US Capitol attack

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Jury deliberations begin in January 6 sedition trial of Oath Keepers founder

      by

      Jury deliberations begin in January 6 sedition trial of Oath Keepers founderJurors will decide if his actions amount to seditious conspiracy, which carries significant jail time As angry supporters of President Donald Trump stormed the US Capitol, ready to smash through windows and beat police officers, Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes extolled them as patriots and harked back to the battle that kicked off the American revolutionary war.“Next comes our Lexington,” Rhodes told his fellow far-right extremists in a message on 6 January 2021. “It’s coming.”Jurors will begin weighing his words and actions on Tuesday, after nearly two months of testimony and argument in the criminal trial of Rhodes and four codefendants. Final defense arguments wrapped up late Monday.Oath Keepers called for ‘violent overthrow’ of US government, trial hearsRead moreHundreds of people have been convicted in the attack that left dozens of officers injured, sent lawmakers running for their lives and shook the foundations of American democracy. Now jurors in the case against Rhodes and four associates will decide, for the first time, whether the actions of any January 6 defendants amount to seditious conspiracy – a rarely used charge that carries both significant prison time and political weight.The jury’s verdict may well address the false notion that the 2020 presidential election was stolen, coming soon after 2022 midterm results in which voters rejected Trump’s chosen Republican candidates who supported his baseless claims of fraud. The outcome could also shape the future of the justice department’s massive and costly prosecution of the insurrection that some conservatives have sought to portray as politically motivated.Failure to secure a seditious conspiracy conviction could spell trouble for another high-profile trial beginning next month of former Proud Boys national chairman Enrique Tarrio and other leaders of that extremist group. The justice department’s January 6 probe has also expanded beyond those who attacked the Capitol to focus on others linked to Trump’s efforts to overturn the election.In the Oath Keepers trial, prosecutors built their case using dozens of encrypted messages sent in the weeks leading up to January 6. They show Rhodes rallying his followers to fight to defend Trump and warning they might need to “rise up in insurrection”.“We aren’t getting through this without a civil war. Prepare your mind, body and spirit,” he wrote shortly after the 2020 election.Three defendants, including Rhodes, took the witness stand to testify in their defense – a move generally seen by defense lawyers as a last-resort option because it tends to do more harm than good. On the witness stand, Rhodes, of Granbury, Texas, and his associates – Thomas Caldwell of Berryville, Virginia, and Jessica Watkins, of Woodstock, Ohio – sought to downplay their actions, but struggled when pressed by prosecutors to explain their violent messages.The others on trial are Kelly Meggs of Dunnellon, Florida, and Kenneth Harrelson of Titusville, Florida. Seditious conspiracy carries up to 20 years behind bars, and all five defendants also face other felony charges. They would be the first people convicted of seditious conspiracy at trial since the 1995 prosecution of Islamic militants who plotted to bomb New York City landmarks.The trial unfolding in Washington’s federal court – less than a mile from the Capitol – has provided a window into the ways in which Rhodes mobilized his group and later tried to reach Trump.‘We must defeat them’: new evidence details Oath Keepers’ ‘civil war’ timelineRead moreBut while authorities combed through thousands of messages sent by Rhodes and his codefendants, none specifically spelled out a plan to attack the Capitol itself. Defense attorneys emphasized that fact throughout the trial in arguing that Oath Keepers who did enter the Capitol were swept up in a spontaneous outpouring of election-fueled rage rather than acting as part of a plot.Jurors never heard from three other Oath Keepers who have pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy.Over two days on the witness stand, a seemingly relaxed Rhodes told jurors there was no Capitol attack plan. He said he didn’t have anything to do with the guns some Oath Keepers had stashed at a Virginia hotel that prosecutors say served as the base for “quick reaction force” teams ready to ferry an arsenal of weapons across the Potomac River if necessary. The weapons were never deployed.Rhodes, a Yale Law School graduate and former Army paratrooper, said his followers were “stupid” for going inside. Rhodes, who was in a hotel room when he found out rioters were storming the Capitol, insisted that the Oath Keepers’ only mission for the day was to provide security for Trump ally Roger Stone and other figures at events before the riot.That message was repeated in court by others, including a man described as the Oath Keepers’ “operations leader” on January 6, who told jurors he never heard anyone discussing plans to attack the Capitol.A government witness – an Oath Keeper cooperating with prosecutors in hopes of a lighter sentence – testified that there was an “implicit” agreement to stop Congress’s certification, but the decision to enter the building was “spontaneous”.Prosecutors say the defense is only trying to muddy the waters in a clear-cut case. The Oath Keepers aren’t accused of entering into an agreement ahead of January 6 to storm the Capitol.Citing the civil war-era seditious conspiracy statute, prosecutors tried to prove the Oath Keepers conspired to forcibly oppose the authority of the federal government and block the execution of laws governing the transfer of presidential power. Prosecutors must show the defendants agreed to use force – not merely advocated it – to oppose the transfer of presidential power.TopicsUS newsUS politicsThe far rightUS Capitol attacknewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Delaware man sentenced for joining US Capitol riots while on Tinder date

