US Capitol attack

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Bipartisan members on Capitol attack panel say they expect Giuliani to testify

      by

      Bipartisan members on Capitol attack panel say they expect Giuliani to testifyComments come after report that Trump ally is in talks about options, including in-person interview or submitting a deposition Bipartisan figures on the congressional committee investigating Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn his 2020 election defeat said on Sunday they expected the former president’s close ally, Rudolph Giuliani, would comply with a subpoena to give testimony.Giuliani is among a number of Trump sphere insiders who have so far refused to cooperate with the bipartisan House panel looking into Trump’s subversion efforts and the January 6 Capitol insurrection the then president incited that claimed five lives. Giuliani was scheduled to testify last Tuesday, after the committee issued a subpoena last month, but did not appear.Elaine Luria, a Virginia Democratic congresswoman and member of the select committee, said Giuliani had already been in touch, seeming to confirm the substance of a New York Times report that Giuliani was in talks about options including an in-person interview or submitting a deposition.“He has been in contact with the committee,” she told MSNBC of Giuliani. “He had an appearance that has been rescheduled but he remains under subpoena and we expect him to cooperate fully with the investigation.”Rep. Elaine Luria (D-VA) confirms that Rudy Giuliani is in talks to testify before the committee investigating January 6th.”We expect him to cooperate fully with the investigation.” pic.twitter.com/sJdT7rtwnK— The Recount (@therecount) February 13, 2022
      And Adam Kinzinger, an Illinois Republican and committee member, indicated in an appearance on CBS that he was of the understanding, also, that Giuliani would comply.“He’s been subpoenaed [and] our expectation is he was going to cooperate, because that’s the law, same as someone subpoenaed to court,” Kinzinger told CBS’s Face the Nation.He added: “There may be some changes in dates and moments here, as you know, lawyers do their back and forth, but we fully expect that in accordance with the law, we’ll hear from Rudy.“But regardless of when we hear from Rudy, or how long that interview is, we’re getting a lot of information and we’re looking forward to wrapping this up at some point.”Giuliani was prominent in Trump’s failed plotting to hold on to power and prevent Joe Biden taking office, and is reported to have been at the center of an unprecedented plan to order the Department of Homeland Security to seize voting machines in contested states.The Times report notes that Giuliani has not yet agreed to cooperate, but the specter of his evidence about maneuverings inside the White House during the final weeks and days of the Trump administration is another milestone moment in an already turbulent week for the former Republican president.The Washington Post reported on Thursday that Trump took boxes of records, including top secret documents, to Mar-a-Lago, his Florida retreat, when he left office, in possible violation of government record-keeping laws.And an upcoming book from New York Times journalist Maggie Haberman claims that Trump periodically clogged White House toilets by attempting to flush away printed papers. Trump has denied the allegations.In recent days, meanwhile, several senior Republicans have criticized the party’s censure of Kinzinger and Wyoming congresswoman Liz Cheney for serving on the committee, and the Republican National Committee’s controversial characterization of the riot as “legitimate political discourse”.Mike Pence, Trump’s vice-president, called Trump’s efforts to overturn the election “un-American” at a conservative conference in Florida, while on Friday the Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell added his voice to the growing Republican backlash against Trump’s big lie that the November 2020 election was stolen from him by the Democrats.“It was a violent insurrection for the purpose of trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power after a legitimately certified election, from one administration to the next,” McConnell said of the January 6 riot, adding that it was “not the job” of the Republican party to single out members “who may have different views from the majority.”Larry Hogan, the Republican governor of Maryland and a frequent Trump critic, also slammed the RNC’s position over the insurrection.“To say it’s legitimate political discourse to attack the seat of our capital, and smash windows and attack police officers, and threaten to hang the vice-president and threaten to overthrow the election, it’s insanity,” he told CNN’s State of the Union show on Sunday.“The Republican party I want to get back to is the one that believes in freedom and truth and not one that attacks people who don’t swear 100% fealty to the ‘Dear Leader’ [Trump].”Giuliani, if he testifies, could impart invaluable first-hand knowledge of Trump’s plotting, although the Times notes that negotiations could yet fall apart.Its report cites three anonymous sources stating that Giuliani has had talks with the committee about the format and content of his possible testimony, including how much of his interaction with Trump he would yet look to shield under attorney-client privilege.The article suggests Giuliani could be seeking to avoid a costly legal fight and trying to evade a criminal referral for contempt of congress, by dangling a promise of testimony.In November, Steve Bannon, a former Trump adviser, pleaded not guilty to criminal contempt of Congress for his refusal to comply with a committee subpoena, while the House of Representatives has recommended charges for former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.Kinzinger, who will not seek re-election in this year’s midterm elections, also believes senior party figures such as Pence and McConnell speaking out could help provide “political cover” for anti-Trump Republican candidates.“I don’t care if you’re running for city council, Congress, Senate, etc, every Republican has to be clear and forceful on the record, do they think January 6th was legitimate political discourse?” he asked.TopicsRudy GiulianiUS politicsUS Capitol attackDonald TrumpUS elections 2020newsReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Insurgency review: how Trump took over the Republican party

