More stories

  • in

    Trump tore up records turned over to House Capitol attack committee

    Trump tore up records turned over to House Capitol attack committeeNational Archives says it received ripped-up documents from White House before turning them over to Congress Some of the White House records turned over to the House committee investigating the January 6 attack were ripped up by Donald Trump.Quiet part loud: Trump says Pence ‘could have overturned the election’Read moreThe documents include diaries, schedules, handwritten notes, speeches and remarks. The supreme court rejected Trump’s attempt to stop the National Archives turning them over to Congress.In a statement, the Archives said: “Some of the Trump presidential records received by the National Archives and Records Administration included paper records that had been torn up by former president Trump.“These were turned over to the National Archives at the end of the Trump administration, along with a number of torn-up records that had not been reconstructed by the White House. The Presidential Records Act requires that all records created by presidents be turned over to the National Archives at the end of their administrations.”The Archives did not say how it knew Trump had torn the records but his habit of tearing up documents has been widely reported.In 2018, Politico spoke to Solomon Lartey, a records management analyst who spent time “armed with rolls of clear Scotch tape … sft[ing] through large piles of paper and put[ting] them back together … ‘like a jigsaw puzzle’.”Lartey and another staffer who taped records were fired by the White House that year, they said summarily.Lartey said: “They told [Trump] to stop doing it. He didn’t want to stop.”After a process that reached the supreme court, the Archives gave more than 700 documents concerning the Capitol attack to the House committee last month.More than 700 people have been charged over the riot, in which Trump supporters tried to stop certification of his election defeat. Eleven members of a far-right militia are charged with seditious conspiracy. More than 100 police officers were injured. Seven people died.The committee has recommended criminal charges for two Trump associates, former White House strategist Steve Bannon and chief of staff Mark Meadows. Bannon refused co-operation and pleaded not guilty to contempt of Congress. Meadows co-operated, then withdrew. He has not been charged.Speaking to the Washington Post, Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor, said destroying White House documents “could be a crime under several statutes that make it a crime to destroy government property if that was the intent of the defendant.“A president does not own the records generated by his own administration. The definition of presidential records is broad. Trump’s own notes to himself could qualify and destroying them could be the criminal destruction of government property.”Trump did not comment. Nor did the House committee.It was also reported on Tuesday that text messages were turned over to the committee by Kayleigh McEnany, Trump’s last press secretary.ABC News reported that McEnany appeared before investigators on 13 January.Kamala Harris drove within yards of pipe bomb on January 6 – reportRead moreIt also said the texts were the source for conversations with the Fox News host Sean Hannity, which were quoted by the committee in a request for information from Ivanka Trump, the former president’s daughter and adviser.“1 – no more stolen election talk,” Hannity texted McEnany after the Capitol attack.Referring to possible attempts to remove Trump from power, he added: “2- Yes, impeachment and the 25th amendment are real and many people will quit.”McEnany replied: “Love that. Thank you. That is the playbook. I will help reinforce.”Trump was impeached but acquitted. The 25th amendment, which provides for the removal of a president incapable of fulfilling his or her duties, was not invoked. Trump continues to claim the election was stolen.McEnany is now a Fox News host. She and her employer did not comment. One former Trump White House insider told the Guardian: “She’s an honest woman.”TopicsDonald TrumpUS Capitol attackTrump administrationUS politicsUS CongressHouse of RepresentativesnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Sweeping bill on inquiry into US Covid response sees bipartisan support

