US elections 2020

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Capitol attack panel subpoenas five Republicans in unprecedented step

      by

      Capitol attack panel subpoenas five Republicans in unprecedented stepChair Bennie Thompson says panel has been ‘forced to take this step’ as Kevin McCarthy complains investigation ‘not legitimate’ The House select committee investigating the January 6 attack on the Capitol has issued unprecedented subpoenas to five Republican members of Congress, seeking to compel their cooperation with the inquiry into Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Biden marks imminent ‘tragic milestone’ of 1m US Covid deaths in address to global summit – liveRead moreThe select committee empowered the chairman, Bennie Thompson, to move ahead with subpoenas to the House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, Jim Jordan of Ohio, Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, Andy Biggs of Arizona and Mo Brooks of Alabama.The five congressmen flatly refused to accept invitations to provide voluntary assistance to the investigation, sources said.Thompson said: “Before we hold our hearings next month, we wished to provide members the opportunity to discuss these matters with the committee voluntarily. Regrettably, the individuals receiving subpoenas today have refused and we’re forced to take this step to help ensure the committee uncovers facts concerning January 6th.”The subpoena letters indicate that the select committee is seeking testimony from the five House Republicans about some of the most sensitive details about Trump’s unlawful efforts to overturn the election, including their contacts with Trump.The Guardian reported earlier this week that the panel was moving closer to issuing subpoenas to Republicans in Congress, appalled at their refusal to assist in any way despite prima facie connections to the events of 6 January.What changed for members of the committee, according to sources familiar with internal deliberations, was that they could no longer ignore what appeared to be deep involvement in Trump’s unlawful schemes to overturn the 2020 election results.After the announcement, McCarthy told reporters that “I have not seen a subpoena” and repeated his previous attacks on the committee. “They’re not conducting a legitimate investigation,” he said. “Seems as though they just want to go after their political opponents.” Meanwhile, Perry called the investigation a “charade”.The voluntary cooperation letters outlined in damning detail the reasons that the select committee wanted to depose the five Republicans, as House investigators prepare to wrap up their work ahead of public hearings in June.From McCarthy, the select committee said it wanted to learn more about his communications with Trump before, during and after January 6, including a conversation in which the former president admitted he was partly at fault for the Capitol attack.The panel is keenly interested in what McCarthy believes prompted Trump to make such an admission, the sources said, since it could offer evidence that the former president had a guilty conscience for a possible future justice department criminal investigation.From Biggs, the former chairman of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus, the select committee said it wanted to learn more about meetings House Republicans had with Trump at the White House in the days and weeks leading up to January 6.The panel is focusing on a 21 December 2020 meeting that took place in the Oval Office with Trump, the letter indicated, since those attending appeared to strategize ways to unlawfully delay or stop Joe Biden’s certification from taking place and return Trump to power.The select committee also wants to depose Jordan to learn more about that meeting with Trump and other communications he had with the former president, his letter said.In the letter to Perry, the select committee said he was directly involved with efforts to corrupt the justice department and install a pro-Trump DoJ official, Jeffrey Clark, as acting attorney general if he opened investigations into baseless claims of election fraud.The panel also subpoenaed Brooks since he spoke at the “Save America” rally at the Ellipse that preceded the Capitol attack, where he notably wore a bulletproof vest under his shirt, and has spoken publicly about Trump pressuring him to “rescind” his election loss.One notable and unexplained exception from the list was congressman Ronny Jackson, Trump’s former White House doctor, whose name surfaced in text messages among members of the Oath Keepers militia group that stormed the Capitol, some of whom were indicted for seditious conspiracy.Biggs’ possible contacts with far-right activist Ali Alexander are of special interest to the investigation, sources said.The committee is trying to untangle claims by Alexander that he “schemed up putting maximum pressure on Congress while they were voting” with Brooks, Biggs and Paul Gosar, another Arizona Republican, and his testimony that he spoke to Biggs’s staff and the congressman himself.Alexander obtained a permit to hold a rally at the Capitol on 6 January but that event never took place. Alexander was instead filmed going up the Capitol steps in a “stack” formation with members of the Oath Keepers militia.Thompson said the panel wanted to ask Biggs about his efforts to pressure legislators to create “alternate” slates of electors for Trump in states he lost, as well as an alleged request he made to Trump for a pardon in the days after the Capitol attack.TopicsUS Capitol attackRepublicansUS politicsDonald TrumpUS elections 2020newsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Groups perpetuating Trump’s 2020 election lie face scrutiny and lawsuits

