ReportWire

Tag: jan 6 committee

  • Trump Is Blocked From The GOP Primary Ballot In Two States. Who’s Next?

    Trump Is Blocked From The GOP Primary Ballot In Two States. Who’s Next?

    DENVER (AP) — First, Colorado’s Supreme Court ruled that former President Donald Trump wasn’t eligible to run for his old job in that state. Then, Maine’s Democratic secretary of state ruled the same for her state. Who’s next?

    Both decisions are historic. The Colorado court was the first court to apply to a presidential candidate a rarely used constitutional ban against those who “engaged in insurrection.” Maine’s secretary of state was the first top election official to unilaterally strike a presidential candidate from the ballot under that provision.

    But both decisions are on hold while the legal process plays out.

    That means that Trump remains on the ballot in Colorado and Maine and that his political fate is now in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Maine ruling will likely never take effect on its own. Its central impact is increasing pressure on the nation’s highest court to say clearly: Can Trump still run for president after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol?

    FILE – President Donald Trump speaks during a rally protesting the electoral college certification of Joe Biden as President in Washington, Jan. 6, 2021. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File)

    WHAT’S THE LEGAL ISSUE?

    After the Civil War, the U.S. ratified the 14th Amendment to guarantee rights to former slaves and more. It also included a two-sentence clause called Section 3, designed to keep former Confederates from regaining government power after the war.

    “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

    Congress did remove that disability from most Confederates in 1872, and the provision fell into disuse. But it was rediscovered after Jan. 6.

    FILE - Insurrections loyal to President Donald Trump rally at the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)
    FILE – Insurrections loyal to President Donald Trump rally at the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

    HOW DOES THIS APPLY TO TRUMP?

    Trump is already being prosecuted for the attempt to overturn his 2020 loss that culminated with Jan. 6, but Section 3 doesn’t require a criminal conviction to take effect. Dozens of lawsuits have been filed to disqualify Trump, claiming he engaged in insurrection on Jan. 6 and is no longer qualified to run for office.

    All the suits failed until the Colorado ruling. And dozens of secretaries of state have been asked to remove him from the ballot. All said they didn’t have the authority to do so without a court order — until Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows’ decision.

    The Supreme Court has never ruled on Section 3. It’s likely to do so in considering appeals of the Colorado decision — the state Republican Party has already appealed, and Trump is expected to file his own shortly. Bellows’ ruling cannot be appealed straight to the U.S. Supreme Court — it has to be appealed up the judicial chain first, starting with a trial court in Maine.

    The Maine decision does force the high court’s hand, though. It was already highly likely the justices would hear the Colorado case, but Maine removes any doubt.

    Trump lost Colorado in 2020, and he doesn’t need to win it again to garner an Electoral College majority next year. But he won one of Maine’s four Electoral College votes in 2020 by winning the state’s 2nd Congressional District, so Bellows’ decision would have a direct impact on his odds next November.

    Until the high court rules, any state could adopt its own standard on whether Trump, or anyone else, can be on the ballot. That’s the sort of legal chaos the court is supposed to prevent.

    WHAT ARE THE ARGUMENTS IN THE CASE?

    Trump’s lawyers have several arguments against the push to disqualify him. First, it’s not clear Section 3 applies to the president — an early draft mentioned the office, but it was taken out, and the language “an officer of the United States” elsewhere in the Constitution doesn’t mean the president, they contend.

    Second, even if it does apply to the presidency, they say, this is a “political” question best decided by voters, not unelected judges. Third, if judges do want to get involved, the lawyers assert, they’re violating Trump’s rights to a fair legal procedure by flatly ruling he’s ineligible without some sort of fact-finding process like a lengthy criminal trial. Fourth, they argue, Jan. 6 wasn’t an insurrection under the meaning of Section 3 — it was more like a riot. Finally, even if it was an insurrection, they say, Trump wasn’t involved in it — he was merely using his free speech rights.

    Of course, the lawyers who want to disqualify Trump have arguments, too. The main one is that the case is actually very simple: Jan. 6 was an insurrection, Trump incited it, and he’s disqualified.

