Category Archives: Donald Trump

In this daily series, Newsweek explores the steps that led to the January 6 Capitol Riot.

On December 30, just a week before January 6, the FBI, along with the Department of Homeland Security and the National Counterterrorism Center, issued an intelligence report"Intelligence in Depth"titled "Diverse DVE Landscape Probably Will Persist." DVE refers to domestic violent extremists.

The report, shared exclusively with Newsweek, did not mention the election or Donald Trump. No mention was made of the impact of COVID. No mention was made of the two post-election protests that had already taken place in Washington DC, on November 24 and December 12, or any upcoming threats. In fact, there was no focus on the nation's capital at all.

The report covered all bases but focused on none. It's a mishmash of contorted acronyms, codes to neutrally describe what the intelligence agencies saw as the threats on the American battlefield, but careful not to explicitly label any one group. White supremacists were referred to as Racially Motivated Violent Extremists (RMVE). There were also Anti-Government or Anti-Authority Violent Extremists (AGAAVEs), Anarchist Violent Extremists (AVEs), Militia Violent Extremists (MVEs), and Sovereign Citizen Violent Extremists (SCVEs). There were others mentioned, some with and without acronyms: Abortion-Related Violent Extremists, Animal Rights/Environmental Violent Extremists and Puerto Rican National Violent Extremists.

The common linking characteristic in all of this was the term "extremist." Yet the December 30 report offered no explicit definition of what precisely was an extremist. Domestic Violent Extremists were described as "individual[s] based and operating primarily within the United States or its territories without direction or inspiration from a foreign terrorist group or other foreign power who seeks to further political or social goals wholly or in part through unlawful acts of force or violence."

A government definition of extremism is hard to come by. The definitive Department of Justice bible on the subject, "Investigating Terrorism and Criminal Extremism: Terms and Concepts," nevernot in 120 pagesdefines what extremism means. Nor does the new Department of Defense "Report on Countering Extremist Activity Within the Department of Defense," issued just this month. It merely says that members of the armed forces are restricted from participating in "extremist activities" that include "unlawful force, unlawful violence, or other illegal means to deprive individuals of their rights under the United States Constitution or the laws of the United States." The Pentagon says that this includes supporting "the overthrow of the government" and "goals that are political, religious, discriminatory, or ideological in nature." That's a fairly broad spectrum.

Few people would dispute that those who seek to further their political goals "through unlawful acts of force or violence" should be the subject of federal law enforcement attention, but without a definition of extremism, and with such a broad category of wildly different individuals and groups that fall under the domestic violent extremist umbrella, it is no wonder that the FBI had such a hard time paying attention to the many Americans who were openly threatening violence before January 6.

A senior retired FBI executive, who spoke to Newsweek on condition that his name not be used because he fears retaliation by the very extremists he is talking about, says that he sees two major constraints on the Bureau's domestic terrorism efforts. First, he says, there is too much emphasis on organized groups and searching for conspiraciesa legacy of the organized crime and then al Qaeda emphasis focusing on thwarting and dismantling groups.

Second, he says, the federal government has tied itself into a bind over the proper protocol of even following or monitoring free speech while looking for possible threats. The December 30 report, for example, was careful to note that not all extremists were prone to violence, stating that "First Amendment"-protected protest was not per se a predicate for either federal attention or further FBI investigation.

"I understand that people might be skeptical that the FBI actually safeguards civil liberties, but in today's Bureau, it's more true than false," the FBI executive says. "Yes, there have been many historical examples of overreach, [but] this level of care is equally applied to right and left."

The FBI stated in its 2021 domestic terrorism report to Congress: "Under FBI policy and federal law, no investigative activity may be based solely on First Amendment activity, or the apparent or actual race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity of the individual or group. The FBI does not investigate, collect, or maintain information on US persons solely for the purpose of monitoring activities protected by the First Amendment."

The executive says that post-January 6, with domestic terrorism a national issue and more emphasis on stopping attacks, previous constraints might loosen. But he still thinks that focusing on groupsProud Boys, Oath Keepers, etc.and imagining these groups are more powerful than they are, obscures the individuals and their actions that need to be detected and stopped.

Even after January 6, FBI Director Christopher Wray described the same vague threat picture as did the December 30 report in testifying before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committees. Despite all that had happened, he still saw homegrown violent extremists (HMVEs)that is, "individuals radicalized here at home by jihadist ideologies espoused by foreign terrorist organizations like ISIS and al Qaeda"as the Bureau's number-one priority.

HMVEs are not to be confused with DVEs, yet they are mixed together in a way that suggests the two are equivalent. HMVEs (foreign influenced) and DVEs (non-foreign influenced), FBI Director Wray said, have a commonality in that the biggest actual threat is from so-called "lone" wolves.

According to Wray, the Bureau is "countering lone domestic violent extremists radicalized by personalized grievances ranging from racial and ethnic bias to anti-government, anti-authority sentiment to conspiracy theories."

Wray previously told the House Oversight and Reform Committee that, "over the last year, we observed activity that led us to assess there was potential for increased violent extremist activity at lawful protests taking place in communities across the United States."

