US Capitol attack

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      House January 6 committee to focus on Trump’s tweet at extremist group hearing

      by

      House January 6 committee to focus on Trump’s tweet at extremist group hearingFormer president’s notorious ‘Be there, will be wild!’ tweet was catalyst for violent protests, congress members will argue The House January 6 select committee is expected to make the case at its seventh hearing Tuesday that Donald Trump gave the signal to the extremist groups that stormed the Capitol to target and obstruct the congressional certification of Joe Biden’s electoral college win.The panel will zero in on a pivotal tweet sent by the former president in the early hours of the morning on 19 December 2020, according to sources close to the inquiry who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the forthcoming hearing.“Big protest in D.C. on January 6th,” Trump said in the tweet. “Be there, will be wild!”Trump lawyers feel heat as legal net tightens on plot to overturn electionRead moreThe select committee will say at the hearing – led by congressmen Jamie Raskin and Stephanie Murphy – that Trump’s tweet was the catalyst that triggered the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers groups, as well as Stop the Steal activists, to target the certification.And Trump sent the tweet knowing that for those groups, it amounted to a confirmation that they should put into motion their plans for January 6, the select committee will say, and encouraged thousands of other supporters to also march on the Capitol for a protest.The tweet was the pivotal moment in the timeline leading up to the Capitol attack, the select committee will say, since it was from that point that the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers seriously started preparations, and Stop the Steal started applying for permits.The select committee also currently plans to play video clips from former White House counsel Pat Cipollone’s recent testimony to House investigators at Tuesday’s hearing.Raskin is expected to first touch on the immediate events before the tweet: a contentious White House meeting on 18 December 2020 where Trump weighed seizing voting machines and appointing conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell as special counsel to investigate election fraud.The meeting involved Trump and four informal advisers, the Guardian has reported, including Trump’s ex-national security adviser, Michael Flynn, ex-Trump campaign lawyer Sidney Powell, ex-Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne and ex-Trump aide Emily Newman.Once in the Oval Office, they implored Trump to invoke executive order 13848, which granted him emergency powers in the event of foreign interference in the election – though that had not happened – to seize voting machines and install Powell as special counsel.The former president ultimately demurred on both of the proposals. But after the Flynn-Powell-Byrne-Newman plan for him to overturn the election fell apart, the select committee will say, he turned his attention to January 6 as his final chance and sent his tweet.The response to Trump’s tweet was direct and immediate, the panel will show, noting that Stop the Steal announced plans for a protest in Washington set to coincide with Biden’s certification just hours after the former president sent his missive. Bannon initiates talks with January 6 panel on testifying over Capitol attackRead moreThe Proud Boys – whose top members has since been indicted for seditious conspiracy over the Capitol attack – also started to crystalize what their plans were for January 6 the following day, according to federal prosecutors prosecuting the case.On 20 December 2020, prosecutors have said, the former Proud Boys national chairman Enrique Tarrio created an encrypted group chat called “MOSD Leaders Group” – described by Tarrio as a “national rally planning” committee that included his top lieutenants.The day after Tarrio started the MOSD Leaders Group – the Monday after Trump’s tweet that came on a Saturday – the leaders of Stop the Steal applied for a permit to stage a protest on “Lot 8” near the Capitol, and around that time, sent live the WildProtest.com website.Through the rest of December and spurred on by Trump’s tweet, the select committee will say citing the Proud Boys indictment, the Proud Boys leaders used the MOSD chats to plan a “DC trip” and tell their members to dress incognito for their operation on January 6.Top members of the Oath Keepers militia group led by Stewart Rhodes, who have also been indicted for seditious conspiracy, made similar plans as they prepared to obstruct the congressional certification of Biden’s election win, the panel intends to show.The select committee will then focus on how the Oath Keepers stockpiled weapons and created an armed quick reaction force ready to deploy to the