    The attack was three years ago, but the challenges weren’t “ripe,” to use the legal term, until Trump petitioned to get onto state ballots this fall.

    But the length of time also gets at another issue — no one has really wanted to rule on the merits of the case. Most judges have dismissed the lawsuits because of technical issues, including that courts don’t have the authority to tell parties whom to put on their primary ballots. Secretaries of state have dodged, too, usually telling those who ask them to ban Trump that they don’t have the authority to do so unless ordered by a court.

    No one can dodge anymore. Legal experts have cautioned that, if the Supreme Court doesn’t clearly resolve the issue, it could lead to chaos in November — or in January 2025, if Trump wins the election. Imagine, they say, if the high court ducks the issue or says it’s not a decision for the courts to make, and Democrats win a narrow majority in Congress. Would they seat Trump or declare he’s ineligible under Section 3?

    Maine has an unusual process in which a secretary of state is required to hold a public hearing on challenges to politicians’ spots on the ballot and then issue a ruling. Multiple groups of Maine voters, including a bipartisan clutch of former state lawmakers, filed such a challenge, triggering Bellows’ decision.

    Bellows is a Democrat, the former head of the Maine chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, and has a long trail of criticism of Trump on social media. Trump’s attorneys asked her to recuse herself from the case, citing posts calling Jan. 6 an “insurrection” and bemoaning Trump’s acquittal in his impeachment trial over the attack.

    She refused, saying she wasn’t ruling based on personal opinions. But the precedent she sets is notable, critics say. In theory, election officials in every state could decide a candidate is ineligible based on a novel legal theory about Section 3 and end their candidacies.

    Conservatives argue that Section 3 could apply to Vice President Kamala Harris, for example — it was used to block from office even those who donated small sums to individual Confederates. Couldn’t it be used against Harris, they say, because she raised money for those arrested in the unrest after the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police in 2020?

    IS THIS A PARTISAN ISSUE?

    Well, of course it is. Bellows is a Democrat, and all the justices on the Colorado Supreme Court were appointed by Democrats. Six of the 9 U.S. Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans, three by Trump himself.

    But courts don’t always split on predictable partisan lines. The Colorado ruling was 4-3 — so three Democratic appointees disagreed with barring Trump. Several prominent legal conservatives have championed the use of Section 3 against the former president.

    Now we’ll see how the high court handles it.

    Source link

  • Republicans To Probe House Select Committee That Investigated Jan. 6 Capitol Riot

    Republicans To Probe House Select Committee That Investigated Jan. 6 Capitol Riot

    House Republicans, who vowed to investigate Democrats if they took back control of the House this year, now have a plan to investigate the select committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, CNN reported Wednesday. Those plans reportedly include conducting investigations into Capitol security at the time of the attack and possibly how Jan. 6 defendants have been treated by the legal system.

    Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), whom the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack accused of leading a tour at the Capitol the day before the riot, will lead the effort, according to NBC News.

    “I’m spending some time over there getting my hands wrapped around what we have. We’re going to be looking at what happened in the Capitol. What happened leading up to it? How did we have such a security failure?” Loudermilk told CNN. “The Jan. 6 committee, they didn’t take that approach… I think they looked more on the political side of it.”

    The House Committee on House Administration already launched a portal where individuals “with knowledge of the events” can provide information about the insurrection and the Jan. 6 committee.

    “My intention is to take us where the facts lead to get to the truth,” Loudermilk added in his interview with CNN.

    The bipartisan House select committee investigated the Capitol riot and the events leading up to it for a year and a half — holding a series of televised hearings and releasing a formal report recommending that the Justice Department launch an investigation of former President Donald Trump’s involvement.

    Contrary to Republicans’ claims, the committee did investigate security failures before the riot. A separate bipartisan probe in the Senate also detailed “how security, planning and response failures led to a violent and unprecedented breach of the United States Capitol” and offered recommendations to avoid similar breaches in the future.

