More stories

  • in

    Sixteen people charged in Michigan 2020 false elector scheme

    Sixteen people who signed paperwork falsely claiming Donald Trump won the 2020 presidential election in Michigan have been criminally charged, Michigan’s attorney general, Dana Nessel, a Democrat, announced on Tuesday.Michigan was one of several swing states that Trump lost in 2020 in which he and his legal team convened alternate slates of electors as part of an effort to overturn the election. The Tuesday charges mark the first time any of the electors have been charged.Each of the fake electors was charged with eight felony counts, including multiple counts of forgery, a felony punishable by 14 years in prison in Michigan. The other charges include conspiracy to commit forgery, conspiracy to commit uttering and publishing, conspiracy to commit election law forgery, and election law forgery. The charges were filed in state court in Lansing, the Michigan capital.The 16 people charged include Meshawn Maddock, a former co-chair of the Michigan Republican party, and Kathy Berden, a national commiteewoman for the Republican National Committee. The other 14 fake electors held various connections to the state and local party.Knowing that Trump lost the election, the 16 electors met in the basement of the Michigan Republican party headquarters on 14 December 2020 – the same day the legitimate electors convened, and three weeks before Congress would meet to certify the election results on 6 January – and knowingly signed “multiple certificates” falsely proclaiming Trump the winner in their state, Nessel said in a statement. Those certificates were transmitted to the National Archives in Washington.“This plan – to reject the will of the voters and undermine democracy – was fraudulent and legally baseless,” Nessel said in recorded remarks. “The False Electors’ actions undermined the public’s faith in the integrity of our elections, and not only violated the spirit of the laws enshrining and defending our democracy but, we believe, also plainly violated the laws by which we administer our elections in Michigan and peaceably transfer power in America.“Undoubtedly, there will be those who will claim these charges are political in nature. But where there is overwhelming evidence of guilt in respect to multiple crimes, the most political act I could engage in as a prosecutor would be to take no action at all,” Nessel added.The Michigan charges come as both the justice department and the district attorney in Fulton county, Georgia, are examining fake electors as part of a broader inquiry into Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Trump announced on Tuesday he had received a letter from the justice department saying he was a target of an investigation. Charges in Fulton county are expected sometime before the end of August.Nessel referred the fake electors to the justice department in January 2022, but reopened the case earlier this year when federal prosecutors had not brought charges, according to a person familiar with the matter.Slates of false electors were convened in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. In addition to the criminal investigations into the broader scheme, there is also a civil lawsuit in Wisconsin seeking $2.4m from those who signed their names and to block them from serving as electors again.Hugo Lowell contributed reporting More

