US Capitol attack

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Ted Cruz took refuge in supply closet during January 6 riot, book reveals

      by

      Ted Cruz took refuge in supply closet during January 6 riot, book revealsTexas senator wrote he ‘vehemently disagreed’ with colleagues’ call to allow certification of 2020 election As a mob of Donald Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol during the January 6 attack in a desperate attempt to keep him in the Oval Office, Ted Cruz hid in a closet next to a stack of chairs, but he never thought twice about continuing to sow doubt about the former president’s electoral defeat, the Republican senator from Texas has revealed.Cruz revealed his whereabouts on the day of the deadly Capitol attack – which unsuccessfully aimed to disrupt the certification of Joe Biden’s victory over Trump in the 2020 presidential election – in a new book. The news was first reported by Newsweek.The book – titled Justice Corrupted – recounts how Cruz was listening to his colleague James Lankford of Oklahoma speak in the Senate chamber when a terrible commotion erupted outside. Capitol police rushed in to escort Trump’s vice-president, Mike Pence, whom the mob wanted to hang, off the dais, and the session was paused.“In the fog of the confusion, it was difficult to tell exactly what was happening,” Cruz wrote. “We were informed that a riot had broken out and that rioters were attempting to breach the building.“At first, Capitol Police instructed us to remain on the Senate floor. And so we did. Then, a few minutes later, they instructed us to evacuate rapidly.”Cruz said he was met with hot tempers after he and his fellow senators were led to a secure location, with some blaming him and his allies in the chamber “explicitly for the violence that was occurring”. After all, Cruz was among those who had helped spread the ousted Republican president’s lies that the election had been stolen from him, fueling the mob that now was invading the Capitol.“While we waited for the Capitol to be secured, I assembled our coalition in a back room (really, a supply closet with stacked chairs) to discuss what we should do next,” Cruz continued, according to Newsweek.Cruz said several of those in his coalition wanted to suspend their objections to the certification, but he “vehemently disagreed”.“I understood the sentiment,” Cruz added. “But … I urged my colleagues that the course of action we were advocating was the right and principled one.”Cruz later was one of just six Republican senators who voted against certifying Trump’s electoral college defeat in Arizona. He was one of seven GOP senators who voted against certifying Trump’s electoral college loss in Pennsylvania.Such stances have helped make Cruz unpalatable in some quarters. He attended a baseball playoff game Sunday between his home state’s Houston Astros and the New York Yankees in the Bronx.One cellphone video showed New York fans roundly booing Cruz, flipping him off and cursing him out, including one who called him a “loser,” before the Astros won and eliminated the Yankees.Officials have since linked nine deaths, including suicides among traumatized law enforcement officers, to the Capitol attack. More than 900 rioters have been charged in connection with the attack, some with seditious conspiracy.In a series of televised hearings this year, a bipartisan US House committee has publicly aired evidence seeking to establish that Trump had a direct role in the Capitol attack. That committee recently issued a subpoena to the former president ordering him to testify before the panel as well as produce documents.Cruz’s term doesn’t end until 2025, meaning his office is not at risk during the 8 November midterm elections in which Biden’s fellow Democrats are trying to preserve thin numerical advantages in both congressional chambers.TopicsTed CruzUS Capitol attackUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Trump should be held accountable’: Guardian readers on the Capitol attack hearings