    The insurrection by Trump supporters, who marched to the Capitol after a rally in which he claimed the 2020 election had been “stolen” from him, sought to prevent a joint session of Congress from certifying the Electoral College count for Joe Biden. The riot led to at least five people’s deaths and the injury of at least 140 law enforcement officers. Charges have been filed against more than 1,000 of the rioters. The Jan. 6 committee was able to subpoena more than 100 individuals, interview more than 1,200 and accumulate copious amounts of documents and records in the process, NBC News reported.

    Trump sued in an effort to prevent himself from providing documents and testimony, and the committee eventually ran out of time before it was dissolved in January of this year as the House’s new GOP majority was sworn in. The committee withdrew its subpoena for Trump shortly before dissolving, The New York Times reported.

    News of the Republican investigation of the investigators comes in the same week that Fox News pundit Tucker Carlson shared new footage of the Capitol riot on his show on Monday, downplaying the violence of the attack. He had been provided the footage by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.). McCarthy has defended his decision to give Carlson the footage, saying he wanted to offer the public “transparency” so people could make their own decisions about how the events of Jan. 6 played out.

    Other prominent Republicans, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), have criticized Fox News’ handling of the footage.

    Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.), a member of the defunct Jan. 6 committee, told CNN that they are prepared for the Republicans’ investigation.

    “It’s something that we’ve thought through over the past two years. I knew that there could be political consequences. … We’ll see what happens ― and we’ll be prepared,” Aguilar said. “There is no limit to what [McCarthy] will do in order to fulfill those promises to the most extreme within his caucus.”

    Source link

  • Jamie Raskin Forecasts Trump’s Legal Future: Indictment Is ‘Almost Inevitable’

    Jamie Raskin Forecasts Trump’s Legal Future: Indictment Is ‘Almost Inevitable’

    Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), one of seven Democrats who served on the House select committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, said that an indictment of former President Donald Trump is “almost inevitable.”

    Raskin, in an interview with MSNBC on Friday, told writer Jordan Rubin that Trump is a “one-man crime wave” and suggested that he could face criminal charges beyond the four his panel recommended to the Justice Department.

    “I’d rather focus on the idea that it’s almost inevitable that there will be charges because the evidence is just so overwhelming,” said Raskin, who then talked about Trump’s “complete and obvious and naked intent” for people to interfere with the counting of Electoral College votes.

    “We think there will be charges probably on some things we didn’t even have, because we don’t have all of the prosecutorial resources that the Department of Justice has, and so we think they probably collected a lot more evidence than we got.”

    Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), shown here leaving the U.S. Capitol after the final vote of the week on Thursday, says it is difficult to watch as Trump escapes liability. Raskin has been sporting headwear as undergoes chemotherapy.

    Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

    Raskin, who previously said Trump’s role in the deadly riot was not a question of “whodunnit,” added that it’d be painful for the country to never see Trump be checked by the criminal justice system.

    “And it doesn’t make sense that more than 900 people can be charged and prosecuted and convicted and sentenced for things like assaulting federal officers and destroying federal property and seditious conspiracy, which means conspiracy to overthrow the government, and yet the guy who’s at the very top of the pyramid, who set all of the events into motion, somehow walks off scot-free. I mean, I think that is a blow to our justice system.”

    Raskin noted that Trump is facing several criminal and civil charges in other cases around the country.

    “He’s basically a one-man crime wave,” Raskin said.

    “And so he might get his comeuppance in some other jurisdictions first, I don’t know about that. But ultimately we have to believe that the justice system is going to work.”

    You can read more of Raskin’s interview with MSNBC’s “Deadline: Legal Blog” here.

    Source link

  • Adam Kinzinger Is Stuck Wondering What The Republican Party ‘Believes Anymore’

    Adam Kinzinger Is Stuck Wondering What The Republican Party ‘Believes Anymore’

    “I still hold the values I hold,” said Kinzinger, who added that hasn’t “totally sold out who I ever was just for power.”

    He added: “I don’t know what my party believes anymore. I don’t hear them talking about smaller government, I don’t hear them talking about a strong national defense. I hear some of them supporting Vladimir Putin over the freedom-loving people of Ukraine and it’s not a party I recognize.”

