US elections 2020

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Widely criticized Wisconsin report repeats falsehoods in argument to ‘decertify’ 2020 election

      by

      Widely criticized Wisconsin report repeats falsehoods in argument to ‘decertify’ 2020 electionDocument offers clear example of how Republicans are embracing efforts to overturn results of validly executed elections Get the latest updates on voting rights in the Guardian’s Fight to vote newsletter.A long anticipated and widely criticized review of Wisconsin’s 2020 election has embraced fringe conspiracy theories and argued there were grounds for the legislature to “decertify” the results of the 2020 election, something legal experts have said is impossible.A report released on Tuesday was the result of months of work by Michael Gableman, a former state supreme court justice hired by the state assembly to review the election. Gableman’s efforts, backed by $676,000 in public funds, have been widely criticized as partisan, sloppy and unnecessary.Recounts in two of Wisconsin’s largest counties affirmed Joe Biden’s victory there in 2020 and an inquiry by the non-partisan legislative audit bureau also found no evidence of widespread fraud.Nonetheless, Gableman’s 136-page report offered a litany of accusations that culminated in an argument that the legislature should consider rescinding the election results.“I believe the legislature ought to take a very hard look at the option of decertification,” Gableman said in a presentation on Tuesday morning to the state assembly. Just before Gableman began speaking, Trump encouraged supporters to tune in to Gableman’s presentation.“It is clear that the Wisconsin legislature (acting without the concurrence of the governor), could decertify the certified electors in the 2020 presidential ​​election,” he wrote in his report. “This action would not, on its own, have any other legal consequence under state or federal law. It would not, for example, change who the current president is.”The document offers one of the clearest examples to date of how Republicans across the US are embracing efforts to overturn the results of validly executed elections – a new phenomenon experts call election subversion.In addition to legislation, Republicans who have embraced the idea of a stolen election are trying to take control of key election posts that would allow them to block validly cast votes from being certified in future elections.Gableman’s report, which cycled through numerous falsehoods that have already been debunked, appears to be a clear effort to offer the legislature justification for overturning the results of the 2020 race.Wisconsin Republicans have split on the idea of decertifying the election, which is a fringe legal theory. Jim Steineke, the majority leader in the GOP-controlled state assembly, tweeted on Tuesday that decertification was a “fool’s errand” and he would do everything he could during his time in office to block such an effort from moving forward.I have ten months remaining in my last term. In my remaining time, I can guarantee that I will not be part of any effort, and will do everything possible to stop any effort, to put politicians in charge of deciding who wins or loses elections. 1/— Jim Steineke 🇺🇦 (@jimsteineke) March 1, 2022
      Gableman zeroed in on a number of election-related issues in Wisconsin that have already been scrutinized. He focused on grants given to election officials in the state from the Center for Tech and Civic Life to facilitate voting. The grants were funded by money from a donation from the Meta CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, and his wife Priscilla Chan. Three courts and the state elections commission have rejected arguments that the grants, which were received in 39 of the state’s 72 counties, were unlawful.Gableman also attacked the state elections commission’s decision to suspend a special voting procedure in nursing homes amid the pandemic in 2020. State law requires local clerks to send special voting deputies to nursing homes to assist people with filling out their ballots.With the Covid-19 pandemic raging in 2020, the state elections commission voted on a bipartisan basis to suspend that requirement and send absentee ballots instead. A local sheriff in Racine county released an investigation last year in which family members claimed their relatives had cast votes but did not have the mental capacity to do so.During Tuesday’s hearing, Gableman played several videos of nursing home residents who were recorded as having cast ballots in 2020. Several of the people were incapacitated or appeared confused about voting. In Wisconsin, a mentally incapacitated person only loses the right to vote if a judge explicitly orders that. Gableman’s review did not make clear whether those voters were legally barred from voting by a judge.Ann Jacobs, a Democrat who chairs the state elections commission, criticized the report and factchecked it in real time.It appears that there is some confusion between a determination of a primary care MD that a person is not competent so that a POA kicks in (very common) as opposed to a full-on guardianship that removes the right to vote (rather uncommon).— Ann Jacobs (@AnnJacobsMKE) March 1, 2022
      Judges frequently allow people to retain their right to vote during a guardianship.— Ann Jacobs (@AnnJacobsMKE) March 1, 2022
      Wisconsin’s governor, Tony Evers, a Democrat, also criticized the review.“This circus has long surpassed being a mere embarrassment for our state. From the beginning, it has never been a serious or functioning effort, it has lacked public accountability and transparency, and it has been a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars,” he said in a statement.“Enough is enough. Republicans in the legislature have always had the ability to end this effort, and I call on them to do so today.”Gableman said he would continue his work, though it is unclear if the assembly will back him. While Gableman’s initial contract expired in December, he said he believed its authority extended into 2022 and that he was negotiating new terms with the legislature.TopicsUS newsThe fight to voteWisconsinUS politicsUS elections 2020newsReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Rudy Giuliani poised to cooperate with January 6 committee

