US Capitol attack

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Republicans who aided coup attempt sought blanket presidential pardons

      by

      Republicans who aided coup attempt sought blanket presidential pardonsMatt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Ted Cruz among those who requested to be let off after attempting to overturn election results The Republicans Matt Gaetz and Mo Brooks sought a blanket pardon of members of Congress involved in Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn his defeat by Joe Biden through lies about electoral fraud, the House January 6 committee revealed on Thursday.A witness said Andy Biggs of Arizona, Louie Gohmert of Texas and Scott Perry of Pennsylvania also contacted the White House about securing pardons. The same witness, former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, said she heard Marjorie Taylor Greene, an extremist from Georgia, wanted a pardon too.Capitol attack panel details Trump’s pressure on DoJ to support fraud claimsRead moreThe committee displayed an email written by Brooks, of Alabama, on 11 January 2021, five days after the deadly attack on the US Capitol by Trump supporters.Brooks, who delivered a fire-breathing speech at a rally before the Capitol riot, sought pre-emptive pardons for “every congressman and senator who voted to reject the electoral college vote submissions of Arizona and Pennsylvania”.A total of 147 Republicans lodged such votes, even after the Capitol was stormed, an attack that endangered the life of the vice-president, Mike Pence, and to which a bipartisan Senate committee linked seven deaths.Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley, potential rivals to Trump for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024, were among them.For the January 6 committee, the Illinois Republican Adam Kinzinger said Brooks “emailed the White House, quote, ‘pursuant to a request from Matt Gaetz [of Florida]’, requesting a pardon for Representative Gaetz, himself and unnamed others.“Witnesses told the select committee that the president considered offering pardons to a wide range of individuals connected to the president,” Kinzinger added.Jan 6 Committee reveals Mo Brooks emailed the White House requesting a pardon for Rep Matt Gaetz and “every Congressman and Senator who voted to reject the electoral college vote submissions of Arizona and Pennsylvania” pic.twitter.com/try0PCsiIV— nikki mccann ramírez (@NikkiMcR) June 23, 2022
      It has been widely reported that Trump allies sought January 6-related pardons before Trump left office, and that Trump considered offering pre-emptive pardons to himself and family members. He has repeatedly floated the idea of pardoning Capitol rioters should he return to power.The January 6 committee previously revealed that John Eastman, the law professor who pushed Pence to overturn election results, contacted Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney, to ask if a pardon was possible.In testimony played on Thursday, Eric Herschmann, a Trump White House lawyer, said of Gaetz: “The general tone was, ‘We may get prosecuted because we were defensive of the president’s positions on these things.’“The pardon that he was discussing, requesting was as broad you could describe, from the beginning of time up until today, for any and all things.“He mentioned Nixon and I said Nixon’s pardon was never nearly that broad.”Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 over the Watergate scandal, involving political dirty tricks and their cover-up. He was pardoned by Gerald Ford, his successor in office.Barr feared Trump might not have left office had DoJ not debunked fraud claimsRead moreIn other testimony played on Thursday, Hutchinson, a former assistant to Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, said: “Mr Gaetz, Mr Brooks, I know both advocated for there to be a blanket pardon … pre-emptive pardons.“Mr Gaetz was personally pushing for a pardon … since early December. I’m not sure why. He reached out to me to ask if he could have a meeting with Mr Meadows about receiving a presidential pardon.”Hutchinson listed the other Republicans who requested pardons.On Twitter, Gaetz said: “The last Republican president to be sworn in without congressional Democrats objecting to electors was George HW Bush.” He did not immediately comment about the pardon revelations.Kinzinger said: “The only reason I know to ask for a pardon is because you think you’ve committed a crime.”TopicsJanuary 6 hearingsDonald TrumpUS Capitol attackUS politicsTed CruzRepublicansnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Raid of Jeffrey Clark’s home escalation of inquiry into election overturn effort

