Tag Archives: contempt

Former top Trump aide Peter Navarro indicted by grand jury for contempt of Congress, but Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino will not face prosecution

Former top Trump White House aide Peter Navarro has been indicted by a grand jury on two counts of contempt of Congress, according to court documents. 

But CBS News has learned former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino will not face prosecution, despite being referred for contempt for failing to appear in front of the Jan. 6 select committee. An official familiar with the matter confirmed to CBS News a letter was sent to the House committee telling them of the decision by the U.S. Attorney’s office in D.C.

“While today’s indictment of Peter Navarro was the correct decision by the Justice Department, we find the decision to reward Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino for their continued attack on the rule of law puzzling. Mr. Meadows and Mr. Scavino unquestionably have relevant knowledge about President Trump’s role in the efforts to overturn the 2020 election and the events of January 6th,” said select committee Chairman Bennie G. Thompson, a Democrat from Mississippi, and Vice Chair Liz Cheney, a Wyoming Republican, in a statement.

Navarro’s contempt indictment stems from the former top trade official’s refusal to comply with a subpoena from the House select committee investigating the assault on the Capitol that took place on Jan. 6, 2021. Navarro said earlier this week that he had received a subpoena from the top federal prosecutor in Washington, D.C., to testify before a grand jury and to turn over records related to the Capitol assault. 

Navarro, 72, made his first appearance in federal court Friday afternoon, after the indictment was unsealed Friday. He said he’d represent himself to avoid expensive legal fees and was joined by a court-appointed attorney for assistance.

He showed anger at prosecutors during the hearing, calling them “despicable” and alleging prosecutorial misconduct. 

Navarro claimed he had told prosecutors to contact a lawyer on Wednesday, seeming to indicate a willingness to cooperate with them, but he was instead taken into custody at the airport, where he planned to board a flight to Nashville for a TV appearance. The government, he said, was playing “hardball” and was pursuing a “bad faith projection.”

He asked that his lawsuit against the Jan. 6 select committee and Justice Department, which was filed this week, be litigated before his criminal charges move forward, and he complained that the timing of his case “flies in the face of good faith and due process. He said he’s caught between two constitutional interpretations of executive privilege.

Navarro called the Jan. 6 committee a “sham” and, pointing at prosecutors, asked, “who are these people? This is not America.”

“The behavior of these people is unconscionable,” he added.

The government did not ask for Navarro’s detention, so he will be released. He will not be allowed to carry a gun, but he successfully argued that he should be able to retain his passport.

The House Select Committee examining the Jan. 6 attack and the events leading up to it first issued a subpoena to Navarro for records and testimony in early February. Investigators believe Navarro worked with former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon and others to craft a plan to change the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. The February request from the House committee also notes that in his book, Navarro described the plan as the “Green Bay Sweep” and wrote it was “the last, best chance to snatch a stolen election from the Democrats’ jaws of deceit.”

The select committee issued a subpoena to Navarro in February, requiring him to produce documents and appear before the committee in March, but Navarro declined to do either. 

One count applies to his refusal to turn over documents, and the other count applies to his refusal to appear to testify. If convicted, each count of contempt of Congress would mean a minimum 30-day jail sentence for Navarro, as well as a fine of up to $100,000, according to the Justice Department. 

Another former top adviser to Trump, Steven Bannon, was also indicted last year on contempt of Congress charges. 

— CBS News’ Scott MacFarlane, Andres Triay, Nikole Killion and Melissa Quinn contributed to this report.

Read original article here

Trump ordered to pay $110k fines as contempt order lifted – live

GOP governor calls on fellow Republicans to ‘move on’ from Trump

Donald Trump has been ordered to pay $110,000 in fines as a judge lifted a contempt order against him stemming from a legal dispute over Trump Organization documents in New York.

The Wednesday ruling comes after Mr Trump’s chosen Republican representative Alex Mooney defeated fellow Republican David McKinley in a primary in West Virginia last night, while another Trump-backed candidate fell short in Nebraska’s gubernatorial primary.

“Donald Trump loves West Virginia, and West Virginia loves Donald Trump,” Mr Mooney said in his victory speech. Mr McKinley, who broke away from his party by becoming one of 13 Republicans to vote in support of support Joe Biden’s $1.2tn infrastructure bill, was sharply criticised by Mr Trump as a RINO, or “Republican in Name Only”.

In Nebraska, Charles Herbster, a longtime Trump supporter who was endorsed by the ex-president despite sexual assault allegations, was defeated by Jim Pillen.

Meanwhile, Elon Musk has said he would end Mr Trump’s ban from Twitter, saying he thought the decision to block the then-president was “morally wrong”, “foolish in the extreme” and “it alienated a large part of the country”.

1652291032

ICYMI: Trump repeatedly asked if China had secret ‘hurricane gun’, report says

The one-term president demanded to know if such a weapon would constitute an act of war and whether his military could retaliate against the nuclear power, three unnamed former officials told Rolling Stone magazine.

“It was almost too stupid for words,” one source told the magazine, which said that the person was “intimately familiar” with Mr Trump’s questioning.

Oliver O’Connell11 May 2022 18:43

1652290432

House approves new $40 billion aid package for Ukraine

The US House of Representatives has approved a new $40 billion aid package for Ukraine as the Russian invasion continues.

“We thank [the House] for working across the aisle to get this done, and appreciate the strong bipartisan support for the President’s proposal,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said.

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky also extended his thanks, tweeting: I thank @SpeakerPelosi and all friends of [Ukraine] in House of Representatives for the quick approval of the law on additional financial support for our state initiated by @POTUS. We are looking forward to consideration of this important document for us by the Senate.”

Oliver O’Connell11 May 2022 18:33

1652290132

Senators call on Biden to list Russia as state sponsor of terrorism

Democrat Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina have introduced a resolution that would call on the Biden administration to list Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism (SST).