      by

      ‘Trump should be held accountable’: Guardian readers on the Capitol attack hearingsThe final public hearing has wrapped up – we asked our readers to give their thoughts on whether the evidence stacked up The House committee investigating the January 6 attack on the US Capitol ended its likely final public hearing last week by subpoenaing Donald Trump to give evidence.Here, Guardian readers in the US share their views of the hearings, what they thought of the evidence given and if it had changed their mind.‘The committee was convincing’I think that the hearings solidified what most people thought already: that Donald Trump and his allies coordinated to assault the foundations of democracy on January 6 because they were unhappy with the result of the 2020 election. The juxtaposing of previously aired and unaired video clips helped provide clearer and fuller picture of the chaos that unfolded that day.I believe that anyone who tuned in to the hearings with an open mind saw January 6 for what it was: a disgraceful attack on American democracy that amounts to treason. I believe the committee was convincing in their effort to show premeditation by the president and his followers.I am worried that those who believe January 6 was justified will use this committee as an example as of how “the Democrats/liberals” are out to get the president and his followers. They demonstrate this belief daily as they continue to call for violence against elected officials and refuse to believe the truth that Joe Biden won the 2020 election.It feels like their position is: either we won, or we were cheated. I fear that the upcoming elections in November will only be a taste of what kinds of vitriol await during the 2024 election. Patrick, 29, public school teacher from Chicago‘The hearings were preaching to the choir for me’I work in DC, on one of the main arteries leading into the city. On the morning of January 6, my co-workers and I watched a steady stream of cars and trucks flying Trump flags heading into the city.The sight put everyone on edge – it felt like an assault even then.Later, at home, I watched the assault on the Capitol in real time with a mixture of horror, sadness and anger. Seeing the Trump flags again, now among the crowd attacking with impunity … there was no doubt where the responsibility for things lay.All this to say the hearings were preaching to the choir for me. But I watched them all, and the images and videos never lost their power to upset and anger. And I always thought: surely this devastating video will sway people’s opinions about Trump and the danger he poses! But, sadly, that doesn’t seem to be the case. David, 53, retail buyer from Washington DC‘The committee members are some of the very few politicians I still respect’The January 6 committee is doing the only the honest, ethical, honorable, trustworthy political work that has gone on in Congress for a very long time. I support the committee 100%, and thank them for their courage in standing up to the lies of thugs and shameless traitors trying to undermine American democracy.The committee members are some of the very few politicians that I still respect anywhere in this country. They belong proudly alongside other awesome patriots like Bernie Sanders, Beto O’Rourke, Pete Buttigieg, Michelle Lujan Grisham, Stacy Abrams, and Gretchen Whitmer.Too many other people in US politics today, most openly within the Republican party, are self-serving and destructive players interested only in amassing fortunes and power, and transforming America into an openly and irreparably racist, misogynist, gun-toting Christian nation.The committee has done amazing and thorough investigative work. It has presented its findings in well-presented and publicly available hearings. But actions taken or not taken are clearly out of the committee’s control. Dr M Mathewson, 78, retiree from New Mexico‘People saw what a sham it was’Nothing of value was presented that wasn’t known, and I doubt really anyone changed their mind on it. I think many people saw what a sham it was. The other side didn’t get to present witnesses or cross-examine. Why wasn’t Pelosi called? Why haven’t we heard if FBI or other government agency had agents in the crowd?My concern is for the future of this country. We are ruled by people controlled by special interest. We are sending billions overseas in the name of humanitarian aid when it is military equipment. We need that assistance here for our people. Los Angeles has a lot of homeless people. Crime is rocketing and people are killing each other in the streets.Our leaders promote and push identity politics to further divide the country. Diverting the attention from the problems and making us hate our neighbors. The biggest threat to Democracy are our current “leaders”. Joe, 35, healthcare worker from Michigan‘I’m worried about retaliation against witnesses’I watched all the hearings, and I thought the committee did an excellent job. What they presented aligned with what I saw on January 6, and it let us see what was going on behind the scenes, namely the actions Trump took to aid and abet the insurrectionists.The hearings also demonstrated just how close our government came to falling that day, and the need to strengthen the systems designed to protect the peaceful transfer of power.I’m afraid that despite the evidence, Trump and his cronies may still escape unscathed. I’m worried about potential retaliation against January 6 witnesses if Republicans take the House and/or Senate in November. And I’m afraid of just how unhinged Trump will be if he is allowed to run again and, God forbid, wins – his entire focus will be on revenge against those who crossed him. Mitzi Hicks, 56, non-profit controller from Colorado‘It was boring political theater’The hearings came across as boring political theater to me, calling attention to the obvious guilt of Trump, his narcissism, the prevalence of fascism among men in the US who see little alternative. The Democrats have abandoned their natural and historical constituency in favor of embracing the current cause du mois to obscure their obeisance to corporations and corporate money.Most folks I know are far more worried about the price of gasoline, food, and utilities than about Trump. In fact, they’re totally weary of him and think he’d go away if the media would stop advertising him.Bill Clinton is far from my favorite president, but he got it right about voter motivation: “It’s the economy, stupid.” If the Republicans prevail next month it will be because of the Democrat failure to address economic problems meaningfully. Screaming that the narcissistic would-be dictator Trump is a narcissistic would-be dictator won’t help Democratic candidates. Tom Wells, 77, from Bloomington, Indiana‘Trump is unfit to lead and should be held accountable’The facts speak for themselves. The committee members certainly have their own political and personal ambitions, but they have presented a just narrative. Trump is certainly unfit to lead and should be held accountable for the betrayal of the people of the USA.The support of fascism within the Republican party is pernicious. Unfortunately, it remains a possibility that through fear and anger the events of January 6 may foreshadow even greater violence and loss of the true guiding principles of our constitution, being the compromise of power to the will of the citizens.Democracy has always been a hope in the USA and has been, is, and will be eroded by greedy, short-sighted minds. The question is obvious: if we do not demand accountability and regulation for violent politics and monied interests, what is the alternative? Brian, 37, unemployed from CincinnatiTopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsDonald TrumpfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘A nutso proposition’: Robert Draper on Trump, Republicans and January 6

