US Capitol attack

Subterms

    More stories

    • 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

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      New Zealand declares US far-right Proud Boys and the Base terrorist groups

      by

      New Zealand declares US far-right Proud Boys and the Base terrorist groupsProud Boys’ involvement in US Capitol attack cited in ruling outlawing organisation New Zealand’s government has declared that the American far-right groups the Proud Boys and the Base are terrorist organisations. The two groups join 18 others, including the Islamic State group, that have been given an official terrorist designation, making it illegal in New Zealand to fund, recruit or participate in the groups, and obligating authorities to take action against them. The US groups are not known to be active in New Zealand, but the South Pacific nation has become more attuned to threats from the far right after a white supremacist shot and killed 51 Muslim worshippers at two Christchurch mosques in 2019.Proud Boys leaders charged with seditious conspiracy in 6 January riotRead moreThe New Zealand massacre inspired other white supremacists around the world, including a white gunman who killed 10 Black people at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York, in May.In the US, the state department only lists foreign groups as terrorist entities. But the Proud Boys were last year named a terrorist group in Canada, while the Base has previously been declared a terrorist group in Britain, Canada and Australia. In a 29-page explanation of the Proud Boys designation published Thursday, New Zealand authorities said the group’s involvement in the violent attack on the US Capitol building on 6 January 6 2021 amounted to an act of terrorism. The statement said that while several militia groups were involved, it was the Proud Boys who incited crowds, coordinated attacks on law enforcement officers and led other rioters to where they could break into the building. The statement said there were unlinked but ideologically affiliated chapters of the Proud Boys operating in Canada and Australia. New Zealand authorities argued that before the Capitol attack, the Proud Boys had a history of using street rallies and social media to intimidate opponents and recruit young men through demonstrations of violence. It said the group had put up various smoke screens to hide its extremism. Earlier this month, the former leader of the Proud Boys, Henry “Enrique” Tarrio, and four others linked to the group were charged in the US with seditious conspiracy for what federal prosecutors say was a coordinated attack on the Capitol.The decline of Proud Boys: what does the future hold for far-right group?Read moreThe indictment alleges that the Proud Boys conspired to forcibly oppose the lawful transfer of presidential power. The five are scheduled to stand trial in August in Washington DC’s federal court. Asked by media on Thursday in New Zealand if the Proud Boys weren’t better known for protest actions rather than extreme violence, the South Pacific nation’s police minister, Chris Hipkins, said: “Well, violent protests attempting to overthrow the government, clearly there is evidence of that.” In making its case against the Base, New Zealand authorities said a key goal of the group was to “train a cadre of extremists capable of accelerationist violence”. The statement said founder Rinaldo Nazzaro “has repetitively counselled members online about violence, the acquisition of weapons, and actions to accelerate the collapse of the US government and survive the consequent period of chaos and violence”.TopicsNew ZealandThe far rightUS Capitol attacknewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Mark Meadows’ associate threatened ex-White House aide before her testimony

      by

      Mark Meadows’ associate threatened ex-White House aide before her testimonyIt was the second warning Cassidy Hutchinson had received before her deposition, cautioning her against cooperating with the panel Former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson received at least one message tacitly warning her not to cooperate with the House January 6 select committee from an associate of former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, according to two sources familiar with the matter.Ex-White House aide delivers explosive public testimony to January 6 panelRead moreThe message in question was the second of the two warnings that the select committee disclosed at the end of its special hearing when Hutchinson testified about how Donald Trump directed a crowd he knew was armed to march on the Capitol, the sources said.“[A person] let me know you have your deposition tomorrow. He wants me to let you know that he’s thinking about you. He knows you’re loyal, and you’re going to do the right thing when you go in for your deposition,” read the message. The redaction was Meadows, the sources said.The message was presented during closing remarks at the special hearing with Hutchinson by the panel’s vice-chair Liz Cheney, who characterized the missive as improper pressure on a crucial witness that could extend to illegal witness tampering or intimidation.The exact identity of the person who sent Hutchinson the message – beyond the fact that they were an associate of Meadows – could not be confirmed on Thursday, but that may be in part because the select committee may wish to interview that person, the sources said.That appears to indicate that the person who sent the message was a close associate of the former White House chief of staff who may themselves be a fact witness to what Trump and Meadows were doing and thinking ahead of the Capitol attack.Neither a spokesman for Meadows nor Hutchinson responded to a request for comment Thursday evening.The other message was also directed at Hutchinson, the sources said; the quote displayed on the slide was one of several calls from Trump allies that Hutchinson recounted to House investigators.“What they said to me is, as long as I continue to be a teamplayer, they know that I’m on the team, I’m doing the right thing, I’m protecting who I need to protect, you know, I’ll continue to stay in the good graces in Trump World,” the slide read.“And they reminded me a couple of times that Trump does read transcripts and just to keep that in mind as I proceeded through my depositions and interviews with the committee.”The identity of the people who called Hutchinson, warning her presumably not to implicate the former president, could not be established beyond the fact that they were people close to Trump, though the select committee is understood to be aware of all of the people.Politico, which first reported that the message to Hutchinson came from an associate of Meadows, also reported that it came before her second interview with the select committee. Hutchinson changed lawyers before her fourth deposition that preceded her public testimony.TopicsJanuary 6 hearingsUS Capitol attackUS politicsDonald TrumpMark MeadowsnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Liz Cheney calls Trump's election actions more chilling than imagined – video