The FBI says that in response to these threats, it authored 12 formal intelligence reports in 2020 relating to potential domestic terrorism. In 2019, the FBI produced 15 domestic terrorism related reports. (Each year, the FBI produces about 1,000 domestic terrorism related intelligence products.) In late August 2020, Wray says, the FBI published an analytical report "informing our partners that DVEs with partisan political grievances likely posed an increased threat related to the 2020 election.

"In that product, we noted that DVE responses to the election outcome might not occur until after the election and could be based on potential or anticipated policy changes," Wray said. In December 2020, he says, the FBI also contributed to a Department of Homeland Security Intelligence In-Depth product, which stated that the diverse DVE landscape "would probably persist due to enduring grievances."

That would be obvious to any observer. The FBI, in its formal intelligence reporting, seems to have missed the signs completely.

"The FBI and our federal, state, and local partners collected and shared intelligence and relevant public safety-related information in preparation for the various planned events" on January 6, Wray claims. But there is no evidence that any of that sharing had any impact, according to the testimony of numerous U.S. Capitol Police and Metropolitan Police Department officials.

Just this past September, Wray told Congress how much "the threat" had changed 20 years after the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. "It was 9/11, after all," he said, "that turned the FBI into an agency focused on disrupting threats."

But when a national threat and a catastrophic event loomed in late 2020, FBI bureaucrats not only didn't disrupt it, they didn't even see it coming.

See the rest here:

Exclusive: Secret Threat Report Named Everyone Except Angry Donald Trump Voters - Newsweek

Tyson and Trump continue to have a strong friendship in the modern day, but Tyson once angrily questioned Trump about an alleged affair with his wife which has now been documented

Video Unavailable

Play now

Mike Tyson lets out roar in latest training footage

Mike Tyson previously confronted Donald Trump over an alleged affair with his wife as the pair's friendship deteriorated long before Trump became president.

Tyson enjoyed an illustrious career, reigning as undisputed heavyweight world champion from 1987 to 1990 while holding the record for the youngest boxer ever to win a world title.

During his time in the limelight Tyson enjoyed a healthy relationship with the former US president Trump whom he first encountered early in his boxing endeavours.

However the friendship was not all plain sailing with Tim O'Brien, author of the book TrumpNation, recalling an incident between Trump and Tyson over an alleged affair.

Tyson had angrily confronted Trump over an affair with his ex-wife Robin Givens to whom he was married to for a year from 1988.

Image:

The author claimed Tyson accused his friend of having an affair with Givens and angrily approached Trump.

"Could I ask you, are you f****** my wife?" Tyson reportedly asked Trump.

O'Brien has since quoted Trump's first-words after the meeting : "Now, if I froze, I'm dead... you would have zero chance. Here's the heavyweight champion of the world, and he's a solid piece of fu***** armour."

Trump's immediate reply to the allegation remains unknown and was not published in the book alongside the quotes from Trump.

Tyson and Trump had enjoyed a long working-relationship ever since their initial meeting in the late 1980's.

During the time, Tyson fought in a huge bout with Michael Spinks which Trump bid a bumper $11million to stage at the Atlantic City Convention Hall near to his New Jersey HQ.

He completed a sensational opening-round KO victory and from then on, Trump admitted his awe for Tyson's boxing skillset which gripped the nation throughout his explosive career.

What is your favourite highlight of Mike Tyson's boxing career? Let us know your one in the comments section below

Trump even reportedly attended sparring sessions and training camps of his long-term friend who won the undisputed heavyweight world-titles after their friendship began.

Despite being from polar ends of life, Trump and Tyson shared a common theme through their disjointed childhoods.

Trump went on to host more of Tyson's events with four of his seven title defences falling in Atlantic City which turned into a "Mecca" for American boxing.

The former president later became a chief-advisor to Tyson's business affairs but also tried to establish an adversary role in Tyson's marriage with Givens.

Despite their friendship being tested during this time, Tyson has continued to back Trump in the modern-day after the involvement in his boxing rise.

He vocally supported his successful 2016 presidential campaign in which he spoke about their long-term friendship.

Tyson said in a 2016 interview with The Daily Caller : That sh** is the real deal. Listen: Im a black mother***** from the poorest town in the country. Ive been through a lot in life.

Image:

And I know him. When I see him, he shakes my hand and respects my family. None of them- Barack, whoever- nobody else does that. Theyre gonna be who they are and disregard me, my family.

So Im voting for him. If I can get 200,000 people or more to vote for him, Im gonna do it.

Tyson then went on to explain how his association with Trump came about and detailed their similarities.

Were really good friends. We go back to 86, 87. Most of my successful and best fights were at Trumps hotels. He didnt manage me, though. He was just helping me with my court case.

Were the same guy. A thrust for power, a drive for power. Whatever field were in, we need power in that field. Thats just who we are.

Read More

Read More

More here:

When Mike Tyson confronted Donald Trump about alleged affair with boxer's wife - The Mirror

1/5

Jan. 2 (UPI) -- Members of the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 riots at the U.S. Capitol said they have testimony stating that former President Donald Trump was urged to order an end to the insurrection.

Chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., told CNN's State of the Union that the committee had received "significant testimony that leads us to believe that the White House had been told to do something," to quell the rioters.

"We want to verify all of it so that when we produce our report and when we have the hearings, the public will have an opportunity to see for themselves," he said.

Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., one of only two Republicans on the committee told ABC News' This Week that the committee has "firsthand testimony" that Trump was sitting in the dining room next to the Oval Office watching the riots unfold on television, noting that the White House briefing room was "just a mere few steps" away.

"The president could have at any moment, walked those very few steps into the briefing room, gone on live television and told his supporters who were assaulting the Capitol to stop," she said. "He could have told them to stand down. He could have told them to go home -- and he failed to do so. It's hard to imagine a more significant and more serious dereliction of duty than that."

Cheney added the committee had received testimony that members of Trump's family, including his daughter and adviser Ivanka Trump, had asked him to call for an end to the violence.

"We have firsthand testimony that his daughter Ivanka went in at least twice to ask him to please stop this violence," she said.

Thompson on Sunday also told NBC News' Meet the Press that the committee has asked the National Archives for videos Trump made at the White House during the riots, saying the former president made "several videos" before sharing a one-minute clip on social media calling for the rioters to disperse.

Thompson noted it took trump about 187 minutes to tell his supporters to leave the Capitol.

"We have now determined he was in the White House, we've determined that a number of people made attempts to contact him through his chief of staff," Thompson said. "Some of those text messages we share on our presentation of the contempt citation for Mark Meadows. We also have information, other individuals, who made calls trying to get some semblance of response out of the White House, but for that 187 minutes nothing happened."

Thompson also said the committee planned to recommend new intelligence-gathering legislation as a result of the probe, noting that it was the "worst kept secret in America" that people planned to travel to the Capitol as Congress worked to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election.

"We want to make sure that never happens again," he said. "In addition to that, we want to make sure that the line of communication between the Capitol Police and the structure of how we make decisions is clear. Right now, it's kind of a hybrid authority. And that authority clearly broke down, the training components for our Capitol Police, a lot of things that we don't have right now."

He added the committee would also recommend legislation to address "the coordination of resources to protect the Capitol" after its investigation found "significant inconsistencies in coordination" during the Jan. 6 riots.

"The first legislation would be the coordination of resources to protect the Capitol. There were significant inconsistencies in coordination, that the National Guard from the District of Columbia was slow to respond, not on its own, but it had to go to the Department of Defense," he said.

Read the original:

Panel has 'firsthand' testimony Trump was asked to stop riots - UPI News

Trump at the Turnberry golf course.AP Photo/Scott Heppell

Trump's Scottish golf resorts have claimed millions in pandemic support from the UK government.

Both Trump Turnberry and Trump International Scotland recorded losses in the millions in 2020.

Company accounts signed by Eric Trump cite Brexit as a contributing factor to the resorts' struggles.

Former President Donald Trump's Scottish golf resorts have claimed more than $4 million in UK emergency money as the struggling businesses furloughed hundreds of staff members amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Newly published company accounts for the two international resorts revealed the Trump Turnberry in Ayrshire and Trump International Scotland near Aberdeenshire cut 273 jobs in 2020, while also claiming $3.7 million in furlough support.

Trump relinquished control of both resorts to his sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump shortly before he was inaugurated as president in 2017 but kept financial interest in the businesses, both of which are owned by the holding company Golf Recreation Scotland Ltd.

Additional government data reviewed by The Guardian shows both resorts made further financial claims this year as the UK government's emergency job-retention program persisted.

The BBC was the first to report the resorts' additional 2021 claims, which are reportedly worth between $698,000 and $1.7 million, adding to a total between $4.4 million and $5.5 million in furlough support over two years. The new figures have not been included in the Trump companies' most recent accounts, according to The Guardian.

Trump Turnberry recorded a loss of more than $4 million in 2020 while the Aberdeenshire resort reported a loss of $1.7 million. Filings for both resorts cited the government lockdown, which required the businesses to be closed for multiple months in 2020 and into 2021, as reasons for significant staff losses.

But the accounts filed by Golf Recreation Scotland Ltd. and signed by its director, Eric Trump, also cited Brexit as a contributing factor to the resorts' failing finances, according to The Independent.

Story continues

"Brexit has also impacted our business as supply chains have been impacted by availability of drivers and staff, reducing deliveries and availability of certain product lines," the accounts state, according to The Independent.

The documents go on to say increased prices due to freight and import-duty charges after the Brexit vote, as well as a reduced staff availability because of wage inflation, have negatively affected the resorts.

During his presidential campaign and into his presidency, Trump was a vocal supporter of Brexit, which saw a 2016 referendum vote for withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union in 2016. The former president nicknamed himself "Mr. Brexit" in a 2016 tweet and celebrated the Brits, who he said "took back their country" at an appearance in Turnberry in 2016.

