US Capitol attack

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s bid to cling to power ‘beyond even Nixon’s imagination’, Watergate duo say

      by

      Trump’s bid to cling to power ‘beyond Nixon’s imagination’, Watergate duo sayBob Woodward and Carl Bernstein write in new book foreword that bid to overturn election made Trump ‘our first seditious president’ Donald Trump was the first seditious president in US history, surpassing in his efforts to hang on to power beyond even the criminal imagination of Richard Nixon, according to the two political reporters who were instrumental in securing Nixon’s downfall.In a new foreword to their celebrated 1974 book on the Watergate scandal, All the President’s Men, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein accuse Trump of pursuing his “diabolical instincts” by zeroing in on the certification of Joe Biden’s presidential victory by Congress on January 6 last year. In the authors’ assessment, Trump’s unleashing of the mob that day, culminating in the violent attack on the US Capitol, amounted to “a deception that exceeded even Nixon’s imagination”.Capitol attack panel to unveil new evidence against Trump at public hearingsRead moreThey write in their foreword, published by the Washington Post, they write: “By legal definition this is clearly sedition … thus Trump became the first seditious president in our history.”Woodward and Bernstein’s comparison of Trump and Nixon carries singular weight, given that as young Washington Post reporters they helped to uncover Nixon’s campaign of political spying and cover-up that led in 1974 to the only resignation of a president in American history. In separate capacities, the two journalists have also reported extensively on the Trump presidency, with Woodward doing so in a series of three books: Fear, Rage and Peril.The timing of their analysis is also potent. It comes just days before the House select committee investigating the January 6 insurrection stages the first of at least six televised hearings in which they will attempt to show the American people that Trump acted corruptly in his efforts to stop Biden’s certification.Woodward and Bernstein suggest that the two presidents had much in common, despite the almost half a century that stands between them. Nixon’s belief that it was for the greater good that he stayed in power whatever the means was “embraced by Trump”, they write.“A man is not finished when he is defeated. He is finished when he quits,” Nixon told himself in 1969. That informed Trump’s campaign to hold on to power through falsehoods even in the face of defeat.Misinformation also unites the diabolical pair. “Both Nixon and Trump created a conspiratorial world in which the US constitution, laws and fragile democratic traditions were to be manipulated or ignored, political opponents and the media were ‘enemies,’ and there were few or no restraints on the powers entrusted to presidents,” Woodward and Bernstein say in their new foreword.The reporters also explore the differences between the two men, notably that Trump attempted his electoral subversion in public. Pulling no punches, they call the January 6 insurrection “a Trump operation” and predict that the House committee has an abundance of evidence to prove that point in the upcoming hearings.Though Nixon’s criminal misdeeds tend to be remembered through the lens of the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate Hotel on 17 June 1972, and the cover-up that followed, the authors remind their readers that his core purpose was to subvert that year’s presidential election. They rehearse some of the extreme measures that Nixon’s team of operatives took to derail the presidential campaign of his main Democratic rival, Senator Edmund Muskie of Maine.Those measures included writing fake letters on Muskie stationery alleging sexual misconduct by other Democratic candidates and stealing Muskie’s shoes from outside his hotel room where he had left them for polishing in order to spook him out. Muskie ultimately lost the Democratic nomination to the liberal senator George McGovern of South Dakota.Trump, the reporters argue, pursued equally ruthless tactics designed to undermine credibility in the 2020 presidential election. They reached a pitch on January 6 with the violent mob breaking into the Capitol chanting “Hang Mike Pence” against Trump’s vice-president who was proceeding with certification of the election results.In the last analysis, Woodward and Bernstein ask themselves why two such powerful men would embark on parallel efforts to destroy democracy. They have one overriding answer.“Fear of losing and being considered a loser was a common thread for Nixon and Trump,” they write.TopicsDonald TrumpBob WoodwardCarl BernsteinUS Capitol attackUS politicsRichard NixonWatergatenewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Capitol attack panel to unveil new evidence against Trump at public hearings

