US Capitol attack

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Judges weigh social media posts in criminal sentences for US Capitol attack

      by

      Judges weigh social media posts in criminal sentences for US Capitol attackMuch of the evidence has come from rioters’ own words and videos, as many used social media to celebrate the violence For many insurrectionists who stormed the US Capitol on 6 January, self-incriminating messages, photos and videos that they broadcast on social media before, during and after the attack are influencing their criminal sentences.Earlier this month, US district judge Amy Jackson read aloud some of Russell Peterson’s posts before she sentenced the Pennsylvania man to 30 days imprisonment.“Overall I had fun lol,” Peterson had posted on Facebook, using the social media abbreviation for “laugh out loud”.The judge told Peterson that his posts made it “extraordinarily difficult” for her to show him leniency.“The ‘lol’ particularly stuck in my craw because, as I hope you’ve come to understand, nothing about January 6th was funny,” Jackson added. “No one locked in a room, cowering under a table for hours, was laughing.”Among the biggest takeaways so far from the justice department’s prosecution of the insurrection is how large a role social media has played, with much of the most damning evidence coming from rioters’ own words and videos, in addition to evidence of entering the Capitol, destroying property or hurting people.Extremist supporters of Donald Trump broke into the Capitol following days of build-up among the rightwing and after a rally in Washington, DC, where the then president urged the crowd to try to stop the official certification by Congress of Democrat Joe Biden’s victory in the November 2020 presidential election.FBI agents have identified scores of rioters from public posts and records subpoenaed from social media platforms. Prosecutors used posts to build cases and judges are now weighing them in favor of tougher sentences.As of last Friday, more than 50 people have been sentenced for federal crimes related to the insurrection.In at least 28 of those cases, prosecutors factored a defendant’s social media posts into their requests for stricter sentences, according to an Associated Press review of court records.Many insurrectionists used social media to celebrate the violence or spew hateful rhetoric. Others used it to spread misinformation, promote baseless conspiracy theories or play down their actions.Prosecutors also have accused a few defendants of trying to destroy evidence by deleting posts.Approximately 700 people have been charged with federal crimes related to the riot. About 150 of them have pleaded guilty.More than 20 defendants have been sentenced to jail or prison terms or to time already served behind bars. Over a dozen others received home confinement sentences.Prosecutors recommended probation for Indiana hair salon owner Dona Sue Bissey, but the judge in the case, Tanya Chutkan, sentenced her to two weeks in jail for her participation in the riot.The judge noted that Bissey posted a screenshot of a Twitter post that read: “This is the First time the U.S. Capitol had been breached since it was attacked by the British in 1814.”Chutkan said: “When Ms. Bissey got home, she was not struck with remorse or regret for what she had done. She’s celebrating and bragging about her participation in what amounted to an attempted overthrow of the government.”‘A roadmap for a coup’: inside Trump’s plot to steal the presidencyRead moreFBI agents obtained a search warrant for Andrew Ryan Bennett’s Facebook account after getting a tip that the Maryland man live-streamed video from inside the Capitol.Two days before the riot, Bennett posted a Facebook message that said: “You better be ready chaos is coming and I will be in DC on 1/6/2021 fighting for my freedom!”Judge James Boasberg singled out that post as an “aggravating” factor weighing in favor of house arrest instead of a fully probationary sentence.“The cornerstone of our democratic republic is the peaceful transfer of power after elections,” the judge told Bennett. “What you and others did on January 6th was nothing less than an attempt to undermine that system of government.”Meanwhile, videos captured New Jersey gym owner Scott Fairlamb punching a police officer outside the Capitol. His Facebook and Instagram posts showed he was prepared to commit violence there and had no remorse for his actions, prosecutors said.Senior Judge Royce Lamberth said other rioters in Fairlamb’s position would be “well advised” to join him in pleading guilty.“You couldn’t have beat this if you went to trial on the evidence that I saw,” Lamberth said before sentencing Fairlamb to 41 months in prison.The role of social media has drawn criticism of the tech companies behind the relevant platforms. Facebook was shown to have ignored warning signs in the build-up to the attack.TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsUS crimeLaw (US)Social medianewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Capitol attack panel set to recommend contempt charges against Mark Meadows

