US Capitol attack

Subterms

    More stories

    • 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

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Mark Meadows stops cooperating with Capitol attack investigation

      by

      Mark Meadows stops cooperating with Capitol attack investigation Attorney for former White House chief of staff claims House committee ‘has no intention of respecting boundaries’

      ‘Handful of fanatics’ to blame for Capitol riot, Meadows says
      In a sudden reversal, former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows will not cooperate with a House of Representatives committee investigating the deadly attack on the US Capitol on 6 January, a lawyer for the former Trump aide said on Tuesday.Trump tested positive for Covid few days before Biden debate, chief of staff says in new bookRead moreThe committee warned that Meadows will face contempt proceedings if he refuses to cooperate on Wednesday.“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,” it said in a statement. “Tomorrow’s deposition will go forward as planned.“If indeed Mr Meadows refuses to appear, the Select Committee will be left no choice but to advance contempt proceedings and recommend that the body in which Meadows once served refer him for criminal prosecution.”Meadows indicated last week that he would speak to the panel. But on the same day the Guardian broke news of Meadows’ memoir, The Chief’s Chief, in which he detailed Trump’s positive and negative Covid tests and their cover-up before his first debate with Joe Biden last year.Trump gave Meadows a glowing blurb for his book but news of its contents kicked off a firestorm of controversy and prompted a backlash from the former presidenttowards Meadows.On Tuesday, Maggie Haberman, a New York Times journalist, reported that “sources close to Trump say he hates Meadows book and feels betrayed by him”.Haberman also wrote that Meadows’ “cooperation was always seen as bare minimum. The reality doesn’t change much but timing is notable.”Meadows’ attorney, George Terwilliger, wrote in a letter on Tuesday that a deposition would be “untenable” because the 6 January select committee “has no intention of respecting boundaries” concerning questions that Trump has claimed are off-limits because of executive privilege.Executive privilege covers the confidentiality or otherwise of communications between a president and his aides. The Biden administration has waived it in the investigation of 6 January. Trump and allies entwined in events leading up to the storming of the Capitol, around which five people died, have invoked it.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.In an interview on the conservative Fox News network, the attorney added: “We have made efforts over many weeks to reach an accommodation with the committee.”But he said the committee’s approach to negotiations and to other witnesses meant Meadows would withdraw cooperation.“The chairman of the committee [Bennie Thompson, a Democrat from Mississippi] … publicly said that another witness’s claiming of the fifth amendment would be tantamount to an admission of guilt,” Terwilliger said, claiming that called into question “exactly what is going on with this committee”.That was a reference to Jeffery Clark, a former justice department official who pitched a plan to Trump regarding overturning election results and who, like Meadows, has been threatened with a charge of contempt of Congress if he does not cooperate with the 6 January investigation.Terwilliger wrote in his letter: “As a result of careful and deliberate consideration of these factors, we now must decline the opportunity to appear voluntarily for a deposition.”Meadows has claimed executive privilege covers any communications with Trump that the committee may wish to examine.In the aftermath of reports about his book – the Guardian being first to report that Meadows tried to downplay the Capitol riot as the work of “a handful of fanatics” – members of the committee suggested that by publishing the memoir Meadows had waived any claim to executive privilege protections.Adam Schiff of California told Politico it was “very possible that by discussing the events of 6 January in his book … [Meadows is] waiving any claim of privilege.“So, it’d be very difficult for him to maintain ‘I can’t speak about events to you, but I can speak about them in my book.’”Thompson, the committee chair, told reporters: “Some of what we plan to ask him is in the excerpts of the book.”Meadows had been due to appear before the committee on 12 November but failed to show up. At the time, Thompson warned that “there is no valid legal basis for Mr Meadows’s continued resistance to the select committee’s subpoena”.Another former Trump aide, former campaign chairman and White House strategist Steve Bannon, has been charged with criminal contempt of Congress, the first such charge since 1983. Facing a fine and jail time, he has pleaded not guilty.Trump has attempted to stall much of the committee’s work, including in a court case, by arguing that Congress does not have the right to information about his private White House conversations.TopicsUS Capitol attackDonald TrumpUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 213 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Congressman Jamie Raskin: ‘I’ll never forget the terrible sound of them trying to barrel into the chamber’

      by

      InterviewCongressman Jamie Raskin: ‘I’ll never forget the terrible sound of them trying to barrel into the chamber’David Smith in Washington The congressman was in the Capitol the day it was stormed by Trump supporters, and led the impeachment prosecution. The fight, he says, is far from over