Capitol, and how the group ended up as the security detail for far-right activist Roger Stone and other Trump allies.One of the witnesses providing public testimony at the hearing is expected to be Jason van Tatenhove, a former spokesperson for the Oath Keepers who left the group around 2017 but is slated to discuss their motivations and how they operated.The 1st Amendment Praetorian, Flynn’s paramilitary group, is also expected to get a brief mention at the hearing, as will the various “war rooms” at the Willard hotel, where both Stone and Flynn, as well as Trump’s attorney, Rudy Giuliani, were spotted ahead of January 6.The select committee, through Raskin’s portion of the hearing, will run through the effects of Trump’s tweet on preparations for January 6 right up until the morning of the Capitol attack and Trump’s speech at the Save America rally on the Ellipse.Congresswoman Murphy is then expected examine the Ellipse rally itself, and Trump’s incendiary rhetoric where he told his supporters that he would march with them to the Capitol, giving the pro-Trump crowd the ultimate incentive to storm Biden’s certification.TopicsUS Capitol attackDonald TrumpUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      January 6 hearing to focus on Trump’s tweet to extremist group

      by

      January 6 hearing to focus on Trump’s tweet to extremist groupFormer president’s notorious ‘Be there, will be wild!’ tweet was catalyst for violent protests, congress members will argue The House January 6 select committee is expected to make the case at its seventh hearing Tuesday that Donald Trump gave the signal to the extremist groups that stormed the Capitol to target and obstruct the congressional certification of Joe Biden’s electoral college win.The panel will zero in on a pivotal tweet sent by the former president in the early hours of the morning on 19 December 2020, according to sources close to the inquiry who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the forthcoming hearing.“Big protest in D.C. on January 6th,” Trump said in the tweet. “Be there, will be wild!”Trump lawyers feel heat as legal net tightens on plot to overturn electionRead moreThe select committee will say at the hearing – led by congressmen Jamie Raskin and Stephanie Murphy – that Trump’s tweet was the catalyst that triggered the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers groups, as well as Stop the Steal activists, to target the certification.And Trump sent the tweet knowing that for those groups, it amounted to a confirmation that they should put into motion their plans for January 6, the select committee will say, and encouraged thousands of other supporters to also march on the Capitol for a protest.The tweet was the pivotal moment in the timeline leading up to the Capitol attack, the select committee will say, since it was from that point that the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers seriously started preparations, and Stop the Steal started applying for permits.The select committee also currently plans to play video clips from former White House counsel Pat Cipollone’s recent testimony to House investigators at Tuesday’s hearing.Raskin is expected to first touch on the immediate events before the tweet: a contentious White House meeting on 18 December 2020 where Trump weighed seizing voting machines and appointing conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell as special counsel to investigate election fraud.The meeting involved Trump and four informal advisers, the Guardian has reported, including Trump’s ex-national security adviser, Michael Flynn, ex-Trump campaign lawyer Sidney Powell, ex-Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne and ex-Trump aide Emily Newman.Once in the Oval Office, they implored Trump to invoke executive order 13848, which granted him emergency powers in the event of foreign interference in the election – though that had not happened – to seize voting machines and install Powell as special counsel.The former president ultimately demurred on both of the proposals. But after the Flynn-Powell-Byrne-Newman plan for him to overturn the election fell apart, the select committee will say, he turned his attention to January 6 as his final chance and sent his tweet.The response to Trump’s tweet was direct and immediate, the panel will show, noting that Stop the Steal announced plans for a protest in Washington set to coincide with Biden’s certification just hours after the former president sent his missive. Bannon initiates talks with January 6 panel on testifying over Capitol attackRead moreThe Proud Boys – whose top members has since been indicted for seditious conspiracy over the Capitol attack – also started to crystalize what their plans were for January 6 the following day, according to federal prosecutors prosecuting the case.On 20 December 2020, prosecutors have said, the former Proud Boys