      by

      Capitol attack panel set to recommend contempt charges against Mark MeadowsMove comes as lawmakers release new details about thousands of emails and texts he has handed over to the committee The House panel investigating the 6 January insurrection at the US Capitol is set to recommend contempt charges against former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows on Monday as lawmakers are releasing new details about thousands of emails and texts he has handed over to the committee.In laying out the case for the contempt vote, the nine-member panel released a 51-page report late on Sunday that details its questions about the documents he has already provided – including 6,600 pages of records taken from personal email accounts and about 2,000 text messages.The panel did not release the documents but described some of them. The report gives details about Meadows’s efforts to help Donald Trump overturn his defeat in the presidential election, communications with members of Congress and organizers of a rally held the morning of the insurrection and frantic messages among aides and others as the violent attack unfolded that day.The panel says it also wants to know more about whether Trump was engaged in discussions regarding the response of the National Guard, which was delayed for hours as the violence escalated and the rioters brutally beat police guarding the Capitol building.The report says that the documents provided by Meadows show that he sent an email to an unidentified person saying that the guard would be present to “protect pro-Trump people” and that more would be available on standby. The committee does not give any additional details about the email.The committee says in the report that Trump’s former top White House aide “is uniquely situated to provide key information, having straddled an official role in the White House and unofficial role related to Mr. Trump’s reelection campaign.”The contempt vote comes after more than two months of negotiations with Meadows and his lawyer and as the panel has also struggled to obtain information from some of Trump’s other top aides, such as his longtime ally Steve Bannon.The House voted to recommend charges against Bannon in October, and the Department of Justice indicted him on two counts of contempt last month.The panel is aiming to develop the most comprehensive record yet of the violent attack, in which hundreds of Trump’s supporters violently pushed past the law enforcement officers, broke into the Capitol and interrupted the certification of Biden’s victory.Meadows’s testimony could be key, as he was Trump’s top aide at the time and was with him in the White House as the rioters breached the building.The committee’s chairman, Democratic representative Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, scheduled the vote last week after Meadows failed to show up at his deposition.TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      America witnessed a coup attempt. Now it’s sleep-walking into another disaster | Rebecca Solnit