  • in

    Georgia grand jury selected in Trump case over attempt to overturn 2020 defeat

    A grand jury selected in Georgia on Tuesday is expected to say whether Donald Trump and associates should face criminal charges over their attempt to overturn the former president’s defeat by Joe Biden in the 2020 election.The district attorney of Fulton county, Fani Willis, has indicated she expects to obtain indictments between the end of July and the middle of August. Trump also faces possible federal charges over his election subversion, culminating in his incitement of the deadly January 6 attack on Congress.Trump already faces trials on 71 criminal charges: 34 in New York over hush money payments to the porn star Stormy Daniels and 37 in Florida, from federal prosecutors and regarding his retention of classified documents after leaving office.His legal jeopardy does not stop there. In a civil case in New York, Trump was fined about $5m after being found liable for sexual abuse and defamation against the writer E Jean Carroll. Another civil case, concerning Trump’s business practices, continues in the same state.Grand jury selection for the Georgia case comes at a febrile moment in US society. Denying all wrongdoing and claiming political persecution, Trump remains the clear frontrunner for the Republican nomination to face Biden again at the polls next year.Trump has repeatedly claimed Willis, who is African American, is motivated by racism as well as political animus. Willis has indicated possible charges under an anti-racketeering law also used to target members of gangs.Before 2020, no Democratic candidate for president had won Georgia since Bill Clinton in 1992. But Biden beat Trump by 0.2% of the vote, or a little under 12,000 ballots.As he explored ways to stay in office, Trump was recorded telling the Georgia secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, to “find” enough votes to overturn Biden’s win. The Fulton county investigation of such attempted election subversion has produced dramatic headlines, stoking anger on both sides of a deepening political divide.In February, the foreperson of the grand jury that investigated the case told CNN it would be a “good assumption” that a subsequent panel would recommend indictments – to be decided on by Willis – for more than a dozen people.The foreperson also told the New York Times it was “not rocket science” to work out if Trump would be one of those people. The former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani is among Trump aides and associates also believed at risk of indictment.In March, the South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham, a close Trump ally, was reported to have told grand jurors: “If somebody had told Trump that aliens came down and stole Trump ballots … Trump would’ve believed it.”Last month, eight of 16 “fake electors” who sought to falsely declare Trump the winner in Georgia were revealed to have reached immunity deals.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTwo grand juries were impaneled on Tuesday, each with 23 members and three alternates.Elie Honig, a former state and federal prosecutor now senior legal analyst for CNN, said: “This is now a ‘regular’ grand jury. At the end of it, if Fani Willis asks for an indictment, they will vote on it. The vast majority of times, that does result in an indictment.”Ed Garland, a local attorney, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution the jurors would face an “awesome responsibility” that “no other group of Georgia citizens has ever dealt with – the potential indictment of a former president”.Garland added: “This is a case that has been saturated in the media with political overtones, so it is imperative for them to be fair and impartial and for our judicial system to live up to its ideals.”At the courthouse, the judge presiding over grand jury selection, Robert McBurney, reminded reporters of the sensitivity of proceedings. “It would not go well if any of [the jurors’] pictures appear in any of your outlets,” he said. “If you need extra photos, get Fani Willis.”Filmed arriving at the courthouse, Willis did not speak to reporters. More

  • in

    Trump documents trial judge sets first hearing; Georgia grand jury set to weigh 2020 election charges – live