      by

      The Republican US representative Liz Cheney has said Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election were ‘more chilling and more threatening’ than first imagined, while calling on Republicans to choose between loyalty to Trump and the constitution. 
      Cheney, a commanding presence on the congressional panel investigating the January 6 Capitol riot by Trump supporters, warned against descending into vitriolic partisan attacks that could tear the political fabric of the country apart and urged her audience to rise above politics. 
      ‘My fellow Americans, we stand at the edge of an abyss, and we must pull back,’ she said in a speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California

      Liz Cheney’s condemnation of Trump’s lies wins over Democrats
      Tuesday’s hearing was a masterclass on the threats posed by Trump to our republic More

    • 88 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      The case against Donald Trump – podcast

      by

      More ways to listen

      Apple Podcasts

      Google Podcasts

      Spotify

      RSS Feed

      Download

      The US congressional hearings on the Capitol Hill attack have been prime time viewing. And the case against Donald Trump has been building for all to see, says Lawrence Douglas

      How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

      The testimony was unprecedented. In an extraordinary sitting in Washington DC of the congressional committee investigating the attack on the US Capitol building, a White House staffer detailed how Donald Trump had attempted to grab the steering wheel of his presidential car in determination to join his supporters as they rioted. Cassidy Hutchinson also testified that Trump would fly into rages, on one occasion throwing a plate at the wall, smashing it in anger and leaving ketchup dripping down a White House wall. Lawrence Douglas, a professor of law at Amherst College, tells Michael Safi that, throughout the series of slickly produced hearings, the committee has told a compelling narrative of the events that led up to the riots on January 6. And it goes beyond that, to alleged attempts to “steal” the election via slates of “fake electors” and by piling pressure on key officials such as the vice president and the justice secretary. As the case against Trump and many of his aides is laid out though, the next steps are far from certain. Even if the evidence unearthed by the committee does reach the standard needed to bring prosecutions, would a prosecution of the former president be deemed in the public interest – and could a jury be found of 12 people who would act completely impartially, in what is now a deeply polarised country? More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      January 6 committee subpoenas former White House counsel Pat Cipollone

      by

      January 6 committee subpoenas former White House counsel Pat CipolloneDonald Trump’s former counsel was a key witness to some of the ex-president’s most brazen schemes to overturn the 2020 election The House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack issued a subpoena on Wednesday to former Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone, compelling him to testify about at least three parts of Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.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.Ex-White House aide delivers explosive public testimony to January 6 panelRead more“Mr Cipollone repeatedly raised legal and other concerns about President Trump’s activities on January 6th 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 potentially unlawful multi-pronged strategy that culminated in the Capitol attack.Cipollone has information about Trump’s push to send fake slates of electors to Congress, the subpoena letter said, a plot that would have given then-vice-president Mike Pence cover to supposedly refuse to certify Joe Biden’s election win.He also has information about Trump’s foiled plan to pressure the justice department into falsely declaring the results of the 2020 election “corrupt”, the subpoena letter said, and potentially illegal conduct on the part of the former president on 6 January.Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, according to her public testimony, 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.Thompson acknowledged in the subpoena letter that Cipollone had spoken to House investigators in a more informal setting on 13 April. But, he said, recent evidence to which he was in a “unique position” to discuss necessitated on-the-record testimony at a 6 July deposition.The panel had been negotiating Cipollone’s testimony for weeks without success, with Cipollone apparently concerned about its scope. A spokesperson for Cipollone did not respond to requests for comment about whether he would comply with the subpoena or litigate.Cipollone remained in the Trump administration through its final weeks and months, effectively becoming a fact witness to Trump’s thinking and conduct as the former president scrambled to find any way to keep himself in office after losing the election.Together with his deputy, Pat Philbin, and another White House lawyer Eric Herschmann, who has cooperated extensively with the select committee, Cipollone sought to restrain some of Trump’s most dangerous impulses, fearing Trump could face serious legal exposure.In doing so, former Trump White House aides say, Cipollone became one of the final senior administration officials who acted as a guardrail for Trump. After leaving the administration, Cipollone returned to private practice as a partner at Ellis George Cipollone LLP.Should Cipollone testify to the select committee, he may seek advice from another lawyer at EGC: former Nixon deputy White House counsel Fred Fielding, who worked under Nixon White House counsel John Dean, and testified at the Watergate trial.TopicsJanuary 6 hearingsDonald TrumpUS Capitol attackTrump administrationUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Secret Service agent reportedly willing to testify Trump did not lunge at him

