Failing at polls, election deniers focus on state GOP posts
In a basement event space in the Denver suburb of Parker, Tina Peters surveyed a crowd of Colorado Republicans last week and made an unusual pitch for why she should become chair of their beleaguered party: “There’s no way a jury of 12 people is going to put me in prison.” Peters was referring to her upcoming trial on seven felony charges related to her role in allegedly accessing confidential voting machine data while she was clerk in western Colorado’s Mesa County. The incident made her a hero to election conspiracy theorists but unpopular with all but her party’s hardest-core voters. Peters, who condemns the charges as politically motivated, finished second in last year’s GOP primary for secretary of state, Colorado’s top elections position. Now Peters has become part of a wave of election deniers who, unable to succeed at the polls, have targeted the one post—state party chair — that depends entirely on those hardest-core Republicans. Embracing election conspiracy theories was a political albatross for Republicans in states that weren’t completely red last year, with deniers losing every statewide bid in the swing states of Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. But the movement has focused on GOP state party chairs — positions that usually are selected by only dedicated activists and have the power to influence the party’s presidential nominating contest and some aspects of election operations, such as recruiting poll watchers. “The rise of this dangerous ideology nationwide and the rise within party machinery are ominous,” said Norm Eisen, a prominent Washington lawyer and former ambassador who is executive chair of States United Democracy Center, which tracks election deniers. “It’s an outrageous phenomenon.” Kristina Karamo, a former community college instructor who lost her bid last fall to become Michigan’s secretary of state by 14 percentage points, won the chair of the Michigan Republican Party a week ago. She beat a fellow election denier, failed attorney general candidate Matthew DePerno. In Kansas, Mike Brown, a conspiracy theorist who lost his primary bid for secretary of state, was named chair of the state party. Peters is just one of multiple candidates for the Colorado position who have repeated former President Donald Trump’s lies that President Joe Biden did not legitimately win the 2020 election. “We can’t just say, ‘Oh, it’s time to get over 2020 and be done with that,’” said Aaron Wood, a self-described Christian conservative father also running for Colorado GOP chair, who organized a slate of candidates to take over the party’s top posts. “Until I have 100% confidence that the election has integrity, I will not be done with that.” The wave of election deniers follows a push by Trump during his administration to stock the roster of party chairs with loyalists, several of whom supported his attempt to overturn the 2020 election and remain in the White House. Of those, Kelli Ward, the chair of the Arizona GOP, did not run again and was replaced by another Trump loyalist, former state Treasurer Jeff DeWitt. In Georgia, chairman David Shafer has announced he won’t seek another term this June amid scrutiny over whether he could be indicted for efforts to help Trump overturn the 2020 election. As in most states, the new Georgia party head will be selected by leaders of local county parties. Many of those are Trump loyalists who also backed Shafer’s bid to overturn Trump’s 2020 loss in the state. But Republican Gov. Brian Kemp, who defied Trump’s request and easily beat a primary challenger last year backed by Shafer, has marginalized the state party, creating a parallel structure to raise money and turn out voters. That’s an example of how the once powerful post of state party chair has changed. “It used to be adjacent to public service, to be the state party chair, and now it’s something where you get to dunk on Democrats on Twitter,” said Robert Jones, a Republican pollster in Idaho. In that state, Dorothy Moon, an election denier and former state representative who made an unsuccessful primary run for secretary of state, became the Idaho GOP chair last year. Still, Eisen noted that state parties have important roles in appointing poll workers and poll watchers in many states. A perennial fear has been that conspiracists could fill those positions and disrupt elections, though that did not happen in 2022 despite a prominent conservative effort to find more poll watchers. “Maybe the Karamos and the Browns and the Moons will implode,” Eisen said. “There is a kind of incompetence that goes with this ideology. But it’s a concerning trend given the power these state parties have.” Parties also have a major role in structuring their primaries. In Michigan, the party apparatus that Karamo now leads has the power to move its nominating contest to a closed convention, where activists select the winner. “Donald Trump would love there to be a convention for Michigan’s delegates,” Jason Roe, the former executive director of the state party, said in an interview. Ironically, Trump had endorsed DePerno, a lawyer who unsuccessfully sued to force a new count in 2020. Instead, Karamo, whom the former president had supported in her secretary-of-state race, won. She has described abortion as “child sacrifice” and Democrats as having a “Satanic agenda.” Last week, on the podcast of Trump adviser Steve Bannon last week, Karamo said Michigan was “ground zero for the globalist takeover of the United States of America.” In Colorado, many Republican strategists say they are prepared for Peters or another election denier to win the party chair position next month. “People seem almost resigned that the party is going to fall into the hands of this crowd for the next two years,” said Sage Naumann, one of the operatives, who said usually a chair’s impact on elections is “neutral,” but that could change. “If they’re constantly making controversial statements, then they can be detrimental,” Naumann said. The insurgent candidates running for Colorado’s chair argue things can’t get worse for the GOP in the state. Republicans lost every statewide race by double digits in November and have their smallest share of seats in the Legislature in state history. The candidates
Government says Steve Bannon ignored subpoena, acted above the law
