his conversations with Mr. Trump during and after the riot. He has been consulting with William A. Burck, a prominent Washington lawyer, about how to navigate the investigation.For now, Mr. McCarthy is spending ample time trying to influence Mr. Trump. He speaks to or visits the former president about every other week, most of the time with his top political aide, Brian Jack, who served as the White House political director under Mr. Trump.Current and former aides to Mr. Trump describe Mr. McCarthy’s relationship with the former president as cordial but lacking in any loyalty. They are not in lock step on which candidates to support in the midterm elections, and Mr. McCarthy knows he ultimately has limited influence over Mr. Trump’s endorsements. That has not stopped the House leader from trying.For instance, he sought to persuade Mr. Trump to stay out of Representative Rodney Davis’s re-election race in Illinois. Instead, the former president heeded the advice of Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia to endorse Representative Mary Miller, who was thrown into the same district as Mr. Davis by the state’s Democratic gerrymander. Ms. Miller made an approving reference to Hitler at a rally last year in Washington.Mr. McCarthy has had more success privately urging Mr. Trump not to get involved in the re-election campaign of Representative David Valadao of California, who voted for Mr. Trump’s impeachment. Mr. Valadao represents the most heavily Democratic district held by any Republican in Congress, Mr. McCarthy has explained to Mr. Trump, so endorsing a more conservative candidate could cost the party the seat.So far, Mr. Trump has remained silent. But his aides said that is likely driven as much by the fact that no serious challenge has emerged as it is by the persuasiveness of Mr. McCarthy’s case.There was a time when Mr. McCarthy appeared to be ready to break more decisively with the former president. In the immediate wake of the Jan. 6 assault, he called for Mr. Trump to be censured, stating on the House floor that he “bears responsibility” for the riot. He also called for an independent investigation of what had happened.But later, Mr. McCarthy visited the former president at his Florida resort to make amends and enlist his help in the midterm elections, and then he fought the creation of an inquiry at every turn.Mr. McCarthy defended the Republican National Committee after it passed a resolution to censure Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, right.Al Drago for The New York TimesLast month, he defended the Republican National Committee after it passed a resolution to censure Ms. Cheney and the other Republican member of the Jan. 6 committee, Representative Adam Kinzinger of Illinois; the resolution said they were involved in the “persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse.” In contrast, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, castigated the party.In private talks to donors, Mr. McCarthy often does not mention Mr. Trump as he makes his aggressive pitch about the coming “red wave” and what Republicans would do should they reclaim the majority.But he is often asked whether Mr. Trump intends to run for president.Mr. McCarthy has told donors that Mr. Trump has not yet made up his mind and that he has advised the former president to see whether President Biden runs for re-election. Mr. McCarthy also often mentions former House members who he said could make for serious presidential contenders, including Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina and Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida.On Capitol Hill, Mr. McCarthy’s basic problem comes down to math. Leadership positions in the House can be secured with a majority vote from the members of each party. But the speaker is a constitutional official elected by the whole House and therefore must win a majority — at least 218 votes.In 2015, after the most conservative House members drove the speaker, John A. Boehner, into retirement, Mr. McCarthy, then the No. 2 Republican, was the heir apparent — and he blew it. His biggest public offense was a television appearance in which he blurted out that the House had created a special committee to investigate the attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, expressly to diminish Hillary Clinton’s approval ratings.“I said multiple times at the time, we need a speaker who can speak,” recalled former Representative Jason Chaffetz, who challenged Mr. McCarthy for the speakership after the gaffe.Ultimately, Republicans recruited Paul D. Ryan, the Ways and Means Committee chairman and former vice-presidential nominee, for the job.Republicans who were around then believe Mr. McCarthy has learned his lesson.“He’s come of age professionally on the math of 218,” said Eric Cantor, a former House majority leader who lost re-election to a primary challenger from the party’s right flank. “He has been schooled in that for many years now.”Republican leaders are predicting an overwhelming sweep in November’s midterm elections that would give Mr. McCarthy a majority large enough to allow him to shed a few votes and still win, but others in the party are not so sure. The redistricting process has allowed both parties to shore up their incumbents, leaving only a few dozen truly competitive districts. Republicans are still favored to win the majority, but the margin could be slim. Brendan Buck, a former adviser to two House speakers, Mr. Ryan and Mr. Boehner, said Mr. McCarthy would likely be meticulously shoring up his position.“He has a system in place that is on top of every member, knowing where they are, how firm their support is for him, and they are working on the members where it’s not strong enough,” he said. “This is not something you just hope works out.”Mr. McCarthy has deflected a potential challenge from Representative Jim Jordan, who remains closer to Mr. Trump.Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesIt appears that Mr. McCarthy has deflected a potential challenge from Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, who remains closer to Mr. Trump, by successfully pushing for him to become the top Republican on the powerful Judiciary Committee. Mr. McCarthy shows up at meetings of the House Freedom Caucus, the far-right group that is most closely aligned with the former president.Past tensions with Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the Republican whip and a potential challenger, have for the most part been defused.