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)

(AFP via Getty Images)

“Putin is a terrorist, and one of the most disruptive forces on the planet is Putin’s Russia,” said Senator Graham. “Putin’s Russia deserves this designation. We should be all-in on making sure that Putin’s Russia is marginalized as long as they engage in this behavior. This resolution sends a strong message to Ukraine that we are listening and we agree that Putin runs a nation that is a state sponsor of terrorism. We are also letting the Russian people know that our fight is with Putin, and as long as he is your leader, engaging in these activities, you will be isolated on the world stage. I can’t think of a stronger signal at a more crucial time than Congress and the Biden Administration working together to designate Putin’s Russia a state sponsor of terrorism. Thank you to my colleague Senator Blumenthal for working with me on this resolution to make sure this moment does not pass.”

“Russia’s horrific inhumanity – including barbaric atrocities and war crimes – have richly earned its designation as a state sponsor of terrorism. I am proud to be leading this resolution with Senator Graham, applying stiffer sanctions and recognizing Russia as a true pariah among nations,” said Senator Blumenthal.

The SST designation allows additional categories of sanctions to be placed on a country, including restrictions on US foreign assistance, a ban on defense exports and sales, certain controls over exports of dual-use items, and financial and other restrictions.

If designated, Russia would join a small list of other countries that are designated SSTs: Cuba, North Korea, Iran, and Syria.

Both Ukrainian President Zelensky and the parliament of Ukraine have appealed to Congress to encourage the Department of State to recognise the Russian Federation as an SST.

The justification for a Russian SST designation includes:

  • Russian combat troops supporting Syria (a designated SST country) in the Syrian Civil War.
  • Support of separatists (subnational groups) in the Donbas since 2014.
  • Poisoning of political enemies abroad.
  • Use of the Wagner Group to achieve foreign policy objectives globally.

Oliver O’Connell11 May 2022 18:28

1652289832

Sign up for The Independent’s US morning headlines newsletter

As the Biden administration scrambles to punish Russia for its assault on Ukraine, Congress confirms a new Supreme Court justice and the 6 January investigations steadily heat up, The Independent is launching a new US morning headlines newsletter to keep you in the know.

Oliver O’Connell11 May 2022 18:23

1652289146

Trump ordered to pay $110k in fines as judge lifts contempt order against him

Oliver O’Connell11 May 2022 18:12

1652288692

Manchin will vote against Democrats’ abortion legislation

Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, often the swing vote in an evenly-divided Senate, announced he would oppose his fellow Democrats’ legislation to protect abortion rights, but said he’d vote to codify Roe v Wade.

Mr Manchin told reporters on Wednesday that he would oppose the legislation, called the Women’s Health Protection Act.

“We’re going to be voting on a piece of legislation which I will not vote for today,” he said. “But I would vote for a Roe v Wade codification it was today. I was hopeful for that.”

Eric Garcia reports for The Independent from Capitol Hill.

Oliver O’Connell11 May 2022 18:04

1652287533

Listen: Lindsey Graham condemns Trump on newly released Jan 6 audio

On newly released audio recordings from just after the 6 January Capitol attack, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham – one of Donald Trump’s most tenacious Washington allies – can be heard blaming Mr Trump for stirring up a “sense of revenge”, as well as agreeing Joe Biden would be “the best person to have”.

“Moments like this reset,” says Mr Graham on the tape. “People will calm down. People will say, ‘I don’t want to be associated with that… This is a group within a group. What this does, there will be a rallying effect for a while, [then] the country says: ‘We’re better than this’”.

Asked whether Mr Biden would help that process, Mr Graham replied: “Totally”.

Read more from Andrew Feinberg:

Andrew Naughtie11 May 2022 17:45

1652285716

“Fake electors” from Georgia co-operating with investigation into Trump’s post-election behaviour

It has emerged that some of the 16 Georgia Republicans who signed up as pro-Trump “electors” after the 2020 election are now co-operating with a criminal investigation into the former president’s efforts to overturn the election.

Specifically, the individuals in question have spoken to prosecutors with Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ office as part of a probe into whether Mr Trump broke Georgia election law by pressuring state officials to overturn the result. In one particularly infamous incident, he urged the secretary of state to “find” enough votes to close Joe Biden’s margin of victory.

Andrew Feinberg has the story.

Andrew Naughtie11 May 2022 17:15

1652283933

Catch up: Trump’s mixed primary night

Last night’s primaries in West Virginia and Nebraska put Donald Trump’s endorsement to the test – and in the end, they proved his power has its limits. Eric Garcia has this take on what the results really mean:

Andrew Naughtie11 May 2022 16:45

1652282457

Ultra-Maga candidate gets ad boost in Pennsylvania

As Donald Trump’s chosen candidate Dr Mehmet Oz struggles to lock things up in next week’s Pennsylvania Senate primary, a hardcore right-winger is experiencing something of a late surge – and she’s getting outside help.

According to political intelligence company AdImpact, the conservative Club for Growth has spent nearly $2m on an ad buy for Kathy Barnette, a hardline Maga-flavoured conservative who is rising up the polls despite paltry fundraising and despite the fact that Mr Trump has cast his favours elsewhere.

The Club for Growth also broke with the Trump endorsement in Ohio, where it continued running ads against the ultimate victor JD Vance after the ex-president backed him.

Andrew Naughtie11 May 2022 16:20



Read original article here

Trump news today: House votes to hold Dan Scavino and Peter Navarro in contempt for defying Jan 6 committee

GOP senator dodges question on Trump’s praise of Putin

The House of Representatives voted 220-203 to refer ex-Trump White House aides Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino for prosecution on criminal contempt of Congress charges for defying subpoenas to produce documents and give evidence before the select committee investigating the 6 January insurrection.

Wednesay’s vote comes after both Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump testified before the committee within the past week. Both reportedly answered questions for several hours without invoking the Fifth Amendment, a break with various of Donald Trump’s other close associates.