Federal prosecutors called their first witness to the stand Tuesday and began building their case that former Trump adviser Steve Bannon willfully ignored a congressional subpoena in open defiance of the U.S. government. Bannon, a longtime adviser and strategist for former President Donald Trump, was brought to trial on a pair of federal charges for criminal contempt of Congress after refusing for months to cooperate with the House committee investigating the U.S. Capitol insurrection on January 6, 2021. Under questioning Tuesday from Assistant U.S. Attorney Amanda Vaughn, Kristin Amerling, the chief counsel for the January 6 committee, went through a detailed explanation of the committee’s role, the Bannon subpoena, and why the panel felt it was important to compel his testimony. Amerling said Bannon’s public statements leading up to the riot “suggested he might have some advanced knowledge of the events of January 6.” Amerling said there were multiple indications that Bannon “might have had some discussions with individuals in the White House, including the president.” The day’s session ended with Amerling being questioned by the prosecution. The trial was scheduled to resume Wednesday morning. In her opening statement, Vaughn told jurors that the subpoena issued to Bannon by the committee investigating the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election and the events leading up to the Capitol insurrection “wasn’t optional. It wasn’t a request, and it wasn’t an invitation. It was mandatory.” She added: “The defendant’s failure to comply was deliberate. It wasn’t an accident; it wasn’t a mistake. It was a choice.” Bannon’s lawyers argued that the charges against him were politically motivated and that Bannon was engaged in good-faith negotiations with the congressional committee when he was charged. “No one ignored the subpoena,” defense lawyer Evan Corcoran told the jury. In reality, Corcoran said, one of Bannon’s previous lawyers, Robert Costello, contacted an attorney for the House committee to express some of Bannon’s concerns about testifying. “They did what two lawyers do. They negotiated,” Corcoran said, adding that Bannon and his legal team believed “the dates of the subpoena were not fixed; they were flexible.” An unofficial adviser to Trump at the time of the Capitol attack, Bannon was charged with defying a subpoena that sought his records and testimony. He was indicted in November on two counts of criminal contempt of Congress, one month after the Justice Department received a congressional referral. Upon conviction, each count carries a minimum of 30 days of jail and as long as a year behind bars. U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, had previously ruled that major elements of Bannon’s planned defense were irrelevant and could not be introduced in court. He ruled last week that Bannon could not claim he believed he was covered by executive privilege or that he was acting on the advice of his lawyers. Outside the courthouse, Bannon launched into an extended rant against the committee chairman, Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, and the committee hearing, calling it “a show trial.” He also repeated the discredited claim that Trump won the 2020 election and called President Joe Biden illegitimate. But he did not criticize his trial or Nichols. Bannon, 68, was one of the most prominent of the Trump-allied holdouts refusing to testify before the committee. He had argued that his testimony was protected by Trump’s claim of executive privilege, which allows presidents to withhold confidential information from the courts and the legislative branch. Trump has repeatedly asserted executive privilege — even though he’s not a current president — to try to block witness testimony and the release of White House documents. The Supreme Court in January ruled against Trump’s efforts to stop the National Archives from cooperating with the committee after a lower court judge — Tanya S. Chutkan — noted, in part, “Presidents are not kings.” Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
January 6 committee votes to hold Dan Scavino, Peter Navarro in contempt
The House committee investigating the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol voted unanimously Monday night to hold former Trump advisers Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino in contempt of Congress for their monthslong refusal to comply with subpoenas. The committee made their case that Navarro, former President Donald Trump’s trade adviser, and Scavino, a White House communications aide under Trump, have been uncooperative in the congressional probe into the deadly 2021 insurrection and, as a result, are in contempt. “They’re not fooling anybody. They are obligated to comply with our investigation. They have refused to do so. And that’s a crime,” Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, the committee’s Democratic chairman, said in his opening remarks. The recommendation of criminal charges now goes to the full House, where it is likely to be approved by the Democratic-majority chamber. Approval there would then send the charges to the Justice Department, which has the final say on the prosecution. At Monday’s meeting, lawmakers made yet another appeal to Attorney General Merrick Garland, who has not yet made a decision to pursue the contempt charges the House set forward in December on former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows. “We are upholding our responsibility,” Rep. Adam Schiff, a member of the committee, said in his remarks. “The Department of Justice must do the same.” The committee is investigating the circumstances surrounding January 6, when pro-Trump rioters stormed the Capitol, fueled by his false claims of a stolen election, in hopes of blocking Congress from certifying election results showing Democrat Joe Biden defeated Trump. Ahead of the committee’s vote, the panel scored a big legal victory in its quest for information from Trump lawyer John Eastman when a federal judge in California asserted Monday morning that it is “more likely than not” that Trump committed crimes in his attempt to stop the certification of the 2020 election. With that argument, U.S. District Court Judge David Carter, a Bill Clinton appointee, ordered the release of more than 100 emails from Eastman to the committee. Charles Burnham, an attorney representing Eastman, said in a statement Monday that his client has a responsibility to his attorney-client privilege, and his lawsuit against the committee “seeks to fulfill this responsibility.” Navarro, 72, was subpoenaed for his testimony in early February. The panel wants to question the Trump ally who promoted false claims of voter fraud in the 2020 election that the committee believes contributed to the attack. “He hasn’t been shy about his role in efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and has even discussed the former President’s support for those plans,” Thompson, the committee’s Democratic chairman, said in a statement at the time. Though Navarro sought to use executive privilege to avoid cooperation, the Biden administration has denied claims from him, Scavino, and former national security