    Sweeping bill on inquiry into US Covid response sees bipartisan supportNew Covid commission would inform the US response to future outbreaks as well as the current impact of the virus A sweeping new bill with powerful bipartisan support in the US Senate would establish an inquiry into the country’s Covid-19 response similar to the 9/11 Commission, among other provisions aimed at preventing the next pandemic.The new Covid commission would inform the US response to future outbreaks as well as the current impact of the disease. The bill will be co-sponsored by Senator Patty Murray of Washington and Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina, who plan to mark it up in committee in coming weeks.“The pain of this pandemic is unforgettable, and we have a responsibility to make sure its lessons are unforgettable, too,” Murray said.The legislation, called the Prevent Pandemics Act, would lay the groundwork to enshrine new powers in federal health agencies.It would also require Senate confirmation to appoint the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and it would better outline the duties of the assistant secretary for preparedness and response, a position Burr created in a 2006 law on pandemic preparedness.Murray, chair of the Senate health committee, first raised the idea of a Covid commission in March 2020. “Because even back then it was clear: we have to learn from this pandemic to make sure we are never in this situation again,” she said on Thursday.In November 2021, another bipartisan group of senators – Dianne Feinstein of California, Roger Marshall of Kansas, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Joni Ernst of Iowa – also introduced a bill to establish a Covid commission.US scientists develop cheap smartphone-based test kit for CovidRead moreThis wider bill represents months of work across the aisle between Murray and Burr, the committee’s Republican ranking member.An independent taskforce would “conduct a comprehensive review of the federal Covid-19 response, fully account for consequential gaps and breakdowns in our response, and issue recommendations to correct them”, Murray said.In November 2019, the US was ranked first of 195 countries for pandemic preparedness in a report co-produced by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security – but it has consistently had one of the worst responses to the actual Covid-19 pandemic, said John Farmer Jr, the senior counsel for the 9/11 Commission and director of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University.“And there’s very little apparent effort to figure out exactly why it was so ineffective and what we can do in the future,” he said.Farmer was among those calling for an inquiry early in the pandemic, he said, “because it was clear that the United States’ response was almost completely ineffective in containing the pandemic and preventing future variants from emerging”.The US response involved “basically 50 governors going 50 different ways, and no one effectively containing the virus”, Farmer said.That happened in part because the president doesn’t have the authority under current law to establish temporary public health measures, even during a pandemic.Legislation such as the proposed bill could lay the groundwork for changing these laws, though such changes would be likely to face sharp scrutiny in a highly divided Congress.The 9/11 Commission was created by Congress soon after the September 11 terrorist attacks. It was independent and non-partisan, staffed with officials who had investigative power, funding and time to create an authoritative report.“Good reports are important because they create the historical record, and they can also inform how we respond to the crisis to avoid it happening again,” said Alan Rozenshtein, associate professor at the University of Minnesota Law School.Another reason to create a Covid commission would be to garner high-profile support from all branches of government, which could bolster public trust in institutions, Rozenshtein said.“Those are the benefits – if you can pull it off,” he said.Rozenshtein doesn’t believe it’s possible to create a report on Covid that accomplishes what the 9/11 Commission did, however.“It will be very rigorous and professional and it will produce an excellent report – but because that will be attacked the whole way through by Trump and his enablers in the Republican party, that report will not then have anything like the impact of the 9/11 Commission.”A Covid commission would surely face bipartisan scrutiny even if it finds bipartisan support, Rozenshtein and Farmer said.“I think any sitting administration is going to feel vulnerable to the conclusions of such a commission,” Farmer said. “This is such a calamitous response that I’m not sure that either administration is really going to want a close look at what went wrong.”At the same time, he added, “the public interest has to outweigh that kind of partisan consideration.“We failed, as a society and as a world, to contain Covid, and we really need to look at more effective ways to handle future pandemics – or we could be in worse shape the next time,” Farmer said.TopicsUS CongressCoronavirusUS politicsTrump administrationBiden administrationnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Rudy Giuliani and Michael Flynn to see honorary university degrees revoked

    Rudy Giuliani and Michael Flynn to see honorary university degrees revokedUniversity of Rhode Island board votes unanimously to revoke degrees given to key allies of Donald Trump in 2003 and 2014