      by

      Delaware man sentenced for joining US Capitol riots while on Tinder dateAfter news of attack was reported on TV at his date’s house, man took Uber to Capitol and climbed through broken window to enter A Delaware man was sentenced to jail time for joining the January 6 Capitol attacks after seeing the violence unfold on a Tinder date’s television.Jeffrey Schaefer was sentenced to 30 days in jail and ordered to pay a $2,000 fine on Friday after prosecutors argued that he participated in the Capitol attacks after watching the rioting happen on TV while at his date’s house.Oath Keepers called for ‘violent overthrow’ of US government, trial hearsRead moreAccording to court filings, Schaefer was initially at the house of a woman he had met on Tinder on 6 January 2021 in Alexandria, Virginia, about 20 minutes outside of Washington DC.Schaefer then reportedly saw the attack on the Capitol on television and called an Uber to take him there so he could participate.When Schaefer arrived at the Capitol, prosecutors say that he climbed a short wall and gained access to the Capitol building through a broken window.Schaefer stayed in the Capitol building for about 28 minutes, chanting with other rioters and taking several photos and videos before exiting.“THIS IS UNREAL,” Schaefer wrote in one Facebook post that included a picture of rioters outside the Capitol.Prosecutors pieced together Schaefer’s time spent in the Capitol based on surveillance footage and social media posts he made leading up to the January 6 riots and while inside the building.During an interview with the FBI in June 2022, Schaefer admitted that he was interested in the rioting before going to see his Tinder date on 6 January.Schaefer was arrested on 13 January 2022. On 2 August 2022, Schaefer pleaded guilty to one count of parading, demonstrating or picketing in a Capitol building, with three additional charges against him dropped as part of a plea deal.During his defense argument, Schaefer’s lawyer, Joshua Insley, criticized Donald Trump and said Schaefer was manipulated by lies about the legitimacy of the 2020 election, reported KSL-TV, a local news affiliate.“While Mr Schaefer accepts responsibility for his actions, he was guided and urged every step of the way by no less of an authority than the president of the United States and a majority of Republican senators and congressman that continued to repeat the ‘big lie’ that the election had been stolen by the Democrats,” Insley argued.TopicsUS Capitol attackUS crimeDonald TrumpUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Pence says FBI search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago ‘sent the wrong message’

