World news

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Uvalde survivor, 11, tells House hearing she smeared herself with friend’s blood

      by

      Uvalde survivor, 11, tells House hearing she smeared herself with friend’s blood Miah Cerrillo recounts at gun violence hearing how she watched as her teacher and friends were shot and acted quickly to save herself01:59An 11-year-old survivor of the elementary school massacre in Uvalde, Texas testified before the House oversight committee on Wednesday, as lawmakers continued to try to reach a compromise on gun control legislation after a series of devastating mass shootings.‘It all happened too fast’: injured Uvalde teacher recounts school shootingRead moreThe House hearing came two weeks after an 18-year-old opened fire at Robb elementary school, killing 19 children and two teachers, and three weeks after 10 people were killed at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York.Miah Cerrillo, a fourth-grader at the Uvalde school, recounted how she watched as her teacher and friends were shot and acted quickly to save herself. Miah covered herself in a friend’s blood and played dead until she was able to reach her teacher’s phone and call police.In her recorded testimony, Miah said she no longer felt safe at school.“Because I don’t want it to happen again,” she said.The slow police response to the Uvalde shooting has been the focus of intense scrutiny and criticism.Miah was joined by other families affected by gun violence, including Felix and Kimberly Rubio, whose daughter Lexi died in Uvalde, and Zeneta Everhart, whose son Zaire Goodman was injured in Buffalo. Ten people were killed there, in a supermarket by another gunman with an AR-15-style rifle.“We don’t want you to think of Lexi as just a number,” Rubio told the committee. “She was intelligent, compassionate and athletic. So today we stand for Lexi, and as her voice we demand action.”Gun control experts and New York mayor Eric Adams also testified at the hearing on the need to restrict access to firearms and, by extension, reduce violent crime.“It is high noon in America, time for every one of us to decide where we stand on the issue of gun violence,” Adams said. “I am here today to ask every one of you, and everyone in this Congress, to stand with me to end gun violence and protect the lives of all Americans.”But the emotional and searing testimony did not stop Republicans on the committee rehashing talking points about why they oppose gun restrictions.“Kneejerk reactions to impose gun control policies that seek to curtail our constitutional right to bear arms are not the answer,” said James Comer, the Republican ranking member.The Democratic chair of the committee, Carolyn Maloney, criticized Republican efforts to deflect attention from the need to reform gun laws.“They have blamed violent video games. They have blamed family values. They have even blamed open doors. They have blamed everything but guns,” Maloney said. “But we know the United States does not have a monopoly on mental illness, video games or any other excuse. What America does have is widespread access to guns.”The House was working on Wednesday to pass gun control proposals which would raise the age requirement to buy semi-automatic weapons from 18 to 21 and enact a federal extreme risk protection order for gun access, known as a “red-flag” law.The House has already passed bills to expand background checks for firearm purchases and increase the time gun sellers must wait for checks to be completed.But all those bills are unlikely to pass the 50-50 Senate, where 60 votes are needed to pass most legislation. A bipartisan group of senators has been negotiating over a potential compromise on gun control, but any legislation that can make it through the Senate will probably be far narrower than proposals approved by the House.Thom Tillis, a Republican from North Carolina, indicated on Tuesday that Democrats’ proposal to raise the age requirement for purchasing semi-automatic weapons was unlikely to be included in the Senate bill.“That can be in the discussion, but right now we’re trying to work on things where we have agreement,” Tillis told CNN. “We’ve got a lot of people in the discussion. We’ve got to get 60 votes.”Despite such disputes, senators have voiced confidence that they can craft a compromise bill. Members of the group met again Wednesday, and John Cornyn, a Republican of Texas, expressed hope that they would soon strike an agreement.“I think it’s reasonable to expect in the next couple weeks, maybe this work period, that that would be – I’m just speaking for myself – an aspirational goal,” Cornyn said. “But obviously, we have 100 senators who are free agents, and they can do anything they want on whatever timetable.”02:08The families whose lives have been forever altered by gun violence came to the House on Wednesday with specific demands.Everhart asked for more schools to teach Black history so children would understand the violent history of white supremacy, given that the Buffalo shooter voiced support for racist conspiracy theories.Rubio also called on lawmakers to ban assault rifles, raise the age requirement to purchase semi-automatic weapons and enact a national “red flag” law.“We understand that for some reason, to some people – to people with money, to people who fund political campaigns – that guns are more important than children. So at this moment, we ask for progress,” Rubio said.“Somewhere out there, there’s a mom listening to our testimony thinking, ‘I can’t even imagine their pain’ – not knowing that our reality will one day be hers unless we act now.”TopicsUS school shootingsTexas school shootingBuffalo shootingUS politicsHouse of RepresentativesUS CongressUS SenatenewsReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in World Politics