      by

      Raid of Jeffrey Clark’s home escalation of inquiry into election overturn effortFederal investigators seized his electronic devices in a pre-dawn search before the fifth public hearing by the Capitol attack panel Federal investigators raided the home of former Trump justice department official Jeffrey Clark early Wednesday in connection with the department’s sprawling criminal investigation into efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.The search of Clark’s home in suburban Virginia and the seizure of his electronic devices suggested an escalating inquiry into his involvement in the purported election plot edging ever closer to Donald Trump, according to a source familiar with the matter and one of his associates.Capitol attack panel details Trump’s pressure on DoJ to support fraud claimsRead moreBut it was not immediately clear on Thursday what federal investigators were looking for, or which agencies were involved, though Clark was a key figure in Trump’s failed attempt to pressure the justice department into falsely declaring the election was corrupt.The raid on Clark’s home came a day before the House select committee investigating the January 6 attack on the Capitol convened its fifth public hearing, which focused on Trump’s effort to have the justice department declare the 2020 election “corrupt” and endorse discredited election fraud claims.In a statement, Russ Vought, the former head of the office of management and budget during the Trump administration and now the head of the Center for Renewing America – where Clark now also works – decried the search.“Yesterday more than a dozen DoJ law enforcement officials searched Jeff Clark’s house in a pre-dawn raid, put him in the streets in his pajamas, and took his electronic devices,” Vought said, adding: “We stand by Jeff and so must all patriots in this country.”The raid came as a federal grand jury in Washington continued to authorize subpoenas against people connected to a separate plot by Trump to apparently send fake slates of electors to Congress to obstruct its certification of Joe Biden’s election win.In recent days, according to sources familiar with the matter, the chairwoman of the Arizona Republican party Kelli Ward, and her husband, Michael Ward, who both signed certificates falsely attesting to be the legitimate electors, received subpoenas.The federal grand jury investigation into the so-called fake electors scheme appears to be targeting a number of Trump’s lawyers, including Rudy Giuliani and Boris Epshteyn, according to a copy of one of the grand jury subpoenas, which was obtained by the Guardian.The role played by Clark in Trump’s plot to oust the leadership of the justice department was among the top focuses of the hearing, with the select committee tracing the timeline of how Clark almost became the top law enforcement official in the county.Clark is a relatively unknown environmental lawyer who headed the justice department’s civil division, which defends the administration in court, among other things. He was introduced to the former president by Republican congressman Scott Perry, the panel said.He became a key figure in Trump’s election reversal efforts when Trump urged Clark to get the justice department leadership to sign on to a letter – referred to as a “Georgia proof of concept” letter – that falsely said the department would probe election fraud claims.The letter advised Georgia’s governor, Brian Kemp, to convene a special session of his state’s legislature to create a “separate slate of electors” in favor of Trump, in light of “significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election”.The letter was drafted by former Trump White House lawyer Ken Klukowski and Clark, the select committee said at the hearing.Clark conveyed the letter to his superiors, then acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen and his deputy, Richard Donoghue, who both refused to sign the letter. The aim of the letter was to give otherwise nonsense claims of fraud the imprimatur of justice department legitimacy.Trump attempted on 2 January 2021 to strong-arm Rosen into signing the letter, according to notes of the meeting obtained by the panel, first suggesting he could dismiss Rosen, and then saying he would not fire Rosen as long as he sent the letter.The following day, the former president appeared to have decided to fire Rosen anyway, according to White House call logs obtained by the panel, which, by 4.19pm, had started referring to Clark as “Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Clark” instead of “Mr Jeffrey Clark”.Trump ultimately backed off from his intention to appoint Clark as acting attorney general later that afternoon on 3 January 2021, when Rosen warned him that he, Donoghue and the entire justice department leadership would resign.TopicsUS newsUS politicsDonald TrumpUS Capitol attackReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Barr feared Trump might not have left office had DoJ not debunked fraud claims