      by

      Rudy Giuliani poised to cooperate with January 6 committeeTrump’s former lawyer may reveal the roles played by Republicans to prevent certification of Joe Biden’s election victory Donald Trump’s former attorney Rudy Giuliani is expected to cooperate with the House select committee investigating January 6, and potentially reveal his contacts with Republican members of Congress involved in the former president’s effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election.The move by Giuliani to appear before the panel – in a cooperation deal that could be agreed within weeks, according to two sources briefed on negotiations – could mark a breakthrough moment for the inquiry as it seeks to interview key members of Trump’s inner circle.That is the case because even though Trump’s allies and Republican members of Congress already known to have been involved in such efforts have refused to help the panel, Giuliani is now in a position to inform House investigators about any possible culpability.Broadly, Giuliani has indicated through his lawyer to the select committee that he will produce documents and answer questions about Trump’s schemes to return himself to office on 6 January that House investigators had outlined in a subpoena issued to him last month.Rudy Giuliani and Michael Flynn to see honorary university degrees revokedRead moreThe former president’s attorney is prepared to reveal his contacts and the roles played by Republican members of Congress in the scheme Giuliani helped orchestrate to have then-vice-president Mike Pence stop the certification of Joe Biden’s election victory.Giuliani is also prepared to divulge details about Trump’s pressure campaign on Pence to adopt the scheme, and the effort coordinated by him and the Trump White House to have legislatures certify slates of electors for Trump in states actually won by Biden.But the former president’s attorney has indicated that he will assist the select committee only if his appearance is not pursuant to his subpoena, and does not have to give records or discuss his contacts with Trump over executive and attorney-client privilege concerns.Giuliani is prepared to make exceptions in instances where the panel can demonstrate that meetings with Trump that would have otherwise been subject to those protections might have been broken, and that the protections should not apply.The demands surrounding the circumstances of his cooperation reflect comments he made on Newsmax last week when he falsely claimed the select committee was “illegal”, and claimed that “it doesn’t have minority membership and really can’t subpoena anybody.”The select committee appears to have ignored his remarks as they move to finalize an agreement with Giuliani. The comments did not come up in recent talks and the panel last week allowed Giuliani to postpone his document production deadline for a second time, one of the sources said.That may be explained in large part because of the panel’s determination to get the cooperation of one of Trump’s closest if problematic advisers who was involved in efforts to overturn the 2020 election from the start – and has a penchant for sometimes revealing too much.Giuliani could speak to events such as a 18 December 2020 meeting in the Oval Office where Trump reviewed a draft executive order to seize voting machines and verbally agreed to install conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell as special counsel to investigate election fraud.The Guardian has reported that Giuliani then led the Trump “war room” at the Willard hotel in Washington DC when Trump called from the White House and discussed ways to stop Biden’s certification – and could speak to non-privileged elements of the plan.The cooperation deal would also technically involve Giuliani turning over documents in addition to appearing before the select committee, the sources said, but the logistics were unclear given the FBI last year seized his devices that he used on 6 January.Giuliani is committed to appearing before the panel, the source said, but it was not clear whether he would testify under oath in a closed-door deposition, for which the select committee has been pushing, or appear in a more informal interview on Capitol Hill.A spokesperson for the select committee declined to comment on negotiations with witnesses. The sources added negotiations could still collapse, but if a deal could be agreed, Giuliani would probably appear before the panel at least before the end of March.The select committee has been quietly making substantial progress in its investigation into the events of 6 January, securing records from the National Archives, as well as documents and testimony from some of Trump’s top aides and advisers.‘Rudy is really hurt’: Giuliani reportedly banned from Fox NewsRead moreLast month, the chairman of the panel, congressman Bennie Thompson, revealed that House investigators had spoken to more than 500 witnesses and obtained more than 50,000 documents, including thousands from Trump’s former White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows.The willingness by Giuliani to negotiate what appears to be an expansive cooperation deal has come in stark contrast to the defiance expressed by the initial set of Trump aides and advisers who were subpoenaed by the select committee last year.Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon refused to comply with his subpoena in its entirety, boasting executive privilege protection – only to be referred to the justice department for criminal contempt of Congress and indicted on two counts about four weeks later.That has served as a warning to other witnesses. Even if his cooperation deal ultimately falls through, Giuliani may be engaging with the select committee at least to avoid a similar fate to Bannon and a potentially costly legal battle to fight such charges.The benefits of partial cooperation have also become apparent, after Meadows was held in contempt of Congress for refusing to appear for a deposition as required by his subpoena, but remains unindicted two months after his initial referral to the justice department.TopicsRudy GiulianiDonald TrumpUS politicsUS Capitol attackUS elections 2020newsReuse this content More

