US Capitol attack

Subterms

    More stories

    • 175 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Film offers inside look at Roger Stone’s ‘Stop the Steal’ efforts before January 6

      by

      Film offers inside look at Roger Stone’s ‘Stop the Steal’ efforts before January 6Footage shows key moments of planning with fellow activist Ali Alexander to overturn election results in Trump’s favor Weeks before the Capitol attack, top Republican political activists Roger Stone and Ali Alexander identified the January 6 congressional certification as the final chance for Donald Trump to attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.The focus on the congressional certification, according to sources familiar with the matter, was one of several areas they marked as potential flash points to exploit as leaders of the Stop the Steal movement to help Trump reverse his defeat to Joe Biden.Roger Stone and Michael Flynn under fire over rallies ‘distorting Christianity’Read moreAs Stone and Alexander mounted their political operation, they allowed their activities to be recorded by two conservative filmmakers over several months starting from when they first began to strategize around the time of the election, through to January 6.The arrangement meant the filmmakers, Jason Rink and Paul Escandon, captured fly-on-the-wall footage of Stone and Alexander as they led the Stop the Steal movement, and their interactions with top Trump allies, according to a teaser for the documentary titled The Steal.In following Stone and Alexander, the filmmakers recorded most of the key moments in the timeline leading up to the Capitol attack, including an “occupation” of the Georgia state Capitol in November and rallies in Washington that almost seem like dry-runs for January 6.They also caught on camera public and private moments at the events Stone or Alexander attended. Among others who appear in the documentary are the House Republican Paul Gosar, former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, and Trump’s former national security advisor Michael Flynn.At one point, the footage reviewed by the Guardian shows, Alexander appears to presage the flashpoint that would be January 6, saying of Biden: “The House and the Senate must certify the electoral college. There is no president-elect until the electoral college meets.”Taken together, the footage gives an inside look at what Stone – the longest-serving political advisor to Trump and to whom Alexander was something of a protege – was thinking and doing as he strategized ways to make sure Biden would not be certified as president.Stone also allowed himself to be filmed by a Danish documentary film crew that recorded his activities in his room at the Willard hotel as the Capitol attack unfolded, the Washington Post reported earlier this year.The House January 6 select committee emailed a letter earlier in January asking to review the footage, but a lawyer for Rink declined the request, citing the need to maintain journalistic independence and fears the content would leak from the inquiry.House investigators did not ultimately pursue the matter after the lawyer indicated he would litigate a subpoena; unless filmmakers have said they would only turn over footage in response to a subpoena, the panel has generally avoided that route.A spokesman for the select committee declined to comment if that position had changed.The question about the footage, however, recently resurfaced inside the select committee, days after former Trump aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified under oath that Trump ordered his then-chief of staff to call Stone on the night before the Capitol attack.Stone has denied that the call took place, just as he has denied that he had anything to do with the events of January 6. He declined to cooperate with the select committee in an interview, asserting his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.“Any claim, assertion or implication that I knew about, was involved in or condoned any illegal event on January 6, or any other date, is categorically false and there is no evidence or witness to the contrary,” Stone has previously said.But while the full extent of what the filmmakers recorded remains unclear, parts of the footage reviewed by the Guardian make The Steal Movie seem like a detailed account of the behind-the-scenes efforts by Stone to stop Biden from becoming president.The activities of Stone with respect to stopping Biden’s certification is of interest to January 6 investigators since he had close ties to leaders of the far-right Proud Boys and Oath Keepers groups that stormed the Capitol and have since been indicted for seditious conspiracy.Many of the key moments for the Stop the Steal movement, managed by Alexander but ultimately controlled by Stone, according to sources familiar with how they worked in practice, were captured on tape by Rink and Escandon’s film crew.Trump’s possible ties to far-right militias examined by January 6 committeeRead moreThe filmmakers followed Stone and Alexander starting immediately after the 2020 election and tracked Stop the Steal leaders descending on multiple states to advance discredited claims of election fraud.Several important moments in the timeline leading up to the Capitol attack are caught on camera.The footage first shows Alexander in the Georgia state capitol in mid-November 2020, around the time that he and far-right activist Alex Jones staged an “occupation” protest of the building, in a stunt that echoed plans to “occupy” the US Capitol on January 6.The filmmakers are then present with Stone at a rally in Washington DC on 12 December 2020, where Michael Flynn, a former Trump national security advisor-turned political operative, spoke at a Women for America First-affiliated event near the supreme court.That event is significant because the Proud Boys were in Washington that day, and a contingent marched through the National Mall similar to how they did on January 6. The Oath Keepers, another far right group, acted as a security detail at the rally, similar again to January 6.The filmmakers are also understood to have captured some footage the day before and the Capitol attack, including discussions between Stone and Alexander, as well as the fate of the “Stage 8” rally that Alexander had planned on January 6 yards from the Capitol.Stone never went to the Save America rally at the Ellipse where Trump spoke, after a dispute over VIP passes, according to people familiar with the incident. He also never went to the Stage 8 rally on the East Front of the Capitol and instead left Washington in a hurry.TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsRepublicansRoger StoneDonald TrumpReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s possible ties to far right militias examined by January 6 committee

