Trump administration

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump tax returns: key takeaways from the records release

      by

      AnalysisTrump tax returns: key takeaways from the records releaseAssociated Press in WashingtonThe former president had a bank account in China, failed to donate in 2020 and claims Democrats ‘weaponized’ his taxes In one of its last acts under Democratic control, the House of Representatives on Friday released six years of Donald Trump’s tax returns, dating to 2015, the year he announced his presidential bid.Trump tax returns show China bank account as six years of records releasedRead moreThe thousands of pages of returns were the subject of a prolonged legal battle after Trump broke precedent by not releasing his tax returns while running for, and then occupying, the White House.Here are some key takeaways from a review of the documents:Trump had a bank account in ChinaDuring a 2020 presidential debate, Trump was asked about having a bank account in China. He said he closed it before he began his campaign for the White House four years earlier.“The bank account was in 2013. It was closed in 2015, I believe,” Trump said. “I was thinking about doing a deal in China. Like millions of other people, I was thinking about it. I decided not to do it.”The tax returns contradict that account. Trump reported a bank account in China in his returns for 2015, 2016 and 2017.The returns show accounts in other foreign countries including the UK, Ireland and St Martin in the Caribbean. By 2018, Trump had apparently closed all his overseas accounts other than the one in the UK, home to one of his flagship golf properties.The returns do not detail the amount of money held in those accounts.No reported charitable giving in 2020In the final year of his presidency, Trump reported making no charitable donations. That was in contrast to the prior two years, when Trump reported about $500,000 (£414,060) worth of donations. It is unclear if any of the figures include his pledge to donate his $400,000 presidential salary back to the US government. He reported donating $1.1m in 2016 and $1.8m in 2017.Money from the arts worldTrump collected a $77,808 annual pension from the Screen Actors Guild and a $6,543 pension in 2017 from another film and TV union, and reported acting residuals as high as $14,141 in 2015, according to the tax returns.Trump has made cameo appearances in various movies, notably Home Alone 2: Lost in New York, but his biggest on-screen success came with his reality TV shows The Apprentice and The Celebrity Apprentice.Trump reported paying a little more than $400,000 from 2015 to 2017 in “book writer” fees. In 2015, Trump published the book, Crippled America: How to Make America Great Again, with a ghostwriter. The same year, Trump reporting receiving $750,000 in fees for speaking engagements.Trump vows paybackTrump broke political tradition by not releasing his tax returns as a candidate or as president. Now Republicans warn that Democrats will pay a political price by releasing what is normally confidential information.Trump underscored that in a statement on Friday morning, after his returns were made public.Kayleigh McEnany a ‘liar and opportunist’, says former Trump aide Read more“The great USA divide will now grow far worse,” he said. “The Radical Left Democrats have weaponized everything, but remember, that is a dangerous two-way street!”Republicans on the House ways and means committee, which has jurisdiction over tax matters and released the Trump documents, warned that in the future the committee could release the returns of labor leaders or supreme court justices. Democrats countered with a proposal to require the release of tax returns by any presidential candidate – legislation that is unlikely to pass, given that Republicans take control of the House next week.Republicans cannot disclose Joe Biden’s tax returns – because they are already public. Biden resumed the longstanding bipartisan tradition of releasing his tax records, disclosing 22 years’ worth of filings during his 2020 campaign.TopicsDonald TrumpTrump administrationUS politicsUS taxationUS CongressHouse of RepresentativesDemocratsanalysisReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Republican senator called Giuliani ‘walking malpractice’, January 6 report says