    • 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 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

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Revealed: Trump reviewed draft order that authorized voting machines to be seized

      by

      Revealed: Trump reviewed draft order that authorized voting machines to be seized Then president, during contentious December 2020 meeting, also agreed to appoint Sidney Powell as special counsel to investigate fraud

      Sign up to receive First Thing – our daily briefing by email
      Weeks after the 2020 election, Donald Trump reviewed a draft executive order that authorized the national guard to seize voting machines and verbally agreed to appoint Sidney Powell, a campaign lawyer and conspiracy theorist, as special counsel to investigate election fraud.Trump considered blanket pardon for Capitol insurrectionists – reportRead moreThe two previously unreported actions of the former president – which is certain to interest the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack and Trump’s efforts to overturn his defeat – came during a contentious White House meeting on 18 December 2020.Trump never followed through with issuing a formal executive order authorizing the seizure of voting machines or appointing a special counsel. But four sources with detailed knowledge of what transpired during the 18 December meeting described to the Guardian how close he came to doing so.The draft executive order Trump reviewed was one of the final versions Powell had prepared. An early version of the document was published by Politico. Another version, obtained by CNN, empowered the Department of Homeland Security instead of the Department of Defense.But all versions included language that would have allowed Trump to appoint a special counsel to investigate claims of foreign interference in the 2020 election, which the Department of Justice had already determined were without foundation.The draft executive order seen by Trump was retained automatically by the White House as a presidential record. It was recently turned over to the select committee by the National Archives after the supreme court rejected Trump’s appeal to block its release.Trump was handed the document when he sat down with four informal advisers – Powell, Trump’s former national security advisor Michael Flynn, former Trump aide Emily Newman and former Overstock chief executive Patrick Byrne – who had arrived at the White House unannounced.The group had not scheduled an audience with Trump, but after Byrne messaged an acquaintance, they were cleared to enter the White House by Garrett Ziegler, a policy aide to former Trump advisor Peter Navarro, and Patrick Weaver, an aide with the National Security Council.It is understood that the four were not registered in the West Wing guest access system as meeting with the former president, which may have violated national security protocols.In a statement, Byrne said Trump had called the group into the Oval Office after he saw Flynn, his former national security adviser, with the rest of the group about 25ft from the room. Eric Herschmann, a White House senior adviser, slipped in behind them.Trump first reviewed the draft executive order and documents brought by Powell, including a physical copy of Trump’s executive order 13848 that authorized sweeping powers in the event of foreign election interference, as she ran through the supposed legality of suspending normal law.Powell and Newman told Trump that he could rely on that order and classified National Security Presidential Memoranda 13 and 21 – cyber-security memos referenced in Powell’s draft executive order – to have the national guard seize voting machines.That prompted pushback from the former White House counsel Patrick Cipollone, who had joined the meeting with former White House staff secretary, Derek Lyons, who supported Cipollone’s claim that Trump lacked the constitutional authority to take such measures.Byrne made another attempt to convince Trump to appoint Powell as special counsel and have Flynn act as “field marshal” to coordinate her efforts. The draft executive order said Flynn would be “direct liaison” to coordinate the “applicable US departments and agencies”.Byrne claimed Trump had a range of options. He could decide whether to investigate election fraud in six, 12 or 31 states; whether to “image” hard drives in voting machines or seize them; and whether to have that done by the national guard, DHS or the FBI.Trump appeared open to such advice. Late that Friday night, two of the sources said, he told Cipollone he would just make Powell special counsel. When Cipollone said Powell would need a security clearance, which he said was probably impossible, Trump said he would grant it.But after nearly all of Trump’s formal advisers shot down Powell’s suggestions, Trump did not sign the draft executive order. Instead, he instructed Powell to coordinate with his attorney, Rudy Giuliani, about seizing voting machines or appointing a special counsel.That posed a problem for Powell, who had been ejected from the Trump campaign’s legal team a few weeks beforehand at Giulaini’s behest.The group then tried again to cajole Trump into issuing some sort of executive order, since Trump still appeared intrigued. But when Trump summoned Giuliani, the former president’s attorney said the gambit would work only in the event of clear foreign interference.Powell, who had spent the previous weeks filing lawsuits alleging that Iran and China hacked into voting machines, sprang up and announced both to everyone in the room and a coterie of aides who had been dialled in on a conference call, that she had a file full of such evidence.Giuliani looked at the documents but told Trump that Powell’s evidence was worthless, accusing her of producing one witness who was willing to testify about foreign election interference and around 10 who had simply signed affidavits saying they agreed.Top advisers including Cipollone and Lyons have told associates they did not think the exchange about making Powell special counsel was serious. But Trump continued for days to mull the special counsel and voting machine ideas.A spokesperson for Trump and a spokesperson for Cipollone did not respond to requests for comment. Powell, Giuliani and Lyons did not respond either. A spokesman for the select committee declined to comment on how the meeting might feature in its investigation.Powell told associates she believed Trump made a decision to authorize her to be a special counsel of some nature. The following day, she called the White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, saying she needed office space and a security clearance as the new special counsel.Meadows did not refute Powell’s claim but told her he was working on logistics, and then called Giuliani to tell him Powell was trying to secure another audience with Trump. Giuliani told Meadows that Trump had barred Powell from the White House.But while Meadows and other advisers had refused to grant Powell a “hard pass” that would have allowed her unfettered access to the complex, she returned to the White House on Sunday and Monday with documents on alleged Iranian threats to US election websites.Meadows had revoked Ziegler’s access to the system for permitting White House access but Powell was cleared on a temporary “appointment” pass by another aide. She was, however, blocked from meeting the former president.TopicsDonald TrumpRepublicansUS elections 2020US politicsUS Capitol attacknewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Quiet part loud: Trump says Pence ‘could have overturned the election’

