US Capitol attack

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats controlled Congress for two years. What did they achieve?

      by

      AnalysisDemocrats controlled Congress for two years. What did they achieve?Lauren Gambino From same-sex marriage protections to veterans’ aid, Joe Biden’s party used its thin majority to deliver many campaign promisesIn January, Democrats will lose their unified control of Capitol Hill, ending a remarkable legislative streak that saw the party deliver on many of their campaign promises.Biden’s climate bill victory was hard won. Now, the real battle startsRead moreWhile Joe Biden and his party did not accomplish everything they set out to do, Democrats in Congress spent the last two years marshalling their thin majorities to pass consequential legislation that touches nearly every aspect of American life from water quality to marriage equality. Some of the most notable measures even earned Republican support.As a new era of divided government dawns in Washington, with Republicans set to take control of the House on 3 January, here’s a look at what Democrats accomplished during the 117th Congress.American Rescue Plan ActSeven weeks into his presidency, Biden signed into law a $1.9tn economic stimulus plan designed to combat the coronavirus pandemic and begin repairing the nation’s frayed social safety net. The bill, passed by Democrats on a party-line vote, sent $1,400 stimulus checks to tens of millions of Americans and temporarily extended unemployment benefits.It included billions in funding to speed up vaccination distribution and school reopenings and additional money to help state and local governments weather the pandemic-induced economic downturn. The legislation also temporarily increased the annual Child Tax Credit, a policy experts say helped halve child poverty in America before it ended.The uphill battle to resurrect the US child tax credit that lifted millions from poverty Read moreIn the months that followed, a debate flared over the legislation’s economic impact. Many economists credited the large-scale infusion of cash with spurring a rapid economic recovery while others argued that the plan, at least to some extent, contributed to inflation.Establish Juneteenth as a federal holidayIn June 2021, Congress passed legislation to make Juneteenth, or 19 June, a federal holiday.Juneteenth marks the events of 19 June 1865, when Union soldiers arrived in Galveston, Texas, to inform enslaved African Americans of their freedom, more than two months after the Confederacy surrendered. Calls grew to commemorate Juneteenth following nationwide social justice protests in the wake of the killing of George Floyd by police.Create a House committee to investigate the Capitol attackFormally titled the House select committee to investigate the January 6th attack, the nine-member panel was charged with investigating the events that led to the most grievous assault on the US Capitol in more than 200 years.Democrats preferred a bipartisan independent commission to investigate the attack, similar to the one Congress established in the aftermath of 9/11. But Republicans stonewalled those efforts and in the end the House voted to create a select committee composed of seven Democrats and two Republicans, Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, both of whom have been ostracized by their party for criticizing Trump.The committee held a summer of blockbuster public hearings that sought to chronicle what it charged to be a coordinated plot, instigated by Donald Trump, to subvert a free and fair election. With shocking testimony and slick video reels, the committee crafted a devastating portrait of a president willing to do anything to remain in power.The panel issued the findings of its 18-month inquiry in a report released in late December, the result of more than 1,000 interviews and hundreds of thousands of documents. They referred Trump to the justice department for violating at least four criminal statutes, as well as his ally, lawyer John Eastman, on a conspiracy charge. Four lawmakers were referred to the House ethics committee, including Kevin McCarthy, who is expected to run for speaker of the House next year.Bipartisan infrastructure lawSeveral presidents tried – and failed – to pass an infrastructure bill. But late last year, Biden signed into law the largest investment in US infrastructure in at least a generation.Far narrower in scope than the $2.3tn plan Biden initially proposed, the sweeping public works package was nevertheless a hard-won, bipartisan victory, with 19 Republican senators voting in favor, including the minority leader, Mitch McConnell.The infrastructure law provided for $550bn in new spending, investing in everything from the nation’s waterways and transit systems to its airports and electric grid. The bill also included funding for electric vehicle charging stations, as well as for zero- and low-emissions buses and ferries.Confirm a supreme court justiceWhen supreme court justice Stephen Breyer announced his retirement, Biden had an opportunity to make good on his promise to nominate the first Black woman to the supreme court. His choice was Ketanji Brown Jackson.In April, Jackson faced a grueling confirmation hearing before a deeply polarized Senate. She ultimately won approval in a 53-to-47 vote that was met with tears of joy and celebration by Black women and girls across the country. Jackson officially joined the court in late June, just after its controversial decision to overturn Roe v Wade, ending the constitutional right to an abortion.‘Force to be reckoned with’: Ketanji Brown Jackson shines in first weekRead moreBorn in Washington DC and raised in Miami, Jackson is a graduate of Harvard Law School and previously served as a clerk for her predecessor, Justice Breyer. She is the first public defender to serve as a justice on the nation’s highest court.Over the past two years, the Democratic-controlled Senate has confirmed a record-setting number of Biden’s judicial appointments, the overwhelming majority of whom are women and people of color. ​​Gun-control legislationAfter Congress’s failure to act in response to the killing of 26 children and educators at Sandy Hook elementary school in 2012, a bipartisan solution to the ever-rising toll of gun violence in America seemed unreachable.But in June, following a spate of horrific mass shootings that included a racist attack on Black shoppers at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York, and the massacre of 19 students and two teachers at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, lawmakers finally came together to pass the first major gun-control legislation in a generation.The bill toughens requirements for the youngest gun buyers, keeps firearms out of the hands of more domestic abusers and helps states implement “red flag” laws that make it easier for authorities to temporarily take away weapons from people deemed by a judge to be dangerous. It also includes funding for mental health and violence intervention programs as well as school safety initiatives.Biden said the legislation was a “historic achievement”. Gun control activists also celebrated its passage, but said it was only a first step and much more aggressive action was needed.The Chips and Science ActThe product of more than a year of negotiations between the House and the Senate, the so-called Chips and Science Act was designed to bolster US competitiveness with China by investing in the nation’s industrial and technological might.The sprawling $280bn bill contains more than $52bn to expand the US’s domestic semiconductor manufacturing industry, after pandemic-induced supply chain pressures exposed just how dependent the country was on chips manufactured abroad.The largest chunk of the money will go toward scientific research in areas like artificial intelligence, biotechnology and quantum computing. It would also create “regional innovation and technology hubs” with the aim of bringing jobs and economic growth to the most distressed parts of the country.The package passed Congress with bipartisan support and was signed into law with great fanfare by the president, who has promoted the legislation at events around the country – and the world.Aid for veterans exposed to toxic burn pitsWith broad bipartisan support, Congress enacted legislation expanding access to healthcare and disability benefits for millions of veterans exposed to toxic burn pits during their military service.The law, known as the Pact Act, helps veterans get screened and receive services for possible toxic exposures, such as Agent Orange during the Vietnam war, or toxins from pits used to burn military waste in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also expands the Department of Veterans Affairs’ list of conditions related to burn pit and toxic exposure, removing administrative obstacles for veterans to obtain disability payments.The law was deeply personal for the president, who has suggested that exposure to burn pits in Iraq may have been responsible for the death from cancer of his elder son, Beau.Inflation Reduction ActBiden’s signature domestic achievement, the Inflation Reduction Act was a long-sought legislative pursuit that survived several overhauls and setbacks before finally becoming law in August 2022.