      by

      Secret Service agent reportedly willing to testify Trump did not lunge at himRow comes after ex-White House aide’s explosive testimony that portrayed a violent and unhinged Trump on day of Capitol attack Senior Secret Service agents are reportedly prepared to testify that Donald Trump did not lunge for the wheel of his vehicle or physically attack the chief of his security detail after his speech near the White House on January 6 – as a former aide said he did in sworn testimony on Tuesday.January 6 testimony puts Donald Trump in even greater legal perilRead moreThe row comes after the explosive testimony painted an unhinged and violent portrait of Trump on the day of the Capitol attack, in a shocking hearing many have seen as potentially loosening the former president’s grip on the Republican party.CNN and other outlets reported the pushback on the alleged Secret Service incident from Tony Ornato, who was also a deputy chief of staff in the Trump White House, and Robert Engel, who was Trump’s security chief.Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide to Trump and his final chief of staff, Mark Meadows, appeared before the House January 6 committee for its sixth public hearing.Her extraordinary testimony spanned nearly two hours.In particularly striking passages, she described what she said Ornato told her was Trump’s reaction to being told that after speaking to supporters at the Ellipse – and telling a crowd he knew in part to be armed to “fight like hell” to overturn his election defeat – he could not go with the crowd to the US Capitol as planned.Hutchinson, 25, testified that Ornato told her Trump had a “very strong, very angry response”.Trump allegedly told Engel: “I’m the fucking president. Take me up to the Capitol now.”When he was turned down, Hutchinson said, Trump tried to seize the steering wheel. Engel grabbed his arm and said: “Sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel. We’re going back to the West Wing. We’re not going to the Capitol.”Hutchinson said “Trump then used his free hand to lunge towards Bobby Engel and when Mr Ornato recounted the story to me he motioned towards his clavicles”.Questioned by Liz Cheney, the committee vice-chair, Hutchinson said Engel did not dispute the account when Ornato relayed it.In the aftermath of the explosive hearing, Hutchinson was depicted as a former Trump loyalist whose testimony could prove hugely damaging, in the vein of John Dean, the White House counsel who turned on Richard Nixon during the Watergate hearings half a century ago.Nixon resigned the presidency under threat of impeachment. Trump was impeached for a second time over the insurrection but acquitted when only seven Republican senators voted for his guilt. He remains free to run for the White House again in 2024.On Tuesday, reporters swiftly relayed news that the Secret Service agents disputed Hutchinson’s account of events in the presidential vehicle.Carol Leonnig of the Washington Post, author of two books on the Trump administration and a history of the Secret Service, Zero Fail, said: “Sources tell me agents dispute that Donald Trump assaulted any agent or tried to grab the steering wheel on Jan 6. They agree Trump was furious about not being able to go to Capitol with his supporters. They offer to testify under oath.”Secret Service agents have testified before, during the impeachment of Bill Clinton.Trump attacked Hutchinson during the hearing, using his Truth Social platform to call her a “phony”, a “leaker” and a “whacko”. He denied grabbing the steering wheel or attacking an agent.Republicans on the House judiciary committee tweeted that Hutchinson’s evidence was “all hearsay” and added: “What a joke.”But Steve Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas in Austin, said: “Don’t be distracted by claims of ‘hearsay’. That goes to whether evidence can be admitted in court, not Congress.“The key is that Hutchinson testified under oath. If she was lying, she faces felony charges. The same can’t be said for those trying to discredit her testimony.”Most observers thought the case for Trump facing felony charges increased after Tuesday’s hearing.‘Things might get real, real bad’: key takeaways from latest January 6 hearingRead moreLaurence Tribe, a Harvard law professor, said the new evidence against Trump was “devastating for inciting, aiding and abetting violent insurrection”.Tribe also said: “Whatever anybody says about [Department of Justice] reluctance to indict Trump – reluctance I abhor – failing to indict Mark Meadows along with Jeffrey Clark, John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell would be a travesty.”Hutchinson described Meadows’ behavior on and around January 6. The chief of staff, she said, was unwilling to confront Trump but eager to be included in meetings involving Giuliani, Eastman and other Trump allies plotting to overturn the election.Meadows and Giuliani, Hutchinson said, asked about being given presidential pardons before Trump left office.Vladeck also said: “Holy shit, that hearing.”TopicsJanuary 6 hearingsUS Capitol attackDonald TrumpUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      January 6 testimony puts Donald Trump in even greater legal peril