      by

      Trump’s possible ties to far right militias examined by January 6 committee Capitol attack panel expected to study links between Trump and the extremist groups in closer detail at seventh public hearingTowards the end of her testimony to the House January 6 select committee, former Trump aide Cassidy Hutchinson raised for the first time the prospect that Donald Trump might have had a line of communication to the leaders of the extremist groups that stormed the Capitol.The potential connection from the former US president to the extremist right-wing groups came through her account of Trump’s order to his White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to call Roger Stone and Mike Flynn – which Meadows did – the evening before the Capitol attack.Trump’s order to Meadows, even though Hutchinson said she did not know what was discussed, is significant because it shows the former president seeking to have a channel to two figures with close ties to the leaders of the far-right Proud Boys and Oath Keepers groups.The directive is doubly notable since it was Trump himself who initiated the outreach to Stone and Flynn, suggesting it was not an instance of far-right political operatives freelancing, for instance, potential strategies to overturn the 2020 election results.All of this is important because unresolved questions for January 6 investigators remain whether Trump knew that Proud Boys and Oath Keepers would storm the Capitol, and whether Trump was in contact with their leaders who have since been indicted for seditious conspiracy.The sworn testimony from Hutchinson about Trump’s order to Meadows raised the spectre that Trump wanted to learn what plans had been drawn up for the extremist groups regarding January 6 and wanted his aide – rather than doing it himself – to connect with Stone and Flynn.Now next Tuesday, at its seventh public hearing led by congressman Jamie Raskin, the select committee is expected to examine the connections between Trump and the extremist groups in closer detail, according to a source familiar with the investigation. There seems to be a lot to go after.The account of Trump’s order was not the only link from the White House to the extremist groups. Hutchinson also testified that she recalled hearing the terms “Oath Keepers” and “Proud Boys” whenever former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani was around at the White House.The Trump “war room” that Hutchinson referred to in her testimony appears to have been the one set up by Giuliani and Eastman, and staffed by other pro-Trump figures including lawyer Boris Epshteyn, Trump’s former strategist Steve Bannon, and Giuliani’s aide Bernie Kerik.That “war room” had specific goals: to help pressure then vice-president Mike Pence to refuse to certify Biden’s election win and send it to the House of Representatives in a contingent election, or failing that, delay the joint session beyond 6 January 2021.While Stone also had a mid-size suite at the Willard hotel on 5 January and 6 January, it was a different room that was totally separate to the “war room” put together by Giuliani and Eastman. Flynn was also briefly at the Willard, but again, did not lead the “war room”.By the evening before the Capitol attack, Trump knew that Pence was resisting that plan to unilaterally reject Biden’s election win and that Pence was unlikely to do anything to stop the certification – what Trump thought was the only way left to somehow get a second term.It was against that backdrop, Hutchinson testified, that Trump wanted Meadows to call Stone and Flynn, a directive that the panel believes could amount to him trying to figure out if any other avenues remained to stop Biden’s certification, say sources close to the inquiry.The select committee, the sources said, is for the same reason also examining whether Meadows initially expressed an interest in going to the Trump “war room” at the Willard the night before the Capitol attack before being talked out of the idea by Hutchinson.Stone and FlynnStone has repeatedly denied he had anything to do with the Capitol attack, but he would have been a natural choice for Trump to try to reach on 5 January 2021 had he sought to get a sense of what extremist groups might have been planning for the next morning.The far-right political operative based in Florida, for instance, had close ties to the Proud Boys and its ex-national chairman, Enrique Tarrio, who lived in Miami before his arrest for seditious conspiracy, well before Trump lost the 2020 election to Biden.When Stone travelled to Washington DC before 6 January 2021, he was accompanied by a man named Jacob Engels, a member of the Proud Boys from Florida who served as something of a lieutenant for him on the day before and the day of the Capitol attack.Through Engels in particular, Stone appeared to maintain his ties to the Proud Boys, even though during his stay at the Willard hotel on those two days, it was a small group of the Oath Keepers who acted as his personal security detail, pictures and court records show.The people that guarded Stone included Joshua James, an Oath Keepers member indicted for seditious conspiracy and is cooperating with the government, and Michael Simmons, codenamed “Whip”, who served as the “operations leader” for the Oath Keepers for January 6.Meanwhile, Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn would have been another natural choice for the former president to try and reach in order to learn what extremist groups interested in stopping Joe Biden’s election win certification might be planning.Flynn was also connected to the Oath Keepers through his own security detail called the 1st Amendment Praetorian, after the two groups guarded him as early as 12 December 2020, when Flynn took part in a Women for America First-affiliated march and rally.The 1st Amendment Praetorian, though, appeared to serve both a security function and an intelligence-gathering function for Flynn – a former director for the Defense Intelligence Agency – according to multiple people who worked directly with the group.Flynn’s operatives were involved in election fraud conspiracies from the outset, 1AP’s leader Robert Patrick Lewis and others have said, including working to gather intelligence about the claims cited in lawsuits filed by former Trump campaign lawyer Sidney Powell.The members of the 1st Amendment Praetorian do not appear to have stormed the Capitol like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, but at least one of its operatives, Geoffrey Flohr, circled the Capitol as the attack was underway talking covertly with an earpiece.While Flohr walked around the Capitol seemingly relaying information, another member of the 1st Amendment Praetorian, Philip Luelsdorff, was observing proceedings in the Trump “war room” led by Giuliani and then Trump lawyer John Eastman at the Willard hotel.TopicsJanuary 6 hearingsUS Capitol attackUS elections 2020US politicsDonald TrumpThe far rightanalysisReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump White House counsel to cooperate with January 6 committee