‘We’re still struggling’: low unemployment can’t hide impact of low wages and rising inflationRead moreThe version that became law was far narrower than the expansive vision Biden initially outlined, a plan known as Build Back Better. Even so, the climate, healthcare and tax plan was a legacy-defining accomplishment for the president, delivering on many of his party’s long-sought policy ambitions.Taken together, the bill represents America’s largest ever investment in combating climate change. According to the White House, the climate initiatives contained in the plan put the US on track to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40% below 2005 levels by the end of the decade. The legislation also includes investments in environmental justice, conservation and resiliency programs.In an effort to reduce soaring healthcare costs, the Inflation Reduction Act allows the government to negotiate prescription drug prices for seniors on Medicare, extend federal health insurance subsidies and caps out-of-pocket costs for insulin at no more than $35 per month for Medicare beneficiaries.The law also imposes new taxes on big corporations, setting a minimum corporate tax of 15% and boosts funding for the Internal Revenue Service in an effort to crack down on tax evasion. It is estimated that the law will reduce the federal budget deficit by about $300bn over 10 years.At the signing ceremony, Biden hailed the measure as “one of the most significant laws in our history”. Now, as many of the law’s provisions begin to take effect, Democrats face the difficult task of explaining its many constituent parts to the public.At midday on New Year’s Eve he tweeted: “Just 12 hours until many of the cost-saving provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act kick in for millions.”Just 12 hours until many of the cost-saving provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act kick in for millions.— President Biden (@POTUS) December 31, 2022
      Protections for same-sex marriageWhen the supreme court overturned Roe v Wade, the conservative justice Clarence Thomas raised the prospect that marriage equality could be next. The threat set in motion an unexpectedly bipartisan scramble on Capitol Hill that resulted in landmark legislation protecting same-sex marriage.House passes landmark legislation protecting same-sex marriageRead moreThe bill, known as the Respect for Marriage Act, provides a degree of relief to the hundreds of thousands of same-sex married couples in the United States by requiring federal and state governments to recognize lawfully performed unions regardless of sex, race or ethnicity.But should the supreme court overturn Obergefell v Hodges, the 2015 decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, the measure does not require states to perform same-sex marriages nor does it prevent them from banning the unions. It also includes a clause exempting religious organizations from any obligation to provide goods, services or accommodations for a celebration of a same-sex marriage.Nevertheless, LGBTQ+ advocates and allies welcomed the legislation as a major step toward protecting a hard-won civil liberty. At a signing ceremony, Biden called the bill a step toward building a nation where “decency, dignity and love are recognized, honored and protected”.Government funding billDays before Christmas, with the threat of a shutdown looming, Congress hastily approved a 4,155-page, $1.7tn spending bill to fund the federal government and its various agencies through the remainder of the 2023 fiscal year. The product of a chaotic round of 11th-hour negotiations, led by two retiring appropriators determined to cement their legacy with one final deal, the funding measure includes more than $858bn in defense spending.Other big-ticket items in the measure included nearly $45bn in aid for Ukraine, a provision banning the use of TikTok on all government devices, a rewrite of the Electoral Count Act that was at the heart of Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, $40bn in disaster relief for communities struck by hurricanes, wildfires, floods and other environmental calamities this year.After an agreement was reached, the bill was rushed through both chambers of Congress with unusual speed. It was approved with strong bipartisan support in the Senate but passed on a mostly party-line vote in the House, foreshadowing the brinksmanship to come when Republicans control the chamber next year.Ukraine aidSince the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the US has committed more than $100bn in security assistance and humanitarian aid to the country. During a historic visit to Washington last month, the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, delivered an address to a join session of Congress in which he personally thanked Americans for their support.In total, Congress has passed four tranches of emergency aid, including most recently, a $45bn package that was notably more than Biden requested. It passed as part of the year-end spending bill.The funds have been used for a range of purposes, much of it military, economic or humanitarian in nature. That includes, for example, sending economic support for Ukrainian refugees as well as for security assistance to help train, equip and provide intelligence support to the Ukrainian military. A significant portion of the funds will be used to replenish stocks of US weapons sent to Ukraine.Aid to Ukraine has so far been approved with overwhelming bipartisan support. But a contingent of far-right House Republicans have threatened to block future aid to Ukraine.Reform the Electoral Count ActIn the wake of the assault on the US Capitol, a bipartisan coalition began working on an overhaul of the Electoral Count Act, the 1887 law that governs how Congress counts presidential electors.Trump and his allies had sought to exploit ambiguities in the 135-year-old law to claim that the then vice-president, Mike Pence, in his role as president of the Senate, could delay the count or even toss out legitimate electoral votes from states that voted for Biden.Pence dismissed the plan as unconstitutional. But the fringe theory flourished among Trump’s supporters, thousands of whom stormed the Capitol on 6 January in a failed attempt to stop Congress from certifying Biden’s victory.Under a rewrite of the law, the vice-president’s role in counting electors is defined as purely ceremonial. It also raises the threshold for considering a challenge to a state’s electoral votes, making it harder for lawmakers to interfere in the process. The measure was passed as part of an omnibus spending package, the final major act of a Congress that was sworn in on the eve of the Capitol attack.What Congress didn’t do:The party in power did not accomplish everything it promised. Stymied by the Senate filibuster, Democrats could not rally enough support to weaken the rule and pass their legislative priorities on a party-line vote.Biden promised to reform the police. Why has so little progress been made?Read moreDemocrats failed to codify Roe, after the supreme court ended the constitutional right to an abortion. Despite a streak of mass shootings, they could not find enough support in the Senate to ban assault weapons. A tide of restrictive voter laws went into effect without any response from Congress. Compromise eluded a bipartisan group working on police reform. Despite an 11th-hour push, there was no extension of the Child Tax Credit. And the 117th Congress adjourned without taking action to raise the debt limit, alarming analysts who have warned that Republican brinkmanship over the nation’s borrowing limit could lead to economic calamity.With a divided government, the outlook for major legislative accomplishments is far less likely. Instead, Democrats are bracing for an onslaught of Republican-led investigations into the president, his family and his administration.TopicsBiden administrationUS politicsDemocratsJoe BidenUS Capitol attackKetanji Brown JacksonUS gun controlanalysisReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      January 6: judge hints Trump wanted supporters to ‘do more’ than protest

