US Capitol attack

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Former Trump adviser Stephen Miller to testify before January 6 committee

      by

      Former Trump adviser Stephen Miller to testify before January 6 committeeHis cooperation is a blow to Trump’s efforts to shield information about his movements on the day of the insurrection Stephen Miller, Donald Trump’s former top adviser, will give testimony to the January 6 committee today, according to a source familiar with the matter.The reported cooperation of Miller is further evidence that the House investigation into the Capitol riot is lapping at the doors of the Trump Oval Office, after the former president’s daughter and son-in-law, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, both former senior White House advisers, gave their own testimony in recent weeks.According to two other sources cited by the Associated Press, it is unclear if Miller will appear in person or virtually before the nine-member bipartisan panel.The fact he is appearing at all is a significant development, however, and probably another major blow to Trump’s efforts to shield information about his movements on the day of the insurrection and subsequent efforts to overturn the presidential election he lost to Joe Biden.Miller, considered Trump’s top aide through the entirety of his single term in office, has fiercely resisted previous efforts to get him to testify after receiving a subpoena in November. At the time, Bennie Thompson, the Mississippi Democrat who chairs the panel, said Miller had “participated in efforts to spread false information about alleged voter fraud”, the basis of Trump’s big lie that his election defeat was fraudulent.How cooperative Miller will be in terms of the testimony he has to offer remains to be seen. It is likely that Miller’s decision to appear was prompted by last week’s House vote to hold former Trump advisers Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino in contempt for their refusal to comply with their own subpoenas.Miller’s testimony – if he is cooperative – could be some of the most valuable and compelling evidence the January 6 inquiry will have collected to date about Trump’s involvement in the deadly insurrection.Miller was ever-present at Trump’s side throughout his administration, a supremely loyal and focused character credited as the mastermind of some of the most controversial and harshest policies it enacted.An extremist known for his white nationalist and far-right views, Miller was central to almost every decision the former president made while in office, as well as ultra-hardline immigration policies Trump would probably have enacted had he won a second term.It is that loyalty to his old boss, and to Trumpism itself, that has analysts wondering if Miller will in fact be forthcoming or will instead plead the fifth amendment to questioning. There is already speculation that Miller’s agreement to appear – which neither he nor the panel has yet confirmed – was simply an exercise in avoiding the fate of Scavino and Navarro.Miller’s appearance tightens the committee’s focus in the final stages of its investigation on the inner circle of Trump, who has vociferously pushed the big lie that his 2020 election defeat was fraudulent. The former president’s actions on the day of the insurrection and afterward have been under scrutiny, most recently a revelation that calls he made on 6 January were hidden from the official log.The inquiry has also looked into an illegal scheme allegedly pushed by Trump and his supporters to put forward fake electors to overturn Joe Biden’s victory in the electoral college.The panel has said it will probably hold public hearings this spring, and a report is expected before this year’s midterm elections. Polling shows Republicans in a strong position to seize a majority in the House, at which point most observers believe they would shut the inquiry down if it is still ongoing.TopicsUS Capitol attackDonald TrumpTrump administrationHouse of RepresentativesnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Capitol riot defendant blames actions on Trump and false election claims