      by

      Pence says FBI search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago ‘sent the wrong message’Ex-vice-president hopes prosecutors ‘give careful consideration before taking more steps’ in investigating Trump over January 6 Though he believes “no one is above the law,” former US vice-president Mike Pence says he hopes federal prosecutors “give careful consideration before they take any additional steps” in investigating Donald Trump’s role in inciting the rioters who staged the January 6 Capitol attack and tried to hang him.Pence made those remarks Sunday in an interview with the host of NBC’s Meet the Press, Chuck Todd, in which he also said that the FBI “sent the wrong message” with its search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence in August to retake government secrets that were stored there without authorization.According to Pence, Trump was “repeating … what he was hearing from that gaggle of attorneys around him” before the deadly January 6 attack on the Capitol nearly two years ago, which supporters of the president at the time launched in a desperate but unsuccessful attempt to halt the certification of his defeat to Joe Biden in the 2020 election.Trump has been under congressional investigation after telling his supporters – some of whom wanted Pence to stop the certification or hang from a gallows – to “fight like hell” that day, among other things. Biden’s attorney general, Merrick Garland, on Friday appointed a special counsel to weigh charges against Trump for the Capitol attack and the government secrets at Mar-a-Lago, two days after the former president announced that he would again seek the Republican nomination for the White House.But, when asked on Sunday if he thinks Trump committed a crime in connection with the Capitol attack, Pence replied: “I don’t know if it is criminal to listen to bad advice from lawyers” who were consulting the president on efforts to sow distrust about his loss to Biden.As for the Mar-a-Lago search, Pence suggested that federal authorities had not exhausted alternative methods to recoup the secret documents in question. “There had to be many other ways to resolve those issues,” Pence told Todd.The justice department had issued a grand jury subpoena seeking all documents bearing classification markings in Trump’s possession before the Mar-a-Lago search.Trump’s lawyers produced some documents in early June in response to that subpoena. But the justice department subsequently received evidence that other classified documents remained at Mar-a-Lago, leading to the search there on 8 August.Ultimately, Pence said it sent a “wrong” and “divisive” message, particularly “to the wider world that looks to America as the gold standard”.“I want to see the credibility of the [US] justice department restored after years of politicization,” Pence added.Pence’s relatively supportive remarks for Trump cut a contrast with more critical ones that he had leveled against his former running mate in his new memoir, So Help Me God. One part of the memoir says Trump erred by failing to condemn the 2017 white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, marked by a deadly police helicopter crash and the murder of a counter-protester.The book also asserts that Trump misstepped by failing to acknowledge Russian meddling in the 2016 election he won over Hillary Clinton, saying that doing so would not have cheapened the victory.Pence also responded to Trump’s latest run for the White House by telling ABC News: “I think we’ll have better choices in the future.” For his part, Pence told ABC he was giving “prayerful consideration” to his possibly competing for the Republican nomination, too.Authorities have linked up to nine deaths to the Capitol attack, including the suicides of officers who were traumatized by having to defend the grounds. More than 800 participants have been charged, including members of violent far-right groups, and many have already been convicted as well as imprisoned for their roles on that day.Pence said on Sunday he was proud that neither chamber of Congress let the Capitol attack derail the certification of the 2020 election’s outcome.“Leaders in both political parties” reached “unanimous agreement that whatever needed to be done, we needed to reconvene the Congress that day and finish our work”, Pence said.TopicsMike PenceUS politicsJanuary 6 hearingsUS Capitol attackUS elections 2024newsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      So Help Me God review: Mike Pence’s tortured bid for Republican relevance

