The 9th of January the committee heard about its investigation.

Defending Donald Trump and his Allies During the January 6th Attack: CNN’s First Amendment Rights vs. Democrat Rep. Bennie Thompson

After nearly 18 months of hearings and deliberations, the committee concluded that Donald Trump and his allies were attempting to overturn the 2020 election.

We looked at over a million pages of documents. Thanks to the tireless work of our members and investigators, we’ve left — we have left no doubt, none, that Donald Trump led an effort to up end American democracy that directly resulted in the violence of January 6th. He tried to take away the power of the American people in choosing their leader by replacing their will with his own.

In his suit, Trump’s attorneys attack the subpoena as overly broad and frame it as an infringement of his First Amendment rights. They also argue other sources besides Trump could provide the same information the committee wants from him.

The top Republican on the panel, Liz Cheney of Wyoming, said that they were obligated to seek answers from the man who started it all. We can act to protect our republic now that every American has the answers.

Editor’s Note: Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, a Democrat from Mississippi, is chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. His own views are reflected in this commentary. View more opinion on CNN.

Investigating the National Security Committee’s Report on the Fort McNair, DC, Attack, and an Apparent Phone Call to the House of Representatives

The panel is expected to be wiped out next month by an incoming Republican House majority featuring scores of lawmakers who voted not to certify the last presidential election and who still whitewash that day of infamy nearly two years later.

The committee aired previously unseen footage from Fort McNair, the DC-area Army base where congressional leaders took refuge during the insurrection and scrambled to respond to the unfolding crisis.

Lawmakers were taken to a secure location during the attack and new footage was shown to them. The committee showed video footage of House and Senate leaders of both parties meeting in a secure location as the attack raged on.

Pelosi was also showed talking on the phone to then-Gov. Ralph Northam of Virginia about sending reinforcements to the Capitol. Other footage showed Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., speaking to acting Attorney General Jeff Rosen.

The new footage showed Schumer dressing down then-acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen. During their heated phone call, Schumer implored Rosen to intervene directly with Trump, and tell Trump to call off the mob. The pro-Trump rioters are breaking the law at the instigation of the President of the United States according to Pelosi.

“I think the events at the Capitol, however they occurred, were shocking and it was something that, as I mentioned in my statement, that I could not put aside,” said Chao, one of the former members of Trump’s Cabinet whose recorded testimony lawmakers aired on Thursday.

I believe in this country. I believe in a peaceful transfer of power. I believe in democracy. And so I was a — it was a decision that I made on my own. [End videotape]

On Thursday, the committee showed new video deposition from Hutchinson where she spoke to Meadows about Trump’s January 2021 call where he urged the Georgia secretary of state to “find” the votes he needed to win.

“I remember looking at Mark, and I said ‘Mark, he can’t possibly think we’re going to pull this off. That call was crazy. And he looked at me and just started shaking his head. He knows it’s over, and he was like “No, you know, he knows it’s over.” He knows he didn’t win. Hutchinson told the committee that they were going to keep trying.

Hutchinson also said that she witnessed a conversation between Meadows and Trump where he was furious the Supreme Court had rejected a lawsuit seeking to overturn the election result.

Mark Milley, the Chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said in an audio clip that during the Oval Office, Trump said to let the issue go to the next guy.

Detecting Trump inciting the Mob: Observations from a Secret Service Collaborative on January 6th and the Commission on Investigations

The committee will be conducting further depositions based on the material they discovered after they completed their review of the additional Secret Service communications. We will give more detail in our final report after that activity.

By the morning of January 6th, it was clear that the Secret Service anticipated violence. It felt like the calm before the storm, one agent predicted, in a protective intelligence division chat group. One remarked on how agents were watching crazies. By 9:09 that morning, the Secret Service could also see that many rally goers were assembled outside the security perimeter.

The linked web page had comments about the joint session of Congress on January 6th. Take a look at some of those comments. “Gallows do not require electricity.” “If the filthy commie maggots try to push their fraud through, there will be hell to pay.” “Our lawmakers in Congress can leave one of two ways; one, in a body bag, two, after rightfully certifying Trump the winner.” Mr. Miller said he had no idea that there were hundreds of comments like these in the link that he sent.

We have obtained new documents from the Secret Service and they show that the threat to the Vice President was due to the President inciting the mob. After Trump’s tweet, one agent in the Secret Services Intelligence Division immediately warned, POTUS just tweeted about Pence; probably not going to be good for Pence.

Mr. Bannon didn’t testify in our investigation. He is currently awaiting sentencing after being convicted of criminal contempt of Congress. But the evidence indicates that Mr. Bannon had advance knowledge of Mr. Trump’s intent to declare victory falsely on election night, but also that Mr. Bannon knew about Mr. Trump’s planning for January 6th. Here’s what he said on January 5. Start the videotape.

A memo was written to Mr. Short by Mr. Jacob as a result of this conversation. The memo was sent on November 3rd, Election Day, and advised, “it is essential that the Vice President not be perceived by the public as having decided questions concerning disputed electoral votes prior to the full development of all relevant facts.” A few days before the election, Mr. Trump also consulted with one of his outside advisers, inside activist, Tom Fitton, about the strategy for election night.

The memo says that the Vice President should not be seen as having made decisions concerning disputed electoral votes before all facts are known.

The committee revealed emails from Tom Fitton, president of the conservative group Judicial Watch, from before the 2020 presidential election that say Trump should declare victory regardless of the outcome.

Committee members interviewed Ginni Thomas last month but ultimately her testimony was not featured as part of the panel’s last hearing before the midterm election.

But her absence was notable considering the panel did use testimony from several other high-profile witnesses who had been interviewed since the committee’s most recent hearing earlier this summer.

The Case of Mike Pence and the Justice Department: Donald Trump’s Second Impeach from the House Select Committee on Investigations of Classified Documents

But the developments that could hurt Trump the most happened off stage. They show the thicket of legal issues surrounding the former President, who has not been convicted of a crime, and the amount of time that remains to account for a presidency that constantly tested the rule of law.

While Trump has often appeared to defy investigative storms, there has been a sense that he is sliding into an ever-deeper legal hole.

As the House select committee hearing was going on, the Supreme Court told them that it was not interested in helping Trump derail the Justice Department probe.

The court turned down his emergency request to intervene, which could have delayed the case, without explaining why. Conservatives on the court of Trump who he often sees as owe him a debt of loyalty did not dissent.

The clash over classified documents that appeared to represent the ex- president’s most clearcut and immediate threat of true criminal exposure was the biggest political drama that surrounded the revelations over January 6.

While television stations beamed blanket coverage of the committee hearing, more news broke that hinted at further grave legal problems the ex-President could face from another Justice Department investigation – also into January 6. Unlike the House’s version, the DOJ’s criminal probe has the power to draw up indictments.

Marc Short, a former chief of staff for then-Vice President Mike Pence, was spotted leaving a courthouse in Washington, DC. According to a person familiar with the situation, Short was compelled to testify for the second time. Another Trump adviser, former national security aide Kash Patel, was also seen walking into an area where the grand jury meets. Patel would not tell reporters what he was doing.

CNN’s Brown had reported late on Wednesday that a Trump employee had told the FBI about being directed by the ex-President to move boxes out of a basement storage room at his Florida club after Trump’s legal team received a subpoena for any classified documents. The FBI also has surveillance footage showing a staffer moving the boxes.

There is evidence to pursue multiple crimes against Trump, which are obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to make false statements, assisting or aiding an insurrection, and seditious conspiracy.

The lawyer for Trump during his second impeachment told CNN that although the details of what happened at Mar-a-Lago are troubling, they do not necessarily mean a case of obstruction of justice.

But he added: “If President Trump or someone acting on behalf knew … that they didn’t have the right to have these documents in their possession, the documents belonged to the government or the American people, et cetera, and knowingly disobeyed the subpoena, knowingly hid the documents or kept the documents from being found, then that could theoretically constitute obstruction.”

The New York attorney general on Thursday asked a state court to prevent the Trump Organization from moving assets and continuing to perpetrate what she has claimed is a decades-long fraud.

“There is every reason to believe that the Defendants will continue to engage in similar fraudulent conduct right up to trial unless checked by order of this Court,” James wrote in an application for a preliminary injunction linked to her $250 million suit against Trump, his three eldest children and his firm.

The DOJ investigation being led by Smith is examining Trump in its extensive probe into January 6, and it appears that federal investigators are already looking at much of the conduct that the select committee has highlighted.

Those aren’t even the only probes connected to Trump. There is also the matter of yet another investigation in Georgia over attempts by the former President and his allies to overturn the election in a crucial 2020 swing state.

Budowich mocked Trump’s decision to subpoena the ex-President of the Montana House Select Committee on Evidence

As always, Trump came out fighting on Thursday, one of those days when the seriousness of a crisis he is facing can often be gauged by the vehemence of the rhetoric he uses to respond.

First Trump spokesman Taylor Budowich mocked the unanimous 9-0 vote in the select committee to subpoena the former President for documents and testimony.

“Pres Trump will not be intimidate(d) by their meritless rhetoric or un-American actions. Trump-endorsed candidates will sweep the Midterms, and America First leadership & solutions will be restored,” Budowich wrote on Twitter.

The former president weighed in with another post on his Truth social network that failed to answer the accusations against him in order to stir a political reaction from his supporters.

Trump responded to the vote on his Truth Social platform, calling the committee a “total bust” and criticizing it for waiting until now to ask him to testify.

There’s precedent in American history for Congress to compel the testimony of a precedent — president. There’s also precedent for presidents to provide testimony and documentary evidence to Congressional investigators. We also recognize that a subpoena to a former president is a serious and extraordinary action.

Trump’s attorney, David Warrington, said in a statement with the release of the lawsuit in part that “long-held precedent and practice maintain that separation of powers prohibits Congress from compelling a President to testify before it.”

Given the slim chance of Trump complying with a congressional subpoena then, many observers will see the dramatic vote to target the ex-President as yet another theatrical flourish in a set of slickly produced hearings that often resembled a television courtroom drama.

But the committee’s Republican vice chair, Rep. Liz Cheney, said the investigation was no longer just about what happened on January 6, but about the future.

After losing her primary to a Trump-backed challenger, the Wyoming lawmaker said she will not return to Congress, and that she wants to chip away at the foundation of our Republic.

But as the panel wrapped up what was likely the last of its evidentiary hearings on Thursday, it was not at all clear that it had persuaded the jury. Americans who already blamed the rampage on Mr. Trump came away from four months of sensational and at times jaw-dropping hearings with more evidence for their belief, while those who started out in his camp largely remained there.

We live in a time where it is not certain if a congressional investigation can still have a large impact. One of the factors that makes it difficult for Congress to shift political momentum is that intense political polarization overwhelms all other concerns.

A former president who tried to overturn the free and fair election to remain in power in defiance of the voters, the Constitution and nearly two and a half centuries of democratic tradition remains the favorite to be the party’s nominee. While the committee extensively documented the plot for history’s sake, it could not enforce accountability for it.