      by

      Insurgency review: how Trump took over the Republican party From 2016 to the Capitol riot, Jeremy Peters of the New York Times delivers a meticulously reported and extremely worrying tale of how and why the US came to thisAfter the Iraq war and the Great Recession, public trust in government plummeted while the flashpoints of race, religion and education moved to the fore. Barack Obama’s mantra of hope and change left many unsatisfied, if not seething. On election day 2016, Donald Trump lit a match. But the kindling was already there, decades in the making.Bannon compared Trump escalator ride to Leni Riefenstahl Nazi film, book saysRead moreStaring at the mess is Jeremy Peters of the New York Times, with Insurgency, his first book. A seasoned national political reporter and MSNBC talking head, Peters chronicles how the party of Lincoln and Reagan morphed into Trump’s own fiefdom. He writes with a keen eye and sharp pen. Beyond that, he listens.He captures the grievance of the Republican base, its devotion to the 45th president and its varied voices. He repeatedly delivers quotable quotes, painstakingly sourced. This is highly readable reporting.At the outset, Peters acknowledges Trump’s grasp of human nature, the media and resentment. Messaging and visuals matter to Trump, as does cementing a bond with his crowds. Fittingly, one chapter is titled “Give Them What They Want …”For many, Trump did so. As president, he kept campaign-trail promises. He reshaped the supreme court, moved the US embassy to Jerusalem and battled Isis.Most of all, he stuck a barbed middle finger at political correctness. His jagged edges thrilled his core as they elicited revulsion elsewhere – just as he wanted. His persona was Melania’s problem, not theirs.Trump rode into the White House on enmity to immigration, the sleeper issue of our times, over which Democrats continue to stumble. Chants of “build that wall” delivered far more votes than “defund the police”.Trump’s mien mattered too, as Peters notes. He was relatable to working Americans. He knew where wokeness was grating, that what passes as orthodoxy in the halls of academe is not applauded by kitchen table or barstool America.“Trump’s Latino Support Was More Widespread Than Thought, Report Finds,” a Times headline announced. It was Bernie Sanders, not Joe Biden, who led among those voters in the Democratic primaries of 2020. Right now, polls show Trump ahead of Biden in that bloc. Biden’s standing has also slipped among younger Black voters.From Peters’ vantage point, Trump’s description of himself as a “popularist” – an unintended malapropism – comes close to the mark. Trump can size up an audience, meet expectations and receive their adulation. For all concerned, it’s a win-win proposition.Peters gets people on the record. Per usual, Steve Bannon is there on the page, where he rates his former boss among the worst presidents with James Buchanan and Millard Filmore. Those two failed to halt the march to civil war.Bannon also likens Trump’s history-making escalator ride to Triumph of the Will, Leni Riefenstahl’s Nazi propaganda film. “That’s Hitler, Bannon thought”, as Trump descended to a bank of cameras and microphones. Peters memorializes those italicized words as another chapter title.Elsewhere, Bannon posits that for Trump it’s all about himself, and he would be pleased to see a Republican successor fail.“Trump doesn’t give a shit,” Bannon says. “He’s not looking to nurture. He’s fucking Donald Trump, the only guy who could do it.As for Trump, he talks to Peters and his observations are frequently dead-on. Most of all, he internalized that Republican success hinged on the white working-class base, a reality to which most other GOP politicians paid lip service.Offering tax cuts to the rich while plundering entitlements didn’t quite cut it. Sure, race and culture were part of Trump’s equation. But so was preserving social security and Medicare. Voters could not be expected to support candidates who took away things they had earned.The priorities of the Republican donor class did not align with those of the swing voters who seized on Trump. In the heartland, corporations definitely aren’t considered “people” – a lesson Mitt Romney failed to learn in 2012.A country club candidate who looked and sounded like a country club candidate might win the nomination but stood to lose in November. George HW Bush, remember, eked out a single term after eight years as vice-president to Ronald Reagan.Peters relates that Trump pushed back hard when Paul Ryan, the former House speaker and Romney’s running mate, suggested curbing government-funded retirement spending.“You tried that four years ago,” Trump told him. “How’d that work out?”For good measure, Trump snapped: “No thank you.”Insurgency also documents the capitulation of those Republicans who stood ready to take on the mob as it swarmed the Capitol on January 6 but then, hours later, voted against certifying the election.Peters tells of Ronny Jackson, a retired navy rear admiral who was White House physician to Trump and Barack Obama. When the glass started to shatter, Jackson removed his tie – so it would be that much more difficult to strangle him. But Jackson’s loyalty to Trump remained. He voted to discount the results, despite all he saw. Now, Jackson demands Biden’s mental fitness be tested.Trump stokes the lie that the 2020 election was stolen. No matter, in Republican ranks at least. Fidelity to Trump and his false claims are “musts” for the foreseeable future. Mike Pence and Mitch McConnell, at odds with Trump this week, are at some political risk.Pence refused to defy his legal mandate and reject electoral college results. He sticks by his decision. Of January 6, deemed “legitimate political discourse” by the Republican National Committee, McConnell bluntly says: “It was a violent insurrection for the purpose of trying to prevent a peaceful transfer of power.”Peters sees the dark clouds. His book is chilling.
      Insurgency: How Republicans Lost Their Party and Got Everything They Ever Wanted is published in the US by Crown
      TopicsBooksPolitics booksRepublicansDonald TrumpUS politicsUS elections 2016US elections 2020reviewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Capitol attack inquiry narrows on Trump as panel subpoenas top aide

