US Capitol attack

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      House January 6 committee to consider holding two Trump aides in contempt

      by

      House January 6 committee to consider holding two Trump aides in contemptPanel to meet next week after former senior White House advisers Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino refused to appear for depositions The House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack will consider holding in criminal contempt of Congress next week two of Donald Trump’s most senior White House advisers, Dan Scavino and Peter Navarro, the panel announced on Thursday.The move to initiate contempt proceedings against the two Trump aides amounts to a biting rebuke of their refusal to cooperate with the inquiry, as the panel deploys its most punitive measures to reaffirm the consequences of noncompliance.House investigators said in a notice that it would consider a contempt report against Scavino and Navarro in a business meeting scheduled for next Monday on Capitol Hill, after they defied subpoenas compelling them to provide documents and testimony.Republican says Trump asked him to ‘rescind’ 2020 election and remove Biden from officeRead moreThe select committee is expected to vote unanimously to send the contempt report for a vote before the House of Representatives, according to a source close to the panel, so that the Trump aides can be referred to the justice department for prosecution.The select committee took a special interest in Scavino, since, as Trump’s former deputy chief of staff for communications, he was intimately involved in a months-long effort by the Trump White House to overturn the results of the 2020 election.Scavino was also closely involved in the scheme to pressure then vice-president Mike Pence to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s election at the joint session of Congress on January 6, according to his subpoena, first issued in October last year.The select committee sought information from Navarro since he knew of that scheme to have Pence return Trump to office, through his contacts with the former president and the Trump “war room” at the Willard hotel in Washington that oversaw its implementation.Navarro was briefed on the scheme – called the “Green Bay Sweep” – by the political operatives responsible for the operation at the Willard, including former Trump strategist Steve Bannon, who was also indicted for contempt last year for subpoena defiance.The Guardian has reported that Trump discussed ways to stop Biden’s certification from taking place with the Willard war room hours before the Capitol attack, based on unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud that originated in part from Navarro’s aides.However, the select committee’s move to consider contempt reports against the two Trump aides indicate neither one complied with their subpoena. Their contempt reports are expected to be made public Sunday, said a source familiar with the matter.The panel had sought to negotiate Scavino’s testimony for months, suggesting House investigators hoped he might be prepared to shed light on the nexus between the Willard operation and the White House in the days leading up to the Capitol attack.But the abrupt termination of talks suggests that the select committee now has enough information from more than 750 depositions with other witnesses that Scavino’s cooperation is no longer essential, and can now refer him for prosecution.The much shorter timeline between Navarro’s subpoena on 9 February and the contempt report may similarly indicate the panel no longer has a burning need for his testimony – or that it was worth spending time negotiating to get his insight.Navarro entirely skipped his deposition, scheduled for 2 March, claiming that as a former top White House aide, he enjoyed immunity from congressional subpoenas after Trump, as the former president, asserted executive privilege.A spokesperson for the select committee did not respond to a request for comment.Once the select committee adopts a contempt report, it is referred to the full House for a vote. Should the House approve the report, Congress can then send the request for a criminal referral to the US attorney for the District of Columbia.The move to initiate contempt of Congress proceedings against Scavino and Navarro marks the third time the panel has pursued such action. Bannon was held in contempt last October, and former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows was referred in December.TopicsUS Capitol attackHouse of RepresentativesTrump administrationnewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      US man charged in Capitol attack gets asylum in Belarus