      by

      Barr feared Trump might not have left office had DoJ not debunked fraud claimsFormer attorney general says ‘I am not sure we would have had a transition at all’ if investigation had not immediately taken place Donald Trump’s attorney general, William Barr, thought Trump might have refused to leave office at all had the Department of Justice not immediately investigated and disproved his lies about electoral fraud in his defeat by Joe Biden.Capitol attack panel to show how Trump pressured DoJ to overturn electionRead more“I am not sure we would’ve had a transition at all,” Barr said, in startling video testimony played by the January 6 committee on Thursday.The hearing, the fifth in a series set to extend into July, focused on Trump’s attempts to pressure the justice department to aid his attempt to overturn the election result – an attempt which culminated in the deadly attack on the US Capitol on 6 January 2021.In December 2020, Barr publicly rejected Trump’s claim of widespread fraud in the November election, and resigned.He was replaced, as acting attorney general, by Jeffrey Rosen. Rosen testified on Thursday alongside his deputy, Richard Donoghue, and Steven Engel, who led the DoJ Office of Legal Counsel.Questioning led by Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, one of two Republicans on the committee, focused on Trump’s pressure on the witnesses to go along with his increasingly outlandish claims of widespread fraud.Before that, the deputy committee chair, the Wyoming Republican Liz Cheney, introduced Barr’s remarks.She said: “Millions of Americans have seen the testimony of Attorney General Barr before this committee. At one point in his deposition, [Barr] was asked why he authorised the Department of Justice to investigate fraud in the 2020 election.”Barr, Cheney said, was “asked why not just follow the regular course of action and let the investigations occur much later in time, after 6 January”, the day electoral college results were certified at the Capitol.Barr said: “I felt the responsible thing to do was to be in a position to have a view as to whether or not there was fraud. Frankly, the fact I put myself into the position that I could say we had looked at this and didn’t think there was fraud was really important to moving things forward.“I shudder to think what the situation would have been, if the position of the department was, ‘We’re not looking at this until after Biden is in office.’“I am not sure we would’ve had a transition at all.”In a previous hearing Barr was shown to have described Trump’s claims about electoral fraud as “bullshit”.He has also said he will still vote for Trump if Trump runs for the White House again.TopicsDonald TrumpUS Capitol attackUS politicsJanuary 6 hearingsRepublicansnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Capitol attack panel details Trump’s pressure on DoJ to support fraud claims