      by

      Trump White House counsel to cooperate with January 6 committeeSource says testimony from Pat Cipollone is expected to be a transcribed interview and recorded on camera The former Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone is expected to testify to the House January 6 select committee on Friday after reaching an agreement over the scope of his cooperation with a subpoena compelling his testimony, according to a source familiar with the matter.The testimony from Cipollone is expected to be a transcribed interview and recorded on camera, the source said, and the former top White House lawyer is expected to only answer questions on a narrow subset of topics and conversations with the former president.Among the topics Cipollone could discuss include how he told Donald Trump that pressuring Mike Pence, the vice-president, to refuse to certify Joe Biden’s election win was unlawful, and Trump’s plot to coerce the justice department into falsely saying the 2020 election was corrupt.Trump’s White House counsel Pat Cipollone reportedly agrees to testify to January 6 panel – liveRead moreThe closed-door deposition, to that end, could amount to a chance for the panel to corroborate testimony by the former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, who testified that Cipollone repeatedly warned that Trump’s ideas to overturn the 2020 election violated the law.Hutchinson, according to her public testimony at a special hearing last week, was told by Cipollone that “we’re going to be charged with every crime imaginable” if Trump went to the Capitol that day as he pressured Congress to not certify Biden’s win.It was not immediately clear on Wednesday why the scope of his testimony had to be limited, given Biden and the current White House counsel has previously waived privilege concerns for other former administration witnesses.Cipollone’s agreement comes days after the select committee finally issued a subpoena following weeks of unsuccessful negotiations, with the order compelling his testimony about at least three parts of Trump’s efforts to reverse his election defeat to Biden.The subpoena marked a dramatic escalation for the panel and showed its resolve in seeking to obtain inside information about how the former president sought to return himself to office from the unique perspective of the White House counsel’s office.“Mr Cipollone repeatedly raised legal and other concerns about President Trump’s activities on January 6 and in the days that preceded,” the chairman of the select committee, Bennie Thompson, said in a statement accompanying the subpoena.“The committee needs to hear from him on the record, as other former White House counsels have done in other congressional investigations. Concerns Mr Cipollone has about the prerogatives of the office he previously held are clearly outweighed by the need for his testimony.”Cipollone was a key witness to some of Trump’s most brazen schemes to overturn the 2020 election results, which, the select committee has said in its hearings, was part of a sprawling and probably illegal multi-pronged strategy that culminated in the Capitol attack.TopicsJanuary 6 hearingsUS Capitol attackUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      January 6 panel getting more new evidence by the day, says Kinzinger