      by

      US man charged in Capitol attack gets asylum in BelarusEvan Neumann, accused of hitting police with metal barricade, tells Belarusian state TV he has ‘mixed feelings’ about the move A former San Francisco Bay Area resident facing federal criminal charges from the January 6 attack at the US Capitol has been granted asylum in Belarus, the former Soviet nation’s state media reported on Tuesday.Evan Neumann, 49, was charged a year ago with assaulting police, including using a metal barricade as a battering ram during the riot last year. In an interview with the Belarus 1 channel that aired last year, he acknowledged being at the building that day but rejected the charges and said he had not hit any officers.The move comes a month into Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Joe Biden was heading to Europe to talk with allies about possible new sanctions against Russia and more military aid for Ukraine.“Today I have mixed feelings,” Neumann told the state-owned television network BelTA in the report aired on Tuesday, the Washington Post reported. “I am glad Belarus took care of me. I am upset to find myself in a situation where I have problems in my own country.”The Belarusian president, Alexander Lukashenko, and Russian president, Vladimir Putin, have used the riot as evidence of a supposed double standard by the US, which often condemns crackdowns on anti-government demonstrations elsewhere.Belarus is a Russian ally and neighbor to Ukraine. It does not have an extradition agreement with the US.Neumann told Belarus 1 that he had traveled to Italy in March 2021 and eventually arrived in Ukraine before crossing over illegally into Belarus. He owns a handbag manufacturing business.Police body-camera footage shows Neumann and others shoving a metal barricade into a line of officers before he punches two officers and hits them with the barricade, according to court papers. Court documents state Neumann stood at the front of a police barricade wearing a red “Make America Great Again” hat in support of Donald Trump.TopicsUS Capitol attackBelarusEuropenewsReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Republican says Trump asked him to ‘rescind’ 2020 election and remove Biden from office

      by

      Republican says Trump asked him to ‘rescind’ 2020 election and remove Biden from officeMo Brooks of Alabama appeared at the rally before the Capitol assault and is under scrutiny by January 6 committee The Alabama Republican congressman Mo Brooks said on Tuesday that Donald Trump asked him to “rescind” the 2020 election, remove Joe Biden from the White House and reinstate Trump.The extraordinary statement came in an angry response to a withdrawn endorsement by the former president. Trump had been angered that Brooks was insufficiently toeing his line on calling the 2020 election a fraud.Brooks’ statement on Trump’s demands is now likely to be of interest to the January 6 committee. That panel is investigating Trump’s lie about electoral fraud in his defeat by Biden, efforts to marshal members of Congress to object to election results, a rally near the White House on 6 January 2021 which Trump and Brooks addressed, and the deadly attack on the US Capitol that followed.On Wednesday, after Trump withdrew his endorsement, Brooks said he was still in the race as the only true Trumpist candidate. He also claimed to have known he risked losing the former president’s endorsement by telling him “the truth”, and added: “I repeat what has prompted President Trump’s ire.”“The only legal way America can prevent 2020’s election debacle is for patriotic Americans to focus on and win the 2022 and 2024 elections so that we have the power to enact laws that will give us honest and accurate elections.”He then added: “President Trump asked me to rescind the 2020 elections, immediately remove Joe Biden from the White House, immediately put President Trump back in the White House, and hold a new special election for the presidency.”“As a lawyer, I’ve repeatedly advised President Trump that 6 January was the final election contest verdict and neither the US constitution nor the US Code [the laws of the United States] permit what President Trump asks. Period.”Brooks also said “I took a sworn oath to defend and protect the US constitution”, an oath he said he would “break … for no man”.However, Brooks has until now been one of Trump’s most ardent supporters, including on and around the events of 6 January.Addressing the “Stop the Steal” rally at the Ellipse in Washington DC that day, Brooks said: “Today is the day American patriots start taking down names and kicking ass.“Now, our ancestors sacrificed their blood, their sweat, their tears, their fortunes and sometimes their lives … Are you willing to do the same? My answer is yes. Louder! Are you willing to do what it takes to fight for America?”Trump told supporters to “fight like hell” to stop the certification of election results. According to a bipartisan Senate report, seven deaths were linked to the riot that followed. Nearly 800 people have been charged, some with seditious conspiracy. Trump was impeached for inciting an insurrection but acquitted when enough Republican senators stayed loyal.In the aftermath of the riot, Brooks was the first of 147 Republican members of Congress to vote against certifying election results.His role in the “Stop the Steal” movement has been under scrutiny ever since.Multiple reporters have placed Brooks with other far-right Republicans including Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Jim Jordan of Ohio in White House meetings with Trump. An organiser of the 6 January rally, the convicted felon Ally Alexander, has named Brooks and two Arizona Republicans, Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs, as members of Congress who helped plan the event.Brooks said he spoke at the invitation of the Trump White House and had no recollection of communicating with Alexander. He has also confirmed that he wore body armour while giving his speech.The January 6 committee has been weighing whether to seek to compel Brooks to testify.A Democratic congressman, Eric Swalwell of California, sued Brooks, Trump, Donald Trump Jr and Rudy Giuliani for violating federal civil rights law and local incitement law. In February, a federal judge said he would dismiss Brooks, Giuliani and Trump Jr from the case, because their speeches were political and thus protected by the first amendment.Brooks is running for US Senate in Alabama, his campaign featuring warnings of “dictatorial socialism and its threat to liberty, freedom and the very fabric of American society”.He had attracted Trump’s endorsement. But in a statement on Wednesday, Trump said: “Mo Brooks of Alabama made a horrible mistake recently when he went ‘woke’ and stated, referring to the 2020 Presidential Election Scam, ‘Put that behind you, put that behind you.’“When I heard this statement, I said, ‘Mo, you just blew the election, and there’s nothing you can do about it.’”In response, Brooks accused Trump of being “manipulated” by Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate.McConnell and Trump have split since 6 January, after which McConnell voted to acquit Trump at trial but also excoriated him in a speech on the Senate floor.The Republican establishment reportedly fears that extreme pro-Trump candidates could jeopardise the party’s chances of retaking the Senate this year. A model for such a catastrophe exists in Alabama, where in 2017 an extremist, Roy Moore, was beaten by the Democrat Doug Jones in a special election.Brooks has however fallen behind in polling and fundraising. Katie Britt, a former aide to the retiring senator, Richard Shelby, is well placed to secure the nomination.TopicsUS elections 2020Donald TrumpUS Capitol attackRepublicansUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Morally bankrupt’: outrage after pro-Israel group backs insurrectionist Republicans