      by

      Republican senator called Giuliani ‘walking malpractice’, January 6 report saysMike Lee of Utah made comment in text message to Trump aide on evening after the Capitol attack A senator who received a voice message meant for another Republican on January 6 described the caller, Rudy Giuliani, as “walking malpractice”.January 6 report review: 845 pages, countless crimes, one simple truth – Trump did itRead moreThe piquant characterisation of the former New York mayor, then Donald Trump’s attorney and a leading proponent of his election fraud lie, was made in a text message sent by Mike Lee of Utah.The text was included in the final report of the House January 6 committee, which was released late on Thursday. Reporters immediately scoured its 845 pages for new details of Trump’s attempt to overturn his election defeat, leading to the attack on the Capitol.Lee’s comment is contained in a footnote to page 631. It says: “6 January 2021, text message from Senator Mike Lee to [national security adviser] Robert O’Brien at 10.55pm EST reading, ‘You can’t make this up. I just got this voice message [from] Rudy Giuliani, who apparently thought he was calling Senator Tuberville.“‘You’ve got to listen to that message. Rudy is walking malpractice.’”Giuliani was trying to contact Tommy Tuberville, from Alabama, before Congress reconvened to certify Joe Biden’s election victory, the process the rioters tried to stop.Biden’s win was certified, though not before 147 Republicans in the House and Senate objected to results in key states, shortly after rioters sought lawmakers to capture and perhaps kill, some chanting that they wanted to hang the vice-president, Mike Pence.The attack is now linked to nine deaths, including law enforcement suicides.Giuliani’s message was reported at the time. Referring to the Trump team’s efforts in key states, he said: “I’m calling you because I want to discuss with you how they’re trying to rush this hearing and how we need you, our Republican friends, to try to just slow it down so we can get these legislatures to get more information to you.“And I know they’re reconvening at eight tonight, but … the only strategy we can follow is to object to numerous states and raise issues so that we get ourselves into tomorrow – ideally until the end of tomorrow.“I know [Senate Republican leader Mitch] McConnell is doing everything he can to rush it, which is kind of a kick in the head because it’s one thing to oppose us, it’s another thing not to give us a fair opportunity to contest it.”McConnell would later vote to acquit Trump, in an impeachment trial arising from the Capitol attack, when conviction would have barred the former president from holding federal office again.In contrast, legal authorities now seem inclined to agree with Lee’s assessment of Giuliani’s unsuitability to practice as an attorney.Earlier this month, a preliminary disciplinary hearing of the Washington DC bar saw counsel argue that Giuliani, 78, should lose his license because of his attempt to undermine the election.Defending himself, Giuliani said: “I believe that I’ve been persecuted for three or four years, including false charges brought against me by the federal government.”Giuliani review: Andrew Kirtzman’s definitive life of Trump’s last lackeyRead moreThough his activities in support of Trump’s election subversion are the subject of numerous investigations, Giuliani has not been charged with any crime.His license to practise law in New York, the city he once led, was however suspended in June last year.Numerous reports and books have described Giuliani’s increasingly bizarre behaviour in his role as Trump’s attorney.His biographer, Andrew Kirtzman, concluded that while Trump remains a political player, running for the Republican nomination in 2024, “Giuliani … [is] finished in every conceivable way.”TopicsRudy GiulianiJanuary 6 hearingsUS Capitol attackUS politicsRepublicansDonald TrumpTrump administrationnewsReuse this content More

    • 188 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      January 6 report review: 845 pages, countless crimes, one simple truth – Trump did it