      by

      January 6 panel getting more new evidence by the day, says KinzingerCassidy Hutchinson’s testimony inspired more witnesses to come forward, says Republican congressman Republican congressman Adam Kinzinger has said that bombshell testimony given by Cassidy Hutchinson to the January 6 hearings last week has inspired more witnesses to come forward and the committee is getting more new evidence by the day.The panel is investigating the events surrounding the 2021 attack on the US Capitol by a mob of Donald Trump supporters. Kinzinger is one of two Republicans serving on the panel which has publicized explosive testimony about the insurrection and an apparent plot to subvert the 2020 election, which Joe Biden won.Liz Cheney won’t rule out criminal referral against Donald TrumpRead moreLast week Hutchinson, a former top aide to Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, gave sworn testimony that painted the former president as a violent and unstable figure desperately seeking to cling to power.“There will be way more information and stay tuned,” Kinzinger told CNN’s State of the Union co-anchor Dana Bash. “Every day, we get new people that come forward and say, ‘Hey, I didn’t think maybe this piece of a story that I knew was important, but now I do see how this plays in here.’”Kinzinger also pushed back on doubts raised about Hutchinson’s testimony, including from Secret Service sources that have disputed her account that Trump tried to grab the steering wheel of the presidential SUV when the Secret Service refused to let him go to the Capitol after the rally.Robert Engel and Tony Ornato, the Secret Service agents who were in the car, are reportedly prepared to testify that they were not assaulted by Trump and he did not try to grab the steering wheel.“We certainly would say that Cassidy Hutchinson has testified under oath,” Kinzinger said. “We find her credible, and anybody that wants to cast disparagements on that, who were firsthand present, should also testify under oath and not through anonymous sources.”At least two more hearings are scheduled this month that aim to show that Trump illegally directed a violent mob toward the Capitol, and failed to direct supporters to stop once the siege began.In a separate interview, another committee member, Congressman Adam Schiff, said: “There’s certainly more information that is coming forward … we are following additional leads. I think those leads will lead to new testimony.”Schiff added that part of the reason the committee had wanted to put Hutchinson to testify would be to encourage others to do so as well. “We were hoping it would generate others stepping forward, seeing her courage would inspire them to show the same kind of courage,” he said.As Trump reportedly mulls declaring himself a candidate for 2024 as soon as this month – a tactic, many believe, for heading off potential criminal charges – Schiff also responded to comments by Liz Cheney, committee vice-chair, that criminal referrals could result from the hearings.“For four years, the justice department took the position that you can’t indict a sitting president. If the department were now to take the position that you can’t investigate or indict a former president then a president becomes above the law,” Schiff said. “That’s a very dangerous idea that the founders would have never subscribed to.”TopicsJanuary 6 hearingsUS Capitol attackDonald TrumpUS politicsHouse of RepresentativesnewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Liz Cheney won’t rule out criminal referral against Donald Trump

      by

      Liz Cheney won’t rule out criminal referral against Donald TrumpJanuary 6 committee vice-chairwoman says ‘a man as dangerous as [him] can never be anywhere near the Oval Office ever again’ The vice-chairwoman of the congressional committee investigating the January 6 attack on the US Capitol is not ruling out a criminal referral against Donald Trump, saying “a man as dangerous as [him] can never be anywhere near the Oval Office ever again”.Liz Cheney’s remarks Sunday came after the committee’s chairman, Bennie Thompson, once said he did not expect the panel to indicate whether or not it would make a recommendation for federal prosecutors to charge the former president with an alleged role in the Capitol attack.But, on a pre-recorded