    From 1h agoThe first hearing before US District Judge Aileen Cannon in the federal criminal case against Donald Trump will be on 18 July, according to a court order.As California considers implementing large-scale reparations for Black residents affected by the legacy of slavery, the state has also become the focus of the nation’s divisive reparations conversation, drawing the backlash of conservatives criticizing the priorities of a “liberal” state.“Reparations for Slavery? California’s Bad Idea Catches On,” commentator Jason L Riley wrote in the Wall Street Journal, as New York approved a commission to study the idea. In the Washington Post, conservative columnist George F Will said the state’s debate around reparations adds to a “plague of solemn silliness”.Roughly two-thirds of Americans oppose the idea of reparations, according to 2021 polling from the University of Massachusetts Amherst and 2022 polling from the Pew Research Center. Both found that more than 80% Black respondents support some kind of compensation for the descendants of slaves, while a similar majority of white respondents opposed. Pew found that roughly two-thirds of Hispanics and Asian Americans opposed, as well.But in California, there’s greater support. Both the state’s Reparations Task Force – which released its 1,100-page final report and recommendations to the public on 29 June – and a University of California, Los Angeles study found that roughly two-thirds of Californians are in favor of some form of reparations, though residents are divided on what they should be.When delving into the reasons why people resist, Tatishe Nteta, who directed the UMass poll, expected feasibility or the challenges of implementing large programs to top the list, but this wasn’t the case.“When we ask people why they oppose, it’s not about the cost. It’s not about logistics. It’s not about the impossibility to place a monetary value on the impact of slavery,” said Nteta, provost professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
    It is consistently this notion that the descendants of slaves do not deserve these types of reparations.
    Read the full story here.More than 1,5000 amendments were filed to the FY2024 defense authorization bill, which is projected to hit the House floor this week. At issue is whether the House will take up the hard-right amendments, with the weight falling once again on Speaker Kevin McCarthy.Some of the most closely watched amendments relate to abortion, diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) funding, and transgender troops, according to Politico’s Playbook.McCarthy will need to navigate between the demands of his most conservative members – three of whom serve on the House rules committee – and the need for Democratic votes in order to get a bill ultimately signed into law, Playbook writes. It continues:
    In the past, House leaders typically have told the hard right to pound sand, knowing they weren’t going to vote for the final bill anyway. But after pissing off conservatives during the debt limit standoff, McCarthy looks poised to make a different calculation this time.
    Facing heavy criticism from the House Freedom Caucus and other conservatives, McCarthy is under pressure to give on a number of high-profile issues touching defense policy, Punchbowl News writes. It says:
    Every ‘culture war’ provision from the Freedom Caucus that’s added to the base legislation will cost Democratic votes. It will also make GOP moderates unhappy.
    The House rules committee is scheduled to mark up the FY2024 defense authorization bill, the annual bill setting Pentagon priorities and policies, today.The bill, which is expected to hit the floor later this week, has been signed into law 60 years straight. But this year, Speaker Kevin McCarthy and GOP leaders are confronting a legislative landmine as the far-right House Freedom Caucus push for dozens of proposed changes to the legislation.Adam Smith, the head Democrat on the House armed services committee, said he was worried about a flurry of “extreme right-wing amendments” attached to the bill and that he wasn’t “remotely” confident the bill will pass this week.Smith told the Washington Post he was concerned about GOP measures on “abortion, guns, the border, and social policy and equity issues”. Without the controversial amendments, Smith predicted that well over 300 House members would vote for the bill. With them, “you lose most, if not all, Democrats,” he told Politico’s Playbook.Iowa’s state legislature is holding a special session on Tuesday as it plans to vote on a bill that would ban most abortions at around six weeks of pregnancy, when most people don’t yet know they are pregnant.The state is the latest in the country to vote on legislation restricting reproductive rights after the overturning of Roe v Wade last year, which ended the nationwide constitutional right to abortion.Iowa’s Republican governor, Kim Reynolds, called for the special session last week, vowing to “continue to fight against the inhumanity of abortion” and calling the “pro-life” movement against reproductive rights “the most important human rights cause of our time”.Lawmakers in the GOP-controlled legislature will debate House Study Bill 255, which was released on Friday and seeks to prohibit abortions at the first sign of cardiac activity except in certain cases such as rape or incest.Iowa’s house, senate and governor’s office are all Republican-controlled, and the bill faces few hurdles from being passed.Read the full story here.The first hearing before US District Judge Aileen Cannon in the federal criminal case against Donald Trump will be on 18 July, according to a court order.Trump was charged with retention of national defense information, including US nuclear secrets and plans for US retaliation in the event of an attack, which means his case will be tried under the rules laid out in the Classified Information Procedures Act, or Cipa.Cipa provides a mechanism for the government to charge cases involving classified documents without risking the “graymail” problem, where the defense threatens to reveal classified information at trial, but the steps that have to be followed mean it takes longer to get to trial.The process includes the government turning over all of the classified information they want to use to the defense in discovery, like any other criminal case, in addition to the non-classified discovery that is done in a separate process.Trump’s lawyers argued the amount of discovery – the government is making the material available in batches because there is so much evidence and it has not finished processing everything that came from search warrants – meant that they could not know how long the process would take.Trump’s lawyers wrote:
    From a practical manner, the volume of discovery and the Cipa logistics alone make plain that the government’s requested schedule is unrealistic.
    Donald Trump asked the federal judge overseeing the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case to indefinitely postpone setting a trial date in court filings on Monday and suggested, at a minimum, that any scheduled trial should not take place until after the 2024 presidential election.The papers submitted by Trump’s lawyers in response to the US justice department’s motion to hold the trial this December made clear the former president’s aim to delay proceedings as their guiding strategy – the case may be dropped if Trump wins the election.The filing said:
    The court should, respectfully, before establishing any trial date, allow time for development of further clarity as to the full nature and scope of the motions that will be filed.
    Fulton county district attorney Fani Willis launched the investigation in early 2021, after Donald Trump tried to overturn his election defeat in Georgia by calling Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s secretary of state, and suggesting the state’s top elections official could help him “find 11,780 votes”, just enough needed to beat Joe Biden.The investigation expanded to include an examination of a slate of Republican fake electors, phone calls by Trump and others to Georgia officials in the weeks after the 2020 election and unfounded allegations of widespread election fraud made to state lawmakers, according to AP.About a year into her investigation, Willis asked for a special grand jury. At the time, she said she needed the panel’s subpoena power to compel testimony from witnesses who had refused to cooperate without a subpoena. In a January 2022 letter to Fulton county superior court chief judge, Christopher Brasher, Willis wrote that Raffensperger, who she called an “essential witness”, had “indicated that he will not participate in an interview or otherwise offer evidence until he is presented with a subpoena by my office”.That special grand jury was seated in May 2022, and released in January after completing its work. The panel issued subpoenas and heard testimony from 75 witnesses, ranging from some of Trump’s most prominent allies to local election workers, before drafting a final report with recommendations for Willis.Portions of that report that were released in February said jurors believed that “one or more witnesses” committed perjury and urged local prosecutors to bring charges. The panel’s foreperson said in media interviews later that they recommended indicting numerous people, but she declined to name names.Here’s a bit more on the grand jury being seated today in Atlanta, Georgia, that will probably consider charges against Donald Trump and his Republican allies for their efforts to overturn the 2020 election.The new grand jury term begins today in Fulton county, and two panels will be selected at the downtown Atlanta courthouse, each made up of 16 to 23 people and up to three alternates. One of these panels is expected to handle the Trump investigation.Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney will preside over today’s court proceedings, CNN reported. McBurney oversaw the special grand jury that previously collected evidence in the Trump investigation, and he is also expected to oversee the grand jury tasked with making charging decisions in the case.Good morning, US politics blog readers. A grand jury being seated today in Atlanta is expected to consider charges against former President Donald Trump and his Republican allies for their efforts to overturn the 2020 election.Fulton county district attorney Fani Willis launched the investigation in early 2021, shortly after Trump tried to overturn his loss by calling Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, and suggested the state’s top elections official could help him “find 11,780 votes”.A special grand jury previously issued subpoenas and heard testimony from about 75 witnesses, which included Trump advisers, his former attorneys, White House aides, and Georgia officials. That panel drafted a final report with recommendations for Willis.The new grand jury term begins today in Fulton county, which includes most of Atlanta and some suburbs. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney will swear-in two grand juries, one of which is expected to hear evidence in the Georgia elections case.Willis, an elected Democrat, is expected to present her case before one of two new grand juries being seated. The panel won’t be deciding guilt, only if Willis has enough evidence to move her case forward and who should face indictment. Willis has previously indicated that final decisions could come next month.Here’s what else we’re watching today:
    Joe Biden is meeting with other Nato leaders in Vilnius, Lithuania, where Russia’s war in Ukraine will top the agenda.
    The House rules committee is scheduled to mark up the FY2024 defense authorization bill today. The legislation is set to hit the floor later this week, with final passage currently envisioned for Friday.
    The House will meet at noon and at 2pm will take up multiple bills, with last votes expected at 6.30pm
    The Senate will meet at 10am and vote on several nominations throughout the day. There will be classified all-senators briefing with defense and intelligence officials on how AI is used for national security purposes. More