      by

      ‘A nutso proposition’: Robert Draper on Trump, Republicans and January 6 The New York Times reporter’s new book considers the Capitol attack and after: the fall of Liz Cheney, the rise of MTG and moreIn mid-December 2020, Robert Draper signed to write a book about the Republican party under Donald Trump, who spent four wild years in the White House but had just been beaten by Joe Biden.‘Devoid of shame’: January 6 cop Michael Fanone on Trump’s Republican partyRead more“Trump hadn’t conceded,” Draper says, from Washington, where he writes for the New York Times. “But the expectation was that he would. The notion of the ‘Be there, will be wild’ January 6 insurrection had not yet taken root. And so I thought that the book would be about a factionalised Republican party, more or less in keeping with When the Tea Party Came to Town, the book I did about the class of 2010.”“All that changed on my first day of reporting the job, which happened to be January 6, when I was inside the Capitol.”The book became Weapons of Mass Delusion: When the Republican Party Lost Its Mind. It is a detailed account of Republican dynamics since 2020, but it opens with visceral reportage from the scene of what Draper calls the “seismic travesty” of the Capitol attack.Draper says: “I still get chills, thinking about that day. It’s a Rashomon kind of experience, right? There were a lot of people in the Capitol and they all have different viewpoints that are equally valid.“Mine was that of someone who just showed up figuring I would cover this routine ceremony of certification, ended up not being able to get into the press gallery, wandered around to the west side of the building and suddenly saw all of these police officers under siege, getting maced and beaten. After being there for a while, I escaped through the tunnels and went to the east side of the Capitol, and watched people push their way in.”In their book The Steal, Mark Bowden and Matthew Teague observe that those who attacked the Capitol had no more chance of overturning the election than the hippies of 1967 had of seeing the Pentagon levitate. Draper’s term “seismic travesty” points in the same direction. But he does not diminish the enormity of the attempt, of Trump’s rejection of democracy and the threat posed by those who support him.His book joins a flock on January 6. One point of difference is that each chapter starts with an image by the Canadian photographer Louie Palu, of January 6 and the days after it. Rioters surge. Politicians stalk the corridors of power.Draper says: “There’s a reason why the subtitle isn’t how the Republican party lost its mind, but instead when the Republican party did. It is about a snapshot in time. I happen to think it is an incredibly momentous snapshot, but this is not a dry historical recitation of how the Republican party over decades moved from one mode of thought to another.”“It’s important for me to impress upon readers that this is a discrete moment worth considering, a moment when the Republican party … rather than decide, ‘Wow, we’ve been co-conspirators, intended or not, to a horrific event, and we’ve got to do better,’ instead went in a different direction.“And that to me is a moment when democracy is now shuttered and therefore has to be contemplated.”Draper interviewed most major players, among them Kevin McCarthy, the House minority leader with his eye on the speaker’s gavel after next month’s midterms. Asked if the man who courted Trump with red and pink Starbursts and genuflections at Mar-a-Lago is the leader Republicans deserve, Draper answers carefully.“So two operative words there are ‘leader’ and ‘deserves’. It depends on how you define either. He would be the leader in the sense of that they’ll probably vote for him for speaker … but it’s an open question as to whether he really will lead or whether he really has ever led.“The important word is ‘deserves’. And obviously, that requires a judgment on my part. But I do think that what Kevin McCarthy embodies to me is the human refutation to the argument that Donald Trump hijacked the Republican party, because to imagine that metaphor, you imagine the Republican party as an airplane seized by force, without any complicity, and that the plane was a perfectly well-functioning plane before then. McCarthy is here to disprove all of that.“McCarthy has been an absolute enabler of Donald Trump. He has never refuted the kinds of lies his party has embraced. He has winked and nodded along. People have told me that he’s offered to create for Marjorie Taylor Greene a new leadership position. At minimum, she’s likely to get plum committee assignments.”Greene, a far-right, conspiracy-spouting congresswoman from Georgia, was elected as Draper began work.“I thought she would be just kind of marginalised, sitting at the Star Wars bar of Republican politics, kind of a member of Congress who would be ousted after one term. But in a lot of ways, tracing her trajectory was a way of tracing the trajectory of the post– Trump presidency Republican party after January 6. Now, Trump is without question the dominant party leader, and more to the point, Trumpism is the straw that stirs the drink.”Some in the media say Greene should not be covered. Some say strenuously otherwise. Draper spent time with her.“This is the advantage of doing a book as opposed to daily journalism. It took me a year to get my first interview with her. You have to understand, to her, the mainstream media is, as Trump has delicately put it, the enemy of the American people. She thinks we habitually lie. We merit nothing but disgust, minimum, and contempt, maximum.“And so to get her to kind of cross that psychological Rubicon and be willing to talk to me was a real process. But I do find in journalism and anthropology that people generally speaking want to let the rest of the world know why they are the way they are. They want to reveal themselves. And if you place them in a comfortable zone, where they feel like they can do that, and trust that they will not be made to pay for it immediately, then they often will, if only in increments, begin to reveal themselves. And that’s what happened with Greene and me.”Democracy on the vergeLiz Cheney is in some ways Greene’s opposite. The daughter of Dick Cheney, vice-president under George W Bush, she is an establishment figure who broke from Trump only over the Capitol attack. Ejected from party leadership, she is one of two Republicans on the House January 6 committee but lost her seat in Wyoming to a Trump-backed challenger.To Draper, it is “remarkable that we’re talking about those two female Republicans in the same breath, implicitly recognising these improbable opposite trajectories.“In December 2020, if you and I were talking about Liz Cheney and saying, ‘What’s going to happen to her next,’ we wouldn’t say she’s going to be exiled from the party. And if we said, ‘What’s going to happen to Marjorie Taylor Greene next,’ we wouldn’t say she would basically be a more influential figure in the Republican party than Liz Cheney. It would seem a nutso proposition and yet that’s exactly what happened.“Cheney stood almost alone in her view that not only did the party need to move on from Trump, but that it needed to see to it that Trump would no longer be a powerful force within the GOP. That put her on an island along with Adam Kinzinger and precious few others. She’s paid a heavy political price.”Draper’s previous book, To Start a War, showed how Cheney’s father and his boss sold the Iraq war, citing weapons of mass destruction which did not exist. How did Cheney feel about that?“She said, ‘You and I probably disagree on whether or not it was the right thing to do to go into Iraq.’ I remember saying to her, ‘You mean, I’m not a warmonger like you are?’ And she laughed, but she happens still to believe that was a viable proposition. And I think my book reaches the inexorable conclusion that [it] was a very foolish proposition.“But it’s worth bringing that up, because … the subject at hand was not just Donald Trump, but also the Republican party and its tenuous grip on the truth. And it has been an eye-opener, I think, for a lot of us that Liz Cheney … stands for other things beyond ideology, and among them are the preservation of democracy.”Before the Capitol was attacked, Cheney read Lincoln on the Verge, Ted Widmer’s account of Abraham Lincoln’s perilous rail journey to Washington in 1861.Draper writes: “As the nation teetered on the brink of civil war, Lincoln avoided two assassination attempts on the journey, while the counting of electoral college votes in the Capitol was preceded by fears that someone might seize the mahogany box containing the ballots and thereby undo Abe Lincoln’s presidency before its inception.“Cheney had shuddered to think what would have happened had the mob gotten their hands on the mahogany boxes on January 6, 2021.”Unchecked review: how Trump dodged two impeachments … and the January 6 committee?Read moreWidmer is a historian but plenty of books have suggested that with America deeply polarised and Trumpism rampant, we could be close to a second civil war. To Draper, “tragically it is not out of the question”.“It’s certainly clear to me that when you’ve got a third of the voting public in America that believes that the election was stolen … [that’s] not something that you take with a grain of salt.“America really is beset by fractures that could metastasize into something violent. I hope to hell that’s not the case. But but I’m not gonna look at you and say there’s no way it’ll happen.”
      Weapons of Mass Delusion: When the Republican Party Lost Its Mind is published in the US by Penguin Press
      TopicsBooksRepublicansUS politicsThe far rightDonald TrumpUS Capitol attackUS CongressfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 100 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Donald Trump formally subpoenaed by January 6 committee

