The Capitol Hill Insurrection Committee Report on Jan 6, 2021: State of the Art and the Investigation of the Vacuum Instability

Tuesday’s meeting concludes the investigation into the events of January 6, 2021, when pro-Trump protesters invaded the Capitol to try and stop Congress from certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election.

To get insight into what prosecutors have, members of the Trump team will be looking for transcripts of people who have spoken to the committee and the Justice Department.

The committee presented an overview of its findings on Monday, including evidence for a number of criminal statutes it believes were violated in the plots to stave off former President Donald Trump’s defeat.

Liz Cheney, the top Republican on the panel, said that they are obliged to seek answers from the man who started it all. “And every American is entitled to the answers, so we can act now to protect our republic.”

And select committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat, argued that Trump “is the one person at the center of the story of what happened on January 6th. We’d like to hear from him.

The House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, Capitol Hill insurrection said former President Donald Trump has “failed to comply” with its subpoena for documents and testimony.

The committee’s final report and its corresponding transcripts will inform how Republicans, particularly in the House, will seek to make good on their promise of investigating Biden and his administration on a variety of fronts, which includes in part relitigating January 6, when they take control of the House next month.

The committee showed previously unseen footage of the scene where congressional leaders took refuge at Fort McNair during the insurrection.

The footage shows House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, then-Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and other top officials working the phones and coordinating with Trump Cabinet members and other officials to secure the resources needed to quell the insurrection and secure the Capitol.

There were two phone calls that were made between Pelosi and then-vice president Mike Pence, who was in charge of coordinating the emergency response.

The new footage showed Schumer showing disrespect to the Attorney General. During their heated call, Schumer asked Rosen to tell Trump to stop the mob. During the call, Pelosi told Rosen that the pro-Trump rioters were “breaking the law… at the instigation of the President of the United States.”

When she testified to the committee, Elaine Chao spoke about her disgust at the attack on her and she resigned from her position as transportation secretary.

It was not possible for me to continue because of the events at a particular point. I came as an immigrant to this country. I believe in this country. I believe that the transfer of power is peaceful. I think in democracy. She said she made the decision on her own.

When did President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence Recede? Hutchinson’s testimony to the committee on Trump and the Capitol Insurrection

Cassidy Hutchinson, who was the Trump White House chief of staff, gave testimony to the committee about Trump acknowledging he had lost the election.

I remember telling Mark that he cannot possibly think that we will pull this off. Like, that call was crazy.’ He shook his head and looked at me after he looked at me. And he’s like, ‘No, Cass, you know, he knows it’s over. He knows he lost. Hutchinson told the committee that they were going to keep trying.

Hutchinson stated that she saw a conversation between Trump and Meadows in which the president was angry that the Supreme Court had rejected the lawsuit.

“The President said … something to the effect of, ‘I don’t want people to know we lost, Mark. This is embarrassing. It’s time to figure it out. We have to figure it out. Hutchinson didn’t want people to know that we lost.

On January 6, one Secret Service agent texted at 12:36 p.m., according to the committee, “With so many weapons found so far; you wonder how many are unknown. It could be sporty after dark.

The pro-Trump website The Donald dot win had posted violent rhetoric about January 6 and Miller claimed he had gotten the base fired up.

Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff said in Thursday’s hearing that that the Secret Service received alerts of online threats made against Vice President Mike Pence ahead of the Capitol insurrection, including that Pence would be “‘a dead man walking if he doesn’t do the right thing.’”

Defending Donald Trump’s alleged obstruction of the counting of the Electoral College: A memo from the National Archives and new emails from Fitton

The committee said in a court filing that Trump was illegal in obstruction of Congress’ counting of the Electoral College votes. The committee said Trump was involved in a criminal conspiracy to cheat the United States.

The committee said it obtained a memo from the National Archives which it presented for the first time on Thursday.

“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,” the memo reads.