      by

      ‘Morally bankrupt’: outrage after pro-Israel group backs insurrectionist Republicans Aipac defends move by saying that support for the Jewish state overrides other issues as it faces a storm of criticismThe US’s most powerful pro-Israel lobby group has been accused of putting support for Israel before American democracy after it declared its backing for the election campaigns of three dozen Republican members of Congress who tried to block President Biden’s presidential victory.But the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) has defended the move by saying that support for the Jewish state overrides other issues and that it is “no moment for the pro-Israel movement to become selective about its friends”.In December, Aipac launched a political action committee that enables it for the first time to spend money directly supporting congressional candidates in this year’s midterm elections. Earlier this month the committee released a list of 120 political endorsements that includes 37 Republicans who voted against certifying Biden’s victory following the January 6 2021 storming of the Capitol.Among them are two members of Congress, Jim Jordan and Scott Perry, who plotted with Trump’s White House to overturn the election result. Perry has also publicly promoted racist “white replacement” conspiracy theories.The lobby group’s move has been met by a storm of criticism, including from other pro-Israel organizations.“Aipac’s support for these candidates endangers American democracy and undermines the true interests and values of millions of American Jews and pro-Israel Americans who they often claim to represent,” said the more moderate but less influential pro-Israel lobby group, J Street. “Whatever their views on Israel, elected officials who threaten the very future of our country should be completely beyond the pale.”Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, described the endorsement of politicians who “undermine democracy” as “morally bankrupt and short-sighted”.“What ties the 2 countries is a commitment to democracy. An undemocratic America could easily distance itself from the Jewish state,” he tweeted.The former head of the strongly pro-Israel Anti-Defamation League, Abe Foxman, described the endorsements as a “sad mistake”. The former US ambassador to Israel, Dan Kurtzer, called on Aipac to reconsider the move and “do the right thing for America”.Halie Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America and a former national security adviser to then Senator Kamala Harris, said that Aipac’s endorsements suggest that, at times, “one must compromise support of America’s democracy to support Israel”.“This is a patently false dichotomy rejected by the overwhelming majority of American Jews,” she wrote in the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz.In the face of the growing criticism, Aipac’s leaders last week sent a letter to the group’s members defending the endorsements.“This is no moment for the pro-Israel movement to become selective about its friends,” said the letter, obtained by the Jewish Insider.“The one thing that guarantees Israel’s ability to defend itself is the enduring support of the United States. When we launched our political action committee last year, we decided that we would base decisions about political contributions on only one thing: whether a political candidate supports the US-Israel relationship.”Aipac broke with more than 70 years of standing back from individual political campaigns to launch the political action committee (Pac) that permits it to directly fund favoured candidates within limits. It also founded a second so-called “super Pac” that allows unlimited funding for advertising in support of campaigns but not direct donations. The super Pac is reported to have raised $10m already, including $8.5m from Aipac itself.The list of endorsements includes Democrats with a record of strong backing for Israel at a time when opinion polls show declining support among the party’s voters. A poll last year found found that half of Democrats want Washington to shift policy toward more support for the Palestinians.Although Aipac presents itself as bipartisan, that position has been increasingly tested. It openly opposed President Obama’s demand that Israel freeze expansion of settlements in the occupied territories, widely considered illegal under international law. The group also lobbied Congress on behalf of Israel against Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran.In his memoir, A Promised Land, Obama wrote that “members of both parties worried about crossing” Aipac.