      by

      Donald Trump formally subpoenaed by January 6 committeeFormer US president will be compelled to provide accounting under oath about his potential foreknowledge of the Capitol attack The House January 6 select committee has formally transmitted a subpoena to Donald Trump, compelling the former president to provide an accounting under oath about his potential foreknowledge of the Capitol attack and his broader efforts to overturn the 2020 election.Steve Bannon given four months in prison for contempt of CongressRead moreThe subpoena made sweeping requests for documents and testimony, dramatically raising the stakes in the highly charged congressional investigation and setting the stage for a constitutionally consequential legal battle that could ultimately go before the supreme court.“Because of your central role in each element,” the panel’s chairman, Bennie Thompson, and vice-chair, Liz Cheney, wrote, “the select committee unanimously directed the issuance of a subpoena seeking your testimony and relevant documents in your possession on these and related topics.”Most notably, the committee demanded that Trump turn over records of all January 6-related calls and texts sent or received, any communications with members of Congress, as well as communications with the far-right Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, extremist groups that stormed the Capitol.The expansive subpoena ordered Trump to produce documents by 4 November and testify on 14 November about interactions with key advisers who have asserted their fifth amendment right against self-incrimination, including the political operatives Roger Stone and Michael Flynn.“You were at the center of the first and only effort by any US president to overturn an election and obstruct the peaceful transfer of power,” the panel’s leaders wrote in making the case to subpoena Trump. “The evidence demonstrates that you knew this activity was illegal.”The subpoena also sought materials that appeared destined to be scrutinised as part of an obstruction investigation conducted by the select committee.One of the document requests, for instance, was for records about Trump’s efforts to contact witnesses and their lawyers.The documents request was specifically drafted to cover materials Trump would be able to turn over. The subpoena added: “The attached schedule is narrowly focused on records in your custody and control that you are uniquely positioned to provide to the select committee.”Thompson transmitted the subpoena after investigators spent days drafting the order and attorneys for the select committee contacted multiple lawyers working for Trump to ascertain who was authorized to accept its service.“We do not take this action lightly,” the subpoena said, noting the historical significance of the moment. But, the subpoena added, this was not the first time that a former president had been subpoenaed – and multiple former presidents have testified to Congress.Whether Trump will testify remains unclear. Though he has retained the Dhillon Law Group to handle matters relating to the subpoena, the final decision about his cooperation will be based to a large degree on his own instincts, sources close to the former president suggested.The driving factor pushing Trump to want to testify has centered around a reflexive belief that he can convince investigators that their own inquiry is a witch-hunt and that he should be exonerated over January 6, the sources said.Trump has previously expressed an eagerness to appear before the select committee and “get his pound of flesh” as long as he can appear live, the sources said – a thought he reiterated to close aides last week after the panel voted to issue the subpoena.But Trump also appears to have become more attuned to the pitfalls of testifying in ongoing investigations, with lawyers warning him about mounting legal issues in criminal inquiries brought by the US justice department and a civil lawsuit brought by the New York attorney general.The former president invoked his fifth-amendment right against self-incrimination more than 400 times in a deposition with the office of the New York attorney general before the office filed a giant fraud lawsuit against him, three of his children and senior Trump Organization executives.Trump also ultimately took the advice of his lawyers during the special counsel investigation into ties between his 2016 campaign and Russia, submitting only written responses to investigators despite initially telling advisers he wanted to testify to clear his name.That recent caution has come with the realization that Trump could open himself up to legal peril should he testify under oath, given his penchant for misrepresenting or outright lying about events of any nature – which is a crime before Congress.Any falsehoods from Trump would almost certainly be caught by the select committee. The subpoena letter said the panel intended to have the questioning conduct by attorneys, many of whom are top former justice department lawyers or federal and national security prosecutors.The former president’s testimony and transcript would almost certainly be reviewed by the justice department as part of its criminal probe into various efforts to overturn the 2020 election, which the select committee has alleged was centrally orchestrated by Trump.But the move to subpoena Trump comes with inherent risks for the panel itself. If it were to allow Trump for instance to testify live, they would be faced with a witness who might self-incriminate, but could also use proceedings to repeat lies about the 2020 election that led to the Capitol attack.The select committee might also face a difficult choice of how to proceed should Trump simply ignore the subpoena, claiming the justice department’s internal legal opinions for instance indicate that presidents and former presidents have absolute immunity from testifying to Congress.Investigators would then have to decide whether to seek judicial enforcement of the subpoena, though such an effort would likely take months – time that the select committee does not have, given it will almost certainly be disbanded at the end of the current Congress in January 2023.Should the panel instead simply move to hold Trump in contempt of Congress for defying the subpoena – his former strategist Steve Bannon was sentenced Friday to jail for his recalcitrance – it remains unclear whether the justice department would prosecute such a referral.TopicsDonald TrumpUS Capitol attackHouse of RepresentativesUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Steve Bannon: how the Trump ally’s varied career led him to prison