      by

      Capitol attack panel to unveil new evidence against Trump at public hearings Committee intends to reveal previously secret White House records, photos and videos to prove how Trump broke the lawThe House select committee investigating the Capitol attack will unveil new evidence at Watergate-style public hearings next week showing Donald Trump and top aides acted with corrupt intent to stop Joe Biden’s certification, according to sources close to the inquiry.The panel intends to use the hearings as its principal method of revealing potential crimes by Trump as he sought to overturn the 2020 election results, the sources said, in what could be a treacherous legal and political moment for the former president.Schiff: DoJ decision not to indict Trump ex-aides Meadows and Scavino a ‘grave disappointment’Read moreAs the justice department mounts parallel investigations into the Capitol attack, the select committee is hoping that the previously unseen evidence will leave an indelible mark on the American public about the extent to which Trump went in trying to return himself to the Oval Office.“They’re important for setting a record for posterity, but they’re also important for jolting the American public into realizing what a direct threat we had coming from the highest levels of government to illegitimately install a president who lost,” Norman Ornstein, a political scientist and emeritus scholar at the conservative thinktank the American Enterprise Institute, said of the hearings.The panel’s ambitions for the hearings are twofold, the sources said: presenting the basis for alleging Trump broke the law and placing the Capitol attack in a broader context of efforts to overturn the election, with the ex-president’s involvement as the central thread.At their heart, the hearings are about distilling thousands of communications between top Trump White House aides and operatives outside the administration and the Trump campaign into a compelling narrative of events about the events of 6 January, the sources said.In order to tell that story, the sources said, the select committee intends to have its senior investigative counsels reveal previously secret White House records, photos and videos that will be presented, in real time, to starkly illustrate the live witness testimony.On Thursday night, at the inaugural hearing at 8pm, the panel’s chairman Bennie Thompson and the vice chair Liz Cheney are likely to make opening arguments, outline a roadmap for the hearings, and give an overview of the events of 6 January, and the preceding weeks.The panel is likely to focus on broad themes for the following four hearings, such as how Trump used false claims of voter fraud to undermine the 2020 election and future races, and how he tried to use fake electors to deceive Congress into returning him to office.House investigators are also likely to focus on how Trump directly pivoted to the 6 January congressional certification – and not the December deadlines for states to certify their electors – as an inflection point, and how his actions led straight to militia and far-right groups’ covert maneuverings.The panel is then likely to reserve its most explosive revelations for the final hearing in prime time, where select committee members Adam Kinzinger and Elaine Luria are expected to run through Trump’s actions and inactions as the 6 January attack unfolded.The list of witnesses has not yet been finalised, the sources said, but it is expected to include top aides to former vice-president Mike Pence, aides to Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows, and people with direct knowledge of militia group activities on 6 January.From a legal perspective, the panel has already alleged in court filings that Trump and his external legal advisor, John Eastman, violated multiple federal laws to overturn the 2020 election outcome, including obstruction of Congress and defrauding the United States.The select committee hopes that by revealing new evidence in hearings, the sources said, it can convince beyond a reasonable doubt the American public and potentially the justice department that the former president violated laws to reverse his 2020 election defeat.Among the highlights of the already-public evidence include the revelation that Eastman, Trump’s external legal adviser, admitted to Pence’s counsel, Greg Jacob, that his scheme to obstruct Congress on 6 January was unlawful, but pressed ahead with it anyway.The internal White House schedule for 6 January that the select committee obtained through the National Archives, meanwhile, showed that Trump would have known he had no plans to march with the crowd to the Capitol when he falsely promised that at the Ellipse rally.House investigators are in many ways making their case to the American public, the sources said, since it is not certain whether the panel will make criminal referrals to federal prosecutors, given they’re not binding on the justice department, which has the sole authority to file charges.But that quest will come with its own challenges, and the panel’s greatest difficulty is perhaps not so much whether they can show wrongdoing by Trump and his top advisers, but whether it can get Republican and independent voters to care.The repeated delays in holding the hearings have meant House investigators were able to finish most of the evidence-gathering they intended to conduct (the committee initially anticipated holding them sometime in “the spring, then in April, then in May, and now in June).Committee counsel recently told one witness who had been assisting the investigation for months that it didn’t expect to ask for any more assistance, according to two sources familiar with the inquiry. “We are pretty much done,” the counsel told that particular witness.But the consequence of the decision to delay the start of public hearings, and the constant drip of news from the investigation, is that it might have driven some “6 January fatigue” – which Trump’s allies on Capitol Hill are intent on weaponising to defend Trump.The former president’s most ardent defenders in Congress and top Republicans led by the House minority leader Kevin McCarthy are planning aggressive counter-programming to the public hearings that slam the panel as partisan, according to party aides.The Republican National Committee has also circulated a one-page memo of talking points, Vox earlier reported, requesting that Trump surrogates attack the investigation as “rigged” – even though multiple federal courts have ruled the inquiry is fully legitimate.Overcoming counter-programming to cut through to Republican and independent voters could pose a challenge, the panel’s members have privately discussed. After all, the sources said, the panel is not trying to convince Democrats of Trump’s role in the Capitol attack.The prospect of collective public exhaustion over 6 January-related news, with each new revelation seemingly more shocking than the last, appears to have also pressed the select committee to cut its June hearings schedule from eight hearings to now six.According to a draft schedule reviewed by the Guardian and first reported last week, the panel anticipates holding just the first and final hearings – on 9 June and 23 June – in prime time at 8pm. The other four – on the 13th, 15th, 16th and 21st – will be at 10am.Still, the target audience for the select committee is not Republicans but swing voters, Ornstein said. “I don’t have any expectation that Republicans who believe the election was stolen will change their minds. But it’s about the other voters and whether it will jolt the Democratic base into understanding what the stakes are.”TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsDemocratsnewsReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Schiff: DoJ decision not to indict Trump ex-aides Meadows and Scavino a ‘grave disappointment’