adviser Michael Flynn, saying an assertion of executive privilege was not justified or in the national interest. On Thursday, Navarro called the committee vote “an unprecedented partisan assault on executive privilege,” and said, ”The committee knows full well that President Trump has invoked executive privilege, and it is not my privilege to waive.” In a statement Sunday night, Navarro said the committee “should negotiate this matter with President Trump.” He added, “If he waived the privilege, I will be happy to comply; but I see no effort by the Committee to clarify this matter with President Trump, which is bad faith and bad law.” In a subpoena issued to Scavino last fall, the committee cited reports that he was with Trump the day before the attack during a discussion about how to persuade members of Congress not to certify the election for Biden and with Trump again the day of the attack and may have “materials relevant to his videotaping and tweeting” messages that day. In the recent report, the committee said it also has reason to believe that due to the 46-year-old’s online presence, Scavino may have had advance warning about the potential for violence on January 6. Scavino and his counsel have received at least half a dozen extensions to comply with the subpoena, according to the committee. “Despite all these extensions, to date, Mr. Scavino has not produced a single document, nor has he appeared for testimony,” the report stated. A lawyer for Scavino did not return messages seeking comment. As the committee enforces its subpoena power, it is also continuing to branch out to others in Trump’s orbit. Lawmakers now plan to reach out to Virginia Thomas — known as Ginni — the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, in regards to her reported text messages with former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows on the day of the attack, according to two people familiar with the investigation who were granted anonymity to discuss the panel’s private deliberations. But the panel has not decided what their outreach to Thomas, a conservative activist, will look like and whether that will come in the form of a subpoena or a voluntary request to cooperate. Also, later this week, the committee plans to interview former Trump adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner, one of the people said. The committee previously voted to recommend contempt charges against longtime Trump ally Steve Bannon after he defied a congressional subpoena, as well as against Meadows after he ceased cooperating with the panel. The full House then approved both contempt referrals. Bannon was later indicted by a federal grand jury and is awaiting prosecution by the Justice Department. The Justice Department has not taken any action against Meadows. The central facts of the January 6 insurrection are known but what the committee is hoping to do is fill in the remaining gaps about the attack on the Capitol, and lawmakers say they are committed to presenting a full accounting to make sure it never happens again. The panel is looking into every aspect of the riot, including what Trump himself was doing while it unfolded and any connections between the White House and the rioters who broke into the Capitol building. Republished with the permission
January 6 committee requests interview with Ivanka Trump
The House committee investigating the U.S. Capitol insurrection is asking Ivanka Trump, daughter of former President Donald Trump, to voluntarily cooperate as lawmakers make their first public attempt to arrange an interview with a Trump family member. The committee sent a letter Thursday requesting a meeting in February with Ivanka Trump, a White House adviser to her father. In the letter, the committee chairman, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said Ivanka Trump was in direct contact with her father during key moments on January 6, 2021, when Trump supporters stormed the Capitol in an effort to halt the congressional certification of Joe Biden’s presidential win. The riot followed a rally near the White House where Donald Trump had urged his supporters to “fight like hell” as Congress convened to certify the 2020 election results. The committee says it wants to discuss what Ivanka Trump knew about her father’s efforts, including a telephone call they say she witnessed, to pressure then-Vice President Mike Pence to reject those results, as well as concerns she may have heard from Pence’s staff, members of Congress and the White House counsel’s office about those efforts. “Ivanka Trump just learned that the January 6 Committee issued a public letter asking her to appear,” her spokesperson said. “As the Committee already knows, Ivanka did not speak at the January 6 rally.” The committee cited testimony that Ivanka Trump implored her father to quell the violence by his supporters, and investigators want to ask about her actions while the insurrection was underway. “Testimony obtained by the Committee indicates that members of the White House staff requested your assistance on multiple occasions to intervene in an attempt to persuade President Trump to address the ongoing lawlessness and violence on Capitol Hill,” Thompson wrote. The letter is the committee’s first attempt to seek information from inside the Trump family. Earlier this week, it issued subpoenas to lawyer Rudy Giuliani and other members of Trump’s legal team who filed meritless court challenges to the election that fueled the lie that the race had been stolen from Trump. The committee is narrowing in on three requests to Ivanka Trump, starting with a conversation alleged to have taken place between Donald Trump and Pence on the morning of the attack. The committee said Keith Kellogg, who was Pence’s national security adviser, was also in the room and testified to investigators that Trump questioned whether Pence had the courage to delay the congressional counting of the electoral votes. The Constitution makes clear that a vice president’s role is largely ceremonial in the certification process, and Pence had issued a statement before the congressional session that laid out his conclusion that a vice president could not claim “unilateral authority” to reject states’ electoral votes. “You were present in the Oval Office and observed at least one side of that telephone conversation,” the letter to Ivanka Trump said, adding that the committee “wishes to discuss the part of the conversation you observed” between the then-president and Pence. The letter also mentioned a message, in the days before the scheduled vote certification on January 6, 2021, between an unidentified member of the House Freedom Caucus to then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows with an explicit warning: “If POTUS allows this to