      by

      Groups perpetuating Trump’s 2020 election lie face scrutiny and lawsuitsColorado lawsuit charges group with questioning residents about voting status while Trump loyalists work to sustain falsehoods Conservative groups perpetuating Donald Trump’s false charges that the 2020 election was rigged have sparked a lawsuit against one in Colorado, and a congressional panel investigation of another in New Mexico, over aggressive tactics allegedly used to seek out possible voter fraud.The scrutiny and criticism facing these conservative groups underscore how Trump loyalists in several US states are working to sustain falsehoods about Trump’s loss, while launching new drives that voting rights advocates say smack of voter intimidation, often targeting communities of color.The Ohio primary shows that Trump still has a tight hold on the Republican party | Lloyd GreenRead moreA lawsuit was filed by the NAACP and two other groups in March charging that Colorado-based US Election Integrity Plan (USEIP), which has echoed Trump’s baseless claims about 2020 election fraud, has gone door to door in some counties aggressively questioning residents about their voting status and sometimes bearing arms.Moreover, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform has been investigating EchoMail, a firm that helped push false claims of election fraud in Arizona and has reportedly been paid $50,000 by a New Mexico county to oversee a local “audit force” doing intrusive door-to-door voter canvassing.Other states including Michigan and Utah boast conservative groups that, under the guise of protecting voting integrity by ferreting out fraud, have been criticized for the methods they employed in seeking out potential voter fraud.“As Americans, we expect and demand an open and participatory democracy that welcomes all voters equally,” said Danielle Lang, senior director of voting rights at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center. “Those engaging in these pressure tactics should know that voter intimidation is a crime with serious consequences.”The lawsuit against USEIP filed by the NAACP in Colorado, the League of Women Voters in Colorado and Mi Familia Vota charges that USEIP has engaged in “door-to-door voter intimidation”, including taking pictures of some houses, in neighborhoods with a large number of minority residents.The lawsuit alleges, without providing specific cases, that USEIP representatives have at times worn badges or carried firearms when visiting voters’ residences, although they are not government officials.“We’re very concerned about reports that Colorado voters have received visits at their homes from people, sometimes openly armed, posing as government officials who imply, without evidence, that fraudulent voting activity occurred at their address,” Beth Hendrix, the League of Women voters executive director in Colorado told the Guardian.A Colorado judge last week rejected a motion by USEIP to dismiss the lawsuit. A separate motion by the plaintiffs’ two counsels, the nonprofit legal group Free Speech for People and the law firm Lathrop GPM, to obtain a preliminary injunction to halt USEIP’s efforts is pending.The lawsuit partly rests on a measure that passed after the Civil War, called the KKK Act, aimed at stopping white terrorists from using violence to interfere with Black voters.USEIP, which started after Joe Biden defeated Trump, is run by Shawn Smith, a retired air force colonel who also leads Cause of America, a nationwide group that boasts that its role is to “enable, facilitate and support citizen grassroots action to restore trust in local elections”.Mike Lindell, the multimillionaire Trump loyalist who is CEO of MyPillow and has been the chief financier of Cause of America, told the Guardian that the group serves as an “information hub” with a presence in all 50 states and on his website FrankSpeech.com.Lindell estimated he has spent between $100,000 and $200,000 monthly for salaries for the group’s employees – except for Smith, who is unpaid – and other expenses.Smith was reportedly tapped by Lindell to run Cause of America