      by

      Capitol riot defendant blames actions on Trump and false election claimsLawyer for man charged with stealing a coat rack from the Capitol has vowed to show Trump abused his power to ‘authorize’ attack Mentions of Donald Trump have been rare at the first few trials for people charged with storming the US Capitol, but that has changed: the latest Capitol riot defendant to go on trial is blaming his actions on the former president and his false claims about a stolen election.Dustin Byron Thompson, an Ohio man charged with stealing a coat rack from the Capitol, doesn’t deny that he joined the mob on 6 January 2021. But his lawyer vowed Tuesday to show that Trump abused his power to “authorize” the attack.Describing Trump as a man without scruples or integrity, defense attorney Samuel Shamansky said the former president engaged in a “sinister” plot to encourage Thompson and other supporters to “do his dirty work”.“It’s Donald Trump himself spewing the lies and using his position to authorize this assault,” Shamansky told jurors Tuesday during the trial’s opening statements.Justice department prosecutor Jennifer Rozzoni said Thompson knew he was breaking the law that day.“He chose to be a part of the mayhem and chaos,” she said.Thompson’s lawyer sought subpoenas to call Trump and Rudolph Giuliani as witnesses at his trial this week. A judge rejected that request but ruled that jurors can hear recordings of speeches that Trump and Giuliani delivered at a rally before the riot.Thompson’s jury trial is the third among hundreds of Capitol riot prosecutions. The first two ended with jurors convicting both defendants on all counts with which they were charged.In a February court filing, Shamansky said he wanted to argue at trial that Thompson was acting at the direction of Trump and “his various conspirators.” The lawyer asked to subpoena others from Trump’s inner circle, including former White House strategist Steve Bannon, former White House senior adviser Stephen Miller and former Trump lawyers John Eastman and Sidney Powell.Prosecutors said Thompson can’t show that Trump or Giuliani had the authority to “empower” him to break the law. They also noted that video of the rally speeches “perfectly captures” the tone, delivery and context of the statements to the extent they are “marginally relevant” to proof of Thompson’s intent on 6 January.Thompson’s lawyer argued that Trump would testify that he and others “orchestrated a carefully crafted plot to call into question the integrity of the 2020 presidential election”. Shamansky claimed that Giuliani incited rioters by encouraging them to engage in “trial by combat” and that Trump provoked the mob by saying that “if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore”.Shamansky said Thompson, who lost his job during the pandemic, became an avid consumer of the conspiracy theories and lies about a stolen election.“This is the garbage that Dustin Thompson is listening to day after day after day,” Shamansky said. “He goes down this rabbit hole. He listens to this echo chamber. And he acts accordingly.”US district Judge Reggie Walton ruled in March that any in-person testimony by Trump or Giuliani could confuse and mislead jurors.More than 770 people have been charged with federal crimes arising from 6 January. Over 250 of them have pleaded guilty, mostly to misdemeanors. Thompson is the fifth person to be tried on riot-related charges.Thompson has a co-defendant, Robert Lyon, who pleaded guilty to riot-related charges in March.Thompson, then 36, and Lyon, then 27, drove from Columbus, Ohio, to Silver Spring, Maryland, stayed overnight at a hotel and then took an Uber ride into Washington DC on the morning of 6 January. After Donald Trump’s speech, Thompson and Lyon headed over to the Capitol.Thompson was wearing a Trump 2020 winter hat and a bulletproof vest when he entered the Capitol and went to the Senate Parliamentarian’s Office, where he stole two bottles of liquor and a coat rack worth up to $500, according to prosecutors.Thompson is charged with six counts: obstructing Congress’ joint session to certify the electoral college vote, theft of government property, entering or remaining in a restricted building or grounds, disorderly or disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds, disorderly or disruptive conduct in a Capitol building, and parading, demonstrating or picketing in a Capitol building.Lyon pleaded guilty to theft of government property and disorderly conduct. Both counts are misdemeanors punishable by a maximum of one year imprisonment. Walton is scheduled to sentence Lyon on 3 June.TopicsUS Capitol attackDonald TrumpUS politicsUS crimenewsReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Former Virginia police officer convicted of storming US Capitol

