World news

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      January 6 panel’s body of work boosts DoJ case against Trump, experts say

      by

      January 6 panel’s body of work boosts DoJ case against Trump, experts sayFormer prosecutors say exhaustive report from Capitol attack committee ‘amounts to a detailed prosecution memo’ After 18 months of investigating Donald Trump’s drive to overturn his 2020 election loss, the House committee on the January 6 insurrection has provided the Department of Justice with an exhaustive legal roadmap as it pursues potential criminal charges against the former US president.Amid reports the committee is already co-operating with DoJ by sharing evidence garnered from 1,000 witness interviews and thousands of documents, former federal prosecutors say the panel’s work offers a trove of evidence to strengthen the formidable task of DoJ prosecutors investigating the former US president and his top loyalists.The wealth of evidence against Trump compiled by the panel spurred its unprecedented decision to send the DoJ four criminal referrals for Trump and some top allies about their multi-track planning and false claims of fraud to block Joe Biden from taking office.Although the referrals do not compel the justice department to file charges against Trump or others, the enormous evidence the panel amassed should boost its investigations, say ex-federal prosecutors.The massive evidence assembled by the panel was the basis for accusing Trump of obstruction of an act of Congress, inciting insurrection, conspiracy to defraud the US and making false statements“The central cause of January 6 was one man, former president Donald Trump, who many others followed,” the committee wrote in a detailed summary of its findings a few days before the release of its final 800-plus-page report on Thursday.The panel’s blockbuster report concluded that Trump criminally plotted to nullify his defeat in 2020 and “provoked his supporters to violence” at the Capitol with baseless claims of widespread voter fraud.Former prosecutors say the committee’s detailed factual presentation should boost some overlapping inquiries by DoJ including a months-long investigation into a fake electors scheme that Trump helped spearhead in tandem with John Eastman, a conservative lawyer who was also referred to the justice department for prosecution.“The January 6 committee’s final hearing and lengthy executive summary make out a powerful case to support its criminal referrals as to Trump, Eastman, and unnamed others,” former DoJ inspector general Michael Bromwich told the Guardian.“Although the referrals carry no legal weight, they provide an unusual preview of potential charges that may well be effective in swaying public opinion,” Bromwich said.Daniel Richman, a former federal prosecutor who is now a professor at Columbia Law School, also said the panel’s work should have a positive impact on the DoJ’s investigations.“Although the committee’s hearings gave a good preview of the criminal liability theories it has now laid out in its summary, the new [executive summary] document does an extraordinary job of pulling together the evidentiary materials the committee assembled,” Richman told the Guardian.“The committee’s presentation goes far beyond a call for heads to roll, and amounts to a detailed prosecution memo that the DoJ will have to reckon with.”Other former prosecutors said they agreed. “It is difficult to imagine that the DoJ could look at this body of facts and reach a different conclusion,” said Barbara McQuade, a former US attorney for eastern Michigan.“Although the committee’s referral to the justice department is not binding in any way, and the DoJ will make its own independent assessment of whether charges are appropriate, the most important parts of the report are the facts it documents.”That factual gold mine has caught the eye of special counsel Jack Smith, who attorney general Merrick Garland tapped last month to oversee the DoJ’s sprawling criminal inquiries into the January 6 insurrection.Smith, on 5 December, in a letter, asked for all of the committee’s materials related to its 18-month inquiry, as Punchbowl News first reported.After receiving the letter, the panel sent Smith’s team transcripts and documents, much of it concerning Eastman’s key role in promoting a fake electors scheme in tandem with Trump and others to block Biden’s certification by Congress.The House panel has also provided the DoJ all of former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows’ text messages and other relevant evidence.The committee has also shared transcripts of several witness interviews related to the fake electors ploy, plus the efforts by Trump and his loyalists to prod Georgia and some other states that Biden won to nullify their results.According to a Politico report, the transcripts the panel sent to the special counsel included interviews with several top Trump-linked lawyers such as former vice-president Mike Pence’s top legal counsel Greg Jacob, former White House counsel Pat Cipollone, former attorney general Bill Barr, Jeffrey Rosen, who succeeded Barr as AG, and Rosen’s deputy Richard Donoghue.Still, there are potential downsides to some of the evidence that the panel has made public in its extensive inquiries, say former prosecutors.“The enormous cache of evidence developed by the January 6 committee is a mixed blessing for the DoJ,” Bromwich said. “Although it undoubtedly provides evidence that the DoJ had not yet collected or developed, it will require time and resources to master and fully grasp its significance.”“More importantly, it may contain landmines of various kinds – for example, witnesses whose public testimony was powerful and unequivocal, but whose initial testimony was incomplete, misleading or false. That doesn’t matter in the context of a Congressional investigation; it matters a lot when a prosecutor needs to decide whether a witness will be vulnerable to attack on cross-examination based on the full body of their testimony.”Other former prosecutors say the panel’s exhaustive documentation and witness transcripts should on balance benefit the special counsel.“The committee report gives the special counsel not only the benefit of knowing what certain witnesses will say, it also lets him know what other witnesses won’t say,” Michael Moore, a former US attorney in Georgia, told the Guardian. “That type of intel gives him the ability to put together a stronger case with fewer surprises. More information is never a bad thing to a good lawyer.”On the broader legal challenges facing the DoJ, ex-prosecutors say the panel’s work should goad the department to work diligently to investigate and charge Trump and others the panel has referred for prosecution.“Normally, the department quietly exercises enormous discretion by hiding behind the mantra that it will pursue cases whenever the facts and law support doing so,” Richman said. “The public usually has to take its word for that, as it lacks the granular knowledge to make its own assessment.“Here, though it may disagree with the committee’s handling of the law and the evidence, there will be considerable pressure on the DoJ to either bring the specified cases or find a way to explain why it will not.”TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Will the January 6 report bring a second Christmas for US publishers?