      Assessing the True Meaning of US Generosity in Ukraine

      by

      The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media. More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Inaugural January 6 hearing to track activities of Proud Boys during Capitol attack

      by

      Inaugural January 6 hearing to track activities of Proud Boys during Capitol attackThe House select committee investigating the insurrection will examine several crucial stages in the lead up to the first breach of the Capitol The House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack is scheduled to hold its inaugural hearing on Thursday and according to the running order obtained by the Guardian, the panel will track the activities of the far-right Proud Boys group before and during the insurrection.At the start of the hearing, the panel’s chairman Bennie Thompson and vice-chair Liz Cheney will make a series of opening arguments before outlining a general roadmap of how each of the six Watergate-style hearings are expected to unfold.For the second hour, Thompson and Cheney will hand control of the hearing to Tim Heaphy, the chief investigative counsel for the select committee, who will lead the questioning of two witnesses and walk through the key moments of the Capitol attack.The select committee is expected to start the questioning with testimony from Nick Quested, a British documentary film-maker who was embedded with the far-right Proud Boys group in the days and weeks leading up to January 6 and caught their activities on camera.Can televised hearings bring the truth about January 6 to the US public?Read moreQuested, appearing pursuant to a subpoena, is likely to deliver his own opening remarks and testify about how the Proud Boys planned their January 6 operation in detail in the weeks before the Capitol attack, narrating and analysing the footage that he recorded.By examining several crucial stages in the lead up to the first breach of the Capitol by the pro-Trump mob – such as the march to the Capitol from the Ellipse and a short stop at the Statue of Peace at the foot of Capitol Hill – the panel will show how the attack came to pass.The select committee is then expected to focus on the moment that Joseph Biggs, a member of the Proud Boys charged with seditious conspiracy on Monday, had a brief exchange with a man in the crowd near the statue just before the march morphed into the Capitol attack.Biggs’ exchange with that man, Ryan Samsel, is widely seen as the tipping point that precipitated the riot. Samsel, who has been charged with attacking police, then walks up alone to the barricade and confronts US Capitol Police officers before pushing it over.The select committee will illustrate Quested’s testimony about how that incident unfolded by playing footage leading up to that moment and a photo Quested took of the moment that Samsel is about to confront and then push past the officers.Heaphy is expected at that point to have the second witness, US Capitol Police officer Caroline Edwards, testify about her recollections of those key minutes during which she was assaulted by another man who had been speaking with the Proud Boy member.The testimony by Edwards, who was the first officer injured in the attack, is expected to be harrowing. Edwards, the New York Times reported, was knocked backwards into concrete steps by the surging pro-Trump mob that overturned the bike rack-like barricade on to her.Heaphy is expected to return to Quested to have him analyse other moments that he caught on camera as the Proud Boys led the charge up to the inaugural platform elected for Biden’s swearing-in weeks later, and then smashed a window in order to enter the Capitol.But in a notable omission, the select committee is not expected to use Quested’s footage of Enrique Tarrio, the leader of the Proud Boys, meeting with Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the far-right Oath Keepers militia group, at a secret rendezvous the night before.The justice department has cited that meeting, which took place in an underground parking garage near the Capitol, in seditious conspiracy indictments against Tarrio, Rhodes, and other members of both the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers groups.Quested is considered the star witness in the select committee’s inaugural hearing, which will be covered live by most of the major US cable news networks, including MSNBC, CNN, CBS and ABC. Fox News will have its top-rated host Tucker Carlson deliver counter-programming.The Emmy award-winning documentary film-maker spent much of the post 2020 election period filming Tarrio and the Proud Boys – with their permission – and has testified multiple times to the panel in closed-door depositions.Quested had accompanied the Proud Boys to a number of pro-Trump rallies in Washington DC in November and December 2020, and was with the Proud Boys as some of its members stormed the Capitol. He also filmed Tarrio’s reaction to the riot later on January 6 in Baltimore, MD.TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Pelosi and other top Democrats subpoenaed over Bannon contempt case