      Chris Bryant: ‘Nearly everyone I meet says: “I wouldn’t want your job”’
      See more of the Observer’s faces behind the 2021 headlines
      He spent 5 January at a graveside service for his son, Tommy, who had taken his own life after years shadowed by depression. He spent 6 January under siege at the US Capitol as a mob of Donald Trump supporters staged a deadly insurrection. Nearly a year on, Jamie Raskin wonders whether he could have prevented either tragedy.“Just as I have blamed myself for missing cues that I might have picked up with Tommy, I blame myself for cues I missed relating to the violence as well,” says Raskin, carefully measuring each word. “I spent many, many sleepless nights in self-blame and self-prosecution over everything that had happened with Tommy and with the insurrection.”Raskin, a Democratic congressman from Maryland, took office in January 2017. Four years later, and a day after burying his 25-year-old son, he was at the US Capitol under coronavirus restrictions to help certify Joe Biden’s victory in the presidential election. He witnessed the citadel of American democracy come under attack from a frenzied mob convinced by Trump’s “big lie” about vote rigging.“I heard this terrible sound that I’ll never forget of some people trying to barrel into the House chamber,” the 58-year-old recalls in a phone interview from his home in Takoma Park, Maryland. “I don’t know to this day exactly what kind of physical objects they were carrying, but they kept slamming up against the central door to the House of Representatives and so lots of people began to move over there to try to reinforce it.“But then Capitol police officers came running in with their guns drawn, telling all of us to get back, and they went up and guarded that door. There were people screaming and it was very chaotic. You could hear people yelling, ‘We want Trump!’ and ‘Hang Mike Pence!’” – a reference to the vice-president who ignored Trump’s pleas to overturn the election.Members of Congress were evacuated through the speaker’s lobby, tunnels and stairwells. “We would see members of the mob running by in different directions. It was like a zombie movie. Whenever we saw them, everybody would accelerate efforts to get away. An insurrection is a pretty intimate thing. These people were all over the place. It’s remarkable more people did not die.”Finally, they reached the safety of a committee room in a House office building. But Raskin’s daughter Tabitha, 23, and son-in-law, Hank, who had accompanied him to the Capitol that day, were trapped in the office of Steny Hoyer, the House majority leader. They barricaded themselves in with furniture and hid under Hoyer’s desk.“I was obviously very concerned,” says Raskin. “I was an emotional wreck anyway but I felt now intensely responsible for having brought them with me and put them in harm’s way. It had never occurred to me that the Capitol of the United States would not be secure.”Eventually the building was cleared by security forces and the family was reunited. “I hugged them and kissed them and I told Tabitha how sorry I was and I said it would not be like this the next time she came to the Capitol. That’s when she said, ‘I don’t want to come back to the Capitol again’. The immensity of these events just hit me at that point. They had fundamentally changed everything by unleashing this violence to support their political coup.”That night Congress returned to the building to complete the electoral college counts and confirm Biden as the next president. In a stunned nation, there were demands for Trump to face a reckoning over his role in inciting the riot. Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, asked Raskin to become lead prosecutor.He says: “For me the trial was a kind of salvation because I was so deeply in shock and trauma about Tommy and what had just taken place in the Capitol. It was a time of great confusion.“If you remember back to 9/11 and what that was like, everyone walking around buffeted and dumbfounded, there was that feeling. But by becoming the lead impeachment manager, I quickly had to develop a focus on what needed to be done.”Previously a constitutional law professor, Raskin made a compelling case and was not afraid to display his anger, grief and vulnerability. A majority of senators voted to convict Trump but fell 10 votes short of the two-thirds majority required by the constitution. The ex-president was acquitted. But Raskin was not done.He is now a member of the House of Representatives select committee investigating the events of that day. It has been gathering documents and phone records and subpoenaing witnesses in an effort to produce the definitive account of an event that Raskin says was “as close to fascism as any of us wants to come in our lifetime”.The congressman, who has written a book to try to make sense of the 50 days that upended his life, says: “I would like to say that 6 January was the end of something but it feels much more to me like the beginning of something.“Ultimately, that’s up to us. We are definitely in a struggle over the future of democracy. Joe Biden is the right president to try to lead us out of this period of emotional devastation but at this point Donald Trump’s ‘big lie’ lives and his control over the Republican party is absolute. So we are still very much in the fight of our lives.” Unthinkable: Trauma, Truth, and the Trials of American Democracy by Jamie Raskin will be published by HarperCollins on 4 JanuaryTopicsUS Capitol attackThe Observer’s faces of 2021DemocratsUS politicsJoe BidenDonald TrumpfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 263 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      To Rescue the Republic review: Grant, the crisis of 1876 … and a Fox News anchor reluctant to call out Trump