      by

      ReviewJanuary 6 report review: 845 pages, countless crimes, one simple truth – Trump did it The House committee has done its work. The result is a riveting read, utterly damning of the former president and his followersWhether fomenting insurrection, standing accused of rape or stiffing the IRS, Donald Trump remains in the news. On Monday, the House select committee voted to issue its final report. Three days later, after releasing witness transcripts, the committee delivered the full monty. Bennie Thompson, Liz Cheney and the rest of committee name names and flash receipts. At 845 pages, the report is damning – and monumental.January 6 panel accuses Trump of ‘multi-part conspiracy’ in final reportRead moreTrumpworld is a crime scene, a tableau lifted from Goodfellas. Joshua Green of Bloomberg nailed that in The Devil’s Bargain, his 2017 take on Trump’s winning campaign. The gang was always transgressive, fear and violence part of its repertoire.Brian Sicknick, the Capitol police officer who died after the riot. E Jean Carroll, who alleges sexual assault. Shaye Moss, the Georgia elections worker targeted by Rudy Giuliani and other minions. Each bears witness.The January 6 report laments that “thuggish behavior from President Trump’s team, including efforts to intimidate described elsewhere … gave rise to many concerns about [Cassidy] Hutchinson’s security, both in advance of and since her public testimony”.Hutchinson is the former aide to Trump and his final chief of staff, Mark Meadows, whose testimony may have been the most dramatic and impactful.In the same vein, the committee chronicles Trump’s demand that Brad Raffensperger, the Republican secretary of state in Georgia, “find 11,780 votes”. Trump reminded Raffensperger of the possible consequences if his directive went unheeded: “That’s a criminal, that’s a criminal offense. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer … I’m notifying you that you’re letting it happen.”Now, a Fulton county grand jury weighs Trump’s fate. Jack Smith, a federal prosecutor newly appointed special counsel, may prove Trump’s match too.Transcripts released by the committee show Stefan Passantino, Hutchinson’s initial lawyer, engaging in conduct that markedly resembles witness tampering.“Stefan said, ‘No, no, no, no, no. We don’t want to talk about that.’” According to Hutchinson, Passantino was talking about Trump’s fabled post-rally meltdown on January 6, when told he couldn’t go to the Capitol too.Hutchinson understood that disloyalty would mean repercussions. It took immense courage and conscience to speak as she did. Trump’s supporting cast was retribution-ready. She knew she would be “fucking nuked”.In a woeful prebuttal, Passantino claimed to have behaved “honorably” and “ethically”. He blamed Hutchinson. His advice, he said, was “fully consistent” with the “sole interests” of his client. He is now on leave from his law firm.To quote the final report, “certain witnesses from the Trump White House displayed a lack of full recollection of certain issues”. Meadows, for one, is shown to have an allergy to the truth. The committee singles out The Chief’s Chief, his memoir, as an exercise in fabulism. Trump gave Meadows a blurb for his cover: “We will have a big future together”. In so many ways, Donald. In so many ways.Trump tested positive for Covid few days before Biden debate, chief of staff says in new bookRead moreThe book “made the categorical claim that the president never intended to travel to the Capitol” on 6 January, the committee now says, adding that the “evidence demonstrates that Meadows’s claim is categorically false”.He had needlessly cast a spotlight on himself and others. The report: “Because the Meadows book conflicted sharply with information that was being received by the select committee, the committee became increasingly wary that other witnesses might intentionally conceal what happened.”Then again, no one ever accused Meadows, a former congressman, of being the sharpest knife in the drawer. Reptilian calculation is not prudence or prescience. Last year, Trump trashed Meadows as “fucking stupid”. He may have a point. After all, Meadows confessed to Trump of possibly putting Joe Biden’s life in jeopardy at the September 2020 debate, after positive and negative Covid tests that were covered up.Trump himself derided the Chief’s Chief as “fake news”. The committee referred Meadows to the justice department.“It’s easy to imagine Meadows has flipped and is cooperating with the justice department,” said Ryan Goodman, a New York University law professor and former Pentagon special counsel. The vicious cycle rolls on.The committee also gives Kayleigh McEnany, Trump’s final press secretary, her own moment in the sun. She too attempted to cover the tracks of her boss.“A segment of McEnany’s testimony seemed evasive,” the committee concludes. “In multiple instances, McEnany’s testimony did not seem nearly as forthright as that of her press office staff, who testified about what McEnany said.”We saw this movie before – when McEnany stood at the West Wing lectern.“McEnany disputed suggestions that President Trump was resistant to condemning the violence and urging the crowd at the Capitol to act peacefully when they crafted his tweet at 2.38pm on January 6,” the report says. “Yet one of her deputies, Sarah Matthews, told the select committee that McEnany informed her otherwise.”Last year, McEnany delivered a book of her own, namely For Such a Time as This. The title riffs off the Book of Esther. McEnany repeatedly thanks the deity, touts her academic credentials and vouches for her honesty. She claims she never lied to reporters. After all, her education at “Oxford, Harvard and Georgetown” meant she always relied on “truthful, well-sourced, well-researched information”.She lauds Trump for standing for “faith, conservatism and freedom” and delivers a bouquet to Meadows. “You were a constant reminder of faith. Thank you for being an inspiring leader for the entire West Wing.”Whether Trump retains the loyalty of evangelicals in 2024 remains to be seen.The January 6 report often kills with understatement. For example, it repeatedly mocks Giuliani and his posse. The committee notes: “On 7 November, Rudy Giuliani headlined a Philadelphia press conference in front of a landscaping business called Four Seasons Total Landscaping, near a crematorium and down the street from a sex shop.”Like Giuliani’s three ex-wives, the members of the committee loathe him.“Standing in front of former New York police commissioner and recently pardoned convicted felon Bernard Kerik, Giuliani gave opening remarks and handed the podium over to his first supposed eyewitness to election fraud, who turned out to be a convicted sex offender.”If the debacle surrounding George Santos, the newly-elected New York congressman, teaches us anything, it is that you can never do enough background-checking.Trump should be barred from holding office again, January 6 panel saysRead moreGiuliani’s law license is suspended, on account of “false claims” in post-election hearings. A panel of the DC bar has recommended disbarment.Nick Fuentes, Trump’s infamous neo-Nazi dinner guest, also appears in the January 6 report, regarding his part in the insurrection. He is quoted: “Capitol siege was fucking awesome.” Recently, Fuentes reaffirmed his admiration for Hitler. Trump still refuses to disavow him.Trumpworld is a tangled web. Ultimately, though, the January 6 report is chillingly clear about the spider at its center.“The central cause of January 6 was one man, former President Donald Trump. None of the events of January 6 would have happened without him.”True.
      The Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol is available here.
      TopicsJanuary 6 hearingsUS Capitol attackUS politicsDonald TrumpTrump administrationUS CongressHouse of RepresentativesreviewsReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      From Liz Cheney to Donald Trump: winners and losers from the January 6 hearings