      by

      America witnessed a coup attempt. Now it’s sleep-walking into another disasterRebecca SolnitWhat happened on 6 January was an attempt to overturn the election results and the rule of law. The threat is far from over Even as the mob ran screaming and smashing through the capitol on 6 January , it was clear this was a coup attempt. It was equally clear that it had been instigated by the then president and his circle, much of whose audience in the “stop the steal” rally would become that mob. Everything since has been fill-in, important in building the legal case against the leaders of this attempted coup and establishing the facts for history and public knowledge – and, one hopes, for efforts to prevent another such attempt.That the goal was a coup is a solemnly horrifying fact. That those who orchestrated it and those who have excused and dismissed it afterward continue to conspire against the rule of law and the right of the people to choose their leaders is another such fact. Documents such as the Powerpoint presentation turned over to the 6 January commission by Trump’s then chief of staff Mark Meadows confirm the details and build our understanding of the threat. On the basis of sometimes ridiculous pretexts, the circle around Trump intended to steal the election and seize power. Many, including Utah senator Mike Lee and South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham, reportedly knew the agenda.Had they succeeded in grabbing power with such an openly lawless act, they could have kept it only by suspending the rule of law. This is what a dictatorship is, and this is what they wanted: a government in which laws are nothing and the ruling junta or thug is everything. What the American people and foreign nations would have done in response might have overturned it further down the road, had it not failed that day, but the whole business is still terrifying, and the threat is not over.It was clear the military leadership was already alarmed: on 3 January , all 10 living secretaries of defense coauthored an editorial declaring, “Efforts to involve the US armed forces in resolving election disputes would take us into dangerous, unlawful and unconstitutional territory.”That few Republicans would defend the US constitution, the voice of the voters and the orderly transition of power was also obvious. At 1.09pm that day, the Capitol police chief said he wanted to declare an emergency and call in the National Guard. At 1.11pm, Trump ended his speech with the words “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore…” At 1.12pm, two of America’s slimiest elected officials, Congressman Paul Gosar and Senator Ted Cruz, were objecting to certifying Arizona’s electoral votes. Gosar, according to two participants in the riot, seemed to know what was coming and had promised “blanket pardons”. The evacuation of the House and Senate would begin an hour later. At 2.24, Trump tweeted, “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution…”Two conservative Republicans, Vice-President Mike Pence and Congresswoman Liz Cheney, have been among the few to refuse to participate in the coup, the big lie and the surrounding corruption, and have paid for it. That terrible day, House minority leader Kevin McCarthy reportedly called Trump to rage and curse at him and demand he call the mob off, but he would then fall in line and fudge the reality and significance of what happened. That day, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell noted that to overturn the election results would send democracy into a “death spiral”. Afterward he was furious and shaken, but he too squirmed his way back into alignment with the big lie. By May he was trying to block the formation of the 6 January committee to investigate what had happened.The crisis isn’t just that we had a coup attempt almost a year ago, but that the Republican party has itself become so venal, so corrupt, so ruthless in its quest for power, that it seems assured that we will see further attempts to overrule any election outcomes they don’t like. Already the kind of election laws they’ve pushed across the country seem aimed at such goals, and voter suppression has long been one of their anti-democratic tactics (it played a substantial role in Trump’s 2016 win, and the genuine illegitimacies of that election – foreign interference, anomalies the recount might have uncovered had the Republicans not stopped it – were appropriated as false claims for 2020).The Republicans made a devil’s bargain decades ago, when they decided that they would not change course to win the votes of an increasingly nonwhite, increasingly progressive people, but would try to suppress those who would vote against them. That is, they pitted themselves against democracy as participatory government and free and fair elections. The rhetoric of the far right makes it clear they are fearful and know their power will ebb if they cannot command and subvert the laws and elections of this nation, and they are aiming at some form of minority rule.That’s perfectly clear from their attack on the constitutional process unfolding that afternoon of 6 January, which was itself a refusal to accept a loss. The refusal to recognize the authority of Congress by Trump associates, including Steve Bannon and Mark Meadows, is a further sign of their belief, emboldened by Trump’s four years of criming in public, that they make their own rules. Both have been found in contempt of Congress.The crisis isn’t just that we had a coup attempt and have a political party that has gone rogue, but that much of the rest of the nation seems to be normalizing or forgetting or sleepwalking through the crisis. The warnings are getting more urgent.“They’ve decided to burn it all down with us inside,” said NBC anchor Brian Williams on Thursday, in his parting words before leaving the network. Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii stated Sunday: “The road to autocracy is paved with overly chill responses from people who would see this all with great clarity if only it were happening in a faraway place.” Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy declared, “This is nation-ending stuff we’re dealing with here and folks better wake up soon. I’ll do my part. Think about what yours is.”
      Rebecca Solnit is a Guardian US columnist. Her most recent books are Recollections of My Nonexistence and Orwell’s Roses
      TopicsUS Capitol attackOpinionUS politicsRepublicansDonald TrumpcommentReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Capitol attack panel obtains PowerPoint that set out plan for Trump to stage coup