The committee has also finally received a cache of emails belonging to former Trump lawyer John Eastman, who had tried to withhold them from the committee’s scrutiny citing various arguments that were rejected in court.

Meanwhile, six weeks after its launch, Trump’s Truth Social app has lost two senior executives. The app has been beset by tech problems and about 1.5 million people remain on the waiting list to join, unable to use it.

1649301322

ICYMI: Ivanka Trump testifies before Jan 6 committee

Ivanka Trump appeared remotely before the January 6 committee on Tuesday, committee sources revealed, as the panel’s investigation into her father’s role in a violent assault on Congress continues.

The chairman of the House select committee investigating January 6 confirmed Ms Trump’s appearance to reporters and told Politico that Ms Trump’s testimony was still ongoing as of mid-Monday afternoon with five hours already passed in the session. Ms Trump was not subpoenaed, and like her husband is giving information to the committee as a personal choice.

John Bowden and Andrew Feinberg report on what the former first daughter’s testimony may mean.

Oliver O’Connell7 April 2022 04:15

1649298641

Report: FBI has hundreds of names of Capitol riot suspects but DOJ needs more lawyers

The US Justice Department has been busy for more than a year tracking down and prosecuting participants in the Capitol riot, but is now facing an unprecedented problem; it doesn’t have enough lawyers to carry out the prosecutions.

NBC News reports that more than 775 supporters of Donald Trump who stormed the Capitol on 6 January have been arrested. More than 225 people have pleaded guilty thus far, and two have been convicted during a trial. More than 50 have been sentenced to prison.

Oliver O’Connell7 April 2022 03:30

1649295941

AOC confident that GOP immigration provisions won’t be in Covid relief bill

The Independent’s Eric Garcia spoke with Ms Ocasio-Cortez at the US Capitol.

Oliver O’Connell7 April 2022 02:45

1649293241

Ohio GOP lawmakers introduce sweeping ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill also targeting lessons on race

Republican legislators in Ohio have introduced what opponents have called “Don’t Say Gay” legislation, mirroring a Florida law that critics warn will have a chilling effect on LGBT+ students, teachers and their families.

The bill goes further to include school prohibitions against “divisive or inherently racist concepts” including “critical race theory” as well as “diversity, equity, and inclusion learning outcomes,” including professional development initiatives for teachers and school staff.

Oliver O’Connell7 April 2022 02:00

1649290541

Judge issues first outright acquittal of Jan 6 riot defendant

A judge has issued the first acquittal of a defendant in the January 6 riot after a federal defence contractor claimed that police had waved him into the US Capitol.

New Mexico engineer Matthew Martin was found not guilty of four misdemeanor charges following a two-day bench trial before US District Court Judge Trevor McFadden, having rejected a jury trial.

Graeme Massie has more details.

Oliver O’Connell7 April 2022 01:15

1649288122

Marjorie Taylor Greene reports Jimmy Kimmel to Capitol Police

US Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene reported Jimmy Kimmel to the US Capitol police on Wednesday, after the late-night host made a joke about Will Smith slapping the Georgia Republican for her baseless claims that Republicans who vote for Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson are “pro paedophile.”

“ABC, this threat of violence against me by Jimmy Kimmel has been filed with the Capitol Police,” she wrote on social media on Wednesday.

Oliver O’Connell7 April 2022 00:35

1649286677

House votes to hold Trump aides Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino in contempt of Congress

The House of Representatives voted 220-203 to refer two more ex-Trump White House aides for prosecution on criminal contempt of Congress charges for defying subpoenas to produce documents and give evidence before the select committee investigating the 6 January insurrection.

Just two Republicans — select committee members Liz Cheney of Wyoming, Adam Kinzinger of Illinois — joined 218 Democrats on Wednesday to approve a resolution holding former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Daniel Scavino and ex-National Trade Council director Peter Navarro in contempt and recommending they be prosecuted for refusing to heed subpoenas issued as part of the nine-member panel’s probe into the worst attack on the US Capitol since Major General Robert Ross ordered British troops to it set ablaze in 1814.

Andrew Feinberg and Eric Garcia report from Washington, DC.

Oliver O’Connell7 April 2022 00:11

1649285141

‘Maggot-infested’ Tom Cotton and ‘fascism’ of GOP ripped by Dem Party chair

The chair of the Democratic Party went on the attack and told voters that the Republican Party’s embrace of “fraud, fear and fascism” should not be rewarded with a return to power in Washington.

DNC chair Jamie Harrison made the comments during an appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, taking specific aim at GOP Sen Tom Cotton of Arkansas whose criticism of Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson was widely criticised as cheap and based on a willful misreading of her past work.

John Bowden has the story from Washington, DC.

Oliver O’Connell6 April 2022 23:45

1649283041

Not to be outdone by Texas, DeSantis says Florida will do similar

Not to be outdone by Texas Governor Greg Abbott, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis claims he’s going to ship undocumented migrants to President Joe Biden’s home state of Delaware.

Oliver O’Connell6 April 2022 23:10

1649282441

Texas will ship illegal immigrants to DC

Mr Abbott told Fox News he is “fed up” with migrants being released into small towns in Texas by the federal government, and he plans to drop the migrants near the steps of the US Capitol.

A state official said as many as 900 buses could be used to transport the migrants to DC.

Oliver O’Connell6 April 2022 23:00

Read original article here

House poised to vote to hold Trump aides Navarro, Scavino in contempt of Congress

The House is poised to vote Wednesday to hold two former aides to Donald Trump in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with subpoenas related to the investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob.

If approved, the referral would then go to the Justice Department for that agency to decide whether to charge former trade and manufacturing director Peter Navarro and former White House communications chief Daniel Scavino Jr. with misdemeanors that can result in up to one year in prison and a fine of up to $100,000.