      by

      AnalysisFrom Liz Cheney to Donald Trump: winners and losers from the January 6 hearingsMartin PengellyAs the House January 6 committee is set to publish its report, here are some of the key standouts07:50The House January 6 committee is set to publish its report on the attack on the Capitol that shocked both America and the world . After a year of dramatic hearings and bombshell testimony, here are some of the key winners and losers to emerge from its work.Liz CheneyWho: Wyoming Republican congresswoman, with Adam Kinzinger of Illinois one of two GOP members of the committee.Winner or loser: Winner.Why: As vice-chair to Bennie Thompson, a Democrat who began his political career in Mississippi under Jim Crow, the Wyoming Republican and daughter of ex-vice-president and neocon’s neocon Dick Cheney helped bring genuine bipartisan spirit to the committee’s proceedings. Once the committee was in session, Cheney emerged as its star prosecutor. Witheringly focused, she rode losing her own seat in Congress to a Trump-backed challenger in August to keep her eyes on the prize: establishing Trump’s culpability for January 6 and stopping him ever returning to power.Jamie RaskinWho: Democratic Maryland congressman and professor of constitutional law who endured the attack on Congress shortly after losing his son.Winner or loser: Winner.Why: To vastly oversimplify (and not to discount the other committee members), if Cheney was the star prosecutor, Raskin was the best defense attorney the constitution, Congress and even the Capitol building could have, launching heartfelt appeals to the spirit of American democracy while making clear the enormity of the crime in hand. Never far from a reference to Abraham Lincoln or the founders, Raskin provided perhaps a softer public face than Cheney, but one no less determined.Cassidy HutchinsonWho: Former aide to Mark Meadows, Trump’s last chief of staff, and special assistant to the president.Winner or loser: Winner.01:42Why: In taped testimony and in person, Hutchinson described Trump’s approval of chants from Capitol rioters about hanging his vice-president, Mike Pence, and attempts by Republicans in Congress to have Trump issue pardons before leaving office. She added details of the behavior of Trump, Meadows, Rudy Giuliani and other key figures before January 6 and throughout that day. Among extraordinary scenes described by Hutchinson: Trump lunging for the wheel of his vehicle when told he could not go to the Capitol with his supporters; Trump throwing food at the White House walls; and Meadows refusing to do anything at all to rein in his boss.Mike PenceWho: Trump’s vice-president, who rejected the idea he could stop certification of election results.Winner or loser: Winner.Why: The panel seemed to make a political decision to portray Trump’s doggedly loyal vice-president as a hero, for not supporting the scheme to overturn Joe Biden’s win. Pence did seek counsel as to whether he could do what was asked but he did not do it and faced real danger at the Capitol as the mob shouted for him to be hanged and gallows went up outside. Since the hearings, Pence has continued to shape his likely challenge to Trump for the Republican nomination in 2024, conducting a fearsome balancing act: discussing his role in stopping Trump’s assault on democracy while evincing pride in what he says the Trump administration achieved before it.J Michael LuttigWho: Conservative judge who advised Pence he had no power to stop certification.Winner or loser: Winner.02:17Why: Luttig delivered devastating testimony with undoubted authority – and a chilling warning. “A stake was driven through the heart of American democracy on January 6, 2021,” he said, adding: “Almost two years after that fateful day … Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present danger.” That, he said, was “because to this very day the former president and his allies and supporters pledge that in the presidential election of 2024, if the former president or his anointed successor as the Republican party presidential candidate were to lose that election, they would attempt to overturn that 2024 election in the same way they attempted to overturn the 2020 election, but succeed in 2024 where they failed in 2020.”John EastmanWho: Conservative law professor who claimed certification could be stopped.Winner or loser: Loser More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump left ‘shockingly gracious’ letter to Biden on leaving office, book says