      by

      To Rescue the Republic review: Grant, the crisis of 1876 … and a Fox News anchor reluctant to call out Trump Brett Baier has an eye on unity as well as compelling history. So why not say Trump refused to face the truth as Grant did?For a group of TV anchors and reporters, the team at Fox News are keen scribblers. Often with co-writers, former host Bill O’Reilly writes of assassinations and Brian Kilmeade authors histories. Bret Baier is chief political anchor but has also written several books as a “reporter of history”. Now comes a biography of Ulysses S Grant which focuses on the grave constitutional crisis following the disputed election of 1876.A disputed election, a constitutional crisis, polarisation … welcome to 1876Read moreMagnanimous in civil war victory, Grant was elected in 1868 on the theme of “Let us have peace”. By the nation’s centennial eight years later, Americans had wearied of scandals, economic troubles and federal troops in the south, seeking to enforce to some degree the new civil rights of Black Americans, notably the vote. In 1874, Democrats took the House. Now they wanted the presidency.They nominated the New York governor, Samuel Tilden, a moderate nevertheless supported in the south. The Republicans picked Rutherford Hayes of Ohio. It was a bitter campaign, filled with threats of violence, each side playing to its base.Tilden performed surprisingly well in the north, winning his home state and four others. Hayes winning Indiana and Connecticut alone would have prevented the subsequent controversy. He did not, but he did win Louisiana, South Carolina and Florida, southern states with Republican governors.Hayes needed all three states to win. “Self-appointed Democratic counters”, however, submitted results for Tilden. As Grant said: “Everything now depends on a fair count.”Tensions ran high, with rumors of southern militia marching on Washington and US troops on standby. Baier writes that Grant “had influence, and he decided to use it to expedite a fair result – even if that result required sacrificing his own achievements”.Grant knew that to be seen to be fair, the result must “appeal to [the people’s] sense of justice”. For that, both parties had to agree – and the south had to support Hayes. At Grant’s insistence, an electoral commission was formed, the deciding vote given to the supreme court justice Joseph Bradley. Bradley chose to support the states’ official electoral certifications. Hayes won. Tilden did not pursue extraordinary means to ensure victory, stopping a bribery effort in his favor.But the battle was not over. Grant believed Louisiana’s certificate was probably fraudulent, and there was bedlam in Congress. Grant favored compromise and Edward Burke of Louisiana effectively proposed a trade: Hayes for the presidency, Democrats for the disputed governorships of Louisiana and South Carolina.A separate group of Republicans – acting without Grant – then promised Democrats Hayes would withdraw troops from the south. In return, Democrats would agree that Hayes was duly elected, along with vague and worthless promises to respect Black rights. At this point, Baier writes, “the nation breathed a sigh of relief”.Baier clearly admires Grant – and there is much to admire. Though betrayed by false friends, as president Grant exercised his office with firmness where necessary and with a passionate desire to inspire Americans towards greater unity. Political inexperience cost him dearly.But what of the big issue? Did Grant really put an end to Reconstruction and consign Black Americans to nearly a century under Jim Crow?Hayes had shown a willingness to end Reconstruction. Tilden would certainly have done so. Grant strongly supported Black suffrage and kept troops in the south to ensure the rights of people increasingly threatened by armed violence. He sent troops to an area of South Carolina especially marked by Klan violence and vigorously promoted and enforced an anti-Klan act. He sent troops to Louisiana to enforce voting rights and secured passage of the 1875 Civil Rights Act.Nonetheless, the supreme court reduced Black rights, and as Baier writes, “the country no longer supported the use of federal troops”. Grant had his army but had lost his people.He promoted a compromise in 1877 not from any desire to abandon the Black community but from the painful realization that America had tired of the journey. Whether Hayes or Tilden had been elected, Reconstruction was over and a more painful era in the south was about to begin.The problem wasn’t Grant, but that America was not ready to live up to its promises.Baier begins and ends his book with the events of 6 January 2021.“What happens,” he asks, “when the fairness of an election is in doubt, when the freedom of the people is constrained, and when the divisions on the public square strangle the process?“What can we learn from the healing mission of our 18th president that might show us a path towards union?”Baier answers the second question only implicitly. He echoes the historical consensus that the “sad and inescapable truth is that there was no way of knowing the right verdict”.True in 1877. Clearly not in 2021.After Appomattox, the Confederate general James Longstreet, a friend of Grant, asked “Why do men fight who were born to be brothers?”Liberty is Sweet review: an American revolution for the many not the fewRead moreThe answer frequently involves failures of political leadership. Baier writes that Grant “knew that in times of great national conflict there are only two choices – to stand for division or to stand for peace”.Grant used his power for good, to promote national unity. Donald Trump did not say the words or take the actions that Grant did during an equally if not more severe challenge to democracy. Baier misses an opportunity for Grant-like firmness in not asking why Trump failed to call on his supporters to accept the result. Rather than simply speaking of America’s strength and resilience, why not point out directly the contrast with a president who stood for division?In 2021, the national sigh of relief did not come until after noon on inauguration day, as President Biden took the oath.The danger persists, and not every president is Gen Grant.
      To Rescue the Republic is published in the US by Custom House
      TopicsBooksHistory booksPolitics booksUS politicsAmerican civil warUS Capitol attackreviewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Nevada man arrested for allegedly assaulting police at US Capitol attack