The panel was called a formal committee business meeting because it could vote on further investigative actions and present evidence, as Chairman Bennie Thompson noted in his opening remarks.

The panel also shared video clips of longtime Trump associate Roger Stone, who was previously convicted of lying to Congress, among other crimes. Trump pardoned Stone just weeks before leaving office after he was sentenced to three years in prison.

On the Prediction of Trump: Exactly How President Biden Wins in the Early Early Hours of the November 17th Session

“I really do suspect it will still be up in the air,” Stone said. “When that happens, the key thing to do is to claim victory. Possession is nine-tenths of the law. No, we did not win.

As for McEnany, the committee called her testimony “evasive, as if she was testifying from pre-prepared talking points,” noting she was deposed early in the investigation and wasn’t as forthcoming as others from Trump’s press office.

At times, President Trump acknowledged the reality of his loss after the election. He admitted that Joe Biden would become the next President. pic.twitter.com/urgTGKVD3y

But President Trump did declare victory in the late hours of election night. Not only did he declare victory, he also called for the ongoing count of votes to just stop. If the count was stopped it would be in violation of both federal and state laws, as well as tainting millions of voters who voted legally.

Communications Director Alyssa Farah recalled this comment from Trump: “I popped into the Oval just to give the president the headlines and see how he was doing. He looked at the television, and he said, ‘can you believe that I lost to this guy?’

Rep. Jim Clyburn, Secretary of the Secret Service, and a Call to the D-Calif., House Minority Whip Leader, Mr. Pelosi

“I vaguely remember him mentioning that he was a professor, and then essentially he turned the call over to Mr. Eastman, who then proceeded to talk about the importance of the RNC helping the campaign gather these contingent electors in case any of the legal challenges that were ongoing changed the result of any of the states,” McDaniel said.

Later on the evening of January 5th, the Secret Service learned during an FBI briefing that right-wing groups were establishing armed QRFs or quick reaction forces readying to deploy for January 6th. Groups like the Oath Keepers were standing by at the ready should POTUS request assistance by invoking the Insurrection Act, agents were informed.

The Secret Service said a large crowd near the Washington Monument wouldn’t be allowed into the rally area because the screening equipment they use could detect prohibited items. Mr. Trump was aware of this. His Secret Service had told him about it that morning.

“Do you believe this?” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., can be seen saying to House Majority Whip Rep. Jim Clyburn, after being informed that members on the House floor were donning tear gas masks in anticipation of a breach.

The Associated POTUS/Kushner-McCollar hearing: President Trump’s anti-Pence statements and his “violation of the law”

Another agent said that Trump’s anti-Pence statement had a big effect on his followers. POTUS said “he lacked courage; over 24,000 likes in under 2 minutes.” Employees at the micro-site were watching the situation. They were well aware that a group of people were rioting at the Capitol and were making comments on social media.

Trump’s son-in-law and former White House senior adviser Jared Kushner described House GOP leader McCarthy as “scared” as McCarthy reached out to members of Trump’s family for help during the riot.

The president told them that the people were angry at them more than they were. It could be that they are more upset.

Trump was the central player. The hearing went into more details on then-President Trump’s state of mind after he lost the election and continued to pursue avenues to overturn the election results.

Trump tried to remove the will of the voters and replace them with his own will, said Thompson. The man is the one person who is at the center of the story.

A federal judge noted that Trump was told by email “that the specific numbers of voter fraud were wrong but continued to tout those numbers, both in court and in public.” He swore under oath to the best of his knowledge that the numbers are true and correct.

Investigating the Capitol Attack. Evidence of a Fake Election Plan from the Defendant President Donald J.R.P. Trump

She said that they cannot only punish the foot soldiers who were at the Capitol. We chip away at the foundation of our Republic with every effort to excuse or justify the conduct of the former president.

The hearing of the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack was held in October. The transcript was provided by a different company.

The Committee recognizes that other news outlets and commentators discouraged viewers from watching the hearings and that millions of other Americans have not seen the evidence addressed by it.

That’s why I asked those who were skeptical of our work to — simply to listen, to listen to the evidence, to hear the testimony with an open mind, and to let the facts speak for themselves before reaching any judgment. Over the course of these hearings, the evidence has proven that there were a multipart plan led by former President Donald Trump to overturn the 2020 election.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. President Trump’s efforts to unlawfully overturn the results of the 2020 election were not limited to the big lie and pressuring state officials and the Department of Justice officials. The fake electors scheme was a key part of the president’s effort to win the presidential election.

How did we know this? How have we been able to present such a clear picture of what took place? We’ve gathered documentary evidence and made it available to you, the American people, because of the testimony we’ve heard and presented to you.

The most striking thing about what has come out through this committee’s work is that the evidence is mostly from Republicans. Democrats or opponents of Donald Trump were not the source of the evidence. Instead, look at who’s written and testified and produced evidence.

Who has that been? The people who have worked for Donald Trump for many years include Republican state officials, legislators and the chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, as well as the people who served in top positions in the Justice Department.

President Trump’s Statement of Intent and Motivations to Bid On January 6th, And That’s What Happened During The Joint Session of Congress

Evidence strongly suggests that this testimony is not credible, and the committee is reviewing additional material from the Secret Service and other sources. The Secret Service was monitoring this kind of online activity and was sharing and receiving the results of that effort. They shared intel about the joint session of Congress from social media and other sources.

There is one more difference today. Pursuant to the notice circulated prior to today’s proceedings, we are convened today not as a hearing but as a formal committee business meeting so that, in addition to presenting evidence, we can potentially hold a committee vote on further investigative action based upon that evidence.

According to the public reporting, the Department of Justice has pursued many of the issues that were identified in the previous hearings. Our committee may ultimately decide to make a series of criminal referrals to the Department of Justice, but we recognize that our role is not to make decisions regarding prosecution.

The preamble to our Constitution is meant to establish justice. The US Department of Justice and the nation’s judiciary have that responsibility. A key element of this committee’s responsibility is to propose reforms to prevent January 6th from ever happening again. We’ve already proposed and the House has now passed a bill to amend the Electoral Count Act to help ensure that no other future plots to overturn an election can succeed.

He was personally and substantially involved in all of it. How did one man cause all of this? Today we will focus on President Trump’s state of mind, his intent, his motivations, and how he spurred others to do his bidding, and how another January 6th could happen again if we do not take necessary action to prevent it. As you view our evidence today, I would suggest a focus on the following points.

The President of the United States, Rudy Giuliani, and the State of the Capitol: Do we really know what is happening in 2020?

Rudy Giuliani, who was a part of the effort to help, knew that they didn’t have proof that the election results were changed. And on the evening of January 5th, they admitted they were still trying to find that phantom evidence. Of course, as a result of making intentionally false claims of election fraud, Mr. Giuliani’s license to practice law has now been suspended.

There is evidence showing that President Trump knew of the risk of violence. The FBI, US Capitol Police, Metropolitan Police and other agencies all gathered and disseminated intelligence, suggesting the possibility of violence at the Capitol prior to the riot. We’re now going to show you just a sample of the evidence we have received.

Second, please consider who had a hand in defeating the attempt to overturn the election, Vice President Pence, Bill Barr and others at the Department of Justice, State Republican officials and the White House staff who blocked the military from seizing voting machines.

All of these people had a hand in stopping Donald Trump. This leads us to a question. Why are Americans not aware of the vulnerability of the Constitution and our republic? Why would we assume that those institutions will not falter next time? A key lesson of this investigation is this.

Our institutions only hold when men and women of good faith make them hold regardless of the political cost. We have no guarantee that these men and women will be in place next time. It’s important for any president who wants to do the same in 2020 to not put people in the way.

Our country is a country of laws where every person, including the President, must follow the law and respect the judgment of our courts. President Trump’s closest advisers held that view both then and now. [Begin videotape]

My fellow citizens, that breaks our republic. Finally, as you view the evidence today, also consider this. President Trump knew from unassailable sources that his election fraud claims were false. He admitted he had lost the election. He took actions consistent with that belief. Claims that President Trump actually thought the election was stolen are not supported by fact and are not a defense.

Not only did the courts reject President Trump’s fraud and other allegations, his Department of Justice appointees, including Bill Barr, Jeffrey Rosen, and Richard Donoghue did as well. President Trump knew the truth. He heard what his experts and senior staff were telling him. He knew he had lost the election but he chose to ignore the courts, ignore the Justice Department, ignore his campaign leadership, and pursue a completely unlawful effort to overturn the election.

The people who intended to overturn the election and bring about violence must be held accountable. With every effort to excuse or justify the conduct of the former president, we chip away at the foundation of our republic. Defending indefensible conduct is difficult. Is it excused for inexcusable conduct? It will recur if there is no accountability.

What Did Donald Trump Tell Us Before Election Day? — The Case of Donald Trump, Kevin McCarthy, Jared Kushner, Bill Stepien

Please think about where our nation is in its history as you watch the evidence today. Consider whether we can survive for another 246 years. Most people in most places on Earth have not been free. America is an exception because we bind ourselves to our founders’ principles.

We believe that principles should be more important than any American has ever lived. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very shortly after the election, oh — we begin this meeting by returning to election night, November 3rd, 2020. As the chairman noted, we’ve previously presented testimony about how the election results were expected to come in that night. In certain states, ballots cast by mail before Election Day would be counted only after the polls closed that evening.

The results of the election would not be known for a while. Although President Trump’s campaign manager, Bill Stepien, House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy, and Jared Kushner had advised Donald Trump to encourage mail in voting by Republicans, President Trump did not do so. [Begin videotape]

I just remember generally, you know, you had people arguing that we had a — a very, very robust get out the vote effort and that, you know, mail in ballots could be a good thing for us if we looked at it correctly.

I invited Kevin McCarthy to join the meeting, he being of like mind on — on the issue with me, in which we made our case for — for why we believed mail in balloting, mail in voting not to be a bad thing for his campaign, but, you know, the President’s mind was made up. End videotape.

So it was expected before the election that the initial counts in some states, in other words, those votes cast on Election Day, would be more heavily Republican and this would create the false perception of a lead for President Trump, a so-called red mirage. But as the results of the absentee ballots that were later counted, there could be trends towards Vice President Biden as those mail in ballots were counted.

Donald Trump was told by his advisers to wait for the last votes to be counted, even though he didn’t have a factual basis to declare victory. Here is campaign manager, Bill Stepien. Begin the video.

It was far too early to be making any calls like that. There were still ballots to be counted. The votes were going to be counted for a while. And it was far too early to be making any proclamation like that. I believe that my recommendation was that votes were still being counted. The race is too early to call.

This is a fraud on the American public. This is an embarrassment to our country. We were getting ready to win this election. We won this election. Applause. We want all voting to stop. End videotape.

I was told that there was a chance that the White House might release a declaration of victory prior to the election results being known. And that he was trying to figure out a way of avoiding the Vice President sort of being thrust into a position of needing to opine on that when he might not have sufficient information to do so. [End videotape]

Everyone was aware that the counting of the ballots would continue past Election Day, as well as that thecounting on election night had to stop before millions of votes were counted. The President and Mr. Fitton had spoken after 5 pm on Election Day.