      by

      Trump left ‘shockingly gracious’ letter to Biden on leaving office, book saysThe Fight of His Life, by Chris Whipple, recounts Joe Biden’s first two years in the White House Donald Trump wrote a “shockingly gracious” letter to Joe Biden on leaving office, a new book says, amid the unprecedented disgrace of a second impeachment for inciting the deadly Capitol attack as part of his attempt to overturn Biden’s election victory and hold on to power.Donald Trump: how will prosecutors pursue the House panel’s charges?Read moreAccording to excerpts published by Politico on Tuesday, The Fight of His Life: Inside Joe Biden’s White House, by Chris Whipple, captures Biden saying of Trump’s note: “That was very gracious and generous … Shockingly gracious.”Presidents traditionally leave letters for their successors. George HW Bush’s note for Bill Clinton is generally held up as an ideal of civility between presidents from different parties.After Bush died, Clinton wrote in the Washington Post that the letter revealed “the heart of who he was … an honorable, gracious and decent man who believed in the United States, our constitution, our institutions and our shared future”.Trump refuses to admit Biden beat him fairly, faces extensive legal jeopardy for his election subversion attempts, and recently called for the constitution to be “terminated” so he could return to power.Biden has said Trump’s letter was “very generous” but he has not shared its contents. According to Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, authors of the book Peril, on discovering the note in the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office, Biden “put it in his pocket and did not share it with his advisers”.Whipple’s book will be published in January. He told Politico writing it was “tough, because … this is the most battened-down, disciplined, leak-proof White House in modern times”.But Whipple’s previous books include The Gatekeepers, about White House chiefs of staff, and access to the Biden White House included interviews with Ron Klain, the current holder of that post.Whipple told Politico: “I think Biden’s presidency is the most consequential of my lifetime. His legislative record is comparable to [Lyndon B Johnson’s] and he’s been underestimated every step of the way. But it’s also been a tale of two presidencies – the first year and the second year.“What makes this such a great story is that Joe Biden and his team really turned it all around, I think.”Regarding comments released as reports said Volodymyr Zelenskiy, the president of Ukraine, was on his way to Washington to speak, Politico said Whipple cited Biden’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as well as domestic successes as proof for his contention that the president had turned things around.Whipple interviewed White House staff on “deep background”, allowing quote approval, and conducted written interviews with Biden and Kamala Harris, the vice-president. According to Politico, Harris left some questions blank, while Whipple’s book reports her dissatisfaction with her role and dissent within her team. Biden, Whipple says, initially considered Harris “a work in progress” as vice-president, the office he held for eight years under Barack Obama.Whipple also writes that Biden “felt let down by his briefers” over the US exit from Afghanistan, which was widely held to be a disaster when it took place in late summer 2021. Politico quoted William Burns, the CIA director, Mark Milley, the chair of the joint chiefs of staff, and the secretary of state, Tony Blinken, debating the role of US intelligence assessments.Zelenskiy to meet congressional leaders in Washington on Wednesday – reportsRead moreA White House spokesperson said: “We respect that there will be no shortage of books written about the administration containing a wide variety of claims. We don’t plan to engage in confirmations or denials when it comes to the specifics of those claims. The author did not give us a chance to verify the materials that are attributed here.”Politico also reported a direct comment from Klain – to Whipple via text message. Many observers including reporters for Politico expected Biden to suffer a shellacking in the midterm elections last month. In the event Biden and his Democratic party did unexpectedly well, losing the House but only narrowly, holding the Senate and winning key state races.At 1.16am on Wednesday 9 November, the day after election day, Klain texted Whipple to say: “Maybe we don’t suck as much as people thought … Like maybe the nattering negatives who dumped to Politico were wrong!”TopicsBooksJoe BidenBiden administrationDonald TrumpTrump administrationUS politicsRepublicansnewsReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on the January 6 committee: Trump’s terrible, no-good year | Editorial