interview on ABC’s This Week, Cheney said she, Thompson and others on the committee could change their minds about their initial position after there was sworn testimony that Trump knowingly sent armed supporters to the Capitol on the day of the deadly attack in hopes of preventing the congressional certification of his defeat to Joe Biden in the 2020 election.As Trump’s star wanes, another rises: could Ron DeSantis be the new Maga bearer?Read more“What kind of man knows a mob is armed and sends the mob to attack the Capitol?” Cheney said on the program, adding that some in the crowd intended to hang Mike Pence that day. “His own vice-president [was] under threat … Congress [was] under threat. It’s just very chilling.”The Republican representative from Wyoming correctly pointed out that the US justice department does not need a recommendation from the Capitol attack committee to charge Trump. But the panel of seven Democrats and two Republicans has made such referrals in the cases of former Trump aides Steve Bannon, Peter Navarro, Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino, who refused to cooperate with the committee.The justice department – which is the only entity that can prosecute Trump – filed charges against Bannon and Navarro, who have pleaded not guilty. But it did not charge Scavino or Meadows.Cheney, the daughter of former vice-president Dick Cheney, also spent much of her appearance Sunday defending the testimony of former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson at a recent committee hearing.Explosive testimony piles pressure on Trump – how likely are criminal charges?Read moreMany believe one part of Hutchinson’s testimony drew Trump closer than ever to demonstrable criminal conduct. She said Trumpknew some in the crowd for his speech near the White House on the day of the Capitol attack had handguns and rifles. Yet the then president still urged his audience to “fight like hell” and march on the Capitol, Hutchinson testified.A bipartisan Senate committee later linked seven deaths to the ensuing violence at the Capitol. The key legal questions about Trump’s potential criminal exposure appear to be whether he intended to cause that violence and knew it was likely to occur, according to experts.Hutchinson also testified under oath that Trump was furious that the Secret Service denied him permission to go to the Capitol that day, at one point even lunging for the steering wheel of the vehicle in which he was being driven that day. That aspect of her testimony was quickly met with reports in some quarters that senior Secret Service agents were prepared to testify that Trump never did that.Mark Meadows’ associate threatened ex-White House aide before her testimonyRead moreBut on Sunday, Cheney said the committee was prepared to stage more sworn testimony about Trump’s “intense anger” at not being allowed to go to the Capitol at the height of the attack, the culmination of his false claims that electoral fraudsters had stolen the election from him.“The committee is not going to stand by and watch [Hutchinson’s] character be assassinated,” Cheney said, in what was her first sit-down media interview during the panel’s six hearings so far.The other Republican on the committee, Illinois congressman Adam Kinzinger, said in a separate interview on CNN’s State of the Union that he invited anyone who could contradict Hutchinson to “come and also testify under oath” like she did.“We find her credible,” Kinzinger said.Cheney said the hearings to this point had convinced her “Donald Trump can never be anywhere near the Oval Office again”. And she said she believed the Republican party would lose its legitimacy if it nominated Trump to run for president against Biden in 2024.“He can’t be the party nominee,” Cheney said. “I don’t think the party would survive that.”Cheney’s service on the January 6 committee has been costly for her politically. She is trailing in polls as she tries to fend off a challenge in a 16 August primary against one-time Trump critic turned loyalist Harriet Hageman.TopicsJanuary 6 hearingsDonald TrumpUS Capitol attackUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 213 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Explosive testimony suggests Trump was set on a coup that evokes America’s darkest hour | Sarah Churchwell