      by

      Schiff: DoJ decision not to indict Trump ex-aides Meadows and Scavino a ‘grave disappointment’Member of Capitol attack committee says decision not to charge the two with contempt of Congress could ‘impede our work’ California congressman Adam Schiff – a member of the select House committee investigating the deadly Capitol riots – said Sunday it was “a grave disappointment” that federal prosecutors opted against charging two former Trump White House officials who ignored subpoenas seeking information on the January 6 attack.Schiff said on CBS’s Face the Nation that he couldn’t see why the federal justice department would treat Donald Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows and communications coordinator Dan Scavino differently than it did ex-aides Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon.Justice department prosecutors last week charged Navarro with contempt of Congress for refusing to appear at a deposition and produce documents as demanded by the select committee, and in November they did the same to Bannon.Ex-Trump adviser Peter Navarro indicted for defying Capitol attack panelRead moreThe committee had recommended similar charges for both Scavino and Meadows before prosecutors issued the panel letter saying neither would be prosecuted.“It is puzzling they’re being treated differently than the two others being prosecuted,” Schiff said of Meadows and Scavino. “These witnesses have very relevant testimony to offer in terms of what went into the violence of January 6, and the idea that witnesses basically fail to show up … is deeply troubling.“We hope to get more insight from the justice department, but it’s a grave disappointment and could impede our work if other witnesses think that they can likewise refuse to show up with impunity.”Schiff bristled at the notion that Meadows and Scavino were successful in claiming to the justice department that the subpoenas targeting them sought materials that were protected by executive privilege.US justice department declines to charge former Trump officials Meadows and Scavino with contempt of CongressRead more“They were both involved in campaigning, they both have documents that they could offer, none of that is protected by privilege,” said Schiff, who is one of seven Democrats on the nine-member select committee.Show host Margaret Brennan asked Schiff whether the panel may call former Trump vice-president Mike Pence to testify when a series of public hearings about the January 6 attack begin Thursday night.Pence’s chief of staff, Marc Short, had warned the Secret Service that his boss could be in danger if those opposed to Joe Biden’s presidential victory enacted plans aimed at stopping Congress’ certification of the 2020 election result, according to recent reports.Schiff said he couldn’t confirm who might testify at the scheduled hearings but he promised evidence demonstrating an “understanding of the propensity for violence that day” in advance.“Our goal is to present the narrative of … how close we came to losing our democracy with this violent attack on the 6th,” Schiff said.Can televised hearings bring the truth about January 6 to the US public?Read moreA bipartisan Senate report linked seven deaths to the storming of the Capitol that white nationalist groups and other Trump supporters carried out in a last-ditch effort to prevent Biden from taking the Oval Office after winning the 2020 election.Trump had called on the mob that gathered in Washington DC on 6 January 2021 – the day of the race outcome’s congressional certification – to “fight like hell”, insisting falsely that he had lost because of electoral fraud.The two Republican House members on the select committee investigating the Capitol attack have been censured by the party’s national leadership, whose position is that January 6 was “legitimate political discourse” not deserving of criminal prosecution.TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Can televised hearings bring the truth about January 6 to the US public?