The committee also revealed new emails conservative legal activist Tom Fitton sent to two Trump advisers a few days before the election. One email contains a draft statement for Trump to declare victory on Election Night.

The panel’s last hearing before the election was not featuring her testimony after committee members interviewed her last month.

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.

He was subpoenaed by the House after it was brought to his attention that he tried to subvert the 2020 election and that his mob invaded the US Capitol.

But the developments that could hurt Trump the most happened off stage. The distance left to run is a reflection of the legal thicket surrounding the ex- President who has not been accused of a crime and the presidency that tested the rule of law.

Since launching his campaign in 2015, Donald Trump has frequently disproved predictions of his imminent downfall, but now seems to be sliding into an ever-deeper legal hole.

The Supreme Court sent word that it wouldn’t be involved in Trump’s bid to derail the DOJ probe into his Mar-a-Lago property, as the House select committee hearing went on.

The court turned down his emergency request to intervene, which could have delayed the case, without explaining why. The only dissents were from conservative justices who believe that Trump owes them a debt of loyalty.

The Case for Donald Trump and the Detection of Corrupt Campaigns in the ‘Censored Mueller Investigation’ on January 6, 2021

For all the political drama that surrounds the continuing revelations over one of the darkest days in modern American history on January 6, it’s the showdown over classified documents that appears to represent the ex-President’s most clear cut and immediate threat of true criminal exposure.

The former President asked why the panel waited so long to call him. But his obstruction of the investigation and attempts to prevent former aides from testifying means he is on thin ice in criticizing its conduct. It’s not unusual for investigators to build a case before they reach the top of the possible target of their investigation.

Trump’s team has been keeping tabs on those testifying before the grand jury, and even foots the legal bill for a number of Trump’s aides who have appeared. Some believe the transcripts could shed additional light on the special counsel’s investigation.

The FBI received a subpoena for information from the Trump legal team in order to move boxes out of a storage room at his Florida club and CNN reported that an employee of Trump told the bureau about the ex- President instructing him to do so. The FBI also has surveillance footage showing a staffer moving the boxes.

It is troubling that this development could be a pattern of deception that plays into a possible obstruction of justice charge. There could be evidence of obstruction when the FBI showed up at Donald Trump’s home in August.

The details of what took place at Mar-a-Lago, while troubling, did not constitute obstruction of justice according to the man who was Trumps defense lawyer in his second impeachment.

The judge in California wrote in May that there was evidence that the Trump campaign and associates were scheming to defraud the federal government and that there was an obstruction of official proceeding.

On Thursday morning, New York Attorney General Letitia James asked a state court to block the Trump Organization from moving assets and continuing to perpetrate what she has alleged in a civil lawsuit is a decades-long fraud.

James asked the court to issue a preliminary injunction that would stop the defendants from engaging in similar fraudulent conduct until after the trial.

The federal investigation now being led by special counsel Jack Smith is examining Trump in its extensive probe into January 6, 2021, and it appears that DOJ investigators are already looking at much of the conduct that the select committee has highlighted.

Federal investigators are worried about a lot of Trump-related activity after the election. If Trump goes ahead and runs for the presidency, the move may be made more complicated by the possibility of indictments of associates.

When the Unselect Committee Appears: Why Did We Defend Donald Trump with a Subpoena on Jan. 6, 2016?

It is not unusual for Trump to fight one day when he is facing a crisis and it is also not unusual for the rhetoric that he uses to respond to be vehemence.

The unanimous vote to subpoena the former president was mocked by the first Trump spokesman.

“Pres Trump will not be intimidate(d) by their meritless rhetoric or un-American actions. Budowich stated that America First leadership and solutions would be restored after Trump-endorsed candidates sweep the Midterms.

Then the former President weighed in on his Truth Social network with another post that failed to answer the accusations against him, but that was clearly designed to stir a political reaction from his supporters.

Why wasn’t the Unselect Committee asking me to testify months ago? Why did they wait until the very end, the final moments of their last meeting? The Committee is a bad thing. Trump wrote.