      by

      So Help Me God review: Mike Pence’s tortured bid for Republican relevanceTrump’s VP is surprisingly critical of the boss whose followers wanted him dead. But surely the presidency won’t be his too After four years at Donald Trump’s side, Mike Pence emerged as the Rodney Dangerfield of vice-presidents: he gets no respect. So Help Me God, his memoir, is well-written and well-paced. But it will do little to shake that impression.Cheney hits back as Pence says January 6 committee has ‘no right’ to testimonyRead moreAt the Capitol on January 6, his boss was prepared to leave him for dead. And yet the Republican rank-and-file yawned. Among prospective presidential nominees, Pence is tied with Donald Trump Jr for third. The GOP gravitates to frontrunners. Pence, once a six-term congressman and governor of Indiana, is not that.As governor, he was dwarfed by his predecessor, Mitch Daniels. On Capitol Hill, he was eclipsed by the late Richard Lugar, also from Indiana and chair of the Senate foreign relations committee, and Dan Coats, another Hoosier senator. On the page, Pence lauds all three. Say what you like, he is unfailingly polite.Coats became Donald Trump’s director of national intelligence and repeatedly pushed back against the president. That cost Coats his job. Pence pushed back less.The former vice-president is a committed Christian with sharp elbows but also a sonorous voice. He has struggled with the tugs of faith and ambition. Family is an integral part of his life. He takes pride in his son’s service as a US marine. Born and raised a Catholic, the 48th vice-president is now one of America’s most prominent evangelicals. So Help Me God is replete with references to prayer. Pence begins with a verse from the Book of Jeremiah and concludes with Ecclesiastes: “There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens.”Trump picked him as a running mate at the suggestion of Paul Manafort. Unlike Newt Gingrich and Chris Christie, other possible picks, Pence could do “normal”.Time passes. On 3 November 2020, America delivered its verdict on the Trump presidency. Trump lost. By his own admission, Pence was surprised. He refused to believe the polls and mistook the enthusiasm of the base for the entire political landscape. He wrongly believed he would serve another four years, yards from the Oval Office, enjoying weekly lunches with the Man.Instead, two months later, at great personal peril, he accepted reality and abided by his conscience and the constitution. Like Richard Nixon, Walter Mondale, Dan Quayle (another hapless Hoosier) and Al Gore, Pence presided over the certification of an election he had lost.For Pence and those around him, it was a matter of duty and faith. They refused to subvert democracy. Yet along the way Pence flashed streaks of being in two minds politically – as he continues to do. He rebuffed Trump’s entreaties to join a coup but gave a thumbs-up to the turbulence. He welcomed the decision by the Missouri senator Josh Hawley to object to election results.“It meant we would have a substantive debate,” Pence writes. He got way more than that. His own brother, Greg Pence, an Indiana congressman, voted against certification – mere hours after the insurrectionists sought to hang his brother from makeshift gallows. As the mob raged, Greg Pence hid too. After it, the brass ring came first.Among House Republicans, Trump remains emperor. Rightwing members have extracted a pledge that the GOP-controlled House will investigate Nancy Pelosi and the justice department for the purported mistreatment of defendants jailed for invading the Capitol. Pence’s anger and hurt are visible.“The president’s words were reckless, and they endangered my family and everyone at the Capitol building,” he recently said. But in the next breath, he stonewalled the House January 6 committee. Pence told CBS it would set a “terrible precedent” for Congress to summon a vice-president to testify about conversations at the White House. He also attacked the committee for its “partisanship”.Bennie Thompson, the Democratic committee chair, and Liz Cheney, the Republican vice-chair, pushed back hard.“Our investigation has publicly presented the testimony of more than 50 Republican witnesses,” they said. “This testimony, subject to criminal penalties for lying to Congress, was not ‘partisan’. It was truthful.”From Pence, it was a strained attempt to retain political viability. Surely, that train has left the station.Pence’s memoir does deliver a perhaps surprisingly surgical indictment of Trump. The book catalogs Trump’s faults, errors and sins. From Charlottesville to Russia to Ukraine, Pence repeatedly tags him for his shortcomings and missteps.He upbraids Trump for his failure to condemn “the racists and antisemites in Charlottesville by name”, but then rejects the contention Trump is a bigot.Pence risks Trump’s wrath by piling on criticisms of ex-president in new bookRead moreAs for Putin, “there was no reason for Trump not to call out Russia’s bad behaviour”, Pence writes. “Acknowledging Russian meddling” would not have “cheapen[ed] our victory” over Hillary Clinton. On Ukraine, the subject of Trump’s first impeachment, Pence terms the infamous phone call to Volodymyr Zelenskiy “less than perfect”.But even as Putin’s malignance takes center stage, the Trumps refuse to abandon their man. Don Jr clamors to halt aid to Ukraine, the dauphin gone Charles Lindbergh. He tweets: “Since it was Ukraine’s missile that hit our NATO ally Poland, can we at least stop spending billions to arm them now?”These days, Pence leads Advancing American Freedom, a tax-exempt conservative way-station with an advisory board replete with Trump refugees. Kellyanne Conway, Betsy DeVos and Callista Gingrich are there, so too David Friedman and Larry Kudlow. If more than one of them backs Pence in 2024, count it a minor miracle.Rodney Dangerfield is gone. But his spirit definitely lives on – in Mike Pence, of all people.
      So Help Me God is published in the US by Simon & Schuster
      TopicsBooksMike PenceDonald TrumpTrump administrationRepublicansUS politicsUS elections 2020reviewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Oath Keepers called for ‘violent overthrow’ of US government, trial hears