    Kinzinger, who described himself as feeling “politically homeless” during the interview, weighed in on his time on the Jan. 6 committee and said he thinks there’s “pretty good odds” that the Justice Department brings charges against former President Donald Trump.

    “Nobody is above the law in the United States of America, that includes the president, that’s especially the President of the United States,” Kinzinger said.

    You can watch more of Colbert’s interview with Kinzinger via the clips below.

    Source link

  • Trump Aide Hope Hicks’ Angry Jan. 6 Texts: ‘We All Look Like Domestic Terrorists’

    Trump Aide Hope Hicks’ Angry Jan. 6 Texts: ‘We All Look Like Domestic Terrorists’

    Hope Hicks, a former senior adviser to Donald Trump, fumed to a fellow White House aide during the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection that “we all look like domestic terrorists now” and wouldn’t be able to find new jobs as a result.

    Text messages released by the House select committee investigating the attack show Hicks texting Julie Radford, former chief of staff to Ivanka Trump, as Trump supporters were laying siege to the U.S. Capitol.

    Hicks complained that the insurrection had ruined their employability.

    “In one day he ended every future opportunity that doesn’t include speaking engagements at the local proud boys chapter,” Hicks said, apparently referring to the then-president and the Proud Boys right-wing extremist group.

    “Yup,” Radford replied.

    “And all of us that didn’t have jobs lined up will be perpetually unemployed,” Hicks added. “I’m so mad and upset.”

    “We all look like domestic terrorists now,” she added.

    Radford replied: “Oh yes I’ve been crying for an hour.”

    “Not being dramatic, but we are all fucked,” Hicks said in another message, adding that “Alyssa looks like a genius” for leaving, referring to Alyssa Farah Griffin, who resigned her post as White House communications director a few weeks after Trump lost the 2020 election.

    Hope Hicks and then-President Donald Trump at a rally in Dubuque, Iowa, on Nov. 1, 2020.

    BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI via Getty Images

    Later in the day, Hicks texted Radford: “Attacking the VP? Wtf is wrong with him?”

    During the riot at the Capitol, Trump tweeted that his vice president, Mike Pence, “didn’t have the courage” to help him overturn the election. Pence was inside the Capitol to participate in the certification of the Electoral College results; he was forced to flee as Trump supporters, some of whom were calling for him to be hanged, forced their way into the building.

    Hicks was interviewed by the Jan. 6 committee in testimony that aired in its final public hearing last month. She said there was no evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 election, and she was concerned that Trump was damaging his legacy by spreading disinformation about the results.

    When she expressed those concerns to Trump, she said, Trump said something along the lines of, “‘You know, nobody will care about my legacy if I lose, so that won’t matter. The only thing that matters is winning.’”

    Following her departure from the Trump administration, Hicks worked on the U.S. Senate campaign of Pennsylvania hedge fund executive David McCormick, who lost to Trump-endorsed candidate Mehmet Oz in the Republican primary.

    Source link

  • Trump’s Jan. 6 ‘Blanket Pardon’ Plan Bares ‘Consciousness Of Guilt’: Ex-Prosecutor

    Trump’s Jan. 6 ‘Blanket Pardon’ Plan Bares ‘Consciousness Of Guilt’: Ex-Prosecutor

    “This is evidence of what prosecutors refer to as consciousness of guilt,” Barbara McQuade told MSNBC’s Nicole Wallace in an interview Wednesday.

    Source link

  • Publix Heir Was Prepared to Blow $3 Million On Jan. 6 Protest, Transcript Shows

    Publix Heir Was Prepared to Blow $3 Million On Jan. 6 Protest, Transcript Shows

    Conservative donor and Publix grocery chain heir Julia “Julie” Fancelli was prepared to spend up to $3 million to support participants in last year’s Jan. 6 protest that preceded the storming of the U.S. Capitol, according to documents and questions during her testimony before the House Jan. 6 committee.