      by

      Will the January 6 report bring a second Christmas for US publishers? Major imprints are racing to sell the committee’s work to the reading public, with help from reporters, panel members, David Remnick and even a former speechwriter to TrumpThe release of the final report of the House January 6 committee has sparked a deluge of publishing activity: seven editions of the 200,000 word document from six imprints, featuring contributions from the New Yorker editor, David Remnick, the House intelligence chair, Adam Schiff, plus six other journalists, another committee member, a former congresswoman and a former speechwriter to Donald Trump.January 6 report review: 845 pages, countless crimes, one simple truth – Trump did itRead moreThere are two reasons for this hyperactivity: the belief that the completion of the report is a significant historical event, and the conviction that here is a big chance to do well by doing good.The Mueller report sold 475,000 copies in various editions, according to NPD BookScan, so the book business is hoping it can do at least that well with the latest copy provided for free by the federal government.Harper Perennial says it is printing 250,000 copies of its version, which features a powerful introduction by Ari Melber, an MSNBC host, that reads like a smart prosecutor’s multi-part indictment. It helps that Melber’s marketing power is at least as great as his brain power. Pushing it on his nightly show, he has already gotten the book to the top of one Amazon bestseller list, long before it has reached any store.The lawyer turned TV personality does the best job of delineating the eight plots Trump and his allies pursued to try to overthrow the election, seven of which were clearly illegal or unconstitutional.“They attempted a coup,” Melber declares. “That is the most important fact about what happened.”Remnick and Jamie Raskin, like Schiff a committee member, teamed up to write an introduction and an afterword for the version being published by an imprint of Macmillan.Remnick gets straight to the heart of the matter: “Trump does little to conceal his most distinctive characteristics: his racism, misogyny, dishonesty, narcissism, incompetence, cruelty, instability, and corruption. And yet what has kept Trump afloat for so long, what has helped him evade ruin and prosecution, is perhaps his most salient quality: he is shameless.”Because so many of us have nearly lost our “ability to experience outrage”, Remnick concedes that “the prospect of engaging with this congressional inquiry … is sometimes a challenge to the spirit … And yet a citizenry that can no longer bring itself to pay attention to such an investigation or to absorb its astonishing findings risks moving even farther toward a disturbing ‘new normal’: a post-truth, post-democratic America.”Raskin sees the assault on the Capitol as the latest in a series of “systematic threats” to US democracy, including “massive voter suppression, gerrymandering of state and federal legislative districts, the use of the filibuster to block protection of voting rights, and right-wing judicial activism to undermine the Voting Rights Act”.His biggest goal is the elimination of electoral college, without any amendment to the constitution. That can be done through “the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, an agreement among participating states that gives electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the nationwide popular vote, and which has already been adopted by 15 states and the District of Columbia with 195 electoral votes, or 72% of the 270 votes needed” to put it into effect.Writing for Random House, Schiff excoriates Republicans for trying so hard to block certification of Biden’s victory even after the Capitol invasion – 147 Republicans including eight senators lodged objections early on the morning of January 7. But he is also careful to give credit to Republican witnesses who did so much to burnish the committee’s credibility.“These officials, Republicans all, not only held fast against enormous pressure from a president of their party but were willing to stand before the country and testify under oath,” Schiff writes.Schiff argues that the report is an undeniable brief for prosecution of Trump: “Bringing to justice a former president who, even now, advocates the suspension of our constitution is a perilous endeavor. Not doing so is far more dangerous.”For Skyhorse, the former congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, the only contributor old enough to have voted to impeach Richard Nixon, echoes Schiff on this point.