national chairman Enrique Tarrio created an encrypted group chat called “MOSD Leaders Group” – described by Tarrio as a “national rally planning” committee that included his top lieutenants.The day after Tarrio started the MOSD Leaders Group – the Monday after Trump’s tweet that came on a Saturday – the leaders of Stop the Steal applied for a permit to stage a protest on “Lot 8” near the Capitol, and around that time, sent live the WildProtest.com website.Through the rest of December and spurred on by Trump’s tweet, the select committee will say citing the Proud Boys indictment, the Proud Boys leaders used the MOSD chats to plan a “DC trip” and tell their members to dress incognito for their operation on January 6.Top members of the Oath Keepers militia group led by Stewart Rhodes, who have also been indicted for seditious conspiracy, made similar plans as they prepared to obstruct the congressional certification of Biden’s election win, the panel intends to show.The select committee will then focus on how the Oath Keepers stockpiled weapons and created an armed quick reaction force ready to deploy to the Capitol, and how the group ended up as the security detail for far-right activist Roger Stone and other Trump allies.One of the witnesses providing public testimony at the hearing is expected to be Jason van Tatenhove, a former spokesperson for the Oath Keepers who left the group around 2017 but is slated to discuss their motivations and how they operated.The 1st Amendment Praetorian, Flynn’s paramilitary group, is also expected to get a brief mention at the hearing, as will the various “war rooms” at the Willard hotel, where both Stone and Flynn, as well as Trump’s attorney, Rudy Giuliani, were spotted ahead of January 6.The select committee, through Raskin’s portion of the hearing, will run through the effects of Trump’s tweet on preparations for January 6 right up until the morning of the Capitol attack and Trump’s speech at the Save America rally on the Ellipse.Congresswoman Murphy is then expected examine the Ellipse rally itself, and Trump’s incendiary rhetoric where he told his supporters that he would march with them to the Capitol, giving the pro-Trump crowd the ultimate incentive to storm Biden’s certification.TopicsUS Capitol attackDonald TrumpUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Bannon initiates talks with January 6 panel on testifying over Capitol attack

      by

      Bannon initiates talks with January 6 panel on testifying over Capitol attackCooperation of former Trump strategist could provide unique insight into inner-workings of Trump’s push to overturn election Steve Bannon, the onetime strategist to Donald Trump who was involved in the former president’s efforts to invalidate his defeat in the 2020 election, has opened discussions with the House January 6 select committee about testifying to the inquiry into the Capitol attack.The offer of cooperation could mark a breakthrough for the panel, which has sought Bannon’s testimony for months, believing he could provide unique insight into the inner-workings of Trump’s unlawful push to stop the congressional certification of his loss to Joe Biden from taking place.Bannon signalled in an email to the select committee, first obtained by the Guardian, that he was prepared to initiate discussions about a time and place for an interview, after Trump said in a letter he would waive executive privilege if he reached an agreement to testify.The email broadly reiterated Bannon’s legal defense that he was previously unable to comply with a subpoena from the panel because at the time, in a claim that has been disputed, the former president had asserted executive privilege over his testimony.But with Trump now willing to waive executive privilege if Bannon and the select committee could secure an arrangement, Bannon was in a position to initiate negotiations about a potential interview, the email said, citing the letter from the former president.The situation with Bannon and executive privilege is complex because he has argued that he does not have to have been a White House employee – he was not for January 6 – to be a close presidential adviser dispensing confidential advice and be subject to executive privilege.He has also argued that while the supreme court has ruled that a current president’s waiver for executive privilege overrules a former president’s assertion, Biden never formally waived Trump’s assertion – the select committee didn’t believe Trump asserted it in the first place.Speaking on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, January 6 committee member and congresswoman Zoe Lofgren said she anticipated the panel would schedule an interview with Bannon.