last fall, after Smith attended a Lindell-organized “cyber symposium” last summer in South Dakota which promoted conspiratorial and baseless claims of voting fraud in 2020.An organizing manual for USEIP thanks Lindell, but he told the Guardian that he had no ties with it.Smith can be seen in a 39-second video clip in a large crowd of Trump loyalists who were at the Capitol during the 6 January assault and another photo that was released by Colorado Newsline and relied on ProPublica research.Smith did not reply to emails sent to Cause of America seeking comment.Other outfits with track records for claiming the 2020 election was rigged have popped up in New Mexico, where ostensibly in the name of ferreting out voting fraud, they have sparked concerns about intimidating voters in areas with large minority populations.Top Democrats on the House Committee on Oversight and Reform in March announced an investigation into allegations from state officials that EchoMail was retained by tiny Otero county to examine potential voting fraud in part by overseeing a door-to-door voter canvass.The founder of EchoMail, VA Shiva Ayyadurai, has been a frequent promoter of unfounded conspiracies about the 2020 election results as well as a Senate primary in Massachusetts that he lost, and the firm was also a subcontractor for a widely debunked Arizona audit of its largest county.EchoMail’s contract, according to records obtained and published by the watchdog group American Oversight and first reported by NBC News, called for it to supervise a door-to-door voter canvass by a groupcalled the New Mexico Audit Force, to check the accuracy of voter rolls. The company’s contract also said it would inspect ballot images in the county, and assess voter signatures for accuracy.The House Oversight Committee chair, Carolyn Maloney, and the chair of its subcommittee on civil rights and civil liberties, Jamie Raskin, wrote Ayyadurai in March that it is “investigating whether your company’s audit and canvass in New Mexico interferes with Americans’ right to vote by spreading disinformation about elections and intimidating voters”.The House letter pointed out that 40% of the county’s residents are non-white Hispanic, and raised the concern that the company’s canvas could “have a particular impact on minority communities in Otero county”.Otero county, which has a population of 67,000 people, was won by Trump by more than 25% of the vote in 2020.In response, Ayyadurai denied EchoMail was playing any such role in Otero county and did not provide requested documents, prompting another letter to Ayyadurai with evidence and statements from a New Mexico couple involved in the “audit force”.A committee spokesperson told the Guardian that “Dr Ayyadurai has denied EchoMail’s participation in the sham audit and canvass, directly contradicting statements made by leaders of the New Mexico Audit Force and raising serious doubts about his credibility”.The panel is now weighing its next moves “to get to the bottom of this so-called audit and prevent other attacks on our elections”, the spokesperson added.The oversight committee also wrote in March to justice department assistant attorney general Kristen Clarke of the civil rights division to share its concerns about possible negative impacts of EchoMail’s Otero county efforts.On a related voting front, congresswoman Maloney told the Guardian in a statement that another investigation she launched last month with congresswoman Zoe Lofren, the chair of the House administration committee, is looking into “election disinformation in Arizona, Florida, Ohio and Texas. This is a fight for our democracy, and I am committed to finding solutions.”Lang of the Campaign Legal Center stressed that groups trying to find fraud while harassing voters or spreading disinformation won’t succeed and will be challenged. “The right to vote is the bedrock of our society and voters won’t be bullied out of exercising their rights,” Lang said.TopicsUS elections 2020Donald TrumpUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Capitol attack panel moves closer to issuing subpoenas to Republicans