“Those who criticized Israeli policy too loudly risked being tagged as ‘anti-Israel’ (and possibly antisemitic) and confronted with a well-funded opponent in the next election,” he wrote.Aipac’s move also comes amid stiffening criticism of Israel from human rights groups, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, which have both recently accused the country of maintaining a form of apartheid over the Palestinians.The head of Amnesty International’s US office, Paul O’Brien, recently said that when the organisation met with members of congress to discuss its new report, Israel’s Apartheid Against Palestinians, it found that Aipac had got there first.“It was an interesting experience for us to introduce a report that was about to be launched in public a week later and to get in 80 different congressional offices a public statement dissociating themselves from the findings of the report in which none of those 80 statements actually disputed the findings of the report, except to say, in broad strokes, we do not believe that this report is motivated for the right reasons or reaches the right conclusions,” he said.TopicsRepublicansSuper PacsIsraelUS Capitol attackUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Cowboys for Trump creator found guilty in second US Capitol attack trial

      by

      Cowboys for Trump creator found guilty in second US Capitol attack trialJudge declares Couy Griffin guilty of one of the two offenses, bolstering a key theory from lawyers in hundreds of related cases A New Mexico county commissioner who founded a group called Cowboys for Trump was found guilty by a judge on Tuesday of breaching the US Capitol during the January 6 riot, a second consecutive win at trial for the US Department of Justice.Kid Rock says Donald Trump sought his advice on North Korea and Islamic StateRead moreFollowing a two-day non-jury trial, the US district judge Trevor McFadden said the defendant, Couy Griffin, was guilty of one of the two misdemeanor offenses.The ruling bolsters a key theory from prosecutors in hundreds of related cases.They argued that the Capitol grounds were strictly off-limits on 6 January 2021, and that should have been apparent to the thousands of Donald Trump supporters who breached them in an attempt to stop Congress certifying Joe Biden’s election.The judge found Griffin guilty of entering a restricted area protected by the US Secret Service but cleared him of disorderly conduct.McFadden said Griffin should have known not to scale walls and enter the Capitol grounds, but said Griffin was innocent of disorderly conduct because he never tried to rile up the crowd at the Capitol or engage in violence.McFadden scheduled a June sentencing hearing for Griffin, who faces up to a year behind bars.Before the mob stormed the Capitol, Trump gave a fiery speech in which he falsely claimed his election defeat was the result of widespread fraud, an assertion rejected by multiple courts, state election officials and members of his own administration.About 800 people face criminal charges relating to the riot, which sent the then-vice-president, Mike Pence, and members of Congress running for their lives. Some 200 have already pleaded guilty.Griffin’s bench trial is seen as an important test case as the DoJ attempts to secure convictions of the hundreds of defendants who have not taken plea deals.The first jury trial for a 6 January defendant ended in a decisive victory for prosecutors earlier this month. After a quick deliberation, a jury unanimously found a Texas man guilty on all five of the felony charges he faced, including bringing a gun onto the Capitol grounds and obstructing an official proceeding.TopicsUS Capitol attackNew MexicoDonald TrumpUS politicsLaw (US)US crimeReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      US Capitol attack trial begins for Cowboys for Trump founder