Before the election, Steve Bannon, a former chief White House strategist and adviser to Donald Trump, spoke to a group of his associates from China. Take a videotape.

I’m directing the Attorney General to shut down all ballot places in all 50 states. It is going to be no, he is not going out easy. If Biden is winning, Trump is going to do some crazy shit. [End videotape]

All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. The point of attack tomorrow is now converging and we’re on. I can assure you that it isn’t going to happen like you think it will. So it is ok. It’s going to be quite extraordinarily different. And all I can say is strap in. Tomorrow is game day, and you were the one who made this happen.

Source: https://www.npr.org/2022/10/13/1125331584/jan-6-committee-hearing-transcript

Enrique Tarrio and the Proud Boys: Donald Trump and Roger Stone during the January 5th & 6th White House Collision

I do not think it will be, but I do think it will be up in the air. When that happens, the key thing to do is to claim victory. Possession is 9/10 of the law.

It was something President Trump had actually tried to do earlier that month. We know that Roger Stone was at the Willard Hotel on January 5th and 6th, and we know from other witness testimony that President Trump asked his chief of staff, Mark Meadows, to speak with Roger Stone and General Michael Flynn that night.

He wrote, “I also told the President exactly how he can appoint a special counsel with full subpoena power to ensure those who are attempting to steal the 2020 election through voter fraud are charged and convicted and to ensure Donald Trump continues as our President.” As we know, the idea for a special counsel wasn’t just an idea.

Roger Stone had a connection to two groups that were responsible for attacking the Capitol, the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys. They have been charged with seditious conspiracy. What is seditious conspiracy?

The Oath Keepers who were criminally charged for providing personal security for Roger Stone were seen with him as early as weeks before January 6th. For example, Joshua James, the leader of the Alabama Oath Keepers, provided security for Roger Stone and was with him on January 5th. This is the picture of the two together on January 5th. James entered the Capitol on January 6th. He assaulted a police officer.

Roger Stone’s connection with Enrique Tarrio and the Proud Boys is well documented by video evidence, with phone records the Select Committee has obtained. Tarrio is one of the Proud Boys charged with multiple crimes related to the attack on January 6th. Tarrio sent a message to Proud Boys saying we did that.

The White House was visited by him on December 12th. He posted a video claiming he was responsible for the attack. The video that was created prior to the attack was posted on January 6th. The lie that the president had won the 2020 election began before the election results were even released was a big one. It was intentional.

It was premeditated. It was not based on the results or on any evidence of fraud or voting machine problems. It was a plan concocted in advance to convince his supporters that he won. The people who seemingly knew about the plan in advance were very influential in the events of January 6. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

The President was informed about the decision by the networks when they called it. That afternoon at some point, myself And a handful of other folks went over and sat down with the President and communicated that the odds of us prevailing in legal challenges were very small.

There’s a discussion going on in the Oval. We lost because the president said words that went to the effect of the loss. We need to leave that issue to the next guy, that is, President Biden.

I went to the Oval to see how the President was doing after the election, just to give him the headlines. Can you believe I lost to this effing guy? he asked when he looked at the TV.

The first President of the United States acted immediately, and sent an order, that troops be out of Somalia, and Somalia before the Biden inauguration

Knowing that he had lost and that he had only weeks left in office, President Trump rushed to complete his unfinished business. One key example is this: President Trump issued an order for large-scale US troop withdrawals. He disregarded concerns about the consequences for fragile governments on the front lines of the fight against ISIS and Al-Qaeda terrorists.

Knowing he was leaving office, he acted immediately and signed this order on November 11th, which would have required the immediate withdrawal of troops from Somalia and Afghanistan, all to be complete before the Biden inauguration on January 20th. As you watch these clips, recall that General Keith Kellogg was the national security adviser to the vice president and had served as chief of staff to the National Security Council for President Trump.

Are you familiar with a memo that the President reportedly signed on November 11, 2020, ordering that troops be withdrawn from Afghanistan and Somalia?

I think you have seen things where there was a memo from Johnny McEntee to Douglas Macgregor. It says, here’s your task, to get US forces out of out of Somalia, get US forces out of Afghanistan. When you first interviewed and met Colonel Douglas Macgregor, is it fair to say you discussed this decision of withdrawing from Somalia and Afghanistan, correct?

DOD leadership was not going to do those steps without an order after he responded back to you on the same day.

I explained to McEntee in language that should be in the order that I was in, and that was my answer. I told him that if he wants this to happen or if he wants it to happen he needs to write an order.

Well, I sketched on a piece of paper for him some key statements. The President orders it. You know, this is — what’s the right word — boilerplate language?

McEntee duly takes it up, brings it in to the President. The President scans it and then faxes it in. I can hear it coming from Kash Patel.

Source: https://www.npr.org/2022/10/13/1125331584/jan-6-committee-hearing-transcript

Corrupt actions of a President who knows his term will soon end: The case of the Senate committee on a constitutionally-armed investigation

And I proceeded to tell the PPO and proceeded to tell Macgregor that If I ever saw anything like that, I would do something physical. Because I thought what that was then was a tremendous disservice to the nation. And by the way, that was a very contested issue. There were people against getting out of Afghanistan.

So, I responded to that. And for the department to insert itself into the political process this way I think would have had grave consequences for the country. It may very well have spiraled us into a constitutional crisis. [End videotape]

Keep in mind the order was for an immediate withdrawal. It would have been catastrophic. And yet, President Trump signed the order. These are the highly consequential actions of a President who knows his term will shortly end. At the same time that President Trump was acknowledging privately that he had lost the election, he was hearing that there was no evidence of fraud or irregularities sufficient to change the outcome.

Source: https://www.npr.org/2022/10/13/1125331584/jan-6-committee-hearing-transcript

On the Cases of Donald J. Meadows and the Investigation of the 2016 U.S. Presidential Campaign: Evidence of Fraud, Maladministration, Abuse, and Irregularities

I remember Mr. Meadows asking me what I was finding and if I was finding anything. And I remember sharing with him that we weren’t finding anything that would be sufficient to change the results in any of the key states.

It would be our job to find out what happened, because the allegation didn’t prove to be true. It would require us to relay the news. There’s that tip, that person told you about those votes or that fraud, nothing came of it. That will be our job as — as, you know, the truth-telling squad and, you know, not a fun job to be — you know, it’s — it’s an easier job to be telling the President about, you know, wild allegations.

What was generally discussed on that topic was whether the fraud, maladministration, abuse or irregularities if aggregated and read most favorably to the campaign, would that be outcome determinative. And I think everyone’s assessment in the room, at least amongst the staff, Marc Short, myself, and Greg Jacob, was that it was not sufficient to be outcome determinant. [End videotape]

The claims were not supported by any sufficient evidence of fraud or irregularities. Judges repeatedly recognized them as being baseless. Even though President Trump was able to make claims of election fraud, he couldn’t overturn the results of the election. In those hearings, we told you the words used by judges to reject the claims of the Trump campaign.

It’s strong language criticizing the lack of evidentiary support for the claims of election fraud in those lawsuits. The federal appeals court in Pennsylvania wrote that the charges required specific allegations and proof. We do not have either here. The judge in Wisconsin wrote that the former president was allowed to make his case because the court had lost on the merits.

While President Trump was pressuring state officials, he was also trying to use the Department of Justice to change the election result. His officials told him there was no evidence to support his claims of fraud, but he did not care. He said to just say that the election was corrupt, and leave the rest for me and the Republican Congressmen.

CNN spoke to sources familiar with Trump’s legal strategy in the Justice Department probe that said his attorneys believe prosecutors will face an uphill battle trying to prove that the election was not stolen despite being told as much.

On December 11th, Trump’s allies lost a lawsuit in the US Supreme Court that he regarded as his last chance at success in the courts. A newly obtained Secret Service message from that day shows how angry President Trump was about the outcome. Quote, just FYI, POTUS is pissed. His lawsuit was denied by the Supreme Court.

He is livid now. Cassidy Hutchinson, an aide to chief of staff Mark Meadows, was present for that conversation and described it in this way. [Begin videotape]

This is the day that the Supreme Court had rejected that case. We were at a Christmas reception at the White House. And as we were walking back from the Christmas reception that evening, the President was walking out of the Oval Office and we crossed paths in the Rose Garden colonnade.

The President was fired up about the Supreme Court decision. I stepped back, so I was standing next to him. So I was probably two or three feet catty-cornered, diagonal from him. The President just raging about the decision and how it’s wrong, and why didn’t we make more calls, and just this typical anger outburst at this decision.

The states sent their votes to Congress on December 14th. In my opinion, that was the end of the matter. I didn’t see — you know, I — I thought that this would lead inexorably to a new administration.

I told him that my personal viewpoint was that the Electoral College had met, which is the system that our country is — is set under to elect a president and vice president, and I believed at that point that the means for him to pursue litigation was probably closed.

The Case of the Dominion Voting Machines: A Call in to the President and a Counterattack on the Campaign to Overturn the 2020 Election

Secretary of Labor Gene Scalia, the son of late Justice Scalia, visited President Trump in mid-December and explained the situation clearly. Continue with the videotape.

So, I had put a call in to the president. I might have called on the 13th. We spoke, I believe, on the 14th, in which I conveyed to him that I thought that it was time for him to acknowledge that President Biden had prevailed in the election. When the legal process is over and the electoral college votes are cast, that’s when the outcome needs to be expected, I said to the president.

I told him that if fraud had not been established in the election, then it was necessary to concede the outcome, even if the legal processes had run their course. [End videotape]

The campaign to overturn the 2020 election was an orchestrated effort to keep Trump in power. Rather, key members of the administration, including the former president and key advisers, deliberately pushed to overcome electoral defeat. “Possession is nine tenths of the law,” Roger Stone said, “We won. F–k you.”

The rhetoric of a stolen election would frame the entire operation, sowing doubt among his supporters about the legitimacy of Biden’s victory and creating a basis for going to court and leaning on state officials. Trump’s team constantly discussed and deliberated over how to achieve their goal.

I specifically raised the Dominion voting machines, which I found to be among the most disturbing allegations, disturbing in the sense that I saw absolutely zero basis for the allegations. I told them that it was — that it was crazy stuff and they were wasting their time on that, and it was doing a grave — grave disservice to the country.

We have a company that is very questionable. Its name is Dominion. The vote goes to Biden if you use the dial or chip to press a button. This is a system, what kind of system?

The “Big Vote Dump” in Fulton County, Georgia: The Case of the Antrim County Democratic Electoral Commissioner, A.I.R.T. Trump

We definitely talked about Antrim County again. That was sort of done at that point because the hand recount had been done and all that. But we cited back to that to say, you know, this is an example of what people are telling you and what’s being filed in some of these court filings that are just not supported by the evidence.

In addition, there is the highly troubling matter of Dominion voting systems. In one Michigan county alone, 6,000 votes were switched from Trump to Biden, and the same systems are used in the majority of states in our country.