      by

      Capitol attack inquiry narrows on Trump as panel subpoenas top aideMove to pursue Peter Navarro suggests the select committee is edging ever closer to examining potential culpability for Trump The House select committee investigating the Capitol attack on Wednesday subpoenaed Donald Trump’s former White House senior adviser Peter Navarro, escalating its inquiry into the former president’s efforts to return himself to office and the January 6 insurrection.The move to pursue Navarro, who helped finalize the scheme to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s election win with political operatives at the Willard hotel in Washington DC, suggests the panel is edging ever closer to examining potential culpability for Trump.Trump’s election advisers were like ‘snake oil salesmen’, ex-Pence aide saysRead moreCongressman Bennie Thompson, the chairman of the select committee, said in the subpoena letter to Navarro that House investigators wanted to depose him since he could potentially speak to what Trump knew in advance of plans to stop the certification on January 6.“Navarro appears to have information directly relevant to the select committee’s investigation,” Thompson said. “He hasn’t been shy about his role in efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and has even discussed the former president’s support for those plans.”Thompson suggested in the letter that Navarro should be free to speak to the panel without concerns about executive privilege or other legal impediments, since he discussed the events of 6 January in his book In Trump Time, on his podcast and with reporters.The former White House adviser is of special interest to the panel, according to a source close to the investigation, as Navarro had the ear of the former president and, simultaneously, was in regular contact with the Willard operatives that formulated the plot.Navarro had been briefed by the Willard operatives – led by former Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani and former Trump aide Steve Bannon – about their plan to have Mike Pence declare Trump the winner, or have the majority GOP delegation House vote for Trump in a contingent election.The Guardian first reported that after Trump was briefed on the scheme – which Navarro named the “Green Bay Sweep” – he told the Willard operatives just hours before the Capitol attack to find ways to stop Biden’s certification from happening.The former White House adviser also reported back to the Willard operatives on the morning of January 6 about the size of the pro-Trump crowds that would storm the Capitol later that afternoon, according to a former Trump official familiar with Navarro’s actions.As the select committee investigates whether Trump knew in advance of plans to violently stop Biden’s certification from taking place on January 6, Navarro could shed light on how much of the information he received from the operatives made it to Trump, the source said.The panel gave Navarro until 23 February to produce documents detailed in the subpoena, and ordered him to appear for a deposition on 2 March. It was not clear whether Navarro would cooperate; he did not immediately respond to a request for comment.TopicsUS Capitol attackDonald TrumpTrump administrationHouse of RepresentativesUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Mitch McConnell rebukes RNC for censuring party members investigating ‘violent insurrection’