      by

      Capitol attack panel details Trump’s pressure on DoJ to support fraud claimsEx-president told officials to declare election ‘corrupt’ and ‘leave the rest to me and Republican congressmen’ Donald Trump relentlessly pressured top officials at the justice department to pursue groundless claims of voter fraud in an extraordinary but ultimately unsuccessful effort to cling to power, according to testimony the House committee investigating the January 6 insurrection heard on Thursday.Three former justice department officials who served during Trump’s final weeks in office, told the committee that the then-president was “adamant” that the election was stolen despite begin told repeatedly that none of the allegations raised about the vote count were credible.Barr feared Trump might not have left office had DoJ not debunked fraud claimsRead moreOpening the hearing, the panel’s chair, congressman Bennie Thompson, said the hearing would show that the former president sought to “misuse the justice department as part of his plan to hold on to power”.“Donald Trump didn’t just want the justice department to investigate,” Thompson said. “He wanted the justice department to help legitimate his lies, to basically call the election corrupt.”After exhausting his legal options and being rebuffed by state and local elections officials, the panel said a desperate Trump turned to the justice department to declare the election corrupt despite no evidence of mass voter fraud, the nine-member panel will seek to show in their fifth and final hearing of the month.Testifying from the Cannon Caucus Room on Capitol Hill are Jeffrey Rosen, the former acting attorney general; Richard Donoghue, the former acting deputy attorney general; and Steven Engel, the former assistant attorney general for the office of legal counsel.In one of the near-daily conversations Trump had with the agency’s leader, Rosen told the president that the Department of Justice “can’t and won’t snap his fingers and change the outcome of an election”.“I don’t expect you to do that,” Trump snapped back, according to Donoghue, whose handwritten notes of the exchange were displayed on a large screen during the hearing. “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.”At the center of Thursday’s hearing was Jeff Clark, a lower-level official at the department who embraced Trump’s myth of a stolen election. At the urging of Republican congressman Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, Trump contemplated replacing Rosen with Clark, an environmental lawyer by trade.“What was his only qualification?” congressman Adam Kinzinger, an Illinois Republican and member of the committee who led the questioning, asked rhetorically. “He would do whatever the president wanted him to do, including overthrowing a free and fair democratic election.”The panel voted unanimously to hold Clark in contempt of Congress after he failed to cooperate with its investigation. He later appeared before the committee but he repeatedly asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.Just before the hearing began, it was revealed that federal investigators searched Clark’s home earlier this week, according to a person familiar with the matter who was not authorized to speak publicly.In new testimony from the committee’s taped deposition with Bill Barr, the former attorney general said he thought it was important for the department to investigate – and ultimately disprove – Trump’s false claims of voter fraud. Had it not, Barr said he shuddered to think what might have happened. “I’m not sure we would have had a transition at all.”In previous clips played by the committee, Barr said he told Trump in no uncertain terms that his claims of election fraud were “bullshit”. At one point during his deposition, Barr burst into laughter as he recounted how absurd some of the theories were, including one purportedly orchestrated by Hugo Chávez, the Venezuelan leader who died in 2013.The committee is building the case that Trump was at the heart of the sprawling conspiracy that led to the violence on January 6 – a lie that has only metastasized in the months since a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol with pipes, bear spray and Confederate flags. Nine people died in the assault and its aftermath.The public hearings are the culmination of a yearlong investigation into the violence on January 6 and the events that led to it. The committee has interviewed more than 1,000 witnesses and collected more than 140,000 documents. But it continues to amass new evidence.Thompson told reporters this week that the committee had received “a lot of information”, including documentary footage of Trump’s final months in office. It also plans to speak with Ginni Thomas, the conservative activist and wife of the supreme court justice Clarence Thomas who was in close contact with Trump’s chief of staff in the days leading up to the Capitol attack.The committee said it would resume public hearings in July, with at least two more sessions scheduled. Those hearings are expected to detail how extremist groups like the Proud Boys planned the attack on Congress and how Trump failed to act to stop the violence once it erupted on 6 January.“These efforts were not some minor or ad hoc enterprise concocted overnight,” said congresswoman Liz Cheney, the panel’s Republican vice-chair. “Each required planning and coordination. All of them were overseen by President Trump.”TopicsJanuary 6 hearingsUS Capitol attackUS politicsDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      January 6 panel calls Trump’s scheme a ‘power play’ that nearly succeeded