  • in

    Rudy Giuliani should be disbarred over 2020 election, DC panel recommends

    Rudy Giuliani’s law license should be revoked over his work on a failed lawsuit challenging the 2020 election results on behalf of then president Donald Trump, a Washington DC attorney ethics committee has recommended.He now faces being disbarred in the capital after the review panel late on Friday condemned the lawyer and ex-politician for aggressively pursuing the false assertions Trump made about his defeat by Democratic rival and now US president Joe Biden.Giuliani “claimed massive election fraud but had no evidence”, wrote the three-member panel in a report that details the errors and unsupported claims the former mayor of New York City made in a Pennsylvania lawsuit seeking to overturn the election result.Between the November 2020 election day and the January 6 insurrection by supporters of Trump at the US Capitol, Giuliani and other Trump lawyers repeatedly pressed claims of election fraud that were untrue and almost uniformly rejected by federal and state courts.He is the third lawyer who could lose his ability to practice law over what he did for Trump: John Eastman faces disbarment in California, and Lin Wood this week surrendered his license in Georgia.“Mr Giuliani’s effort to undermine the integrity of the 2020 presidential election has helped destabilize our democracy,” wrote the panel members, Robert Bernius, Carolyn Haynesworth-Murrell and Jay Brozost.“The misconduct here sadly transcends all his past accomplishments,” they wrote. “It was unparalleled in its destructive purpose and effect. He sought to disrupt a presidential election and persists in his refusal to acknowledge the wrong he has done.”Giuliani has already had his New York law license suspended for false statements he made after the election. The Washington review panel’s work will now go to the DC court of appeals for a final decision.Ted Goodman, a political adviser to Giuliani, called for support from Washington lawyers and criticized the panel’s work as “the sort of behavior we’d expect out of the Soviet Union”.Giuliani ran a short and disastrous campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in the 2008 election.The Associated Press and Reuters contributed reporting. More