I went into this and would, you know, tell him how crazy some of these allegations were and how ridiculous some of them were. It’s easy to blow up some of the ones like, you know, more votes cast in Pennsylvania than there are requests for, and that was easy to do. There was never — there was never an indication of interest in what the actual facts were.

There were more votes than there were voters. Think of that. You had more votes than you had voters. It’s by the thousands and it’s easy to figure out.

Then he raised the — the big vote dump, as he called it, in Detroit. And that — you know, he said people saw boxes coming in to the counting station at all hours of the morning. And I said, Mr. President, there are 630 precincts in Detroit. And unlike elsewhere in the state, they centralized the counting process so they’re not counted in each precinct.

With regard to Georgia, we looked at the tape. We interviewed people. There isn’t a suitcase. The president said that the suitcase had fraudulent votes and that it was rolled out from under the table. I said, no, sir, there is no suitcase. You can watch that video over and over again.

There is no suitcase. They carry the ballots around in a wheeled bin, and then move them around the facility. There’s no reason to suspect that.

Election officials pulled boxes, Democrats, and suitcases of ballots out from under a table. You all saw it on television, totally fraudulent. [End videotape]

A criminal investigation is underway in Fulton County, Georgia, related to this call and other activity. Georgia is the only state where President Trump attempted to change the results. He also attempted to press — pressure state officials in Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Michigan to change the results in those states as well.

Now I just want to do this. Since we won the state, I am going to find 11,780 more votes. We need only 11,000 votes. We have far more than that as it stands now. We will have more and more. So, what are we going to do here, folks? I only need 11,000 votes.

I want to find 11,780 votes. The president knew there was no real basis for the request, it was extraordinary and he had already spoken to the Justice Department. No one could think it would be legal for the secretary of state to simply find the votes the president needed in order to win.

Source: https://www.npr.org/2022/10/13/1125331584/jan-6-committee-hearing-transcript

Reply to Comment on “Interference by the United States Justice Department in a Presidential Election” by J. Clark [End videotape]

That’s the thing. You know, that’s a criminal — that’s a criminal offense. You can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and your lawyer. It is a big risk. [End videotape]

Jeff Clark was part of the group that tried to corrupt the Department of Justice. Jeff Clark was the president’s choice as acting attorney general. He did so, as you can see in the call log from the National Archives. And here is Mr. Clark testifying before our committee. Start the videotape.

For example, when Richard Donoghue and Jeff Rosen, both appointed by President Trump, learned of Mr. Clark’s proposal, here’s why they said they forcefully rejected it. This is a videotape.

I said at the end that you’re proposing is nothing less than interference by the United States Justice Department in a presidential election. This wasn’t based on fact. This was contrary to what was developed by investigations over the last few weeks.

The entire leadership of the Department of Justice threatened to resign and that’s why the President relented. Mr. Chairman, let me return the favor.

When Vice President Mike Pence called me, I told him that the Vice President had no right to vote on his own and that he would not have the power to decide anything

The fake electors’ plan was also tied to another plan, the coercive pressure campaign to make Vice President Mike Pence reject or refuse to count certain Biden electoral votes, so that President Donald Trump would, quote, win reelection instead. Vice President Pence has said something about this scheme.

I don’t remember the exact date when I got the call, but it was from the White House switchboard and the person who contacted me was President Trump.

President Trump said he had the right to overturn the election, but he is wrong. I had no right to overturn the election. The presidency belongs to the American people and the American people alone. There is no way that anyone could pick the President of the United States.

Make no mistake, President Trump knew that what he was demanding Vice President Pence do was illegal. He was told of this many times on January 4th. Even his lawyer John Eastman admitted in front of President Trump that this plan would break the law by violating the Electoral Count Act. [Begin videotape]

And Dr. Eastman confirmed this in writing. Do you advise the President that the Vice President does not have the power to decide things on his own? Dr. Eastman replied, he’s been so advised.

And the word that she relayed to you that the President called the Vice President, I apologize for being impolite, but do you remember what she said her father called him?

Source: https://www.npr.org/2022/10/13/1125331584/jan-6-committee-hearing-transcript

The Washington Call on January 6 to Take Back the Country: President Donald Trump’s Anomalous Message to the White House and the Secret Service

The Department of Justice, the state elections officials, and his own Vice President stood strong in the face of President Trump’s immense pressure. President Trump had ordered tens of thousands of his supporters to head to Washington, DC, on January 6 to take back their country.

The summary of the report lays out how the intelligence community and law enforcement agencies were receiving information that January 6 was likely to be violent and shared that information with the White House and US Secret Service.

So during these calls, I — I only remember in hindsight because he was almost like clairvoyant. Norquist says during one of these calls, the greatest threat is a direct assault on the Capitol. I’ll never forget it. [End videotape]

One agent emailed, possibly because they have stuff that couldn’t come through would probably be an issue with this crowd. Just a thought. By 9:30 that morning, agents reported more than 25,000 people outside the rally site. An hour later, the Secret Service reported that the crowd was on the mall watching, but not in line.

The head of the President’s Secret Service protective detail, Robert Engel, was specifically aware of the large crowds outside the magnetometers. The information was passed to Tony Ornato, who was in the chief of staff’s office. The documents we obtained from the Secret Service make clear that the crowd outside the magnetometers was armed and the agents knew it. They were able to see what was happening and hear it on the ground.

One report from the rally site stated that some of the crowd are wearing body armor, and carrying radios and backpacks. There could be pepper spray, or plastic riot shields, according to a person from 9:30 a.m. At 11:23 a.m., agents also reported possible armed individuals, one with a glock, one with a rifle.

One man was reported with a gun and pistol, one had an assault rifle on his person, and another man was located with a pistol on his hip in a tree.

Minutes before President Trump began his speech, members of the Federal Protective Service, an agency tasked with protecting federal buildings, were alerted about an arrest of a protester with a gun on his waistband. And during the speech, the weapons related arrests continued. At 12:13 PM, United States Park Police arrested a man with a rifle in front of the World War II Memorial. The agents thought that the situation could get worse, since so many weapons had been seized that day.

If I had seen something like that, I probably would have flipped it to someone at the White — or if I had seen something of that nature, I would have said we gotta flag this for Secret Service or something of that nature.” This video will end.

The same day Jason Miller sent his text message, agents received reports about a spike in activity on another platform called Parler. December 30th was this year’s last day. In this email, an agent got a report that had a lot of violent rhetoric on Parler directed at government people and entities.

On January 5th, a few of his communications staff were gathered in the Oval Office. The door was open, allowing the president and others assembled there to hear the sounds of the crowd gathered at Freedom Plaza, just a few blocks from the White House. President Trump could tell that his supporters were riled up. Judd Deere is the deputy White House press secretary and he describes the president’s reaction.

Just that they were — they were fired up. They were angry. He said they felt that the election was rigged and that they felt like the election was stolen. [End videotape]

The president knew the crowd was angry because he had made them angry. He knew that the election had been rigged and that they believed it had been stolen. He knew they were going to be a danger and he wanted to stop the peaceful transfer of power.

An email to the secretary of state at the time of the Ellipse rally urging the evacuation of the Secret Service, signed by the presidential candidate, Roberto Martinez

The gentleman yields back. At this point our — in our meeting, we’ll take a brief recess. Pursuant to the order of the committee of today, the chair declares the committee in recess for a period of approximately 10 minutes. [In recess] The chair is familiar with the gentleman from California.

As the time for the Ellipse rally approached, an email was circulated among intelligence officials, including Secret Service intelligence official, attaching communications among rally goers that specifically contemplated violence. One post on The Donald.win said Trump has given them marching orders. “Basically if you’re east of the Mississippi, you can and should be there.

He was angry that he wasn’t able to enter the magazines with weapons because the Secret Service deemed them to be weapons. I overheard the president say something to the effect that they don’t have weapons, you know what I mean.

They’re not here to hurt me. Take the magazines away. My people should be allowed in. They can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in. Take the mags away. [End videotape]

The military, the Secret Service and the police would be great if those people would be allowed. You’re doing a great job. Applause. I would love it if they could come up with us. Is that possible? Can you just let them come up, please?

Source: https://www.npr.org/2022/10/13/1125331584/jan-6-committee-hearing-transcript

A Senate Committee Report on President Donald Trump’s Altercation and Preparation for a Fourth Degree Reaction on the Capitol. The Irate Behavior

There’s no scenario where that action is benign, and there’s no scenario where an American president should have engaged in that conduct. If President Trump thought the election had been stolen, it didn’t matter. This could not be justified on any basis for any reason. You can recall the testimony from our summer hearings about Mr. Trump’s altercation in the presidential SUV with the Secret Service telling him it was too dangerous for him to go. As we detailed in testimony from the Metropolitan Police and White House personnel during our July 21st hearing, information about the altercation was widely known, so widely known that one former White House employee with national security responsibilities explained that this information was in fact water cooler talk in the White House complex.

As that professional told us, they remember hearing in the days after January 6th how angry the president was when he was in the limo that afternoon. The professional said that they were given specific details of the president’s irate behavior by Mr. Ornato in his office. Mr. Ornato and Mr. Engel were in that office.

And I will also note this. The committee is reviewing testimony regarding potential obstruction on this issue, including testimony about advice given not to tell the committee about this specific topic. We will address this matter in our report.

To be completely honest, we were all in a state of shock. Why? Because — because we just — one, I think the actual physical feasibility of doing it, and then also we all knew what that indicated and what that meant, that this was no longer a rally, that this was going to move to something else if he physically walked to the Capitol.

I don’t know if you want to call it insurrection, coup, whatever. We all knew that this would move from a normal democratic, you know, public event into something else. Why did we think we were alarmed?

When the president returned to the White House at about 1:20, he entered the Oval Office, where he was told about the violence in the Capitol. During the next two hours and 40 minutes, the president stayed in the White House dining room attached to the Oval Office and watched as the assault on the Capitol took place.

There was an exchange with the president as soon as he arrived back at the White House, according to the press secretary. Begin the video.

I recall that he wanted to walk, and that he would ride the president’s limo if needed, as part of the march. This videotape will end.

The Secret Service Comes to the White House: Calling off the Capitol, Shooting down security guards, and Killing people in the Wild

The Select Committee has obtained new evidence from the Secret Service. This hour was frantic for the Secret Service, trying to get the president of the United States to back off from a dangerous and reckless decision that could have killed people.

You can see the email from the Secret Service on the day that President Trump got out of his car at the White House. When the president left his motorcade, the leadership of the Secret Service contacted the presidential detail’s lead agent, Bobby Espen, and said they were concerned about the off- the-record movement to the Capitol.

At 1:19, the president’s Emergency Operations Center sent an e-mail to Secret Service, national security, and military advisers, to the president and vice president informing them that “hundreds of Trump supporters stormed through metal barricades at the back of the Capitol building about 1:00 PM Wednesday, running past security guards and breaking fences.