      by

      Nevada man arrested for allegedly assaulting police at US Capitol attack
      Josiah Kenyon allegedly beat officers with table leg and flag staff
      ‘Handful of fanatics’ to blame for Capitol attack, says Meadows
      A 34-year-old Nevada man has been arrested and held on multiple charges related to the 6 January riot at the US Capitol, including assaulting law officers with what prosecutors say appeared to be a table leg with a protruding nail. Trump rails against Meadows for revealing Covid test cover-up – reportRead moreA US magistrate in Reno on Friday ordered Josiah Kenyon of Winnemucca to remain jailed without bail, until he is transported to Washington to face charges. Charges include engaging in physical violence in a restricted building or grounds, civil disorder and assaulting, resisting or impeding officers with a dangerous weapon. Kenyon was arrested on Wednesday in Reno. He made his initial appearance in US district court via a video-hookup along with his court-appointed lawyer, Lauren Gorman. She asserted Kenyon’s constitutional rights to remain silent and have his attorney present. She did not immediately respond to a request for comment.A federal criminal complaint filed by the US attorney’s office for the District of Columbia says photographs and video show Kenyon was among rioters who entered the Capitol in support of Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn his election defeat by Joe Biden. More than 670 people have been charged with federal crimes related to the riot. At least 140 have pleaded guilty, mostly to misdemeanor charges. On 6 January, Kenyon was wearing a red Make America Great Again hat and a Jack Skellington costume, based on a character from the movie The Nightmare Before Christmas, the complaint said. He tried to break a Capitol window with a flag staff and assaulted officers with several objects including the table leg. Images show Kenyon strike numerous officers with the table leg, including one riot-gear clad officer in the head, the complaint said. “The protruding nail appears to become momentarily stuck between the top of the officer’s face shield and helmet,” FBI special agent Matthew Lariccia said in a statement filed with the complaint. FBI agents interviewed three witnesses in the Washington area who believed Kenyon was the person in the photos, Larricia said. Two others, including a relative, positively identified a photo in April, and in September the Washington Metro transit authority confirmed fare and bank records consistent with his presence at the uprising.TopicsUS Capitol attackUS crimenewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Trump rails against Meadows for revealing Covid test cover-up – report