      by

      Can televised hearings bring the truth about January 6 to the US public? The first of eight congressional hearings will start on Thursday but emulating the impact of 1973’s Watergate sessions will be hard in today’s fractured media and political environmentOn Thursday the House committee investigating the January 6 attack on the US Capitol will open the first of eight hearings, marking the turning point when “one of the single most important congressional investigations in history”, as the Republican congresswoman Liz Cheney billed it, will finally go public.It will be the culmination of almost a year of intensive activity that, aside from a succession of leaks, has largely been conducted in private. More than 1,000 people have been called for depositions and interviews to cast light on the events of January 6, 2021, when hundreds of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol in answer to Donald Trump’s call to “fight like hell” to prevent Congress certifying Joe Biden’s presidential victory.Ex-Trump adviser Peter Navarro indicted for defying Capitol attack panelRead moreThe committee has collected 125,000 documents, pursued almost 500 leads through its confidential tip line. It has examined text messages between Trump’s closest advisers and family members discussing how to keep the defeated president in power; reviewed memos from conservative lawyers laying out a roadmap to an electoral coup; and listened to recorded conversations in which top Republicans revealed their true feelings about Trump’s actions “inciting people” to attack the heart of US democracy.Now the nine-member committee, Cheney included, have a different – and arguably more difficult – job to do. They must let the American people into their deliberations, share with them key facts and exhibits, grill witnesses in front of them, and through it all begin to build a compelling narrative of how ferociously Trump attempted to subvert the 2020 election – and how close he came to succeeding.“It’s important that we tell the American public, to the best we are able, exactly what happened,” said Zoe Lofgren, a congresswoman from California who is among the seven Democratic members of the committee. “The public need to understand the stakes for our system of government, and we need to devise potential changes in legislation or procedures to protect ourselves in future.”In an interview with the Guardian, Lofgren was hesitant to get into details of the investigation. But asked whether she has been surprised by the breadth and depth of the plot to overturn the 2020 election and the extent to which it was organized, she replied: “The short answer is yes.”Lofgren brings to Thursday’s opening session her deep personal understanding of the dynamic role played by congressional hearings in recent American history. She has had a ringside seat, initially as a staff observer and then as an elected participant, in many of the most significant hearings stretching back to Watergate.At the time of the Watergate hearings in May 1973, when she was still a young law student, Lofgren worked as an intern for Don Edwards, a Democrat on the judiciary committee. She sees similarities between today’s January 6 investigation and the way Nixon’s cover-up of the Watergate break-in was teased out by Congress, starting with inquiries behind closed doors and then bursting out into explosive televised Senate proceedings.“Much of what the judiciary committee did in Watergate – like January 6 – was behind closed doors,” Lofgren said. “I remember various Nixon functionaries being deposed in the committee back rooms.”Once sufficient intelligence was amassed, it was time to let the public in. “Ultimately, you have to let people know what you have found.”The Watergate hearings became a national obsession, with millions of Americans tuning in to ABC, CBS or NBC which scrapped normal scheduling to broadcast the deliberations live. The New York Times called them “the biggest daytime spectacular in years”.There was so much viewer demand that the networks ran replays at night. It was worth it, to experience such spine-tingling moments as the former White House counsel John Dean being asked: “What did the president know and when did he know it?”, or to be present when another assistant, Alexander Butterfield, revealed the existence of the Oval Office tapes.Lofgren does not expect the January 6 hearings to grip the nation to the all-encompassing extent that Watergate did. Times have changed, not least the media.“During Watergate there were three TV channels and that’s how everybody got their news – if Walter Cronkite said it was true, it must be true, right?” Lofgren said. “Today people are getting their information from a multiplicity of sources, and we need to deal with that and make sure we are finding people where they are.”It’s not just how media is consumed that has changed, it’s also how media itself approaches public hearings. During Watergate, TV anchors responded to Nixon’s jibes that they were peddlers of “elitist gossip” – a foreshadow of Trump’s “fake news” – by keeping their commentary to a bare minimum.In today’s universe, by contrast, the January 6 hearings are likely to be subjected to heavy spin that will leave individual Americans with drastically different impressions according to which media bubble they are in.Kathryn Cramer Brownell, associate professor of history at Purdue University, has studied the measured way television handled the Watergate hearings. She said it stands starkly apart from, say, how Robert Mueller’s testimony before the House judiciary committee on his Russia investigation was transmitted to the American people in 2019.“Fox News tried to spin the information as it was coming out of the Mueller proceedings, so people were receiving the information as it was filtered through that instant spin. That can change their understanding,” she said.Brownell has highlighted how the advent of the TV age elevated congressional hearings to another level. Before television, hearings such as those into the Titanic disaster in 1912 or the 1923 Teapot Dome scandal could still command the nation’s attention, but it was the small screen that supercharged them into major political events.By being beamed into millions of Americans’ living rooms, they had the power to turn individual Congress members into superstars. Ironically the beneficiaries included Nixon who came to prominence in the 1948 Red Scare investigation against Alger Hiss; he was followed soon after by Estes Kefauver in the 1950 investigation against organized crime.Oliver North became a bogey figure for progressives and a darling of the right after his appearance in the 1987 Iran-Contra hearings.Hearings also have the reverse power to tear down politicians who go too far, as the Republican senator Joe McCarthy discovered to his cost in his 1954 televised hearings into alleged communist infiltration of the US army. McCarthy’s reign of terror was abruptly brought to a close when the army’s lawyer Joseph Welch challenged him with the now legendary refrain: “Have you no sense of decency?”In the end, congressional hearings are likely only to be as compelling as the matter they are addressing – whether anti-communism, organized crime or presidential misconduct. That should play to the January 6 committee’s advantage: it would be hard to imagine more essential subject material than an assault on democracy itself.