I cannot speak about conversations with the president but I can say that there needs to be a public announcement fast that people need to leave the Capitol.

Approximately when? Almost immediately after I found out people were getting into the Capitol or approaching the Capitol in a way that was — was violent.

I — I don’t — I can’t think of anybody, you know, on that day who didn’t want people to get out of the — the Capitol once the — you know, particularly once the violence started, no. I mean —

Oh, I’m sorry. I — I apologize. I assumed you were talking about who else on the staff. Yeah, I — I can’t reveal communications, but obviously I think, you know — yeah. The end of the videotape.

He had said something to the effect of, you know, you heard him, Pat. He doesn’t want to do anything more. He doesn’t think they’re doing anything wrong. [End videotape]

The conversation happened after Trump returned to the White House from his speech. There are a lot of gaps in President Trump’s actions and conversations from when he came to the White House and called off the rioters.

Some of the president’s most important political allies and family members begged him to order his supporters to leave, while senior staff tried to persuade him to stay. They included Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and other allies at Fox News, his son Donald Trump Jr, the House minority leader Kevin McCarthy, others in Congress, and officials in the cabinet and the executive branch.

Were the president in the private dining room for the entire time that the Capitol was being attacked, or did he go to the White House Situation Room, only to your knowledge?

Yeah. What did they say, Mr. Meadows or the president, at all during that brief encounter with you in the dining room? What do you recall? I think they were watching the TV. Do you know whether he was watching TV in the dining room when you talked to him on January 6th?

Was the violence at the Capitol on the television when you were in the dining room?

The first revelation was the never-before-seen footage that showed Pelosi, Schumer, and other legislative leaders trying to get more police and national guard forces to repel the rioters as they realized the threat that was.

We’re starting to get surrounded. They’re taking the north front scaffolding. We will not be able to hold unless we get more weapons. People are getting into the Capitol after someone broke the door.

We need some way to keep the sense of security that people have in the government and that we can elect a president. Did we go back into session?

We did go back into session, but now apparently everybody on the floor is putting on tear gas masks to prepare for a breach. I’m trying to get more information.

I can’t. There is a need for a place for the House members. They are walking through the tunnel. Bring her out here. Hey, boys, we’re coming in if you don’t bring her out.

I’m going to call the DOD secretary. Some Senators are still in their hideaway. They need a lot of personnel. Can you have the Maryland National Guard come with you?

Mr Secretary, I have something to say. The mayor of Washington DC will be calling me to see if she’s trying to reach other police departments.

My name is Governor. Nancy is here. I’m not sure if you’ve been approached about the Virginia National Guard. Mr. Hoyer was connect — speaking to Governor Hogan, but I still think you probably need the Ok of the federal government in order to come in to another jurisdiction. Thank you.

It is really that, they said someone was shot. It’s horrendous. And all at the instigation of the president of the United States. Thank you, Governor. I appreciate what you’re doing. And if you don’t mind, I’d like to stay in touch. Thank you. Thank you.

I talked to the governor and he told me they sent 200 state police and a unit of the National Guard. They broke windows and went in and ransacked our offices. That’s not much. There is a concern about personal harm.

Personal safety is — it just transcends everything. They are breaking the law in many ways, and a lot of it is related to the involvement of the president of the United States. And now if he could — could — at least somebody.

The Attorney General thinks that the president should tell them to leave the capitol.

How quickly can you get out of the Capitol building? Donald Trump vs. Mulvaney: What did he do when he was elected president?

I don’t want to speak for the leadership that’s going to be responsible for executing the operation, so I’m not going to say that. They’re the experts because they’re on the ground. [Inaudible]

It’s best to pretend that the Pentagon, White House or some other entity is under siege. Let me say you can logistically get people there as you make the plan. We’re trying to understand how we can get this done. We talked to Mitch about it earlier. He’s not in the room right now, but he was with us earlier and said, you know, we want to expedite this It would be better if they could only deal with one complaint in Arizona and then we could vote and it would be a done deal.

The overriding wish is to do it at the Capitol. It’s going to take days for the Capitol to be up to par again. We’ve gotten a very bad report about the condition of the House floor, among other things. I don’t think that that’s hard to clean up, but I do think it is more from a security standpoint of making sure that everybody is out of the building and how long will that take.

I said to them, that they’re getting a counter point that it could take a long time to clean up the poo poo in the capitol and that it may take days to get back.

Nancy, so I’m at the Capitol building. I am standing with the Police Chief of the US Capitol Police. The Sergeant-at-Arms told me that they believe the Senate and the House will be able to return to work in roughly an hour.

It was clear that only President Trump could end this. He was the only person who could do it. Former aides publicly begged him to do so. Loyal allies frantically called the administration. But the President did not act swiftly. He did not do his job. He didn’t take the steps to make sure federal law was faithfully executed and order was restored.

Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s former chief of staff, corroborates her shocking account. Begin the tape.

I asked Kevin McCarthy who is the Republican leader and he said he called Donald Trump because he finally got through to him. and he said, you have got to get on TV. You need to get on the micro-bruch. You’ve got to call these people off. The President said something to him. This is what it is.

The House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol has concluded that former President Donald Trump was ultimately responsible for the insurrection, laying out for the public and the Justice Department a trove of evidence for why he should be prosecuted for multiple crimes.

But let me be very clear to all of you and I’ve been very clear to the President; he bears responsibilities for his words and actions, no ifs, ands or buts. I asked him personally today, does he hold responsibility for what happened? Is he upset about what happened? He needs to acknowledge that he has some responsibility for what happened.

Finally, at 6:01, President Trump tweeted again not to condemn the mass violence in any way, but rather to excuse and glorify it. Significantly, he made it clear that he considered the violence perfectly foreseeable and predictable. It’s nice to check it out. These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously, viciously, stripped away from great patriots who have been badly unfairly treated for so long.

There was a surge in the number of violent searches on the platform as the afternoon progressed. Anika, who was originally anonymous but agreed to be named now because she wanted to speak out about the threats facing our people, can be heard on the radio.

Yes, and after in response to this, too. I think as many as he wrote, it fanned the flames. It was individuals who were constructing gallows who were willing, able, and wanting to kill someone. Now, the individual was called upon then to begin this coup is now pointing the finger at another individual while they’re ready to do this.

What happened to the President on that Day: Mike Pence vowed to destroy Donald Trump, in case you haven’t heard yet

Mike Pence will not support Donald Trump. Mike Pence was a traitor. Mike Pence has screwed us, in case you haven’t heard yet. What happened? What happened? I keep hearing that Mike Pence has screwed us. I’ve heard reports that Mike Pence has hurt us. [End videotape]

The conduct of the president on that day caused so many members of the administration to resign. In prior hearings, you’ve heard Deputy National Security Adviser Matt Pottinger and Deputy White House Press Secretary Sarah Matthews explain why they felt compelled to resign on that day.

I was stunned by the violence and the President’s apparent indifference to it. The time is ripe for the President to be a leader. I thought he didn’t do it. I thought he failed at a critical time to be the sort of leader that the nation needed.

I think the events at the Capitol, however they occurred, were shocking. And it was something that, as I mentioned in my statement, that I could not put aside. At a certain point in time, the events made it impossible for me to continue because of my personal values and philosophy. I arrived in this country as an immigrant.

Source: https://www.npr.org/2022/10/13/1125331584/jan-6-committee-hearing-transcript

The President’s message: That’s our order, and what’s happening next. [End videotape] Donald Trump says, “Remember this day forever”

We are delivering the President’s message. Donald Trump has asked everybody to go home. That’s our order. [Inaudible] He says, go home. [End videotape]

These are the things that happen, he said, giving the whole game away. Trump was telling us that the Vice President, the Congress, and all the injured and wounded cops, some of whom are with us today, got what was coming to us. It was said by Trump. We shouldn’t be ashamed that January 6 is a shame in our history.

He wrote “remember this day forever” as if he were talking about D-Day or the Battle of Yorktown. Trump did nothing to stop the deadly violence for obvious reasons. He thought it was all justified. He incited it and he supported it. Start the videotape.

Source: https://www.npr.org/2022/10/13/1125331584/jan-6-committee-hearing-transcript

A Hearing of the January 6th Reionization Committee on the Theesis of the Demonstration of Independence in the United States

If the president had wanted to make a statement and address the American people, he could have been on camera almost instantly. And conversely, the White House press corps has offices that are located directly behind the briefing room. And so, if he had wanted to make an address from the Oval Office, we could have assembled the White House press corps probably in a matter of minutes to get them into the Oval for him to do an on camera address.

Mr. Chairman, in numerous places, our Constitution strongly opposes insurrection and rebellion. Congress has the power to summon the militia to suppress insurrections. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualified from holding federal and state office anyone who has sworn an oath to defend the Constitution, but betrays it by engaging in insurrection or rebellion.

It was President Lincoln, at the start of the Civil War in 1861, who best explained why democracy rejects insurrection. He said that insurrection is a war on the rights of the people. American democracy belongs to all the American people, not to a single man. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The gentleman yields back. The first hearing of this committee was in July of last year and we had four police officers testify about the riots on January 6th. They were asked what they hoped to see done by the committee. The election process was made to make the rioters believe that it was rigged.

We were asked to look into the actions that took place in the course of the day. Officer Hodges was concerned about whether anyone in power had a role. Officer Dunn put it simply, get to the bottom of what happened. For a year we have worked to get those answers. We’ve conducted over a thousand interviews.

Source: https://www.npr.org/2022/10/13/1125331584/jan-6-committee-hearing-transcript

Motion Motion to reexamine the case against another January 6th: General Flynn’s testimony before the Oath Keepers on December 12, 2020

That’s why we want to take this step in full view of the American people, especially because the subject matter at issue is so important to the American people and the stakes are so high for our future and our democracy. The Vice Chair from Wyoming, Ms. Cheney, offered a motion.

Thank you for that, Chairman. The committee has sufficient information to answer many of the critical questions posed by congress at the beginning. We have sufficient information to consider criminal referrals for multiple individuals and to recommend a range of legislative proposals to guard against another January 6th, but a key task remains.

We must seek the testimony under oath of January 6th’s central player. Several of the witnesses who invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination because of questions about their dealings with Donald Trump did so specifically. Here are a few examples.

This is General Michael Flynn walking with Oath Keepers on December 12, 2020, and here is General Flynn’s testimony before our committee. Begin the videotape.

It will not be possible to discuss your position with this committee since you had direct conversations with the President of the US.

The resolution is agreed to. Without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. The Chair wants people in the hearing room to remain seated until the Capitol Police leave the room. The committee was adjourned without objection.

CNN Observer: The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: A Brief History of the 2020 U.S. Presidential Campaign and the Road Map for the Election Steal

The CNN political analyst is a professor of history and public affairs at the university. He is the author of 24 books, including “The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: A First Historical Assessment.” Follow him on Twitter @julianzelizer. His views are included in this commentary. CNN has more opinion on it.

In public hearings during the past four months, the bipartisan panel attempted to reveal the full context of what happened that day and who was responsible.