During Wednesday’s floor debate, some Democrats noted that after Trump raised objections last year, Republicans had “pulled the plug” on an independent commission to investigate the attack — leading House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to set up a House select committee instead.

“We were going to have a 9/11-style independent commission,” Rep. Jamie B. Raskin (D-Md.) said. “And then you know what happened? You know who vetoed it? The fourth branch of government, Donald Trump, who some of their members slavishly report to, like sycophants. And Donald Trump said he didn’t want any investigation into the attack on this body, the Congress of the United States.”

In recent weeks, frustrations have been mounting inside the committee regarding the Justice Department’s lack of action on its last criminal referral.

People familiar with the matter said the Justice Department has stonewalled committee staffers who have sought to understand prosecutors’ views on the referrals. The department has not yet acted on the House’s December vote backing contempt charges for former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.

That has stymied lawmakers who are trying to enforce subpoenas to members of Trump’s inner circle as the committee works to launch hearings in May. The individuals spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk freely about private discussions.

“There is definitely frustration on the committee that we are not getting more from DOJ,” said a person involved with the investigation. “But there’s not a lot of ideas on exactly what we can do.”

Frustrations on the committee toward the Justice Department recently boiled over in public, as Attorney General Merrick Garland has not said whether he will take action on charging Meadows, who is viewed as a key witness as Trump’s former gatekeeper and top aide.

By adding referrals for Scavino and Navarro, the lawmakers are taking a gamble. The move could pressure the Justice Department to bring charges — but if that doesn’t work, it could also render the committee’s subpoenas to top Trump aides as effectively toothless.

Garland dismissed criticisms from the committee last week in a news conference, telling reporters he would not rush the Justice Department’s investigation of the attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Asked again Wednesday about the delay in making a decision on Meadows and criticism that lack of Justice Department action could render congressional subpoenas ineffective, Garland said only that prosecutors would “follow the facts and the law.”

“We don’t comment any further on investigations,” Garland said.

Members of the committee have privately and publicly grumbled about the Justice Department’s silence, expressing concern that Garland’s quiescence has the potential to seriously hamper their investigation.

“The Department of Justice has a duty to act on this referral and others that we have sent,” Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) said last week. “Without enforcement of congressional subpoenas, there is no oversight, and without oversight, no accountability — for the former president, or any other president, past, present, or future. Without enforcement of its lawful process, Congress ceases to be a coequal branch of government.”

But political pressure also could backfire as the Justice Department seeks to maintain its independence.

Raskin was one of the few lawmakers on the panel who declined to criticize Garland, telling reporters last week that he felt strongly about the restoration of “the tradition of respect and independence of the law enforcement function.”

“That was one of the things that got trashed during the Trump period,” Raskin added. “So I think that Congress and the president should let the Department of Justice and the attorney general do their job. … Attorney General Garland is my constituent, and I don’t beat up on my constituents.”

Read original article here

House January 6 committee refers contempt charges for Navarro and Scavino

The House select committee investigating the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol unanimously voted Monday night to recommend that former Trump aides Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino be held in contempt of Congress for failing to cooperate with subpoenas. 

Committee chair Bennie Thompson acknowledged in a statement on Monday that Navarro, a former trade adviser, and Scavino, a former deputy chief of staff and member of the White House communications team, “aren’t household names,” but he said they are “so important to our investigation.” 

“In short: these two men played key roles in the ex-President’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election,” Thompson said. “The Select Committee subpoenaed them for records and testimony to learn more about their roles and what they knew.”

Dan Scavino and Peter Navarro

AP/Andrew Harnik, AP/Alex Brandon


Thompson said that Scavino “strung us along for months before making it clear that he believes he’s above the law.” Navarro, Thompson said, shared “relevant details on TV and podcasts in his own book,” but he “stonewalled us.” 

In a statement Monday night, Navarro said the select committee’s “witch hunt is predicated on the ridiculous legal premise that Joe Biden can waive Donald Trump’s Executive Privilege. The Supreme Court will say otherwise when the time comes – as it surely must – and the DOJ knows such nonsense would gut Executive Privilege and the critical role it plays in effective presidential decision making.”

Vice chair Liz Cheney, one of the two Republicans on the committee, said Monday that the committee has “already defeated President Trump’s effort to hide certain White House records behind a shield of Executive Privilege,” and “that same conclusion should apply to Mr. Scavino and Mr. Navarro.”

“In the coming months, our committee will convene a series of hearings,” Cheney said. “The American people will hear from our fellow citizens who demonstrated fidelity to our constitution and the rule of law – who refused to bow to President Trump’s pressure.”

Speaking after the vote, committee member Jamie Raskin said to “please spare us the nonsense talk about executive privilege rejected now by every court that has looked at it. This is America, and there’s no executive privilege here for presidents, much less trade advisors, to plot coups and organize insurrections against the people’s government and the people’s constitution, and then to cover up the evidence of their crimes. The courts aren’t buying it and neither are we. “

Monday’s vote comes after the committee released a 34-page report recommending the contempt charges on Sunday night. 

“The contempt report published last night gets into the weeds on this, but broadly, Mr. Scavino and Mr. Navarro are making similar excuse,” Thompson said. “They’re claiming that the information we want from them is shielded by executive privilege.”

The committee referred the matter to the full Democratic-controlled House, which will decide to schedule a vote on whether to turn the matter over to the Justice Department.

 Navarro, along with other Trump allies who have been subpoenaed, have said they cannot overrule Trump invoking executive privilege. President Biden, meanwhile, has rejected the claims of executive privilege

“My position remains this is not my executive privilege to waive, and the committee should negotiate this matter with President Trump,” Navarro said in a statement. “If he waives 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.”

Scavino, who the committee noted had dual roles as a White House official and a key promoter of Trump’s stolen election theory on social media, was first subpoenaed in September to provide documents to the committee and sit for depositions, along with former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, former Trump chief strategist Steve Bannon and Pentagon chief of staff Kashyap Patel. Sunday night’s report said Scavino was first issued a subpoena at Mar-a-Lago, but the committee had to issue a second subpoena in October after the first one was challenged. 