      by

      Pelosi and other top Democrats subpoenaed over Bannon contempt caseLawyers for ex-Trump adviser request details of Capitol attack panel’s decision-making process that led to contempt ruling Top House Democrats, including speaker Nancy Pelosi, and the members of the House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack, have been subpoenaed to testify in court in connection with the criminal contempt case against Donald Trump’s one-time chief strategist Steve Bannon.The subpoenas – which were accepted by the House counsel, Doug Letter, last Friday, according to a source familiar with the matter – compel the handover of documents and testimony about internal decision-making that led to Bannon’s contempt case.John Kerry commits to look into case of missing British journalist in BrazilRead moreBut whether the subpoenas stand depends on how Judge Carl Nichols rules at a hearing next week, where he will asses pre-trial motions. Nichols could decide the testimony of members of Congress, for instance, is inadmissible because of protections like the so-called speech and debate clause.Bannon’s lawyers are seeking cooperation from top Democrats including Pelosi, the House majority leader Steny Hoyer, the House majority whip Jim Clyburn, all members of the select committee and three select committee counsels, as well as Letter.The subpoenas request materials that Bannon’s lawyers believe will provide evidence that the select committee did not follow House rules in issuing its subpoena to Bannon last year, and that federal prosecutors violated justice department rules in filing charges.It was not clear on Tuesday whether Letter, the House counsel, would move to quash the trial subpoenas. Letter, through a spokesman for the select committee, could not be reached for comment.Letter could also move to reach an arrangement with David Schoen, the lead lawyer defending Bannon in his contempt case. Schoen told the Guardian he would be prepared to discuss the matter in the hope that Letter would not move to dismiss the subpoenas.“The subpoenas are asking for materials that belong to the American people. It would be pretty ironic for the committee to quash the subpoenas when they issued a subpoena demanding materials from Bannon, where Trump asserted executive privilege,” Schoen said.Bannon’s lawyers are making a multi-pronged defense to try and save Bannon from being convicted of criminal contempt of Congress after he was referred to the justice department for prosecution for failing to comply with a subpoena in the congressional January 6 inquiry.The main thrust of Bannon’s argument is that he cannot be held in wilful contempt because he could reasonably believe the subpoena was invalid when the select committee failed to allow a Trump lawyer to attend his deposition, after Trump asserted executive privilege.The argument rests on a 2019 justice department office of legal counsel opinion that says congressional subpoenas that prevent executive branch counsel from accompanying executive branch employees to depositions are “legally invalid” and not enforceable.Bannon’s lawyers are also making the case that the select committee in violation of House rules made no effort to grant a one-week extension to reply to the subpoena after his attorney asked for time to review Trump’s related lawsuit against the panel.The defense that Bannon is advancing – using broad readings of parts of the justice department’s own positions and amalgamating them into a wider argument – is controversial, but it underscores the complexities facing federal prosecutors in pursuing the case.“Bannon’s trying to use the OLC opinions as a shield that doesn’t quite cover him, but gives him enough of a defense to fend off the DoJ’s necessity of proving criminal intent,” Jonathan Shaub, a University of Kentucky law professor and a former OLC attorney-adviser, previously told the Guardian.TopicsSteve BannonUS Capitol attackUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Janet Yellen tells Congress US faces ‘unacceptable levels of inflation’