      by

      Capitol attack panel obtains PowerPoint that set out plan for Trump to stage coupPresentation turned over by Mark Meadows made several recommendations for Trump to pursue to retain presidency Former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows turned over to the House select committee investigating the 6 January Capitol attack a PowerPoint recommending Donald Trump to declare a national security emergency in order to return himself to the presidency.Capitol attack committee issues new subpoenas to two ex-Trump aidesRead moreThe fact that Meadows was in possession of a PowerPoint the day before the Capitol attack that detailed ways to stage a coup suggests he was at least aware of efforts by Trump and his allies to stop Joe Biden’s certification from taking place on 6 January.The PowerPoint, titled “Election Fraud, Foreign Interference & Options for 6 Jan”, made several recommendations for Trump to pursue in order to retain the presidency for a second term on the basis of lies and debunked conspiracies about widespread election fraud.Meadows turned over a version of the PowerPoint presentation that he received in an email and spanned 38 pages, according to a source familiar with the matter.The Guardian reviewed a second, 36-page version of the PowerPoint marked for dissemination with 5 January metadata, which had some differences with what the select committee received. But the title of the PowerPoint and its recommendations remained the same, the source said.Senators and members of Congress should first be briefed about foreign interference, the PowerPoint said, at which point Trump could declare a national emergency, declare all electronic voting invalid, and ask Congress to agree on a constitutionally acceptable remedy.The PowerPoint also outlined three options for then vice-president Mike Pence to abuse his largely ceremonial role at the joint session of Congress on 6 January, when Biden was to be certified president, and unilaterally return Trump to the White House.Pence could pursue one of three options, the PowerPoint said: seat Trump slates of electors over the objections of Democrats in key states, reject the Biden slates of electors, or delay the certification to allow for a “vetting” and counting of only “legal paper ballots”.The final option for Pence is similar to an option that was simultaneously being advanced on 4 and 5 January by Trump lieutenants – led by lawyers Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman, as well as Trump strategist Steve Bannon – working from the Willard hotel in Washington DC.The Guardian revealed last week that sometime between the late evening of 5 January and the early hours of 6 January, after Pence declined to go ahead with such plans, Trump then pressed his lieutenants about how to stop Biden’s certification from taking place entirely.The recommendations in the PowerPoint for both Trump and Pence were based on wild and unsubstantiated claims of election fraud, including that “the Chinese systematically gained control over our election system” in eight key battleground states.The then acting attorney general, Jeff Rosen, and his predecessor, Bill Barr, who had both been appointed by Trump, by 5 January had already determined that there was no evidence of voter fraud sufficient to change the outcome of the 2020 election.House investigators said that they became aware of the PowerPoint after it surfaced in more than 6,000 documents Meadows turned over to the select committee. The PowerPoint was to be presented “on the Hill”, a reference to Congress, the panel said.The powerpoint was presented on 4 January to a number of Republican senators and members of Congress, the source said. Trump’s lawyers working at the Willard hotel were not shown the presentation, according to a source familiar with the matter.But the select committee said they did find in the materials turned over by Meadows, his text messages with a member of Congress, who told Meadows about a “highly controversial” plan to send slates of electors for Trump to the joint session of Congress.Meadows replied: “I love it.”Trump’s former White House chief of staff had turned over the materials to the select committee until the cooperation deal broke down on Tuesday, when Meadows’ attorney, Terwilliger, abruptly told House investigators that Meadows would no longer help the investigation.The select committee announced on Wednesday that in response, it would refer Meadows for criminal prosecution for defying a subpoena. The chairman of the select committee, Bennie Thompson, said the vote to hold Meadows in contempt of Congress would come next week.“The select committee will meet next week to advance a report recommending that the House cite Mr Meadows for contempt of Congress and refer him to the Department of Justice for prosecution,” Thompson said in a statement.TopicsUS Capitol attackDonald TrumpUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Capitol attack committee issues new subpoenas to two ex-Trump aides