The committee is seeking information from Scavino because, according to Sunday’s report, he was “reportedly present for meetings in November 2020 where then-President Trump consulted with outside advisors about ways to challenge the results of the 2020 election” and because they have “reason to believe that Mr. Scavino was with then-President Trump on January 5 and January 6 and was party to conversations regarding plans to challenge, disrupt, or impede the official congressional proceedings.” 

The committee said Trump and Scavino spoke multiple times by phone on January 6 and alleged that Scavino might have had advance warning of the violence because he monitored websites where the assault was discussed. The report detailed Scavino’s activities on The_Donald subreddit and TheDonald.win. 

In rejecting Scavino’s claims of executive privilege, Mr. Biden said it “does not extend to discussions relating to non-governmental business or among private citizens.”

The committee also rejected Navarro’s claim of executive privilege, writing in the report that “the Select Committee does not seek documents or testimony from Mr. Navarro related to his official duties as a Federal official. None of the official responsibilities of Mr. Navarro’s positions included advising President Trump about the 2020 Presidential election or the roles and responsibilities of Congress and the Vice President during the January 6, 2021, joint session of Congress.”

The committee in February issued a subpoena to Navarro, who served as a trade adviser to Trump, alleging he developed plans to change the outcome of the election. Rather than reply to the subpoena, the report said Navarro, “predicted that his interactions with the Select Committee would be judged by the ‘Supreme Court, where this case is headed.'”

According to Sunday’s report, Navarro worked with “Bannon and others to develop and implement a plan to delay Congress’ certification and ultimately change the outcome of the November 2020 Presidential election.”

The report also said that Navarro detailed in his November 2021 book “In Trump Time” this plan, called the “Green Bay Sweep.” Navarro called this “the last, best chance to snatch a stolen election from Democrats’ jaws of deceit.” In a later interview about the book, Navarro said Trump was “on board with the strategy.” 

The January 6 Select Committee has already formally recommended the U.S. House formally refer Bannon and Meadows for contempt of Congress prosecution. The House, by a majority vote that included nine Republicans, voted in favor of the referral.  

Weeks later, the Justice Department charged Bannon, who turned himself in to authorities and pleaded not guilty.  He is scheduled for trial in late July in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.  His defense attorney told CBS News the defense expects to file a motion to dismiss the charge on April 8. 

The Justice Department has not commented on the nature or results of its review of possible criminal charges against Meadows.   The U.S. House, with a majority vote that included only two Republicans, approved the referral of Meadows for possible charges in mid-December.  Three months later, no case has yet been filed.  

Rep. Adam Kinzinger, one of the two Republicans on the committee, told “Face the Nation” on Sunday morning that he is “not confident that Meadows has handed over everything at all.”

“He was cooperating with us for a little bit, and then, in an attempt to make Donald Trump happy, he stops cooperating,” Kinzinger said. “We gave him plenty of space to come back and resume that. He has not.”

Last week, CBS News chief election and campaign correspondent Robert Costa and Bob Woodward of The Washington Post obtained texts between Meadows and Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas, that the House January 6 committee also possesses. In the texts, Ginni Thomas pushed Meadows to overturn the 2020 election. 

Nikole Killion, Ellis Kim, Sara Cook and Zak Hudak contributed to this report.

Read original article here

Jan. 6 Committee poised to vote on contempt charges against former Trump aides Dan Scavino, Peter Navarro

The messages — 29 in all — reveal an extraordinary pipeline between Thomas, a conservative activist, and Trump’s top aide during a period when Trump and his allies were vowing to go to the Supreme Court in an effort to negate the election results.

The committee’s plans to ask Thomas for an interview were first reported by CNN. A source familiar with the investigation who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal committee plans confirmed the report.

In a series of text exchanges with Meadows, Thomas sought to influence Trump’s strategy to overturn the election results and lobbied for lawyer Sidney Powell to be “the lead and the face” of Trump’s legal team. Thomas’s repeated outreach to Meadows came at period when Trump and his allies sought to enlist the Supreme Court to negate the results of the election. The revelations of his wife’s texts have drawn calls from Democrats urging Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from cases related to the 2020 election.

Separately, the committee is poised to vote Monday night on holding two former Trump aides in criminal contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with the committee’s subpoenas.

The committee will meet Monday night to consider a report recommending holding former trade and manufacturing director Peter Navarro and former communications chief Daniel Scavino Jr. for criminal contempt of Congress. If the committee approves the matter, the House would vote on whether to refer Navarro and Scavino to the Justice Department for prosecution.

In a report filed Sunday night, the bipartisan committee said Scavino not only worked as a White House official, “he separately promoted activities designed to advance Mr. Trump’s success as a presidential candidate. He continued to do so after the 2020 election, promoting activities designed to reverse the outcome of a lost election.”

“Mr. Scavino reportedly attended several meetings with the President in which challenges to the election were discussed,” the committee wrote in its report. “Mr. Scavino also tracked social media on behalf of President (Donald) Trump, and he did so at a time when sites reportedly frequented by Mr. Scavino suggested the possibility of violence on January 6th.”

Last month, the committee subpoenaed Navarro, who has written about and publicly discussed the effort to develop a strategy to delay or overturn certification of the 2020 election.

In its report, the committee wrote, “Rather than appear for his deposition or respond directly to the Select Committee, Mr. Navarro issued a public statement regarding his deposition. Mr. Navarro predicted that his interactions with the Select Committee would be judged by the ‘Supreme Court, where this case is headed.’ Mr. Navarro, however, never filed any case seeking relief from his responsibilities to comply with the Select Committee’s subpoena.”