The company accounts, filed earlier this month, also suggested that both golf resorts owe additional money to Trump himself in loans from the former president's personal funds and the holding company to Turnberry and Trump International Scotland, totaling more than $158 million, according to The Guardian.

A representative for the Trump Organization did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment, nor did a spokesperson with Trump Turnberry or Trump International Scotland.

Trump opened the Aberdeenshire location in 2012 and bought the Turnberry resort in 2014. The former president is said to be particularly proud of his mother's Scottish heritage.

Last month, a group of human-rights lawyers lost their bid to force the Scottish government to investigate how Trump paid for his two golf courses in the country. The advocacy group Avaaz brought the case after the Scottish government declined to investigate an unexplained-wealth order against Trump.

Read the original article on Business Insider

View original post here:

Donald Trump's struggling Scottish golf courses have ...

After Donald Trump was forced from the major social-media platforms for violating their terms of service, the Associated Press reported in March he would soon launch his own site. Jason Miller told Fox News at the time that the former president was poised to "completely redefine the game" with his new tech initiative.

It was against this backdrop that Fox News reported in May that Trump and his team had launched a new "communications platform," powered by a "digital ecosystem." The phrases wildly oversold what was actually a rudimentary blog, utilizing technology that's existed for many years.

A month after its launch, the website was permanently scrapped due to lack of reader interest. The game had not been "completely redefined."

Apparently undeterred, the Republican and his team made a related announcement the week before Halloween, launching the Trump Media & Technology Group, which apparently has multimedia ambitions it says it intends to compete with both Twitter and Netflix and even hired a high-profile CEO: Former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes said he'd resign as a Republican congressman to lead the nascent company.

And while that's certainly of interest, what makes this story amazing is what we're learning about the behind-the-scenes financing of the initiative. The New York Times published this report the week after the company's launch.

[The former president] agreed to merge his social media venture with whats known as a special purpose acquisition company, or SPAC. The result is that Mr. Trump largely shut out of the mainstream financial industry because of his history of bankruptcies and loan defaults secured nearly $300 million in funding for his new business. To get his deal done, Mr. Trump ventured into an unregulated and sometimes shadowy corner of Wall Street, working with an unlikely cast of characters....

That cast includes a small Chinese investment firm with a curious record. (This may seem a little convoluted at first, but be patient, because this is going somewhere.)

A few years ago, for example, the firm helped create a company called Atlas Technology International, and it claimed in its Securities and Exchange Committee filing to be a company that made cupcakes. Soon after, Atlas filed a new annual report, saying it had made the transition from cupcakes to touch-screen devices, which was a bit odd.

The same folks behind that operation a Chinese firm called Arc Capital said they also ran a smart-phone sales company in south Florida, which did not appear to have ever sold anything to anyone at any time. They also claimed to have a drone software company, which somehow existed without any employees.

The SEC took a closer look and came to the conclusion that these companies were, for all intents and purposes, fake which is a problem, because in the United States, fake companies are not supposed to be publicly traded.

The SEC intervened and took the unusual step of issuing a "stop order," preventing the companies from selling public shares.

And now, as The Washington Post reported, these same guys in Shanghai have partnered with the former American president and the Trump Media & Technology Group.

A Chinese firm helping former president Donald Trump take his new media company public has been the target of investigations by federal securities regulators, who say the firm misrepresented shell companies with no products and few employees as ambitious, growing enterprises, documents and interviews show. Arc Capital, an investment advisory firm based in Shanghai, has repeatedly helped create or finance companies with little or no revenue, no customers and office locations that point to P.O. boxes, according to a Washington Post review of regulatory and court filings.

It's quite a marriage, isn't it? On the one hand, there's Trump, who's been accused of running fraudulent operations such as Trump University and the Trump Foundation, while on the other hand, there's a Chinese firm that's also been accused of launching highly dubious operations.

Keep in mind, the Trump Media & Technology Group, launched to great fanfare in October, does not appear to exist in any meaningful way, at least not yet. It has no products, no customers, and no sources of revenue. A securities lawyer told the Post, in reference to the partnership between the the former president's operation and Arc Capital, Theres a shell company basically merging with another shell company."

Nevertheless, the Republican's friends in Shanghai are raising hundreds of millions of dollars from the public that will ostensibly go towards Trump's media company that, again, still doesn't exist.

All of this has recently drawn the interest of investigators at the SEC and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), which typically investigates things like insider trading.

So, let's recap. Trump, who spent his White House term boasting about getting tough with China, has partnered with a dubious firm in Shanghai, which doesn't have any offices in the United States, but which is nevertheless financing his first and for now, largely aspirational post-presidency business venture. All of this is now facing federal investigations, in part because of the Chinese firm's history of fake businesses.

I can appreciate why expectations surrounding the former president are low, but this is farcical.

Steve Benen is a producer for "The Rachel Maddow Show," the editor of MaddowBlog and an MSNBC political contributor. He's also the bestselling author of "The Impostors: How Republicans Quit Governing and Seized American Politics."