    ‘House of Trump is crumbling’: the legal net tightens
    The University of Rhode Island will revoke honorary degrees given to Rudy Giuliani and Michael Flynn, key allies of Donald Trump in his attempt to overturn the 2020 election.Michael Flynn allies allegedly plotted to lean on Republicans to back vote auditsRead moreThe URI board of trustees on Friday voted unanimously to revoke the degrees, which were given to Giuliani in 2003 and Flynn in 2014.Giuliani’s doctorate of laws was given for his leadership as mayor of New York City after the 9/11 attacks, the Providence Journal reported.Flynn, a retired general and former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency who graduated from URI in 1981, was given a doctorate of humane letters.The trustees voted on the recommendation of the URI president, Marc Parlange, who said the two men “no longer represent the highest level of our values and standards that were evident when we first bestowed the degree”.Giuliani has acted as Trump’s attorney, work that led to the suspension of his law licenses in New York and Washington DC.A leader of legal attempts to overturn election results in key states, Giuliani spoke at a rally near the White House on 6 January, urging “trial by combat”.Parlange said Giuliani “encouraged domestic terrorist behavior aimed at preventing Congress from certifying the outcome of the 2020 presidential election”.Seven people died around the storming of the US Capitol. Trump was impeached but acquitted. More than 700 people have been charged. Eleven members of a far-right militia have been charged with sedition.This week, Giuliani was among Trump allies served subpoenas by the House select committee investigating the attack. Trump’s former adviser, Steve Bannon, has pleaded not guilty to a charge of contempt of Congress arising from a refusal to co-operate. Trump’s final chief of staff, Mark Meadows, could face the same charge. Leading Republicans in Congress have also refused to co-operate.On Friday, the Washington Post reported that a judge has released to prosecutors more than 3,000 of Giuliani’s communications, in an investigation of work in Ukraine which contributed to Trump’s first impeachment, for seeking dirt on rivals including Joe Biden.Flynn, who was fired from the Defense Intelligence Agency by Barack Obama, became Trump’s national security adviser before being fired for lying to the FBI about contacts with Russian officials.He pleaded guilty but was pardoned by Trump. A leading figure on the far right, he has advocated a military coup and the establishment of Christianity as the state religion.Texts show Fox News host Hannity’s pleas to Trump aide after Capitol attackRead moreFlynn has been implicated in aspects of Trump’s attempt to stay in power including plans to seize election machines, the subject of a draft executive order revealed on Friday by Politico. He has resisted a subpoena from the 6 January committee.Also on Friday, the Guardian reported that law enforcement agencies have learned of an alleged plan by “allies of Flynn” to “gather ‘intelligence’ on top Republicans”, in order to compel them to back election audits in key states.Recommending the revocation of the honorary degrees, Parlange said: “As a civic institution, URI has the privilege and responsibility to sustain and preserve American democracy by insuring and modeling good citizenship. Revoking these honorary degrees reinforces our values and allows us to lead with truth and integrity.”The chairwoman of the URI trustees, Margo Cook, said the board “supports the university and its mission to uphold its values, especially its commitment to intellectual and ethical leadership and fostering an environment of diversity and respect”.TopicsRudy GiulianiThe ObserverMichael FlynnDonald TrumpTrump administrationRhode IslandUS educationUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Texts show Fox News host Hannity’s pleas to Trump aide after Capitol attack

    Texts show Fox News host Hannity’s pleas to Trump aide after Capitol attackMessages said there should be ‘no more stolen election talk’ and ‘no more crazy people’ should be admitted to president’s orbit