      by

      Steve Bannon: how the Trump ally’s varied career led him to prisonThe former media entrepreneur, naval officer and investment banker was at Trump’s side during his ascent and some of his most divisive moments01:33Moments after being convicted of contempt of Congress in July, Steve Bannon, a former media entrepreneur, naval officer, investment banker and Trump administration aide, walked out of a Washington courthouse and made a declaration that summed up what the better part of the last decade of his life had been about.Steve Bannon given four months in prison for contempt of CongressRead more“I stand with Trump and the constitution, and I will never back off that, ever,” Bannon declared.On Friday, a federal judge sentenced Bannon to four months in jail and a $6,500 fine, for defying a subpoena from lawmakers investigating the January 6 insurrection.It was the latest twist in the varied career of the 68-year-old far-right provocateur.Bannon was by Donald Trump’s side during his ascent to the White House and guided some of his most divisive moments, including his decision to ban travelers from Muslim-majority countries and his equivocation over a deadly white supremacist attack in Charlottesville, Virginia.Bannon then met a fate common to Trump White House officials – pushed out, in his case after less than eight months and after repeatedly clashing with Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser.But Bannon’s loyalty remained, and it paid off. On his last day in office, Trump pardoned Bannon, who had been convicted on federal fraud charges.Now Bannon is trying to keep his freedom again. This time he can expect no presidential pardon, at least not as long as Joe Biden is in the White House. But he will remain free while appealing his sentence, his strategy, according to people close to him, to drag out the proceedings until the January 6 committee’s mandate expires at the end of this year.“We may have lost a battle here today but we’re not going to lose this war,” Bannon said in July, after a Washington jury handed down its guilty verdict.The son of a working-class Irish Catholic family of Democrats, Bannon grew up in Virginia, attended military prep school and spent four years in the navy before graduating with a MBA from Harvard.He worked as an investment banker for Goldman Sachs then got into media financing, where he profited from the success of Seinfeld, one of the greatest TV comedies of all time.It was during his time as a film producer in Hollywood that Bannon met the conservative media entrepreneur Andrew Breitbart. Bannon took over the Breitbart News website after its founder died of a heart attack in 2012. Bannon once described the outlet as the “the platform of the alt-right”, embracing the racism and antisemitism Trump would use as fuel for his electoral success four years later.Bannon made Trump’s acquaintance in 2010, and was impressed by his stance on China and international trade. He took over as Trump campaign chair months before the election in 2016, helping hone the populist edge used to upset Hillary Clinton.Bannon co-wrote the grim “American carnage” speech Trump gave at his inauguration and helped see through divisive opening actions including pulling out of the Paris climate accords.Amid infighting within Trump’s inner circle of advisers, Bannon was pushed off the National Security Council by April, and out of the administration entirely by August.Critics decry him as a nationalist and a nihilist bent more on destroying the American political system that reforming it. Bannon describes himself as a “Tea Party populist guy” and in the past has insisted that his goal is to get the Republican party to focus its policies on the American people.Steve Bannon: ‘We’ve turned the Republicans into a working-class party’Read more“We’ve turned the Republican party into a working-class party,” he told the Guardian in 2019.Left unsaid was Bannon’s view that Trump would be best to lead that party no matter the cost. In a recording obtained by Mother Jones, Bannon described in 2020 how the then-president planned to declare victory in his re-election campaign even before all the votes were counted.“That’s our strategy,” Bannon said. “He’s gonna declare himself a winner. So when you wake up Wednesday morning [after election day], it’s going to be a firestorm.“You’re going to have antifa, crazy. The media, crazy. The courts are crazy. And Trump’s gonna be sitting there mocking, tweeting shit out: ‘You lose. I’m the winner. I’m the king.’”TopicsSteve BannonDonald TrumpTrump administrationUS Capitol attackUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Steve Bannon given four months in prison for contempt of Congress

      by