      by

      Mitch McConnell rebukes RNC for censuring party members investigating ‘violent insurrection’The Republican National Committee chastised Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, irking the Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell criticized the Republican National Committee for censuring Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger over their work for the House select committee investigating the January 6 attack on the Capitol, which he characterized as a “violent insurrection”.The Senate minority leader said it was not the party’s place to single out members over their views. Speaking with reporters outside Senate Republicans’ closed-door weekly lunch, McConnell rebuked the RNC for its characterization of the deadly riot at the Capitol as “legitimate political discourse”.“Let me give you my view of what happened on 6 January,” McConnell said. “It was a violent insurrection for the purpose of trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power after a legitimately certified election, from one administration to the next.”.@LeaderMcConnell on RNC censure of Reps. Cheney and Kinzinger: “The issue is whether or not the RNC should be sort of singling out members of our party who may have different views from the majority. That’s not the job of the RNC.” pic.twitter.com/BMCmRYrjV5— CSPAN (@cspan) February 8, 2022
      Asked whether he had confidence in the leadership of the RNC chairwoman, Ronna McDaniel, who supported the censure resolution, McConnell said he did.“But the issue is whether or not the RNC should be sort of singling out members of our party who may have different views from the majority,” McConnell said. “That’s not the job of the RNC.”His use of the word “insurrection” – the act of rising up against established authority – is significant. Many in his party have insisted that it was not an insurrection, downplaying the attack or trying to portray it as a peaceful protest.A few prominent Republicans have pushed against the RNC’s decision to censure the two GOP members of the House committee investigating the attack. Mitt Romney, a Republican senator of Utah and McDaniel’s uncle, told reporters that the censure “could not have been a more inappropriate” message from the party.McConnell, who blocked initial efforts to create an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate the January 6 attack, has signaled that he sees the party’s focus on defending Donald Trump and the insurrection his supporters staged following the 2020 elections as a distraction. He and some fellow Republican lawmakers have aimed to shift the focus to the midterm elections this year.Maine senator Susan Collins said rioters who “broke windows and breached the Capitol were not engaged in legitimate political discourse” and characterized time “spent re-litigating a lost election or defending those who have been convicted of criminal behavior” as a wasted opportunity to focus on the midterms when the Republicans have a chance to re-take a majority in congress.But other Republicans have stood by the RNC’s move, with House minority leader Kevin McCarthy telling CNN that the censure was meant to condemn the committee’s questioning of conservatives “who weren’t even here” when the attack occurred.The Associated Press contributed reportingTopicsUS Capitol attackUS SenateRepublicansUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Romney won’t criticise niece for calling Trump lies and Capitol riot ‘legitimate political discourse’