    US politics – live coverage
    In the aftermath of the deadly attack on the US Capitol last year, the rightwing Fox News host Sean Hannity pleaded with a top aide to Donald Trump that there should be “no more stolen election talk” and “no more crazy people” should be admitted to the president’s orbit.Michael Flynn allies allegedly plotted to lean on Republicans to back vote auditsRead moreKayleigh McEnany, the White House press secretary, agreed – but to little effect.More than a year after the riot, around which seven people died as Trump supporters sought to stop certification of electoral college results, Trump continues to lie that the 2020 election was stolen by Joe Biden.He also continues to keep company with far-right conspiracy theorists including Mike Lindell, the MyPillow founder who in a lawsuit this week was accused of being “crazy like a fox”.Hannity has also long been close to Trump, as an informal adviser and sometime rally guest. Though he has been revealed to have been shaken by the attack on the Capitol, he has spent the year since the riot supporting Trump’s version of events.The House committee investigating January 6 has asked for Hannity’s cooperation, a request a lawyer for the host said raises “first amendment concerns regarding freedom of the press”.Hannity has previously said he does not claim to be a journalist.Excerpts of his messages to McEnany on 7 January 2021 were included in a letter from the January 6 committee to Ivanka Trump, the former president’s daughter and adviser whom the panel also wishes to question.“First,” the letter said, “on 7 January, Mr Hannity texted Ms McEnany, laying out a five-point approach for conversations with President Trump. Items one and two of that plan read as follows:“1 – No more stolen election talk.“2 – Yes, impeachment and 25th amendment are real, and many people will quit… ”McEnany, the letter said, responded: “Love that. Thank you. That is the playbook. I will help reinforce… ”If McEnany did follow Hannity’s playbook, it did not produce a touchdown or even a reasonable punt.It has been widely reported that invoking the 25th amendment, which provides for the removal of a president deemed incapable of carrying out his or her duties, was seriously discussed among cabinet and White House officials.That came to nothing but Trump was impeached a second time. He was acquitted when enough Senate Republicans stayed loyal.On Friday, Politico published the text of a draft executive order for the seizure of voting machines and the text of a speech in which Trump would have condemned the Capitol rioters – but which he never gave.According to the January 6 committee, Hannity also told McEnany: “Key now. No more crazy people.”McEnany said: “Yes. 100%.”A footnote to the letter says Katrina Pierson, another rightwing commentator, “also uses the term ‘crazies’ in her text messages, apparently to describe a number of the president’s supporters”.Lindell continues to insist he has evidence the 2020 election was stolen, recently claiming his work could lead to the imprisonment for life of “300 and some million people”.That prompted the Washington Post to ask: “Are you one of the one in 11 Americans Mike Lindell doesn’t want to arrest?”In remarks at a Trump rally in Arizona last weekend, Lindell took aim at Hannity’s employer.MyPillow CEO faces defamation lawsuit from second voting machine makerRead more“When was the last time you saw anyone on Fox talk about the 2020 election?” he asked.Fox News has continued to stoke conspiracy theories about the Capitol riot but Fox Corporation faces lawsuits regarding claims of a stolen election.This week, Lindell joined Fox in being sued by Smartmatic, a maker of election machines.In the suit, the company accused Lindell of knowing what he was doing – namely, trying to sell pillows – when spreading election lies.He was, the company said, “crazy like a fox”.TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsFox NewsUS television industryRepublicansTrump administrationDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Draft Trump order told defense chief to seize swing-state voting machines

    Draft Trump order told defense chief to seize swing-state voting machinesUnpublished executive order, obtained by Politico, among documents provided to January 6 panel after court ruling

    US politics – live coverage
    In the heady days between Donald Trump’s defeat in November 2020 and the 6 January insurrection at the US Capitol, an executive order was prepared. It commanded the defense secretary to seize voting machines in battleground states, as part of Trump’s “big lie” that the vote was rigged.Michael Flynn allies allegedly plotted to lean on Republicans to back vote auditsRead moreThe draft executive order, obtained and published by Politico, was never sent and its author is unknown. It was part of a cache of documents handed over to the House committee investigating the 6 January violence, after the supreme court ruled this week that Trump could not shield himself from oversight on grounds of executive privilege.The disclosure of the draft order adds to evidence of the lengths to which Trump and his close advisers were prepared to go to keep him in the White House, against the will of the American people. Under the draft order, the defense secretary would have been required to carry out an assessment of the voting machines “no later than 60 days from commencement of operations”.That would have pushed the chaos that Trump assiduously attempted to sow around Joe Biden’s legitimate victory well beyond the handover of power at the inauguration on 20 January.The publication of the document will provoke intense speculation as to who wrote it. Politico pointed out that at the time the draft order was dated, 16 December 2020, the idea of seizing voting machines in key states was being vigorously promoted by Sidney Powell, a controversial lawyer who had Trump’s ear at the time.The document outlines the seizure of voting machines by the Pentagon under federal emergency powers. That would in itself have been incendiary, as it would have amounted to a dramatic display of federal over state power of the sort normally fiercely resisted by Republicans.The author of the draft order seeks to justify such a contentious move by regurgitating conspiracy theories. For example, pointing to voting machines, the document says there is “evidence of international and foreign interference in the November 3, 2020, election”.It names Dominion Voting Systems, a leading provider of voting machines that has become the target of rightwing conspiracy theorists and big lie merchants. Dominion has sued several purveyors of false claims that its products were used to swing the election from Trump to Biden.“Dominion Voting Systems and related companies are owned or heavily controlled and influenced by foreign agents, countries, and interests,” the draft order falsely claims.The draft also singles out Antrim county, Michigan. Claims that voting machines in that county were compromised have been thoroughly rebutted, including by state election authorities.A second document was also leaked to Politico from the new mountain of paperwork received by the 6 January committee. Titled Remarks on National Healing, it appears to be the text of a speech Trump never delivered.The tone of the speech is striking because it stands in stark contrast to the approach Trump actually adopted in the wake of the Capitol violence. Still president for two weeks, he attempted to belittle the significance of the day.Had this alternative speech been given, Trump would have sent out a very different message. It describes 6 January as a “heinous attack” that left him “outraged and sickened by the violence, lawlessness and mayhem”.The text added: “The Demonstrators who infiltrated the Capitol have defiled the seat of American democracy.”TopicsUS elections 2020Donald TrumpUS politicsUS voting rightsTrump administrationnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Trump held secret meetings in days before Capitol attack, ex-press secretary tells panel