      by

      Explosive testimony suggests Trump was set on a coup that evokes America’s darkest hourSarah ChurchwellThe 6 January hearings already confirm a plan for insurrection and recall the civil war and its ‘lost cause’ aftermath ‘I’m from a part of the country where people justify the actions of slavery, Ku Klux Klan, and lynching. I’m reminded of that dark history as I hear voices today try and justify the actions of the insurrectionists of 6 January 2021,” declared congressman Bennie Thompson, chairman of the select committee, as he opened the 6 January hearings last month.That drop of American history was quickly lost in the cloudburst to come, the extraordinary revelations culminating last week in the testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson, former aide to Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows. But Thompson opened proceedings with that reminder for a very good reason: because the 6 January insurrection did not merely resemble the dark history of the civil war and its aftermath, it continued it. “Some people are trying to deny what happened,” Thompson added. “To whitewash it. To turn the insurrectionists into martyrs. But the whole world saw the reality of what happened on January 6th. The hangman’s gallows sitting out there on our National Mall. The flag of that first failed and disgraced rebellion against our union, being paraded through the Capitol.”The denial that followed that first disgraced insurrection – the civil war – was a myth-making disinformation campaign known as the “lost cause”. Slavery, southern apologists said, was a mere pretext for the war, which, they insisted, was started by an aggressive and spiteful north, much as Trump and his defenders claimed for many months that the 6 January insurrection was, in fact, planned and carried out by antifa.The most famous version of the lost cause appeared not in the aftermath of the civil war, however, but decades later, during the interwar years: Gone With the Wind, first published in 1936 and filmed as Europe went to war over fascism. Many critics called that story fascist when it appeared, including African Americans furious at the dangerous myths it was peddling, sparking a furious debate that anticipated the arguments 80 years later over whether Trump’s administration was accurately described as fascist. The testimony of Hutchinson should end that debate (but won’t).Hutchinson revealed that as of 2 January, Rudy Giuliani was already boasting of plans to go to the Capitol on the 6th, where the president would “look powerful”. On the 6th, Trump and Meadows were both informed that some insurrectionists were armed with military grade automatic weapons, after which Trump demanded that the metal detectors (“mags”) be removed, partly to make his crowd larger: “I don’t fucking care that they have weapons,” she heard Trump say. “They’re not here to hurt me. Take the fucking mags away.” The White House had seen intelligence revealing the insurrectionists’ plans to “occupy federal buildings” and for “invading the capitol building”, declaring: “Congress itself is the target on the 6th.” When Trump heard the chants of “Hang Mike Pence”, and urged the crowd to find Pence, he knew that they were armed and dangerous and planning a political coup.White House counsel Pat Cipollone begged Hutchinson to stop Trump and his allies from joining the insurrectionists, saying: “Please make sure we don’t go up to the Capitol… we’re going to get charged with every crime imaginable.” But Trump was so determined to be there, she was told, that he lunged at his secret service in the car, shouting “I’m the fucking president, take me up to Capitol now,” and trying to grab the steering wheel. (These details have been reportedly disputed, but not by anyone under oath.) As committee member Zoe Lofgren later rightly tweeted: “No one is denying that the former president wanted to go to the Capitol and lead this armed mob, and be there while they attacked the Capitol. That’s the point.”In sum: Trump was hellbent on leading an armed militia to storm the US Capitol and overturn the election, supported by officials who refused under oath to confirm their belief in a peaceful transfer of power. That is a textbook and full-fledged fascist coup.It is also a variation on the political violence that followed the civil war, 160 years ago, when white supremacist groups violently overthrew elected officials in several states in the deep south, including Louisiana and North Carolina. The Klan was only the most famous of those white supremacist groups – there was also the White League, the Red Shirts and the Knights of the White Camellia, among many others. Several of these organisations were revived by white supremacists and self-identified fascists in the 1930s.In 1934, a retired major general named Smedley Darlington Butler testified before Congress that he had been approached in 1933 by America’s financial leaders to spearhead a coup against Franklin Roosevelt, a plan backed by the American Liberty League. Butler said he was asked to mobilise an army of disgruntled veterans to march on Washington and install a military fascist dictatorship.Butler was widely accused of being a fantasist and historians later followed suit in suggesting that the Business Plot, as it was known, was an empty threat that shouldn’t have been taken seriously. Many said the same thing about Trump – until the events of 6 January. Historian Robert O Paxton, for example, America’s pre-eminent expert on fascism, had long resisted calling Trump a fascist, but wrote in the wake of the insurrection that he had changed his mind.Members of the Trump administration agreed: “Senior Trump Official: We Were Wrong, He’s a ‘Fascist’”, as a New York magazine headline succinctly put it. Now, thanks to the testimony of Hutchinson, we know why some of them changed their minds.But not all. Hours after the insurrection, more than two-thirds of House Republicans voted with the coup, and against the election results, to effectively install Trump as dictator. Six months later, in the summer of 2021, influential conservatives put forward their own thought experiment, arguing for the necessity of an “American Caesar” to seize power, a hypothetical figure to whom they soon gave the less than hypothetical name Trump. They discussed strategies such as declaring a national emergency in the inaugural address, communicating directly with supporters using a “Trump app” and encouraging them to mobilise once more at the Capitol.As the testimony of Hutchinson makes clear, Trump had done everything he could to seize the laurel crown and declare himself an American Caesar. He hasn’t given up yet – and, what is more, neither have most of his supporters.TopicsUS Capitol attackOpinionDonald TrumpUS politicscommentReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘It was sort of a feeling’: Trump film-maker says he feared trouble at Capitol