      by

      January 6: judge hints Trump wanted supporters to ‘do more’ than protestOpinion comes in ruling barring man charged with role in Capitol attack from arguing former president authorized his actions Donald Trump may have been telling his supporters he wanted them “to do something more” than simply protest his defeat to Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential race when he told a mob of them to “fight like hell” on the day of the deadly Capitol attack on 6 January 2021, according to findings from a federal judge on Wednesday.The opinion from judge John Bates came in the form of a ruling barring one man charged with having a hand in staging the Capitol assault that day – Alexander Sheppard – from arguing that Trump, as president at the time, had authorized his actions.Will the January 6 report bring a second Christmas for US publishers?Read moreBates’s judgment recounted how Trump’s speech near the White House on 6 January, the day that Congress certified his loss to Biden, urged his supporters to march to the Capitol without saying that it was illegal to enter the area where lawmakers would be voting.“These words only encourage those at the rally to march to the Capitol … and do not address legality at all,” wrote Bates, who was appointed to Washington DC’s federal courthouse bench by former president George W Bush. “But, although his express words only mention walking down … to the Capitol, one might conclude that the context implies that he was urging protesters to do something more – perhaps to enter the Capitol building and stop the certification.”Bates made it a point to note that his reasoning was not out of line with the final report recently issued by a congressional committee investigating the Capitol attack, which has been linked to nine deaths, including suicides of traumatized law enforcement officers who defended the building that day. That committee’s report found Trump acted “corruptly” on the day of the attack because he knew it was illegal to stop the certification of Biden’s victory over him, and the panel issued a non-binding recommendation for federal prosecutors to file criminal charges against the former president.Bates added that he believed Trump’s use of the phrase “fight like hell” in his speech on 6 January – two weeks before Biden assumed control of the Oval Office – potentially served as “a signal to protesters that entering the Capitol and stopping the certification would be unlawful”.“Even if protesters believed they were following orders, they were not misled about the legality of their actions and thus fall outside the scope of any public authority defense,” Bates wrote.“The conclusions reached here … [are] consistent with the [January 6] committee’s findings.”Sheppard is one of several Capitol attack defendants to try to argue that they were carrying out a president’s bidding that day, though that strategy hasn’t been a winning one in court. For example, after telling a jury that he went to the building on the day of the attack because he wanted Trump’s “approval” and because he believed he was obeying “presidential orders”, Capitol rioter Dustin Thompson was convicted and later sentenced to three years in prison.It hasn’t been clear whether Trump might be charged with a role in the Capitol attack. Prosecutors have charged more than 900 other people, many of whom have already been convicted and sentenced to prison.Bates’s judgment appears to be the first court ruling to cite the January 6 committee’s 800-page report since its publication last week.TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Jamie Raskin: electoral college is a ‘danger to the American people’