    Extremist conspiracy peddler Alex Jones apparently scored $200,000 from Fancelli, longtime Donald Trump aide Roger Stone was provided a private flight to Washington, D.C., and young Trump disciple Charlie Kirk — head of Turning Point USA — received $1.25 million ostensibly to transport masses of Trump supporters to the capital, according to the transcript of her questioning released by the committee Thursday.

    According to an email cited in questioning, Stone was to use $50,000 of the $200,000 provided to him on the “rally operating budget.”

    Fancelli was willing to spend up to $3 million on people and groups participating in the protest, according to a GOP fundraiser cited in questioning during the testimony, though some of the funds went instead to last year’s runoff elections in Georgia, according to the transcript.

    Almost all of the information about Fancelli’s involvement in Jan. 6 was revealed through cited documents or in questioning about known interactions and statements. Fancelli herself cited the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination over and over again in her testimony, the transcript reveals.

    Some 900 people have been charged in connection with the Capitol attack, including for assault, trespassing and damaging government property.

    The Washington Post earlier reported that Fancelli was the largest publicly known donor to the rally — and had wired $650,000 to groups behind the “Stop the Steal” organizing. But the transcript of her questioning, which cites wire transfers and various communications, has revealed that her financial role was even greater than previously known. She has told the Post she had no idea the event would become violent.

    Part of her motivation for financing the activities that day was apparently a personal devotion to Jones and Stone — and faith in Kirk’s organizing capacities, the Post noted.

    “Where are Roger and Alex speaking?” she texted a GOP fundraiser who facilitated donations from her, according to the interview transcript.

    Kirk had boasted he was sending 80 buses to Washington, but it appears likely that he only sent up to seven.

    Turning Point USA used $60,000 of Fancelli’s money to cover a speaking fee for Donald Trump Jr.’s fiancee, Kimberly Guilfoyle, the Post reported. The payment was made even though Fancelli and an associate removed a line item in the budget for speaking fees, according to the transcript.

    Publix, which is headquartered in Lakeland, Florida, where Fancelli lives, has tried to distance itself from her involvement.

    “We are deeply troubled by Ms. Fancelli’s involvement in the events that led to the tragic attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6,” the company said last year in response to questions from the Post about her role in the insurrection.

    Check out the full transcript here.

    Source link

  • Jan. 6 Panel Pushes Trump’s Prosecution In Forceful Finish

    Jan. 6 Panel Pushes Trump’s Prosecution In Forceful Finish

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The House Jan. 6 committee is wrapping up its investigation of the violent 2021 U.S. Capitol insurrection, with lawmakers expected to cap one of the most exhaustive and aggressive congressional probes in memory with an extraordinary recommendation: The Justice Department should consider criminal charges against former President Donald Trump.

    At a final meeting on Monday, the panel’s seven Democrats and two Republicans are poised to recommend criminal charges against Trump and potentially against associates and staff who helped him launch a multifaceted pressure campaign to try to overturn the 2020 election.

    While a criminal referral is mostly symbolic, with the Justice Department ultimately deciding whether to prosecute Trump or others, it is a decisive end to a probe that had an almost singular focus from the start.

    “I think the president has violated multiple criminal laws and I think you have to be treated like any other American who breaks the law, and that is you have to be prosecuted,” Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., a member of the panel, said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

    From left, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., staff counsel Dan George, Rep. Stephanie Murphy, D-Fla., Chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., Vice Chair Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., staff counsel Candyce Phoenix, Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., and Rep. Elaine Luria, D-Va., sit on the dais as the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol holds a hearing at the Capitol in Washington, July 12, 2022. On Monday, Dec. 19, the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol will hold its final meeting. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

    J. Scott Applewhite via AP

    The panel, which will dissolve on Jan. 3 with the new Republican-led House, has conducted more than 1,000 interviews, held 10 well-watched public hearings and collected more than a million documents since it launched in July 2021. As it has gathered the massive trove of evidence, the members have become emboldened in declaring that Trump is to blame for the violent attack on the Capitol by his supporters almost two years ago.

    After beating their way past police, injuring many of them, the Jan. 6 rioters stormed the Capitol and interrupted the certification of President Joe Biden’s win, echoing Trump’s lies about widespread election fraud and sending lawmakers and others running for their lives.