      by

      US Capitol attack trial begins for Cowboys for Trump founderTrial of Couy Griffin is the second among hundreds of people charged with federal crimes related to the January 6 riot An elected official from New Mexico went on trial on Monday with a judge, not a jury, set to decide if he is guilty of charges that he illegally entered the US Capitol grounds on the day a pro-Trump mob disrupted the certification of Joe Biden’s presidential election victory.That’s not the only unusual feature of the case against Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin, an Otero county commissioner, whose trial in Washington DC, is the second among the hundreds of people charged with federal crimes related to the January 6 riot.Griffin is one of the few defendants not accused of entering the Capitol or engaging in violent or destructive behavior. He claims he has been prosecuted for his political views.One of three members of the county commission in southern New Mexico, he is among a handful of defendants who either held public office or ran for a government post in the years before the attack.He is among only three defendants who have asked for a bench trial, which means a judge will decide his case without a jury. A US district court judge, Trevor McFadden, was scheduled to hear one day of testimony.Griffin, a 48-year-old former rodeo rider and pastor, helped found a political committee called Cowboys for Trump. He vowed to arrive at the courthouse on horseback. Instead, he showed up on Monday as a passenger in a pickup truck that had a horse trailer on the back.Griffin is charged with two misdemeanors: entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds and disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds. His attorney, Nicholas Smith, said prosecutors apparently believe Griffin engaged in disorderly conduct by peacefully leading a prayer on the Capitol steps.“That is offensive and wrong,” Smith told the judge in brief opening statements.Prosecutors didn’t give any opening statements. Their first witness was Matthew Struck, who joined Griffin at the Capitol as his videographer. Struck has an immunity deal with prosecutors.In a court filing, prosecutors called Griffin “an inflammatory provocateur and fabulist who engages in racist invective and propounds baseless conspiracy theories, including that communist China stole the 2020 presidential election”.Griffin’s attorneys say hundreds if not thousands of other people did exactly what Griffin did on January 6 and have not been charged.“The evidence will show that the government selected Griffin for prosecution based on the fact that he gave a speech and led a prayer at the Capitol, that is, selected him based on protected expression,” they wrote.More than 770 people have been charged with federal crimes. More than 230 have pleaded guilty, mostly to misdemeanors, and at least 127 have been sentenced. About 100 others have trial dates.Earlier this month, a jury convicted a Texas man, Guy Wesley Reffitt, of storming the Capitol with a holstered handgun in the first trial for a riot defendant. Jurors also convicted him of obstructing Congress, of interfering with police officers guarding the Capitol and of threatening his two children if they reported him to law enforcement.Reffitt’s conviction could give prosecutors more leverage in negotiating plea deals or discourage other defendants from going to trial. The outcome of Griffin’s trial also could have a ripple effect, helping others decide whether to let a judge or a jury decide their case.In a video taken in a parking lot outside the Capitol on 5 January, Griffin said he came to Washington for “possibly the most historic day for our country in my lifetime” and trusted that the vice-president, Mike Pence, would “do the right thing” and stop certification of Biden’s win.After attending Donald Trump’s “Stop the Steal” rally, Griffin and Struck walked over barriers and up a staircase to enter a stage under construction on the Capitol’s Lower West Terrace for Biden’s inauguration, according to prosecutors.Struck is listed as one of three government witnesses. Prosecutors also intend to call a Capitol police inspector and a US Secret Service inspector. Prosecutors want to use Griffin’s own words against him. They plan to play video recordings of his statements and actions in Washington.After climbing over a stone wall and entering a restricted area, Griffin said: “This is our house. We should all be armed.” He called it “a great day for America” and added: “The people are showing that they have had enough,” prosecutors said.A key question is whether he entered a restricted area while Pence was on Capitol grounds, a prerequisite for the US Secret Service to invoke access restrictions. Griffin’s attorneys say Pence had departed before Griffin could have entered a restricted area.“The government responds that the vice-president’s precise location ultimately doesn’t matter,” the judge wrote on Friday. “Perhaps, although the lack of clarity about the metes and bounds of the restricted area and the vice-president’s movements on January 6 undermine this argument.”TopicsUS Capitol attackNew MexicoMike PenceUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump White House aide was secret author of report used to push ‘big lie’