    Trump held secret meetings in days before Capitol attack, ex-press secretary tells panel Stephanie Grisham gave more significant details than expected about what Trump was doing before 6 January, sources say The former White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham told the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack that Donald Trump hosted secret meetings in the White House residence in days before 6 January, according to two sources familiar with the matter.The former senior Trump aide also told House investigators that the details of whether Trump actually intended to march to the Capitol after his speech at the Ellipse rally would be memorialized in documents provided to the US Secret Service, the sources said.The select committee’s interview with Grisham, who was Melania Trump’s chief of staff when she resigned on 6 January, was more significant than expected, the sources said, giving the panel new details about the Trump White House and what the former US president was doing before the Capitol attack.Grisham gave House investigators an overview of the chaotic final weeks in the Trump White House in the days leading up to the Capitol attack, recalling how the former president held off-the-books meetings in the White House residence, the sources said.The secret meetings were apparently known by only a small number of aides, the sources said. Grisham recounted that they were mostly scheduled by Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and that the former chief usher, Timothy Harleth, would wave participants upstairs, the sources said.Harleth, the former director of rooms at the Trump International Hotel before moving with the Trumps to the White House in 2017, was once one of the former first family’s most trusted employees, according to a top former White House aide to Melania Trump.But after Harleth sought to ingratiate himself with the Biden transition team after Trump’s defeat in the 2020 election in order to keep his White House role, Trump and Meadows moved to fire him before Melania Trump stepped in to keep him until Biden’s inauguration.Grisham told the select committee she was not sure who exactly Trump met with in the White House residence, but provided Harleth’s name and the identities of other Trump aides in the usher’s office who might know of the meetings, the sources said.The Guardian previously reported that Trump made several phone calls from the Yellow Oval Room and elsewhere in the White House residence to lieutenants at the Willard hotel in Washington the night before the Capitol attack, telling them to stop Joe Biden’s certification.Trump increasingly retreated to the White House residence to conduct work as his presidency progressed, according to another former Trump administration official, as he felt less watched by West Wing aides than in the Oval Office.Towards the end of his presidency, the former Trump administration official said, an aide to former White House adviser Peter Navarro tried at least once to quietly usher into the residence Sidney Powell, a lawyer pushing lies about election fraud, to speak with Trump.A spokesperson for the select committee declined to comment on Grisham’s interview that took place the first week of January. Harleth did not respond to questions about the meetings in the White House residence when reached last week by phone.Over the course of her hours-long interview, Grisham told House investigators that the mystery surrounding Trump’s promise at the Ellipse rally that he would march with his supporters to the Capitol might be resolved in Trump White House documents, the sources said.The former president’s purported intention to go to the Capitol has emerged as a crucial issue for the select committee, as they examine whether Trump oversaw a criminal conspiracy coordinating his political plan to stop Biden’s certification with the insurrection.Trump’s promise is significant as it served as one of the primary motivations for his supporters to march to the Capitol alongside militia groups like the Oath Keepers, and was used by far-right activists like Alex Jones to encourage the crowd along the route.But Trump never went to the Capitol and instead returned to the White House, where he watched the attack unfold on television – after being informed by the Secret Service before the insurrection that they could not guarantee his security if he marched to the Capitol.The select committee is now trying to untangle whether Trump made a promise that he perhaps had no intention of honoring because he hoped to incite an insurrection that stopped the certification – his only remaining play to get a second term – one of the sources said.Grisham told the select committee that Trump’s intentions – and whether the Secret Service had been told Trump had decided not to march to the Capitol – should be reflected in the presidential line-by-line, the document that outlines the president’s movements, the sources said.The chairman of the select committee, Bennie Thompson, has told reporters the panel is already seeking information from the Secret Service about what plans they had for Trump on January 6, as well as what evacuation strategies they had for then-vice president Mike Pence.But the presidential line-by-line, which gets sent to the Secret Service, could also reveal discussions about security concerns and suggest a new line of inquiry into why an assessment about conditions that were too dangerous for the president were not disseminated further.Grisham also told the select committee about the necessary coordination between the Trump White House, the Secret Service and organizers of the “Save America” rally at the Ellipse on 6 January in order to ensure Trump’s appearance, the sources said.The former Trump aide suggested to the select committee that Trump was determined to speak at the rally once he heard about its existence, the sources said, and was constantly on the phone to oversee the event’s optics, the sources said.TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsTrump administrationDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Supreme court rejects Trump bid to shield documents from January 6 panel