    The attack came after weeks of Trump’s efforts to overturn his defeat — a campaign that was extensively detailed by the committee in its multiple public hearings. Many of Trump’s former aides testified about his unprecedented pressure on states, federal officials and on Vice President Mike Pence to find a way to thwart the popular will.

    “This is someone who in multiple ways tried to pressure state officials to find votes that didn’t exist, this is someone who tried to interfere with a joint session, even inciting a mob to attack the Capitol,” Schiff said. “If that’s not criminal, then I don’t know what it is.”

    Members of the committee have said that the referrals for other individuals may also include ethics violations, legal misconduct and campaign finance violations. Lawmakers have suggested in particular that their recommended charges against Trump could include conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstruction of an official proceeding of Congress and insurrection.

    On insurrection, Schiff said Sunday that “if you look at Donald Trump’s acts and you match them up against the statute, it’s a pretty good match.” He said that the committee will focus on those individuals — presumably Trump — for whom they believe there is the strongest evidence.

    While a so-called criminal referral has no real legal standing, it is a forceful statement by the committee and adds to political pressure already on Attorney General Merrick Garland and special counsel Jack Smith, who is conducting an investigation into Jan. 6 and Trump’s actions.

    The committee is also expected at the hearing to preview its massive final report, which will include findings, interview transcripts and legislative recommendations. Lawmaker have said a portion of that report will be released Monday.

    “We obviously want to complete the story for the American people,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., another member of the committee. “Everybody has come on a journey with us and we want a satisfactory conclusion, such that people feel that Congress has done its job.”

    Violent insurrectionists loyal to President Donald Trump stand outside the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)
    Violent insurrectionists loyal to President Donald Trump stand outside the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

    The panel was formed in the summer of 2021 after Senate Republicans blocked the formation of what would have been a bipartisan, independent commission to investigate the insurrection. That opposition spurred the Democratic-controlled House to form a committee of its own. House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy of California, a Trump ally, decided not to participate after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected some of his appointments. That left an opening for two anti-Trump Republicans in the House — Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois — to join the seven Democrats serving on the committee.

    While the committee’s mission was to take a comprehensive accounting of the insurrection and educate the public about what happened, they’ve also aimed their work at an audience of one: the attorney general. Lawmakers on the panel have openly pressured Garland to investigate Trump’s actions, and last month he appointed a special counsel, Smith, to oversee several probes related to Trump, including those related to the insurrection.

    In court documents earlier this year, the committee suggested criminal charges against Trump could include conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruction of an official proceeding of Congress.

    In a “conspiracy to defraud the United States,” the committee argues that evidence supports an inference that Trump and his allies “entered into an agreement to defraud the United States” when they disseminated misinformation about election fraud and pressured state and federal officials to assist in that effort. Trump still says he won the election to this day.

    The panel also asserts that Trump obstructed an official proceeding, the joint session of Congress in which the Electoral College votes are certified. The committee said Trump either attempted or succeeded at obstructing, influencing or impeding the ceremonial process on Jan. 6 and “did so corruptly” by pressuring Pence to try to overturn the results as he presided over the session. Pence declined to do so.

    The committee may make ethics referrals for five House Republicans — including McCarthy — who ignored congressional subpoenas from the panel. Those referrals are unlikely to result in punishment since Republicans are set to take over the House majority in January.

    Associated Press writers Eric Tucker, Farnoush Amiri and Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

    For full coverage of the Jan. 6 hearings, go to https://www.apnews.com/capitol-siege.

    Source link

  • Kellyanne Conway Meets With Jan. 6 Investigators For 5 Hours

    Kellyanne Conway Meets With Jan. 6 Investigators For 5 Hours

    Kellyanne Conway, who served as a senior adviser to President Donald Trump, spoke Monday to investigators on the House select committee looking into the events surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, according to several media reports.

    Conway spoke for nearly five hours in a closed-door meeting in Washington, D.C., after she was seen entering a conference room with attorney Emmet Flood, who also served in the White House during the Trump administration, NBC News reported.