      by

      Trump White House aide was secret author of report used to push ‘big lie’Report on Dominion voting machines produced after 2020 election was not the work of volunteer in Trump’s post-election legal team Weeks after the 2020 election, at least one Trump White House aide was named as secretly producing a report that alleged Donald Trump lost to Joe Biden because of Dominion Voting Systems – research that formed the basis of the former president’s wider efforts to overturn the election.The Dominion report, subtitled “OVERVIEW 12/2/20 – History, Executives, Vote Manipulation Ability and Design, Foreign Ties”, was initially prepared so that it could be sent to legislatures in states where the Trump White House was trying to have Biden’s win reversed.Trump lawyer knew plan to delay Biden certification was unlawful, emails showRead moreBut top Trump officials would also use the research that stemmed from the White House aide-produced report to weigh other options to return Trump to the presidency, including having the former president sign off on executive orders to authorize sweeping emergency powers.The previously unreported involvement of the Trump White House aide in the preparation of the Dominion report raises the extraordinary situation of at least one administration official being among the original sources of Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election.The publicly available version of the Dominion report, which first surfaced in early December 2020 on the conservative outlet the Gateway Pundit, names on the cover and in metadata as its author Katherine Friess, a volunteer on the Trump post-election legal team.But the Dominion report was in fact produced by the senior Trump White House policy aide Joanna Miller, according to the original version of the document reviewed by the Guardian and a source familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.The original version of the Dominion report named Miller – who worked for the senior Trump adviser Peter Navarro – as the author on the cover page, until her name was abruptly replaced with that of Friess before the document was to be released publicly, the source said.The involvement of a number of other Trump White House aides who worked in Navarro’s office was also scrubbed around that time, the source said. Friess has told the Daily Beast that she had nothing to do with the report and did not know how her name came to be on the document.It was not clear why Miller’s name was removed from the report, which was sent to Trump’s former attorney Rudy Giuliani on 29 November 2020, or why the White House aide’s involvement was obfuscated in the final 2 December version. Miller did not immediately respond to a request for comment.The Dominion report made a number of unsubstantiated allegations that claimed Dominion Voting Systems corruptly ensured there could be “technology glitches which resulted in thousands of votes being added to Joe Biden’s total ballot count”.Citing unnamed Venezuelan officials, the report also pushed the conspiracy theory that Dominion Voting Systems used software from the election company Smartmatic and had ties to “state-run Venezuelan software and telecommunications companies”.After the Dominion report became public, Navarro incorporated the claims into his own three-part report, produced with assistance from his aides at the White House, including Miller and another policy aide, Garrett Ziegler, the source said.Ziegler has also said on a rightwing podcast that he and others in Navarro’s office – seemingly referring to Trump White House aides Christopher Abbott and Hannah Robertson – started working on Navarro’s report about two weeks before the 2020 election took place.“Two weeks before the election, we were doing those reports hoping that we would pepper the swing states with those,” Ziegler said of the three-part Navarro report in an appearance last July on The Professor’s Record with David K Clements.The research in the Dominion report also formed the backbone of foreign election interference claims by the former Trump lawyer and conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell, who argued Trump could, as a result, assume emergency presidential powers and suspend normal law.That included Trump’s executive order 13848, which authorized sweeping powers in the event of foreign election interference, as well as a draft executive order that would have authorized the seizure of voting machines, the Guardian has previously reported.The claims about Venezuela in the Dominion report appear to have spurred Powell to ask Trump at a 18 December 2020 meeting at the White House – coincidentally facilitated by Ziegler – that she be appointed special counsel to investigate election fraud.Miller’s authorship of the Dominion report was not the last time the Trump White House, or individuals in the administration, prepared materials to advance the former president’s claims about a stolen election and efforts to return himself to office.The House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack revealed last year it had found evidence the White House Communications Agency produced a letter for the Trump justice department official Jeffrey Clark to use to pressure states to decertify Biden’s election win.TopicsUS elections 2020Trump administrationUS Capitol attacknewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Proud Boys leader had plans to ‘storm’ government buildings on 6 January