Unlike the Watergate scandal that brought down President Richard Nixon in 1974, one of the most distinctive elements of Trump’s campaign to overturn the 2020 election is that so much of it happened in broad daylight.

The committee filled out the story in a lot of important ways, including giving shocking evidence and details about how dangerous those months were.

According to testimony received by the committee, the former president was given a security briefing at the time his rally was held, and the Secret Service mentioned that prohibited items were being taken from people trying to attend.

Trump and his attorneys, such as Rudy Giuliani, probed to see if various state officials would do their bidding. Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers, a staunch conservative who backed the administration, was unsettled as Giuliani and Trump pressured him during a phone call in late November 2020 to have the state legislature reconvene and invalidate the results in his state. The road map for the attempted election steal was written by the president’s lawyer, who tried to get VP to reject the results.

Congressional Investigation of the 2020 Presidential Campaign: The January 6 Committee Report on Republican Candidate Eliminating a Major Campaign Contribution to the Democratic Party

January 6 was just one part of a larger story. The January 6 committee is a committee that will investigate the 2020 election campaign. This reframing is essential to understanding the months between November 2020 and January 2021.

Throughout these events, we have learned, Trump understood exactly what was happening. He was warned many times about the dangers he was taking and he was also told how his claims were false. Lawyers such as Barr and conservative media figures that supported him were urging him to stop.

The committee made a point of saying that the threat isn’t over in 2022, at its pivotal hearing Thursday. “There remains a clear and present danger to our electoral system and to democratic institutions,” Raskin said, “So, that is something that will come through in our final hearing. This is not ancient history we’re talking about; this is a continuing threat.” There is a continuing threat on many levels. The rhetoric of election denialism has taken hold among many of the Republican candidates.

Republicans who subscribe to this agenda are also running for several key offices, ranging from gubernatorial positions to secretaries of state in key states such as Pennsylvania and Arizona, all of whom will play a key role in overseeing future elections. The former president is the leading contender for the Republican nomination.

If there were to be a successful prosecution of key players, the report may be seen in a different light than the compelling evidence of a major presidential candidate coming too close to overturn the results of the election.

Intel officer Lee Zeldin, the Republican senator from New York, says he didn’t act during the 2016 Capitol ransale

On the day the U.S. Capitol was ransacked, as stunned lawmakers emerged from hiding and police officers were still counting the injured, Representative Lee Zeldin of New York walked into the Rotunda, held up a shaky camera and went live on Fox News.

Other Republican leaders had already begun distancing the party from President Donald J. Trump, whose monthslong campaign to overturn his election loss helped incite the violence. Mr. Zeldin said that he was ready to exonerate him.

He said the riot that he condemned wasn’t just about the president of the United States. “This is about people on the left and their double standards.”

Ever since Donald Trump descended the Trump Tower escalator to Neil Young’s “Rockin’ in the Free World,” he’s remained the center of America’s political universe. A former congressman thinks the fixation on the 45th president is now a distraction. He is only a small part of the story as Trumpism has grown larger than him.

The select committee devoted the bulk of its time and resources looking back. He fears they missed what’s afoot—and still to come. “We’re trying to solve today’s problems tomorrow with yesterday’s technology. We’re in an information warfare battlespace,” Riggleman contends. “They’ve already changed their tactics. It didn’t work. They just go to other platforms.”

Riggleman, a conservative who left the Republican Party after he was primaried out of office in 2020 for officiating a same-sex wedding, had asked the committee for a budget of $3.2 million for his digital sleuthing, but he says he was allocated just a fraction of that.

The coordination included members of Congress, the wife of a Supreme Court justice, myriad lawyers, little-known aides, and, of course, Trump’s most ardent supporters. The White House switchboard made a phone call from 4:34 pm on January 6 to an individual who later pleaded guilty to entering the Capitol. Despite these findings, the former intel officer bemoans not being able to go all the way down the meme- and hashtag-laden rabbit hole.

In August after a federal search warrant was executed at Mar-a-Lago, violent rhetoric from the far-right increased even further, calling for civil war. Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, warned that if former President Trump is prosecuted, there will be “riots in the streets.” The FBI is similar to brown shirts because they are Nazi storm troopers, according to Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona.

Unfortunately, public figures on the extreme right will sabotage our efforts to curb violence by attacking the rule of law or explicitly giving extremists the go-ahead.

In January 2021, hours before the US Capitol was set ablaze, Trump said to his followers, “if you don’t fight like hell, you won’t have a country anymore.” GOP Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama told Trump supporters that “[t]oday is the day American patriots start taking down names and kicking ass” while telling the crowd that “our ancestors sacrificed their blood, their sweat, their tears, their fortunes and sometimes their lives,” before asking, “Are you willing to do the same?” And no one will forget GOP Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri pumping his fist in solidarity as rioters assembled at the Capitol demanding the election be overturned.

In the aftermath of the attack, insurrectionists testified in court that they were only “following presidential orders,” when they breached the Capitol and threatened the lives of all who work there.

The January 6 attack wasn’t the only one. I have followed the threat of domestic terrorism for nearly two decades, have watched it grow and have urged action to combat it. According to the Department of Homeland Security, it is the greatest terrorism threat to our homeland. And from what we’ve seen after the 2020 election, it is also clearly a threat to the rule of law and our democracy.

Our public spaces increasingly face violence. Mass shootings, hostage taking and other violent plots have reduced state capitols, grocery stores, schools, houses of worship, and concerts to crime scenes. Just last week, the federal government released a bulletin warning that there is a heightened threat to next week’s midterm elections by a rise in violent domestic extremism.

According to experts at the University of Chicago, an estimated 13 million Americans believe force would be justified to restore Trump to the White House, and an estimated 15 million Americans would support using force to prevent the former president from being prosecuted. These startling numbers again underline that our safety and security – as well as the rule of law – are under attack.

The FBI executed a lawful search warrant for highly classified documents at the former President’s beach club after being shown documents that had been kept illegally at the club. According to the wide breadth of public reporting, the Department of Justice followed the law and all normal procedures after attempting to obtain the classified documents voluntarily. Although no one is above the law in this country, Trump and MAGA politicians have immediately retaliated by attacking the rule of law and violence.

It was all too predictable. Twitter posts about “civil war” rose nearly 3,000% in a matter of hours after the search. There was an increase in threats against federal law enforcement. A week later, an armed man attempted to breach an FBI office in Ohio before engaging in an hours-long standoff with police. The man was killed by the police after he pointed his gun at them.

There was a threat made to assassinate a Democratic congressman according to one of his aides. I have also received threats. The Speaker of the House was the target of a plot by an armed stranger last week, in which it was believed that he was attempting to abduct and attack her.

Echoing the January 6 attack on the Capitol, the intruder shouted, “Where is Nancy?” before bludgeoning her 82-year-old husband Paul Pelosi with a hammer, sending him to the hospital with a fractured skull. For a long time members of Congress have pushed violent rhetoric against the Speaker.

A Subpoena Request for Correspondence from the Subcommittee to the Committee on Investigations of the Decay of Mar-A-Lago

The committee did not provide additional information after receiving correspondence from the former President and his counsel.

According to a source familiar with the matter, Trump lawyers have been working with other members of the former president’s legal team to figure out how to deal with the subpoena demands.

“I think that he has a legal obligation to testify but that doesn’t always carry weight with Donald Trump,” committee vice chair Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., said during an event last week.

The broad document request asked for documents and communications relating or referring to the members of Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys, and other groups from September 1, 2020, to the present. The panel’s document request spans 19 different categories.

Trump’s lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of Florida, where other Trump lawyers successfully sued to secure a special master who has been tasked with conducting an independent review of records seized by the FBI during an Aug. 8 search of Mar-a-Lago.

Warrington 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 letter also outlined a sweeping request for documents, including personal communications between Trump and members of Congress as well as extremist groups. The nine-member panel extended its deadline to this week, despite Trump’s response being due last week.

The committee can’t force witnesses to comply with subpoenas quickly, so it has held them in contempt before.

Bringing in Trump: Subpoenas and Corrupt Propagation in the Senate and House, or How Trump and the Committee Might Affect the 2020 Midterm Election

Thompson and Cheney said in their statement on Monday, “[Trump’s] attorneys have made no attempt to negotiate an appearance of any sort, and his lawsuit parades out many of the same arguments that courts have rejected repeatedly over the last year.”

The lawsuit states that if Trump met the House’s demands, it would violate the executive branch’s privilege protections and reveal conversations he had with Justice Department officials and members of Congress.

The dispute between Trump and the House will be very hard to resolve before the current Congress ends in January, since the president’s actions made it much harder for the committee to enforce the subpoena.

The panel weighed whether it was better to refer members of Congress to other parts of the federal government, or if Congress should police its own, but will make a decision tomorrow. Such congressional mechanisms could include censure and referrals to the House Ethics Committee.

“We will also be considering what’s the appropriate remedy for members of Congress who ignore a congressional subpoena, as well as the evidence that was so pertinent to our investigation and why we wanted to bring them in,” the California Democrat told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union.”

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, as well as Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio, Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and Andy Biggs of Arizona, could all face possible sanctions for their refusal to comply with committee subpoenas.

The impact House referrals could have has yet to be seen as the Department of Justice is already examining Trump in its investigation.

There is more than just criminal referrals for the January 6 committee chairman to mention, such as ethics referrals to the House Ethics Committee, bar discipline referrals and campaign finance referrals.

Censure was something we have considered. Ethics referrals is something we have considered,” Schiff said Sunday, noting that the committee will disclose its decision Monday.

Schiff reiterated Sunday that he believes there is evidence that Trump committed criminal offenses related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

This is someone who tried to pressure the state officials into finding votes that weren’t there. This person was trying to prevent a joint session by inciting a mob to attack the Capitol. If that is not a crime, then I don’t know what to think.

“If you look at Donald Trump’s acts and you match them up against the statute, it’s a pretty good match,” Schiff told Tapper when asked specifically about a charge of insurrection.

“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,” he said.

The congressional committee investigating the deadly Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol referred former President Donald Trump for four criminal charges related to an insurrection that he inspired because he couldn’t publicly accept that he’d lost an election.

The summary revisits a phone call Trump had with the Georgia Secretary of State where he begged him to find votes to overturn Biden’s victory in the state. The summary also highlights that Trump doxed the leader of the Michigan Senate by tweeting out his cell phone number after he publicly said he wouldn’t undermine the election results.

It was the Republicans who testified about the attack on the Constitution, and many of them are people who were with Trump in the West Wing. The ex-aide to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows recalled, “It was unpatriotic. It was un-American. We watched as the Capitol building was defaced.

The panel made four criminal referrals against Trump, including charges of insurrection, to send to the US Justice Department. If the United States is to survive as a “nation of laws and democracy,” the committee’s chairman, Rep. Bennie Thompson, said we can “never let this happen again.”

Could the act of sending criminal referrals to the DOJ risk furthering the perception of politicization of separate investigations into the aftermath of January 6?