    Supreme court rejects Trump bid to shield documents from January 6 panelCourt’s move leaves no legal impediment to turning National Archives documents over to congressional committee The US supreme court has rejected a request by Donald Trump to block the release of White House records to the congressional committee investigating the deadly January 6 attack on the Capitol, dealing a blow to the former president.The order, which casts aside Trump’s request to stop the House select committee from obtaining the records while the case makes its way through the courts, means more than 700 documents that could shed light on the attack can be transferred to Congress.The only member of the high court who signaled he would have granted Trump’s request for an injunction was justice Clarence Thomas. The order did not provide a reasoning for turning down the application, which is not uncommon for requests for emergency stays.Trump’s defeat in court allows the select committee to obtain from the National Archives some of the most sensitive White House records from his administration, including call logs, daily presidential diaries, handwritten notes and memos from his top aides.The documents, which Trump tried to shield behind claims of executive privilege, also included materials in the files of his former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, deputy counsel Pat Philbin and advisor Stephen Miller.“These records all relate to the events on or about January 6, and may assist the Select Committee’s investigation into that day,” justice department attorneys, acting on behalf of chief archivist David Ferriero, wrote in an earlier filing.The supreme court’s action, which follows the earlier rejection of Trump’s request by two lower courts, is also likely to have a cascading effect on other lawsuits filed against the panel, which hinged on the success of Trump’s pending litigation.Lawyers for Trump had urged the supreme court to take the case as they disagreed with the unanimous ruling of the US appeals court for the DC circuit that the current president Joe Biden could waive executive privilege over the objections of a former president.The lower court rulings directing the National Archives to turn over the records “gut the ability of former presidents to maintain executive privilege over the objection of an incumbent, who is often, as is the case here, a political rival”, they said.Trump’s legal team argued that the select committee also lacked a legitimate, legislative need for seeking the documents and was instead engaged in a partisan investigation seeking evidence to cause political damage to the former president.“These sweeping requests are indicative of the committee’s broad investigation of a political foe, divorced from any of Congress’s legislative functions,” Trump’s lawyers said of the panel.But in an unsigned opinion, the nation’s highest court rejected those arguments, upholding the appellate court ruling that found that although Trump had some limited power to exercise executive privilege, it was not sufficient to overcome Biden’s waiver.The court cited a 1977 supreme court decision in a dispute between former president Richard Nixon and the National Archives, which said the sitting president was in the best position to decide whether the protection should be asserted.The appeals court said that as long as the select committee could cite at least one legislative purpose for the documents – reforming laws to prevent a repeat of January 6, for instance – that would be enough to justify its request for Trumps’ records.The select committee has also rebutted Trump’s claim that forcing the National Archives to hand over White House documents could discourage future presidential aides from providing candid advice.That argument was misguided, the select committee said, because the conduct by Trump and some of his most senior aides under investigation went far beyond any usual deliberations concerning a president’s official duties.Moments after the supreme court handed down its decision, investigators working in the select committee’s offices on Capitol Hill were heard clapping in celebration, just as the panel subpoenaed more individuals connected to the January 6 insurrection.In its latest investigative action, the panel issued subpoenas to far-right Trump activists Nicholas Fuentes and Patrick Casey who received thousands of dollars in funds potentially connected to illegal activity and the Capitol attack.The new subpoenas demanding documents and testimony from Fuentes and Casey suggest the panel is drawing closer to the source of funding for the rallies that preceded the Capitol attack and the coordinated travel plans of thousands of pro-Trump rioters.Congressman Bennie Thompson, the chairman of the select committee, said that House investigators are interested in the pair since they were intimately involved in the transfer of money surrounding the Capitol attack and were present on Capitol grounds on January 6.The select committee said in the subpoena letters that Fuentes and Casey led the “America First” or “Groyper” movement and promulgated lies about voter fraud as they sought to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s election win and get Trump a second term.TopicsDonald TrumpUS supreme courtLaw (US)Trump administrationUS Capitol attackUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Donald Trump’s former attorney general William Barr to publish his memoirs