      by

      Former Virginia police officer convicted of storming US CapitolThomas Robertson was found guilty of all six counts he faced stemming from his participation in the 6 January 2021 riots A federal jury has convicted a former Virginia police officer of storming the US Capitol with another off-duty officer, to obstruct Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s 2020 electoral victory.Proud Boys member pleads guilty to role in US Capitol attackRead moreJurors on Monday convicted former Rocky Mount police officer Thomas Robertson of all six counts he faced stemming from the 6 January riot, including charges that he interfered with police officers at the Capitol and that he entered a restricted area with a dangerous weapon – a large wooden stick.His sentencing hearing was not immediately scheduled.Robertson’s jury trial was the second among hundreds of Capitol riot cases. The first ended last month with jurors convicting a Texas man, Guy Reffitt, of all five counts in his indictment.Robertson did not testify at his trial, which started 5 April. Jurors deliberated for several hours over two days before reaching their unanimous verdict.One juror, who spoke to the Associated Press only on condition of anonymity, said as she left the courthouse, “I think the government made a really compelling case and the evidence was fairly overwhelming.”Defense attorney Mark Rollins said Robertson will appeal the jury’s verdict. “While Mr Robertson disagrees with the jury’s decision, he respects the rule of law,” Rollins said in a statement.A key witness for prosecutors in his case was Jacob Fracker, who also served on the Rocky Mount police force and viewed Robertson as a mentor and father figure.Fracker was scheduled to be tried alongside Robertson before he pleaded guilty last month to a conspiracy charge and agreed to cooperate with authorities. Fracker testified Thursday that he had hoped the mob that attacked the Capitol could overturn the 2020 presidential election results.Robertson was charged with six counts: obstruction of Congress, interfering with officers during a civil disorder, entering a restricted area while carrying a dangerous weapon, disorderly or disruptive conduct in a restricted area while carrying a dangerous weapon, disorderly or disruptive conduct inside the Capitol building, and obstruction. The last charge stems from his alleged post-riot destruction of cellphones belonging to him and Fracker.During the trial’s closing arguments Friday, assistant US attorney Risa Berkower said Robertson went to Washington and joined a “violent vigilante mob” because he believed the election was stolen from then-president Donald Trump. He used the wooden stick to interfere with outnumbered police before he joined the crowd pouring into the Capitol, she said.“The defendant did all this because he wanted to overturn the election,” Berkower said.Rollins conceded that Robertson broke the law when he entered the Capitol during the riot. He encouraged jurors to convict Robertson of misdemeanor offenses but urged them to acquit Robertson of felony charges that he used the stick as a dangerous weapon and that he intended to stop Congress from certifying the electoral college vote.“There were no plans to go down there and say, ‘I’m going to stop Congress from doing this vote,”’ Rollins said.Fracker testified that he initially believed that he was merely trespassing when he entered the Capitol building. However, he ultimately pleaded guilty to conspiring with Robertson to obstruct Congress.The town of Rocky Mount, which is about 25 miles south of Roanoke and has roughly 5,000 residents, fired Robertson and Fracker after the riot.TopicsUS Capitol attackWashington DCUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Liz Cheney disputes report January 6 panel split over Trump criminal referral

      by

      Liz Cheney disputes report January 6 panel split over Trump criminal referralRepublican on House select committee, however, refuses to say whether Trump should be referred for criminal charges

      Is Trump in his sights? Garland under pressure to charge
      A key Republican on the House January 6 committee disputed a report which said the panel was split over whether to refer Donald Trump to the Department of Justice for criminal charges regarding his attempt to overturn the 2020 election, leading to the Capitol attack.‘Smoking rifle’: Trump Jr texted Meadows strategies to overturn election – reportRead more“There’s not really a dispute on the committee,” the Wyoming representative Liz Cheney told CNN’s State of the Union.The New York Times said otherwise on Sunday, in a report headlined: “January 6 Panel Has Evidence for Criminal Referral of Trump, but Splits on Sending.”“The debate centers on whether making a referral – a largely symbolic act – would backfire by politically tainting the justice department’s expanding investigation into the January 6 assault and what led up to it,” the paper said.Citing “members and aides”, the Times said such sources were reluctant to support a referral because it would create the impression Democrats had asked the attorney general, Merrick Garland, to investigate Trump.Cheney said: “We have not made a decision about referrals on the committee … [but] it’s actually clear that what President Trump was dealing with, what a number of people around him were doing, that they knew it was awful. That they did it anyway.”She was speaking two days after CNN reported that the January 6 committee had obtained text messages in which Donald Trump Jr laid out election subversion tactics to Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, just two days after election day.A leading legal authority, Harvard professor Laurence Tribe, called the text a “smoking rifle” in establishing culpability in Donald Trump’s inner circle.Cheney cited a decision “issued by [federal] Judge [David] Carter a few weeks ago, where he concluded that it was more likely than not the president United States was engaged in criminal activity.“I think what we have seen is a massive and well-organised and well-planned effort that used multiple tools to try to overturn an election.”Cheney pointed to a guilty plea this week by a member of the far-right Proud Boys group, Charles Donohoe, to conspiring to attack the Capitol in a bid to stop Congress certifying Joe Biden’s victory. Such planning for events in Washington on 6 January, in part broadcast by Trump, was she said “the definition of an insurrection” and “absolutely chilling”.But Cheney would not be drawn on whether Trump should be referred for prosecution.She said: “The committee has … a tremendous amount of testimony and documents that I think very, very clearly demonstrate the extent of the planning and the organisation and the objective, and the objective was absolutely to try to … interfere with that official proceeding. And it’s absolutely clear that they knew what they were doing was wrong. They knew that it was unlawful.”Asked if there was a dispute on the committee, Cheney said there was not.“The committee is working in a really collaborative way to discuss these issues,” she said, adding: “We’ll continue to work together to do so. So I wouldn’t characterise there as being a dispute on the committee … and I’m confident that we will we will work to come to agreement on on all of the issues that we’re facing.”Cheney said Ivanka Trump’s testimony this week was “helpful, as has been the testimony of many hundreds of others who have appeared in front of the committee”.Proud Boys member pleads guilty to role in US Capitol attackRead moreShe said Trump aides Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino, referred to the DoJ for criminal contempt charges this week, had been “contemptuous” in refusing to testify.On Sunday, Kevin McCarthy, the House Republican leader who ejected Cheney from leadership over her involvement in the January 6 committee, issued a statement in support of the fight for democracy in Ukraine, in the face of the Russian invasion.Asked if she saw irony in such words from a man who sided with Trump over the Capitol attack, Cheney said: “What I would say is that what’s happening today in Ukraine is a reminder that democracy is fragile that democracy must be defended, and that each one of us in a position to do so has an obligation to do so.“Clearly, I think Leader McCarthy failed to do that, failed to put his oath to the constitution ahead of his own personal political gains.”TopicsUS Capitol attackDonald TrumpRepublicansUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Is Trump in his sights? Garland under pressure to charge ex-president