“I expect that we will be hearing from him,” Lofgren said. “And there are many questions that we have for him.”The email specifically said Bannon was prepared to testify at a public hearing. It did not say whether Bannon would agree to appear at a closed-door interview first, or ever, and whether he would provide documents in addition to providing testimony.Also unclear was the extent of the assistance Bannon might provide in his testimony, though he was a witness to several key moments in the illicit effort to stop the certification of Biden’s election win on 6 January.That would mean Bannon could, in theory, reveal to House investigators about his conversations with Trump ahead of the Capitol attack – Bannon spoke with Trump on the phone the night before – and strategy discussions at the Trump “war room” at the Willard hotel in Washington.The Trump “war room” at the Willard played a major role in the former president’s push to stop the certification. Bannon was based there in the days before the attack, alongside Trump lawyers John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani, widely seen as the architects of that scheme.Bannon’s offer to testify appears to be a strategic move ahead of his trial for criminal contempt of Congress, scheduled to start on 18 July, that comes after justice department prosecutors charged him for refusing to comply with the select committee’s subpoena last year.The move to testify to the panel now would not “cure” his contempt since he faces criminal contempt and the prosecution is for the past failure to comply with the subpoena, according to former US attorney Joyce Vance.But the email offering to testify could have the effect of reinforcing his legal defense that Trump did in fact assert a legitimate executive privilege claim in October 2021, and that he cannot be prosecuted because of that invocation, according to his letter on Saturday.The offer to testify – and an actual agreement where he appears before the select committee – could also serve to defang the prosecution to some extent, making it a less attractive case for the justice department to pursue and one generally less appealing to jurors.Regardless of what Trump now says in his letter, and in referring Bannon for prosecution, the select committee has maintained that Trump did not assert executive privilege – and even if he did, it did not cover Bannon, who was out of the Trump White House by 6 January.The select committee has also said that Bannon was required to respond to the subpoena in some way, for instance by citing executive privilege on a question-by-question basis, and at least responding to questions that had nothing to do with Trump.Bannon became one of two former Trump advisers charged by the justice department for contempt of Congress. Federal prosecutors also charged Peter Navarro but declined to prosecute the former White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and the deputy chief, Dan Scavino.TopicsUS politicsSteve BannonDonald TrumpUS Capitol attackReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump considers waiving Bannon’s executive privilege claim, reports say

      by

      Trump considers waiving Bannon’s executive privilege claim, reports sayDecision from former president would clear way for one-time adviser to testify before committee investigating Capitol attack Donald Trump is considering waiving executive privilege for his longtime political adviser Steve Bannon, which would clear the way for a key ally of the former president to testify before the congressional committee investigating the deadly January 6 attack on the Capitol.Trump is reportedly considering sending a letter to Bannon, his former White House strategist, acknowledging that he granted Bannon executive privilege on 21 September but is now willing to give up the claim if Bannon reaches an agreement to testify before the House committee investigating the Capitol insurrection, the Washington Post first reported, citing sources familiar with the situation.According to the Post, some of Trump’s advisers have warned him not to send the letter, but the ex-president may be bullish on getting a witness who is ostensibly friendlier to him to appear at one of the committee’s televised hearings.Bannon was charged with two counts of criminal contempt of Congress in November after defying a subpoena from the House committee investigating the Capitol riots. Bannon has pleaded not guilty.If convicted, Bannon could face up to a year in prison and a fine of up to $100,000. His trial is expected to start later this month, reported CNN.Bannon has claimed that discussions between Trump and him are protected under the dictum of executive privilege. But prosecutors say Bannon is not protected because he was not working at the White House on the day of the Capitol attack.The committee has also said that Bannon’s executive privilege claims do not mean he can simply ignore the subpoena outright, but he could cite the privilege in response to certain questions.