“If we believe in the rule of law and democratic norms, then we have to make this effort,” said Jeannie Rhee, a partner in the law firm Paul, Weiss who frequently represents witnesses in congressional hearings. “What we do in this moment, how we proceed – that is imperative.”Rhee led the team investigating Russian cyber and social media interference in the 2016 presidential election within the Mueller investigation. She now represents the attorney general of Washington DC in the prosecution of far-right Proud Boys and Oath Keepers for their part in the January 6 insurrection.As an immigrant, Rhee said, for her, the upcoming hearings are deeply personal. Her father was a student protester in the 1960s fighting for democratic reforms in South Korea, and it was America’s free and fair elections and peaceful transition of presidential power that led him to relocate their family to the US.“I came to the US with my parents in 1977 and it was my father’s greatest dream to be able to stay here. I remember my mother dressing me up in my Sunday church clothes to pay respects to the nation’s Capitol. I live here now, and my father has passed away. I think about him often in relation to what is unfolding, and whether this is the country he knew.”Rhee sees the challenge facing the January 6 committee as bridging the growing political divide by laying out facts around which most Americans can coalesce. She thinks the best way to conduct the hearings is to let what happened on that fateful day speak for itself.“The less the members talk and the more the witnesses and victims and people who were there tell their own truth, the more powerful that will be,” she said.The job of letting the facts do the talking will be complicated, though, by the fact that the Republican leadership in the House is effectively boycotting the hearings. Kevin McCarthy, the minority leader, decided not to appoint members to the panel after the Democratic speaker, Nancy Pelosi, rejected two of his choices.The two participating Republican members – Cheney and Adam Kinzinger – have both been censured by the Republican National Committee. The official view of the House leadership is that January 6 – which led to the deaths of seven people and injured more than 140 police officers – was “legitimate political discourse”.Many of the most important witnesses around Trump have refused to play ball with the investigation. Steve Bannon, Mark Meadows, Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino have all been held in criminal contempt of Congress for failing to respond to subpoenas, and Bannon and Navarro have been indicted by a federal grand jury (the justice department said on Friday it would not charge Scavino and Meadows).Many other top Republicans have invoked their fifth amendment right to silence in answer to every question they were posed. Those resisting testifying include five members of Congress, McCarthy among them.That’s a sign of how far the canker of political discord has spread within Congress, and how far the Republican party has shifted in a fundamentally anti-democratic direction. Consider by contrast the fact that the lethal Watergate question about what the president knew and when he knew it was asked by a senator from Nixon’s own Republican party, Howard Baker from Tennessee.“Congressional hearings have become increasingly partisan-driven,” said Stanley Brand, a former general counsel to the House who has legally represented numerous people called to testify before Congress spanning decades. “From the Clinton administration, through the Republican House’s investigation of the IRS and Benghazi, political lines are being drawn quicker and harder, and now there’s much more effort put on political point scoring.”Brand, who is representing Scavino in his battle to resist the January 6 committee, thinks that by opting out over the hearings the Republicans have fundamentally changed their nature. “Every party has to decide how much it wants to participate, but I’ve never known a big hearing like this with only one side represented – that’s a major difference.”Secret Service were warned of security risk to Pence day before Capitol attackRead moreBrand, a Democrat, thinks that partisanship is also being displayed by the Democratic leadership. He accuses the January 6 committee of straying well beyond its official remit as laid down by the US supreme court – an oversight role in which Congress informs itself for the purpose of writing legislation.He interprets the committee’s aggressive pursuit of witnesses as an attempt to push the justice department into bringing charges against key Trump individuals. “This committee has acted more like a prosecutorial agency than a legislative agency of any congressional investigation in which I’ve been involved in 50 years,” Brand said.Lofgren disputes the claim. “We’ve made it very clear that we are a legislative committee and the Department of Justice are the prosecutors,” she said.Any consideration of bringing prosecutions after the hearings have concluded, she added, “is beyond our purview”.As she prepares for the momentous start of the public hearings, Lofgren had some tough words for the Republican holdouts. She noted that in Watergate Republican leaders were also initially resistant, disputing claims that Nixon had acted improperly. But as soon as he admitted key details, they changed tack.“The difference with the Republican leadership today is that they know they are lying. It’s pretty clear that some of my Republican colleagues – not all – are willing to lie for power,” Lofgren said.What does she hope the hearings will achieve?“I hope they will tell the complete truth about what happened in a way that can be accepted and understood by the broad spectrum of American society, leading to a reinvigorated love of our democratic republic and system of elections.”That is a tall order.“You know, you don’t get anywhere by thinking small,” she said. “We’ll do the best we can, that’s all we can do, and hope this will be an important moment for America.”TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsHouse of RepresentativesRepublicansDemocratsfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 200 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      US justice department declines to charge former Trump officials Meadows and Scavino with contempt of Congress