      by

      Oath Keepers called for ‘violent overthrow’ of US government, trial hearsJurors hear closing arguments in seditious conspiracy trial of founder Stewart Rhodes and four associates of far-right group For weeks leading up to 6 January 2021, the Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes and four associates of the far-right group discussed using violence to overturn the 2020 presidential election’s outcome, and when rioters started storming the US Capitol they saw an opportunity to do it, a federal prosecutor told jurors on Friday as the seditious conspiracy case wound toward a close.Prosecutor Kathryn Rakoczy said in her closing argument to jurors after nearly two months of testimony in the high-stakes case that Rhodes’s own words show he was preparing to lead a rebellion to keep Democrat Joe Biden out of the White House. Rhodes and his co-defendants repeatedly called for “violent overthrow” of the US government and sprang into action that day, she said.Seditious conspiracy is rarely proven. The Oath Keepers trial is a litmus testRead more“Our democracy is fragile,” Rakoczy said. “It cannot exist without the rule of law, and it will not survive if people dissatisfied with the results of an election can use force and violence to change the outcome.”The closing arguments began in Washington federal court after the final pieces of evidence were presented in the trial alleging Rhodes and his band of anti-government extremists plotted for weeks to interrupt the peaceful transfer of power from Republican Donald Trump to Biden.Rhodes’s attorney sought to downplay his violent rhetoric in the run-up to January 6, describing it as “venting” and insisting there was no agreement or conspiracy. Defense attorney James Lee Bright said Rhodes’s language was focused on persuading Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act over what he saw as a stolen election.Rhodes “wasn’t hiding his opinions, he wasn’t hiding any plans”, Bright told jurors. He was “as open as daylight with every plan on what he was asking President Trump to do”.Evidence presented by prosecutors shows Rhodes and his co-defendants discussing the prospect of violence and the need to keep Biden out of the White House in the weeks leading up to January 6, before stashing a cache of weapons referred to as a “quick reaction force” at a Virginia hotel across the Potomac River.On January 6, Oath Keepers wearing helmets and other battle gear were seen pushing through the pro-Trump mob there and into the Capitol. Rhodes remained outside, like “a general surveying his troops on a battlefield”, a prosecutor told jurors. After the attack, prosecutors said, Rhodes and other Oath Keepers celebrated with dinner at a local restaurant.Defense attorneys have spent weeks hammering prosecutors’ relative lack of evidence that the Oath Keepers had an explicit plan to attack the Capitol. Rhodes, who is from Texas, testified that he and his followers were only in Washington to provide security for rightwing figures including Roger Stone. Those Oath Keepers who did enter the Capitol went rogue and were “stupid”, he said.Rhodes testified that the mountain of writings and text messages showing him rallying his band of extremists to prepare for violence and discussing the prospect of a “bloody” civil war ahead of January 6 was only bombastic talk.The prosecutor sought to rebut suggestions that Rhodes’s rhetoric was simply bluster, telling jurors that his messages weren’t “ranting and raving” but were “deadly serious”.“The way they have appointed themselves to be above the law is why they are here today,” she said. “The sense of entitlement that led to frustration followed by rage and then violence – that is the story of this conspiracy.”Rhodes’s lawyer said his client was back at a hotel room eating chicken wings and watching TV when the first rioters started storming the Capitol. He noted that the Oath Keepers never deployed their “quick reaction force” arsenal.“You’re either the Keystone Cops of insurrectionists, or there is no insurrection,” he told jurors, referring to the inept police officers of silent movies.Two other defendants testified in the case. Jessica Watkins, of Woodstock, Ohio, echoed that her actions that day were “really stupid” but maintained she was not part of a plan and was “swept along” with the mob, which she likened to a crowd gathered at a store for a sale on the popular shopping day known as Black Friday.Defendant Thomas Caldwell, a navy veteran from Virginia, downplayed a chilling piece of evidence: messages he sent trying to get a boat to ferry weapons from Virginia across the Potomac into Washington. He testified that he was never serious about his queries, though he struggled to explain other messages referencing violence on January 6.Two other defendants, Kelly Meggs and Kenneth Harrelson, both from Florida, did not testify. Meggs’s attorney Stanley Woodward argued that there were thousands of people involved, and his client was not among the first people to enter the Capitol. Defense attorneys’ closing statements are expected to continue on Monday.The group is the first among hundreds of people arrested in the deadly Capitol riot to stand trial on seditious conspiracy, a rare civil war-era charge that calls for up to 20 years behind bars upon conviction. The justice department last secured such a conviction at trial nearly 30 years ago and intends to try two more groups on the charge later this year.TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      US attorney general names special counsel to weigh charges against Trump