Read the original:

Why the controversy surrounding Trump's media venture matters - MSNBC

Donald Trump has claimed 5,000 dead people voted in 2020 in Georgia, a state he lost to Joe Biden on his way to national defeat.

He was off by 4,996.

As the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported on Monday, state officials have confirmed four cases of dead people voting.

All involved family members submitting votes for the deceased, cases in which the state has the power to levy fines.

In one case detailed by the paper, a widow submitted an absentee ballot for her husband after he died in September, two months before polling day.

An attorney for the 74-year-old woman reportedly told officials her husband was going to vote Republican, and she said, Well, Im going to cancel your ballot because Im voting Democrat. It was kind of a joke between them. She received the absentee ballot and carried out his wishes.

She now realises that was not the thing to do.

Even if Trumps claim about dead voters were true, it would not have saved him from being the first Republican to lose Georgia since 1992. Biden won the state by nearly 12,000 votes. Nor could Georgia alone have overturned Trumps electoral college defeat, by 306-232.

But Trump included his claim in a notorious call in which he pushed the Georgia secretary of state, Republican Brad Raffensperger, to find enough votes to give him victory.

Dead people, Trump said. So dead people voted, and I think the number is close to 5,000 people. And they went to obituaries. They went to all sorts of methods to come up with an accurate number, and a minimum is close to about 5,000 voters.

He also claimed that a tremendous number of dead people voted in Michigan, adding: I think it was 18,000. Some unbelievably high number, much higher than yours, you were in the 4-5,000 category.

Referring to a claim of upward of 5,000 dead voters he said was presented to Georgia officials, Raffensperger, said: The actual number were two. Two. Two people that were dead that voted. So thats wrong.

Trump insisted: In one state, we have a tremendous amount of dead people. So I dont know Im sure we do in Georgia, too. Im sure we do in Georgia, too.

Trumps chief of staff, Mark Meadows, told Raffensperger: You say they were only two dead people who would vote. I can promise you there are more than that.

Raffensperger refused to help Trump, prompting threats to his safety. But the call also placed Trump in legal jeopardy, as a district attorney investigates whether he broke electoral law.

The call was part of scattershot attempts to overturn a defeat Trump insists in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary was the result of electoral fraud.

A few days after the call, on 6 January, Trump told supporters in Washington to fight like hell in his cause. Rioters then attacked the US Capitol, seeking to stop certification of Bidens win, in some cases seeking to capture or kill officials including Trumps vice-president, Mike Pence.

Five people died.

Go here to read the rest:

Trump claims 5,000 dead people voted in Georgia but the real number is four - The Guardian

Expectation is growing that Donald Trump might face charges for trying to obstruct Congress from certifying Joe Bidens election this year as a House panel collects more evidence into the 6 January attack on the Capitol, former prosecutors and other experts say.

Speculation about possible charges against the former US president has been heightened by a recent rhetorical bombshell from Republican representative and 6 January panel vice-chair Liz Cheney suggesting the House panel is looking at whether Trump broke a law that bars obstruction of official proceedings.

Former prosecutors say if the panel finds new evidence about Trumps role interfering with Congress job to certify Bidens election, that could help buttress a potential case by the Department of Justice.

In varying ways, Cheneys comments have been echoed by two other members of the House select committee, Republican Adam Kinzinger and Democrat Jamie Raskin, spurring talk of how an obstruction statute could apply to Trump, which would entail the panel making a criminal referral of evidence for the justice department to investigate, say DoJ veterans.

Cheneys remarks raising the specter of criminal charges against Trump came twice earlier this month at hearings of the committee. Experts believe the charges could be well founded given Trumps actions on 6 January, including incendiary remarks to a rally before the Capitol attack and failure to act for hours to stop the riot, say former justice department officials.

Based on what is already in the public domain, there is powerful evidence that numerous people, in and out of government, attempted to obstruct and did obstruct, at least for a while an official proceeding i.e., the certification of the Presidential election, said former DOJ inspector general and former prosecutor Michael Bromwich in a statement to the Guardian. That is a crime.

Although a House panel referral of obstruction by Trump would not force DOJ to open a criminal case against him, it could help provide more evidence for one, and build pressure on the justice department to move forward, say former prosecutors.

Attorneygeneral Merrick Garland has declined to say so far whether his department may be investigating Trump and his top allies already for their roles in the Capitol assault.

The panel has amassed significant evidence, including more than 30,000 records and interviews with more than 300 people, among whom were some key White House staff.

The evidence against Trump himself could include his actions at the Stop the Steal rally not far from the White House, where he urged backers to march to the Capitol and fight like hell [or] youre not going to have a country any more. Trump then resisted multiple pleas for hours from Republicans and others to urge his violent supporters to stop the attack.

Recent rulings by Trump-appointed district court judges have supported using the obstruction statute, which federal prosecutors have cited in about 200 cases involving rioters charged by DOJ for their roles in the Capitol assault that injured about 140 police officers and left five dead.

Still, experts note that the House panels mission has been to assemble a comprehensive report of what took place on 6 January and work on legislation to avoid such assaults on democracy. They caution that any criminal referral to DOJ documenting Trumps obstruction of Congress will take time and more evidence to help bolster a DOJ investigation.