      by

      Capitol attack committee issues new subpoenas to two ex-Trump aidesSubpoenas for Brian Jack and Max Miller raise pressure on Trump as panel investigates extent of former president’s involvement The House select committee investigating the Capitol attack on Friday issued new subpoenas against two Trump White House officials involved in organizing the rally and march that descended into the 6 January insurrection, as they inquire into the extent of Donald Trump’s involvement.Court rules Trump cannot block release of documents to Capitol attack panelRead moreThe select committee issued orders compelling documents and testimony to Brian Jack, Trump’s former White House director of political affairs, now working for the House minority leader Kevin McCarthy, and Max Miller, a former deputy manager for the Trump campaign.Bennie Thompson, the chairman of the select committee, said in the subpoena letter for Miller that the panel targeted him as he attended a 4 January meeting with Trump in a private White House dining room about who should speak at the rally on the morning of 6 January.Miller also communicated with the then deputy secretary of the interior and the then-acting director of the National Park Service to strong-arm career officials, who had declined to allow the rally from taking place on the Ellipse, to reverse course, Thompson said.Thompson said the panel was pursuing Jack because he contacted a number of Republican members of Congress, including Mo Brooks, on behalf of Trump to ask them to speak at the rally in support of the former president and endorse lies about election fraud.“Rep Mo Brooks accepted President Trump’s invitation,” Thompson said in Jack’s subpoena letter. “Brooks later told a reporter he was wearing body armor during his speech because he was warned on Monday [January 3rd] there might be risks associated with the next few days.”The new subpoenas suggest the investigation is edging closer to establishing the role played by Trump in the planning process of the rally on the Ellipse in the days before the morning of 6 January, when he addressed supporters who would later storm the Capitol.The select committee was already certain of at least some coordination between the Trump White House and the organizers of the rally, as the US Secret Service would have needed to sign off on how Trump would appear at the rally, according to a source familiar with the matter.But the new subpoenas are certain to ramp up the pressure on Trump as the select committee expands their dragnet to include even more of his former aides, but also for McCarthy, who now has one of his own staffers under investigation in an inquiry he cannot control.The select committee has so far held off issuing subpoenas to Republican members of Congress and their staff, but the subpoena to Jack raises the specter of him having to testify under oath about what he might have learned about McCarthy’s conduct on 5 and 6 January.McCarthy is expected to be of interest to House investigators scrutinizing what Trump was saying and doing as his supporters attacked the Capitol in order to stop Joe Biden’s certification, as he spoke directly to the former president as the riot unfolded.The House minority leader made a frantic phone call to Trump begging him to call off the rioters as they breached the Capitol, but Trump declined, scolding him that they cared more about overturning the 2020 election than Republicans in Congress.McCarthy, in his desperation, also spoke with senior White House adviser and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner to try and stop the attack after his pleas to Trump went unheeded, a former administration source said.The subpoena to Miller, meanwhile, may adversely affect his Trump-endorsed campaign to represent Ohio’s 13th congressional district, which leans Democratic and is expected to be a swing seat in the 2022 midterm elections.The select committee on Friday also issued four additional subpoenas to pro-Trump individuals connected to the rally: Kimberly Fletcher, the president of Moms for Trump, a rally participant, Brian Lewis, Ed Martin, and Bobby Peede.The total of six subpoenas issued by House investigators comes a day after the select committee held a marathon day of depositions with previously subpoenaed Trump officials, and won a major victory in court that paves the way for them to obtain Trump White House records.House investigators on Thursday deposed Trump lawyer John Eastman, who the Guardian reported led a team of operatives at the Willard hotel to stop Biden’s certification, former defense department aide Kash Patel, former US cyber chief Christopher Krebs, and Ali Alexander.The select committee also prevailed in a US federal appellate court decision handed down on Thursday that upheld that the panel should get Trump White House records from the National Archives over the objections of executive privilege advanced by the former president.”TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Court rules Trump cannot block release of documents to Capitol attack panel

      by

      Court rules Trump cannot block release of documents to Capitol attack panelThe former president is expected to appeal the ruling to the supreme court An appeals court has ruled against former US president Donald Trump’s effort to shield documents from the House committee that is investigating the 6 January attack on Capitol in Washington DC earlier this year.Trump is expected to appeal to the supreme court.More details to comeTopicsDonald TrumpUS Capitol attackUS politicsLaw (US)news More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Publix heiress faces criticism for helping finance 6 January rally