      by

      US attorney general names special counsel to weigh charges against Trump‘Extraordinary circumstances’ require appointment of Jack Smith to determine whether charges should be brought, Garland says01:39Merrick Garland, the US attorney general, has appointed a special counsel to determine whether Donald Trump, the former president, should face criminal charges stemming from investigations into his alleged mishandling of national security materials and his role in the January 6 attack on the US Capitol.The politically explosive move comes just three days after Trump announced he is running for the White House yet again, despite a disappointing Republican performance in the midterm elections, especially among candidates backed by the ex-president.US attorney general appoints special counsel in Trump DoJ investigations – liveRead more“Based on recent developments, including the former president’s announcement that he is a candidate for president in the next election, and the sitting president’s stated intention to be a candidate as well, I have concluded that it is in the public interest to appoint a special counsel,” Garland told a press conference on Friday.Garland named Jack Smith, a veteran prosecutor, to the post, which will deal with justice department investigations into Trump’s attempt to subvert the 2020 presidential election victory for Joe Biden, and also the discovery of confidential documents at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida.Trump attacked the appointment within hours, in an interview with Fox News’s digital arm.“For six years I have been going through this, and I am not going to go through it any more,” Trump said. “It is not acceptable. It is so unfair. It is so political.”The appointment of a special counsel reflects the sensitivity of the justice department overseeing the two most hazardous criminal investigations into Trump, and an increased possibility of charges being brought over either matter.Special counsels are semi-independent prosecutors who can be installed for high-profile investigations when there are conflicts of interest, or the appearance of such conflicts, and provide a mechanism for the justice department to insulate itself from political considerations in charging decisions.“I strongly believe that the normal processes of this department can handle all investigations with integrity,” Garland said. “And I also believe that appointing a special counsel at this time is the right thing to do. The extraordinary circumstances presented here demand it.”The attorney general added: “I will ensure that the special counsel receives the resources to conduct this work quickly and completely. Given the work done to date and Mr Smith’s prosecutorial experience, I am confident that this appointment will not slow the completion of these investigations.”Smith, a graduate of Harvard law school, from 2010 to 2015 served as the chief of the public integrity section at the justice department, which handles government corruption investigations, a role not dissimilar to his new position as special counsel.Since 2018, he has been a special prosecutor to The Hague investigating war crimes in Kosovo, having joined the international criminal court from the US attorney’s office for the eastern district of New York in Brooklyn, where he helped prosecute a police brutality case that drew national attention.During his time at the justice department in Washington, Smith oversaw the corruption cases against former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell, ex-Arizona congressman Rick Renzi and New York assembly speaker Sheldon Silver, though convictions against McDonnell and Silver were later overturned.He oversaw the prosecution of a CIA agent for disclosing national defense information and obstructing justice – crimes that echo potential charges against Trump.And Smith has also investigated Trump before, in the 1970s, over potential fraud charges during his tenure as a prosecutor in New York. The roughly six-month investigation ultimately yielded no charges, after which Trump complained about the investigation.Politico reported that Smith was registered to vote as a political independent, not a Democrat or a Republican.In a statement released by the justice department, Smith said: “I intend to conduct the assigned investigations, and any prosecutions that may result from them, independently and in the best traditions of the Department of Justice.“The pace of the investigations will not pause or flag under my watch. I will exercise independent judgment and will move the investigations forward expeditiously and thoroughly to whatever outcome the facts and the law dictate.”The appointment of a special counsel will be a familiar dynamic for Trump, who was the subject of Robert Mueller’s investigation shortly after he took office, examining ties between his 2016 presidential campaign and Russia. Later, Trump’s attorney general, Bill Barr, appointed special counsel John Durham to investigate allegations of FBI impropriety in the Russia investigation.Trump has already spent months since the FBI seized 103 documents marked classified from Mar-a-Lago accusing the justice department under Joe Biden of pursuing him for political reasons – a tension likely to become more biting as the 2024 election draws nearer.It was to allay those concerns, Garland said at the news conference, that he chose to appoint Smith to run the investigations. “Appointing a special counsel at this time is the right thing to do,” Garland said. “The extraordinary circumstances presented here demand it.”The appointment of a special counsel could indicate that the justice department has already accumulated substantial evidence of potential criminality by Trump and his allies. Barbara McQuade, a University of Michigan law school professor and former US attorney, said: “One thing that is significant is this suggests that they think there’s a very real possibility of charges. If they were going to close the case, it would be closed by now.”But some criticised the move as inadvertently buying Trump time and allowing an over-cautious Garland to duck responsibility. Jill Wine-Banks, a legal analyst and former Watergate prosecutor, tweeted: “Garland has named a Special Counsel to investigate Trump #MAL and parts of Jan6. I think it’s a waste of time and money, insults the prosecutors at DOJ and gains nothing. No Trump supporter will see anyone as independent or fair to Trump.”The Lincoln Project, an anti-Trump group, tweeted: “The announcement of a special counsel to investigate Trump in light of the abundance of clear and convincing evidence of his crimes unfortunately delays accountability. However, justice will come eventually & he will not be able to evade the consequences of his actions forever.”The White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, said Biden had not been given any advance notice of Garland’s announcement. “No, he was not aware, we were not aware,” she said at a delayed press briefing. “The department of justice makes decisions about criminal investigations independently. We are not involved.”Jean-Pierre added: “We were not given advance notice. We were not aware of this investigation.”TopicsDonald TrumpMerrick GarlandUS Capitol attacknewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      US attorney general appoints special counsel in Trump criminal investigation – video