“Having had to vote to impeach a president when I was in Congress, I am certain that [the January 6 committee] did not make its criminal referrals to the justice department lightly. In the same vein, the DoJ should not treat it lightly – and I hope and believe the American people will not let that happen.”The Hachette book has the largest amount of additional material, including a first-person account of the Capitol attack by a New York Times reporter, Luke Broadwater. After making it to a secure area, Broadwater found he was “much more angry” than “afraid”. So were other more conservative reporters, disgusted by senators who encouraged the myth of election theft. Broadwater recalls “one shouting to a Republican as he passed by, ‘Are you proud of yourself, Senator?’”All of these books are serious efforts to put the committee’s exhaustive findings in a larger political and historical context, including the one published by Skyhorse with an introduction by Holtzman. But Skyhorse also maintains its maverick reputation as a publisher famous for picking up books others have spurned (Woody Allen’s memoir, for example) by publishing two versions of the new report, one with Holtzman’s foreword and another featuring Darren Beattie, a former speechwriter for Trump and Steven Miller.Tony Lyons, the US publisher who picks up books ‘cancelled’ by other pressesRead moreBeattie was fired by the Trump White House after it was reported that he attended a conference with Peter Brimelow, founder of the anti-immigrant website VDare, a “white nationalist” who “regularly publishes works by white supremacists, antisemites, and others on the radical right”, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.Beattie is horrified that the January 6 committee describes the assault on the Capitol as an outgrowth of white supremacy.“Far from serving as an objective fact-finding body, the January 6 committee functioned as such an egregiously performative, partisan kangaroo display as to make propagandists in North Korea blush,” he writes – with characteristic understatement.Beattie provides more comic relief with his approach to the alleged election fraud which is one of the main subjects of the report.“It would take us too far afield to consider the election fraud allegations in detail on the merits,” Beattie writes.Then he gives a long explanation of why no one should think Trump really believed he lost the election, just because that’s what his attorney general and so many others told him.“For all of the committee’s fixation on the term ‘Big Lie’, the committee presents precious little if any evidence that Donald Trump didn’t genuinely believe that election fraud ultimately tipped the balance against him.“… The committee’s first televised hearing repeated ad nauseam a video clip of Trump’s former attorney general Bill Barr referring to Trump’s election fraud theories as ‘bullshit’.“Apart from Barr, the committee referenced numerous Trump associates who claim to have told the former president his election fraud theories were wrong. The simple fact that some of Trump’s senior staffers may have disagreed with Trump on the election issue is hardly proof that Trump was persuaded by them, and that therefore Trump’s efforts to ‘stop the steal’ amounted to a deliberate lie and malicious attempt to prevent the legitimate and peaceful transition of power.Republican senator called Giuliani ‘walking malpractice’, January 6 report saysRead more“Barr’s additional remark that Trump was ‘completely detached from reality’ when it came to the 2020 election unwittingly undermines the committee’s suggestion that Trump was lying about the matter.”Primetime hearings sometimes reached as many 18 million viewers, a number Remnick notes was “comparable to Sunday Night Football on NBC”. In the midterm elections, many exit polls found that the preservation of democracy was a key factor in the decision of many swing voters to vote against Republicans. It seems clear the investigation bolstered American democracy in more ways than one.While a hearty minority obviously remain as far down a rabbit hole as Trump’s former speechwriter, the results of the recent election bolster my conviction that sane Americans still constitute a small majority of American voters.So, like most of the contributors to these volumes, I think there is much to be grateful for in the work of the most successful congressional investigators since the Senate Watergate committee of 50 years ago. Or, as Remnick puts it, “If you are reaching for optimism – and despair is not an option – the existence and the depth of the committee’s project represents a kind of hope. It represents an insistence on truth and democratic principle.”TopicsBooksJanuary 6 hearingsUS Capitol attackUS politicsUS CongressHouse of RepresentativesPolitics booksfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Kari Lake: Arizona judge throws out challenge to defeat in governor race