      by

      Romney won’t criticise niece for calling Trump lies and Capitol riot ‘legitimate political discourse’Senator says he has texted with ‘terrific’ Ronna McDaniel, RNC chair who oversaw censure of Cheney and Kinzinger Mitt Romney and his niece, Ronna McDaniel, exchanged texts after the Republican National Committee she chairs called Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn his election defeat and the Capitol riot “legitimate political discourse”.Trump’s incendiary Texas speech may have deepened his legal troubles, experts sayRead moreRomney, the Utah senator, 2012 presidential nominee and only Republican to twice vote to convict Trump at his impeachment trials, told reporters on Monday he “expressed his point of view”.The RNC used the controversial language in censuring Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, the only Republicans on the House committee investigating January 6.Romney was one of few Republicans to scorn the move, saying: “Shame falls on a party that would censure persons of conscience, who seek truth in the face of vitriol. Honor attaches to Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for seeking truth even when doing so comes at great personal cost.”But he did not mention his personal connection to McDaniel, who stopped using “Romney” in her name after Trump took over her party – according to the Washington Post, at Trump’s request.Romney also said the censure “could not have been a more inappropriate message … so far from accurate as to shock and to make people wonder what we’re thinking”.On Monday, he told reporters he and his niece had since “exchanged some texts”.“I expressed my point of view,” he said. “I think she’s a wonderful person and doing her very best.”He also said McDaniel was “terrific”.Amid criticism, McDaniel claimed “legitimate political discourse” pursued by Trump supporters in service of his lie that his defeat was the result of electoral fraud “had nothing to do with violence at the Capitol” – language not in the formal censure.She also said she had “repeatedly condemned violence on both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately, this committee has gone well beyond the scope of the events of that day.”That day, 6 January 2021, Trump supporters who attacked the Capitol – after Trump told them to “fight like hell” – did so in an attempt to stop the vice-president, Mike Pence, certifying electoral college results.Seven people died, more than 100 police officers were hurt and more than 700 people face charges. Eleven members of a far-right militia are charged with seditious conspiracy.Trump has promised pardons for rioters if he is elected again and admitted his aim was to overturn the election.On Friday, Pence reflected prevailing opinion among constitutional scholars when he said Trump was “wrong. I had no right to overturn the election.”Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat who led Trump’s impeachment for inciting the insurrection and who sits on the 6 January committee, said: “It’s official. Lincoln’s party of ‘liberty and union’ is now Trump’s party of violence and disunion.“His cultists just called sedition, beating up cops and a coup ‘legitimate political discourse’. They censured Cheney and Kinzinger for not bowing to the orange autocrat. Disgrace.”TopicsMitt RomneyRepublicansUS politicsUS Capitol attackDonald TrumpUS CongressHouse of RepresentativesnewsReuse this content More

    • 188 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Madison Cawthorn backed the Capitol attack. Will he be barred from office? | Jan-Werner Müller