occur … we’re driving a stake in the heart of the federal republic.” POTUS is an abbreviation for President of the United States. The other requests in the letter to Ivanka Trump concern conversations after Donald Trump’s tweeted, “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution.” The committee said White House staff and even members of Congress requested Ivanka Trump’s help in trying to convince her father that he should address the violence and tell rioters to go home. “We are particularly interested in this question: Why didn’t White House staff simply ask the President to walk to the briefing room and appear on live television — to ask the crowd to leave the capital?” Besides the subpoenas issued this week, the committee had a victory Wednesday when the Supreme Court rejected a bid by Trump to block the release of White House records sought by lawmakers. The National Archives began to turn over the hundreds of pages of records to the nine-member committee almost immediately. They include presidential diaries, visitor logs, speech drafts, and handwritten notes dealing with January 6 from the Meadows’ files. The committee’s investigation has touched nearly every corner of Trump’s orbit in the nearly seven months since it was created, from strategist Steve Bannon to media companies such as Twitter, Meta, and Reddit. The committee says it has interviewed nearly 400 people and issued dozens of subpoenas as it prepares a report set for release before the November elections. Still, the committee has run into roadblocks from some of Trump’s allies, including Bannon and Meadows, who have refused to fully cooperate. Their resistance has led the committee to file charges of contempt of Congress. The seven Democrats and two Republicans on the committee have also faced defiance from fellow lawmakers. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., and GOP Reps. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and Jim Jordan of Ohio have denied the committee’s requests for voluntary cooperation. While the committee has considered subpoenaing fellow lawmakers, that would be an extraordinary move and could run up against legal and political challenges. The committee says the extraordinary trove of material it has collected — 35,000 pages of records so far, including texts, emails, and phone records from people close to Trump — is fleshing out critical details of the worst attack on the Capitol in two centuries. The next phase of the investigation will include a series of public hearings in the coming months. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
January 6 committee prepares to go public as findings mount
They’ve interviewed more than 300 witnesses, collected tens of thousands of documents, and traveled around the country to talk to election officials who were pressured by Donald Trump. Now, after six months of intense work, the House committee investigating the January 6 insurrection is preparing to go public. In the coming months, members of the panel will start to reveal their findings against the backdrop of the former president and his allies’ persistent efforts to whitewash the riots and reject suggestions that he helped instigate them. The committee also faces the burden of trying to persuade the American public that their conclusions are fact-based and credible. But the nine lawmakers — seven Democrats and two Republicans — are united in their commitment to tell the full story of January 6, and they are planning televised hearings and reports that will bring their findings out into the open. Their goal is not only to show the severity of the riot but also to make a clear connection between the attack and Trump’s brazen pressure on the states and Congress to overturn Joe Biden’s legitimate election as president. “The full picture is coming to light, despite President Trump’s ongoing efforts to hide the picture,” said Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney, the committee’s vice chairwoman and one of its two Republican members. “I don’t think there’s any area of this broader history in which we aren’t learning new things,” she said. While the fundamental facts of January 6 are known, the committee says the extraordinary trove of material they have collected — 35,000 pages of records so far, including texts, emails, and phone records from people close to Trump — is fleshing out critical details of the worst attack on the Capitol in two centuries, which played out on live television. They hope to fill in the blanks about the preparations before the attack, the financing behind the January 6 rally that preceded it, and the extensive White House campaign to overturn the 2020 election. They are also investigating what Trump himself was doing as his supporters fought their way into the Capitol. True accountability may be fleeting. Congressional investigations are not criminal cases, and lawmakers cannot dole out punishments. Even as the committee works, Trump and his allies continue to push lies about election fraud while working to place similarly minded officials at all levels of state and local government. “I think that the challenge that we face is that the attacks on our democracy are continuing — they didn’t come to an end on January 6,” said another panel member, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., also chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Still, the lawmakers hope they can present the public with a thorough accounting that captures what could have been “an even more serious and deeper constitutional crisis,” as Cheney put it. “I think this is one of the single most important congressional investigations in history,” Cheney said. The committee is up against the clock. Republicans could disband the investigation if they win the House majority in the November 2022 elections. The committee’s final report is expected before then, with a possible interim report coming in the spring or summer. In the hearings, which could start in the coming weeks, the committee wants to “bring the people who conducted the elections to Washington and tell their story,” said the panel’s chairman, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss. Their testimony, he said, will further debunk Trump’s claims of election fraud. The committee has interviewed several election officials in battleground states, including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, about Trump’s pressure campaign. In some cases, staff have traveled to those states to gather more information. The panel also is focusing on the preparations for the January 6 rally near the White House where Trump told his supporters to “fight like hell” — and how the rioters may have planned to block the electoral count if they had been able to get their hands on the electoral