      by

      Kari Lake: Arizona judge throws out challenge to defeat in governor raceTrump supporter has refused to concede to Democrat Katie Hobbs but Maricopa judge says no evidence of misconduct A judge on Saturday threw out Republican Kari Lake’s challenge of her defeat in the Arizona governor’s race to the Democrat Katie Hobbs, rejecting her claim that problems with ballot printers at some polling places on election day were the result of intentional misconduct.January 6 report review: 845 pages, countless crimes, one simple truth – Trump did itRead moreThe Maricopa county superior court judge, Peter Thompson, who was appointed by then-Republican governor Jan Brewer, said the court did not find clear and convincing evidence of the widespread misconduct Lake alleged affected the result of the 2022 election. Lake will appeal, she said.Lake’s witnesses did not have any personal knowledge of intentional misconduct, the judge said, adding: “The court cannot accept speculation or conjecture in place of clear and convincing evidence.”Lake, who lost by more than 17,000 votes, was among the most vocal Republican midterm candidates promoting Donald Trump’s election fraud lie. While most other election deniers conceded after losing in November, Lake has not. Instead, she asked the judge to either declare her the winner or order a revote in Maricopa county.Judge Thompson acknowledged the “anger and frustration” of voters who were inconvenienced but noted that setting aside the results of an election “has never been done in the history of the United States”.“This court’s duty is not solely to incline an ear to public outcry,” he said. “It is to subject plaintiff’s claims and defendants’ actions to the light of the courtroom and scrutiny of the law.”Lawyers for Lake focused on problems with ballot printers at some polling places in Maricopa county, home to more than 60% of Arizona voters. The defective printers produced ballots that were too light to be read by on-site tabulators. Lines backed up in some areas, amid confusion.County officials say everyone had a chance to vote and all ballots were counted, since ballots affected by the printers were taken to more sophisticated counters at elections department headquarters. They are in the process of investigating the cause of the printer problems.Lake’s attorneys claimed the chain of custody for ballots was broken at an off-site facility, where a contractor scans mail ballots to prepare them for processing. They claimed workers put their own mail ballots into the pile, rather than sending their ballots through normal channels, and also that paperwork documenting the transfer of ballots was missing. The county disputes the claim.Lake faced extremely long odds in her challenge, needing to prove not only that misconduct occurred but also that it was intended to deny her victory and did result in the wrong woman being declared the winner.Her attorneys pointed to a witness who examined ballots on behalf of her campaign and discovered 14 that had 19in (48cm) images of the ballot printed on 20in paper, meaning the ballots wouldn’t be read by a tabulator. The witness insisted someone changed those printer configurations, a claim disputed by elections officials.County officials say the ballot images were slightly smaller as a result of a shrink-to-fit feature being selected on a printer by a tech employee looking for solutions to election day issues. They say about 1,200 ballots were affected and that those ballots were duplicated so they could be read and counted.A pollster testified on behalf of Lake, claiming technical problems disenfranchised enough voters that it would have changed the outcome of the race. But an expert called to testify by election officials said there was no evidence to back up the claim that 25,000 to 40,000 people who would normally have voted did not cast ballots as a result of election day problems.A witness called on behalf of Lake acknowledged that that people who had their vote rejected by tabulators or ballot-on-demand printers – an occurrence for many voters – could still cast a ballot and have it counted.“The BOD printer failures did not actually affect the results of the election,” the judge said.Thompson previously dismissed eight of 10 claims Lake raised in her lawsuit. Among those was the allegation that Hobbs, as secretary of state, and the Maricopa county recorder, Stephen Richer, engaged in censorship by flagging social media posts with election misinformation for possible removal by Twitter.Thompson also dismissed Lake’s claims of discrimination against Republicans and that mail-in voting procedures are illegal.Hobbs takes office as governor on 2 January.On Friday, another judge dismissed the Republican Abraham Hamadeh’s challenge of results in his race against the Democrat Kris Mayes for state attorney general. The court concluded that Hamadeh, who finished 511 votes behind Mayes and has not conceded, did not prove the errors in vote counting he alleged.A court hearing is scheduled on Thursday to present results of recounts in the races for attorney general, state superintendent and a state legislative seat.TopicsArizonaRepublicansUS midterm elections 2022US politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Tlaib and MTG among more than 220 House proxy voters on spending bill

      by

      Tlaib and MTG among more than 220 House proxy voters on spending billRepublicans rail against pandemic-era rule as 226 House members from left to far right take chance not to vote in person Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, one of two Democrats to oppose the $1.7tn spending bill that averted a US government shutdown on Friday, did so by voting “present”. But Tlaib was not present at the Capitol, voting instead by proxy.House passes $1.7tn spending bill to avert US government shutdownRead moreProxy voting was instituted during the Covid pandemic and is due to come to an end on 3 January, in the new Congress with Republicans controlling the House.On Friday, as a huge winter storm bore down on Washington, threatening flights home for Christmas, 226 House members cast proxy votes on the omnibus bill.Republicans say they will get rid of proxy voting. According to the minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, “In 11 days … [we will] return the House back to a functioning constitutional body by repealing proxy voting once and for all.”On Friday, some on the right of the GOP, a faction McCarthy must woo if he is to win the speaker’s gavel, claimed the large number of proxy voters on the omnibus bill meant the required quorum was not achieved and the bill could thus be challenged. The chair rejected such claims.One high-profile rightwinger was among those who voted by proxy. As reported by Business Insider, a vacation in Costa Rica meant Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia skipped in-person voting on the spending bill and other events this week including the address to Congress by the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy.By Saturday, Greene was taking heat not just for proxy voting, having introduced a bill to ban the practice earlier this year, but for holidaying while other Georgians endured power outages and plunging temperatures.There was enough anger to go round. Politico observed that though it understood many members of Congress were not “super-thrilled to be in Washington with Christmas in two days … more than half of the chamber skipping out on the most basic duty members face – showing up to vote – is a poor showing, especially given the pandemic rationale under which the system is meant to be used”.The spending bill passed by 225-201, with Tlaib the lone “present” vote and four Republicans not voting.Tlaib said: “People are demanding we take meaningful action in providing relief and protection during this public health emergency. This bill does not go nearly far enough in providing that help and support.”She was joined by another high-profile progressive, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.The New Yorker said she voted no because the bill contained a “dramatic increase” in immigration-enforcement spending which “cuts against the promises our party has made to immigrant communities across the country”.Nine Republicans supported the bill. Seven are leaving Congress, among them Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, the two anti-Trump Republicans on the House January 6 committee.January 6 report review: 845 pages, countless crimes, one simple truth – Trump did itRead moreBrian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Steve Womack of Arkansas supported the bill and will remain in Congress. In the new House, Politico said, “Democrats will surely be getting to know the two of them better”.McCarthy used a long speech on Friday to play to the right-wingers he needs to be speaker, railing against “a monstrosity” of a bill he said was filled with “leftwing pet projects” and “one of the most shameful acts I’ve ever seen in his body”.Nancy Pelosi responded with remarks she said were probably her last as speaker.“It was sad to hear the minority leader earlier say that this legislation is the most shameful thing to be seen on the House floor in this Congress,” the Democrat said.“I can’t help but wonder, had he forgotten January 6?”TopicsHouse of RepresentativesUS CongressUS domestic policyUS politicsDemocratsRashida TlaibAlexandria Ocasio-CorteznewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Republican senator called Giuliani ‘walking malpractice’, January 6 report says