      by

      Jamie Raskin: electoral college is a ‘danger to the American people’Democratic congressman says recent changes to electoral college laws are unlikely to stop another January 6 Recent reforms to the laws governing the counting of electoral college votes for presidential races are “not remotely sufficient” to prevent another attack like the one carried out by Donald Trump supporters at the Capitol on January 6, a member of the congressional committee which investigated the uprising has warned.January 6 report review: 845 pages, countless crimes, one simple truth – Trump did itRead moreIn an interview on CBS’s Face the Nation, the Maryland House representative Jamie Raskin on Sunday renewed calls echoed by others – especially in the Democratic party to which he belongs – to let a popular vote determine the holder of the Oval Office.“We should elect the president the way we elect governors, senators, mayors, representatives, everybody else – whoever gets the most votes wins,” Raskin said. “We spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year exporting American democracy to other countries, and the one thing they never come back to us with is the idea that, ‘Oh, that electoral college that you have, that’s so great, we think we will adopt that too’.”After Trump served one term and lost the Oval Office to Joe Biden in 2020, he pressured his vice-president Mike Pence to use his ceremonial role as president of the session where both the Senate and House of Representatives met to certify the outcome of the race and interfere with the counting of the electoral college votes.Pence refused, as supporters of the defeated Trump stormed the Capitol and threatened to hang the vice-president on the day of that joint congressional session in early 2021. The unsuccessful attack was linked to nine deaths, including the suicides of traumatized law enforcement officers who ultimately restored order.Raskin was one of nine House representatives – including seven Democrats – who served on a panel investigating the January 6 uprising.The committee recently released an 845-page report drawing from more than 1,000 interviews and 10 public hearings that, among other findings, concluded Trump provoked the Capitol attack by purposely disseminating false allegations of fraud pertaining to his defeat as part of a plot to overturn his loss. Committee members also recommended that federal prosecutors file criminal charges against Trump and certain associates of his.Hundreds of Trump’s supporters who participated in the Capitol attack have been charged, with many already convicted.Raskin said the US insistence on determining presidential winners through the electoral college facilitated the attempt by Trump supporters to keep him in power.“There are so many curving byways and nooks and crannies in the electoral college that there are opportunities for a lot of strategic mischief,” Raskin told Face the Nation host Margaret Brennan, adding that the institutions which prevented the Trump-fueled Capitol attack “just barely” did so.As part of a government spending package passed Friday, Congress updated existing federal election laws to clarify that the vice-president’s role in the proceedings to certify the results of a race is just ceremonial and merely to count electoral votes. It also introduced a requirement for 20% of the members of both the House and Senate to object to a state’s electoral college vote outcome when it had previously taken just one legislator from each congressional chamber to do so.Raskin on Sunday said those corrective measures are “necessary” yet “not remotely sufficient” because they don’t solve “the fundamental problem” of the electoral college vote, which in 2000 and 2016 allowed both George W Bush and Trump to win the presidency despite clear defeats in the popular vote.Another House Democrat – Dan Goldman of New York – went on MSNBC’s the Sunday show and made a similar point, saying that US lawmakers “need to be thinking about ways that we can preserve and protect our democracy that lasts generations”.Many Americans are taught in their high school civics classes that the electoral college prevents the handful of most populated areas in the US from determining the presidential winner because more voters live there than in the rest of the country combined.‘Hatred has a great grip on the heart’: election denialism lives on in US battlegroundRead moreStates generally determine their presidential electoral vote winner by the popular vote.But most give 100% of their electoral vote allotment to the winner of the popular vote even if the outcome is razor-thin. Critics say that, as a result, votes for the losing candidate end up not counting in any meaningful way, allowing for situations where the president is supported only by a minority of the populace.Meanwhile, such scenarios are preceded by a convoluted process that most people don’t understand and whose integrity can be assailed in the court of public opinion by partisans with agendas. That happened ahead of the Capitol attack even though Trump lost both the popular and electoral college votes to Biden handily.“I think,” Raskin said, “that the electoral college … has become a danger not just to democracy, but to the American people.”TopicsUS politicsElectoral reformUS Capitol attackDonald TrumpDemocratsRepublicansUS voting rightsnewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      January 6 panel’s body of work boosts DoJ case against Trump, experts say