      by

      Janet Yellen tells Congress US faces ‘unacceptable levels of inflation’Treasury secretary admits she regrets describing inflation as ‘transitory’ and says it is ‘top economic problem at this point’ Janet Yellen told Congress that the US is facing “unacceptable levels of inflation” on Tuesday as the treasury secretary defended herself from criticism of her previous comments that rising prices were “transitory”.Although the hearing with the Senate finance committee was centered on Joe Biden’s budget for 2023, Yellen was forced to answer questions on inflation, including some on how she once said that inflation would be “transitory”, or temporary.In response to a question about how she had initially framed inflation, Yellen said: “When I said that inflation would be transitory, what I was not anticipating was a scenario in which we would end up contending with multiple variants of Covid that would be scrambling our economy and global supply chains.“I was not envisioning impacts on food and energy prices we’ve seen from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.”Yellen said she and the Federal Reserve chair, Jerome Powell, “could have used a better term than transitory”.She said: “There’s no question that we have huge inflation pressures, that inflation is really our top economic problem at this point and that it’s critical that we address it. I do expect inflation to remain high, although I very much hope that it will be coming down now.”Last week, Yellen drew headlines for making similar comments to CNN, during an interview in which she had been “wrong then about the path inflation would take”.At the hearing on Tuesday, Yellen said: “We currently face macroeconomic challenges, including unacceptable levels of inflation, as well as the headwinds associated with the disruptions caused by the pandemic’s effect on supply chain and the effects of supply-side disturbances to oil and food market.”‘We’re still struggling’: low unemployment can’t hide impact of low wages and rising inflationRead moreThe Biden administration has been delicately walking the inflation tightrope over the last few months as they try to push an aggressive response while also emphasizing other indicators that prove the economy is still improving, particularly in the jobs market.Biden celebrated the figures shown in May’s jobs report, released last Friday, which showed that 390,000 new jobs were created that month.“Because of the enormous progress we’ve made on the economy, Americans can tackle inflation from a position of strength,” Biden said in remarks following the release of the jobs report.Republicans in Tuesday’s hearing repeatedly pointed to the passing of the $1.9bn American Rescue Plan, which was passed in March last year and delivered further coronavirus aid, as a key driver of inflation.In response, Yellen noted that Biden “inherited an economy with very high unemployment”.“We had to address the possibility that this could be the downturn that could match the Great Recession,” she said. “In the policy, there were various risks taken into account. Of course, inflation was one of them. But the overwhelming risk was that America would be marred by a deep and long recession.”Yellen pointed to the expansion of child tax credit, which gave extra assistance to families, in the stimulus package that “resulted in a dramatic reduction in childhood poverty and financial insecurity for American families and contributed little to nothing to inflation”.She also said the US is “not the only country that’s experiencing inflation – you can see that in virtually every developed country around the world”.TopicsInflationJanet YellenEconomicsUS politicsBiden administrationnewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Will anti-abortionists use ‘uterus surveillance’ against women in the US? | Arwa Mahdawi