      by

      Republican senator called Giuliani ‘walking malpractice’, January 6 report saysMike Lee of Utah made comment in text message to Trump aide on evening after the Capitol attack A senator who received a voice message meant for another Republican on January 6 described the caller, Rudy Giuliani, as “walking malpractice”.January 6 report review: 845 pages, countless crimes, one simple truth – Trump did itRead moreThe piquant characterisation of the former New York mayor, then Donald Trump’s attorney and a leading proponent of his election fraud lie, was made in a text message sent by Mike Lee of Utah.The text was included in the final report of the House January 6 committee, which was released late on Thursday. Reporters immediately scoured its 845 pages for new details of Trump’s attempt to overturn his election defeat, leading to the attack on the Capitol.Lee’s comment is contained in a footnote to page 631. It says: “6 January 2021, text message from Senator Mike Lee to [national security adviser] Robert O’Brien at 10.55pm EST reading, ‘You can’t make this up. I just got this voice message [from] Rudy Giuliani, who apparently thought he was calling Senator Tuberville.“‘You’ve got to listen to that message. Rudy is walking malpractice.’”Giuliani was trying to contact Tommy Tuberville, from Alabama, before Congress reconvened to certify Joe Biden’s election victory, the process the rioters tried to stop.Biden’s win was certified, though not before 147 Republicans in the House and Senate objected to results in key states, shortly after rioters sought lawmakers to capture and perhaps kill, some chanting that they wanted to hang the vice-president, Mike Pence.The attack is now linked to nine deaths, including law enforcement suicides.Giuliani’s message was reported at the time. Referring to the Trump team’s efforts in key states, he said: “I’m calling you because I want to discuss with you how they’re trying to rush this hearing and how we need you, our Republican friends, to try to just slow it down so we can get these legislatures to get more information to you.“And I know they’re reconvening at eight tonight, but … the only strategy we can follow is to object to numerous states and raise issues so that we get ourselves into tomorrow – ideally until the end of tomorrow.“I know [Senate Republican leader Mitch] McConnell is doing everything he can to rush it, which is kind of a kick in the head because it’s one thing to oppose us, it’s another thing not to give us a fair opportunity to contest it.”McConnell would later vote to acquit Trump, in an impeachment trial arising from the Capitol attack, when conviction would have barred the former president from holding federal office again.In contrast, legal authorities now seem inclined to agree with Lee’s assessment of Giuliani’s unsuitability to practice as an attorney.Earlier this month, a preliminary disciplinary hearing of the Washington DC bar saw counsel argue that Giuliani, 78, should lose his license because of his attempt to undermine the election.Defending himself, Giuliani said: “I believe that I’ve been persecuted for three or four years, including false charges brought against me by the federal government.”Giuliani review: Andrew Kirtzman’s definitive life of Trump’s last lackeyRead moreThough his activities in support of Trump’s election subversion are the subject of numerous investigations, Giuliani has not been charged with any crime.His license to practise law in New York, the city he once led, was however suspended in June last year.Numerous reports and books have described Giuliani’s increasingly bizarre behaviour in his role as Trump’s attorney.His biographer, Andrew Kirtzman, concluded that while Trump remains a political player, running for the Republican nomination in 2024, “Giuliani … [is] finished in every conceivable way.”TopicsRudy GiulianiJanuary 6 hearingsUS Capitol attackUS politicsRepublicansDonald TrumpTrump administrationnewsReuse this content More

    • 188 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      January 6 report review: 845 pages, countless crimes, one simple truth – Trump did it