      by

      Is Trump in his sights? Garland under pressure to charge ex-presidentTrump’s legal jeopardy about the January 6 insurrection is growing but experts say attorney general must move carefully The attorney general, Merrick Garland, is facing more political pressure to move faster and expand the US Department of Justice’s investigation into the January 6 Capitol attack and charge Donald Trump and some of his former top aides.With mounting evidence from the January 6 House panel, court rulings and news reports that Trump engaged in a criminal conspiracy in his aggressive drive to thwart Joe Biden’s election win in 2020, Garland and his staff face an almost unique decision: whether to charge a former US president.Ex-justice officials caution, however, that while there’s growing evidence of criminal conduct by Trump to obstruct Congress from certifying Biden’s win on January 6 and defraud the government, building a strong case to prove Trump’s corrupt intent – a necessary element to convict him – probably requires more evidence and time.In an important speech in January this year, Garland said he would hold “all January 6 perpetrators, at any level” accountable, if they were present at the Capitol that day or not, who were responsible for this “assault on our democracy”, which suggested to some ex-prosecutors that Trump and some allies were in his sights.But rising pressures on Garland to move faster with a clearer focus on Trump and his top allies have come from Democrats on the House panel investigating the Capitol attack.Those concerns were underscored this past week when the House sent a criminal referral to the justice department charging contempt of Congress by two Trump aides, trade adviser Peter Navarro and communications chief Dan Scavino, who refused to cooperate after being subpoenaed.“We are upholding our responsibility, the Department of Justice must do the same,” panel member Adam Schiff said. Likewise, Congresswoman Elaine Luria urged Garland to “do your job so we can do ours.”About four months ago, the House sent a criminal contempt of Congress referral to the justice department for the former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, but so far he has not been indicted.Some former top DoJ officials and prosecutors, however, say Garland is moving correctly and expeditiously in pursuing all criminal conduct to overturn Biden’s election in its sprawling January 6 inquiry.“When people (including many lawyers) criticize the DoJ for not more clearly centering the January 6 investigation on Trump, they are expressing impatience rather than a clear understanding of the trajectory of the investigation,” the former justice inspector general Michael Bromwich told the Guardian.“DoJ is methodically building the case from the bottom up. It is almost surely the most complex criminal investigation in the nation’s history, involving the most prosecutors, the most investigators, the most digital evidence – and the most defendants,” he added.Bromwich added that “people view the scores of ongoing criminal prosecutions of participants in the January 6 insurrection as somehow separate from the investigation of Trump. They are not. He is the subject of the investigation at the top of the pyramid. People need to carefully watch what is happening, not react based on their impatience.”The department’s investigation is the biggest one ever. More than 750 people have been charged so far with federal crimes, and about 250 have pleaded guilty.Still, concerns about the pace of the investigation – and why charges have not been filed against Trump – have been spurred in part by a few revelations over the last couple of months.Last month, for instance, federal judge David Carter in a crucial court ruling involving a central Trump legal adviser, John Eastman, stated that Trump “more likely than not” broke the law in his weeks-long drive to stop Biden from taking office.“Dr Eastman and President Trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history,” Carter wrote in a civil case which resulted in an order for Eastman to release more than 100 emails he had withheld from the House panel.Similarly, the January 6 select committee made a 61-page court filing on 2 March that implicated Trump in a “criminal conspiracy” to block Congress from certifying Biden’s win.On another legal front that could implicate Trump and some top allies, the deputy attorney general, Lisa Monaco, revealed in January that the DoJ was starting a criminal investigation into a sprawling scheme – reportedly spearheaded by Trump’s ex-lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Trump campaign aides – to replace legitimate electors for Biden with false ones pledged to Trump in seven states that Biden won.Further, the Washington Post reported late last month that the DoJ had begun looking into the funding and organizing of the January 6 “Save America” rally in Washington involving some Trump allies. Trump repeated his false claims at the rally that the election was stolen.