Some DOJ veterans say that any referral to DOJ by the House panel for a criminal case against Trump and perhaps top allies such as ex chief of staff Mark Meadows, whom the House last week cited for criminal contempt for refusing to be deposed might also include Trumps aggressive pressuring of federal and state officials before 6 January to block Bidens win with baseless charges of fraud.

Bromwich stressed that the evidence is steadily accumulating that would prove obstruction beyond a reasonable doubt. The ultimate question is who the defendants would be in such an obstruction case. Evidence is growing that, as a matter of law and fact, that could include Trump, Meadows and other members of Trumps inner circle.

Cheney teed up the issue about Trumps potential culpability first at a House panel hearing last week, when she urged that Meadows be held in contempt for refusing to be deposed, and then hit Trump with a rhetorical bombshell.

We know hours passed with no action by the president to defend the Congress of the United States from an assault while we were counting electoral votes, Cheney said.

Did Donald Trump, through action or inaction, corruptly seek to obstruct or impede Congress official proceeding to count electoral votes?

Cheneys comments about Trump were very precise, including language from the criminal obstruction statute, and she stated that her question is a key one for the panels legislative tasks.

Raskin too has told Politico that the issue of whether Trump broke the law by obstructing an official proceeding is clearly one of the things on the mind of some of the members of the committee.

The possibility of obstruction charges is legally valid, said Paul Rosenzweig, a former DOJ prosecutor who worked on Ken Starrs team during the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton, noting that two district judges appointed by Trump have recently said that the statute covers the efforts on January 6 to stop the electoral count.

For instance, Judge Dabney Friedrich in a recent opinion rejected the claim by some defendants who were challenging the DOJ view that the 6 January meeting of Congress fit the legal definition of an official proceeding.

Rosenzweig posited that given Trumps various attempts before 6 January to undermine the election results, a broader conspiracy case may be another option for prosecutors to pursue. Should DOJ look at broader conspiracy charges, Trumps persistent pressures on acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen and his top deputy for help blocking Bidens victory wouldprobably be relevant, say ex-prosecutors.

On one call on 27 December 2020, Trump pressed Rosen and his deputy to falsely state the election illegal and corrupt despite the fact that the DOJ had not found any evidence of widespread voter fraud.

Paul Pelletier, a former acting chief of the fraud section at DOJ, said that Cheneys statements were carefully crafted and obviously based upon evidence the committee had seen. Should Congress ultimately refer the case to DOJ for investigation and prosecution, the DOJs investigation would not be limited to a single obstruction charge, but would more likely investigate broader conspiracy charges potentially involving Trump and other key loyalists.

The panel has accelerated its pace recently by sending out dozens of subpoenas for documents and depositions, some to close Trump aides. Meadows has become a central focus of the inquiry, in part over tweets he received on and near the insurrection that are among approximately 9,000 documents he gave the panel, much to Trumps chagrin.

As Trumps efforts to thwart the panel from moving forward have had limited success, he has relied on sending out splenetic email attacks, including one last month that read: The Unselect Committee itself is Rigged, stacked with Never Trumpers, Republican enemies, and two disgraced RINOs, Cheney and Kinzinger, who couldnt get elected dog catcher in their districts.

Despite Trumps angry attacks on the panel, some ex-prosecutors say that prosecuting Trump if enough evidence is found to merit charges is important for the health of American democracy.

Former Georgia US attorney Michael J Moore told the Guardian: I hate to think of a legal system that would allow the most powerful person in the country to go unchallenged when he has abdicated his highest priority, that being to keep our citizens safe. Trumps conduct that day was not unlike a mob boss.

View post:

Trump could face charges for trying to obstruct certification of election, legal experts say - The Guardian

Congressman Bennie Thompson, the chairman of the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack, has said the panel will open an inquiry into Donald Trumps phone call seeking to stop Joe Bidens certification from taking place on 6 January hours before the insurrection.

The chairman said the select committee intended to scrutinize the phone call revealed last month by the Guardian should they prevail in their legal effort to obtain Trump White House records over the former presidents objections of executive privilege.

Thats right, Thompson said when asked by the Guardian whether the select committee would look into Trumps phone call, and suggested House investigators had already started to consider ways to investigate Trumps demand that Biden not be certified as president on 6 January.

Thompson said the select committee could not ask the National Archives for records about specific calls, but noted if we say we want all White House calls made on January 5 and 6, if he made it on a White House phone, then obviously we would look at it there.

The Guardian reported last month that Trump, according to multiple sources, called lieutenants based at the Willard hotel in Washington DC from the White House in the late hours of 5 January and sought ways to stop Bidens certification from taking place on 6 January.

Trump first told the lieutenants his vice-president, Mike Pence, was reluctant to go along with the plan to commandeer his ceremonial role at the joint session of Congress in a way that would allow Trump to retain the presidency for a second term, the sources said.