  • in

    Top Georgia official to meet special counsel investigators over Trump’s 2020 election plot – live

    From 2h agoDonald Trump has now been indicted twice, first by Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg for allegedly falsifying business documents, and the second time by special prosecutor Jack Smith over the classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. While the former president has said he will not relent from his latest campaign for the White House even if convicted, a guilty verdict on any of those charges would nonetheless be a huge development.Yet it’s possible neither trial is resolved before the November 2024 general election, where Trump could appear on ballots nationwide, assuming he wins the Republican nominating contest.The Guardian’s Hugo Lowell reports that his trial in federal court over the Mar-a-Lago documents may be delayed until next spring:
    Federal prosecutors in the classified documents case against Donald Trump have asked for a tentative trial date in December, but the complex nature of the US government’s own rules for using such secrets in court, and expected legal challenges, could delay the trial until at least the spring of 2024.
    Trump was charged with retaining national defense information, including US nuclear secrets and plans for US retaliation in the event of an attack, which means his case will be tried under the rules laid out in the Classified Information Procedures Act, or Cipa.
    The statute was passed in the 1980s to protect the government against the “graymail” problem in national security cases, a tactic where the defense threatens to reveal classified information at trial, betting that the government would prefer to drop the charges rather than risk disclosure.
    That Joe Biden makes gaffes and misstatements when speaking in public is nothing new. But as he stands for a second term in office, Republicans are seizing on every mistake to press their case that the 80-year-old president is in no position to serve another four years.GOP-aligned Twitter accounts were quick to jump on Biden this morning after he incorrectly said Iraq when referring to Ukraine in remarks to reporters. So, too, were some Republican lawmakers, like Missouri’s senator Josh Hawley:Bloomberg News reports this isn’t the first time he’s made that particular mistake:As he left the White House for Chicago, Joe Biden shared his views on how the weekend rebellion against President Vladimir Putin in Russia has affected his grip on the country – and also made yet another gaffe:So just what is “Bidenomics”?According to the White House, “It’s an economic vision centered around three key pillars”, specifically “Making smart public investments in America, empowering and educating workers to grow the middle class [and] promoting competition to lower costs and help entrepreneurs and small businesses thrive.”“While our work isn’t finished, Bidenomics is already delivering for the American people. Our economy has added more than 13 million jobs – including nearly 800,000 manufacturing jobs – and we’ve unleashed a manufacturing and clean energy boom,” the White House said in a fact sheet distributed today, also noting the drop in inflation and rise in small business activity.The president is scheduled to make a speech outlining these accomplishments at 1pm Eastern Time in Chicago, setting the stage for them to be a key part of his re-election campaign.Despite all that, Biden struck a curious tone when taking questions from reporters at the White House this morning when asked about the term – which isn’t all that different from the “Reaganomics” moniker used to refer to former Republican president Ronald Reagan’s policies.Here’s the exchange, as captured by the Hill:Joe Biden may be planning to campaign on his economic record, but polls indicate that argument may not work for many Americans.Biden’s approval rating has been underwater for almost two years, but Americans are particularly distrustful of his handling of the economy. Consider this survey from the Associated Press and the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research released last month.Its data shows the president’s approval at a typically low 40% – but when it comes to his handling of the economy, it’s even worse, with only 33% of American adults approving of what he’s done so far.Joe Biden is on his way to Chicago right now from Washington DC to make what his administration is billing as a major speech on his economic accomplishments, but as he left the White House, the president took time to call out a conservative Republican senator.The target was Alabama’s Tommy Tuberville, who tweeted this morning about how happy he was that his state would receive money to expand broadband access from a $42bn federal government program:But that program is paid for by the national infrastructure overhaul Congress approved with a bipartisan vote in 2021 – which Tuberville did not vote for.That fact clearly did not escape Biden’s social media team, who invited the lawmaker to attend a public event with the president:While Donald Trump could still face charges over the January 6 attack, Reuters reported yesterday on a newly released report that shows US security agencies failed to see the insurrection coming:A new report detailing intelligence failures leading up to the January 6 attack on the US Capitol said government agencies responsible for anticipating trouble downplayed the threat even as the building was being stormed, in an attempt to stop certification of Joe Biden’s election victory.The 105-page report, issued by Democrats on the Senate homeland security committee, said intelligence personnel at the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other agencies ignored warnings of violence in December 2020.Such officials then blamed each other for failing to prevent the attack that ensued, which left more than 140 police officers injured and led to several deaths.Donald Trump has now been indicted twice, first by Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg for allegedly falsifying business documents, and the second time by special prosecutor Jack Smith over the classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. While the former president has said he will not relent from his latest campaign for the White House even if convicted, a guilty verdict on any of those charges would nonetheless be a huge development.Yet it’s possible neither trial is resolved before the November 2024 general election, where Trump could appear on ballots nationwide, assuming he wins the Republican nominating contest.The Guardian’s Hugo Lowell reports that his trial in federal court over the Mar-a-Lago documents may be delayed until next spring:
    Federal prosecutors in the classified documents case against Donald Trump have asked for a tentative trial date in December, but the complex nature of the US government’s own rules for using such secrets in court, and expected legal challenges, could delay the trial until at least the spring of 2024.
    Trump was charged with retaining national defense information, including US nuclear secrets and plans for US retaliation in the event of an attack, which means his case will be tried under the rules laid out in the Classified Information Procedures Act, or Cipa.
    The statute was passed in the 1980s to protect the government against the “graymail” problem in national security cases, a tactic where the defense threatens to reveal classified information at trial, betting that the government would prefer to drop the charges rather than risk disclosure.
    Good morning, US politics blog readers. Special counsel Jack Smith has already brought federal charges against Donald Trump over his involvement in hiding documents at Mar-a-Lago, but his investigation of the former president is far from over. Smith was tasked by attorney general Merrick Garland to also look into Trump’s involvement in the January 6 insurrection and the wider effort to overturn Joe Biden’s 2020 election victory, and new details have emerged of the direction of those inquiries.Smith’s investigators will be interviewing Georgia secretary of state Brad Raffensperger today in Atlanta, the Washington Post reports, while Rudy Giuliani has already spoken to them, according to the Associated Press. The two men played starkly different roles in the legal maneuvers Trump attempted in the weeks after his election loss, with Raffensperger resisting entreaties from the president to stop the certification of Biden’s victory in Georgia, and Giuliani acting as a proxy for the president in his pressure campaign. We’ll be keeping our eyes open to see if more details of the investigation emerged today.Here’s what else is going on:
    Biden is heading to Chicago for a speech at 1pm Eastern Time on “Bidenomics” – the accomplishments in employment and wages he intends to campaign on as he seeks another term in the White House.
    A judge appeared disinclined to move to federal court the case brought against Trump by the Manhattan district attorney for allegedly falsifying business records, denying the former president another opportunity to have the charges dismissed.
    White House spokeswoman Olivia Dalton will take questions from reporters sometime after 9.30am. More