    “I’m here voluntarily,” she told reporters after the meeting ended. She added that she spoke with the former president last week but that Trump did not know she planned to meet with the House panel’s investigators.

    Conway was a key figure during Trump’s 2016 bid for the White House and served in his administration until she resigned in August 2020. She was not working for the then-president during the insurrection, but The Washington Post reported in January 2021 that she called an aide in the White House as the attack unfolded, urging Trump to speak to his supporters and tell them to stand down.

    CNN added Monday that the select committee was particularly concerned with reports that Trump acknowledged his 2020 election loss to her after Democrat Joe Biden won the popular and Electoral College votes.

    “I don’t reveal those conversations,” Conway told reporters Monday, according to CNN. “I think if they want to know that from him, they should depose him.”

    The House panel is working to finalize its investigation before Republicans regain control of the chamber in January and likely end the probe.

    Conway told reporters she is not working with Trump on his 2024 bid for a return to the presidency.

    Source link

  • Trump Files Lawsuit To Avoid Jan. 6 Committee Subpoena

    Trump Files Lawsuit To Avoid Jan. 6 Committee Subpoena

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Former President Donald Trump is suing the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to block a subpoena requiring him to testify.

    “Long-held precedent and practice maintain that separation of powers prohibits Congress from compelling a President to testify before it,” Trump attorney David A. Warrington said in a statement announcing Trump’s intentions.

    He said Trump had “engaged with the Committee in a good faith effort to resolve these concerns consistent with Executive Branch prerogatives and separation of powers,” but said the panel “insists on pursuing a political path, leaving President Trump with no choice but to involve the third branch, the judicial branch, in this dispute between the executive and legislative branches.”

    The committee voted to subpoena Trump during its final hearing before the midterm elections and formally did so last month, demanding testimony from the former president. Committee member members allege Trump “personally orchestrated” a multi-part effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

    They said Trump had to testify, either at the Capitol or by videoconference, “beginning on or about” Nov. 14 and continuing for multiple days if necessary.

    The letter also outlined a sweeping request for documents, including personal communications between Trump and members of Congress as well as extremist groups.

    The lawsuit comes as Trump is expected to launch a third campaign for president next week.

    This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

    Source link

  • Roger Stone Calls Video Of Him ‘Fake,’ But Says He Really Doesn’t Like Ivanka Trump

    Roger Stone Calls Video Of Him ‘Fake,’ But Says He Really Doesn’t Like Ivanka Trump

    Republican political operative and staunch Donald Trump ally Roger Stone lashed out at newly released documentary footage of him on Saturday as “fake.”

    In a clip from the upcoming documentary “A Storm Foretold” — released Friday by Danish filmmaker Christoffer Guldbrandsen — Stone is seen ranting on a cell phone to someone about his fury at not receiving a preemptive pardon from Trump for his activities related to last year’s Jan. 6 insurrection.

    But Stone insisted in a message Saturday on Telegram that the clip was “fake,” apparently because the phone occasionally covers his mouth in the video.

    Stone admitted, however, that he is truly “not a fan” of Kushner or the former first daughter.

    Stone, who appeared to provide full access to Guldbrandsen and his film crew for nearly three years, has claimed earlier clips released from the documentary were “deep fakes.” Guldbrandsen says all of the documentary footage is authentic.

    Stone’s cell phone rant was recently subpoenaed by the House Jan. 6 committee, but was not played at its Thursday hearing. In the clip, Stone rants to an unidentified person in Fort Lauderdale on Inauguration Day last year when Trump no longer had the power to pardon him.

    Stone had already obtained one pardon from Trump. He was convicted in 2019 of seven felonies, including obstruction of justice and witness tampering, during the investigation into Kremlin interference in the 2016 presidential election. He was sentenced to 40 months in prison.

    Trump praised Stone for not “flipping” and commuted his sentence before it even began in the summer of 2020. Trump then pardoned Stone shortly before leaving the White House.