      by

      ‘It was sort of a feeling’: Trump film-maker says he feared trouble at CapitolAlex Holder, who had extensive access to Trump and his family, says he suspected January 6 would be a likely flashpoint When the House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack deposed British film-maker Alex Holder, it heard from a first-hand fact witness who inadvertently observed some of the darkest and most politically fraught days of Donald Trump’s time in office.The new witness, who emerged late in the congressional investigation into the Capitol attack, had extensive personal access to Donald Trump and his family as the administration imploded in the post-2020 election period after the former president lost to Joe Biden.Mark Meadows’ associate threatened ex-White House aide before her testimonyRead moreHolder was there for it all: three sit-down interviews with Trump, including one at the White House, numerous other interviews with Trump’s adult children, private conversations among top aides and advisers before the election, and around the Capitol itself as it got stormed.The second film-maker to cooperate with the panel – the first, Nick Quested, was embedded with the far-right Proud Boys group – in effect had a front-row seat to peer into the mind of the former president at the critical junctures in his efforts to retain the presidency.The access to Trump, and listening to him and his inner circle, led him to suspect that the former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election would somehow culminate in some event at the Capitol on 6 January, Holder said in an interview with the Guardian.“I wasn’t 100% sure, but it was sort of a feeling, so we prepared for that thing to happen,” Holder said. “The reason we thought January 6 was because, in Trump’s mind, the last-ditch effort was to stop the process” of Biden’s certification.“That ceremonial process that takes place in Congress on January 6, he felt, was the last time where he could, in his mind, stop the election going to the wrong person, as it were. The rhetoric that was coming out was that the election was rigged, [that] we need to fight.”Holder testified for about four hours behind closed doors last week about his roughly 100 hours of footage, used for an upcoming documentary titled Unprecedented, and turned over to House investigators the parts demanded in a subpoena compelling his cooperation.The select committee was broadly interested in his recollections of the buildup to the Capitol attack, as well as his interactions with Trump and his family, Holder said, though he declined to discuss specific lines of inquiry or questioning.The Guardian previously reported, however, that the panel zeroed in on phone calls among Trump’s adult children – including Don Jr and Eric – that Holder captured on camera at a campaign event on 29 September 2020 at the Trump international hotel that he gatecrashed.The select committee is closely focused on the footage of the event – in addition to the content of the one-on-one interviews with Trump and Ivanka – because the discussions about strategies mirror similar conversations at that time by top Trump advisers.What appears to interest the panel is whether Trump and his children had planned to somehow stop the certification of the election on January 6 – a potential violation of federal law – and to force a contingent election if Trump lost as early as September.The event on the day of the first presidential debate at the Trump hotel that Holder gained access through Eric Trump, was unplanned, and reflected, according to Holder, his approach to filming everything he could, in case it proved to be consequential later.Holder said he went into the one-to-one interviews with Trump and his children with a deliberately deferential approach and open-ended questions to ensure the exchanges did not come off as confrontational – including about whether Trump lost the 2020 election“If I start pushing a guy who I know is not going to change his position, and then he throws you out of the room, then it’s all over,” Holder said. “I don’t need to argue and debate him because we contextualise his position with journalist interviews.”“And also, this English guy from north London isn’t going to change Donald Trump’s mind about the election. Then we would have just wasted our entire hour together while I try to persuade him I’m right and he’s wrong,” Holder added.The select committee has also been interested in Ivanka Trump’s interviews with Holder, according to a source familiar with the matter, since although she testified to the panel that she accepted that Trump lost the election, at the time, she told Holder the opposite.Holder said he was not aware if that amounted to Ivanka Trump shifting her belief about the outcome of the 2020 election between her three interviews with him, but said he was surprised that she would effectively testify to the select committee that her father was wrong.“That was surprising, because the three kids, at least with me, would always echo their father’s positions and support them,” he said.The documentary broadly presents a portrait of Trump and his family that follows them through the tumultuous 2020 presidential campaign, when the children acted as campaign surrogates, the final months of the administration, and then months after the Capitol attack.Holder said he interviewed Don Jr, Eric, Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner, before the 2020 election, and then went to the White House over the first weekend in December 2020 to interview the former president as well as Ivanka for a second time.He said he did a second interview with Trump at Mar-a-Lago in Florida a few months after the Capitol attack, and then for a third interview with Trump at his Bedminster golf club a few months after that. He also interviewed Ivanka and Eric again after the events of January 6.The documentary also features raw footage of the Capitol attack recorded by Holder’s director of photography, Michael Crommett, who filmed at the tunnel of the inaugural platform on the west side of the Capitol as the pro-Trump mob unsuccessfully tried to breach that door.Holder said he additionally did a one-to-one interview with then-vice president Mike Pence, including a scene where Pence briefly reviews an email about the 25th amendment – which concerns the removal of a US president – which was privately discussed among senior White House officials in the wake of the Capitol attack.TopicsDonald TrumpJanuary 6 hearingsUS Capitol attackUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Explosive testimony piles pressure on Trump – how likely are criminal charges?