      Steve Bannon given four months in prison for contempt of CongressFormer Trump strategist also fined $6,500 for refusing to comply with subpoena issued by Capitol attack committee01:33Donald Trump’s top former strategist Steve Bannon was sentenced Friday to four months in federal prison and $6,500 in fines after he was convicted of criminal contempt of Congress for refusing to comply last year with a subpoena issued by the House January 6 select committee.Steve Bannon sentenced to four months in prison for contempt of Congress conviction – liveRead moreThe punishment – suspended pending appeal – makes Bannon the first person to be incarcerated for contempt of Congress in more than half a century and sets a stringent standard for future contempt cases referred to the justice department by the select committee investigating the Capitol attack.The sentence handed down by the US district court judge Carl Nichols in Washington was lighter than recommended by prosecutors, who sought six months in jail and the maximum $200,000 in fines because Bannon refused to cooperate with court officials’ pre-sentencing inquiries.“Others must be deterred from committing similar crimes,” Nichols said as he handed down the sentence, adding that a failure to adequately punish the flouting of congressional subpoenas would enshrine a lack of respect to the legislative branch.Bannon, 68, had asked the court for leniency and requested in court filings for his sentence to either be halted pending the appeal his lawyers filed briefs with the DC circuit court on Thursday or otherwise have the jail term reduced to home-confinement.But Nichols denied Bannon’s requests, saying he agreed with the justice department about the seriousness of his offense and noting that he had failed to show any remorse and was yet to demonstrate that he had any intention to comply with the subpoena.The judge noted in issuing the sentence that he weighed how some factors cut in Bannon’s favor: while he did not comply with the subpoena, he did engage with the select committee and emails appeared to show he had been acting on the advice of his then-lawyer, Robert Costello.Those mitigating factors suggested that Bannon perhaps did not act in the most contemptuous manner that he could have against the subpoena, and so warranted a lighter sentence than the justice department had recommended, Nichols said.Nichols also ruled he would stay the sentence as long as Bannon filed his anticipated appeal “timely”. With his second defense lawyer, Evan Corcoran, understood to have largely finalized the brief, according to sources familiar with the matter, Bannon should meet deadlines.The far-right provocateur now faces a battle to overturn the conviction on appeal, which, the Guardian first reported, will contend the precedent that prevented his lawyers from disputing the definition of “wilful default” of a subpoena, and arguing he had acted on the advice of his lawyers, was inapplicable.After walking out of the courthouse with his lawyers into a melee of reporters and television cameras, Bannon, dressed in a military-style jacket over several navy-colored shirts, vowed that Democrats would face their “judgment day” with an appeal that would prove “bulletproof”.The former Trump White House official then climbed into a waiting SUV and returned to his nearby Washington townhouse to immediately host a victorious episode of his War Room show. A person close to Bannon described him as feeling triumphant and unrepentant.Bannon was charged with two counts of contempt Congress after his refusal to comply at all with the select committee’s subpoena demanding documents and testimony last year triggered the House of Representatives to refer him to the justice department for prosecution.The select committee had sought Bannon’s cooperation after it identified him early on in the investigation as a key player in the run-up to the Capitol attack, who appeared to have advance knowledge of Trump’s efforts to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s election win on January 6.Among other moments of interest, the Guardian has previously reported, Bannon received a call from Trump the night before the Capitol attack while he was at a Trump “war room” at the Willard hotel and was told of then-vice president Mike Pence’s resistance to decertifying Biden’s win.The close contacts with Trump in the days and hours leading up to the Capitol attack meant Bannon was among the first targets of the investigation, and his refusal to comply with the subpoena galvanised the panel’s resolve to make an example of him with a contempt referral.During the five-day trial in July, Bannon’s legal team ultimately declined to present evidence after Nichols excluded the “advice of counsel” argument because the case law at the DC Circuit level, Licavoli v United States 1961, held that was not a valid defense for defying a subpoena.The justice department, according to Licavoli, had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Bannon’s refusal to comply was deliberate and intentional, and the assistant US attorney Amanda Vaughn told the jury in closing arguments they should find the case straightforward.“The defense wants to make this hard, difficult and confusing,” Vaughn said in federal court in Washington. “This is not difficult. This is not hard. There were only two witnesses because it’s as simple as it seems.”That meant the only arguments left available to Bannon were either that he was somehow confused about the deadlines indicated on the subpoena, or that he did not realize the deadlines were concrete and failing to comply with those dates would mean he was in default.TopicsSteve BannonDonald TrumpUS politicsUS Capitol attackJanuary 6 hearingsnewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      New January 6 video contradicts Republican’s claims about Nancy Pelosi