“We won this election, and we won it by a landslide,” Trump falsely told the cheering crowd. “You don’t concede, when there’s theft involved,” he said, urging the large crowd to “fight like hell”, shortly before the Capitol attack by hundreds of his supporters that led to 140 injured police and several deaths.A Trump spokesperson, Taylor Budowich, has called the House January 6 inquiry a “circus of partisanship”. And Budowich attacked Judge Carter’s ruling as “absurd and baseless”, noting that Carter was a “Clinton-appointed judge in California”.Dennis Aftergut, a former federal prosecutor, told the Guardian that recent actions by the House January 6 panel and by the DoJ, along with court opinions, have notably increased legal threats to Trump. “Anyone would need ice in their veins not to feel the heat when all three branches of the federal government are breathing down your neck,” he said.On the issue of whether Trump may be indicted, Donald Ayer, who served as deputy attorney general in the George HW Bush administration, said “the critical question should be whether there is adequate proof of wrongful intent.” Citing Carter’s ruling that Trump “more likely than not” broke the law, Ayer said that “the evidence of such intent has recently become a lot stronger.”Nonetheless, Ayer and Aftergut stress Garland has to juggle competing priorities lest he politicize his department, while being extra careful to ensure any charges he may bring against Trump will stand up in court.“Garland’s between the rock of defending one justice department ideal and the hard place of protecting another. On one hand, no person is above the law. On the other hand, the department needs to avoid, as much as possible consistent with the first ideal, appearing political,” Aftergut said.“There’s nothing easy about the position Garland’s in,” Aftergut added. “The safest course, before considering a prosecution of a former president, would be to demand considerably more evidence of guilt than you’d require in any other case.”Ayer added: “Garland is right not to be discussing the specifics of whether and how Trump may be indicted,” a stance Garland has adopted to protect the DoJ’s credibility as not political. At the same time, Ayer suggested that Garland “should spend more time talking to the country about impartial justice and the idea that no person is above the law”.There are clear risks in moving too fast to appease critics.“Garland must make his decisions based on the law in relation to the facts,” the former federal prosecutor Michael Zeldin said. “The more politicians endeavor to pressure Garland to act, it runs the risk that any decision Garland makes will be seen as politically motivated rather than based on purely legal considerations.”That seems to fit with Garland’s approach. In his 5 January speech this year, Garland emphasized, “we follow the physical evidence. We follow the digital evidence. We follow the money. But most important, we follow the facts – not an agenda or an assumption. The facts tell us where to go next.”And, if there is enough evidence, following the rules could end up with Trump getting charged.“DoJ will never announce that it is investigating Trump and his inner circle. Such an announcement would violate DoJ policy to neither confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation,” said Barbara McQuade, a professor from practice at the University of Michigan Law School and a former attorney for the eastern district in Michigan.Garland, McQuade added, “is avoiding the mistake FBI director Jim Comey made in investigating Hillary Clinton, for which Comey was properly criticized”, referring to two status reports about the investigation made in the months before the 2016 election.Ultimately, McQuade said that Garland’s “biggest challenge will be proving that Trump had corrupt intent or intent to defraud, both of which would require proving that he knew his fraud claims were false. It can be very difficult to prove what was in someone’s mind, but it is not impossible.”TopicsMerrick GarlandUS Capitol attackDonald TrumpUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Proud Boys member pleads guilty to role in US Capitol attack

      by

      Proud Boys member pleads guilty to role in US Capitol attackCharles Donohoe will co-operate, giving prosecutors a boost in pursuit of high-ranking members of the far-right group