“Even if your client had been a senior aide to [Trump] during the time period covered by the contemplated testimony, which he was most assuredly not, he is not permitted by law to the type of immunity you suggest that Mr. Trump has requested he assert,” committee chair Bennie Thompson wrote to Bannon’s attorney in October.Federal prosecutors have not brought contempt charges against other Trump aides who ignored subpoenas while citing executive privilege, including former White house chief of staff Mark Meadows.Even after leaving his position in the White House, Bannon remained an outspoken proponent of the falsehood that electoral fraudsters stole the 2020 presidential race against Joe Biden from Trump.The committee has staged numerous public hearings airing evidence that the lie helped inspire the attack on the Capitol, to which a bipartisan Senate report linked seven deaths.TopicsSteve BannonUS politicsDonald TrumpJanuary 6 hearingsUS Capitol attacknewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Lawyers feel heat as legal net tightens on Trump plot to overturn election

      by

      Lawyers feel heat as legal net tightens on Trump plot to overturn election Jeffrey Clark, Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman face escalating legal threats amid expanding DoJ investigation and explosive testimonyAn accelerating justice department investigation into a “fake electors” scheme to help Donald Trump overturn the 2020 election, plus explosive testimony from January 6 hearings, have created intense legal heat for the lawyers Jeffrey Clark, Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman, who were key players in the abortive effort, say ex-prosecutors.Trump White House counsel to cooperate with January 6 committeeRead moreWhile Giuliani and Eastman were key lawyers for Trump and his campaign, respectively, and Clark was a senior justice department official, the trio played big roles in a brazen multi-front drive not to certify some Biden electors but bogus ones for Trump. That could fuel charges against Trump, who they collaborated with, for obstruction of an official proceeding, or defrauding the US.Recent justice department actions, including seizing electronic devices of Eastman and Clark, coupled with more evidence at committee hearings, are increasingly likely to spur charges against the three lawyers related to the drive to replace electors Biden won in seven states with fake ones for Trump, say legal experts.The justice’s expanding criminal inquiry became palpable on 22 June when FBI agents raided Clark’s home, and separately seized Eastman’s cellphone, as grand jury subpoenas involving the scheme were served on top Republican figures and Trump allies in Georgia and Arizona.In another stark sign of the legal jeopardy Giuliani and Eastman face, recent House committee hearings into the attack on the Capitol offered evidence that both lawyers sought pardons from Trump, presumably tied to plotting strategies to block Biden’s certification by Congress on 6 January, and fiery speeches they gave along with Trump at a rally on the Ellipse before a mob of his allies attacked the Capitol.The legal threats facing Clark were underscored at a 23 June panel hearing by scathing testimony from former top justice officials about Trump’s plotting with Clark to elevate him to acting attorney general to push the fake electors scheme by falsely claiming in a proposed letter to Georgia officials that the department had “significant concern” about election fraud there and in other states.The former acting deputy attorney general Richard Donoghue was scalding as he detailed Trump’s efforts to replace the acting attorney general, Jeffrey Rosen, with Clark in late December 2020, and to pressure state legislators to reject Biden electors by promoting baseless charges of widespread fraud.Donoghue recounted how he warned Trump at a bizarre 3 January White House meeting – that was attended by Rosen, Trump counsel Pat Cipollone and other top lawyers – that elevating Clark to be acting AG would spark mass resignations, and Clark would be “left leading a graveyard”, at the department. Cipollone, who was recently subpoenaed by the House panel, also threatened to resign if Clark replaced Rosen.Further, according to shocking testimony on 28 June by Cassidy Hutchinson, a top aide to the ex-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, Cipollone warned her early on 6 January of potential criminal liability for Trump and others if Trump went to the Capitol as he had discussed doing, and asked Hutchinson to “please make sure we don’t go up to the Capitol”.All of it adds up to potentially grave consequences for the three lawyers.Michael Zeldin, an ex-DoJ prosecutor, said: “The strong evidence presented about the fake electors scheme at recent House committee hearings, including testimony by senior justice department officials, laid the foundation for charging Trump’s legal advisers, Eastman and Giuliani, and possibly Clark, with multiple state and federal crimes including obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States, false statements in connection with the fake electors scheme, and election fraud.”He added: “The cumulative evidence presented over the course of the hearings paint a picture of a president who was told explicitly by multiple people that he lost the election and that once he exhausted his judicial remedies (losing nearly 60 cases) his continuing pressure campaign to prevent the orderly transfer of power was illegal.