      by

      US justice department declines to charge former Trump officials Meadows and Scavino with contempt of CongressDecision marks major blow for House committee investigating US Capitol attack The US Department of Justice will not pursue charges of criminal contempt of Congress against top former Trump White House officials Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino for refusing to comply with subpoenas in the congressional investigation into the January 6 attack on the Capitol.The decision – communicated to the counsel for the House of Representatives on Friday morning – marks a major blow for the House select committee investigating January 6, which had sought prosecutions for the two Trump aides in criminal referrals.But in a letter sent around the same time that the justice department charged former Trump White House official Peter Navarro with contempt for defying his subpoena, the US attorney for the District of Columbia said he would take no action against Meadows and Scavino.Secret Service were warned of security risk to Pence day before Capitol attackRead more“Based on the individual facts and circumstances of their alleged contempt, my office will not be initiating prosecutions for criminal contempt as requested in the referral against Messrs Meadows and Scavino,” the US attorney, Matthew Graves, said.The justice department’s letter, earlier reported by the New York Times, was confirmed to the Guardian by two sources familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private communications.In declining to prosecute Meadows and Scavino, Graves said in his letter that his office was also closing the probes into two of Trump’s most senior advisers. “Review of each of the contempt referrals arising from the Jan. 6 committee’s investigation is complete,” he said.Meadows did not respond to a request for comment on Friday. An attorney for Scavino could not be reached late on Friday. The US attorney’s office declined to comment.The decision marks the denouement for five months of speculation over whether the justice department would move to bring contempt charges against Meadows, who was deeply involved in Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results as White House chief of staff.Meadows was among the very first targets to receive a subpoena from the select committee and initially assisted the investigation under a cooperation agreement, turning over thousands of pages of documents and communications, until he abruptly withdrew from the deal.Ex-Trump adviser Peter Navarro indicted for defying Capitol attack panelRead moreThe select committee moved to recommend him for criminal contempt of Congress after he refused to attend a closed-door deposition, but that initial cooperation – in addition to his valid claims of executive privilege – appears to have brought him a reprieve.The select committee also recommended contempt of Congress charges for Dan Scavino, the former Trump White House deputy chief of staff for communications, who remained in close proximity to Trump on January 6 and was subpoenaed to give documents and testimony.Scavino is not understood to have provided any materials. But as with Meadows, Scavino spent months negotiating with the select committee over executive privilege and justice department office of legal counsel memos that shield presidential advisers from testifying.TopicsUS newsUS Capitol attackDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Ex-Trump adviser Peter Navarro indicted for defying Capitol attack panel

      by

      Ex-Trump adviser Peter Navarro indicted for defying Capitol attack panelNavarro in custody after indictment on two counts of contempt of Congress after he defied subpoena issued by January 6 committee Peter Navarro, a top former White House adviser to Donald Trump, was taken into custody after being indicted by a federal grand jury on Friday on two counts of contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena issued by the House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack.The indictment against Navarro marks the first time that the justice department has pursued charges against a Trump White House official who worked in the administration on January 6 and participated in efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.Navarro is facing one count of contempt of Congress for his refusal to appear at a deposition and a second count for his refusal to turn over documents as demanded by the select committee’s subpoena, the justice department announced in a news release.The former Trump White House adviser, who was involved in the former president’s unlawful scheme to have the then-vice president, Mike Pence, refuse to certify Joe Biden’s election win on January 6, was taken into custody at the airport – he had a pre-planned trip – Navarro told a magistrate judge.Navarro’s indictment comes just weeks after the full House of Representatives voted to hold him in criminal contempt of Congress for entirely defying the select committee’s subpoena, issued in February, demanding documents and testimony in the January 6 inquiry.The indictment is the latest twist in a series of developments surrounding Navarro’s position in the crosshairs of congressional and justice department investigators, who last week served him with a grand jury subpoena demanding his communications with Trump.In an attempt to block the justice department from prosecuting the contempt of Congress referral and to somehow invalidate the grand jury subpoena, Navarro on Tuesday filed a last-ditch, 88-page lawsuit seeking an injunction from a federal judge.It was not clear whether that grand jury subpoena – which also demanded records requested in the select committee subpoena – came as part of the contempt of Congress case, or whether he was being treated as a witness in a separate criminal investigation into the former president.But a potential benefit for the justice department is that through this indictment, it may be able to obtain those communications with Trump, according to a former assistant US attorney who spoke on the condition of anonymity.The status of the lawsuit is currently unclear and it was not clear whether the filing led the justice department to request Navarro’s indictment and arrest warrant will be placed under seal until the warrant was executed on Friday morning in Washington DC.TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsDonald TrumpUS CongressTrump administrationnewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Secret Service were warned of security risk to Pence day before Capitol attack