But as Trump relayed to them the situation with Pence, the sources said, on at least one call, he pressed his lieutenants about how to stop Bidens certification from taking place on 6 January in a scheme to get alternate slates of electors for Trump sent to Congress.

The former presidents remarks came as part of wider discussions he had with the lieutenants at the Willard a team led by Trump lawyers Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Boris Epshteyn and Trump strategist Steve Bannon about delaying the certification, the sources said.

House investigators in recent months have pursued an initial investigation into Trumps contacts with lieutenants at the Willard, issuing a flurry of subpoenas compelling documents and testimony to crucial witnesses, including Bannon and Eastman.

But Thompson said that the select committee would now also investigate both the contents of Trumps phone calls to the Willard and the White Houses potential involvement, in a move certain to intensify the pressure on the former presidents inner circle.

If we get the information that we requested, Thompson said of the select committees demands for records from the Trump White House and Trump aides, those calls potentially will be reflected to the Willard hotel and whomever.

A spokesperson for the select committee declined to comment about what else such a line of inquiry might involve. But a subpoena to Giuliani, the lead Trump lawyer at the Willard, is understood to be in the offing, according to a source familiar with the matter.

The Guardian reported that the night before the Capitol attack, Trump called the lawyers and non-lawyers at the Willard separately, because Giuliani did not want to have non-lawyers participate on sensitive calls and jeopardize claims to attorney-client privilege.

It was not clear whether Giulaini might invoke attorney-client privilege as a way to escape cooperating with the investigation in the event of a subpoena, but Congressman Jamie Raskin, a member of the select committee, noted the protection does not confer broad immunity.

The attorney-client privilege does not operate to shield participants in a crime from an investigation into a crime, Raskin said. If it did, then all you would have to do to rob a bank is bring a lawyer with you, and be asking for advice along the way.

The Guardian also reported Trump made several calls the day before the Capitol attack from the White House residence, his preferred place to work, as well as the West Wing, but it was not certain from which location he phoned his top lieutenants at the Willard.

The distinction is significant as phone calls placed from the White House residence, even from a landline desk phone, are not automatically memorialized in records sent to the National Archives after the end of an administration.

That means even if the select committee succeeds in its litigation to pry free Trumps call detail records from the National Archives, without testimony from people with knowledge of what was said, House investigators might only learn the target and time of the calls.

See original here:

Capitol panel to investigate Trump call to Willard hotel in hours before attack - The Guardian

There is a scene in the latest remake of Godzilla where Ishiro Serizawa, played by Ken Watanabe, is standing on a shoreline staring out at the sea. He is surrounded by bustling soldiers. Behind him, two giant MUTO creatures are beating the living hell out of San Francisco. Somewhere in the distance, a huge bulge of ocean approaches at dizzying speed: The King of the Monsters is coming. The commanding general asks if there is any hope that Godzilla can defeat the menace shredding the city. The arrogance of men is thinking nature is in our control and not the other way around, replies Serizawa. Let them fight.

This is how Im feeling about Donald Trump and his buddies within the Proud Boys these days.

The House Select Committee investigating the January 6 attack on the Capitol building is not Trumps only problem on that particular front; six Capitol police officers are suing him for sparking the Capitol riot, during which they were viciously assaulted, and recent court papers filed by Trumps defense team indicate they plan to lay responsibility for the whole thing at the feet of the Proud Boys and other right-wing groups.

Former President Donald Trump is seeking dismissal of a suit accusing him of sparking the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, reports Bloomberg News, arguing that speakers at political rallies dont have a legally enforceable duty of care to adversaries or others who might find themselves in the path of impassioned supporters. Trump, sued in August by eight Capitol Police officers who claim they were assaulted that day, argued in a court filing that the lawsuit should be tossed out because Trump isnt vicariously liable for the actions of people who heard him speak at a Stop the Steal rally before the siege.

It aint Stand back and stand by, thats for sure. Trump and his newest band of legal superchamps seem to be arguing that he can, in fact, yell Fire! in a crowded theater, and if you get your face stepped on by someone fleeing the room, well, thats your problem. This is far less theoretical than that old legal saw. With these filings, Trump is handing the bag directly over to groups, including the Proud Boys, which have been his staunchest and most menacing allies.

This appears to be yet another crossroads moment featuring Trump trying to put some wind between himself and the hardest of his hardcore allies. This split with the Proud Boys is nothing less than cold-blooded political calculus seen in hundreds of courtrooms a day: It was them, Your Honor, not me, and under the bus they go (the standard-issue fate of nearly everyone foolish enough to hitch their wagon to his star).

Last week, it was Trump parting ways with the anti-vax brigades, a move that went over with them about as well as a pole-vaulting sack of cement. Sitting for an interview with right-wing commentator Candace Owens, Trump pushed back hard on her suggestion that the vaccines were somehow flawed or dangerous. Oh no, the vaccines work, he replied, but some people arent the ones. The ones who get very sick and go to the hospital are the ones that dont take the vaccine. But its still their choice. And if you take the vaccine, youre protected. Look, the results of the vaccine are very good, and if you do get it, its a very minor form. People arent dying when they take the vaccine.