      by

      Proud Boys leader had plans to ‘storm’ government buildings on 6 JanuaryEnrique Tarrio possessed document titled ‘1776 Returns’, with details to invade and occupy seven buildings, New York Times says The former leader of the Proud Boys, a violent far-right nationalist group whose members were prominent in the January 6 riot, was found in possession of comprehensive plans to “surveil and storm” government buildings, prosecutors have said.Mug shot: Republican Josh Hawley told to stop using January 6 fist salute photoRead moreEnrique Tarrio, the group’s former chairman who was arrested last week and charged with conspiracy over the deadly attack, had a nine-page document entitled “1776 Returns”, named for the year of American independence, the New York Times reported.The document, mentioned only in general terms in Tarrio’s indictment, contained details of a complex plan for supporters of Donald Trump to invade and occupy at least seven House and Senate office buildings on the afternoon Congress met to certify Joe Biden’s election victory, according to Times sources.Trump has promoted the lie that the election was stolen and incited the attack on Congress as part of a wider effort to have the result overturned.The document features five sections, the Times reported: infiltrate, execution, distract, occupy and sit-in. The plan called for the recruiting of at least 50 Proud Boys and other Trump supporters to enter and occupy each building, “causing trouble” for security personnel who tried to stop them.Once inside, the instructions stated, the activists would be encouraged to chant slogans such as “We the People” and “No Trump, no America”. Supporters unable to gain access to the buildings would be encouraged to distract law enforcement and other authorities by “pulling fire alarms at nearby stores, hotels and museums”.In the days before 6 January, Proud Boys were to undertake reconnaissance of roads near the seven buildings, looking out for roadblocks and other obstacles.Questions remain over the origin of the document and whether Tarrio, 38, shared it with any of the individuals charged alongside him.They are Ethan Nordean, 31, of Auburn, Washington; Joseph Biggs, 38, of Ormond Beach, Florida; Zachary Rehl, 36, of Philadelphia; Charles Donohoe, 34, of Kernersville, North Carolina; and Dominic Pezzola, 44, of Rochester, New York.But its existence lends context to the US justice department’s decision to charge Tarrio with conspiracy, even though he was not in Washington on the day of the riot.According to the indictment, Tarrio “nonetheless continued to direct and encourage the Proud Boys prior to and during the events of 6 January 2021” and later “claimed credit for what had happened on social media and in an encrypted chat room during and after the attack”.Tarrio has denied involvement in planning the riot. His lawyer, Nayib Hassan, declined comment to the Times.More than 770 people have been charged in connection with the Capitol riot, at least 30 members of the Proud Boys, court records show.Tarrio, from Miami, recently stood down as chair of the group, after being sentenced last year to five months in prison for burning a Black Lives Matter banner and unlawfully bringing weapons to a Washington protest.He was also exposed last year as a long-time informant for the FBI and local law enforcement agencies.TopicsUS Capitol attackThe far rightUS politicsUS crimeDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More