      Trump Jr texted Meadows strategies to overturn election
      A member of the far-right Proud Boys group has pleaded guilty to conspiring to attack the US Capitol in a bid to stop Congress certifying Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election, giving prosecutors a win in their pursuit of high-ranking members.Capitol attack investigators zero in on far-right Oath Keepers and Proud BoysRead moreAs part of an agreement with prosecutors that will require him to cooperate against co-defendants, Charles Donohoe, 34, pleaded guilty on Friday in US district court in Washington to charges of conspiring to obstruct an official proceeding and assaulting Capitol police.The North Carolina native could face up to 28 years in prison. However, citing federal sentencing guidelines, prosecutors estimated in court records he would serve six or seven years.The judge, Timothy Kelly, did not immediately set a sentencing date. Five co-defendants, including well-known group members Enrique Tarrio and Dominic Pezzola, are tentatively scheduled to go to trial in May.In December, Matthew Greene of New York became the first Proud Boys member to admit to a role in the plot to attack the Capitol, as part of a deal with prosecutors. Greene also agreed to cooperate with authorities.According to prosecutors, on 6 January, Donohoe was among at least 100 Proud Boys who marched from the “Save America” rally near the White House to the Capitol in hope of derailing Congress’ certification of Biden’s victory over Donald Trump.Donohoe held a high rank in the group. In the days leading up to the rally, he, Tarrio and others used encrypted messaging apps to discuss organizing a “Ministry of Self Defense” that would invade the Capitol.After arriving at the building, Donohoe threw two water bottles at and pushed past a line of police officers who tried to stop the mob, prosecutors wrote in a summary of the case that Donohoe endorsed.Donohoe took a picture of Pezzola holding a riot shield just outside the Capitol, bragging in a message to other members of the militia: “Got a riot shield.”The group made it inside after Pezzola allegedly broke a window, prompting Donohoe to send other messages boasting, “We stormed the capitol unarmed” and “took it over unarmed” because “the people are … done”.Proud Boys leader arrested on US Capitol attack conspiracy chargeRead moreA bipartisan Senate report connected seven deaths to the riot, which temporarily slowed certification of Biden’s win as lawmakers fled. About 140 police officers were injured.Authorities have charged more than 800 people in connection with the attack, with one particularly high-profile case filed in federal court in Washington taking aim at Donohoe, Tarrio – who was not at the Capitol on 6 January – Pezzola and three other Proud Boys members.Donohoe has been held in federal detention since his arrest in March last year. Tarrio, Pezzola, Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs and Zachary Rehl have pleaded not guilty and for now intend to go to trial, beginning 18 May.All six defendants are also named in a pending federal lawsuit from the District of Columbia which demands damages from the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, another far-right group, over the Capitol attack.TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsThe far rightnewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Pro-Trump activist Ali Alexander to cooperate with Capitol attack inquiry

      by

      Pro-Trump activist Ali Alexander to cooperate with Capitol attack inquiryAttorney says organizer of the ‘Stop the Steal’ movement will work with justice department after he was subpoenaed Ali Alexander, the prominent pro-Trump activist, will cooperate with the justice department investigation into the Capitol attack, making him the first high-profile political figure to agree to assist the government’s criminal inquiry into the events of January 6.The move is likely to give initial momentum to the newly expanded justice department investigation running in parallel to the House select committee investigation examining Donald Trump and the Capitol attack.An attorney for Alexander – the organizer of the “Stop the Steal” movement – told the Guardian that he had agreed to cooperate with the justice department since he was left with no choice after being issued a grand jury subpoena, and had been informed by the prosecutor that he was not currently a target of the investigation.The news of his cooperation was earlier reported by the New York Times.In a lengthy statement through his attorney, Alexander denounced the process as “hostile” but indicated he would comply with the grand jury subpoena asking about the “Women for America First” group and the “Save America March” events that immediately preceded the Capitol attack.Capitol attack investigators zero in on far-right Oath Keepers and Proud BoysRead more“I did nothing wrong and I am not in possession of any evidence that anyone else had plans to commit unlawful acts,” Alexander said in the statement. He has also denounced anyone who took part in or planned violence on 6 January 2021.Alexander said he did not think he could provide prosecutors with anything useful for the inquiry, noting he had not financed the equipment used for the Save America rally on the Ellipse near the White House and had not discussed the security for the event with the Trump White House.The statement added that he had not coordinated any movements with the Proud Boys militia group and he had only accepted an offer from the Oath Keepers militia group to act as security for a separate event he had planned near the Capitol, which ultimately did not take place.It was not clear what assistance Alexander might furnish. But he was deeply involved in efforts to invalidate the results of the 2020 election and had contacts with members of Congress and, according to the House select committee, White House officials.That is now of interest to the justice department, which recently expanded the scope of its January 6 inquiry to include Trump’s push to return himself to office, after spending months focused purely on the rioters that stormed the Capitol.A spokesperson for the justice department declined to comment.The subpoena to Alexander from the grand jury empaneled by federal prosecutors suggests the justice department investigation could go beyond that of the select committee, to which he testified voluntarily for about eight hours last December.It also indicates that the criminal inquiry could reach Trump’s inner circle, with the subpoena demanding information about members of the legislative and executive branches who were involved in efforts to obstruct the certification of Joe Biden’s election win.TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Capitol attack investigators zero in on far-right Oath Keepers and Proud Boys