ballots. They need to amplify to the public, Thompson said, “that it was an organized effort to change the outcome of the election by bringing people to Washington … and ultimately if all else failed, weaponize the people who came by sending them to the Capitol.” About 90% of the witnesses called by the committee have cooperated, Thompson said, despite the defiance of high-profile Trump allies such as Steve Bannon and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows. Lawmakers said they have been effective at gathering information from other sources in part because they share a unity of purpose rarely seen in a congressional investigation. House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy of California, a close Trump ally, decided not to appoint any GOP members to the committee after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., rejected two of his picks last summer. Pelosi, who created the select committee after Republican senators rejected an evenly bipartisan outside commission, subsequently appointed Republicans Cheney and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, Trump critics who shared the Democrats’ desire to investigate the attack. “I think you can see that Kevin made an epic mistake,” Kinzinger said. “I think part of the reason we’ve gone so fast and have been so effective so far is because we’ve decided, and we have the ability to do this as a nonpartisan investigation.” Kinzinger said the investigation would be “a very different scene” if Republicans allied with Trump were participating and able to obstruct some of their work. “I think in five or ten years, when school kids learn about January 6, they’re going to get the accurate story,” Kinzinger said. “And I think that’s going to be dependent on what we do here.” Democrats say having two Republicans working with them has been an asset, especially as they try to reach conservative audiences who may still believe Trump’s falsehoods about a stolen election. “They bring to the table perspectives and ability to translate a little bit what is being reflected in conservative media, or how this might be viewed through a
January 6 panel threatens contempt vote after Mark Meadows withdraws
The leaders of the House committee investigating the January 6 Capitol insurrection are threatening to hold former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows in contempt of Congress after his lawyer said Tuesday that his client will cease cooperating with the panel. In an abrupt reversal, Meadows attorney George Terwilliger said in a letter that a deposition would be “untenable” because the January 6 panel “has no intention of respecting boundaries” concerning questions that former President Donald Trump has claimed are off-limits because of executive privilege. Terwilliger also said he learned over the weekend that the committee had issued a subpoena to a third-party communications provider that he said would include “intensely personal” information. “As a result of careful and deliberate consideration of these factors, we now must decline the opportunity to appear voluntarily for a deposition,” Terwilliger wrote in the letter. The committee’s Democratic chairman, Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, and Republican vice chairwoman, Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney, said in a statement that they will have “no choice” but to vote on recommending contempt charges against Meadows if he does not show up for a previously scheduled closed-door deposition Wednesday. “Tomorrow’s deposition, which was scheduled at Mr. Meadows’s request, will go forward as planned,” Thompson and Cheney said in a statement. Meadows’ decision not to cooperate is a blow to the committee, as lawmakers were hoping to interview Trump’s top White House aide about Trump’s actions during and ahead of the violent attack of his supporters. They had also hoped to use Meadows as an example to other witnesses who may be considering not cooperating as Trump has filed legal challenges to block the panel’s work. Lawmakers on the committee have blasted Meadows’ reluctance to testify, citing privilege concerns, while he is also releasing a book this week that details his work inside the White House. Thompson and Cheney said they also have questions about documents Meadows has already turned over to the panel. “Even as we litigate privilege issues, the Select Committee has numerous questions for Mr. Meadows about records he has turned over to the Committee with no claim of privilege, which includes real-time communications with many individuals as the events of January 6th unfolded,” they said in the statement. Thompson and Cheney said the panel also wants to speak to Meadows about “voluminous official records stored in his personal phone and email accounts” that could be turned over to the committee by the National Archives in the coming weeks. Trump has sued to stop the release of those records, and the case is currently pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals. The two committee leaders did not comment on Terwilliger’s claim about subpoenas to third-party communications providers. The committee in August issued a sweeping demand that telecommunications and social media companies preserve the personal communications of hundreds of people who may have been connected to the attack but did not ask the companies to turn over the records at that time. Terwilliger said in a statement last week that he was continuing to work with the committee and its staff on a potential accommodation that would not require Meadows to waive the executive privileges claimed by Trump or “forfeit the long-standing position that senior White House aides cannot be compelled to testify” before Congress. “We appreciate the Select Committee’s openness to receiving voluntary responses on non-privileged topics,” he said then. Thompson said then that the panel would “continue to assess his degree of compliance” and would take action against Meadows or any other witnesses who don’t comply, including by voting to recommend contempt charges. The House has already voted to hold longtime Trump ally Steve Bannon in contempt after he defied a subpoena, and the Justice Department indicted Bannon on two counts. In halting cooperation, Terwilliger cited comments from Thompson that he said unfairly cast aspersions on witnesses who invoke their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. A separate witness, former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, has said he will invoke those Fifth Amendment rights, prompting questions from the committee about whether he would directly acknowledge that his answers could incriminate him. Thompson said last week that Clark’s lawyer had offered “no specific basis” for Clark to assert the Fifth and that he viewed it as a “last-ditch attempt to delay the Select Committee’s proceedings,” but he said members would hear Clark out. The committee has already voted to recommend contempt charges for Clark, and Thompson has said it will proceed with a House vote if the panel is not satisfied with his compliance at a second deposition on December 16. In his new book, released Tuesday, Meadows reveals that Trump received a positive COVID-19 test before a presidential debate. He also reveals that when Trump was later hospitalized with COVID, he was far sicker than the White House revealed at the time. Trump — who told his supporters to “fight like hell” before hundreds of his supporters broke into the Capitol and stopped the presidential electoral count — has attempted to hinder much of the committee’s work, including in the ongoing court case, by arguing that Congress cannot obtain information about his private White House conversations. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Court temporarily delays release of Donald Trump’s January 6 records
A federal appeals court on Thursday temporarily blocked the release of White House records sought by a U.S. House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection, granting — for now — a request from former President Donald Trump. The administrative injunction issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit effectively bars until the end of this month the release of records that were to be turned over Friday. The appeals court set oral arguments in the case for Nov. 30. The stay gives the court time to consider arguments in a momentous clash between the former president, whose supporters stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, and President Joe Biden and Congress, who have pushed for a thorough investigation of the riot. It delays the House committee from reviewing records that lawmakers say could shed light on the events leading up to the insurrection and Trump’s efforts to delegitimize an election he lost. The National Archives, which holds the documents, says they include call logs, handwritten notes, and a draft executive order on “election integrity.” Biden waived executive privilege on the documents. Trump then went to court, arguing that as a former president, he still had the right to exert privilege over the records, and releasing them would damage the presidency in the future. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan on Tuesday rejected those arguments, noting in part, “Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President.” She again denied an emergency motion by Trump on Wednesday. In their emergency filing to the appeals court, Trump’s lawyers wrote that without a stay, Trump would “suffer irreparable harm through the effective denial of a constitutional and statutory right to be fully heard on a serious disagreement between the former and incumbent President.” The Nov. 30 arguments will take place before three judges nominated by Democratic presidents: Patricia Millett and Robert Wilkins, nominated by former President Barack Obama, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, an appointee of Biden. Given the case’s magnitude, whichever side loses before the circuit court is likely to eventually appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The White House on Thursday also notified a lawyer for Mark Meadows, Trump’s former chief of staff, that Biden would waive any executive privilege that would prevent Meadows from cooperating with the committee, according to a letter obtained by The Associated Press. The committee has subpoenaed Meadows and more than two dozen other people as part of its investigation. His lawyer, George Terwilliger, issued a statement in response saying Meadows “remains under the instructions of former President Trump to respect longstanding principles of executive privilege.” “It now appears the courts will have to resolve this conflict,” Terwilliger said. The committee late Thursday threatened to begin contempt proceedings against Meadows if he doesn’t change course and comply. “Simply put, there is no valid legal basis for Mr. Meadows’s continued resistance to the Select Committee’s subpoena,” the committee wrote to Terwilliger, saying it would view Meadows’ failure to turn over documents or appear at a scheduled deposition on Friday as “willful non-compliance.” The House has already referred former Trump adviser Steve Bannon to the Justice Department for potential criminal prosecution for contempt of Congress. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Terri Sewell votes to hold Steve Bannon in contempt of Congress
Rep. Terri Sewell voted to hold Steve Bannon in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with a congressional subpoena. The subpoena, which the Select Committee issued to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, required Bannon to produce both documents and testimony relevant to the attack. The House found Bannon in contempt of Congress in a bipartisan 229 to 202 vote. On September 23rd, Chairman Thompson signed and transmitted a subpoena to Bannon, ordering the production of documents on October 7th and requiring his presence for deposition testimony on October 14th. Bannon failed to produce the documents on October 7th and failed to show up for the deposition on October 14th. “We need to make it clear that no person is above the law; we need to take a stand for the committee’s investigation and for the integrity of this body,” said the committee chair, Bennie Thompson. “Steve Bannon appears to have played a multi-faceted role in the events of the January 6th attack. The American people are entitled to hear his testimony,” stated Sewell in a press release. “His refusal to comply with a congressional subpoena is completely unacceptable and demonstrates that he believes he is above the law.” Sewell continued, “Today’s vote shows that the United States House of Representatives will not be intimidated or deterred. We have a responsibility to get to the bottom of this horrific attack in order to prevent future threats to our democracy, and that is exactly what we will do.” On Twitter, Sewell commented, “Steve Bannon is not above the law. The U.S. House of Representatives will not be intimidated or deterred. We have a responsibility to get to the bottom of the horrific Jan. 6th attack in order to prevent future threats to our democracy, and that is exactly what we will do.” The Justice Department will now decide what happens to Bannon. Attorney General Merrick Garland has not said whether he will move forward with charges. “We’ll apply the facts in the law and make a decision, consistent with the principles of prosecution,” he told the House Judiciary Committee during an oversight hearing on Thursday.