  • in

    US intelligence ignored warnings of violence ahead of Capitol attack

    A new report detailing intelligence failures leading up to the January 6 attack on the US Capitol said government agencies responsible for anticipating trouble downplayed the threat even as the building was being stormed, in an attempt to stop certification of Joe Biden’s election victory.The 105-page report, issued by Democrats on the Senate homeland security committee, said intelligence personnel at the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other agencies ignored warnings of violence in December 2020.Such officials then blamed each other for failing to prevent the attack that ensued, which left more than 140 police officers injured and led to several deaths.The US government has won hundreds of convictions against the rioters, with some getting long prison sentences.“These agencies failed to sound the alarm and share critical intelligence information that could have helped law enforcement better prepare for the events” of January 6, said Gary Peters of Michigan, the Democratic chair of the committee issuing the report, titled Planned in Plain Sight, A Review of the Intelligence Failures in Advance of 6 January 2021.Republicans on the committee did not respond to requests for comment.Last summer, a House of Representatives select committee held hearings, following a long investigation, that concluded the then president, Donald Trump, repeatedly ignored top aides’ findings that there was no significant fraud in the 2020 presidential election, which he lost.Trump continues to falsely insist he won that contest and was the victim of election fraud. Hours before the riot, Trump delivered a fiery speech to supporters, urging them to march to the Capitol as the House and Senate met to certify Biden’s win.Trump is now the leading candidate for the 2024 Republican nomination. He and some Republican rivals have pledged to grant or consider granting pardons to rioters.The Senate committee found that in December 2020, the FBI received information that the far-right Proud Boys extremist group planned to be in Washington “to literally kill people”.On 3-4 January 2021, the report says, intelligence agencies knew of multiple postings on social media calling for armed violence and storming the Capitol. Yet “as late as 8.57am on January 6 a senior watch officer at the DHS National Operations Center wrote “there is no indication of civil disobedience”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBy 2.58pm, the report noted, with a riot declared and the Capitol in formal lockdown, the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis noted online “chatter” calling for more violence but said “at this time no credible information to pass on has been established”.In summer 2020, demonstrations were staged in several US cities after the murder of George Floyd, a Black man, by a white Minneapolis police officer. The Senate report notes that the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis was criticized then for “over-collecting intelligence on American citizens”, resulting “in a ‘pendulum swing’ after which analysts were hesitant to report open-source intelligence they were seeing in the lead-up to January 6”.The report concluded there was a “clear need … for a re-evaluation of the federal government’s domestic intelligence collection, analysis, and dissemination processes”. More

  • in

    Two Georgia election workers cleared of wrongdoing in 2020 elections

    Two Atlanta election workers who were the subject of an outlandish conspiracy theory amplified by Donald Trump were formally cleared of all wrongdoing by the Georgia state election board this week.Ruby Freeman and her daughter Wandrea ArShaye “Shaye” Moss were at the center of one of the most persistent lies spread by Donald Trump and allies after the 2020 election. Using selectively edited video footage, Trump and Rudy Giuliani claimed that Freeman and Moss removed ballots from suitcases underneath tables after counting had ended on election night and counted them. Georgia election officials immediately debunked the claim, saying security footage showed that counting had not ended for the evening when Freeman and Moss removed the ballots from secure ballot transport boxes.A 10-page report released on Tuesday affirms that conclusion and offers one of the most thorough debunking of the claim to date. It officially marked the closure of the state election board’s investigation into the matter.“All allegations made against Freeman and Moss were unsubstantiated and found to have no merit,” the report says.Investigators with the FBI, Georgia bureau of investigation (GBI), and secretary of state’s office interviewed election officials, Republican poll watchers, as well as Freeman and Moss to reach that conclusion. Workers had begun packing up around 10.30pm and planned to resume scanning ballots the next day, but were subsequently told by Richard Barron, then the director of elections in Fulton county, that they needed to keep counting until complete or the state advised them to stop. Ballots that were stored in secure ballot containers underneath tables were then taken out to continue counting.Republican poll watchers were never told that counting was over and that they needed to leave State Farm Arena, the report says. Instead, they left around 10.30pm when they were under the impression that counting was ending, telling investigators they had heard an election employee telling workers they were done for the night.Investigators also examined a social media post purporting to be from Freeman in which she confessed to election fraud. They found that the Instagram account was created by someone else who was impersonating Freeman. The report does not reveal who created the account.“This serves as further evidence that Ms Freeman and Ms Moss – while doing their patriotic duty and serving their community – were simply collateral damage in a coordinated effort to undermine the results of the 2020 presidential election,” Von DuBose, a lawyer representing both women, said in a statement.Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s Republican secretary of state, who drew Trump’s ire for defending the election results in Georgia, praised the report.“We remain diligent and dedicated to looking into real claims of voter fraud,” he said in a statement. “We are glad the state election board finally put this issue to rest. False claims and knowingly false allegations made against these election workers have done tremendous harm. Election workers deserve our praise for being on the frontlines.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionFreeman and Moss both faced vicious harassment because of the claims. They received death threats and Freeman, who is in her 60s, fled her home. Moss would only leave her home for work because she was so scared, she told Reuters in 2021. Her son, a teenager, also faced harassment and began failing in school.Both women testified to the US House committee investigating the January 6 attacks about the horror of the harassment.“I won’t even introduce myself by my name any more. I get nervous when I bump into someone I know in the grocery store who says my name. I’m worried about people listening. I get nervous when I have to give my name for food orders. I’m always concerned of who’s around me,” Freeman said. “There is nowhere I feel safe. Nowhere. Do you know how it feels to have the president of the United States target you?”Joe Biden awarded both women the presidential citizens medal on January 6 this year.“Both of them were just doing their jobs until they were targeted and threatened by the same predators and peddlers of lies that would fuel the insurrection. They were literally forced from their homes, facing despicable racist taunts,” he said at the ceremony. “Despite it all, Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss found the courage to testify openly and honestly to the whole country and the world about their experience to set the record straight about the lies and defend the integrity of our elections.” More