“I didn’t know him at all before, and I didn’t take it personally,” Representative Ronny Jackson of Texas, Mr. Trump’s former White House physician, said of Mr. McCarthy, who did not support him in his 2020 primary. “I think he’s earned an opportunity to lead the conference.”More moderate members also expressed confidence in him.“Leader McCarthy is very astute, sharp and savvy,” said Representative Peter Meijer of Michigan, another of the 10 Republicans who voted to impeach Mr. Trump. “He has been able to not focus on the differences but find where we can come together on policy choices.”Yet some Republicans say it can be difficult to discern what principles guide Mr. McCarthy. This month, under pressure from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, he and his leadership team recommended that Republicans vote against a bill abolishing mandatory arbitration in sexual abuse cases, circulating emails noting that Mr. Jordan, the ranking member of the committee that considered it, was opposed.But when it came to a vote, Mr. McCarthy hung back on the House floor, waiting to register a position until he saw that the bill was passing with overwhelming bipartisan support. At that point, he voted “yes,” leaving some Republicans surprised that he had broken with his own party line. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Ivanka Trump in Talks With Jan. 6 Panel About Being Interviewed

      by

      Former President Donald J. Trump’s eldest daughter has yet to commit to appearing, but investigators regard her as an important witness to what he was doing and saying during the riot.WASHINGTON — Ivanka Trump, former President Donald J. Trump’s eldest daughter who served as one of his senior advisers, is in talks with the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol about the possibility of sitting for an interview with the panel, according to two people familiar with the discussions.It was not immediately clear whether the negotiations, which aides described as preliminary, would result in Ms. Trump providing substantive information to the inquiry or whether they were simply a stalling tactic, as some committee aides fear. But it was the latest example of the panel trying to reach into the former president’s inner circle to ascertain what he was doing and saying as rioters stormed the Capitol in his name.Ms. Trump was one of several aides who tried and failed to persuade Mr. Trump to call off the violence that ultimately injured more than 150 police officers and sent lawmakers and the vice president, Mike Pence, fleeing for their lives.Ms. Trump’s lawyers have been in talks with the committee since January, when the panel sent her a letter requesting that she give voluntary testimony, according to a person familiar with the discussions.She has yet to agree on a date when she might talk with the committee’s investigators, and the panel has made no threat of an imminent subpoena, the people familiar with the discussions said. Those close to Ms. Trump said she had no intention of going down the road taken by her father’s ally Stephen K. Bannon, who refused to cooperate with the committee and then was indicted on contempt of Congress charges.“Ivanka Trump is in discussions with the committee to voluntarily appear for an interview,” a spokeswoman for Ms. Trump confirmed in a statement on Wednesday.Mr. Trump has not requested that his daughter defy the committee’s requests, as he has done with his other former top aides. And Ms. Trump would be unlikely to take any step that Mr. Trump did not know about and approve of, people familiar with her thinking said.Instead, the former president has portrayed his adult children as victims of an investigation that he has dismissed as illegitimate.The committee has emphasized that its questions would be limited to events directly related to the attack on the Capitol.Kenny Holston for The New York Times“It’s a very unfair situation for my children,” Mr. Trump told The Washington Examiner last month. “Very, very unfair.”Ms. Trump’s private discussions with the committee come as lawyers for the panel are also in talks with another potentially key witness: Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, who helped lead the effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election.During those discussions, Mr. Giuliani’s lawyer has made clear to the committee that the former New York mayor does not intend to provide information against Mr. Trump, under the argument that it would violate attorney-client privilege and Mr. Trump’s claims of executive privilege, but he is considering providing information about his dealings with members of Congress, according to a person familiar with the talks.As the Capitol was under siege, both Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Trump called lawmakers in an attempt to delay the certification of Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory.The committee thus far has treated Ms. Trump with deference, seeking only her voluntary cooperation, insisting that its members respect her privacy and emphasizing that its questions would be limited to events directly related to the Jan. 6 attack.That is in part because members of the panel view her as a central witness in their inquiry and worry about a public backlash if it is seen as too aggressive with the former president’s family members. The committee has been reluctant to use its subpoena power against members of Mr. Trump’s family, the news media and members of Congress.The panel has already obtained some testimony about Ms. Trump’s interactions with her father concerning the Jan. 6 attack and the events that led to the violence.In a Jan. 20 letter to Ms. Trump, the committee said it had heard from Keith Kellogg, a retired lieutenant general who was Mr. Pence’s national security adviser, about Mr. Trump’s refusal to condemn the violence as the mob engulfed the Capitol, despite White House officials — including Ms. Trump, at least twice — urging him to do so.Capitol Riot’s Aftermath: Key DevelopmentsCard 1 of 3Ivanka Trump. More