      by

      Publix heiress faces criticism for helping finance 6 January rallyJulie Fancelli, the largest publicly known donor of the rally, gave $650,000 to three organizations that helped stage and promote it A low-profile American heiress living in Italy has come under fire for donating $650,000 to three organizations that helped stage and promote the political rally on 6 January that was followed by the insurrection at the US Capitol by extremist supporters of Donald Trump. Julie Fancelli, 72, who is the daughter of the founder of the Florida-based Publix supermarket chain, is facing criticism after new investigations revealed that she is the largest publicly known donor of the 6 January rally, the Washington Post reported.Congressman Jamie Raskin: ‘I’ll never forget the terrible sound of them trying to barrel into the chamber’Read moreAt the rally held near the White House, Donald Trump urged supporters to go to the Capitol in an attempt to stop the 2020 presidential election victory by his Democratic rival Joe Biden from being officially certified by Congress.Rioters then broke into the Capitol, although after hours of chaos and danger during which lawmakers and staff hid in fear of their lives, the election result was certified in the early hours the following day.Worried relatives and those close to Fancelli say that her support of far-right groups could be prompted by Fancelli’s interest in conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.On 29 December, eight days before the rally, Fancelli wired $300,000 to Women for America First, a non-profit that helped organize the 6 January rally, and $150,000 to the Republican Attorneys General Association’s non-profit arm, which covered robocalls promoting the march to “call on Congress to stop the steal”, reported the Washington Post last December, referring to Trump’s campaign to overturn the election result.Fancelli also gave $200,000 to State Tea Party Express, a rightwing group, according to Sal Russo, a top consultant for the group. Russo told the Post that records of Fancelli’s donation have been provided to the House committee investigating the insurrection and that the money was used to pay for ads on the radio and social media, encouraging supporters of Donald Trump to participate in the rally. Russo said to the Post that he does not support the violence that happened at the Capitol.Information on how expenses such as travel and hotel stays were covered for the thousands of Trump supporters who attended the rally and march on the Capitol is still being investigated, but details, including Fancelli’s substantial , financial support, continue to emerge.Democratic representative Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the chair of the House committee investigating the events that led to the 6 January insurrection, told the Post that he believes Fancelli “played a strong role” in financially backing the rally. “We’re trying to follow the money,” said Thompson.While Fancelli has not responded to requests for comment from the Post since August, she has addressed her involvement in the 6 January rally.“I am a proud conservative and have real concerns associated with election integrity, yet I would never support any violence, particularly the tragic and horrific events that unfolded on January 6,” said Fancelli via a statement released 10 months ago.Previously, after an initial report about the $300,000 Fancelli donated before the rally, Publix Super Markets released a statement via social media, saying that Publix would not comment on Fancelli’s actions as she was not an employee of Publix or involved in the business. Following an inquiry from the Post last week about Fancelli’s total contributions, Publix said that the company “cannot control the actions of individual stockholders” and issued a rebuke of her actions.“We are deeply troubled by Ms Fancelli’s involvement in the events that led to the tragic attack on the Capitol on January 6,” said Publix in a statement to the Post.Fancelli had planned to attend the rally herself, even booking a room at the upscale Willard hotel, but decided not to travel due to the pandemic, according to a Republican who was familiar with her donation, the Post reported.TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Capitol attack panel says ‘no choice’ but to advance contempt charges for Mark Meadows