      by

      January 6 panel’s body of work boosts DoJ case against Trump, experts sayFormer prosecutors say exhaustive report from Capitol attack committee ‘amounts to a detailed prosecution memo’ After 18 months of investigating Donald Trump’s drive to overturn his 2020 election loss, the House committee on the January 6 insurrection has provided the Department of Justice with an exhaustive legal roadmap as it pursues potential criminal charges against the former US president.Amid reports the committee is already co-operating with DoJ by sharing evidence garnered from 1,000 witness interviews and thousands of documents, former federal prosecutors say the panel’s work offers a trove of evidence to strengthen the formidable task of DoJ prosecutors investigating the former US president and his top loyalists.The wealth of evidence against Trump compiled by the panel spurred its unprecedented decision to send the DoJ four criminal referrals for Trump and some top allies about their multi-track planning and false claims of fraud to block Joe Biden from taking office.Although the referrals do not compel the justice department to file charges against Trump or others, the enormous evidence the panel amassed should boost its investigations, say ex-federal prosecutors.The massive evidence assembled by the panel was the basis for accusing Trump of obstruction of an act of Congress, inciting insurrection, conspiracy to defraud the US and making false statements“The central cause of January 6 was one man, former president Donald Trump, who many others followed,” the committee wrote in a detailed summary of its findings a few days before the release of its final 800-plus-page report on Thursday.The panel’s blockbuster report concluded that Trump criminally plotted to nullify his defeat in 2020 and “provoked his supporters to violence” at the Capitol with baseless claims of widespread voter fraud.Former prosecutors say the committee’s detailed factual presentation should boost some overlapping inquiries by DoJ including a months-long investigation into a fake electors scheme that Trump helped spearhead in tandem with John Eastman, a conservative lawyer who was also referred to the justice department for prosecution.“The January 6 committee’s final hearing and lengthy executive summary make out a powerful case to support its criminal referrals as to Trump, Eastman, and unnamed others,” former DoJ inspector general Michael Bromwich told the Guardian.“Although the referrals carry no legal weight, they provide an unusual preview of potential charges that may well be effective in swaying public opinion,” Bromwich said.Daniel Richman, a former federal prosecutor who is now a professor at Columbia Law School, also said the panel’s work should have a positive impact on the DoJ’s investigations.“Although the committee’s hearings gave a good preview of the criminal liability theories it has now laid out in its summary, the new [executive summary] document does an extraordinary job of pulling together the evidentiary materials the committee assembled,” Richman told the Guardian.“The committee’s presentation goes far beyond a call for heads to roll, and amounts to a detailed prosecution memo that the DoJ will have to reckon with.”Other former prosecutors said they agreed. “It is difficult to imagine that the DoJ could look at this body of facts and reach a different conclusion,” said Barbara McQuade, a former US attorney for eastern Michigan.“Although the committee’s referral to the justice department is not binding in any way, and the DoJ will make its own independent assessment of whether charges are appropriate, the most important parts of the report are the facts it documents.”That factual gold mine has caught the eye of special counsel Jack Smith, who attorney general Merrick Garland tapped last month to oversee the DoJ’s sprawling criminal inquiries into the January 6 insurrection.Smith, on 5 December, in a letter, asked for all of the committee’s materials related to its 18-month inquiry, as Punchbowl News first reported.After receiving the letter, the panel sent Smith’s team transcripts and documents, much of it concerning Eastman’s key role in promoting a fake electors scheme in tandem with Trump and others to block Biden’s certification by Congress.The House panel has also provided the DoJ all of former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows’ text messages and other relevant evidence.The committee has also shared transcripts of several witness interviews related to the fake electors ploy, plus the efforts by Trump and his loyalists to prod Georgia and some other states that Biden won to nullify their results.According to a Politico report, the transcripts the panel sent to the special counsel included interviews with several top Trump-linked lawyers such as former vice-president Mike Pence’s top legal counsel Greg Jacob, former White House counsel Pat Cipollone, former attorney general Bill Barr, Jeffrey Rosen, who succeeded Barr as AG, and Rosen’s deputy Richard Donoghue.Still, there are potential downsides to some of the evidence that the panel has made public in its extensive inquiries, say former prosecutors.“The enormous cache of evidence developed by the January 6 committee is a mixed blessing for the DoJ,” Bromwich said. “Although it undoubtedly provides evidence that the DoJ had not yet collected or developed, it will require time and resources to master and fully grasp its significance.”“More importantly, it may contain landmines of various kinds – for example, witnesses whose public testimony was powerful and unequivocal, but whose initial testimony was incomplete, misleading or false. That doesn’t matter in the context of a Congressional investigation; it matters a lot when a prosecutor needs to decide whether a witness will be vulnerable to attack on cross-examination based on the full body of their testimony.”Other former prosecutors say the panel’s exhaustive documentation and witness transcripts should on balance benefit the special counsel.“The committee report gives the special counsel not only the benefit of knowing what certain witnesses will say, it also lets him know what other witnesses won’t say,” Michael Moore, a former US attorney in Georgia, told the Guardian. “That type of intel gives him the ability to put together a stronger case with fewer surprises. More information is never a bad thing to a good lawyer.”On the broader legal challenges facing the DoJ, ex-prosecutors say the panel’s work should goad the department to work diligently to investigate and charge Trump and others the panel has referred for prosecution.“Normally, the department quietly exercises enormous discretion by hiding behind the mantra that it will pursue cases whenever the facts and law support doing so,” Richman said. “The public usually has to take its word for that, as it lacks the granular knowledge to make its own assessment.“Here, though it may disagree with the committee’s handling of the law and the evidence, there will be considerable pressure on the DoJ to either bring the specified cases or find a way to explain why it will not.”TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Highest-profile January 6 trial begins with Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio

      by

      Highest-profile January 6 trial begins with Proud Boys leader Enrique TarrioChairman of militia group and four others are charged with seditious conspiracy related to Capitol insurrection The January 6 committee investigating the attack on the Capitol may have issued its huge final report, but the wheels of the justice system in the US are grinding on and one of the most high-profile trials emerging from the insurrection is about to begin in earnest.Jury selection began last week with the seditious conspiracy trial against ex-Proud Boys national chairman Enrique Tarrio and four others involved in the far-right, often violent militia group.From Liz Cheney to Donald Trump: winners and losers from the January 6 hearingsRead moreTarrio and his co-defendants in the Washington DC federal court trial – Ethan Nordean, Zachary Rehl, Dominic Pezzola and Proud Boy organizer Joe Biggs – are charged with seditious conspiracy and other counts related to the attack that delayed congressional certification of Joe Biden’s election victory, injured dozens of police officers and is linked to multiple deaths. They have all pleaded not guilty to the charges.A fifth man charged in this case, Charles Donohoe, pleaded guilty in April to conspiring to attack the Capitol. Under Donohoe’s plea deal, he agreed to cooperate against his co-defendants. Approximately 900 people have now been arrested in the Capitol attack, with prosecutors securing convictions against hundreds.The start of the trial comes amid a wider reckoning with those responsible for the January 6 attack.Several hours after jury selection started on Monday in the Proud Boys trial, the House committee probing the deadly insurrection issued some of its findings – and made a criminal referral against Trump to the US Department of Justice, recommending charges. The trial also comes several weeks after two leaders of the Oath Keepers – another far-right group – were found guilty of seditious conspiracy for their involvement in the insurrection.Federal prosecutors allege that Nordean, Biggs, Rehl and Pezzola were among the 100 Proud Boys who convened alongside the Washington Monument at 10am on 6 January. They met around the time that Trump was addressing thousands of supporters in a park called the Ellipse.These soon-to-be rioters in that group then made their way to the Capitol. Around 1pm, one of them broke through police, spurring the violence that would consume Capitol Hill, court documents allege.Nordean, Rehl, Biggs and Pezzola allegedly led the mob and were among the first people to push past police. Biggs allegedly recorded a video where he observed the mob and said: “We’ve taken the Capitol,” per court documents.Tarrio was not in Washington DC during the insurrection, as he had been arrested two days prior for allegedly vandalizing a Black Lives Matter sign at a historical Black church during a December 2020 demonstration. Prosecutors contend that Tarrio was among the leaders of this conspiracy to thwart election certification.Several days before the riot, Tarrio posted about “revolution” on social media, prosecutors said in court papers. In an encrypted messaging group which prosecutors maintain was created by Tarrio, one member purportedly said: “Time to stack those bodies in front of Capitol Hill,” per the Associated Press.Despite being arrested several days prior, Tarrio heralded the rioters’ attack, writing “don’t [expletive] leave” on social media and later posting “we did this…” prosecutors said.While there appears to be extensive evidence against these men, much of which has long been in the public record, prosecutors must show more than their in-person or social media presence that day to prove seditious conspiracy.“They’re going to have to show an agreement between two people or more, they’re going to have to show a common scheme or a common plan,” said Los Angeles criminal defense and appellate attorney Matthew Barhoma, founder of Barhoma Law.“Showing up on January 6 at the same time doesn’t mean that a conspiracy indeed existed. They’re going to have to go a little bit beyond that to show there is a common agreement – basically a smoking gun in the sense that they intended to overthrow the government,” he added. “They’re going to have to show that they wanted to act in a common plan in furtherance of that plan to overthrow the government or to delay or hinder the United States government.”‘These are conditions ripe for political violence’: how close is the US to civil war?Read moreThat said, “seditious conspiracy is actually in some ways, much easier to prove than regular criminal conspiracy,” explained longtime attorney Ron Kuby, a longtime criminal defense attorney with a focus on civil rights.“Seditious conspiracy is the only conspiracy that does not require proof of an overt act on the part of participants,” Kuby said. “Generally speaking, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to do something unlawful, and in all other conspiracy cases, at least one of the participants has to take a substantial step toward that unlawful purpose.”“Here, it’s really a sidenote, footnote, endnote and asterisk. They don’t have to prove an overt act, what they they have to prove there was an agreement to oppose the lawful authority of the United States of America by force.“There’s a tsunami of evidence, both in terms of what was said among the participants, which the FBI has obtained and decrypted as well as what they did, which is all well-documented on video.”Although evidence appears to abound, one possible defense strategy would be to portray the alleged plotters as buffoons. “These guys were angry knuckleheads but you know, they’re not planning to overthrow the government,” Kuby said of this possible approach.It’s unclear whether these Proud Boys members would go along with that, even if this could help their cases.“The natural impulse of every defense lawyer is to portray their clients in a fashion which is most likely to result in acquittal, but that’s not necessarily the way most defendants want to be portrayed,” Kuby said. “The Proud Boys may not want to be portrayed as loud-mouthed knuckleheads who were just egging each other on to say dumber and dumber things because they’re not that bright.”Tarrio’s attorneys have contended that he didn’t tell or encourage anyone to storm the Capitol or act violently, while Nordean’s lawyer alleged that justice department prosecutors were singling him out because of his political beliefs, the AP reported.In an email to the Guardian, Tarrio’s attorney, Nayib Hassan, said: “Mr Tarrio is looking forward to the start of the trial. We look forward to making our presentation of the evidence and acquitting Mr Tarrio of the governments allegations.”Rehl’s lawyer reportedly wanted the judge to dismiss the indictment on First amendment grounds, claiming the charges were rooted in free speech issues. Asked for comment, Biggs’s attorney, Norm Pattis, said in an email: “We look forward to the presentation of evidence in this case. We stand by his plea of not guilty.”TopicsUS Capitol attackJanuary 6 hearingsLaw (US)The far rightUS politicsJoe BidenDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Will the January 6 report bring a second Christmas for US publishers?