      by

      The Guardian view on the January 6 committee: Trump’s terrible, no-good yearEditorialThe referral of the former president to the justice department on four criminal charges is largely symbolic, but increases his woes In its closing months, 2022 is looking like an annus horribilis for Donald Trump – or to put it in the former president’s terms, a terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad year. The January 6 committee’s recommendation on Monday that criminal charges be brought against him over his attempt to subvert the 2020 election results and the deadly storming of the Capitol was unprecedented – the first time that Congress has referred a former president to the Department of Justice. Though largely symbolic, it has set down a marker. And it is the latest in a string of recent setbacks.His candidates triumphed in Republican primaries, but then tanked in the midterms. His announcement on his 2024 bid was lacklustre and bathetic. A New York jury found his business guilty of tax fraud. On Tuesday, a House committee was set to vote on whether to release six years of his tax returns to the public. And, of course, the list of civil actions and criminal investigations targeting him is growing.The congressional committee’s referral does not change the legal position, though some of the evidence it turned over to the justice department theoretically could. In its impact on public opinion, however, it may have an indirect effect on whether charges are brought. The evidence the committee amassed and its presentation of the facts are compelling. In televised hearings and presentations, in the executive summary published on Monday, and presumably in the full report to follow this week, it has shone an unflinching light on the brutality of that day and Mr Trump’s culpability.His own aides have testified that he was repeatedly told he had lost, and that they urged him to tell the crowd to be peaceful. Instead, he pressed Republican officials to overturn the results, then his vice-president to block Congress from approving Joe Biden’s victory. When those attempts failed, he summoned a crowd to Washington, urged it to the Capitol and for hours failed to call off supporters as they rampaged and hunted down elected politicians. Unlike Mr Trump himself, at least some participants have since admitted their responsibility. One described his involvement as “part of an attack on the rule of law”; another conceded that “I guess I was [acting] like a traitor”.The referral will, if anything, spur on Mr Trump’s fight for the Republican candidacy, further convincing him that power is the best form of protection. Charges, if laid, may reinforce rather than shift the minds of his diehard supporters. More than two-thirds of Republicans still believe that Mr Biden’s victory was illegitimate. Nonetheless, they are turning away from the former president in the polls. A large majority of Republican voters or independents who lean towards the party think someone else should be its candidate in 2024. Mr Trump wanted to clear the field, to run unchallenged. But those who trade on a strongman image cannot afford to look weak. Support for Ron DeSantis, the Florida governor, has surged. Mr Trump’s media cheerleaders, every bit as cynical as the ex-president, have turned on him. Ivanka Trump wants nothing to do with her father’s 2024 bid.It would be immensely foolish to write off the 45th president. For years he has defied the laws of political gravity, surviving scandals and offences that individually would have sunk any other candidate or office-holder. The Republican elite remain notably silent or mealy-mouthed about him. Even if he cannot recover, others are already using his playbook. Yet the prospect that he will rebound, or another like him take his place, is all the more reason to establish the full record of his actions – whether or not they ultimately lead to legal consequences.TopicsDonald TrumpOpinionJanuary 6 hearingsUS Capitol attackRon DeSantisJoe BidenUS elections 2024US justice systemeditorialsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      10 hearings, 1,000 interviews, millions of documents: the House panel has spoken