      by

      Capitol attack investigators zero in on far-right Oath Keepers and Proud BoysPanel appears to believe militias coordinated to physically stop certification of Joe Biden’s election victory on 6 January last year The House select committee investigating January 6 appears to believe the Capitol attack included a coordinated assault perpetrated by the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys militia groups that sought to physically stop the certification of Joe Biden’s election victory.Trump says he regrets not marching on Capitol with supporters on January 6 Read moreThe panel’s working theory – which has not been previously reported though the justice department has indicted some militia group leaders – crystallized this week after obtaining evidence of the coordination in testimony and non-public video, according to two sources familiar with the matter.Counsel on the select committee’s “gold team” examining Donald Trump, the “red team” examining January 6 rally organizers, and the “purple team” examining the militia groups, are now expected to use the findings to inform the direction for the remainder of the investigation, the sources said.The panel has amassed deep evidence about the connections between the connections between the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys in recent weeks after it obtained hours of non-public footage of the leaders of the militia groups in Washington ahead of the Capitol attack, the sources said.And the select committee has also now heard testimony from award-winning documentary film-maker Nick Quested on Wednesday about contacts between the militia group leaders, far-right political operatives and the Save America rally organizers, the sources said.The information, which could play a large role in establishing for the select committee whether Trump oversaw a criminal conspiracy as part of his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, is being viewed internally as a significant breakthrough, the sources added.Most crucially for the panel, it could form part of the evidence to connect the militia groups that stormed the Capitol on 6 January to the organizers of the Save America rally that immediately preceded the attack – who in turn are slowly being linked to the Trump White House.In essence, the sources said, the select committee now appears to have the same degree of evidence as secured by the FBI and the justice department referred to in recent prosecutions for seditious conspiracy and other charges related to the Capitol attack.A spokesperson for the panel declined to comment on witness testimony.The gold, red and purple teams have been focused on the video footage for several weeks, the sources said, with initial attention turned towards a now-infamous meeting between the militia group leaders in a parking garage near the Capitol on 5 January.But the select committee was unable to discern from the video whether the militia group leaders even discussed the Capitol or their plans for January 6 at that rendezvous, the sources said, and suspect the meeting was a set up to provide them an alibi.The panel has reviewed the tape repeatedly, the sources said, and House investigators have come away with an uneasy feeling that Henry “Enrique” Tarrio, the former leader of the Proud Boys, sought to have the meeting documented to later absolve himself of wrongdoing.Tarrio last week pleaded not guilty in a separate DoJ prosecution that accuses him of organizing the Capitol attack. The indictment states Tarrio on 4 January told other Proud Boy members: “I didn’t hear this voice note until now, you want to storm the Capitol.”The select committee has instead become more interested recently in communications both between the militia group leaders and the purported January 6 rally organizers, including Ali Alexander and far-right media personality Alex Jones, the sources said.That topic was one of the central lines of inquiry that the gold, red and purple teams attempted to establish during a seven-hour recorded interview with Quested, the source said.At that interview, the select committee also examined in excruciating minute-by-minute detail a 17-minute edited clip of footage shot by Quested that documented the Capitol attack, and video that tracked Alexander’s movements around the Capitol building, they said.TopicsUS Capitol attackThe far rightUS politicsDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More