    Source link

  • White House Security Official: Jan. 6 Was No Rally, Trump Attempted A Coup

    White House Security Official: Jan. 6 Was No Rally, Trump Attempted A Coup

    White House security professionals on-site during the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection were aghast when former President Donald Trump tried to lead the violent mob he’d riled up that day to the U.S. Capitol ― and saw it as a direct attack on democracy itself.

    An officer told Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) they “were all in a state of shock” at Trump’s pronouncement, according to testimony played by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack at a hearing Thursday.

    The security professional, who was not identified by name, added that their concerns went well beyond fulfilling their duty to keep the president safe and the White House secure.

    If Trump directed the crowd to the Capitol, he said, “we all knew what that implicated and what that meant: That this was no longer a rally, that this was going to move to something else.”

    He added: “I don’t know if you want to use the word insurrection, coup, whatever. We all knew this would move from a normal, democratic, you know, public event into something else.”

    (Watch that portion of the testimony in the player above.)

    Text messages and emails released by the committee Thursday also showed that the Secret Service was aware in December 2020 that protesters might seek to enter the Capitol on Jan. 6.

    And in July, the committee revealed that Trump knew members of the crowd were heavily armed before he aimed them at a co-equal branch of government. But he was unconcerned, reportedly waving off the danger because “they’re not here to hurt me,” according to testimony from former White House staffer Cassidy Hutchison.

    Source link

  • Rep. Lofgren Teases ‘Pretty Surprising’ Material In Upcoming Jan. 6 Public Hearing

    Rep. Lofgren Teases ‘Pretty Surprising’ Material In Upcoming Jan. 6 Public Hearing

    Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) on Tuesday said the upcoming hearing of the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol will include new, “pretty surprising” material.

    The Thursday hearing will not only focus on ties those in former President Donald Trump’s orbit had to extremist groups, Lofgren said, but also look at what the president’s intentions and actions were overall.

    “We’re going to be going through, really some of what we’ve already found, but augmenting with new material that we’ve discovered through our work throughout this summer,” Lofgren told CNN’s “Situation Room.”

    “It will be worth watching. There’s some new material, you know, that I found as we got into it, pretty surprising,” Lofgren continued.

    Pressed to specify who in Trump’s circle was in touch with those far-right organizations, Lofgren offered: “The mob was led by some extremist groups. They plotted in advance what they were going to do and those individuals were known to people in the Trump orbit.”

    Outside of the committee, Elmer Stewart Rhodes, the founder of the Oath Keepers extremist group, and four other members are currently on trial on seditious conspiracy charges for their actions related to the Jan. 6 insurrection.

    Last week, a former member of the Oath Keepers, testified in court that Rhodes was in touch with a Secret Service agent in the months leading up to the Capitol riot.

    Meanwhile, the Jan. 6 committee has received over a million communications exchanged between Secret Service agents before and on Jan. 6, though that information does not include text messages, according to NBC News.

    “While no additional text messages were recovered, we have provided a significant level of details from emails, radio transmissions, Microsoft Teams chat messages and exhibits that address aspects of planning, operations and communications surrounding Jan. 6,” Secret Service spokesperson Special Agent Steve Kopek told the outlet.

    Lofgren also told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer the committee has been working on the report it plans to complete by the end of this year and on recommending “policy changes to make us more secure in the future.”

    The panel postponed the hearing, originally slated for Sept. 28, after Hurricane Ian made landfall in Florida.

    A day later, Ginni Thomas, the wife of conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, appeared in person to a closed-door Jan. 6 hearing during which she said she had not discussed any issues around the 2020 presidential election with her husband.

    Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the committee’s chairman, also said Thomas testified she believed the fraudulent claim that the election was stolen.

    Meanwhile, Thompson on Tuesday said he received a “suspicious package” in his Washington office.

    “All the staffers in my office are safe,” he wrote on Twitter, linking to an NBC News article detailing the incident.

    The U.S. Capitol Police also issued a statement, without mentioning Thompson, saying congressional staff found a “letter with concerning language.”

    “We just screened it and determined it not to have anything dangerous inside,” they said, adding that the force is working to identify the sender.

    Source link