      by

      Madison Cawthorn backed the Capitol attack. Will he be barred from office?Jan-Werner MüllerWe should be cautious about barring people from seeking office. But in the case of pro-insurrectionists, there is a very strong case To this day, only footsoldiers have paid a price for the riot at the Capitol last January 6th. Politicians who spurred them on, praised them afterwards, and now incite further hatred with hallucinatory talk of “political prisoners” have remained smugly immune.This could change in one case: Republican Congressman Madison Cawthorn, who was on the mall that fateful day, implored Trumpists to “fight,” and is now seeking re-election in North Carolina. His candidacy is being challenged on the basis of the 14th Amendment. Passed after the Civil War, it disqualifies from holding office anyone who has sworn allegiance to the Constitution and then engages in insurrection.Other democracies are comfortable not just with restricting individual rights to run for office, but with banning entire parties suspected of undermining democracy. Americans, by contrast, have been inclined to leave things to sort themselves out in the political process.But here drastic measures are justified: citizens in a democracy have to accept being governed by politicians they disagree with; they don’t have to put up with politicians who start insurrections when things don’t go their way. Disqualification could have a salutary effect on the Republican Party as such; and it might provide a model for banning Trump from holding office again – something that was on the table during the 2021 impeachment and endorsed by seven Republican senators at the time.In North Carolina, citizens can challenge a candidate to prove they meet qualifications for Congress. Unlike the House Committee investigating the events of January 6th, the board on elections could force a sitting member of Congress to testify about the role he played before, during, and after the insurrection. In the end, his fate could resemble that of many Confederates after the Civil War: not necessarily criminal punishment, but exclusion from exercising power.Many American constitutional lawyers feel ambivalent about an approach known elsewhere as “militant democracy”: measures to restrict the rights of people posing a threat to democracy but who have – unlike terrorists, for instance – not done anything criminal. Courts in Germany, Spain, and South Korea ban entire political parties; in the US, even at the height of McCarthyism, the Communist Party was not prohibited. Why, skeptics might ask, not have faith in politics instead of democracies doing something that looks pretty undemocratic? After all, if the people themselves are not able to see dangers to democracy for what they are, democracy might be lost anyway.That’s not where worries stop. If you go down the path of prohibitions, for example, what would prevent Republicans from McCarthy-style retaliation against figures like AOC? After all, they could argue, she’s a socialist, capitalism’s the American way, and hence she’s obviously engaged in overthrowing our political system. This is not paranoia: in Indiana, Republicans are pushing a school bill which would declare socialism incompatible with the principles on which the US was founded.As a matter of principle, it seems inconsistent to oppose felon disenfranchisement and yet demand rights restrictions for office-seekers. People ought to be punished for actual criminal behavior, but why also deny them a role in our process of self-government? After all, no democracy should create situations where some people look like second-class citizens not enjoying full use of political freedoms.Such worries must be taken seriously. A democracy that is trigger-happy about taking individuals or entire groups out of the political game is probably not as democratic as it sees itself to begin with. (In Europe, for example, Turkey holds the record in party bans – and these bans have often been aimed at legitimate advocates for the Kurdish minority.)But ultimately these worries do not weaken the case for disqualifying pro-insurrectionist Republicans. Constitutional requirements are not something that can be dispensed with ad hoc: you either meet the age, residency, and citizenship requirements for Congress or you don’t. What matters is that the process ascertaining what Cawthorn said and did is fair.True, anyone disqualified will style themselves a martyr – further proof of Democrats’ tyranny! They will wallow in the culture of victimhood which, in a typical form of projection, the far right always attributes to left-wing proponents of identity politics. Of course, the far right itself relentlessly pushes people to indulge the fantasy of being a persecuted minority: as a result, insurrectionists do not regard themselves as aggressors at all, but as merely engaged in self-defense and saving the Republic.Since this game is being played no matter what, there are hardly prudential considerations to go easy on pro-insurrection politicians. Plus, if disqualified figures feel that a great injustice was done, they can appeal to Congress, which, with a “two-thirds majority in each House,” can decide to lift restrictions, for instance if politicians stop lying that January 6th was a tourist outing for patriots. Unlike in the case of so many felons, this not a political life sentence.Of course, there is always a predictable chorus of pundits and politicians lamenting that all this will further “deepen our divisions.” But they should ask themselves whether such disqualifications and demarcations are not the kind of thing that a normal center-right party would not undertake itself: because the Republican Party has become a Trump personality cult, it might actually be in the interest of those too afraid to speak out against the cult to outsource the necessary boundary-drawing to what Cawthorn himself dismisses as “state bureaucrats.” After all, to paraphrase Lyndon Johnson, even strident left-wingers have an interest in a democratic rightwing party that is inside the tent pissing out rather than an anti-democratic, violence-prone one pissing in.Those crying that disqualifications re-open political wounds and delay national “healing” – often a demand pushed by rightwingers to distract from their complicity in the assault on the Capitol – have to realize that the issue will not go away. Other figures will be challenged as well, and, of course, Trump himself, if he tries to get on state ballots in 2024.Whether a heavily right-leaning US supreme court will uphold disqualifications is a very open question indeed – but there is every reason to try enforcing them.
      Jan-Werner Mueller teaches at Princeton and is a Guardian US columnist. His most recent book is Democracy Rules
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionUS Capitol attackRepublicanscommentReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s incendiary Texas speech may have deepened his legal troubles, experts say