      by

      US attorney general Merrick Garland has named Jack Smith as special counsel who has the job of determining whether Donald Trump will face charges as part of any Department of Justice investigations. The politically explosive move comes just days after the former US president announced he was running for the White House again.

      US politics: latest updates More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      January 6 subcommittee to examine criminal referrals it might make to DoJ

      by

      January 6 subcommittee to examine criminal referrals it might make to DoJFour-member panel focused on whether they have uncovered sufficient evidence that Trump violated civil and criminal statutes The House January 6 select committee has created a subcommittee to examine the scope of potential criminal referrals it might make to the justice department over the Capitol attack as well as what materials to share with federal prosecutors, its chairman and other members said on Thursday.The special subcommittee – led by Congressman Jamie Raskin, overseeing a four-person group that also involves Liz Cheney, Adam Schiff and Zoe Lofgren – has been chiefly focused on whether they have uncovered sufficient evidence that former US president Donald Trump violated civil and criminal statutes.The subcommittee has also been tasked with resolving several other outstanding issues, the panel’s chairman Bennie Thompson said. They include what materials to share with the justice department before the end of December, and its response to Trump and Republican lawmakers who have not complied with subpoenas.The question of whether and what referrals to make to the justice department has hovered over the investigation for months since the select committee’s lawyers came to believe that Trump was involved in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruct Congress over January 6.In March, the panel laid out its theory of a potential case against Trump, saying in a court filing that it had accumulated enough evidence to suggest that Trump and conservative attorney John Eastman could be charged with criminal and civil violations.The select committee then won a substantial victory when the US district court judge David Carter ruled that Trump “likely” committed multiple felonies in his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and stop the congressional certification of Joe Biden’s election win.But some members on the panel in recent months have questioned the need for referrals to the justice department, which has ramped up its investigation into the Capitol attack and issued subpoenas to Trump’s allies demanding appearances before at least two grand juries in Washington.The debate, according to sources familiar with the matter, centered on whether making referrals might backfire if they are perceived to politically taint the criminal investigations hearing evidence about the fake electors scheme or the far-right groups that stormed the Capitol.In an effort to make final determinations on the referral question, Thompson said he asked the four members – all of whom have legal backgrounds and in the case of Schiff, have federal prosecutorial experience – to form the special subcommittee.The subcommittee is expected to make recommendations to Thompson around the start of December over what the referrals might look like, and advise on how to proceed with potential legal action against Trump and Republican lawmakers who defied the panel’s subpoenas, said a source familiar with the matter.Meanwhile Thompson said the committee will release its report on the Capitol attack next month.“Our goal is to get it completed soon so we can get it to the printer,” Thompson told reporters. “We plan to have our product out sometime in December.”TopicsJanuary 6 hearingsUS Capitol attackUS politicsDonald TrumpDemocratsnewsReuse this content More