      by

      January 6 testimony puts Donald Trump in even greater legal perilFormer president and senior aides face exposure over knowledge that supporters were armed and intended to march on Capitol02:44Donald Trump and his two closest advisers could face widening criminal exposure over the Capitol attack after ex-White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified about their potentially unlawful conduct to the House January 6 select committee at a special hearing on Thursday.The testimony revolved around the disclosure – one of several major revelations from Hutchinson – that the former president directed supporters to descend on the Capitol even though he knew they were armed and probably intended to cause harm.Angry, violent, reckless: testimony paints shocking portrait of Trump Read moreHutchinson testified under oath that Trump was deeply angered by the fact that some of his supporters who had gathered on the National Mall were not entering the secure perimeter for the Save America rally at the Ellipse, where he was due to make remarks.The supporters did not want to enter the secure perimeter, Hutchinson testified, because many were armed with knives, blades, pepper-spray and, as it later turned out, guns, and did not want to surrender their weapons to the Secret Service to attend the rally.“I don’t fucking care that they have weapons. They’re not here to hurt me,” Trump exclaimed in an extraordinary outburst of fury, according to Hutchinson. “Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in. Take the fucking mags [magnetometers] away.”The response from the former president is significant for two main reasons: it makes clear that he had been informed that his supporters were carrying weapons, and that he knew those armed people intended to make a non-permitted march to the Capitol.Trump then took the stage at the Save America rally and told his supporters both there at the Ellipse and around the Washington monument that he would march to the Capitol with them – giving them the strongest incentive to descend on the joint session of Congress.The former president additionally made the comments, Hutchinson said, despite the White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, desperately trying to stop Trump and Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, going to the Capitol for fear of potential legal exposure.“We’re going to get charged with every crime imaginable,” if Trump went to the Capitol, Hutchinson said Cipollone told her the morning of January 6, alluding to obstruction of an official proceeding and defrauding the United States.The legal analysis from Cipollone was prescient: the select committee, even before hearing from Hutchinson for the first time earlier this year in closed-door depositions, has argued Trump and his top advisers violated multiple federal laws over January 6.At the special hearing, Hutchinson also revealed that Trump’s then attorney Rudy Giuliani and Meadows expressed an interest in receiving pre-emptive presidential pardons in the immediate aftermath of the Capitol attack.The disclosure from Hutchinson marked a new degree of apparent consciousness of guilt among Trump’s closest advisers – in addition to that of at least half a dozen Republican congressmen and the Trump lawyer John Eastman – or fear that they might have committed a crime.In raising Giuliani’s interest in a pardon, Hutchinson also testified that Trump’s former attorney may have also been central to a crime with respect to his seeming knowledge of what the far-right Oath Keepers and Proud Boys groups were planning for January 6.“Oath Keepers” and “Proud Boys” were words heard at the White House when Giuliani was around the complex in the days before the Capitol attack, Hutchinson testified at the hearing.The new connection between Giuliani and the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys raised the spectre that the former president’s then attorney was broadly aware of the intentions of two far-right groups – whose senior members have since been indicted for seditious conspiracy.Meanwhile, on the eve of the Capitol attack, Trump asked Meadows to speak to the far-right political operative Roger Stone and Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn, which Meadows did, according to Hutchinson’s testimony.The former president’s chief of staff then repeatedly raised the prospect of travelling to the Trump war room at the Willard hotel in Washington DC, though Meadows ultimately demurred and ended up calling the Trump war room instead, Hutchinson testified.The Guardian first reported last year that from the White House, Trump then called Giuliani and a cadre of lawyers working at the Trump war room at the Willard and discussed ways to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s election win.01:42Meadows’s connection to the Trump war room appears to be as significant as Giuliani discussing the far-right groups, not least because the Willard was also the base for Stone, who has ties to the Proud Boys, and Flynn, who previously worked with the Oath Keepers.The select committee’s vice-chair, Liz Cheney, ended the special hearing with evidence of potential attempted witness tampering by people apparently close to the former president. In one mafia-style call, one witness was warned that Trump knew they would remain “loyal”.TopicsJanuary 6 hearingsUS Capitol attackDonald TrumpRudy GiulianinewsReuse this content More