      by

      January 6 panel calls Trump’s scheme a ‘power play’ that nearly succeededEx-president launched a weeks-long campaign to strong arm the justice department into declaring the election corrupt02:02The House committee investigating the January 6 insurrection said on Thursday that Donald Trump heaped immense pressure on top leaders at the justice department, engaging in a “power play to win at all costs” that nearly succeeded in overturning the will of the American people.Testifying at the committee’s fifth and final hearing of the month, three former justice department officials, recounted a dramatic Oval Office confrontation three days before the assault on the Capitol in which Trump contemplated replacing the agency’s acting head with an “completely incompetent” lower-level official who embraced his stolen election myth. Trump only relented, they said, when he was warned that there would be mass resignations at the department if he followed through with the plan.Barr feared Trump might not have left office had DoJ not debunked fraud claimsRead more“For the department to insert itself into the political process this way, I think, would have had grave consequences for the country,” said Richard Donoghue, the former acting deputy attorney general, to the committee on Capitol Hill. “It may very well have spiraled us into a constitutional crisis and I wanted to make sure that he understood the gravity of the situation.”That 3 January meeting was the culmination of a weeks-long pressure campaign by the president in which he attempted to strong arm the justice department into declaring the election corrupt.In a breach of longstanding guidelines meant to guard the agency’s independence, Jeffrey Rosen, the former acting attorney general told the committee Trump contacted him “virtually every day” to complain that he had not done enough to investigate voter fraud in the election.Opening the hearing, the panel’s chair, congressman Bennie Thompson, said Trump knew that the allegations of voter fraud were false, but nevertheless pressured the department to declare the election results tainted. After exhausting his legal options and being rebuffed by state and local elections officials, the panel said a desperate Trump turned to the justice department to falsely declare the election corrupt.“Donald Trump didn’t just want the justice department to investigate,” Thompson said. “He wanted the justice department to help legitimize his lies, to basically call the election corrupt.”In one of the near-daily conversations Trump had with the agency’s leader, Rosen told the president that the Department of Justice “can’t and won’t snap his fingers and change the outcome of an election”.“I don’t expect you to do that,” Trump snapped back, according to Donoghue, whose handwritten notes of the exchange were displayed on a large screen during the hearing. “Just say that the election was corrupt + leave the rest to me and the [Republican] Congressmen.”At the center of Thursday’s hearing was Jeff Clark, a department official who embraced Trump’s myth of a stolen election. At the urging of Republican congressman Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, Trump contemplated replacing Rosen with Clark, an environmental lawyer by trade.“What was his only qualification?” congressman Adam Kinzinger, an Illinois Republican and member of the committee who led the questioning, asked rhetorically. “He would do whatever the president wanted him to do, including overthrowing a free and fair democratic election.”Clark’s audacious effort to bend the department to Trump’s will included a draft letter addressed to state officials in Georgia falsely asserting that the department had evidence of voter fraud and suggesting the state withdraw its certification of Biden’s victory in the state. He sent the letter to Rosen and Donoghue for their signature.Donoghue said the letter was so “extreme” and baseless he had to read it twice to grasp the gravity of what was being suggested. Both he and Rosen refused to sign it.In a videotaped deposition, Eric Herschmann, a lawyer in the White House counsel’s office, said Clark’s plan to subvert the 2020 election was “asinine”. Using expletives, he said he told Clark: “Congratulations, you just admitted your first step or act you’d take as attorney general would be committing a felony.”Tensions erupted on 3 January, when Clark told Rosen that Trump intended to replace him as the head of the department. White House call logs from that afternoon showed that the White House staff was already referring to Clark as the “acting attorney general”, the committee showed.Rosen, refusing to be fired by a subordinate, demanded a White House meeting. That night, Rosen, Donoghue, and Steven Engel, the former assistant attorney general for the office of legal counsel, who also testified on Thursday, gathered in the Oval Office with Trump and top White House lawyers for a tense, hours-long meeting.Donoghue said Trump appeared ready to follow through with the plan to replace Rosen with someone who promised fealty. “What have I got to lose?” Donoghue recalled Trump saying. “A lot,” he replied. He and Engel walked Trump through the implications of such a dramatic shift, warning him that there would be mass resignations among senior officials. Donoghue said Engel told the president Clark would be “leading a graveyard”.“It was very strongly worded to the president that that would happen,” Donoghue said.Their warnings were ultimately persuasive and Trump relented. Before they left, Donoghue said Trump asked him what would happen to Clark. He explained that only Trump could fire him. Trump replied that he wouldn’t.The panel also revealed that several of Trump’s allies in Congress had requested pardons from the president in the days after the deadly assault on the Capitol. It displayed an email from congressman Mo Brooks in which the Alabama Republican asked the White House to consider a presidential pardon for himself and other congressional allies.In testimony, Trump aides said Republican congressmen Scott Perry of Pennsylvania; Matt Gaetz of Florida; Louie Gohmert of Texas and Andy Biggs of Arizona all requested “pre-emptive” pardons. All voted against certifying the results of the election in the hours after the riot.“The only reason I know to ask for a pardon is because you think you’ve committed a crime,” Kinzinger said.The panel voted unanimously to hold Clark in contempt of Congress after he failed to cooperate with its investigation. He later appeared before the committee but Kinzinger said he asserted his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination more than 125 times.Just before the hearing began, it was revealed that federal investigators searched Clark’s home earlier this week, according to a person familiar with the matter who was not authorized to speak publicly.In new testimony from the committee’s taped deposition with Bill Barr, the former attorney general, said he thought it was important for the department to investigate – and ultimately disprove – Trump’s false claims of voter fraud. Had it not, Barr said he shuddered to think what might have happened. “I’m not sure we would have had a transition at all.”The officials’ testimony on Thursday all bolstered Barr’s conclusion that the president’s claims of election fraud were “bullshit”. Among the outlandish claims Trump latched onto was a purported plot involving an Italian defense contractor who purportedly conspired with US intelligence to manipulate the vote count. In an email to Rosen, Donoghue called the conspiracy “pure insanity”.The committee is building the case that Trump was at the heart of the sprawling conspiracy that led to the violence on January 6 – a lie that has only metastasized in the months since a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol with pipes, bear spray and Confederate flags. Nine people died in the assault and its aftermath.Republicans who aided coup attempt sought blanket presidential pardonsRead moreThe committee said it would resume public hearings in July as part of its efforts to reveal in serial fashion what Thompson described as the “inner workings of what essentially was a political coup”.Future sessions are expected to detail how extremist groups like the Proud Boys planned the attack on Congress and how Trump failed to act to stop the violence once it erupted on 6 January.Concluding Thursday’s hearing, Kinzinger, one of Trump’s few Republican critics who is retiring at the end of his term, said Trump “was willing to sacrifice our republic to prolong his presidency”. He came close, Kinzinger said, but ultimately failed thanks to the “good people” who put their oath of office first.But, he warned: “I’m still worried that not enough has changed to prevent this from happening again.”TopicsJanuary 6 hearingsUS Capitol attackUS politicsDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More