In a statement on Sunday, Navarro said that “the Select Committee’s witch hunt is predicated on the Big Lie legal premise of a partisan Appeals Court that Joe Biden can waive Donald Trump’s Executive Privilege. The Supreme Court will have none of that when the time comes — as it surely will — and the DOJ knows such nonsense would gut Executive Privilege and the critical role it plays in effective presidential decision making.”

In his statement, Navarro suggested that the committee investigate House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the Pentagon, and examine whether FBI informants instigated the pro-Trump mob that stormed the Capitol, a widely debunked claim.

Scavino did not immediately respond to efforts to reach him Monday.

Scavino and Navarro are among the latest high-profile Trump White House officials facing repercussions for refusing to comply with the Jan. 6 committee’s subpoenas. Last year, former Trump adviser Stephen K. Bannon was indicted on charges of contempt of Congress, which prompted warnings from some Republicans of “payback” that they could do the same to Democrats if they retake control of the House majority in November.

Meadows, the former chief of staff in the Trump White House, also refused to cooperate with the committee, leading to the House voting to hold him in contempt of Congress as well in December.

The Jan. 6 committee’s legal battles in its effort to subpoena records that would help committee members investigate the insurrection have not been limited to individuals. Earlier this month, the Republican National Committee filed a lawsuit against the Jan. 6 committee seeking to block the panel’s subpoena of data from Salesforce, an RNC software vendor.

In its subpoena of Salesforce, the Jan. 6 committee said it needed performance metrics and analytics related to Trump’s campaign to investigate whether Trump and the RNC used the software vendor’s platform to disseminate false statements about the 2020 election, citing evidence that many rioters were motivated by those false claims. The RNC’s lawsuit argued that the request went beyond the scope of the congressional committee’s subpoena power.

Read original article here

House January 6 committee report recommends Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino be held in contempt of Congress

The House select committee investigating the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol will recommend former Trump aides Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino be held in contempt of Congress for failing to cooperate with subpoenas. 

The committee released the 34-page report recommending the contempt charges on Sunday night, ahead of their planned meeting Monday, where they will vote on sending it to the full House.

The committee, which is comprised of six Democrats and two Republicans who both support investigating former President Donald Trump’s role in the attack, will likely approve holding Navarro and Scavino in contempt.

If cleared by the committee, the recommendation then moves to the full, Democratic-controlled House, which would then vote on whether to turn the matter over to the Justice Department.

In a statement last week, Navarro called the contempt vote “an unprecedented partisan assault on executive privilege.” Navarro, along with other Trump allies who have been subpoenaed, have said they cannot overrule Trump invoking executive privilege. President Biden, meanwhile, has rejected the claims of executive privilege

Dan Scavino and Peter Navarro

AP/Andrew Harnik, AP/Alex Brandon


Scavino, who the committee noted had dual roles as a White House official and a key promoter of Trump’s stolen election theory on social media, was first subpoenaed in September to provide documents to the committee and sit for depositions, along with former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, former Trump chief strategist Steve Bannon and Pentagon chief of staff Kashyap Patel. Sunday night’s report said Scavino was first issued a subpoena at Mar-a-Lago, but the committee had to issue a second subpoena in October after the first one was challenged. 

The committee is seeking information from Scavino because, according to Sunday’s report, he was “reportedly present for meetings in November 2020 where then-President Trump consulted with outside advisors about ways to challenge the results of the 2020 election” and because they have “reason to believe that Mr. Scavino was with then-President Trump on January 5 and January 6 and was party to conversations regarding plans to challenge, disrupt, or impede the official congressional proceedings.” 

The committee said Trump and Scavino spoke multiple times by phone on January 6 and alleged that Scavino might have had advance warning of the violence because he monitored websites where the assault was discussed. The report detailed Scavino’s activities on The_Donald subreddit and TheDonald.win. 

In rejecting Scavino’s claims of executive privilege, Mr. Biden said it “does not extend to discussions relating to non-governmental business or among private citizens.”

The committee also rejected Navarro’s claim of executive privilege, writing in the report that “the Select Committee does not seek documents or testimony from Mr. Navarro related to his official duties as a Federal official. None of the official responsibilities of Mr. Navarro’s positions included advising President Trump about the 2020 Presidential election or the roles and responsibilities of Congress and the Vice President during the January 6, 2021, joint session of Congress.”

The committee in February issued a subpoena to Navarro, who served as a trade adviser to Trump, alleging he developed plans to change the outcome of the election. Rather than reply to the subpoena, the report said Navarro, “predicted that his interactions with the Select Committee would be judged by the ‘Supreme Court, where this case is headed.'”

According to Sunday’s report, Navarro worked with “Bannon and others to develop and implement a plan to delay Congress’ certification and ultimately change the outcome of the November 2020 Presidential election.”

The report also said that Navarro detailed in his November 2021 book “In Trump Time” this plan, called the “Green Bay Sweep.” Navarro called this “the last, best chance to snatch a stolen election from Democrats’ jaws of deceit.” In a later interview about the book, Navarro said Trump was “on board with the strategy.” 

The January 6 Select Committee has already formally recommended the U.S. House formally refer Bannon and Meadows for contempt of Congress prosecution. The House, by a majority vote that included nine Republicans, voted in favor of the referral.  

Weeks later, the Justice Department charged Bannon, who turned himself in to authorities and pleaded not guilty.  He is scheduled for trial in late July in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.  His defense attorney told CBS News the defense expects to file a motion to dismiss the charge on April 8. 

The Justice Department has not commented on the nature or results of its review of possible criminal charges against Meadows.   The U.S. House, with a majority vote that included only two Republicans, approved the referral of Meadows for possible charges in mid-December.  Three months later, no case has yet been filed.  

Rep. Adam Kinzinger, one of the two Republicans on the committee, told “Face the Nation” on Sunday morning that he is “not confident that Meadows has handed over everything at all.”

“He was cooperating with us for a little bit, and then, in an attempt to make Donald Trump happy, he stops cooperating,” Kinzinger said. “We gave him plenty of space to come back and resume that. He has not.”