  • in

    Can Boris Johnson emulate Donald Trump and make a comeback? No chance

    There are two very big differences between the situation confronting Boris Johnson and that facing the man with whom he is frequently compared, Donald Trump – namely, popularity and context.Johnson is weaker than Trump. First, because he is less popular with Conservative voters than Trump is with his Republican supporters. About half of 2019 Conservative voters disapprove of Johnson’s performance in office. And at the time he left office, 40% or more rated him as untrustworthy, dishonest and/or incompetent.Things haven’t improved since. In polls conducted in recent weeks, about half of current Conservative voters have said they think Johnson misled parliament over lockdown parties, while a similar share consider the 90-day suspension he received either “about right” or “not harsh enough”.A majority of Conservative voters believe it is right that Johnson has resigned from the Commons, and less than half of them say they would like to see Johnson return as an MP.In short, about half of both 2019 Conservative voters and the party’s smaller base of current supporters take a low view of Johnson in various respects. The contrast with Trump is stark – between 70% and 80% of Republican voters approve of Trump, and more than half say they will vote for him as their candidate in the coming Republican primary contest.That brings me to the second big difference – Trump’s ability to disrupt politics is enhanced because America’s system is candidate centred, while Johnson’s ability to do the same is diminished because Britain’s system is party centred.Trump won direct personal mandates from Republican voters in 2016 and 2020, and most of them seem eager to do the same again next year. If Trump prevails in the Republican primary contest, there is little other Republicans can do to prevent him running for a third time as their candidate for the White House.The British system is very different. Johnson never received a direct personal mandate as prime minister from voters at large – there is no direct election of the executive in our system. Removing a directly elected president is very difficult. Removing a prime minister is considerably easier. If Conservative MPs had had enough of Johnson, they could – and did – remove him. The Conservative party – and Rishi Sunak, its current leader – have a lot more control over who gets to stand in Conservative colours, so it is much easier for them to keep Johnson out, particularly now he is no longer even an MP.The two factors also interact. If Johnson had Trump-style popularity with Conservatives, it would be harder and riskier to exclude him. But he doesn’t, so it isn’t.There’s also the question of whether local Conservative associations might be keener on Johnson than Conservative voters overall – perhaps keen enough to back him as a candidate, or to punish (or even deselect) their local Conservative MP if they vote for sanctions against the former PM.It is possible that Johnson has a stronger following among activists, but it is also plausible that he doesn’t. After all, these are the people who will have borne the brunt of the anger at Johnson’s antics when campaigning on the doorstep, and paid the heavy electoral price for his unpopularity in recent local election rounds.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionConservative associations have also traditionally been fairly deferential to the party leadership. They have not gone in for local deselection campaigns. While trouble on this front cannot be entirely ruled out, it seems unlikely.So some sort of Trump-style hostile takeover is unlikely. The Conservative party has higher barriers to entry than American parties, and Johnson isn’t popular enough with current or 2019 Conservative voters to fuel an uprising capable of overcoming these barriers.Johnson will no doubt retain a lot of capacity for mischief, but this is more likely to play out on the front pages of Conservative-aligned newspapers rather than in the halls and bars of local Conservative associations.Robert Ford is professor of political science at Manchester University and co-author of The British General Election of 2019 More