    • 188 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      DoJ seeks delay in Proud Boys case as it collides with parallel January 6 inquiry

      by

      DoJ seeks delay in Proud Boys case as it collides with parallel January 6 inquiryTwo cases had managed to steer clear of each other as the justice department and House panel pursued the same ground The US justice department’s criminal investigation into the January 6 Capitol attack collided with the parallel congressional investigation, causing federal prosecutors to seek a delay in proceedings in the seditious conspiracy case against the far-right Proud Boys group.The two January 6 inquiries had largely managed to steer clear of each other even as both the justice department and a House select committee pursued the same ground. But it all came to head on Wednesday.At a hearing in federal court in Washington, federal prosecutors and defendants in the justice department’s seditious conspiracy case asked a federal judge to delay the August trial date of the former Proud Boys national chairman Henry Tarrio, AKA Enrique Tarrio, and other top members of the far-right group.January 6 panel to focus on Trump’s relentless pressure on justice departmentRead more“It is reasonably foreseeable that information relevant to the defendants’ guilt (or innocence) could soon be released,” assistant US attorney Erik Kenerson wrote on Tuesday. “Inability to prepare their respective cases … is potentially prejudicial – to all parties.”The request was granted “reluctantly” by US district judge Timothy Kelly, who said the trial will now start in December, agreeing that the select committee’s report and witness transcripts that are slated to be made public in September could upend preparations.The justice department has run into the issue that because it is conducting a criminal investigation, its federal prosecutors are bound by strict rules requiring high standards of proof before they start issuing subpoenas and collecting evidence.By contrast, the select committee, in conducting a congressional investigation examining the circumstances surrounding the Capitol attack, can issue subpoenas for documents and testimony whenever and however it likes, given the approval of a majority of its members.That has meant the panel has amassed more than 1,000 transcripts of closed-door depositions conducted with key witnesses related to the January 6 inquiries, some of which the justice department believes are relevant to its cases but the panel had declined to share.In a letter last week, Matthew Graves, the US attorney for the District of Columbia, and assistant attorneys general Kenneth Polite and Matthew Olsen complained their inability to access transcripts was hampering criminal investigations, including in the Proud Boys case.“The select committee’s failure to grant the department access to these transcripts complicates the department’s ability to investigate and prosecute those who engaged in criminal conduct in relation to the January 6 attack on the Capitol,” they wrote in the letter.The select committee relented and suggested it would not even wait until September but start making transcripts public as early as July. But lawyers for the Proud Boys took issue with both dates, saying the contents of the transcripts could bias a jury ahead of trial.Not all of the defendants sought a delay. Tarrio opposed the request because “an impartial jury will never be achieved in Washington DC whether the trial is in August, December, or next year”. Ethan Nordean, another prominent Proud Boys figure, opposed the request unless he was freed from pre-trial detention.The potential for the transcripts to influence a jury pool has been a recurring complaint for the Proud Boys lawyers, who argue the January 6 hearings – which started three days after Tarrio and others were charged with seditious conspiracy – will irreparably taint a jury.Federal prosecutors have pushed back, contending that people in Washington were no more likely to have seen the hearings than people in New York or Miami. Still, the government agreed for the need for breathing space between the trial and transcripts being made public.The justice department, meanwhile, has its own concerns with the transcripts’ release and would seemingly prefer to get the transcripts in private to compare what witnesses have told the select committee and what they have secretly told a grand jury.At least two members of the Proud Boys have testified before the select committee in closed-door depositions: Tarrio, who has been charged with seditious conspiracy and other crimes, and Jeremy Bertino, who has been mentioned in court filings but is currently not charged.Also on Wednesday, the justice department issued new subpoenas to at least three people connected to the Trump campaign’s potentially illegal plan to send fraudulent election certificates to Congress as part of the effort to overturn the 2020 election results.The confirmed recipients of the grand jury subpoenas were Brad Carver, a Georgia Republican party official who was a Trump elector, Thomas Lane, a Trump campaign official in Arizona and New Mexico, and Sean Flynn, a Trump campaign aide in Michigan, the New York Times reported.TopicsUS Capitol attackJanuary 6 hearingsThe far rightHouse of RepresentativesUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Republican who livestreamed Capitol attack given three months in prison