Last week, CBS News chief election and campaign correspondent Robert Costa and Bob Woodward of The Washington Post obtained texts between Meadows and Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas, that the House January 6 committee also possesses. In the texts, Ginni Thomas pushed Meadows to overturn the 2020 election. 

Ellis Kim and Zak Hudak contributed to this report.

Read original article here

January 6 Committee releases contempt report for Scavino and Navarro

The filing comes ahead of the committee’s planned business meeting on Monday to vote on a criminal referral of both men for failing to comply with their subpoenas.

Scavino used a series of delay tactics to prevent any type of substantive cooperation with its investigation, according to the committee, which argues he never substantively engaged and therefore was in violation of his subpoena.

“Mr. Scavino reportedly attended several meetings with the President in which challenges to the election were discussed,” the committee writes in its report. “Mr. Scavino also tracked social media on behalf of President (Donald) Trump, and he did so at a time when sites reportedly frequented by Mr. Scavino suggested the possibility of violence on January 6th.”

The committee cites news stories that discuss Scavino tracking the website “TheDonald.win,” which their report describes as a “an online forum frequented by individuals who openly advocated and planned violence in the weeks leading up to January 6th.”

The committee also make note of the fact that Scavino once held a Q-and-A on a subreddit channel that was the precursor to the TheDonald.win.

Scavino is still contesting his need to testify, according to a letter from his attorney Stanley Brand to the White House on March 25, which Brand provided to CNN on Sunday.

The letter kicks legal questions back to the Biden administration, which had determined it would not protect any of Scavino’s testimony.

Scavino points out the law isn’t settled yet on whether the current president can waive privilege on all testimony, including Scavino’s conversations with Trump, especially if Trump may make a claim to secrecy of his own. The issue is different than the Biden White House choosing not to keep secret any written records held by the National Archives, which have been released to the House following a court fight that went to the Supreme Court, the letter notes.

“We are unaware of any legal authority that bestows upon the incumbent President the final decision as to whether executive privilege may be asserted as to the Congressional testimony of the close aides of a former president,” Brand wrote in the letter acknowledging the coming contempt proceeding.

Scavino is one of Trump’s closest and most loyal allies, having served in the administration from beginning to end and as one of his earliest campaign staffers.

He was intimately involved with Trump’s social media channels, often posting message to Trump’s followers on the then-President’s behalf. The committee believes Scavino is privy to meetings and details of the events leading up to and on January 6, including strategy sessions that were directly tied to Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.

The committee accuses Navarro, a former White House trade adviser, of making no effort to comply with its subpoena request, claiming that Navarro made it clear that he was unable to cooperate because Trump had asserted executive privilege in the matter.

The committee responded by informing him that there were several topic areas it wanted to discuss with him that were not covered under privilege, but Navarro rejected the offer. Navarro also asked the committee if the proceedings would be held in public. He ultimately closed off communication with the committee and referred all questions regarding his cooperation to Trump and his attorneys.

The committee made note of Navarro citing privilege despite the fact that many of the topics it wanted to discuss with him he had already wrote about in great detail in his book.

”There are topics that the Select Committee believes it can discuss with [him] without raising any executive privilege concerns at all, including, but not limited to, questions related to [his] public three-part report about purported fraud in the November 2020 election and the plan [he] described in [his] book,” the committee wrote in an email to Navarro on March 1.

“In the days leading up to January 6, 2021, according to evidence obtained by the Select Committee, Mr. Navarro also encouraged Mark Meadows (and possibly others) to call Roger Stone to discuss January 6th,” the committee wrote.

Navarro has been very public about his attempts to work with the Trump campaign to subvert the 2020 election. In his book, he details a plan called the “Green Bay Sweep,” which involved convincing state leaders in several swing states to call into question the election results in an attempt to delay and eventually prevent the certification.

CNN has reached out to Navarro for comment.

The committee is expected to advance the contempt report Monday evening during a public business meeting. The referral would then go to the full House for a vote, where it would then be sent to the Department of Justice, which will decide if there is enough evidence to prosecute.

The committee has advanced three previous criminal referrals. The first, for former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, was picked up by DOJ and has led to an indictment of Bannon. He faces a criminal trial this summer.

DOJ is still reviewing the contempt referral of former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, which the full House voted on in December.

A third contempt referral, for former DOJ staffer Jeffrey Clark, was voted out of committee but did not make it to the House floor after Clark agreed to meet with the committee. Clark sat for an interview but pleaded the 5th Amendment more than 100 times.

This story has been updated with additional information.

Katelyn Polantz contributed to this report.

Read original article here

Court to hear arguments in dispute between Steve Bannon and DOJ ahead of his contempt of Congress trial

Depending on what DOJ ultimately produced under the new order — issued Wednesday by US District Judge Carl Nichols — it could offer insight into how the Justice Department views cases like Bannon’s and how it sees his case as different from other scenarios where current or former government officials have not complied with congressional subpoenas.

Specifically, Nichols ordered that the department produce to Bannon statements or writings reflecting official Justice Department policy — public or not public — if such writings relate to prosecuting or not prosecuting a government official or former government official who raised executive privilege claims as a defense of immunity, or similar issues.

Nichols rejected Wednesday several other requests Bannon made for more discovery, and the judge took only intermediary steps in how he was addressing an issue the Bannon team has raised about the Justice Department’s efforts to obtain the phone and email records of one of Bannon’s attorneys.

Nichols’ partial grant for Bannon’s request for internal DOJ records came after he asked several questions at the hearing about an opinion that had been issued by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel — which gives legal advice to the executive branch — that said close advisers to the president are immune from congressional subpoenas for testimony where the president has asserted executive privilege.

Nichols said that OLC opinions, or a position of an entire division or litigative group, are the kind of writings covered by the production order he issued Wednesday.