“Yet Trump and his attorneys persisted.”Other ex-prosecutors stress that the FBI raids to obtain Clark and Eastman’s phones indicate the investigations of the two lawyers have escalated.“Search warrants of Clark and Eastman’s phones means that a judge found probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime would be found on each of those devices,” Barbara McQuade, a former US attorney for eastern Michigan, told the Guardian.Eastman’s exposure to criminal charges has been palpable and growing for months. In March, a federal judge, David Carter, in a crucial court ruling involving Trump’s legal adviser Eastman, stated that Trump “more likely than not” broke the law in his weeks-long drive to stop Biden from taking office.“Dr Eastman and President Trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history,” Carter wrote in a civil case which resulted in an order for Eastman to release more than 100 emails he had withheld from the House panel.Other revelations damaging to Trump and Eastman emerged at a mid-June House panel hearing when Greg Jacob, the ex-counsel to former vice-president Mike Pence, provided detailed testimony about how Eastman and Trump launched a high-pressure effort to persuade Pence to unlawfully block Biden’s certification by Congress on 6 January.The Eastman pressure included the scheme to substitute pro-Trump fake electors from states that Biden won for electors rightfully pledged to Biden. Jacob testified that Eastman acknowledged to him that he knew his push to get Pence on 6 January to reject Biden’s winning electoral college count would violate the Electoral Count Act, and that Trump, too, was informed it would be illegal for Pence to block Biden’s certification.In mid-December 2020, at least 59 Republicans from states Trump lost falsely asserted and signed legal documents that they were “duly” chosen electors for Trump in the electoral college.Former prosecutors say potential charges against Trump and his top lawyers have increased in part due to the powerful details that ex DoJ leaders testified about on 23 June involving how “Trump pushed to weaponize the justice department to facilitate the [fake electors] scheme,” McQuade said.McQuade noted too that the deputy attorney general, Lisa Monaco, months ago confirmed “DoJ had received evidence from state AGs about alternate slates of electors and was investigating. It appears that DoJ is now issuing subpoenas regarding this episode … One could imagine each link leading to the next and possibly all the way to Donald Trump.”On top of Trump’s involvement in the fake electors ploy, ex-deputy attorney general Donald Ayer, who served in the George HW Bush administration, told the Guardian that overall “the evidence is increasingly showing Trump’s culpability. Trump had extensive involvement in long conversations where he was personally working intently to overturn the election.”Ayer’s point was bolstered by Hutchinson’s eye-popping testimony about Trump’s knowledge of, and indifference to, the large cache of dangerous weapons that were being carried by his supporters.Paul Pelletier, a former acting chief of DoJ’s fraud section, said that for prosecutors the powerful testimony of Hutchinson “might be the final nail in the legal jeopardy coffin of Trump’s coterie of lawyers and enablers”.“Hutchinson’s testimony has lifted the curtain on the false narrative that the violent Capitol confrontation was spontaneous,” he added.The Democratic senator Sheldon Whitehouse sees a need for coordination of criminal investigations between the DoJ and others into the multiple efforts by Trump and key allies to block Biden’s win in Georgia, including Trump’s call to Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, which is under scrutiny by the Fulton county district attorney and a special grand jury.“Phoney electors, the Clark memo, and Trump’s phone calls all converge on Georgia,” Whitehouse told the Guardian. “I hope and expect that the investigations are coordinated. The raid on Clark shows how serious this is, and false electors could make great witnesses.”Looking ahead, former federal prosecutor Dennis Aftergut told the Guardian prosecutors appear to be amassing growing evidence to pursue charges against the three lawyers who were central actors in various parts of the fake electors scheme.“Giuliani and Eastman seeking pardons is powerful evidence of ‘consciousness of guilt’,” Aftergut said.In a potential legal twist, Aftergut pointed out that if charges are filed against one of the three, prosecutors will seek their help in going after the others. “The earliest cooperators generally get the best deals from prosecutors … any of them could potentially provide damaging evidence against the other two and Trump.”TopicsUS Capitol attackJanuary 6 hearingsDonald TrumpUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Trump lawyers feel heat as legal net tightens on plot to overturn election