      by

      New January 6 video contradicts Republican’s claims about Nancy PelosiSteve Scalise questioned whether Democrats sought help on January 6, but video shows him standing near Pelosi as she called for national guard troops The second-highest ranking Republican in the US House, Steve Scalise, is facing criticism for questioning what Democrats did to halt the deadly January 6 Capitol attack on the day of the riots despite being shown on video standing beside chamber speaker Nancy Pelosi as she called for back-up from national guard troops.Scalise, whose Louisiana district includes a large suburban area outside New Orleans, at one point questioned the lengths to which top Democrats went to end the assault on the Capitol staged by a mob of Donald Trump supporters as the former president questioned the results of the 2020 election that he lost to Joe Biden.But a video released last week by the bipartisan House committee investigating the Capitol attack showed Scalise, the Republican whip in the chamber, got an up-close look at the Democratic majority’s leadership trying to summon troops who could help quell the insurrection.The video was timestamped at 3.46pm on the day of the attack. Part of it showed the House majority leader, Democratic Maryland representative Steny Hoyer, saying: “We need active duty national guard.”After some back and forth over whether or not such reinforcements were possible as well as calls by Senator Chuck Schumer to have the grounds evacuated, Pelosi – the House speaker and yet another Democrat – told the person on the phone: “Just pretend for a moment it were the Pentagon or the White House, or some other entity that was under siege. And let me say you can logistically get people there as you make the plan.”The video shows Scalise mere footsteps away from Pelosi, Schumer and Hoyer, listening to them engaging in the conversation about securing the building on speakerphone.Nonetheless, in a news conference held in June to discuss the Capitol attack, Republican Indiana congressman Jim Banks said: “Was Speaker Pelosi involved in the decision to delay National Guard assistance following January 6? Those are serious and real questions that this committee refuses to even ask.”Scalise at that session thanked Banks for those remarks and added: “Banks just raised some very serious questions that should be answered by the January 6 commission, but they’re not. And they’re not for a very specific reason. And that’s because Nancy Pelosi doesn’t want those questions to be answered.”MSNBC’s Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough has since fiercely denounced Scalise for “lying through [his] teeth.”“He was in the room,” Scarborough said. “He was in the room where it happened. … I mean, come on.”The former chair of the Republican National Committee and now frequent critic of the GOP, Michael Steele, said: “Why are we surprised to see Scalise in the room, at the table, next to the phone that’s open for everybody to hear and then go out there and lie about it?”Scalise has not responded to the video released by the January 6 committee or the criticism. But in a statement provided to the New Orleans Times-Picayune newspaper’s website, a spokesperson for Scalise said the Republican whip’s comments at the June press conference referred to broader security failures at the Capitol days rather than singling out any Democrats.The video in question came just weeks ahead of the 8 November midterm. Scalise is expected to easily win another term as the House representative for Louisiana’s first congressional district, with his only real challenger being Democratic candidate Katie Darling.Darling did capture some national attention after a recent campaign ad featuring her pregnant and calling out the extremely restrictive Louisiana abortion laws that went into effect after the US supreme court in June voted to overturn the nationwide right to terminate a pregnancy that had been established by the landmark 1973 Roe v Wade case.The ad shows Darling going to the hospital in a wheelchair as she is about to give birth – then holding her infant baby.“We should be putting pregnant women at ease, not putting their lives at risk,” she says in the political spot.In the ad, Darling is seen going to a hospital by wheelchair as she is about to give birth. Then, while holding her newborn son in the hospital, she looks at the camera and declares, “I’m running for Congress … for him.”Scalise and his Republican colleagues hope to seize back control of both the House and the Senate, where the Democrats have razor-thin advantages going into the midterms.TopicsUS Capitol attackLouisianaUS midterm elections 2022RepublicansUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Steve Bannon: justice department urges six-month prison term in contempt case