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.”

When a congress votes to target the president because of the slim chance of him complying with the subpoena, many observers will think of a set of slickly-produced hearings that looked like 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.

“With every effort to excuse or justify the conduct of the former President, we chip away at the foundation of our Republic,” said the Wyoming lawmaker, who won’t be returning to Congress after losing her primary this summer to a Trump-backed challenger.

The closed hearing of the House panel investigating the attack was adjourned on Thursday after they voted whether or not to subpoena Donald Trump.

Vice Chairwoman Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., read out the motion, describing Trump’s testimony as an obligation — given that more than 30 witnesses in the investigation invoked the Fifth Amendment in answer to the committee’s questions about Trump, including key Trump allies Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, and John Eastman.

As Donald Trump prepares to run for president, the Justice Department is analyzing the possibility of appointing a special counsel to oversee two federal investigations related to his time in office, sources tell CNN.

The months leading up to the election have little respite from political and legal activity. The US Attorney’s Office in the DC is still involved with many of the January 6 investigations, but they are dealing with burnout in their ranks because of the amount of guilty pleas they have been able to secure.

“They can crank up charges on almost anybody if they wanted to,” said one defense attorney working on January 6-related matters, who added defense lawyers have “have no idea” who ultimately will be charged.

The Justice Department isn’t shy away from partisan politics in the investigation of a possible special counsel for the FBI and Russia probes

Special counsels, of course, are hardly immune from political attacks. Both former special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation and special counsel John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the FBI’s Russia probe came under withering criticism from their opponents.

Top Justice officials have looked to an old guard of former Southern District of New York prosecutors, bringing into the investigations Kansas City-based federal prosecutor and national security expert David Raskin, as well as David Rody, a prosecutor-turned-defense lawyer who previously specialized in gang and conspiracy cases and has worked extensively with government cooperators.

Rody, whose involvement has not been previously reported, left a lucrative partnership at the prestigious corporate defense firm Sidley Austin in recent weeks to become a senior counsel at DOJ in the criminal division in Washington, according to his LinkedIn profile and sources familiar with the move.

While sedition cases against right-wing extremists go to trial, the team handling the day to day work of the January 6 investigations is growing.

A handful of other prosecutors have joined the January 6 investigations team, including a high-ranking fraud and public corruption prosecutor who has moved out of a supervisor position and onto the team, and a prosecutor with years of experience in criminal appellate work now involved in some of the grand jury activity.

The decision of whether to charge Trump or his associates will ultimately fall to Attorney General Merrick Garland, whom President Joe Biden picked for the job because his tenure as a judge provided some distance from partisan politics, after Senate Republicans blocked his Supreme Court nomination in 2016.

Several former prosecutors believe the facts exist for a potentially chargeable case. But Garland will have to navigate the politically perilous and historic decision of how to approach the potential indictment of a former President.

Garland would not answer the CNN question about the possibility of a special counsel, but he did say that the Justice Department doesn’t shy away from politically charged cases.

Garland said that they must avoid any partisan elements of their decision making. “That is what I’m intent on ensuring that the Department decisions are made on the merits, and that they’re made on the facts and the law, and they’re not based on any kind of partisan considerations.”

Garland’s tough decisions go beyond Trump. People briefed on the matter say the investigation of Hunter Biden is close to a conclusion. Also waiting in the wings: a final decision on the investigation of Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz, after prosecutors recommended against charges.

A former justice department official with some insight into thinking around the investigations said that they are not going to charge before they are ready to charge. The review of cases earlier in the review process will cause added pressure to get through it.

Willis has observed her own version of a quiet period around the midterm election and is seeking to bring witnesses before the grand jury in the coming weeks. Sources previously told CNN indictments could come as soon as December.

Key Trump allies, including South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows are among witnesses that have tried to fight off subpoenas in the state probe into efforts to interfere with the Georgia 2020 election.