      by

      Secret Service were warned of security risk to Pence day before Capitol attackEx-vice-president’s chief of staff warned head of his Secret Service detail that Trump was about to turn on Pence A day before the deadly attack on the US Capitol, Mike Pence’s chief of staff warned the head of Pence’s Secret Service detail that Donald Trump was about to turn on his own vice-president, endangering his security.Ex-Trump aide Peter Navarro indicted for defying Capitol attack panelRead moreThe news was reported on Friday by Maggie Haberman of the New York Times, who said she uncovered it during research for a book on Trump due out in October.On 5 January, Haberman wrote, Pence’s chief of staff, Marc Short, did not know how his boss’s security might be threatened if Trump turned on him. But Trump and advisers had been formulating a plan under which Pence would stop certification of electoral college results in Trump’s defeat by Joe Biden.Under pressure which the Times said included withholding funding for the vice-president’s transition out of power, Pence considered the plan before concluding he did not have the authority to reject electoral college results.When the mob attacked the Capitol on 6 January, rioters were heard to chant “Hang Mike Pence” while a gallows was set up outside.The Times recently reported that two witnesses who spoke to the January 6 committee said Trump told Mark Meadows, his own chief of staff, “something to the effect of, maybe Mr Pence should be hung”.The Times said it was not clear if Trump was serious.Trump told another reporter and author, Jon Karl, his supporters “were very angry” with Pence and that it was just “common sense” to be so, because Pence was not helping overturn Trump’s election defeat.US Justice Department could be zeroing in on Trump lawyers, experts sayRead moreThe Times said it was not clear what Tim Giebels, the head of Pence’s Secret Service detail, did with the warning from Short.The next day, with the Capitol under attack, Pence’s protectors rushed him from the Senate chamber to an underground parking bay. Multiple accounts have said the vice-president refused to leave the building.According to Short, Pence said: “I’m not going to let the free world see us fleeing the Capitol, and I’m staying.”Authors of books on the Trump presidency have been widely criticised for withholding news until publication. Haberman was known for having strong sources in the Trump White House, and was filmed taking calls from Trump himself.She published her nugget about Trump’s threat to Pence in the run-up to public hearings due to be staged by the House committee investigating the events of 6 January 2021.Pence and the Secret Service did not comment on the new Times report.TopicsUS Capitol attackMike PenceDonald TrumpUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US Justice Department could be zeroing in on Trump lawyers, experts say