      by

      Steve Bannon: justice department urges six-month prison term in contempt caseFormer Trump strategist found guilty of criminal contempt of Congress for ignoring subpoena from Capitol attack committee Steve Bannon should be sentenced to six months in prison and a $200,000 fine for “his sustained, bad-faith contempt of Congress”, the justice department said in a legal filing on Monday.Bannon, the former Donald Trump White House strategist, was found guilty on two counts of criminal contempt of Congress in July for ignoring a subpoena from the US House committee investigating the January 6 attack.‘Devoid of shame’: January 6 cop Michael Fanone on Trump’s Republican partyRead moreBannon faces up to a year in prison on each count on which he was found guilty. The punishment proposed Monday is at the “top end” of government sentencing guidelines and was needed because Bannon “consistently acted in bad faith and with the purpose of frustrating the committee’s work”, US justice department prosecutors wrote.They said Bannon had refused to cooperate with the committee in any way, except for instances in which he attempted a quid pro quo of exchanging information for dismissal of his criminal case.Bannon’s “contempt of Congress was absolute and undertaken in bad faith”, prosecutors added in the filing, which was submitted ahead of the ex-Trump adviser’s scheduled sentencing Friday. “To date, he remains in default: more than one year after accepting service of the committee’s subpoena, [Bannon] has not produced a single document or answered a single deposition question – nor has he endeavored to do so, except as part of a duplicitous quid pro quo.”Earlier this month, the FBI interviewed Timothy Heaphy, a senior investigator on the January 6 committee. Heaphy told an FBI agent that just before Bannon’s trial this summer, Bannon’s lawyer Evan Corcoran contacted him. Corcoran wanted to see if the committee would be willing to support a dismissal of Bannon’s charges in exchange for testimony, according to a document filed in court. Heaphy declined, since the committee was not involved in criminal charges and said he had not heard from Bannon’s lawyer since.The filing details numerous instances over the last several months in which Bannon dangled the prospect of cooperation with the committee in exchange for delaying and dismissing criminal charges against him.“His noncompliance has been complete and unremitting,” the justice department wrote. “And his effort to exact a quid pro quo with the committee to persuade the Department of Justice to delay trial and dismiss the charges against him should leave no doubt that his contempt was deliberate and continues to this day.”Prosecutors’ filing also said Bannon had refused to provide financial information to the probation office as part of its effort to evaluate what kind of fine he could pay. Bannon has said he would pay the maximum punishment instead.“Rather than disclose his financial records, a requirement with which every other defendant found guilty of a crime is expected to comply, [Bannon] informed [sentencing investigators] that he would prefer instead to pay the maximum fine,” the justice department argued. “So be it.”Prosecutors also pointed to Bannon’s comments on his podcast in which he used violent and intimidating rhetoric against members of the committee. “We’re going medieval on these people, we’re going to savage our enemies,” he said in one July appearance.“Through his public platforms, [Bannon] has used hyperbolic and sometimes violent rhetoric to disparage the committee’s investigation, personally attack the committee’s members, and ridicule the criminal justice system,” the filing said. “The … statements prove that his contempt was not aimed at protecting executive privilege or the constitution, rather it was aimed at undermining the committee’s efforts to investigate an historic attack on government.”The January 6 committee, which has relied heavily on testimony from former Trump administration official, held what was likely its final public hearing last week. It ended the meeting by voting 9-0 to subpoena Trump.The department is also pursuing criminal charges against Peter Navarro, another Trump White House adviser, who has refused to comply with the committee’s subpoena.TopicsSteve BannonDonald TrumpUS politicsUS Capitol attackJanuary 6 hearingsnewsReuse this content More