How those disputes resolve in Georgia – including whether courts force testimony – could improve DOJ’s ability to gather information, just as the House Select Committee’s January 6 investigation added to DOJ’s investigative leads from inside the Trump White House.

In the weeks leading up to the election, Trump sabotaged the DOJ’s efforts to keep quiet, leading to a steady barrage of headlines about the investigation.

Thousands of documents were seized from Mar-a-Lago, and Trump’s legal team put in place a complicated process to find out if they are privileged and off limits to investigators. The intelligence community and Justice Department have been able to see about 100 records that were classified when Trump was in Florida.

The outcome of the intelligence review of those documents may determine if criminal charges will be filed, according to one source familiar with the Justice Department’s approach.

On Tuesday a federal judge ordered Trump adviser Kash Patel to testify before a grand jury investigating the handling of federal records at Mar-a-Lago, according to two people familiar with the investigation.

The Justice Department will be in a better position to prosecute the case after the judge granted immunity from prosecution on any information that he gives.

The committee said the former President must begin producing records no later than next week and that he was under subpoena for deposition testimony on November 14th.

If he met the House’s demands, Trump said he would violate the executive branch’s confidentiality and reveal conversations with Justice Department officials and members of Congress about the 2020 election.

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

Trump sued the committee on November 11 as a way to challenge its subpoena according to filings in a federal court in Florida. Multiple courts upheld the legitimacy of the committee and he tried to have it thrown out because he wanted to be immune from testimony about his presidency.

Trump is challenging both the legitimacy of the committee – which multiple courts have upheld – and is claiming he should be immune from testimony about the time he was president.

Trump’s lawyers have been in communication with the House over the past week and a half and are offering to consider answering written questions while expressing concerns about the bulk of the document requests.

The lawsuit also raises some protections around the presidency that have never fully been tested by appeals courts, and Trump brought the lawsuit in a court that, unlike DC, hasn’t weighed in on his standoffs with House Democrats over the past several years.

The legal team for Trump replied to the House that the president directed a search for documents in his possession that would fit either of those two categories. The search found nothing, his lawyers said.

Sensitivity to Trump’s Recommendations on the Subpoena Subcommission, Rep. ZOE Lofgren

In the past witnesses have been held in contempt of Congress for disobeying subpoenas but it is difficult to force compliance through the courts.

Thompson said the letter seemed to be a delay tactic because he didn’t know if Mr. Trump would comply with the subpoena.

Thompson and Cheney wrote that Donald Trump and his closest allies are hiding from the Select Committee while refusing to comply with their subpoenas. Donald Trump planned a plan to overturn the election and stop the transfer of power. He is required to give answers to American people.

The referrals will come in the form of a letter from the committee to the Justice Department making its case for prosecution. Referrals have no bearing on the Justice Department’s actions.

The final House report could include additional charges proposed for Trump, according to the source. It will provide justification from the committee investigation for recommending the charges.

CNN reported that the panel is considering criminal referrals for at least four people in addition to Donald Trump, including a former justice department official and Giuliani’s former lawyer.

Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Trump, criticized the committee in a statement as a “Kangaroo court” that held “show trials by Never Trump partisans who are a stain on this country’s history.”

The committee has been very careful in crafting their recommendations and tethering them to the facts they have uncovered, said Rep. ZOE Lofgren during a CNN interview Friday.

We spent a lot of time on the facts, the code sections and the bottom line recommendation, because I think it’s really important that people understand what we’re doing when we vote on it.

The 2020 US Capitol Investigate: What Happened After the January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol, and What It Means for the Future

The Justice Department has largely focused on criminal statutes related to the violence, for obstructing a congressional proceeding and in some limited cases for seditious conspiracy, when charging defendants in connection with the attack on the US Capitol.

The committee will release an executive summary of the investigation’s report on Monday after the meeting, a committee aide said Sunday. The final report will give an explanation of the investigation that lead to the charges being recommended.