      by

      Analysis10 hearings, 1,000 interviews, millions of documents: the House panel has spokenDavid Smith in WashingtonThe evidence points to the fact that the former commander-in-chief is likely a criminal who committed a ‘crime against democracy’ Whodunnit? He did it.Donald Trump – businessman, celebrity president, golfer and digital trading card star – is also a likely criminal, the congressional panel investigating the January 6 attack on the US Capitol concluded on Monday.A very American coup attempt: Jan 6 panel lays bare Trump’s bid for powerRead moreThe committee’s referral of Trump to the justice department on multiple potential charges could not be described as a surprise after a year and half of work that spanned 10 public hearings, more than a thousand interviews, millions of documents and some recent leaks to the media.Yet take a step back and consider how it will look to future historians. A former president of the United States stands accused by Congress of obstructing an official proceeding, conspiring to defraud the United States, conspiring to make a false statement and inciting, assisting or aiding or comforting an insurrection.“We understand the gravity of each and every referral we are making today just as we understand the magnitude of the crime against democracy that we describe in our report,” said congressman Jamie Raskin with flinty authority, as if pronouncing a verdict in a hushed courtroom. “But we have gone where the facts and the law lead us, and inescapably they lead us here.”The committee’s work has often earned comparisons to a television thriller or true crime podcast with help from producer James Goldston, the former president of ABC News. On Monday, at a meeting that lasted about 70 minutes, it served up its denouement and did not disappoint. Along with the style, there was serious substance.Just as before, congressional aides, journalists and members of the public gathered in a caucus room measuring 74ft long by 54ft feet wide with six windows, two crystal chandeliers hanging from a double-height ceiling decorated with classical motifs. It once was the site of some of the most publicised hearings of the House Un-American Activities Committee in the 1950s.It was also recently renamed the Speaker Nancy Pelosi caucus room – exquisitely fitting since it was the House speaker, not Trump, who acted in a presidential manner on January 6, seeking to rally security forces and keep democracy running even as the actual president tried to burn it all down.Bennie Thompson, the bald, bespectacled, white-bearded chairman, hammered the now familiar gavel for the last time. He spoke of a country that remains “in strange and uncharted waters” and warned that, if America is to survive as a nation of laws and democracy, “this can never happen again”.He handed over to vice-chairwoman Liz Cheney, who unexpectedly emerged as many liberals’ favorite conservative during the hearings, given her unyielding denunciations of Trump and his allies. She paid the ultimate price by losing her congressional seat to a pro-Trump Republican in Wyoming.On Monday, she did little to quell suspicions that she has a presidential run in her future by speaking of her great-great grandfather’s service during the civil war and quoting Ronald Reagan. As for Trump’s conduct around January 6, Cheney was scathing: “No man who would behave that way at that moment in time can ever serve in any position of authority in our nation again. He is unfit for any office.”The panel of seven Democrats and five Republicans served up a helpful montage of video clips that functioned as a reminder of both Trump’s malfeasance and its own excellent work over the past 18 months. It began with scenes of chaos outside the Capitol and testimony from Capitol police officer Caroline Edwards: “There were officers on the ground; they were bleeding. They were throwing up … I saw friends with blood all over their faces. I was slipping in people’s blood.”It also gave a summing up of points so pithy that they could be written on the back of a digital trading card: Trump knew he lost; Trump pressured state officials to overturn the election; Trump pressured vice-president Pence to overturn the election (once again chants of “Hang Mike Pence!” filled the room); Trump summoned the mob; 187 minutes. Dereliction of duty.The film ended with Trump’s pathetic statement to a camera on 7 January: “I don’t want to say the election’s over.”Individual members of the committee then took turns to present a different facet of the evidence. Congressman Adam Schiff, another emerging star, showed a striking image of real electoral certificates juxtaposed with the fake ones that Trump and his allies hoped to deploy instead. He described the treatment of Georgia election worker Ruby Freeman and others as “callous, inhuman, inexcusable and dangerous – and those responsible should be held accountable”.There was also some new evidence, including a recent interview with longtime Trump aide Hope Hicks.She testified that both she and Eric Herschmann, a former White House lawyer, had urged Trump to tell his supporters to be peaceful before the Capitol riot but “he refused”.Describing a conversation she had with Trump, she said he told her that no one would care about his legacy if he lost the election. Hicks told the committee that Trump told her: “The only thing that matters is winning.”Appropriately, it fell to Raskin to “bring it home”. The Maryland congressman had emerged as a clarion voice of moral clarity as he led a second senate impeachment trial of Trump. He continued to show a penetrating intelligence and an ardent faith in the constitution during the committee hearings.When he spoke forcefully on Monday, outlining the referrals of Trump to the justice department on criminal charges, the atmosphere in the room shifted to a more sombre one. The referrals are mostly symbolic with the department ultimately deciding whether to prosecute Trump or others.House January 6 panel found Trump lawyers tried to influence witnessesRead moreBut they provide another wake-up call for the Republican party. Since the last January 6 hearing, Trump has announced that he is running for the White House again while his handpicked election-denying candidates have been routed in the midterm elections. The ghosts of elections past, present and future are converging. There has seldom been a better opportunity for Republicans to disown him.The committee, which will dissolve on 3 January with the new Republican-controlled House, voted to approve its final report, expected later this week. Thompson brought down the gavel and people in the public gallery broke into polite but heartfelt applause. After a year and a half wading through obstruction, hype and scepticism, the chairman and his team delivered the goods.TopicsUS politicsJanuary 6 hearingsDonald TrumpTrump administrationanalysisReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Five key conclusions from the January 6 panel’s final session