      by

      Trump rails against Meadows for revealing Covid test cover-up – reportGuardian revealed explosive claims in chief of staff’s memoirTrump slams ‘fake news’ but in private says aide ‘fucking stupid’ In a blurb on the cover of Mark Meadows’ new book, Donald Trump calls the former congressman a “great chief of staff – as good as it gets” and predicts “a great future together”. The former president has also promoted the book to his followers.Trump tested positive for Covid few days before Biden debate, chief of staff says in new bookRead moreNow the book is in the public domain, however, the former president reportedly thinks it is “garbage” and that Meadows was “fucking stupid” to write it.Influential members of the House committee investigating the deadly Capitol attack, meanwhile, have said Meadows may have undermined his own defence when seeking to block their inquiries.The Chief’s Chief will be published next week. This week, the Guardian broke the news that according to Meadows, Trump tested positive for Covid three days before the first presidential debate with Joe Biden in September last year.Meadows also details how that test, like another which came back negative, was covered up. Trump eventually announced a positive test on 2 October, the day he was admitted to hospital in Maryland. The White House said that positive result was announced within an hour.This week, amid huge controversy over whether Trump had endangered not only Biden but the White House press corps, debate staff, the families of fallen US service members, businessmen and more, Trump called the Guardian report “fake news” – a judgment with which Meadows, bizarrely, agreed.But outlets including the New York Times and the Washington Post confirmed the cover-up.Late on Friday, the Daily Beast cited three anonymous sources as saying Trump had spent “an inordinate amount of the past few days privately railing against Meadows, the revelation in the memoir, and, of course, the extensive media coverage of the matter”.Trump, the Beast said, was now “aggressively scolding” his former chief of staff – whose book is filled with effusive expressions of loyalty – and had said he did not know the “garbage” about the positive test would be included in Meadows’ memoir.A source close to the ex-president, the Beast said, said he “bemoaned that Meadows had been so – in Trump’s succinct phrasing – ‘fucking stupid’ with his book”.The Beast also reported that Meadows was horrified by the turn of events.“He thought Trump was going to love it,” the website quoted a source as saying.Meadows may not love what may be coming his way from the House committee investigating the Capitol attack – also as a result of his book.The Guardian obtained Meadows’ book the same day he agreed to cooperate with the panel, under threat of a charge of contempt of Congress.But though Meadows’ discussion of 6 January is highly selective and seeks to play down the attack – which as the Guardian first reported he claims was carried out by a “handful of fanatics” – it could yet prove important.Like other Trump aides and Trump himself, Meadows has claimed executive privilege, covering communications between a president and his staff, shields him from scrutiny by the select committee.‘Handful of fanatics’ to blame for Capitol riot, Trump ally Meadows says in bookRead moreAdam Schiff of California, the chair of the House intelligence committee and a member of the 6 January panel, told Politico: “It’s … very possible that by discussing the events of 6 January in his book … [Meadows is] waiving any claim of privilege.“So, it’d be very difficult for him to maintain ‘I can’t speak about events to you, but I can speak about them in my book.’”Jamie Raskin of Maryland, another Democrat on the panel, said: “You can’t assert a privilege that you have waived by virtue of your other actions.”Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the committee chair, told reporters he had seen coverage of Meadows’ memoir.“Some of what we plan to ask him is in the excerpts of the book,” Thompson said.TopicsTrump administrationDonald TrumpUS Capitol attackHouse of RepresentativesnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Top Trump official to plead the fifth to Capitol attack committee

      by

      Top Trump official to plead the fifth to Capitol attack committeeJohn Eastman, linked to efforts to stop Biden certification, to invoke constitutional protection against self-incrimination Former Trump lawyer John Eastman, who was connected to efforts to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s presidential election win on 6 January, will plead the fifth amendment protection against self-incrimination before the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack.‘Handful of fanatics’ to blame for Capitol riot, Trump ally Meadows says in bookRead moreThe move by Eastman, communicated in a letter to the select committee by his attorney, is an extraordinary step and appears to suggest a growing fear among some of Trump’s closest advisers that their testimony may implicate them in potential criminality.“Dr Eastman has a more than reasonable fear that any statements he makes pursuant to this subpoena will be used in an attempt to mount a criminal investigation against him,” Eastman’s lawyer, Charles Burnham, told the select committee in a letter on Wednesday.The select committee issued a subpoena to Eastman last month as they sought to uncover the extent of his role in Trump’s scheme to prevent Biden from being certified as president and return himself to office for a second term despite losing the 2020 election.House investigators also took an interest in Eastman after it emerged that he played an integral part in a 4 January Oval Office meeting where he presented a memo advising then vice-president Mike Pence about ways to stop and delay Biden’s certification from taking place.But in responding to the subpoena, Eastman’s attorney told the select committee that the former Trump lawyer would assert the fifth amendment to protect himself from the rapidly expanding investigation that has so far ensnared dozens of top Trump allies.The letter made mostly procedural objections to the select committee’s inquiry, complaining that the panel only has members appointed by the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, conducts its depositions behind closed doors, and that the scope of the subpoena was excessively broad.Neither Eastman nor Burnham immediately responded to a request for comment on Friday.The decision by Eastman to protect himself from self-incrimination came a day after the Guardian revealed that Eastman was connected to a phone call that Trump placed hours before the Capitol attack, seeking ways to somehow stop Biden’s certification on 6 January.According to multiple sources familiar with the call, Trump, on at least one call placed from the White House, pressed his lieutenants at the Willard – led by his lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Eastman – about ways to prevent Biden from being pronounced president.The move by Eastman also makes him the second ally of the former president to claim the fifth amendment with the select committee, after the former Trump DoJ official Jeffrey Clark announced that he would invoke the protection in a deposition scheduled for Saturday.TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More