Ex-Donald Trump adviser Steve Bannon charged in border wall scheme
The arrests make Bannon the latest addition to a startlingly long list of Trump associates who have been prosecuted.
2020 Election Year to Feature Bitter Fights, Mudslinging
Democrats are taking aim at Donald Trump
Donald Trump confronts limits of his impeachment defense strategy
President Donald Trump is confronting the limits of his main impeachment defense. As the probe hits the one-month mark, Trump and his aides have largely ignored the details of the Ukraine allegations against him. Instead, they’re loudly objecting to the House Democrats’ investigation process, using that as justification for ordering administration officials not to cooperate and complaining about what they deem prejudicial, even unconstitutional, secrecy. But as a near-daily drip of derogatory evidence emerges from closed-door testimony on Capitol Hill, the White House assertion that the proceedings are unfair is proving to be a less-than-compelling counter to the mounting threat to Trump’s presidency. Some senior officials have complied with congressional subpoenas to assist House Democratic investigators, defying White House orders. Asked about criticism that the White House lacks a coordinated pushback effort and could do a better job delivering its message, spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham said, “It’s hard to message anything that’s going on behind closed doors and in secret.” “It’s like you’re fighting a ghost, you’re fighting against the air. So we’re doing the best we can,” she said on Fox News Channel. It was a rare public admission from the White House that despite the Republican president’s bravado, real risks remain. White House officials, who have been treating unified Republican support for Trump as a given, have grown increasingly fearful of GOP defections in a House impeachment vote and a potential Senate trial. While they do not believe there will be enough votes to remove the president, as Democrats hope, the West Wing believes more must be done to shore up Republican support to avoid embarrassment and genuine political peril. Trump has been upset with his own top aides — including Grisham and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney — for not sufficiently changing the story line. Instead he relies on his Twitter account and Q&A sessions with reporters to launch daily attacks on the probe. And while Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani has added to the smoke screen, much as he did during the Russia probe, the former New York City mayor has dramatically scaled back his media appearances since several of his associates were arrested in connection with Ukraine. Complaining privately and publicly that Democrats “stick together” better than the GOP, Trump has leaned on Republican congressional allies to do more, according to White House officials and Republicans close to the West Wing. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss private conversations. At first, Trump was angry that his surrogates failed to defend him effectively. Those included House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who stumbled through a “60 Minutes” interview. Trump urged the GOP earlier this week to fight back, a lesson that was taken to heart by a group of conservative Republicans, including members of the Freedom Caucus, who stormed a Capitol Hill hearing room on Wednesday to disrupt testimony in the probe.Trump allies cheered that maneuver, believing it showed that Republicans throughout Washington were coming to grips with the severity of the situation. But the GOP complaints still are largely about process and may have limited potency: Trump’s defenders are complaining that the interviews are being conducted in secret, which may soon change, and that Republicans are not involved, though GOP members can ask questions right alongside the Democrats. The contradictions are telling. On Thursday, GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a top ally of Trump, introduced a resolution condemning the Democratic-controlled House for pursuing a “closed door, illegitimate impeachment inquiry.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is a co-sponsor of that measure. But Graham also said he’s talked to Mulvaney about what seems to be a lackluster White House pushback. During President Bill Clinton’s impeachment, Graham said, “he had a team that was organized, had legal minds that could understand what was being said versus the legal proceedings in question. And they were on message every day.” Republicans have been complaining for weeks that the Trump White House has no such defense system in place — partly a result of the inability to identify qualified talent but also Trump’s own qualms about projecting concern in the face of the investigation. “I think they’re working on getting a messaging team together,” Graham said. Democrats reject Trump arguments that the House interview process is unfair, and White House officials privately acknowledge their legal objections may not win the day. But they believe it’s a political argument that will hold sway with the American people. However, the White House strategy comes with an expiration date: In coming weeks, the closed-door testimony will give way to public hearings. Democrats are expected to call a narrow group of witnesses to testify that Trump encouraged Ukraine to conduct investigations that could benefit him politically in 2020 and to address whether those requests were tied to conditions for giving Ukraine military aid and a White House meeting. Some