      by

      Trump lawyers feel heat as legal net tightens on plot to overturn election Jeffrey Clark, Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman face escalating legal threats amid expanding DoJ investigation and explosive testimonyAn accelerating justice department investigation into a “fake electors” scheme to help Donald Trump overturn the 2020 election, plus explosive testimony from January 6 hearings, have created intense legal heat for the lawyers Jeffrey Clark, Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman, who were key players in the abortive effort, say ex-prosecutors.Trump White House counsel to cooperate with January 6 committeeRead moreWhile Giuliani and Eastman were key lawyers for Trump and his campaign, respectively, and Clark was a senior justice department official, the trio played big roles in a brazen multi-front drive not to certify some Biden electors but bogus ones for Trump. That could fuel charges against Trump, who they collaborated with, for obstruction of an official proceeding, or defrauding the US.Recent justice department actions, including seizing electronic devices of Eastman and Clark, coupled with more evidence at committee hearings, are increasingly likely to spur charges against the three lawyers related to the drive to replace electors Biden won in seven states with fake ones for Trump, say legal experts.The justice’s expanding criminal inquiry became palpable on 22 June when FBI agents raided Clark’s home, and separately seized Eastman’s cellphone, as grand jury subpoenas involving the scheme were served on top Republican figures and Trump allies in Georgia and Arizona.In another stark sign of the legal jeopardy Giuliani and Eastman face, recent House committee hearings into the attack on the Capitol offered evidence that both lawyers sought pardons from Trump, presumably tied to plotting strategies to block Biden’s certification by Congress on 6 January, and fiery speeches they gave along with Trump at a rally on the Ellipse before a mob of his allies attacked the Capitol.The legal threats facing Clark were underscored at a 23 June panel hearing by scathing testimony from former top justice officials about Trump’s plotting with Clark to elevate him to acting attorney general to push the fake electors scheme by falsely claiming in a proposed letter to Georgia officials that the department had “significant concern” about election fraud there and in other states.The former acting deputy attorney general Richard Donoghue was scalding as he detailed Trump’s efforts to replace the acting attorney general, Jeffrey Rosen, with Clark in late December 2020, and to pressure state legislators to reject Biden electors by promoting baseless charges of widespread fraud.Donoghue recounted how he warned Trump at a bizarre 3 January White House meeting – that was attended by Rosen, Trump counsel Pat Cipollone and other top lawyers – that elevating Clark to be acting AG would spark mass resignations, and Clark would be “left leading a graveyard”, at the department. Cipollone, who was recently subpoenaed by the House panel, also threatened to resign if Clark replaced Rosen.Further, according to shocking testimony on 28 June by Cassidy Hutchinson, a top aide to the ex-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, Cipollone warned her early on 6 January of potential criminal liability for Trump and others if Trump went to the Capitol as he had discussed doing, and asked Hutchinson to “please make sure we don’t go up to the Capitol”.All of it adds up to potentially grave consequences for the three lawyers.Michael Zeldin, an ex-DoJ prosecutor, said: “The strong evidence presented about the fake electors scheme at recent House committee hearings, including testimony by senior justice department officials, laid the foundation for charging Trump’s legal advisers, Eastman and Giuliani, and possibly Clark, with multiple state and federal crimes including obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States, false statements in connection with the fake electors scheme, and election fraud.”He added: “The cumulative evidence presented over the course of the hearings paint a picture of a president who was told explicitly by multiple people that he lost the election and that once he exhausted his judicial remedies (losing nearly 60 cases) his continuing pressure campaign to prevent the orderly transfer of power was illegal.