Will an impression that Trump is being hounded by any referrals nearly two years after he left office help rally Republicans to his misfiring 2024 campaign?

And do Americans as a whole, at a time of national strain amid high inflation and the aftermath of a once-in-a-century pandemic, really care about events that rattled US democracy nearly two years ago?

Investigating the January 6th Violence: How Sen. Kinzinger walked into the Senate and confronted the ex-president of the House GOP

GOP Rep. Adam Kinzinger, who, like Cheney, served on the committee in defiance of his party and will not be returning to Congress, explained his actions in seeking to hold Trump to account in his retirement speech on the House floor last week.

“Every American must consider this,” Cheney said at one of the committee’s public hearings, in July. “Can a president who is willing to make the choices Donald Trump made during the violence of January 6 ever be trusted with any position of authority in our great nation again?”

Her sacrifice in the House GOP may be in vain, as many colleagues refused to acknowledge the ex-president’s conduct. The public was very much interested in the hearings but there was not a sense they were as important as the Senate Watergate hearings, which helped lead to the resignation of President Richard Nixon. The power of conservative media to distort what actually happened on January 6 may help explain the dichotomy.

Still, Americans rejected many of Trump’s midterm candidates in swing state races who had amplified his false claims of 2020 election fraud, suggesting some desire to protect American democracy.

It is difficult to determine how the work done by the committee affected voters. It kept evidence of Trump’s rebellion in the news all year long, even as the ex-president launched a new campaign that is seen as a way to cast the probes into his conduct as politically motivated persecution. This is especially valuable as some pro-Trump Republicans, like Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, escalate their attempts to distort what happened in the unprecedented attack on the Capitol.

“This is a massive investigation that the committee has undertook. In an interview with CNN on Saturday, a former federal prosecutor said there was a huge amount of evidence in the case.

It is the detail of the referrals and report that will show a road map to DOJ. DOJ has been kind of late to this party and they are playing catch-up but that detail could be very helpful to them and will put a lot of pressure on them as well.”

Future Generations will be able to judge the determination of the panel members and the courage of the witnesses, if nothing else.

Source: https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/19/politics/jan-6-committee-investigation-final-session/index.html

The Report of the Illinois Republican Congressional Select Committee on ‘Electoral Frauds in the First Preliminary Electoral Election’

We are in a world where a lie is Trump’s truth and democracy is being challenged by authoritarianism, says the Illinois Republican.

This great experiment will fall into the ash heap of history, if America’s elected leaders don’t search within themselves for a way out.

The executive summary of the report was released by the committee on Monday and they plan to release the full report on Wednesday.

Bennie Thompson said that he has confidence that the work of the committee will help provide a road map to justice and that the agencies and institutions responsible for ensuring justice under the law will use the information they have received.

“Donald Trump broke that faith. He knew that he had lost the election. But he chose to try to stay in office through a multi-part scheme to overturn the results and block the transfer of power,” Thompson said. “In the end, he summoned a mob to Washington, and knowing they were armed and angry, pointed them at the Capitol and told them to ‘fight like hell.’ There’s no doubt about this.”

The executive summary stated that President Trump was told over and again that his election fraud allegations were not true. The panel relied on the testimony of some of Trump’s top advisers to build its case as well as the public record.

The footage of the police being attacked by rioters was shown in the montage as a result of Trump’s attempts to block his election loss.

The House Ethics Committee Appropriately Investigating a GOP Senator’s Campaign for an Overturn of the 2020 Supermajority Election

One of the four subpoenaed GOP lawmakers that the panel referred to the House Ethics Committee on Monday, said the committee was a “partisan sham” before the hearing. Texas Republican Troy Nehls boycotted the committee and said it was a partisan witch hunt.

It’s important to remember how this all started. The feud over which GOP lawmakers would be allowed on the panel was unnecessary since House democrats were willing to give committee slots to GOP lawmakers who had voted to overturn the results. Republicans boycotted.

But two Republicans volunteered to join the panel: Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, who was the No. 3 House Republican at the time, and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, a six-term lawmaker who was a rising star in the party. They brought GOP staff members with them to the committee.

During Monday’s hearing, Kinzinger described how his House GOP colleagues were complicit in Trump’s efforts to overturn the election. He highlighted evidence that Trump wanted top Justice Department officials to “put the facade of legitimacy” on his voter fraud claims so “Republican congressmen … can distort and destroy and create doubt” about the 2020 election results.

No matter what Trump and his allies say, Democrats will forever be able to accurately assert that the panel’s findings, conclusions, its final report and its criminal referrals are bipartisan.

The full report will come out later this week, according to Thompson. It will be studied for a long time. It’s never before been done by a president that he tried to steal a second term.

The sheer volume of material is not overstated. The panel interviewed more than 1,000 witnesses, likely generating tens of thousands of pages of transcripts. Many of these interviews were filmed and the panel has a lot of footage that could be released very soon.

The Committee on Investigations of the 2022 Midterm Elections and the Case of Mr. Eastman and Other Former Deputy Special Counsels

Four members of the committee will not be returning to Congress. Besides Cheney and Kinzinger, Democratic Rep. Stephanie Murphy of Florida is retiring, while Rep. Elaine Luria of Virginia was one of the handful of House Democratic incumbents who lost their seats in the 2022 midterms last month.

The committee refused to put out a laundry list of defendants. The committee members have thought of themselves as legislators and public educators, which has put them in the mind of prosecutors. That led them to rightly focus on a short list of prospective defendants against whom the evidence is most damning, providing critical context to the prosecutors. Focusing on the very best cases avoids diluting the effect of the referrals with more tenuous theories against a large number of actors, and emphasizes the cases the prosecutors can actually win.

The consideration of charges against Mr. Eastman, who was the outside coup counsel, along with his client Mr. Trump and others such as Jeffrey Clark are logical. Mr. Clark is a part of the conspiracy, according to the committee. A focus on the client and his counsel is not only powerfully symbolic — this was, after all, an attempted coup that was advanced by attorneys, not soldiers — it’s also driven by the evidence that the committee has accumulated. It indicates that a strong case can be advanced against Mr. Trump, Mr. Eastman and others for their scheme to fraudulently declare Mr. Trump president by pushing a staggering variety of falsehoods culminating in proposed fake electoral slates.

“Ours is not a system of justice, where foot soldiers go to jail and the masterminds and ringleaders get a free pass,” said committee member Jamie Raskin, D-Md., announcing the referrals.

The issue of accountability has to do with the fact that a lot of people in the mob who trashed the Capitol have already been convicted and jailed. Since winning the White House in 2016 Trump avoided paying political and legal costs as an example of a ringleader who skips past judgement. Former special counsel Robert Muller found a lot of evidence that shows Donald Trump obstructed the Russia investigation, but he didn’t find any evidence that the president committed crimes. And Trump was the first president to be impeached twice, but both times most Republicans in the Senate found reasons not to convict him.

Specifically, the panel said Trump should be charged with giving aid or comfort to an insurrection, obstructing an official proceeding, defrauding the US and making false statements. In an executive summary of its forthcoming final report, the committee argued: “The central cause of January 6 was one man, former President Donald Trump. He was the one who made all of the events on January 6 happen.

The committee cites Section 1512 (c) (2) of Title 18 of the US code, which makes it a crime to “corruptly” obstruct, influence or impede any official proceeding or attempt to do so. Based on what the panel presented, that seems exactly what Trump did, with a cocktail of schemes apparently aimed at thwarting the will of voters in the run-up to the mob attack on Congress.

DOJ Investigation of the Insurrection – Finding a Way to Save a Nation with a Militant Deputy FBI Director and a Former Vice President

The DOJ has its own investigation into the events surrounding the insurrection and will have to weigh whether the case stands up as well in a court of law as it seemed to in the Capitol Hill committee room on Monday afternoon.

“The Justice Department has to go so much further on every single one of these people who was touched and interviewed and seen by the committee in any way,” former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe said on CNN on Monday.

One particular complication for the Justice Department is that the nature of the insurrection and the involvement of a former president makes this an unprecedented case. A good defense team can try to muddy the question of whether or not Trump was involved in fraud by reframing his intentions. They could also claim that in telling supporters to “fight like hell” to save their country, he was simply exercising his constitutional rights to free speech. Special counsel Jack Smith and Garland would have to satisfy themselves before laying charges that there was a substantial likelihood of obtaining a conviction if they decided to prosecute, after considering the likely thrust of Trump’s defense.

Rod Rosenstein, who served as deputy attorney general in the Trump Justice Department, told CNN’s Erin Burnett that the most serious referral – accusing Trump of giving aid and comfort to an insurrection – would likely come up against a First Amendment defense.

The Department would have to prove that the president was inciting imminent lawless action. They need to prove that he intended for a mob to engage in violent activity. It would be a challenge to try him under that charge.

It is unlikely that prosecutors at the DOJ will be influenced by the opinion of the select committee, albeit one that is backed up by a mountain of evidence, that the former president should be indicted. Still, the volume of testimony and other documents that have been amassed by the panel could be useful to the DOJ’s investigation, which is one reason prosecutors have been keen to get hold of its testimony and other materials for months.

With the DOJ already facing the enormous pressure of investigating Trump, which escalated when he declared his 2024 bid last month, it’s hard to say that Monday’s events will add to the burden. Garland is certain to infuriate Democrats if he ignores multiple referrals because they think the department has been slow to pursue Trump.

In the event that DOJ agrees with one of the lesser charges, the political earthquake caused by a prosecution might not be much different from if Smith believed Trump had aided an insurrection. America has never known a scenario in which the administration of a sitting president indicted a successor who is engaged in a bid to topple him. If there is no case by January 6, Trump could face charges in relation to his habit of storing classified material at his Mar-a-Lago resort after he left office.

Preparing the public for the real possibility that a former president could go on trial is one of the ways the committee can help Smith. Attempted coups are, after all, more akin to fragile developing world democracies and dictatorships.

No man can ever again serve in a position of authority in our nation if he behaves that way at that moment. He is unfit for any office,” the Wyoming Republican said on Monday.

What Will the Ethics Committee hear about the Insurrection and the Elections? An animosity between allies of the Attorney General Merrick Garland

Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith once Trump announced he was running for president again as a way to show independence from the investigation.

All of them are allies of Trump, and their resistance in the face of the rules is an example of the animosity that had been growing in US politics before Trump came on the scene.

Whether anything happens to them, though, is unclear since Republicans will control the iteration of the ethics committee in the next Congress and McCarthy is in line to be the next speaker.

That has been evident to those of us who’ve covered Trump for some time, but it was confirmed by Hope Hicks, who was very close to Trump.

According to tapes made of her testimony, she told Trump she was becoming concerned that false claims of fraud were damaging his legacy.

“He said if he loses, nobody will care about his legacy, because the only thing that matters is winning,” Hicks said.

Bill Stepien, the Trump 2020 campaign manager, said that he had most of the time, clear eyes. “Like, he understood, you know — you know, we told him where we thought the race was, and I think he was pretty realistic with our viewpoint, in agreement with our viewpoint of kind of the forecast and the uphill climb we thought he had.”