      by

      Will anti-abortionists use ‘uterus surveillance’ against women in the US?Arwa MahdawiIf, as is expected, Roe v Wade is overturned by the US supreme court, 26 states are certain or likely to ban abortion – and data tracking could mean there’s nowhere for women to hide If you are looking for a cheerful column that will make you giggle and distract you from everything that is wrong with the world, click away now. This week I have nothing but doom, gloom and data trackers for you. If you are hoping to sink into a well of existential despair, maybe let out a few screams into the void, then you’ve come to the right place.Here goes: the US supreme court, as you are no doubt aware, is expected to overturn Roe v Wade and the federal right to an abortion very soon. At least 13 Republican-led states have “trigger laws” in place, which means that the moment Roe is overruled, abortion will be fully or partly banned. Other states will follow suit. According to the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-choice research organisation, 26 states are certain or likely to ban abortion when Roe falls.Perhaps you are the glass half-full sort. Perhaps you are thinking: “Well, at least people can travel to a state where abortion is legal.” Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. There are the obvious logistical and financial constraints, for one thing. Then there’s the fact that we live in a world of mass surveillance: pretty much everything we do these days leaves a digital footprint – one that anti-abortion extremists will not hesitate to weaponise. One Democratic senator has described the potential of new technology to track down and punish anyone who might even be thinking of having an abortion as “uterus surveillance”. Expect to see a big rise in this, not least because some anti-abortion states are providing financial incentives to snitch on your fellow citizens. Texas, for example, has passed “bounty hunter” laws promising at least $10,000 to individuals who help enforce the abortion ban by successfully suing an abortion provider.To be fair, there’s nothing new about uterus surveillance. Anti-abortion activists may be stuck in the past when it comes to reproductive rights, but they have always been adept at using modern technology to further their goals. One tactic they’ve used for decades is standing outside clinics and recording the licence plates of anyone who enters. As far back as 1993, extremists were tracing the people connected to those licence plates, obtaining their phone numbers, then calling up to harass them. Years ago tracing someone took a bit of time and effort. Nowadays, you can look up someone’s personal information with the click of a button and a small fee.The wonders of the modern world mean there are a mind-boggling number of ways in which you can now identify anyone who might be thinking about an abortion. To begin with, there’s location data. Vice media recently reported that a data location company is selling information related to Planned Parenthood facilities (many of which provide abortions). The data shows where groups of people visiting the locations came from, how long they stayed and where they went afterwards. That data is aggregated so it doesn’t provide the names of individuals; however, de-anonymising this sort of information is not very difficult. There is plenty of evidence that location data is almost never anonymous.Period-tracking apps, which are used by millions of people, are also a worrying source of potentially incriminating information in a post-Roe world. Experts have warned that rightwing organisations could buy data from these apps and use it to prove that someone was pregnant then had an abortion. Your text messages could also be used against you, as could your browser history. Indeed, authorities in Mississippi have already used a woman’s online search for abortion pills to indict her for second-degree murder after she miscarried. That happened in 2018; imagine what is going to happen in a post-Roe world. Speaking of which, I’ve just realised I Googled the word “abortion” 100 times while researching this. I’m off to scrub my search history.
      Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian columnist
      TopicsRoe v WadeOpinionAbortionUS politicsWomenHealthUS supreme courtLaw (US)commentReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s bid to cling to power ‘beyond even Nixon’s imagination’, Watergate duo say