Trump allies believe the White House can’t afford not to directly address what’s already been revealed. They note that as more Trump appointees offer disparaging information to Congress, and as it is corroborated by official sources, the president will have increasing difficulty simply complaining he is the target of a new “witch hunt.” The president continues to insist he has done nothing wrong, a contention that can be difficult to square with the testimony coming on a nearly daily basis from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Tuesday’s testimony by the top U.S. envoy to Ukraine, William Taylor, only raised the stakes as he gave House impeachment investigators a detailed roadmap of Trump’s efforts to squeeze that country’s leaders for damaging information about his Democratic political rivals. Taylor, who read a lengthy opening statement, is expected to be a star witness at the Democrats’ planned public hearings. Though the White House derided Taylor’s testimony as third-hand information, he vividly described, with the help of contemporaneous notes, his concerns about a parallel foreign policy apparatus run by Giuliani that involved American military aid being withheld unless
Steve Bannon wants GOP to rally behind Donald Trump
Steve Bannon has a dire warning for Republicans — rally around President Donald Trump. During a Sunday interview with The Associated Press, the former chief strategist to Trump said he believes the GOP would lose 35 to 40 seats in the House if the election were held today, thereby ceding their majority to Democrats he’s convinced will pursue impeachment. He argued there’s still time to turn that around and is launching a group, Citizens of the American Republic, to pitch the election as a vote to protect Trump from that outcome. “You can’t look at this as a midterm and you can’t run it out of the traditional Republican playbook. If you do that, you’re going to get smoked,” said Bannon, arguing that Republicans must redouble efforts against motivated Democrats. The effort is a test of Bannon’s sway in the GOP a year after he was fired from his White House post. His relationship with Trump soured after a tell-all book published in January included searing quotes of Bannon portraying Trump as undisciplined and criticizing son Donald Trump Jr. His stock fell further after he stuck by Alabama Republican Roy Moore’s Senate campaign even after decades-old sexual misconduct allegations emerged. A reliably Republican Senate seat turned Democratic. As he attempts a comeback, Bannon acknowledged the challenges he faces, including an invigorated Democratic base. Less than three months from Election Day, Democrats need a net gain of 24 seats to retake the House, and the party is increasingly bullish about its chances after strong turnout in a series of special elections. Bannon said Republicans can gain ground if they focus on turning out Trump supporters. “This is not about persuasion. It’s too late to persuade anybody. We’re 90 days away from this election. This is all about turnout and what I call base-plus,” he said. While Bannon makes his move, many Republicans view holding the House as an uphill battle. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Bannon said his new venture will focus on rapid response and polling with the goal of framing the election as an “up or down vote” on Trump and impeachment. He is also releasing a movie about the president, “Trump@War,” geared at Trump supporters. Bannon said he was being backed by private donors, but he did not detail who was funding the effort or how much he had raised. He said his efforts were independent of the Republican National Committee, the White House or a Trump-supporting super PAC. In keeping with his midterm mission, Bannon defended the president on both policy and style, arguing that the president had an economic record to run on and has been making the right pitch on the campaign trail. On trade, Bannon backed the president’s aggressive tariffs, which have drawn criticism in agricultural states crucial to Trump’s victory. He argued they were a key part of Trump’s nationalistic economic strategy. “People in Iowa, once it’s explained to them, will fully support the president in this,” he said. “We don’t have a choice. We either win the economic war with China or we’re going to be a secondary, a tertiary power.” He said Trump’s culture wars, which have included public attacks on women and minorities, don’t present a problem, calling it his “house style” and saying people should “separate out the signal from the noise.” He argued that Trump would benefit from shutting down the government over funding for his border wall, saying it would “galvanize the populist right,” though he acknowledged it was a minority view. Bannon also pushed back against the idea that a loss of the House could be a positive development for Trump as it would give him a new foil heading into the 2020 presidential election. He called such notions “dangerously naive.” Looking ahead to 2020, Bannon said attorney Michael Avenatti, who is weighing a bid as a Democratic candidate, could be a contender. The combative attorney has been taking on Trump on behalf of a porn actress who claims a sexual encounter with the president, which Trump denies. “He’s a fighter and people are looking for fighters,” Bannon said of Avenatti, though he believes Trump would defeat any opponent. “He’s going to be a force in the primary for the simple reason that he comes across as what many of the Democrats don’t, which is a fighter.” Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