      by

      ReviewJanuary 6 report review: 845 pages, countless crimes, one simple truth – Trump did it The House committee has done its work. The result is a riveting read, utterly damning of the former president and his followersWhether fomenting insurrection, standing accused of rape or stiffing the IRS, Donald Trump remains in the news. On Monday, the House select committee voted to issue its final report. Three days later, after releasing witness transcripts, the committee delivered the full monty. Bennie Thompson, Liz Cheney and the rest of committee name names and flash receipts. At 845 pages, the report is damning – and monumental.January 6 panel accuses Trump of ‘multi-part conspiracy’ in final reportRead moreTrumpworld is a crime scene, a tableau lifted from Goodfellas. Joshua Green of Bloomberg nailed that in The Devil’s Bargain, his 2017 take on Trump’s winning campaign. The gang was always transgressive, fear and violence part of its repertoire.Brian Sicknick, the Capitol police officer who died after the riot. E Jean Carroll, who alleges sexual assault. Shaye Moss, the Georgia elections worker targeted by Rudy Giuliani and other minions. Each bears witness.The January 6 report laments that “thuggish behavior from President Trump’s team, including efforts to intimidate described elsewhere … gave rise to many concerns about [Cassidy] Hutchinson’s security, both in advance of and since her public testimony”.Hutchinson is the former aide to Trump and his final chief of staff, Mark Meadows, whose testimony may have been the most dramatic and impactful.In the same vein, the committee chronicles Trump’s demand that Brad Raffensperger, the Republican secretary of state in Georgia, “find 11,780 votes”. Trump reminded Raffensperger of the possible consequences if his directive went unheeded: “That’s a criminal, that’s a criminal offense. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer … I’m notifying you that you’re letting it happen.”Now, a Fulton county grand jury weighs Trump’s fate. Jack Smith, a federal prosecutor newly appointed special counsel, may prove Trump’s match too.Transcripts released by the committee show Stefan Passantino, Hutchinson’s initial lawyer, engaging in conduct that markedly resembles witness tampering.“Stefan said, ‘No, no, no, no, no. We don’t want to talk about that.’” According to Hutchinson, Passantino was talking about Trump’s fabled post-rally meltdown on January 6, when told he couldn’t go to the Capitol too.Hutchinson understood that disloyalty would mean repercussions. It took immense courage and conscience to speak as she did. Trump’s supporting cast was retribution-ready. She knew she would be “fucking nuked”.In a woeful prebuttal, Passantino claimed to have behaved “honorably” and “ethically”. He blamed Hutchinson. His advice, he said, was “fully consistent” with the “sole interests” of his client. He is now on leave from his law firm.To quote the final report, “certain witnesses from the Trump White House displayed a lack of full recollection of certain issues”. Meadows, for one, is shown to have an allergy to the truth. The committee singles out The Chief’s Chief, his memoir, as an exercise in fabulism. Trump gave Meadows a blurb for his cover: “We will have a big future together”. In so many ways, Donald. In so many ways.Trump tested positive for Covid few days before Biden debate, chief of staff says in new bookRead moreThe book “made the categorical claim that the president never intended to travel to the Capitol” on 6 January, the committee now says, adding that the “evidence demonstrates that Meadows’s claim is categorically false”.He had needlessly cast a spotlight on himself and others. The report: “Because the Meadows book conflicted sharply with information that was being received by the select committee, the committee became increasingly wary that other witnesses might intentionally conceal what happened.”Then again, no one ever accused Meadows, a former congressman, of being the sharpest knife in the drawer. Reptilian calculation is not prudence or prescience. Last year, Trump trashed Meadows as “fucking stupid”. He may have a point. After all, Meadows confessed to Trump of possibly putting Joe Biden’s life in jeopardy at the September 2020 debate, after positive and negative Covid tests that were covered up.Trump himself derided the Chief’s Chief as “fake news”. The committee referred Meadows to the justice department.“It’s easy to imagine Meadows has flipped and is cooperating with the justice department,” said Ryan Goodman, a New York University law professor and former Pentagon special counsel. The vicious cycle rolls on.The committee also gives Kayleigh McEnany, Trump’s final press secretary, her own moment in the sun. She too attempted to cover the tracks of her boss.“A segment of McEnany’s testimony seemed evasive,” the committee concludes. “In multiple instances, McEnany’s testimony did not seem nearly as forthright as that of her press office staff, who testified about what McEnany said.”We saw this movie before – when McEnany stood at the West Wing lectern.“McEnany disputed suggestions that President Trump was resistant to condemning the violence and urging the crowd at the Capitol to act peacefully when they crafted his tweet at 2.38pm on January 6,” the report says. “Yet one of her deputies, Sarah Matthews, told the select committee that McEnany informed her otherwise.”Last year, McEnany delivered a book of her own, namely For Such a Time as This. The title riffs off the Book of Esther. McEnany repeatedly thanks the deity, touts her academic credentials and vouches for her honesty. She claims she never lied to reporters. After all, her education at “Oxford, Harvard and Georgetown” meant she always relied on “truthful, well-sourced, well-researched information”.She lauds Trump for standing for “faith, conservatism and freedom” and delivers a bouquet to Meadows. “You were a constant reminder of faith. Thank you for being an inspiring leader for the entire West Wing.”Whether Trump retains the loyalty of evangelicals in 2024 remains to be seen.The January 6 report often kills with understatement. For example, it repeatedly mocks Giuliani and his posse. The committee notes: “On 7 November, Rudy Giuliani headlined a Philadelphia press conference in front of a landscaping business called Four Seasons Total Landscaping, near a crematorium and down the street from a sex shop.”Like Giuliani’s three ex-wives, the members of the committee loathe him.“Standing in front of former New York police commissioner and recently pardoned convicted felon Bernard Kerik, Giuliani gave opening remarks and handed the podium over to his first supposed eyewitness to election fraud, who turned out to be a convicted sex offender.”If the debacle surrounding George Santos, the newly-elected New York congressman, teaches us anything, it is that you can never do enough background-checking.Trump should be barred from holding office again, January 6 panel saysRead moreGiuliani’s law license is suspended, on account of “false claims” in post-election hearings. A panel of the DC bar has recommended disbarment.Nick Fuentes, Trump’s infamous neo-Nazi dinner guest, also appears in the January 6 report, regarding his part in the insurrection. He is quoted: “Capitol siege was fucking awesome.” Recently, Fuentes reaffirmed his admiration for Hitler. Trump still refuses to disavow him.Trumpworld is a tangled web. Ultimately, though, the January 6 report is chillingly clear about the spider at its center.“The central cause of January 6 was one man, former President Donald Trump. None of the events of January 6 would have happened without him.”True.
      The Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol is available here.
      TopicsJanuary 6 hearingsUS Capitol attackUS politicsDonald TrumpTrump administrationUS CongressHouse of RepresentativesreviewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump, Bankman-Fried and Musk are the monsters of American capitalism | Robert Reich