      by

      Will the January 6 report bring a second Christmas for US publishers? Major imprints are racing to sell the committee’s work to the reading public, with help from reporters, panel members, David Remnick and even a former speechwriter to TrumpThe release of the final report of the House January 6 committee has sparked a deluge of publishing activity: seven editions of the 200,000 word document from six imprints, featuring contributions from the New Yorker editor, David Remnick, the House intelligence chair, Adam Schiff, plus six other journalists, another committee member, a former congresswoman and a former speechwriter to Donald Trump.January 6 report review: 845 pages, countless crimes, one simple truth – Trump did itRead moreThere are two reasons for this hyperactivity: the belief that the completion of the report is a significant historical event, and the conviction that here is a big chance to do well by doing good.The Mueller report sold 475,000 copies in various editions, according to NPD BookScan, so the book business is hoping it can do at least that well with the latest copy provided for free by the federal government.Harper Perennial says it is printing 250,000 copies of its version, which features a powerful introduction by Ari Melber, an MSNBC host, that reads like a smart prosecutor’s multi-part indictment. It helps that Melber’s marketing power is at least as great as his brain power. Pushing it on his nightly show, he has already gotten the book to the top of one Amazon bestseller list, long before it has reached any store.The lawyer turned TV personality does the best job of delineating the eight plots Trump and his allies pursued to try to overthrow the election, seven of which were clearly illegal or unconstitutional.“They attempted a coup,” Melber declares. “That is the most important fact about what happened.”Remnick and Jamie Raskin, like Schiff a committee member, teamed up to write an introduction and an afterword for the version being published by an imprint of Macmillan.Remnick gets straight to the heart of the matter: “Trump does little to conceal his most distinctive characteristics: his racism, misogyny, dishonesty, narcissism, incompetence, cruelty, instability, and corruption. And yet what has kept Trump afloat for so long, what has helped him evade ruin and prosecution, is perhaps his most salient quality: he is shameless.”Because so many of us have nearly lost our “ability to experience outrage”, Remnick concedes that “the prospect of engaging with this congressional inquiry … is sometimes a challenge to the spirit … And yet a citizenry that can no longer bring itself to pay attention to such an investigation or to absorb its astonishing findings risks moving even farther toward a disturbing ‘new normal’: a post-truth, post-democratic America.”Raskin sees the assault on the Capitol as the latest in a series of “systematic threats” to US democracy, including “massive voter suppression, gerrymandering of state and federal legislative districts, the use of the filibuster to block protection of voting rights, and right-wing judicial activism to undermine the Voting Rights Act”.His biggest goal is the elimination of electoral college, without any amendment to the constitution. That can be done through “the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, an agreement among participating states that gives electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the nationwide popular vote, and which has already been adopted by 15 states and the District of Columbia with 195 electoral votes, or 72% of the 270 votes needed” to put it into effect.Writing for Random House, Schiff excoriates Republicans for trying so hard to block certification of Biden’s victory even after the Capitol invasion – 147 Republicans including eight senators lodged objections early on the morning of January 7. But he is also careful to give credit to Republican witnesses who did so much to burnish the committee’s credibility.“These officials, Republicans all, not only held fast against enormous pressure from a president of their party but were willing to stand before the country and testify under oath,” Schiff writes.Schiff argues that the report is an undeniable brief for prosecution of Trump: “Bringing to justice a former president who, even now, advocates the suspension of our constitution is a perilous endeavor. Not doing so is far more dangerous.”For Skyhorse, the former congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, the only contributor old enough to have voted to impeach Richard Nixon, echoes Schiff on this point.“Having had to vote to impeach a president when I was in Congress, I am certain that [the January 6 committee] did not make its criminal referrals to the justice department lightly. In the same vein, the DoJ should not treat it lightly – and I hope and believe the American people will not let that happen.”The Hachette book has the largest amount of additional material, including a first-person account of the Capitol attack by a New York Times reporter, Luke Broadwater. After making it to a secure area, Broadwater found he was “much more angry” than “afraid”. So were other more conservative reporters, disgusted by senators who encouraged the myth of election theft. Broadwater recalls “one shouting to a Republican as he passed by, ‘Are you proud of yourself, Senator?’”All of these books are serious efforts to put the committee’s exhaustive findings in a larger political and historical context, including the one published by Skyhorse with an introduction by Holtzman. But Skyhorse also maintains its maverick reputation as a publisher famous for picking up books others have spurned (Woody Allen’s memoir, for example) by publishing two versions of the new report, one with Holtzman’s foreword and another featuring Darren Beattie, a former speechwriter for Trump and Steven Miller.Tony Lyons, the US publisher who picks up books ‘cancelled’ by other pressesRead moreBeattie was fired by the Trump White House after it was reported that he attended a conference with Peter Brimelow, founder of the anti-immigrant website VDare, a “white nationalist” who “regularly publishes works by white supremacists, antisemites, and others on the radical right”, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.Beattie is horrified that the January 6 committee describes the assault on the Capitol as an outgrowth of white supremacy.“Far from serving as an objective fact-finding body, the January 6 committee functioned as such an egregiously performative, partisan kangaroo display as to make propagandists in North Korea blush,” he writes – with characteristic understatement.Beattie provides more comic relief with his approach to the alleged election fraud which is one of the main subjects of the report.“It would take us too far afield to consider the election fraud allegations in detail on the merits,” Beattie writes.Then he gives a long explanation of why no one should think Trump really believed he lost the election, just because that’s what his attorney general and so many others told him.“For all of the committee’s fixation on the term ‘Big Lie’, the committee presents precious little if any evidence that Donald Trump didn’t genuinely believe that election fraud ultimately tipped the balance against him.“… The committee’s first televised hearing repeated ad nauseam a video clip of Trump’s former attorney general Bill Barr referring to Trump’s election fraud theories as ‘bullshit’.“Apart from Barr, the committee referenced numerous Trump associates who claim to have told the former president his election fraud theories were wrong. The simple fact that some of Trump’s senior staffers may have disagreed with Trump on the election issue is hardly proof that Trump was persuaded by them, and that therefore Trump’s efforts to ‘stop the steal’ amounted to a deliberate lie and malicious attempt to prevent the legitimate and peaceful transition of power.Republican senator called Giuliani ‘walking malpractice’, January 6 report saysRead more“Barr’s additional remark that Trump was ‘completely detached from reality’ when it came to the 2020 election unwittingly undermines the committee’s suggestion that Trump was lying about the matter.”Primetime hearings sometimes reached as many 18 million viewers, a number Remnick notes was “comparable to Sunday Night Football on NBC”. In the midterm elections, many exit polls found that the preservation of democracy was a key factor in the decision of many swing voters to vote against Republicans. It seems clear the investigation bolstered American democracy in more ways than one.While a hearty minority obviously remain as far down a rabbit hole as Trump’s former speechwriter, the results of the recent election bolster my conviction that sane Americans still constitute a small majority of American voters.So, like most of the contributors to these volumes, I think there is much to be grateful for in the work of the most successful congressional investigators since the Senate Watergate committee of 50 years ago. Or, as Remnick puts it, “If you are reaching for optimism – and despair is not an option – the existence and the depth of the committee’s project represents a kind of hope. It represents an insistence on truth and democratic principle.”TopicsBooksJanuary 6 hearingsUS Capitol attackUS politicsUS CongressHouse of RepresentativesPolitics booksfeaturesReuse 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