      by

      Quiet part loud: Trump says Pence ‘could have overturned the election’In statement protesting against reform of Electoral Count Act, ex-president appears to admit Joe Biden won Donald Trump was accused of “saying the quiet part loud” on Sunday night, when he protested that Mike Pence, his former vice-president, could have overturned his election defeat by Joe Biden.Trump tours the country in support of candidates pushing the ‘big lie’Read moreThough he has appeared to admit Biden won before, Trump usually insists he won and his opponent stole the election through voter fraud – the “big lie” which animates rallies like one in Conroe, Texas, on Saturday.On Sunday Trump attempted to seize on moves by a bipartisan group of senators to reform the Electoral Count Act of 1887, which Trump tried to use to have Pence refuse to certify Biden’s victory.Pence concluded he did not have the authority to do so. On the same day, 6 January 2021, supporters Trump told to “fight like hell” attacked the US Capitol.Seven people died and more than 100 police officers were hurt. More than 700 people have been charged, 11 with seditious conspiracy. Trump and his aides are the target of congressional investigation.But Trump survived impeachment when enough Senate Republicans stayed loyal and is free to run for office.On Saturday, he promised pardons for 6 January rioters if re-elected and exhorted followers to protest against investigations of his business and political affairs in New York and Georgia.In a statement on Sunday, Trump claimed “fraud and many other irregularities” in the 2020 election – no large-scale fraud has been found – and asked: “How come the Democrats and … Republicans, like Wacky Susan Collins, are desperately trying to pass legislation that will not allow the vice-president to change the results of the election?“Actually, what they are saying, is that Mike Pence did have the right to change the outcome, and they now want to take that right away. Unfortunately, he didn’t exercise that power. He could have overturned the election!”Collins, of Maine, was one of seven Republicans to vote to convict Trump over the Capitol attack. Such is his grip on her party, on Sunday she would not say she would not support him if he ran again. But she did tell ABC why she wanted to reform the Electoral Count Act.“We saw, on 6 January 2021, how ambiguities, simple law, were exploited. We need to prevent that from happening again. I’m hopeful that we can come up with a bipartisan bill that will make very clear that the vice-president’s role is simply ministerial, that he has no ability to halt the count.”Dick Durbin of Illinois, a member of Democratic Senate leadership, said reform to the electoral college process was merited because Trump gambits including false slates of electors “really raise a question about the integrity of that process. It hasn’t been looked at for 150 years. Now’s the time.”Pundits seized on Trump’s latest apparent blunder into the truth.Trump pardon promise for Capitol rioters ‘stuff of dictators’ – Nixon aideRead moreBill Kristol, a conservative writer, said: “Talk about saying the quiet part loud. Trump here admits or rather boasts [about] what he wanted Mike Pence to do.”Chris Krebs, fired as head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency under Trump but who pronounced the 2020 election “the most secure in US history”, said: “In the last 24 hours the former president: (1) floated pardons for [January 6] defendants, (2) encouraged civil unrest if he’s indicted in [Georgia or New York], (3) once again confirmed he pressured Pence to overturn a lawful election.“He’s radicalizing his base to be his personal Brown Shirts.”Olivia Troye, a former Pence aide, wrote: “Every Republican candidate and official should go on record with their answer: Do you support sedition and pardoning domestic terrorists?”TopicsDonald TrumpUS elections 2020US elections 2024US politicsRepublicansUS CongressUS SenatenewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      January 6 panel subpoenas figures in scheme backing fake Trump electors