      by

      Republican who livestreamed Capitol attack given three months in prisonWest Virginia lawmaker Derrick Evans, 37, who filmed self-incriminating footage, pleaded guilty to committing civil disorder00:43A West Virginia lawmaker who participated in the January 6 attack on the Capitol while livestreaming the deadly insurrection has been sentenced to three months in prison.Derrick Evans, 37, was arrested and charged shortly after the attack, in part thanks to self-incriminating video footage he shot of himself leading and egging on rioters who overwhelmed police at the Capitol.Feds seek delay in Proud Boys conspiracy case as it collides with parallel January 6 inquiryRead moreHe resigned, then pleaded guilty to the felony of committing civil disorder in March, but was given bail and appeared virtually from his home for sentencing on Wednesday.Evans, who had been sworn into the Republican-led legislature less than a month before the attack, is among 21 lawmakers known to have joined the rioters trying to overturn the 2020 election. He is the only one to be prosecuted so far.Evans had a penchant for broadcasting live on his Facebook page, Derrick Evans – The Activist, which had 32,000 followers, whom he encouraged to travel to Washington to “fight for Trump”, according to prosecutors.He documented his bus journey to the capital, and then headed straight for the east side of the Capitol. Donning a helmet, Evans shouted out updates to the growing crowd about the violence occurring on the west side of the Capitol, where rioters first breached the building, according to the sentencing memo.Evans narrated as the mob eventually overwhelmed the police and pushed through the Rotunda doors, according to video clips from his account played in court.“We’re taking this house, I told you today! Patriots stand up! … My people didn’t vote for me because I was a coward.” After breaching the building, he said, “We’re in! Derrick Evans is in the Capitol!”He deleted the video later that day, but it had already been widely circulated.Evans is among at least 825 people so far charged in connection with the insurrection, of whom 310 have pleaded guilty.Before January 6, Evans had streamed live footage of himself outside West Virginia’s only abortion clinic, which led to a 10ft fence being built around the building and a clinic volunteer having to obtain a restraining order against him. Evans also broadcast his protests against Black Lives Matter and drag shows.On Wednesday Evans told the judge that he took responsibility for his actions and regretted that his actions would leave his kids “fatherless for months”.TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsWest VirginiaRepublicansnewsReuse this content More