Multiple sources have reported that the panel weighed criminal referrals for a number of Trump allies including former White House chief of staff MarkMeadows, former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark and Trump’s former lawyer Rudy Giuliani.

Raskin, along with Democratic Reps. Adam Schiff and Zoe Lofgren, both of California, and the panel’s vice chair, GOP Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, comprised the subcommittee tasked with providing the full panel with referral recommendations that will be adopted on Monday.

The committee tasked with finding out exactly what happened after the US Capitol attack is ready to make public its findings.

And while we won’t know everything that’s to come from the January 6 committee this week until it unfolds, here’s what you need to know about what’s expected, what’s not, and where this could all lead.

Judges refer to the January 6 attack on Congress’ certification of the 2020 presidential election as “insurrection”. In hundreds of US Capitol riot cases, the Justice Department didn’t bring the charge.

The allegations, made by the House select committee against Trump and his elections attorney John Eastman in a previous court proceeding, match the recommendations.

Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, a member of the select committee, said Sunday that the panel is considering how to hold accountable GOP lawmakers who defied their subpoenas.

“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.”

“That will be something we will be considering tomorrow,” Schiff added, noting that the panel has weighed whether it is better to criminally refer members of Congress to other parts of the federal government or if Congress should “police its own.”

The five House Republicans who were subpoenaed but did not cooperate with the House Ethics committee can be referred by the panel.

Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat, told reporters recently how members evolved toward the idea of issuing criminal referrals as the panel’s investigation played out.

Thompson said they were not in the business of investigating people for criminal activities but they just couldn’t overlook some of them.

Why does this matter?: Rep. Jamie Raskin meets with the Deputy Chairman of the Jan. 6 Subcommission on Criminal Referrals

Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who leads the January 6 subcommittee tasked with presenting recommendations on criminal referrals to the full panel, recently said that “the gravest offense in constitutional terms is the attempt to overthrow a presidential election and bypass the constitutional order. A host of statutory offenses support the gravity and magnitude of that violent assault on America.

The meeting – which, unlike previous gatherings of the committee, is not a hearing with witnesses – will include a presentation and cover the names of people facing criminal and other referrals, as will as the basis for those referrals, Thompson said last week.

Kinzinger, a Republican who will be leaving this Congress, told CNN that the report will be one he would like to make less dramatic, but he emphasized that the report will be one.

Thompson said that the transcripts from over 1,000 interviews the panel conducted will be released once the final report is out.

Why does this matter?: This is the culmination of a lengthy investigation into the attack on Jan. 6. Some of the weaknesses of the electoral system were said to have enabled Trump and his associates to go as far as they did in their attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. The panel will make policy recommendations aimed at better protecting democratic institutions and processes, including reforming the Electoral Count Act.

It’s very long. Thompson previously told NPR the final report could be eight chapters and 1,000 pages long. The report on Russian interference in the 2016 election was about 400 pages.

Committee member Rep. Elaine Luria, D-Va., told NPR she came away from reading the Jan. 6 report “shocked by the breadth and depth of this plan to create a big lie and pull every lever of government to corrupt an election.”

“We’ve seen petty criminals who’ve been charged with misdemeanors for trespassing be held accountable, but not the masterminds of this, who really did try to corrupt the government and its processes,” Luria said.

“We’re not piling onto existing prosecutions,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin. “We want to make sure that the crimes of the most serious gravity are attended to and don’t fall through the cracks.”

The Jan 6 Subcommittee Is About to Have Its Last Hearing Hear What to Expect and When to Tell Them

The committee has also laid out evidence against people who pushed the strategy of derailing the certification of the election.

Goldman said the panel could have evidence that would be difficult for the Justice Department to refuse. The panel could be considering referrals for witness intimidation, obstruction of justice and false statements made under oath, Goldman suggested.