      by

      Capitol attack panel moves closer to issuing subpoenas to Republicans Refusal to assist the investigation has caused the sentiment to turn towards taking near-unprecedented action, sources say Members on the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack on 6 January are moving closer to issuing subpoenas to Republican members of Congress to compel their cooperation in the inquiry – though it has started to dawn on them that they may be out of time.The panel is expected to make a final decision on the subpoena question over the next couple of weeks, according to sources directly familiar with internal deliberations, with House investigators needing to start wrapping up their work ahead of public hearings in June.While the members on the select committee remain undecided about whether to subpoena Republican members of Congress, their refusal to assist the investigation in any form has caused the sentiment to turn towards taking that near-unprecedented action, the sources said.The shifting view has come as a result of the dismay among the members in January, when House minority leader Kevin McCarthy and others turned down requests for voluntary cooperation, turning to anger after three more of Donald Trump’s allies last week refused to cooperate.What has changed in recent weeks in the select committee’s assessment is that they cannot ignore the deep involvement between some Republican members of Congress and the former president’s unlawful schemes to overturn the results of the 2020 election, the sources said.The recent letters to House Republicans Mo Brooks, Andy Biggs and Ronny Jackson – Trump’s former White House doctor – provided just a snapshot of the entanglement, the sources said, with the Trump White House, and potentially the militia groups that attacked the Capitol.House investigators are particularly interested in any potential connections between Republican members of Congress and the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys militia groups, the sources said, since those groups were actually involved in the riot element of January 6.The select committee wanted to interview Jackson, for instance, to establish how the Oath Keepers came to learn as they stormed the Capitol that he had “critical data to protect” and needed “protection”, according to text messages revealed in court filings.But the panel has been holding off compelling that information with subpoenas, anxious about the inevitable circus that would accompany such a move and, as the Guardian reported in January, embolden Republicans to subpoena Democrats if they take the House in 2022.The select committee told itself, the sources said, it might be able to avoid the issue altogether if it could get the information it needed from other places, like it did with Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows when his aides provided testimony.But that has not happened, and especially not with respect to the issue of potential connections between Republican members of Congress and the militia groups, whose members are now largely unable to talk to the panel having been placed under criminal investigation by the DoJ.The trouble for the select committee is that it may have run out of time to go down the subpoena route.Even if the panel were now to issue a bevy of subpoenas to House Republicans, if their colleagues decide to ignore the subpoenas, the only real option it has to enforce the orders would be to pursue action through the slow-grinding cogs of the judicial system.That enforcement mechanism would likely take months, according to former prosecutors – an exercise potentially of little use to a panel that is seeking to start wrapping up depositions before public hearings in June and expects to publish a final report in September.But some members believe Republicans may just cooperate if they are subpoenaed, the sources said, since Republican subpoenas to Democrats in a future investigation would only have teeth if Republicans don’t defang the very congressional subpoenas first – by defying them.TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsDonald TrumpJoe BidenUS elections 2020RepublicansnewsReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Texas attorney general says state bar plans to sue him over 2020 election lies

      by

      Texas attorney general says state bar plans to sue him over 2020 election liesKen Paxton filed a baseless lawsuit to US supreme seeking to overturn result claiming widespread voter fraud in key states Texas’s attorney general, Ken Paxton, said on Friday that the state bar plans to sue him over his efforts to overturn Donald Trump’s defeat in the 2020 presidential election by falsely claiming there had been widespread voter fraud in battleground states.In December 2020, the US supreme court unanimously rejected a baseless lawsuit filed by Paxton on behalf of Texas seeking to scotch Joe Biden’s win in the election the previous month.Texas attorney general says school district’s Pride week ‘breaks state law’Read moreAll nine justices on America’s highest court dismissed the long-shot effort in the Texas lawsuit that was aimed not at the result in that state but sought to throw out the vote counts in four vital states that the president lost: Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.The unanimity from the court came despite the bench featuring a six-to-three supermajority of conservative-leaning judges, three nominated by Trump.The bar complaints against Paxton alleged that his petitioning the US supreme court to overturn the 2020 election was frivolous and unethical.Paxton announced the development with the state bar on Friday, raising yet another legal danger as the embattled Republican is locked in a primary runoff.Since last summer, the state bar of Texas has been investigating complaints over Paxton’s petitioning of the supreme court to block Biden’s victory.The professional group has not publicly filed a suit but Paxton, saying it plans to bring one against him and his top deputy, suggests the agency may believe their actions amounted to professional misconduct.The attorney general said he stood behind his challenge to the “unconstitutional 2020 presidential election”, even as he blasted the bar and announced an investigation into a charitable group associated with it.“I am certain that the bar will not only lose but be fully exposed for what they are: a liberal activist group masquerading as a neutral professional association,” Paxton said on Twitter.The bar, which is a branch of the Texas supreme court, said in a statement that “partisan political considerations play no role” in its actions.State law prohibits it from discussing investigations unless a public complaint is filed and a spokesperson declined to comment.In bringing a court action against an attorney, the bar can seek punishment ranging from a written admonition to suspension or disbarment.The discipline process resembles a trial and could include both sides taking testimony and obtaining records through discovery.In addition to the unanimous decision by the US supreme court, at the time the justice department, under Trump’s attorney general, Bill Barr, found no evidence of fraud that could have changed the election’s outcome.Paxton forecast the legal action against him during the final weeks of his Republican primary runoff against the state land commissioner, George P Bush.A two-term incumbent, Paxton drew an unusual number of primary challenges after eight of his top deputies told the FBI in 2020 that the attorney general had been using his office to benefit a wealth donor.They accused him of bribery, abuse of office and other crimes, prompting a federal investigation.Paxton has denied wrongdoing and separately pleaded not guilty in a state securities fraud case that has languished since 2015. His defense lawyer, Philip Hilder, declined to comment.TopicsTexasRepublicansUS elections 2020newsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump official interfered in report on Russian election meddling – watchdog