    Donald Trump’s former attorney general William Barr to publish his memoirsThe book, to be published in March, will divulge details from his tenure as attorney general for George HW Bush and Trump William Barr, Donald Trump’s second attorney general and perceived “hatchet man” until he split from the former president over his lies about election fraud, will publish his memoirs in March.In an era of rightwing populism, we cannot destroy democracy in order to save it | Jeff SparrowRead moreHarperCollins, the publisher of One Damn Thing After Another: Memoirs of an Attorney General, promised a “vivid and forthright” read on Barr’s long career in law and conservative politics, in which he was first attorney general under George HW Bush.“Barr takes readers behind the scenes during seminal moments of the Bush administration in the 1990s, from the LA riots to Pan Am 103 and Iran Contra,” the publisher said on Tuesday.“With the Trump administration, Barr faced an unrelenting barrage of issues, such as Russia-gate, the opioid epidemic, Chinese espionage, big tech, the Covid outbreak, civil unrest, the first impeachment, and the 2020 election fallout.”The publisher also said Barr would help readers understand how Bush and Trump “viewed power and justice at critical junctures of their presidencies”.During the investigation of Russian election meddling and links between Trump and Moscow, Barr stoked rage among Democrats who accused him of interfering on behalf of the president.His handling of Robert Mueller’s report also prompted protest from the special counsel himself.Republicans and other observers defended Barr but the Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren, then a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president, called him “a disgrace” and “not a credible head of federal law enforcement”.Barr was also present during key flash points of the Trump administration, for instance, walking at the president’s side in summer 2020 when he marched across Washington DC’s Lafayette Square, which had been cleared of protesters against racism and police brutality, to stage a photo op at a historic church.Barr split from Trump as the president refused to admit defeat by Joe Biden in the 2020 election. Angry scenes between the two men have been reported in other books, including bestsellers by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa of the Washington Post and Jon Karl of ABC News.Barr stoked Trump’s rage by telling the Associated Press he had not seen evidence of “fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election”.He was no longer in office during the culmination of Trump’s concerted attempt to overturn his election defeat – the deadly Capitol riot of January 6.On 7 January 2021, Barr condemned Trump for “orchestrating a mob to pressure Congress” and said: “The president’s conduct was a betrayal of his office and supporters.”The same day, the Guardian published an article examining the state of the Department of Justice after Barr’s second stint in the chair.Vanita Gupta, a former head of the civil rights division, said: “The morale and the reputation of the department has been gutted because of undue political influence on the decisions of career staff.“The department needs to be rebuilt by new leadership committed at every turn to decisions made on the law and on the facts, and not on what the president wants.”On Tuesday, Sadie Gurman, a Wall Street Journal reporter, was among observers to note the provenance – and irony – of Barr’s chosen title.Current attorney general Merrick Garland, Gurman said, might appreciate that “Barr’s book title is actually an homage to his hero, Ed Levi”, who, when asked “to describe the job of attorney general … famously replied, ‘It’s just one damn thing after another.’”Ed Levi, a law professor and “non-politician”, was installed by Gerald Ford in 1975, after the Watergate scandal brought down Richard Nixon and his attorney general, John Mitchell – who served time in prison.TopicsWilliam BarrDonald TrumpUS politicsGeorge HW BushTrump administrationRepublicansnewsReuse this content More