      by

      Trump, Bankman-Fried and Musk are the monsters of American capitalismRobert ReichFor them, and for everyone who still regards them as heroes, there is no morality in business or economics. The winnings go to the most ruthless If this past week presents any single lesson, it’s the social costs of greed. Capitalism is premised on greed but also on guardrails – laws and norms – that prevent greed from becoming so excessive that it threatens the system as a whole.Yet the guardrails can’t hold when avarice becomes the defining trait of an era, as it is now. Laws and norms are no match for the possibility of raking in billions if you’re sufficiently ruthless and unprincipled.Donald Trump’s tax returns, just made public, reveal that he took bogus deductions to reduce his tax liability all the way to zero in 2020. All told, he reported $60m in losses during his presidency while continuing to pull in big money.Every other president since Nixon has released his tax returns. Trump told America he couldn’t because he was in the middle of an IRS audit. But we now learn that the IRS never got around to auditing Trump during his first two years in office, despite being required to do so by a law dating back to Watergate, stating that “individual tax returns for the president and the vice-president are subject to mandatory review”.Of course, Trump is already synonymous with greed and the aggressive violation of laws and norms in pursuit of money and power. Worse yet, when a president of the United States exemplifies – even celebrates – these traits, they leach out into society like underground poison.Meanwhile, this past week the SEC accused Sam Bankman-Fried of illicitly using customer money from FTX from the beginning to fund his crypto empire.“From the start, contrary to what FTX investors and trading customers were told, Bankman-Fried, actively supported by Defendants, continually diverted FTX customer funds … and then used those funds to continue to grow his empire, using billions of dollars to make undisclosed private venture investments, political contributions, and real estate purchases.”If the charge sticks, it represents one of the largest frauds in American history. Until recently, Bankman-Fried was considered a capitalist hero whose philanthropy was a model for aspiring billionaires (he and his business partner also donated generously to politicians).But like the IRS and Trump, the SEC can’t possibly remedy the social costs that Bankman-Fried has unleashed – not just losses to customers and investors but a deepening distrust and cynicism about the system as a whole, the implicit assumption that this is just what billionaires do, that the way to make a fortune is to blatantly disregard norms and laws, and that only chumps are mindful of the common good.Which brings us to Elon Musk, whose slash-and-burn maneuvers at Twitter might cause even the most rabid capitalist to wince. They also raise questions about Musk’s other endeavor, Tesla. Shares in the electric vehicle maker dropped by almost 9% on Thursday as analysts grew increasingly concerned about its fate. Not only is Musk neglecting the carmaker but he’s appropriating executive talent from Tesla to help him at Twitter. (Tesla stock is down over 64% year-to-date.)Musk has never been overly concerned about laws and norms (you’ll recall that he kept Tesla’s factory in Fremont, California, going during the pandemic even when public health authorities refused him permission to do so, resulting in a surge of Covid infections among workers). For him, it’s all about imposing his gargantuan will on others.Trump, Bankman-Fried and Musk are the monsters of American capitalism – as much products of this public-be-damned era as they are contributors to it. For them, and for everyone who still regards them as heroes, there is no morality in business or economics. The winnings go to the most ruthless. Principles are for sissies.But absent any moral code, greed is a public danger. Its poison cannot be contained by laws or accepted norms. Everyone is forced to guard against the next con (or else pull an even bigger con). Laws are broken whenever the gains from breaking them exceed the penalties (multiplied by the odds of getting caught). Social trust erodes.Adam Smith, the so-called father of modern capitalism, never called himself an economist. He called himself a “moral philosopher,” engaged in discovering the characteristics of a good society. He thought his best book was not The Wealth of Nations, the bible of modern capitalist apologists, but the Theory of Moral Sentiments, where he argued that the ethical basis of society lies in compassion for other human beings.Presumably Adam Smith would have bemoaned the growing inequalities, corruption, and cynicism spawned by modern capitalism and three of its prime exemplars – Trump, Bankman-Fried, and Musk.TopicsUS newsOpinionUS politicsUS taxationDonald TrumpSam Bankman-FriedFTXUS economycommentReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Deeply personal’ Zelenskiy-Biden meeting cemented their bond, says top adviser

      by

      ‘Deeply personal’ Zelenskiy-Biden meeting cemented their bond, says top adviserExclusive: Andriy Yermak, the Ukrainian president’s top adviser, describes the significance of this week’s White House visit