    • 200 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Feds seek delay in Proud Boys conspiracy case as it collides with parallel January 6 inquiry

      by

      Feds seek delay in Proud Boys conspiracy case as it collides with parallel January 6 inquiryThe two cases had managed to steer clear of each other as the justice department and House panel pursued the same ground The US justice department’s criminal investigation into the January 6 Capitol attack collided with the parallel congressional investigation, causing federal prosecutors to seek a delay in proceedings in the seditious conspiracy case against the far-right Proud Boys group.The two January 6 inquiries had largely managed to steer clear of each other even as both the justice department and a House select committee pursued the same ground. But it all came to head on Wednesday.At a hearing in federal court in Washington, federal prosecutors and defendants in justice department’s seditious conspiracy case asked a federal judge to delay the August trial date of former Proud Boys national chairman Henry Tarrio, AKA Enrique Tarrio and other top members of the far-right group.January 6 panel to focus on Trump’s relentless pressure on justice departmentRead more“It is reasonably foreseeable that information relevant to the defendants’ guilt (or innocence) could soon be released,” assistant US attorney Erik Kenerson wrote on Tuesday. “Inability to prepare their respective cases … is potentially prejudicial – to all parties.”The request was granted “reluctantly” by US district judge Timothy Kelly, who said the trial will now start in December, agreeing that the select committee’s report and witness transcripts that are slated to be made public in September could upend preparations.The justice department has run into the issue that because it is conducting a criminal investigation, its federal prosecutors are bound by strict rules requiring high standards of proof before they start issuing subpoenas and collecting evidence.By contrast, the select committee, in conducting a congressional investigation examining the circumstances surrounding the Capitol attack, can issue subpoenas for documents and testimony whenever and however it likes, given the approval of a majority of its members.That has meant the panel has amassed more than 1,000 transcripts of closed-door depositions conducted with key witnesses related to the January 6 inquiries, some of which the justice department believes are relevant to its cases but the panel had declined to share.In a letter last week, Matthew Graves, the US attorney for the District of Columbia, and assistant attorneys general Kenneth Polite and Matthew Olsen complained their inability to access transcripts was hampering criminal investigations, including in the Proud Boys case.“The select committee’s failure to grant the department access to these transcripts complicates the department’s ability to investigate and prosecute those who engaged in criminal conduct in relation to the January 6 attack on the Capitol,” they wrote in the letter.The select committee relented and suggested it would not even wait until September but start making transcripts public as early as July. But lawyers for the Proud Boys took issue with both dates, saying the contents of the transcripts could bias a jury ahead of trial.Not all of the defendants sought a delay. Tarrio opposed the request because “an impartial jury will never be achieved in Washington DC whether the trial is in August, December, or next year”. Ethan Nordean, another prominent Proud Boys figure, opposed the request unless he was freed from pre-trial detention.The potential for the transcripts to influence a jury pool has been a recurring complaint for the Proud Boys lawyers, who argue the January 6 hearings – which started three days after Tarrio and others were charged with seditious conspiracy – will irreparably taint a jury.Federal prosecutors have pushed back, contending that people in Washington were no more likely to have seen the hearings than people in New York or Miami. Still, the government agreed for the need for breathing space between the trial and transcripts being made public.The justice department, meanwhile, has its own concerns with the transcripts’ release and would seemingly prefer to get the transcripts in private to compare what witnesses have told the select committee and what they have secretly told a grand jury.At least two members of the Proud Boys have testified before the select committee in closed-door depositions: Tarrio, who has been charged with seditious conspiracy and other crimes, and Jeremy Bertino, who has been mentioned in court filings but is currently not charged.Also on Wednesday, the justice department issued new subpoenas to at least three people connected to the Trump campaign’s potentially illegal plan to send fraudulent election certificates to Congress as part of the effort to overturn the 2020 election results.The confirmed recipients of the grand jury subpoenas were Brad Carver, a Georgia Republican Party official who was a Trump elector, Thomas Lane, a Trump campaign official in Arizona and New Mexico, and Sean Flynn, a Trump campaign aide in Michigan, the New York Times reported.TopicsUS Capitol attackJanuary 6 hearingsThe far rightHouse of RepresentativesUS politicsnewsReuse this content More