      by

      Trump’s incendiary Texas speech may have deepened his legal troubles, experts sayPromising pardons for insurrectionists and calling for protests if indicted could help make a case for obstruction of justice Donald Trump’s incendiary call at a Texas rally for his backers to ready massive protests against “radical, vicious, racist prosecutors” could constitute obstruction of justice or other crimes and backfire legally on Trump, say former federal prosecutors.Trump’s barbed attack was seen as carping against separate federal and state investigations into his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results and his real estate empire.Trump’s rant that his followers should launch the “biggest protests” ever in three cities should prosecutors “do anything wrong or illegal” by criminally charging him for his efforts to overturn Joe Biden’s 2020 victory, or for business tax fraud, came at a 30 January rally in Texas where he repeated falsehoods that the election was rigged.Legal experts were astonished at Trump’s strong hints that if he runs and wins a second term in 2024, he would pardon many of those charged for attacking the Capitol on 6 January last year in hopes of thwarting Biden’s certification by Congress.‘The walls are closing in’: Trump reels from week of political setbacksRead moreFormer Richard Nixon White House counsel John Dean attacked Trump’s talk of pardons for the rioters as the “stuff of dictators” and stressed that “failure to confront a tyrant only encourages bad behavior”.Taken together, veteran prosecutors say Trump’s comments seemed to reveal that the former president now feels more legal jeopardy from the three inquiries in Atlanta, Washington and New York, all of which have accelerated since the start of 2022.Trump’s anxiety was especially palpable when he urged supporters at the Texas rally to stage “the biggest protests we have ever had in Washington DC, in New York, in Atlanta and elsewhere,” should any charges be brought, a plea for help that could boomerang and create more legal problems for the former president.Dennis Aftergut, a former federal prosecutor who is of counsel to Lawyers Defending American Democracy, told the Guardian Trump “may have shot himself in the foot” with the comments. “Criminal intent can be hard to prove, but when a potential defendant says something easily seen as intimidating or threatening to those investigating the case it becomes easier,” Aftergut said.Aftergut added that having proclaimed “his support for the insurrectionists, Trump added evidence of his corrupt intent on January 6 should the DOJ prosecute him for aiding the seditious conspiracy, or for impeding an official proceeding of Congress”.Likewise, a former US attorney in Georgia, Michael Moore, said Trump’s comments could “potentially intimidate witnesses and members of a grand jury”, noting that it is a felony in Georgia to deter a witness from testifying before a grand jury.Trump “is essentially calling for vigilante justice against the justice system. He’s not interested in the pursuit of justice but blocking any investigations”, Moore added.Trump’s angry outburst came as three investigations by prosecutors that could lead to charges against Trump or top associates all seemed to gain steam last month.A special grand jury, for example, was approved in Atlanta focused on Trump’s call to Georgia secretary of state Brad Raffensperger on 2 January last year, asking him to just “find” enough votes to block Joe Biden’s Georgia victory, a state Trump lost by more than 11,700 votes.Trump’s call for huge protests prompted the Fulton county district attorney, Fani Willis, who is leading the criminal inquiry, to ask the FBI to do a threat assessment to protect her office and the grand jury that is slated to meet in May.Last month too a top justice official revealed that DOJ is investigating fake elector certifications declaring Trump the winner in several states he lost, a scheme reportedly pushed by Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani by which vice-president Mike Pence could block Congress from certifying Biden’s win. To Trump’s chagrin, Pence rejected the plan.Further, the New York state attorney general last month stated in a court document that investigators had found evidence that Trump’s real estate business used “fraudulent or misleading” asset valuations to obtain loans and tax benefits, allegations Trump and his lawyers called politically motivated.Trump’s election advisers were like ‘snake oil salesmen’, ex-Pence aide saysRead moreEx-prosecutors say that Trump’s Texas comments are dangerous and could legally boomerang as the prosecutors appear to have new momentum.“Our criminal laws seek to hold people accountable for their purposeful actions,” Paul Pelletier, a former acting chief of the fraud section at DOJ, said. “Trump’s history of inciting people to violence demonstrates that his recent remarks are likely to cause a disruption of the pending investigations against him and family members.”Pelletier added: “Should his conduct actually impede any of these investigations, federal and state obstruction statutes could easily compound Mr Trump’s criminal exposure.”Trump’s remarks resonated especially in Georgia, where former prosecutors say he may now face new legal problems.Former prosecutor Aftergut noted that Willis understood the threat when she quickly asked the FBI to provide protection at the courthouse, and he predicted that the immediate effect on the deputy DAs working on the case would be “to energize them in pursuing the case”.In a similar vein, ex-ambassador Norm Eisen and States United Democracy Center co-chair said Trump’s call for protests in Atlanta, New York and Washington if prosecutors there charge him “certainly sounds like a barely veiled call for violence. That’s particularly true when you combine it with his other statements at the Texas rally about how the last crowd of insurrectionists are being mistreated and did no wrong”. In addition, congresswoman Liz Cheney, the co-chair of the House panel investigating the 6 January Capitol assault by Trump followers, has stated that Trump’s talk of pardons and encouraging new protests suggests he would “do it all again if given the chance”.On another legal front, Aftergut pointed out that some Trump comments at the rally might help prosecutors at DOJ expand their inquiry. “Trump handed federal prosecutors another gift when he said that Mike Pence should have ‘overturned the election’.” Some veteran consultants say Trump’s latest attacks on prosecutors shows he is growing more nervous as investigations appear to be getting hotter.“Trump’s prosecutor attacks are wearing thin with the broad Republican electorate,” said Arizona Republican consultant Chuck Coughlin “He’s trying to whip up the base for his personal gain. This is another iteration of Trump’s attacks on the government.”From a broader perspective, Moore stressed that Trump’s multiple attacks on the legal system at the Texas rally represent “just another erosion of the norms of a civilized society by Trump. The truth has taken a backseat to Trumpism”.TopicsDonald TrumpUS Capitol attackUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s election advisers were like ‘snake oil salesmen’, ex-Pence aide says