      Russia-Ukraine war – latest news updates
      Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s visit to the White House confirmed that Ukraine and the US are “strategic partners” for the first time in history, the Ukrainian leader’s most senior adviser has said in an interview on his return home.Andriy Yermak, the head of the Ukrainan president’s office, told the Guardian that the trip on Wednesday had cemented Zelenskiy’s bond with the US president, Joe Biden – and with senior US Republicans, despite “dirty” comments made by the Fox News host Tucker Carlson.The summit and press conference between the two leaders this week demonstrated “how deeply in personal attitude President Biden feels everything which is connected to Ukraine”, Yermak said, and that the US was “a real leader of the free world and democracy”.Secret train and a government plane: how Zelenskiy made his high-security trip to the US Read moreYermak’s emphasis on the personal links forged by the surprise visit, the first time Zelenskiy had been outside Ukraine since the start of the war, comes despite a failure to immediately obtain the US Abrams tanks, F-16 fighter jets and long-range army tactical missile system ATACMS that Ukraine has said it needs to defeat Russia.But it demonstrates a belief in Kyiv that Ukraine must emphasise the moral dimension of its fight against the invading Russian army and its faith in its relationship with the US to unlock more and more of the military aid it badly needs as the war heads towards its first anniversary in February.“It’s [the] first time in history that Ukraine and [the] United States are close as strategic partners. There is a very warm, very friendly relationship, [a] personal relationship between [the] two presidents,” said Yermak, who was by Zelenskiy’s side during the trip.As well as the meeting with Biden, Yermak highlighted meetings Zelenskiy had with US congressional leaders, including those with senior Republicans Mitch McConnell, the senate minority leader, and Kevin McCarthy, the leading candidate to become House speaker next month.The Ukrainian contrasted that with the attitude of Carlson, who said Zelenskiy looked like “a manager of a strip club” who should have been thrown out of Congress for wearing his trademark khaki fatigues when he addressed the country’s lawmakers.Carlson was “saying dirty things”, Yermak said, but “he’s not the voice of the Republican party, he’s not the voice of [the] GOP and I can make that conclusion after we met with representatives of [the] GOP in the Congress”.01:22During the visit, Biden did announce $1.85bn (£1.54bn) in new military assistance to Ukraine, including the delivery of a single Patriot missile defence system, a longstanding request from Kyiv to help it better defend its cities and electricity grid, now prone to repeated blackouts after sustained Russian bombing.Now back in Kyiv, speaking via a video call, Yermak said he believed this would help unlock other military support. “I hope that we will receive everything which we need and this visit will send a very strong signal for all allies that our United States believes in our victory,” the presidential aide said.Kyiv has been calling for a mixture of US and European weapons, such as the German-made Leopard tanks and Marder infantry fighting vehicles, as it tries to find a way to break through Russia’s frontlines in the new year.The leaders of the free world. A historic meeting of the Presidents of 🇺🇦 and the 🇺🇸 – @ZelenskyyUa and @POTUS.A great victory is ahead. 💪 pic.twitter.com/k6IIN5l9rP— Andriy Yermak (@AndriyYermak) December 21, 2022
      Yermak declined to say when or where Ukraine might launch its next counterattack, but he predicted 2023 would be a decisive moment in the war. “We will do everything we can to retake our territory. I understand it will be difficult and hard work. Our great, brave nation will continue to fight. I’m sure next year really will be victory year.”Asked if victory included taking back Crimea, annexed by Russia in 2014, he replied: “Absolutely.” The US administration has not explicitly backed Zelenskiy’s vow to reclaim the peninsula – a mission that most analysts believe would be difficult for Ukraine’s army. The chief of staff said he did not want to speculate on Vladimir Putin’s trip this week to meet Belarus’s dictator, Alexander Lukashenko, in the capital, Minsk. A recent buildup of Russian troops along the border with Ukraine has fuelled fears Putin may be planning to again attack from the north, in another attempt to seize Kyiv, similar to Russia’s doomed advance in February.“We have danger along the whole border,” Yermak said, adding: “I’m not keen to know what’s going on inside Putin’s head.” He said Kyiv had received intelligence from its partners and from its frontline soldiers, and was ready for “any kind of provocation”. On Friday, the US also accused North Korea of supplying “an inital arms delivery” of missiles and rockets to the Russian mercenary group Wagner, which is fighting on behalf of the Kremlin in eastern Donbas. North Korea and Wagner have denied the report.Asked how Zelenskiy was bearing up as the first anniversary of Moscow’s invasion loomed, Yermak said: “He’s OK.” He added: “Of course he’s working a lot. For him this is normal. He has worked his whole life. He’s a responsible person and deeply involved in everything: weapons, military strategy, energy and economic issues. He’s the best choice of the Ukrainian people.”A former film producer and lawyer, Yermak joined the presidential administration in 2019 after Zelenskiy’s landslide election victory. Early the following year he became chief of staff. He described his boss as the “best president” in the “current history of Ukraine”.Russia’s unprovoked invasion, he said, had propelled Zelenskiy to a level of extraordinary global acclaim: “Now Ukraine is the leader of the free world and the leader of our region. We have a strong military. We are liberating our territory and we are fighting the so-called second biggest army on the planet.”Yermak concluded: “There are terrible tragedies: we are losing the best people. But we will definitely win.”TopicsUkraineVolodymyr ZelenskiyJoe BidenVladimir PutinRussiaBelarusUS CongressnewsReuse this content More