      by

      US Justice Department could be zeroing in on Trump lawyers, experts saySubpoenas for information on Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman’s roles in the fake electors scheme were issued in April Legal experts believe the US Justice Department has made headway with a key criminal inquiry and could be homing in on top Trump lawyers who plotted to overturn Joe Biden’s election, after the department wrote to the House panel probing the January 6 Capitol attack seeking transcripts of witness depositions and interviews.Trump calls Capitol attack an ‘insurrection hoax’ as public hearings set to beginRead moreWhile it’s unclear exactly what information the DoJ asked for, former prosecutors note that the 20 April request occurred at about the same time a Washington DC grand jury issued subpoenas seeking information about several Trump lawyers including Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman, plus other Trump advisers, who reportedly played roles in a fake electors scheme.Giuliani, Trump’s former personal lawyer, worked with other lawyers and some campaign officials to spearhead a scheme to replace Biden electors with alternative Trump ones in seven states that Biden won, with an eye to blocking Congress’ certification of Biden on January 6 when a mob of Trump loyalists attacked the Capitol.Deputy attorney general Lisa Monaco announced early this year that the justice department had begun investigating fake elector certificates at the behest of some state attorneys general including Michigan’s.The House committee’s sprawling investigation, which has interviewed over 1,000 people, has included a strong focus on top Trump loyalists including Eastman and Giuliani. Last month, Giuliani testified virtually for over seven hours but reportedly asserted privilege and dodged many questions about his contacts with Trump House allies.Ex-prosecutors also caution that while the justice department may want to obtain more evidence from the House select committee about the fake electors scheme and lawyers including Giuliani, there are other top Trump allies who sought to overturn Biden’s win, plus key figures in the Capitol attack who have drawn scrutiny from both the panel and justice, who prosecutors may now have in their sights.A grand jury in Washington DC, for instance, also began issuing subpoenas a few months ago seeking information about Trump allies involved in the planning and financing of the large Trump rally that preceded the Capitol attack, as the Washington Post first reported.Further, other recent grand jury activity in Washington indicates a widening justice inquiry into top Trump allies including a subpoena last month to Peter Navarro, Trump’s former top trade advisor, for testimony and some of his written communications with Trump. Navarro has responded with a lawsuit to block the subpoena.In addition, several months ago the House sent the justice department a criminal contempt of Congress referral about Mark Meadows, Trump’s former chief of staff, who played key roles in efforts to overturn Biden’s win, and was not fully cooperative with the panel’s requests for documents and testimonyIn replying to justice department’s letter, the January 6 panel chair Bennie Thompson stressed that the committee’s inquiry is ongoing and that “we told them that as a committee, the product was ours, and we’re not giving anyone access to the work product … we can’t give them unilateral access.” and called the DoJ request “premature.”But Thompson also told reporters last month the committee may allow some materials requested to be reviewed in the panel’s officesFormer prosecutors say Thompson’s response, albeit mixed, seems to augur well for more cooperation in the future and pointed to several ways that the overture to the House panel could substantially benefit current inquiries.“The DoJ request for the fruits of the House committee investigation was inevitable but is still very important,” former justice inspector general Michael Bromwich said.“It will substantially advance the DoJ investigation into the role played by higher-level architects of the insurrection,” Bromwich added. “ It will save DoJ time and resources in pushing the investigation forward. It’s very much like having a large second investigative staff that has been working in parallel rather than at cross-purposes with the criminal investigators. Because the House committee has not immunized any witnesses, the legal obstacles for using that testimony don’t exist.”Despite Thompson’s initial guarded response, Bromwich said he expects “they will comply promptly”, adding that the panel “is probably irritated that the request didn’t come earlier, rather than at a time its members are swamped with prep for public hearings and is well into drafting its report”.Likewise, Barbara McQuade, a former US attorney for the eastern district of Michigan, told the Guardian that outreach to obtain key transcripts from the House panel could prove a boon to prosecutors.“Obtaining the transcripts directly from the committee is a way to maximize efficiency,” said McQuade, now a professor of practice at the University of Michigan Law School. “Investigators can see what witnesses have said before and decide whether they need to be interviewed again. They can use the transcripts to eliminate witnesses who don’t have much light to shed on the matters under investigation.”McQuade noted that months ago, “Monaco confirmed that 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. They will likely ask questions about why and how this plan was carried out and who was involved. The answers to those questions will guide the investigation. One could imagine each link leading to the next and possibly all the way to Donald Trump.”As of late May, the justice department had charged over 830 people for crimes related to their roles in the January 6 Capitol attack which followed a Trump rally where he urged a large crowd to “fight like hell.” The federal charges range from illegal entry to seditious conspiracy involving Proud Boys and Oath Keepers members, some of whom have pleaded guilty.On another front, a CNN report in late May revealed that FBI agents had recently conducted interviews in Georgia and Michigan with individuals who initially signed up to be Trump electors but then bowed out, asking specific questions about their contacts with Trump campaign officials and others.As DoJ has ramped up its inquiry into Trump’s fake electors, ex-prosecutors see more benefits that DoJ’s request to the House committee could produce.“One expects that the main purpose is to check the consistency of critical accounts – which is valuable and does signal that DoJ is moving forward amid signs that it is increasingly examining the conduct of Giuliani and Eastman,” ex-prosecutor Paul Rosenzweig saidIn another investigative twist, Paul Pelletier, the former acting chief of the fraud section at DoJ said: “DoJ’s public acknowledgment of their interest in the January 6 transcripts may well be only the tip of the iceberg.“While Chairman Thompson has deferred a formal response to the government’s inquiry, they likely have been informally sharing evidence for some time as is common in these investigations.”Looking forward, other ex-prosecutors sound bullish the House panel will extend cooperation to DoJ.“The panel is sure to cooperate because they are patriots,” former federal prosecutor Dennis Aftergut told me. “They know the importance of January 6 criminal accountability. That is the DoJ’s department, not theirs,” but predicted that the committee “will cooperate on their schedule”.Aftergut stressed that the committee has done a “bang up job” with its wide ranging investigation, but likely wants to keep the public’s attention focused on their upcoming hearings which Democratic Representative Jamie Raskin has predicted will “blow the roof off the House”.Still, he added, “Chairman Thompson calling cooperation now “premature” signals that it’s coming.”TopicsDonald TrumpUS justice systemRudy GiulianiUS Capitol attackUS politicsnewsReuse this content More