“They want to make sure the department of justice is aware of everything they’ve uncovered, to make sure that they’re careful in the way they evaluate whether or not a crime was committed and the charges should be brought,” Goldman said.

NPR obtained a small portion of a draft script for the Monday meeting that shows the panel intends to accuse lawyers John Eastman and Kenneth Chesebro of being tied to the conspiracy to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

Eastman was a Trump ally who helped lead the effort to overturn President Biden’s win, while Chesebro has been considered a central figure in the scheme pushing for a slate of fake Trump electors in various states won by Biden.

They could be subject to criminal referrals, as well as referrals to the state bar association for a review of their bar license if they make blatant misrepresentations in court filings.

When asked at a press conference last week if he was concerned that he and his colleagues might face criminal referrals, McCarthy said, “No, not at all. We did nothing wrong.

Source: https://www.npr.org/2022/12/19/1143415487/the-jan-6-committee-is-about-to-have-its-last-hearing-heres-what-to-expect

The CNN Investigating alleged rioters at the Center of Washington, D.C.: The investigation of a grand jury investigation into the 2016 anti-demolition attack

So far, more than 900 people have been charged with crimes related to the attack. Law enforcement has arrested alleged rioters in nearly all 50 states, as well as the District of Columbia.

CNN’s special coverage of the meeting, anchored by Jake Tapper and Erin Burnett, will begin at 12 p.m. ET. CNN.com, CNN OTT and mobile apps, and CNNgo will stream live without a cable log-in.

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 sources said that Jack Smith, the special counsel appointed by Attorney General Garland, sent a letter to the committee requesting all of the information from the investigation.

The handover comes during a key week for the committee. The committee voted at the end of the meeting 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.

The panel has started to share transcripts of witness interviews with regards to the false slate of electors, the pressure campaign by Trump and his allies and the 2020 election results.

The summary claimed the panel has a variety of evidence that could be used to obstruct the investigation. That includes concerns that attorneys paid by Trump’s political committee or allied groups “have specific incentives to defend President Trump rather than zealously represent their own clients.”

The panel wrote that they have concerns about certain witnesses, including those who are still reliant on their income or employment by organizations linked to the president.

The panel said that some witnesses and lawyers were unnecessarily combative, answered hundreds of questions with variant of “I do not recall” in circumstances where that answer seemed unbelievable, and testified from lawyer-written talking points rather than their own recollections.

“The public can ultimately make its own assessment of these issues when it reviews the Committee transcripts and can compare the accounts of different witnesses and the conduct of counsel,” the summary previewed.

The committee wrote that it has a lot of doubts about the testimony and will release his transcript publicly. Ornato did not recall conveying the information to Hutchinson or a White House employee with national security responsibilities, according to the report. “The Committee is skeptical of Ornato’s account.”

A panel discussion of Donald Trump’s fundraising after the 2020 presidential election and through the 2019 January 6 rallies – a response from the DOJ committee

In terms of financing after the 2020 presidential election and through the January 6 rallies, 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.”

“For example, the Trump Campaign, along with the Republican National Committee, sent millions of emails to their supporters, with messaging claiming that the election was ‘rigged,’ that their donations could stop Democrats from ‘trying to steal the election,’ and that Vice President Biden would be an ‘illegitimate president’ if he took office,’” the summary states.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat, has said the panel has evidence that members of the Trump family and inner circle – including Kimberly Guilfoyle – personally benefited from money that was raised based on the former president’s false election claims, but the panel has never gone as far to say a financial crime has been committed.

DOJ initially asked the panel for all of its transcripts back in May, but committee members, particularly Thompson, felt strongly the depositions were the property of the committee.

The former president is hoping the release of the panel’s transcripts will help with the DOJ criminal investigation into January 6.

Trump’s advisers and allies were surprised by parts of the testimony that were not known to them before their public testimony.

McCarthy has vowed to hold hearings next year on the security failures that led to the Capitol breach and has called on the select committee to preserve all of its records and transcripts.