      by

      January 6 panel subpoenas figures in scheme backing fake Trump electorsHouse committee seeks to determine whether Trump White House was behind plan to send false certificates to Congress The House select committee investigating the Capitol attack on Friday issued subpoenas to lead participants in an audacious scheme to send fake Trump slates of electors to Congress.The development comes as the panel seeks to learn whether the plan was coordinated by the Trump White House.The fake certificates – which falsely declared Donald Trump the winner of the 2020 election, though the states had officially declared otherwise – are significant as they appear to have been a central tenet of the former president’s effort to return himself to power.Capitol attack committee has spoken to Trump AG William Barr, chairman saysRead moreThe fake slates of electors were sent to Congress from seven contested states that were in fact won by Joe Biden. Trump and his allies might have hoped to use them as justification for having Biden’s wins in those states rejected.Congressman Bennie Thompson, the chairman of the select committee, said that he had authorized subpoenas to 14 Republicans who were listed as the chairperson and the secretary of each group of “alternate electors” in order to learn how the scheme was coordinated.The move by the select committee comes days after the deputy attorney general, Lisa Monaco, confirmed that the justice department had opened an investigation into the scheme, raising the stakes for the fake electors and any Trump White House aides who may have been involved.Thompson issued subpoenas to the two most senior Republicans who signed onto the fake certificates in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, including several prominent current and former state Republican party leaders.The subpoena targets included: Nancy Cottle, Loraine Pellegrino, David Shafer, Shawn Still, Kathy Berden, Mayra Rodriguez, Jewll Powdrell, Deborah Maestas, Michael McDonald, James DeGraffenreid, Bill Bachenberg, Lisa Patton, Andrew Hitt and Kelly Ruh.Trump’s plan to return himself to office rested on two elements: the existence, or possible existence, of alternate slates, and then-vice president Mike Pence using the ambiguity of “dueling slates” for Trump and Biden to reject those results at Biden’s certification.The effort to subvert the results of the 2020 election at the joint session of Congress on 6 January fell apart after Pence refused to abuse his ceremonial role to certify the results, and it was clear the “alternate slates” were not legitimate certificates.But in some cases, top officials, such as Republican National Committee members Berden and DeGraffenreid and former state GOP chairs Hitt and Maestas, signed the fake certificates that used official state seals and sent them to the National Archives.“The phony electors were part of the plan to create chaos on Jan. 6,” said congressman Jamie Raskin, a member of the select committee. “The fake slates were an effort to create the illusion of contested state results,” as “a pretext for unilateral rejection of electors.”The panel is seeking to examine whether the effort was coordinated by the Trump White House and whether it amounted to a crime, according to a source familiar with the investigation. The subpoenas compel the production of documents and testimony through February.TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsHouse of RepresentativesRepublicansDonald TrumpUS elections 2020newsReuse this content More