      by

      Trump official interfered in report on Russian election meddling – watchdogChad Wolf, then acting homeland security secretary, demanded changes and delayed report, risking perception of politicisation Chad Wolf, Donald Trump’s acting secretary of homeland security, interfered with a report on Russian interference in the 2020 election by demanding changes, delaying its dissemination and creating a risk the report might be seen as politicised, a government watchdog said.Eventually declassified in March 2021, the report was a summary of foreign election interference into the 2020 election. It found that, as one headline put it, “Russia tried to help Trump in 2020, Iran tried to hurt him and China stayed out of it”.Chad Wolf: who is the Trump official leading the crackdown in Portland?Read moreBut before it was released, and two months before the election, an analyst in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) complained that Wolf, as well as his predecessor Kirstjen Nielsen and the deputy secretary, Ken Cuccinelli, had interfered with the report.According to the whistleblower, in mid-May 2020 Wolf instructed him “to cease providing intelligence assessments on the threat of Russian interference in the United States, and instead start reporting on interference activities by China and Iran”.The analyst also said that in July 2020 he was ordered to delay the report because it “made the president look bad”.At the time, a DHS spokesman “flatly denied” the claim.On Tuesday, the office of the DHS inspector general released its own report. It found that DHS “did not adequately follow its internal processes and comply with applicable intelligence community policy standards and requirements when editing and disseminating an Office of Intelligence and Analysis [I&A] intelligence product regarding Russian interference in the 2020 US presidential election”.DHS employees, it said, “changed the product’s scope by making changes that appear to be based in part on political considerations”.Such changes, the report said, included the insertion of a “tone box” about China and Iran.“Additionally, the acting secretary [Wolf] participated in the review process multiple times despite lacking any formal role in reviewing the product, resulting in the delay of its dissemination on at least one occasion.“The delays and deviation from I&A’s standard process and requirements [risked] creating a perception of politicisation. This conclusion is supported by I&A’s own tradecraft assessment, which determined that the product might be viewed as politicised.”Wolf is now head of the America First Policy Institute, a pro-Trump thinktank. He told NBC News the watchdog “did not find any credible evidence that I directed anyone to change the substance of the report because it ‘made President Trump look bad’”.He also said it was “buried in the report … that the grossly false whistleblower complaint against me was withdrawn”.The withdrawal, “pursuant to an agreement with DHS”, is dealt with on page nine of 42 in the watchdog report.On page 11, the watchdog says: “Based on our interviews with relevant officials, as well as our document review, it is clear the acting secretary asked the acting USIA [under secretary for intelligence and analysis] to hold the product from its pending release.“We interviewed the acting USIA, who told us the acting secretary asked the product be held because it made President Trump look bad and hurt President Trump’s campaign – the concept that Russia was denigrating candidate Biden would be used against President Trump.“The acting USIA also told us he took contemporaneous notes of the meeting, a copy of which we obtained. The notes … read ‘AS1 – will hurt POTUS – kill it per his authorities’.“The acting USIA told us these notes meant that the acting secretary told him to hold the product because it would hurt President Trump.”The watchdog said Wolf and others denied that.Its report also included a 7 July email telling the acting USIA to “hold on sending this one out until you have a chance to speak to” Wolf. The watchdog said Wolf told it he wanted the delay because the report was poorly written.According to the watchdog, dissemination of the report was delayed again in August.TopicsTrump administrationUS politicsUS elections 2020newsReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Marjorie Taylor Greene texted Trump chief of staff urging martial law to overturn election