      by

      Trump’s bid to cling to power ‘beyond Nixon’s imagination’, Watergate duo sayBob Woodward and Carl Bernstein write in new book foreword that bid to overturn election made Trump ‘our first seditious president’ Donald Trump was the first seditious president in US history, surpassing in his efforts to hang on to power beyond even the criminal imagination of Richard Nixon, according to the two political reporters who were instrumental in securing Nixon’s downfall.In a new foreword to their celebrated 1974 book on the Watergate scandal, All the President’s Men, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein accuse Trump of pursuing his “diabolical instincts” by zeroing in on the certification of Joe Biden’s presidential victory by Congress on January 6 last year. In the authors’ assessment, Trump’s unleashing of the mob that day, culminating in the violent attack on the US Capitol, amounted to “a deception that exceeded even Nixon’s imagination”.Capitol attack panel to unveil new evidence against Trump at public hearingsRead moreThey write in their foreword, published by the Washington Post, they write: “By legal definition this is clearly sedition … thus Trump became the first seditious president in our history.”Woodward and Bernstein’s comparison of Trump and Nixon carries singular weight, given that as young Washington Post reporters they helped to uncover Nixon’s campaign of political spying and cover-up that led in 1974 to the only resignation of a president in American history. In separate capacities, the two journalists have also reported extensively on the Trump presidency, with Woodward doing so in a series of three books: Fear, Rage and Peril.The timing of their analysis is also potent. It comes just days before the House select committee investigating the January 6 insurrection stages the first of at least six televised hearings in which they will attempt to show the American people that Trump acted corruptly in his efforts to stop Biden’s certification.Woodward and Bernstein suggest that the two presidents had much in common, despite the almost half a century that stands between them. Nixon’s belief that it was for the greater good that he stayed in power whatever the means was “embraced by Trump”, they write.“A man is not finished when he is defeated. He is finished when he quits,” Nixon told himself in 1969. That informed Trump’s campaign to hold on to power through falsehoods even in the face of defeat.Misinformation also unites the diabolical pair. “Both Nixon and Trump created a conspiratorial world in which the US constitution, laws and fragile democratic traditions were to be manipulated or ignored, political opponents and the media were ‘enemies,’ and there were few or no restraints on the powers entrusted to presidents,” Woodward and Bernstein say in their new foreword.The reporters also explore the differences between the two men, notably that Trump attempted his electoral subversion in public. Pulling no punches, they call the January 6 insurrection “a Trump operation” and predict that the House committee has an abundance of evidence to prove that point in the upcoming hearings.Though Nixon’s criminal misdeeds tend to be remembered through the lens of the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate Hotel on 17 June 1972, and the cover-up that followed, the authors remind their readers that his core purpose was to subvert that year’s presidential election. They rehearse some of the extreme measures that Nixon’s team of operatives took to derail the presidential campaign of his main Democratic rival, Senator Edmund Muskie of Maine.Those measures included writing fake letters on Muskie stationery alleging sexual misconduct by other Democratic candidates and stealing Muskie’s shoes from outside his hotel room where he had left them for polishing in order to spook him out. Muskie ultimately lost the Democratic nomination to the liberal senator George McGovern of South Dakota.Trump, the reporters argue, pursued equally ruthless tactics designed to undermine credibility in the 2020 presidential election. They reached a pitch on January 6 with the violent mob breaking into the Capitol chanting “Hang Mike Pence” against Trump’s vice-president who was proceeding with certification of the election results.In the last analysis, Woodward and Bernstein ask themselves why two such powerful men would embark on parallel efforts to destroy democracy. They have one overriding answer.“Fear of losing and being considered a loser was a common thread for Nixon and Trump,” they write.TopicsDonald TrumpBob WoodwardCarl BernsteinUS Capitol attackUS politicsRichard NixonWatergatenewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Capitol attack panel to unveil new evidence against Trump at public hearings