“Yet Trump and his attorneys persisted.”Other ex-prosecutors stress that the FBI raids to obtain Clark and Eastman’s phones indicate the investigations of the two lawyers have escalated.“Search warrants of Clark and Eastman’s phones means that a judge found probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime would be found on each of those devices,” Barbara McQuade, a former US attorney for eastern Michigan, told the Guardian.Eastman’s exposure to criminal charges has been palpable and growing for months. In March, a federal judge, David Carter, in a crucial court ruling involving Trump’s legal adviser Eastman, stated that Trump “more likely than not” broke the law in his weeks-long drive to stop Biden from taking office.“Dr Eastman and President Trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history,” Carter wrote in a civil case which resulted in an order for Eastman to release more than 100 emails he had withheld from the House panel.Other revelations damaging to Trump and Eastman emerged at a mid-June House panel hearing when Greg Jacob, the ex-counsel to former vice-president Mike Pence, provided detailed testimony about how Eastman and Trump launched a high-pressure effort to persuade Pence to unlawfully block Biden’s certification by Congress on 6 January.The Eastman pressure included the scheme to substitute pro-Trump fake electors from states that Biden won for electors rightfully pledged to Biden. Jacob testified that Eastman acknowledged to him that he knew his push to get Pence on 6 January to reject Biden’s winning electoral college count would violate the Electoral Count Act, and that Trump, too, was informed it would be illegal for Pence to block Biden’s certification.In mid-December 2020, at least 59 Republicans from states Trump lost falsely asserted and signed legal documents that they were “duly” chosen electors for Trump in the electoral college.Former prosecutors say potential charges against Trump and his top lawyers have increased in part due to the powerful details that ex DoJ leaders testified about on 23 June involving how “Trump pushed to weaponize the justice department to facilitate the [fake electors] scheme,” McQuade said.McQuade noted too that the deputy attorney general, Lisa Monaco, months ago confirmed “DoJ had received evidence from state AGs about alternate slates of electors and was investigating. It appears that DoJ is now issuing subpoenas regarding this episode … One could imagine each link leading to the next and possibly all the way to Donald Trump.”On top of Trump’s involvement in the fake electors ploy, ex-deputy attorney general Donald Ayer, who served in the George HW Bush administration, told the Guardian that overall “the evidence is increasingly showing Trump’s culpability. Trump had extensive involvement in long conversations where he was personally working intently to overturn the election.”Ayer’s point was bolstered by Hutchinson’s eye-popping testimony about Trump’s knowledge of, and indifference to, the large cache of dangerous weapons that were being carried by his supporters.Paul Pelletier, a former acting chief of DoJ’s fraud section, said that for prosecutors the powerful testimony of Hutchinson “might be the final nail in the legal jeopardy coffin of Trump’s coterie of lawyers and enablers”.“Hutchinson’s testimony has lifted the curtain on the false narrative that the violent Capitol confrontation was spontaneous,” he added.The Democratic senator Sheldon Whitehouse sees a need for coordination of criminal investigations between the DoJ and others into the multiple efforts by Trump and key allies to block Biden’s win in Georgia, including Trump’s call to Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, which is under scrutiny by the Fulton county district attorney and a special grand jury.“Phoney electors, the Clark memo, and Trump’s phone calls all converge on Georgia,” Whitehouse told the Guardian. “I hope and expect that the investigations are coordinated. The raid on Clark shows how serious this is, and false electors could make great witnesses.”Looking ahead, former federal prosecutor Dennis Aftergut told the Guardian prosecutors appear to be amassing growing evidence to pursue charges against the three lawyers who were central actors in various parts of the fake electors scheme.“Giuliani and Eastman seeking pardons is powerful evidence of ‘consciousness of guilt’,” Aftergut said.In a potential legal twist, Aftergut pointed out that if charges are filed against one of the three, prosecutors will seek their help in going after the others. “The earliest cooperators generally get the best deals from prosecutors … any of them could potentially provide damaging evidence against the other two and Trump.”TopicsUS Capitol attackJanuary 6 hearingsDonald TrumpUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 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