Vile conspiracy monger Alex Jones immediately spoke for many within the anti-vax brigades in a scathing Christmas Day message. But now that you know that [Anthony] Fauci signed you onto a fraud, you must extricate yourself from this lie, or you will be forever known as the M.V.V.P., the Most Valuable Vaccine Pusher, and the name Trump will be associated with pure evil, ranted Jones. Do not go down history as Josef Mengele 2.0. Your legacy will be that of a monster. Your legacy will be that of a eugenicist. Your legacy will be that of a child killer, using medical tyranny.

Meanwhile, the House 1/6 committee prepares to move into a more public phase of operation, sweeping in new testimony and evidence left and right, while Trumps efforts to stop them have finally reached the Supreme Court. This is a perilous moment fraught with uncertainty: Yes, the 6-3 conservative bent of the court, including three justices he personally nominated, would seem to be a safe harbor for the embattled former president. Yet that same court had a number of opportunities to involve themselves in Trumps favor during the post-election chaos, and they very deliberately wanted no part of it. There is no way to tell where they will come down on this.

Donald Trump seems to be running out of friends at an accelerating rate, and it is his own behavior that is creating the distance. Its a strange decision tree hes climbing, and puts one in mind of the old saying: What do you call a leader with no followers? Just a guy taking a walk.

Continue reading here:

Donald Trump Has Spent the Last Two Weeks Offending His Closest Allies - Truthout

In this daily series, Newsweek explores the steps that led to the January 6 Capitol Riot.

On December 27, the last Sunday of 2020, the news media struggled to offer any happy news in a year dominated by COVID and then by Donald Trump's post-election dissension.

COVID cases reached 80 million worldwide and over the weekend, the United States reached a grim indicator: 1 in 1,000 Americans had died in the pandemic. Los Angeles County alone was experiencing one COVID death every ten minutes.

On Sunday, Dr. Anthony Fauci expressed concern that the state of the pandemic might get worse in the coming weeks. "... [T]he reason I'm concerned and my colleagues in public health are concerned also is that we very well might see a post-seasonal, in the sense of Christmas, New Year's, surge ... a surge upon a surge, because, if you look at the slope, the incline of cases that we have experienced as we have gone into the late fall and soon-to-be-early winter, it is really quite troubling."

"We are really at a very critical point," Fauci said.

Then there was the Christmas morning bombing in Nashville, still raw in people's minds, a reminder that nothing stopped for the pandemic. Though terrorism was being downplayed, analysts latched onto other implications. "I think this is a wake-up call and a warning for all of us about how vulnerable our infrastructure is," former FBI assistant director Frank Figliuzzi told CBS' Face the Nation. "We've concentrated, post 9/11 on ... getting our hands around all the chemical companies, mass orders of precursors for known explosives," he said, calling on shop owners and companies to be even more vigilant.

"[T]he notion of a copycat seeing what's happened in Nashville and trying to do this themselves is very real," he said.

"We haven't really been talking about infrastructure in this country in the context of individuals trying to conduct attacks of harm against," former homeland security Assistant Secretary Elizabeth Neumann told ABC's This Week, "but it's just a stark reminder that it is extremely vulnerable and we're overdue for some pretty significant investments."

On NBC's Meet the Press, there was no talk of Nashville, or COVID: the entire show was devoted to Joe Biden and what kind of president he would be. The closest the program got was in asking two governors about the difficult time and being targeted by COVID protestors. Gov. Mike Dewine of Ohio said: "I think it's understandable that people are upset. It's nine months into this. People are tired of it, so I get it."

Trump's "final days in office are shaping up to be the most volatile and unpredictable of a presidency defined by its volatility and unpredictability," said Jonathan Karl on ABC's This Week.

ABC had Maryland Republican Governor Larry Hogan on, Karl asking him if he was concerned about the damage Donald Trump could do in his last 24 days in office. Hogan cited Trump's delay in signing the COVID stimulus bill into law, his vetoing of the defense authorization bill. "Millions of people are going to suffer," Hogan said. "The Paycheck Protection Plan ran out in July. Unemployment benefits are about to run out tomorrow. And we've got to get this done."

Asked about Trump's call for a last-ditch fight on January 6, Hogan reassured viewers that Joe Biden was going to be sworn in on January 20. "There is a lot of disinformation out there," Hogan said. "Everybody wants every single legal vote to be counted. We want the election to be fair and proper."

"I'm hopeful that the vice president [Mike Pence] understands that [January 6 is a purely ceremonial job] and will execute his constitutional duties on January 6th," former Governor of New Jersey Chris Christie told ABC. "There may be some, some histrionics that go along with it, in the end I'm confident that the Congress will confirm what the American people did on Election Day, which was to elect Joe Biden the next president of the United States."

Not one of the dominant Sunday morning news shows mentioned the protests brewing or the likelihood of violence.

"See you in Washington, D.C., on January 6th. Don't miss it," Donald Trump tweeted on Sunday.

Read more:

Though Obsessed with Donald Trump, the Media Was Blind to Brewing Threat of Violence - Newsweek