      by

      Explosive testimony piles pressure on Trump – how likely are criminal charges? The January 6 committee cannot charge Trump, but they can make criminal referrals. Here are the key legal issues at stakeIn six televised hearings, the House January 6 committee has presented extraordinary testimony about Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election and its culmination, the deadly attack on the US Capitol by a far-right mob.Angry, violent, reckless: testimony paints shocking portrait of Trump Read moreThe committee is made up of seven Democrats and two rebel Republicans, Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney, who refused to follow their party in bending the knee to Trump.Set free of bipartisan considerations when the House Republican leader, Kevin McCarthy, withdrew cooperation, the panel has been able to act in a purely prosecutorial manner. It has also worked on how to present its findings, using TV industry expertise to present hearings honed, contained and aimed at convincing the American people Trump should never be president again.The committee cannot charge Trump with a crime. But the US Department of Justice can, a possibility that has stoked intense speculation in Washington and the world.Here are the key legal issues at stake:Can the committee make criminal referrals?Yes. It has done so in the cases of Steve Bannon, Peter Navarro, Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino, Trump aides who refused to cooperate. Pleading not guilty to criminal contempt of Congress, Bannon and Navarro face time in prison. The DoJ declined to charge Scavino and Meadows.Will the committee refer Trump?The chair, Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, has said he does not expect to do so. However, that statement prompted reports of disagreement on the panel and also came before Cheney, the vice-chair, revealed possible attempts to intimidate witnesses.On Wednesday, CNN asked a committee member, Pete Aguilar of California, if he believed witness tampering had occurred.“Yes, I do,” he said. “I think that that’s something that should be looked at by our committee and potentially by the Department of Justice.”Asked if a referral had been made, Aguilar said: “I’m not going to talk about the investigative steps we have taken. But what I will say is I think that those statements speak for themselves [as evidence of] … dangerous behavior.”One of the witness statements which Cheney read on Tuesday was reportedly made by Cassidy Hutchinson, a former close aide to Trump and Meadows who testified for two dramatic hours.Could the DoJ charge Trump?The committee has turned up extensive evidence that suggests a case could be made.Hutchinson appeared to draw Trump closer to strong links with extremist groups which attacked the Capitol, saying she recalled “hearing the word ‘Oath Keeper’ and hearing the word ‘Proud Boys’ closer to the planning of the January 6 rally, when Mr Giuliani would be around” the White House.Rudy Giuliani was Trump’s personal attorney. Among more than 870 people charged over the Capitol attack, members of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys have been charged with seditious conspiracy.But to many, one passage in Hutchinson’s testimony seemed to draw Trump the closest yet to demonstrable criminal conduct.Hutchinson said Trump knew the crowd for his speech near the White House on 6 January 2021 contained armed individuals, some with AR-15 rifles and handguns, but still told his audience to march on the Capitol and “fight like hell” to stop certification of election results. Trump told the crowd he would march with them and, according to Secret Service witnesses, was furious to be denied.01:42David French, senior editor at the Dispatch and the author of Divided We Fall: America’s Secession Threat and How to Restore Our Nation, wrote: “Hutchinson’s sworn testimony closes a gap in the criminal case against Trump, and Trump is closer to a credible prosecution than ever before.”Why?As French described, Trump’s actions on and around January 6 appear to meet standards for prosecution set in a 1969 supreme court case, Brandenburg v Ohio, which involved a leader of the Ku Klux Klan.Then, the court “overturned Brandenburg’s conviction, holding that even speech that threatened violence or disorder was protected by the first amendment unless ‘such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action’”.French wrote: “Note the elements of intentionality, likelihood and imminence. The imminence element is easiest to satisfy. The mob was right there. It marched to the Capitol right away, even as Trump was speaking. But what about intentionality and likelihood?”2:24-3:13 PM: Trump sends out a series of tweets claiming that Pence “didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done” but urging rioters at the Capitol to “stay peaceful.” pic.twitter.com/O4euIGynx1— January 6th Committee (@January6thCmte) January 6, 2022
      In French’s view, Trump demonstrably summoned the mob, knew it was armed and dangerous, told it to “fight like hell” and tried to march with it. He then inflamed it further with a tweet in which he derided Mike Pence, his vice-president, for not supporting his scheme.Is the DoJ investigating Trump?Yes. This week, the New York Times profiled Thomas Windom, “an aggressive if little-known federal prosecutor” who is “pulling together [the] disparate strands” of DoJ Trump investigations.According to the Times, Windom, 44, is “working under the close supervision of Attorney General Merrick B Garland’s top aides [and] executing the department’s time-tested, if slow-moving, strategy of working from the periphery of the events inward”.As examples of such work, the paper mentioned a raid on a former DoJ employee’s house and the seizure of a phone belonging to John Eastman, the law professor who cooked up Trump’s scheme to reject electoral college results.Hutchinson’s testimony also increased the heat on Trump’s closest aides. Punchbowl News noted that though the DoJ declined to charge Meadows for defying the January 6 committee, “following more damning testimony on Meadows’ role in everything leading to the insurrection”, the DoJ could rethink that position.The DoJ does appear to be closing the net on Trump. Whether it chooses to haul in such a big fish is a very big question indeed.So will Trump be indicted?As French wrote, “Criminal charges require both evidence and political will.“The evidence against Trump continues to mount, both in Washington DC and in Georgia, where there is substantial evidence supporting both federal and state charges for his effort to threaten and intimidate Georgia secretary of state Brad Raffensperger to ‘find 12,000 votes’.”02:07Raffensperger has appeared with other Republican state officials before the January 6 committee, providing damning testimony of his own.Most observers agree that for the DoJ to indict a former president, and at that a potential presidential candidate in 2024, would set a dangerous precedent, particularly given Trump’s strong and demonstrably violent following on the far right.Liz Cheney calls Trump ‘a domestic threat we have never faced before’Read moreBut, French wrote, “there is another precedent that is perhaps more grave and more dangerous – deciding that presidents are held to lower standards of criminal behavior than virtually any other American citizen.”What does Liz Cheney think the DoJ should do?The Wyoming Republican’s anti-Trump stance seems set to cost her a seat in Congress. Regardless, on Wednesday she tweeted French’s words to the world.The same day, Cheney went to the Republican holy of holies: the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California.Describing “a domestic threat that we have never faced before”, the daughter of Dick Cheney, George W Bush’s vice-president, told her party: “To argue that the threat posed by Trump can be ignored is to cast aside the responsibility that every citizen – every one of us – bears to perpetuate the republic.“We must not do that, and we cannot do that.”TopicsDonald TrumpJanuary 6 hearingsUS Capitol attackUS politicsnewsReuse this content More