      by

      Marjorie Taylor Greene texted Trump chief of staff urging martial law to overturn election Records Mark Meadows turned over to committee investigating attack are missing texts from critical 12-day periodDays before Joe Biden’s presidential inauguration, Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene appeared in a text to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to press for Donald Trump to overturn his 2020 election defeat by invoking martial law, new messages show.The message – one of more than 2,000 texts turned over by Meadows to the House select committee investigating January 6 and first reported by CNN – shows that some of Trump’s most ardent allies on Capitol Hill were pressing for Trump to return himself to office even after the Capitol attack.“In our private chat with only Members several are saying the only way to save our Republic is for Trump to call Marshall [sic] law,” Greene texted on 17 January. “I just wanted you to tell him. They stole this election. We all know. They will destroy our country next.”The message about Trump potentially invoking martial law, earlier reported by CNN on Monday and confirmed by the Guardian, came a month after the idea had been raised in a heated Oval Office meeting a month before, where Trump considered ways to overturn the 2020 election.Meadows did not appear to respond to Greene’s text. But the messages Trump’s top White House aide was receiving shows the extraordinary ideas swirling around Trump after he and his operatives were unable to stop the certification of Biden’s election win on January 6.McConnell was ‘exhilarated’ by Trump’s apparent January 6 downfall, book saysRead moreGreene – one of Trump’s fiercest far-right defenders on Capitol Hill – also texted Meadows days before the Capitol attack asking about how to prepare for objections to Biden’s win at the joint session of Congress, the text messages show.“Good morning Mark, I’m here in DC. We have to get organized for the 6th,” Greene wrote on 31 December. “I would like to meet with Rudy Giuliani again. We didn’t get to speak with him long. Also anyone who can help. We are getting a lot of members on board.”That text message from Greene, who had not yet been sworn in as a member of Congress, a week before the Capitol attack also underscores her close relationship with the Trump White House and an extraordinary level of coordination to obstruct Biden being certified as president.But the text messages that Meadows did not turn over to the select committee – as opposed to the communications he agreed to produce for the investigation – were perhaps more notable as the panel investigates connections between the White House and the Capitol attack.The panel is aware, for instance, that Meadows had contacts through December 2020 and January 2021 with organizers of the Save America rally at the Ellipse that descended into the Capitol attack as well as with Trump campaign officials, say sources close to the inquiry.Yet none of the text messages Meadows produced to the select committee through a cooperation deal agreed last year and in response to a subpoena show any such contacts, raising the specter that he might have deliberately withheld some communications.The former White House chief of staff appears to have ultimately turned over no text messages between 9 December and 21 December, a critical time period in the lead-up to the Capitol attack during which a number of key moments took place.Meadows appeared to be aware of efforts by the White House and others, for instance, to send fake Trump slates of electors to Congress. The idea was to have “dueling” slates of electors force then-vice president Mike Pence to discount those votes and return Trump to office.That scheme – which the select committee believes was coordinated in part by the Trump White House, the sources said – appeared to occur on 14 December, the deadline under the Electoral Count Act for states to send electoral college votes to Congress.Meadows also was in close contact with Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani and others after the contentious Oval Office meeting with Trump on 18 December, as he sought to bar onetime Trump campaign lawyer and conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell from the White House.But Meadows appears to have turned over no text messages from that crucial period, as allies of the former president started to set their sights on January 6, including the Stop the Steal movement that started to plan a protest at the Capitol around that time.The seeming omission may be explained in part by the fact that Meadows was communicating about those plans on his personal cell phone – against which the select committee issued a subpoena contested by Meadows in federal court as “overly broad”.The absence of messages between 9 December and 21 December may also be explained more straightforwardly by the fact that Meadows did not receive any messages during that period. Meadows’ lawyer could not immediately be reached for comment.House investigators are not convinced they have been given all the text messages relevant to their subpoena, according to one source with knowledge of the matter, and expect to continue pursuing Meadows’ documents and personal communications in court.In a motion for summary judgment with respect to Meadows’ records, the select committee said in a 248-page court filing late on Friday that it believed Meadows’ claims for withholding material from the investigation on grounds of executive privilege were baseless.TopicsUS Capitol attackMark MeadowsUS elections 2020Donald TrumpRepublicansUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Mark Meadows was warned of illegality of scheme to overturn 2020 election