      by

      ExplainerFive key conclusions from the January 6 panel’s final sessionThe House committee has issued the first sections of its report and recommended criminal referrals for Trump The House January 6 committee has staged its final public hearing and issued the first sections of its report. According to its chairman, Bennie Thompson, it will both release “the bulk of its non-sensitive records” before the end of the year and transmit criminal referrals, for Donald Trump and others, to the Department of Justice by the end of business on Monday.From Liz Cheney to Donald Trump: winners and losers from the January 6 hearingsRead moreHere are some key conclusions after the final session on Capitol Hill.Trump is in troubleThe committee has decided to make four criminal referrals of Trump, his associate John Eastman and others to the justice department.In the hearing, the Maryland Democrat Jamie Raskin introduced referrals for obstruction of an official proceeding; conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to make a false statement; and inciting, assisting or aiding and comforting an insurrection.The referrals received unanimous support and may not be the last. Raskin said: “Depending on evidence developed by the Department of Justice, the president’s actions could certainly trigger other criminal violations.”The report discusses other conspiracy statutes, including seditious conspiracy, which it says could be considered. It also says the committee has “substantial concerns regarding potential efforts to obstruct its investigation”, and “urges the Department of Justice to examine the facts to discern whether prosecution is warranted”.Noting the need for accountability, the report points to recent developments including Trump’s stated desire to “terminate” the US constitution and says: “If President Trump and the associates who assisted him in an effort to overturn the lawful outcome of the 2020 election are not ultimately held accountable under the law, their behavior may become a precedent and invitation to danger for future elections.”The justice department is already investigating, under a special counsel, the notably aggressive prosecutor Jack Smith, who was appointed last month.In messages seen by the Guardian on Monday, former Trump officials acknowledged the strength of the case against Trump. A former administration official said the committee had made “a very solid recommendation” while a former White House official said: “The facts are compelling. These charges are coming.”Trump’s aim was clearly to stop BidenIn its final hearing and its report, the committee seeks to rebut Republican claims it has overstated its case. It makes clear the Capitol attack was not an isolated and chaotic event but the culmination of a concerted attempt, fueled and guided by Trump, to stop Joe Biden becoming the 46th president.As the section on the recommended referral for conspiracy to defraud the United States puts it, “the very purpose of the plan was to prevent the lawful certification of Joe Biden’s election”.House Republicans are breathing easierThe report considers the activities of House Republicans prominently including Jim Jordan of Ohio and Scott Perry of Pennsylvania. Of such figures’ refusal to cooperate with subpoenas, it says: “The rules of the House of Representatives make clear that their willful noncompliance violates multiple standards of conduct and subjects them to discipline.” Therefore, the committee “is referring their failure to comply with the subpoenas … to the ethics committee for further action”.Raskin said the committee was seeking “appropriate sanction by the House ethics committee for failure to comply with lawful subpoenas”.But Republicans will take the House in January. Jordan, who the report labels “a significant player in President Trump’s efforts”, is on course to chair the judiciary committee. Unlike other panels the ethics committee is split equally but it will be led by a Republican. In all likelihood, Jordan, Perry and others are sitting pretty for now.Ivanka Trump and others were less than forthcomingThe report names Trump’s daughter as a witness “from the Trump White House [who] displayed a lack of full recollection of certain issues, or [was] not otherwise as frank or direct” as other, less senior aides.Describing an exchange between Donald Trump and Mike Pence on January 6, Ivanka Trump’s chief of staff said Trump called his vice-president a “pussy” for not going along with election subversion.The report says: “When the committee asked Ivanka Trump whether there were ‘[a]ny particular words that you recall your father using during the conversation’ … she answered simply: ‘No.’”Other aides are singled out. Mark Meadows, Trump’s chief of staff, refused to testify but did produce a book in which he claimed Trump was “speaking metaphorically” when he told supporters he would march to the Capitol.The committee says: “This appeared to be an intentional effort to conceal the facts. Multiple witnesses directly contradicted Meadows’ account … This and several other statements in the Meadows book were false, and the select committee was concerned multiple witnesses might attempt to repeat elements of these false accounts.”“A few did,” it says. One was Anthony Ornato, a deputy chief of staff who said Trump’s desire to march on Congress “was one of those hypotheticals from the good idea fairy” and who denied Trump was “irate” when told, by Ornato in the presidential SUV, he couldn’t go to the Capitol.The report says other witnesses cited Ornato as their source for accounts of how Trump “was ‘irate’, ‘heated’, ‘angry’ and ‘insistent’. But Ornato professed that he … had no knowledge at all about the president’s anger.”The committee says it has “significant concerns about the credibility” of Ornato’s testimony, including his claim not to have known of information which suggested violence at the Capitol was possible. As Thompson indicated, Ornato’s interview will be among materials released.Trump paid lawyers and pressured witnessesIn findings detailed by the California Democrat Zoe Lofgren, the committee says it uncovered “efforts to obstruct” its investigation including a lawyer “receiving payments … from a group allied with” Trump advising a witness she “could, in certain circumstances, tell the committee she did not recall facts when she actually did recall them”.The lawyer is also said to have “instructed the client about a particular issue that would cast a bad light on President Trump, [saying]: ‘No, no, no, no, no. We don’t want to go there. We don’t want to talk about that.’”When the client asked who was paying the lawyer, the report says, the lawyer said: “We’re not telling people where funding is coming from right now.”01:42The client was also reportedly “offered potential employment that would make her ‘financially very comfortable’ … by entities apparently linked to Donald Trump and his associates. Such offers were withdrawn or did not materialise as reports of the content of her testimony circulated. The client believed this was an effort to affect her testimony.”The client appears to be Cassidy Hutchinson, the former Trump and Meadows aide whose testimony lit up a public hearing in June.The panel also says Secret Service agents chose to be represented by private counsel rather than agency lawyers who would have worked free of charge. Such behavior raised concerns that lawyers “receiving such payments have specific incentives to defend President Trump rather than zealously represent their own clients”.The report adds that the US Department of Justice and the Fulton county district attorney, investigating election subversion in Georgia, “have been provided with certain information related to this topic”.TopicsJanuary 6 hearingsUS Capitol attackUS politicsUS CongressHouse of RepresentativesRepublicansDemocratsexplainersReuse this content More