      by

      Capitol attack panel to unveil new evidence against Trump at public hearings Committee intends to reveal previously secret White House records, photos and videos to prove how Trump broke the lawThe House select committee investigating the Capitol attack will unveil new evidence at Watergate-style public hearings next week showing Donald Trump and top aides acted with corrupt intent to stop Joe Biden’s certification, according to sources close to the inquiry.The panel intends to use the hearings as its principal method of revealing potential crimes by Trump as he sought to overturn the 2020 election results, the sources said, in what could be a treacherous legal and political moment for the former president.Schiff: DoJ decision not to indict Trump ex-aides Meadows and Scavino a ‘grave disappointment’Read moreAs the justice department mounts parallel investigations into the Capitol attack, the select committee is hoping that the previously unseen evidence will leave an indelible mark on the American public about the extent to which Trump went in trying to return himself to the Oval Office.“They’re important for setting a record for posterity, but they’re also important for jolting the American public into realizing what a direct threat we had coming from the highest levels of government to illegitimately install a president who lost,” Norman Ornstein, a political scientist and emeritus scholar at the conservative thinktank the American Enterprise Institute, said of the hearings.The panel’s ambitions for the hearings are twofold, the sources said: presenting the basis for alleging Trump broke the law and placing the Capitol attack in a broader context of efforts to overturn the election, with the ex-president’s involvement as the central thread.At their heart, the hearings are about distilling thousands of communications between top Trump White House aides and operatives outside the administration and the Trump campaign into a compelling narrative of events about the events of 6 January, the sources said.In order to tell that story, the sources said, the select committee intends to have its senior investigative counsels reveal previously secret White House records, photos and videos that will be presented, in real time, to starkly illustrate the live witness testimony.On Thursday night, at the inaugural hearing at 8pm, the panel’s chairman Bennie Thompson and the vice chair Liz Cheney are likely to make opening arguments, outline a roadmap for the hearings, and give an overview of the events of 6 January, and the preceding weeks.The panel is likely to focus on broad themes for the following four hearings, such as how Trump used false claims of voter fraud to undermine the 2020 election and future races, and how he tried to use fake electors to deceive Congress into returning him to office.House investigators are also likely to focus on how Trump directly pivoted to the 6 January congressional certification – and not the December deadlines for states to certify their electors – as an inflection point, and how his actions led straight to militia and far-right groups’ covert maneuverings.The panel is then likely to reserve its most explosive revelations for the final hearing in prime time, where select committee members Adam Kinzinger and Elaine Luria are expected to run through Trump’s actions and inactions as the 6 January attack unfolded.The list of witnesses has not yet been finalised, the sources said, but it is expected to include top aides to former vice-president Mike Pence, aides to Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows, and people with direct knowledge of militia group activities on 6 January.From a legal perspective, the panel has already alleged in court filings that Trump and his external legal advisor, John Eastman, violated multiple federal laws to overturn the 2020 election outcome, including obstruction of Congress and defrauding the United States.The select committee hopes that by revealing new evidence in hearings, the sources said, it can convince beyond a reasonable doubt the American public and potentially the justice department that the former president violated laws to reverse his 2020 election defeat.Among the highlights of the already-public evidence include the revelation that Eastman, Trump’s external legal adviser, admitted to Pence’s counsel, Greg Jacob, that his scheme to obstruct Congress on 6 January was unlawful, but pressed ahead with it anyway.The internal White House schedule for 6 January that the select committee obtained through the National Archives, meanwhile, showed that Trump would have known he had no plans to march with the crowd to the Capitol when he falsely promised that at the Ellipse rally.House investigators are in many ways making their case to the American public, the sources said, since it is not certain whether the panel will make criminal referrals to federal prosecutors, given they’re not binding on the justice department, which has the sole authority to file charges.But that quest will come with its own challenges, and the panel’s greatest difficulty is perhaps not so much whether they can show wrongdoing by Trump and his top advisers, but whether it can get Republican and independent voters to care.The repeated delays in holding the hearings have meant House investigators were able to finish most of the evidence-gathering they intended to conduct (the committee initially anticipated holding them sometime in “the spring, then in April, then in May, and now in June).Committee counsel recently told one witness who had been assisting the investigation for months that it didn’t expect to ask for any more assistance, according to two sources familiar with the inquiry. “We are pretty much done,” the counsel told that particular witness.But the consequence of the decision to delay the start of public hearings, and the constant drip of news from the investigation, is that it might have driven some “6 January fatigue” – which Trump’s allies on Capitol Hill are intent on weaponising to defend Trump.The former president’s most ardent defenders in Congress and top Republicans led by the House minority leader Kevin McCarthy are planning aggressive counter-programming to the public hearings that slam the panel as partisan, according to party aides.The Republican National Committee has also circulated a one-page memo of talking points, Vox earlier reported, requesting that Trump surrogates attack the investigation as “rigged” – even though multiple federal courts have ruled the inquiry is fully legitimate.Overcoming counter-programming to cut through to Republican and independent voters could pose a challenge, the panel’s members have privately discussed. After all, the sources said, the panel is not trying to convince Democrats of Trump’s role in the Capitol attack.The prospect of collective public exhaustion over 6 January-related news, with each new revelation seemingly more shocking than the last, appears to have also pressed the select committee to cut its June hearings schedule from eight hearings to now six.According to a draft schedule reviewed by the Guardian and first reported last week, the panel anticipates holding just the first and final hearings – on 9 June and 23 June – in prime time at 8pm. The other four – on the 13th, 15th, 16th and 21st – will be at 10am.Still, the target audience for the select committee is not Republicans but swing voters, Ornstein said. “I don’t have any expectation that Republicans who believe the election was stolen will change their minds. But it’s about the other voters and whether it will jolt the Democratic base into understanding what the stakes are.”TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsDemocratsnewsReuse this content More