Most of the Democrats and most of the independents said they were paying attention to the hearings. But 56% of Republicans said they were not.

They can ignore what the committee recommends, even though investigators are attentive to the findings. Don’t expect to hear much about the case, as the DOJ isn’t willing to talk about the details of the investigations until they present them in court.

Politically, it’s going to be up to voters to choose. Trump will likely retain support with his base. Republicans are the least likely to pay attention to these hearings. In a multi-candidate primary, Trump remains the front-runner for the GOP nomination.

And the members of this committee — some of whom won’t be returning to Congress because of the wrath, or potential wrath, of Trump’s base — certainly hope voters respond.

Special counsel Jack Smith, who was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland to oversee parts of the DOJ’s investigation into the insurrection, sent a letter to the committee earlier this month requesting all of the information from the panel’s investigation, one of the sources told CNN.

The handover comes during a key week for the committee. The panel on Monday held its final public meeting, during which committee members voted to refer former President Donald Trump to the DOJ on at least four criminal charges. The panel is slated to release its full final report on Wednesday.

California Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a member of the committee, said on CNN on Monday, “We’ve actually given some transcripts to the Department of Justice during the last month,” adding that the committee would begin making transcripts public on Wednesday.

The House Jan. 6 Committee on the January 6, 2020, Insurrection: Summary of the Committee’s Preliminary Findings

But whether the department brings charges will depend on whether the facts and the evidence support a prosecution, Garland, who will make the ultimate call on charging decisions, has said.

Concluding its final public meeting Monday, the House January 6 committee released a summary of its key findings — the conclusions of which are devastating, even if they lack all the details expected in the final report.

For anyone who still believes that the January 6, 2021, insurrection is exaggerated or was a sham, the final report should come as no surprise. The committee’s recommendations are historic.

The committee lays out Trump’s failure to act as the riot unfolded, noting that as he watched the riot on television, he made no calls for security assistance and resisted efforts from staffers asking him to call off his supporters.

Citing former President Ronald Reagan, a conservative icon, Rep. Liz Cheney, one of the panel’s two Republicans, argued that the “peaceful transfer of power” was a “miracle” of our system and only one President — Trump — had failed to abide by this process.

The findings certainly rank among the worst scandals in presidential history. It is fair to say that a sitting President being part of a concerted effort to reverse his own election stands alongside the abuses of power that President Richard Nixon engaged in and the violations of law under the Reagan administration exposed during the Iran-Contra hearings.

The committee concluded that Trump made history by participating in an abuses of presidential power that threatened the foundation of our democracy: elections. The term “Unprecedented” has been overused and in this case the term works.

In 1974 politicians from both parties said enough about the “smoking gun” tape of Nixon obstructing an investigation.

The discoveries that national security officials in the Reagan administration violated the Boland Amendment by sending money and arms to the Nicaraguan Contras caused Reagan’s approval ratings to plummet and put his legacy in jeopardy.

The President was only saved by the fact that the committee could not directly connect the illicit operation to him and by the fact that the administration mounted an effective public relations campaign to win back public support. Congressional Democrats, moreover, decided that they wouldn’t pursue impeachment.

Even Clinton’s scandal, which was over an issue far less relevant than what faced Nixon or Reagan, clearly contradicted his public statements and legal testimony about the subject after DNA evidence emerged of his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

Even 9/11 or the pandemic didn’t produce a serious political realignment. Even if the leader of the party commits egregious abuses of power, polarization is always triumphant.

Social scientists call the phenomenon a asymmetric polarization. Republicans have moved to the right and Democrats to the left. And much of the extremism in the GOP has been tactical, where some party leaders have embraced a form of smashmouth partisanship with no guardrails as to what is permissible.

The chances of the relevant party changing its ways are very low. The plan for an independent commission to investigate January 6 was blocked by Senate Republicans who did not cooperate with the congressional committee that was set up instead.

No, our media system doesn’t lend itself to the kind of reaction that took place with Watergate. While there was a time, such as the 1970s, when professional journalists coalesced around the facts presented by a judicious investigation, those times are gone.

Fox News ignores the weight of evidence. Show hosts are more than willing to spin the news in a particular direction that satisfies political yearnings.

In the coming weeks there are likely to be stories that misleadingly portray what the committee discovered, with no basis in fact. The world of social media probably has more opportunities to push false information than the harrowing stories in the report.

Some forces that will watch the impact of the report are from a national culture that seems incapable of staying focused on issues for long. The news media happily obliges due to the fact that we push the media from one issue to the other, with the speed of TV commercials.

Watergate and the Axiomatic State of our Democracy: A Report on Attorney General Merrick Garland’s Decision to Indict Trump

The scandal known as Watergate was the most important event of the period between 1972 and 1974 but for many Americans January 6 is just one more thing that happened in the chaos of our era.

Finally, Attorney General Merrick Garland now faces a politically perilous decision of whether to indict Trump, especially since he is now officially one of President Joe Biden’s campaign opponents in 2024. Garland has appointed a special counsel, Jack Smith, who is overseeing the investigations of Trump and will make recommendation s.

The question is if this report will push Garland towards taking action to ensure accountability instead of focusing on issues of division within the electorate.

Given its expected dramatic findings, the January 6 report is certainly a stress test for the problematic state of our democracy. It is not likely that the basic dynamics will be changed.

The full report on the attack at the U.S. Capitol is due to be released Thursday.

Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., who chairs the committee, told reporters that transcripts of non-sensitive interviews they conducted will be released between now and the end of the year, when the panel officially sunsets.

Nancy Pelosi praised the committee’s work in a statement, but did not give any hints about what the next steps would be.

“The Committee has reached important conclusions about the evidence it has developed, and I respect those findings. The United States of America has no one above the law. Pelosi said that the principle of justice must be done.

A committee investigation of alleged campaigning against the candidate for the euclidean-appointed special counsel in the Electoral Count Act

The Electoral Count Act update has bipartisan backing and was attached to an omnibus spending bill that is moving through Congress.

The committee says it also has the evidence to refer Eastman on the obstruction charge, and it names him as a co-conspirator in other alleged criminal activity lawmakers have gathered evidence on.

In addition, several others are named as being participants in the conspiracies the committee is linking to Trump, including then-DOJ attorney Jeffrey Clark and Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows, as well as Trump-tied lawyers Kenneth Chesebro and Rudy Giuliani.

The committee says it gathered evidence indicating that Trump “raised roughly one quarter of a billion dollars in fundraising efforts between the election and January 6th. Those solicitations persistently claimed and referred to election fraud that did not exist.”

They sent millions of emails to their supporters, with the message that the election wasrigged, and that their donations could help prevent Democrats from trying to steal the election.

The committee worried that lawyers who were paid to protect the president were given incentives to be more zealous in representing their own clients. The Department of Justice and the Fulton County District Attorney have been provided with certain information related to this topic.”

One witness that was being paid by a Trump group was told that she could tell the committee that she didn’t recall facts when she actually did. When the witness raised concerns with her lawyer about the approach, he said they did not know what she was talking about. They do not know that you have the ability to recall certain things. According to the report summary, it is acceptable for you to say “I don’t recall”.

When it came to a specific issue that reflected negatively on Trump, the lawyer told his client, “No, no, no, no, no. We do not wish to go there. We don’t want to talk about that.”

The committee highlighted in its final report that two witnesses, including then White House press secretary, are less cooperative than others. They and others “displayed a lack of full recollection of certain issues, or were not otherwise as frank or direct as Cipollone.”

In another instance, Trump referred to the then-vice president as The P word in an angry conversation with him, according to an interview with his chief of staff.

Source: https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/19/politics/what-is-in-jan-6-committee-report-summary/index.html

Reply to Comment on “Comment on ‘Supporting the Detection of a Cosmic Activist”

He worked for the Trump campaign before joining the Justice Department during the final weeks of the administration. While at the department’s civil division, he spent some of his time helping Clark with his attempt to overturn the election despite the fact that election-related matters are not part of the Civil portfolio.

The section detailing the referrals explains why the Justice Department’s prosecutions should go beyond the rioters who broke into the Capitol.

The summary warns that if President Trump and his associates are not held accountable for their actions in an effort to change the result of the 2020 election, they could invite danger for future elections. “A failure to hold them accountable now may ultimately lead to future unlawful efforts to overturn our elections, thereby threatening the security and viability of our Republic.”

The death threats and phone calls to and email to officials who faced Trump weren’t the only ones they received.

Evidence shows that the allies of the president sought pardons at the end of the administration’s term.

CNN has reported before that the McEntee testimony links Gaetz’s request to a separate DOJ probe, but now says that he asked for blanket pardons for election-related scheme participants at a meeting.

The panel suggests former White House deputy chief of staff Tony Ornato failed to adequately serve as the intermediary between the intelligence community and the White House when it came to security updates ahead of January 6.

Ultimately, the committee writes that it “has significant concerns about the credibility of this testimony” and vows to release his transcript publicly. According to the report, Ornato didn’t remember conveying the information to either Hutchinson or a White House employee.

Ornato confirmed Engel’s understanding of information sharing, but when pressed on whether he talked to Meadows about concerns of the threat landscape going into January 6 said, “I don’t recall; however, in my position I would’ve made sure he was tracking the demos, which he received a daily brief, Presidential briefing. He most likely got all this in his daily brief as well.

When violence erupted on January 6 Hope thought it would be a good idea for Trump to state that the day would remain peaceful. She testified that Herschmann suggested to Trump that he make a public statement in order to prevent any violence on January 6. No such statement was ever made.

The panel writes that it has obtained evidence from “several sources about a ‘furious interaction’ in the SUV.” The panel cited a member of the Secret Service, a member of the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Police and national security officials in the White House who had described Trump’s behavior as irate, furious,istent, andheated.

Another intent of the report summary is to prove that Trump ordered his supporters to leave the Capitol during his speech.

For example, the committee notes that January 6 rally organizer Kylie Kremer texted MyPIllow CEO Mike Lindell, “This stays only between us. … I won’t be able to get out about the march because I will be reprimanded by the national park service and other agencies, as well as by the president.

President Trump didn’t speak to a national security official during the day. The committee did not mention the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, or the D.C. Mayor’s office. The vice president has said that Trump did not try to reach his own vice president to make sure that he was safe.

According to the committee, the photographer for the White House didn’t take any photographs of the President for the rest of the day.

Source: https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/19/politics/what-is-in-jan-6-committee-report-summary/index.html

Parscale ‘didn’t tell the President to calm people, but he did tell her he had to stop shooting ’til she could’

In the aftermath, on the evening of January 6, Trump’s former campaign manager Brad Parscale told Katrina Pierson, one of the rally organizers, that that he felt guilty helping Trump win, the report states..

In a text, Marjorie Taylor was told by Mark that there was an active shooter on the Capitol’s first floor. The president needs to be told to calm people, according to the summary.

The summary acknowledges the roadblocks the House committee ran into in its investigation and says the Justice Department has the tools – such as grand jury subpoena power – to knock down those obstacles.