      by

      Capitol attack panel says ‘no choice’ but to advance contempt charges for Mark Meadows News comes one day after Trump’s former chief of staff indicated he would no longer cooperate with investigators The leaders of the House committee investigating the 6 January Capitol attack have said they have “no choice” but to hold former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows in contempt of Congress after his lawyer said Tuesday that his client will cease cooperating with the panel.Mark Meadows stops cooperating with Capitol attack investigation Read moreThe Democratic chair of the committee, Mississippi congressman Bennie Thompson, released a letter to Meadows’s attorney, George Terwilliger, notifying him of the panel’s plans.“The select committee is left with no choice but to advance contempt proceedings and recommend that the body in which Mr Meadows once served refer him for criminal prosecution,” Thompson said.The news comes one day after Meadows indicated he would no longer cooperate with investigators, claiming the committee is disrespecting former president Donald Trump’s claims of executive privilege over certain records.In an abrupt reversal, Meadows attorney George Terwilliger said in a letter that a deposition would be “untenable” because the 6 January panel “has no intention of respecting boundaries” concerning questions that Trump has claimed are off-limits.Terwilliger also said he learned over the weekend that the committee had issued a subpoena to a third-party communications provider that he said would include “intensely personal” information.“As a result of careful and deliberate consideration of these factors, we now must decline the opportunity to appear voluntarily for a deposition,” Terwilliger wrote in the letter.Meadows’s decision not to cooperate is a blow to the committee, as lawmakers were hoping to interview Trump’s top White House aide about Trump’s actions before and during the violent attack of his supporters. They had also hoped to use Meadows as an example to other witnesses who may be considering not cooperating as Trump has filed legal challenges to block the panel’s work.Lawmakers on the committee have blasted Meadows’s reluctance to testify while he is also releasing a book this week that details his work inside the White House. Thompson and Liz Cheney, the Republican vice-chair of the committee, said they also have questions about documents Meadows has already turned over to the panel.“Even as we litigate privilege issues, the select committee has numerous questions for Mr Meadows about records he has turned over to the committee with no claim of privilege, which include real-time communications with many individuals as the events of January 6th unfolded,” they said in a statement released yesterday.Thompson and Cheney said the panel also wants to speak to Meadows about “voluminous official records stored in his personal phone and email accounts” that could be turned over to the committee by the National Archives in the coming weeks. Trump has sued to stop the release of those records, and the case is pending in the US court of appeals.The two committee leaders did not comment on Terwilliger’s claim about subpoenas to third-party communications providers. The committee in August issued a sweeping demand that telecommunications and social media companies preserve the personal communications of hundreds of people who may have been connected to the attack, but did not ask the companies to turn over the records at that time.Terwilliger said in a statement last week that he was continuing to work with the committee and its staff on a possible accommodation that would not require Meadows to waive the executive privileges claimed by Trump or “forfeit the long-standing position that senior White House aides cannot be compelled to testify” before Congress.“We appreciate the select committee’s openness to receiving voluntary responses on non-privileged topics,” he said then.Thompson said then that the panel would “continue to assess his degree of compliance” and would take action against Meadows or any other witnesses who don’t comply, including by voting to recommend contempt charges. The House has already voted to hold longtime Trump ally Steve Bannon in contempt after he defied a subpoena, and the justice department indicted Bannon on two counts.In halting cooperation, Terwilliger cited comments from Thompson that he said unfairly cast aspersions on witnesses who invoke their fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. A separate witness, former justice department official Jeffrey Clark, has said he will invoke those fifth amendment rights, prompting questions from the committee about whether he would directly acknowledge that his answers could incriminate him.Thompson said last week that Clark’s lawyer had offered “no specific basis” for Clark to assert the fifth and that he viewed it as a “last-ditch attempt to delay the select committee’s proceedings”, but he said members would hear Clark out. The committee has already voted to recommend contempt charges for Clark, and Thompson has said it will proceed with a House vote if the panel is not satisfied with his compliance at a second deposition on 16 December.In his new book, released Tuesday, Meadows reveals that Trump received a positive Covid-19 test before a presidential debate. He also reveals that when Trump was later hospitalized with Covid, he was far sicker than the White House revealed at the time.Trump – who told his supporters to “fight like hell” before hundreds of his supporters broke into the Capitol and stopped the presidential electoral count – has attempted to hinder much of the committee’s work, including in the continuing court case, by arguing that Congress cannot obtain information about his private White House conversations.Associated Press contributed to this reportTopicsUS Capitol attackHouse of RepresentativesDonald TrumpUS politicsnewsReuse this content More