      by

      Mark Meadows was warned of illegality of scheme to overturn 2020 electionA former staffer testified that White House counsel said the scheme involving fake electoral college votes was not legally sound Donald Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows was warned the effort to overturn the 2020 election with fake electoral college votes was not legally sound – and yet proceeded anyway, the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack said Friday.In a court filing, the panel also said that Meadows went ahead with plans to have Trump speak at the Ellipse rally that descended into the Capitol attack, only days after being expressly told by the US Secret Service that there was potential for violence on 6 January 2021.Mark Meadows is still registered to vote in South Carolina and Virginia, officials sayRead moreThe 248-page court filing could serve to increase the legal exposure for Meadows. It aims to portray Meadows as someone who was instrumental in trying to overturn the outcome of the election that Trump lost to Biden. The allegations, based on testimony from a former White House staffer, Cassidy Hutchinson, suggested that Meadows knowingly acted in an unlawful manner.Hutchinson testified that Pat Cipollone, who was the White House counsel at the time, told Meadows and Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani that the scheme to have states send Trump slates of electors to Congress in states that he lost in the 2020 election was not legally sound, the panel said.Hutchinson testified that she heard White House attorneys tell Meadows and other officials – including “certain” but unspecified congressmen – that trying to certify a Trump win in that manner “did not comply with the law” and “was not legally sound”, the filing said.Nonetheless, it said, Meadows “participated in a widely publicized call” with the top election official in Georgia – the secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger – “and other related efforts seeking to change the election results” there.Hutchinson, who worked in Meadows’ office, also testified in a separate deposition that Meadows knew about the potential for violence on 6 January 2021 after being briefed on intelligence reports by the Secret Service. “I know that people had brought information forward to [Meadows] that had indicated that there could be violence on the 6th,” she said.Hutchinson said Meadows had been presented with the warnings either one or two days before the Capitol attack took place. She said former White House chief of operations Anthony Ornato delivered them to Meadows in his office.“We had intel reports saying that there could potentially be violence on the 6th,” Hutchinson told the select committee in the first of her two depositions, one in February and another in March.“But despite this and other warnings,” wrote Douglas Letter, the general counsel for the House of Representatives, in the court filing, “President Trump urged the attendees at the January 6th rally to march to the Capitol to ‘take back your country.’”The select committee’s investigation into the Capitol riot and its aftermath has been investigating whether Trump and his staffers illegally conspired with the extremists who stormed the Capitol as Congress was certifying Biden’s presidential victory. It has also been examining whether Trump and members of his administration broke federal laws prohibiting obstruction of a congressional proceeding, which in this case would be the interrupted certification session.As part of that probe, the committee subpoenaed records from Meadows’s cellphone service provider, Verizon, among others.Though he has turned over at least some communications to the committee, Meadows sued to stop those subpoenas, portraying them as “overly broad and cumbersome”. The select committee included excerpts of Hutchinson’s testimony in an effort to persuade the district court in Washington DC to reject that lawsuit.If granted, the select committee’s motion for summary judgement could finally cap a protracted legal battle with Trump’s final White House chief of staff. It has detailed the numerous ways Meadows was involved in Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat, including the scheme to put forward “alternate” slates of electors for Trump in states that he lost.The aim of the scheme, the Guardian has previously reported, was to have then-vice president Mike Pence declare at the joint session of Congress on 6 January 2021 that he could not count states with slates for both Trump and Joe Biden, and return Trump to office.“The select committee’s filing today urges the court to reject Mark Meadows’s baseless claims and put an end to his obstruction of our investigation,” the panel’s chair, congressman Bennie Thompson, and vice chair, congresswoman Liz Cheney, said in a statement.Much of the panel’s new revelations late on Friday cited testimony from Hutchinson, who was present for key discussions in the White House in the weeks before the Capitol attack. Hutchinson testified after she was issued a subpoena in November.She also recounted how the White House counsel’s office had threatened to resign if Trump went ahead with an extraordinary plan to seize voting machines and assert emergency presidential powers over false claims of election fraud.“Once it became clear that there would be mass resignations, including lawyers in the White House counsel’s office – including some of the staff that Mr Meadows worked closely with – you know, I know that did factor into his thinking,” she said of Meadows.The former Trump White House aide, who served as special assistant to the president for legislative affairs, testified that some members of Congress, such as Scott Perry, who is now the chair of the rightwing House Freedom Caucus, supported sending people to the Capitol on 6 January 2021.Testimony from Hutchinson and other aides also corroborated a Senate judiciary committee report that found Trump unsuccessfully sought the imprimatur of the justice department to bolster his claims of election fraud.Meadows initially cooperated with the inquiry before abruptly withdrawing his assistance last year. He turned over a trove of evidence that included an email in November 2020 discussing appointing alternate slates of electors, and others about overturning the 2020 election.But he then proceeded to withhold more than 1,000 other messages on his personal phone over executive privilege claims, the filing said. He also refused to appear for a deposition, reversing a cooperation deal agreed between his lawyer and the select committee.In response, the House referred Meadows, who was the top official in the Trump administration, for prosecution for contempt of Congress, though the justice department has yet to issue charges.TopicsMark MeadowsUS Capitol attackTrump administrationDonald TrumpUS elections 2020US politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘All these men’: Jill Biden resented Joe’s advisers who pushed White House run