      by

      Trump’s election advisers were like ‘snake oil salesmen’, ex-Pence aide saysFormer chief of staff Marc Short joins several senior Republicans to defend the former vice-president in escalating feud with Trump Mike Pence’s former chief of staff Marc Short joined several senior Republicans in rallying to defend the former vice-president on Sunday in his escalating feud with Donald Trump over the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election.Some of Trump’s advisers on the 2020 election were like “snake oil salesmen”, Short said on Sunday.Pence angered the former president this week by rejecting Trump’s false claim that he had the power to overturn Joe Biden’s victory by refusing to accept results from seven contested states.At a conference hosted by the conservative Federalist Society in Florida on Friday, Pence delivered his strongest rebuke to date of Trump’s election lies, declaring that it was “un-American” to believe that any one person had the right to choose the president.On Sunday, Short, and Republican senators John Barrasso, Lisa Murkowski and Marco Rubio, were among senior party figures who backed Pence’s position, adding their voices to a backlash by other prominent Republican figures apparently growing weary of Trump’s continued obsession with his election defeat and subversion of democracy.“There’s nothing in the 12th amendment or the Electoral Count Act that would afford a vice-president that authority,” Short told NBC’s Meet the Press, describing advisers who told Trump that Pence could send election results back to the states as “snake oil salesmen”.“The vice-president was crystal clear from day one that he didn’t have this authority.”Pence, as president of the US senate, certified Biden’s victory in the early morning of 7 January 2021, hours after a mob incited by the defeated president launched a deadly insurrection on the US capitol.Short, who sheltered with Pence in the Capitol as the mob outside erected a gallows and called for the then vice-president to be hanged, added that his boss had no alternative but to certify Biden’s win. “He was following what the Constitution afforded the vice-president … he was doing his duty, which was what he was required to, under an oath to the constitution to defend it,” he said.“Unfortunately the president had many bad advisers, who were basically snake oil salesmen giving him really random and novel ideas as to what the vice-president could do. But our office researched that and recognized that was never an option.”Short also attacked the Republican party’s position – crystalized this week in a widely derided censure motion for Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, the only two Republicans on the House committee investigating the insurrection, that the January 6 rioters were engaging in “legitimate political discourse”.“From my front-row seat, I did not see a lot of legitimate political discourse,” said Short, who along with the vice-president had to be hustled to a place of safety as the mob rampaged through the building.“They evacuated us into a secure location at the bottom of the Capitol. There was an attempt to put the vice-president into a motorcade but he was clear to say: ‘That’s not a visual I want the world to see of us fleeing.’ We stayed there and worked to try and bring the business back together and complete the work that night.”Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican and ranking member of the Senate foreign affairs committee, agreed with Short’s assessment in an appearance on Fox News Sunday.“I voted to certify the election, Mike Pence did his constitutional duty that day,” Barrasso said.“It’s not the Congress that elects a president, it’s the American people.”Rubio, a Republican Florida senator, told CBS’s Face the Nation that he had long known that Pence lacked the authority to bend to Trump’s will. “I concluded [that] back in January of 2021, when the issue was raised,” he said. “I looked at it, had analyzed it, and came to the same conclusion that vice-presidents can’t simply decide not to certify an election.”Rubio refused to say whether he thought the riot was political discourse, but added: “Anybody who committed crimes on January 6th should be prosecuted. If you entered the Capitol and you committed acts of violence and you were there to hurt people, you should be prosecuted.”Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, is among the supporters of an “aggressive” bipartisan effort in Congress, criticized by Trump, to overhaul the 1887 Electoral Count Act and enshrine in statute that a vice-president has no role in deciding a presidential election.“We’ve identified clearly some things within the act, the ambiguities that need to be addressed,” she told CNN’s State of the Union.TopicsMike PenceUS Capitol attackUS politicsDonald TrumpUS elections 2020newsReuse this content More