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Transcripts reveal Cassidy Hutchinson was pressured to protect Trump: ‘I was scared’

      by

      Transcripts reveal Cassidy Hutchinson was pressured to protect Trump: ‘I was scared’According to transcripts, Cassidy was conflicted ahead of the hearing: ‘I felt like Trump was looking over my shoulder’ “I’m about to be fucking nuked,” former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson reportedly told a January 6 committee staff member after meeting with investigators before her bombshell testimony to the committee in June. Her prediction turned out to be accurate.Within hours of Hutchinson’s surprise appearance, where she testified about a furious president who encouraged his supporters to march to the Capitol, tried to grab the steering wheel of a presidential SUV and hurled his lunch against an Oval Office wall, the backlash began.Hutchinson had instantly become one of the star witnesses of the panel. Her testimony had been devastating to her former boss. But she was attacked by Donald Trump as a “total phony”. The Secret Service, through media back-channels, rejected her second-hand account of an altercation. Indiana Republican Jim Banks accused Hutchinson of being a “sham” star witness who had offered “hearsay” to the committee. “This is the Russia hoax playbook,” he said.According to additional transcripts of her closed-door testimony released last week, Cassidy had been conflicted ahead of the hearing and how much she had wrestled with the concept of effectively becoming a whistleblower. She’d already given two depositions in the months earlier, in which she’s played along with the Trumpworld narrative.They also reveal how much pressure Hutchinson was placed under to remain “loyal” and “in the family” ahead of testimony that established to many that the hearings were a telling and horrific examination of the events on or around January 6.Her lawyer had told her, “we just want to focus on protecting the president” and she was told, she informed the panel in testimony in September – two months after her public appearance – that she would be “taken care of” if only she followed their desired script.“I was scared,” she told investigators. “I almost felt like at points Donald Trump was looking over my shoulder.”Out-of-work, Hutchinson said she’d been unable to afford counsel. She’d asked for, and been refused, money from her estranged biological father. A request to her aunt and uncle also fell through.In her testimony, she said she’d accepted the help of former Trump White House ethics counsel Stefan Passantino who, Hutchinson claims, encouraged her to fail to recall some events during the interviews. That claim, made under oath, could provide federal investigators with evidence of witness tampering.“The less you remember, the better,” Hutchinson recalled Passantino telling her. “Don’t read anything to try to jog your memory. Don’t try to put together timelines … Especially if you put together timelines, we have to give those over to the committee.”In a statement to the Washington Post this week, Passantino denied any wrongdoing. “As with all my clients during my 30 years of practice, I represented Ms Hutchinson honorably, ethically, and fully consistent with her sole interests as she communicated them to me,” he said.Hutchinson also testified that an array of Trump officials, including her former boss and then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, had promised that loyalty would be beneficial to her. “We’re gonna get you a really good job in Trump world,” Passantino told her, Cassidy testified. “We’re gonna get you taken care of. We want to keep you in the family”.““Look, we want to get you in, get you out,” Hutchinson said Passantino told her. “We’re going to downplay your role. You were a secretary. You had an administrative role.”According to transcripts, Hutchinson has felt uneasy about Passantino’s advice to downplay what she knew and that she had struggled between repeating testimony she had offered in February and March, replete with “I cannot recall” statements.Without telling Passantino, Hutchinson contacted former White House aide Alyssa Farah Griffin to ask to act as a backchannel to the committee so they could call her back in a third time and know what questions to ask her. “If I’m going to pass the mirror test for the rest of my life, I need to try to fix some of this,” she testified in September, referring to wanting to be able to look at her own reflection without feeing shame.But, she said, she “knew in some fashion it would get back to him if I said anything he would find disloyal,” she testified. “And the prospect of that genuinely scared me. You know, I’d seen this world ruin people’s lives or try to ruin people’s careers.”She drove home to New Jersey where she read up on Nixon White House whistleblowers, including former Counsel John Dean and Alex Butterfield, who co-authored The Last of the President’s Men with journalist Bob Woodward.“I read it once. Then I read it again, underlined. And then I read it a third time, and I went through and tabbed it,” she said. “He talked about a lot of the same things that I felt like I was experiencing … but he ended up doing the right thing.”After the second session, Hutchinson said her testimony was shared with others in the Trump orbit. It was, she said, “the first clear indicator for me of he doesn’t care about what I want, he doesn’t care about what I think is best for me, he’s doing what he thinks is best for Trump and the people in Trump’s orbit”.When the panel indicated it might want to recall her a third time, Passadino told her: “We really think this is what’s best for you, Cass. Like, this needs to end at some point, and I think it just needs to end now”.Hutchinson later testified that she became unwilling “to let this moment completely destroy my reputation, my character, and my integrity for a cause that I was starkly opposed to”.Hutchinson changed attorneys to Jody Hunt, a longtime confidant of Jeff Sessions, the former Republican senator from Alabama who had served as Trump’s first attorney general.Speaking with CNN on Thursday, Griffin described Hutchinson as “a patriot who bravely upheld the oath she swore when she took a job in the White House. I’m grateful for her willingness to share the unvarnished truth with the American public”.TopicsJanuary 6 hearingsUS Capitol attackUS politicsDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More