      by

      ‘All these men’: Jill Biden resented Joe’s advisers who pushed White House runFirst lady tells authors of new biography she cut off push to recruit her husband to challenge George W Bush in 2004 Feeling “burned” by her husband’s first run for the presidency, Jill Biden resisted advisers including Ron Klain, now White House chief of staff, who pushed him to mount another campaign in 2004.Trump ‘very intent on bringing my brother down’, Joe Biden’s sister saysRead more“All these men – and they were mostly men – coming to our home,” she said. “You know, ‘You’ve got to run, you’ve got to run.’ I wanted no part of it.”The first lady was speaking to Julie Pace and Darlene Superville, co-authors of Jill: A Biography of the First Lady, which will be published next week. The Guardian obtained a copy.“I didn’t even know whether I wanted Joe to ever do it again,” Jill Biden said. “I mean, I had been so burned.”Joe Biden first ran for president in 1987, withdrawing amid allegations that he plagiarised the leader of the British Labour party, Neil Kinnock, in campaign remarks.Jill Biden was describing a meeting at the Bidens’ house in Delaware more than 15 years later, when Joe Biden met Mark Gitenstein, a long-term adviser, and Klain joined on speakerphone.John Kerry, then a Massachusetts senator, was favourite for the Democratic nomination to challenge George W Bush. But, the authors write, “some party leaders thought Joe could go head-to-head with [the] president … in the general election”.“There were always so many people trying to get Joe to run,” Jill Biden said. “You’ve got to run again. You’ve got to try again. Always. It was constant.“He knew that I wasn’t in favour of his running.”The authors cite Jill Biden’s autobiography, Where the Light Enters, published in 2019, in which she describes “‘fuming’ out by the pool” while the meeting with Klain and Gitenstein went on.Jill Biden writes that she eventually cut the meeting off by drawing “NO” on her stomach with a Sharpie pen and “march[ing] through the room in my bikini.“Needless to say, they got the message.”“Joe and Gitenstein did, at any rate,” Pace and Superville write. “Klain, still eagerly engaged on speakerphone and unaware of what had just transpired in the room, kept brainstorming away.“‘I don’t understand it,’ a bewildered Klain said later when Gitenstein called to explain. ‘The conversation was going so great and all of a sudden, it just stopped.’”Joe Biden did mount a second run for the White House in 2008, with Jill’s support, but dropped out early, unable to compete with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.Neil Kinnock on Biden’s plagiarism ‘scandal’ and why he deserves to win: ‘Joe’s an honest guy’Read moreHe was Obama’s vice-president for eight years, spent four years in apparent retirement, then beat Donald Trump in 2020 to become, at 78, the oldest president inaugurated for the first time. Pace and Superville describe how Jill Biden supported her husband’s second and third White House runs.Klain was appointed to oversee the effort against Ebola in 2014 and remains one of Joe Biden’s closest and most powerful advisers. Last year, the New York Times reported that “Republicans have taken to calling him Prime Minister Klain”, a characterisation Klain has disputed.Gitenstein, a lawyer who worked for the Senate judiciary committee when Biden chaired it, was ambassador to Romania under Obama. He advised Biden in 2020 and is now US ambassador to the European Union.Jill Biden’s most senior male aide is Anthony Bernal. He has been described, by Politico, as both “an influential figure” and “one of the most polarising people” in the Biden White House.TopicsBooksPolitics booksJoe BidenUS politicsDemocratsUS elections 2004US elections 2020newsReuse this content More