In explaining why Bannon did not believe he was obligated to comply with the subpoena, Bannon’s legal team has pointed to Trump’s indications that he would seek to shield certain evidence the House committee was seeking on executive privilege claims. Members of the January 6 panel noted that Bannon was not a White House adviser during the period they were investigating.

Bannon’s case, brought after he failed to comply with a subpoena from the House select committee, offers an important test of the powers of government as Congress tries to force consequences for witnesses who do not comply with subpoenas.

The case could also shed light on how broad Trump’s powers could be in protecting the loyalists who defended his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

In the run-up to Bannon’s scheduled trial in July, both sides have battled over what they can put before a jury.

Nichols, who was appointed to the bench by Trump, has notable experience as former DOJ attorney who worked on an executive privilege case involving a congressional subpoena of the White House counsel to then-President George W. Bush.

The judge on Wednesday suggested to DOJ attorney Amanda Vaughn that it would be “inconsistent” for the department to take the position in an OLC opinion that a presidential adviser was immune from a congressional subpoena, but then argue the OLC opinion was irrelevant to a criminal contempt case then brought against the adviser. He offered as a hypothetical a scenario where the DOJ would prosecute Ron Klain, the White House chief of staff to President Joe Biden, for not complying with a congressional subpoena that, according to the OLC opinion, he was immune to. The judge later acknowledged the published OLC opinion in question did not exactly cover Bannon’s situation.

Bannon team asks judge to send a ‘message’ about DOJ tactics to obtain attorney records

The former Trump adviser was charged in November with contempt of Congress for his refusal to appear for a deposition and to produce documents that had been sought by the committee in its investigation into the effort to disrupt Congress’ certification of Biden’s win.

Bannon is pleading not guilty and has vowed to make his case “the misdemeanor from hell” for the Biden administration. He and his lawyers have questioned the motive for his prosecution, pressed prosecutors for more intel on their internal deliberations about charging him and argued that more evidence in his case should be publicly available.

Several of the Bannon team’s attempts to obtain more internal information about the House and Justice Department’s handling of his case were rejected by Nichols on Wednesday.

But the judge kept alive some of Bannon’s efforts to learn more about how the government obtained communications involving Robert Costello, a Bannon attorney who represented him in his interactions with the House committee. The Bannon team has also taken issue with how the DOJ used a presentation Costello gave the Justice Department, before the indictment was issued, urging the department not to bring the case.

Nichols said Wednesday that he will privately review some of the documents that the Justice Department used to obtain certain email and phone records of Costello’s. The Justice Department agreed to let Bannon see certain documents it used to obtain information about an email account that turned out to be associated with the wrong Robert Costello.

Bannon’s attorneys were insistent at Wednesday’s hearing that DOJ acted inappropriately in its pursuit of the records and committed a “terrible abuse” of the grand jury process in how it went about obtaining Costello’s records. Costello recalled Bannon being “irritated” when he learned that the DOJ was treating the presentation Costello gave to the US Attorney’s office as if it was a Costello interview with the FBI.

“The behavior of the FBI and, quite frankly, the DOJ has been outrageous, quite frankly to my attorney … and the attorney-client privilege and everything they did and that’s going to be worked out in court,” Bannon, who was present at Wednesday’s hearing, told reporters outside the courthouse after it concluded.

But Bannon’s lawyers were vague in describing what they hoped to achieve if the government was required to hand over the documents Bannon was seeking, telling the judge that he needed to send a “message” about how DOJ behaved.

Bannon attorney David Schoen argued that if the judge did not address the DOJ’s conduct, it would become accepted practice.

“I think that message has to be sent,” Schoen said.

Vaughn, the DOJ’s attorney, defended the department’s efforts to obtain the Costello-related records. She said that, while it was not likely that evidence would be part of the department’s case in chief against Bannon, prosecutors might introduce the evidence if Bannon attorneys sought to dispute at the trial that Bannon was aware he had been subpoenaed.

Fight over whether Bannon attorney’s advice can be part of his defense

Also before Nichols on Wednesday was the fight Justice Department has mounted to stop Bannon from arguing as part of his defense at trial that he was following the advice of his attorney in not complying with the subpoena.

When the January 6 committee was demanding Bannon’s participation in the probe, Costello pointed to claims of executive privilege Trump had said he intended to assert in the investigation. Bannon’s team has also pointed to Costello’s request that Bannon and the House resolve their legal disagreements about his obligations to cooperate with a civil lawsuit.

On Wednesday, Nichols came close to giving the Justice Department a significant win in that dispute, but then stopped short of granting the department’s request that Bannon be barred from presenting the my-lawyer-told-me-to-do-it defense at trial.

The judge indicated that based on what had been filed in the court papers before the hearing, he was inclined to rule in favor of the Justice Department’s request. He said the two main arguments Bannon had made in the paper briefings were not “persuasive.”

But Schoen introduced at Wednesday’s oral arguments a third, new argument for why Bannon should be able to use that defense, claiming that the appellate court opinion that instructed the judge to take DOJ’s side in the dispute was in fact not applicable in Bannon’s case.

Nichols said he was not happy that the Bannon team raised that argument for the first time at the hearing, but he felt unable to decide its merits on the fly. The judge asked both sides to submit a new round of court filings on the arguments in the coming weeks.

This story and headline have been updated with additional developments Wednesday.

Read original article here

Mark Meadows texts latest: House to debate contempt of Congress resolution against Trump aide

Liz Cheney opens the door for a criminal referral against Trump for his inaction on Jan 6

The House select committee investigating the 6 January Capitol riots has recommended prosecuting ex-president Donald Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows.

His refusal to testify about the 6 January insurrection is obstructing the investigation, the select committee said in its contempt report.

The committee voted to advance referring Mr Meadows to the US Department of Justice on criminal contempt of Congress charges, and the full House of Representatives will vote on the measure on 14 December.

On Monday, members of the committee a revealed texts between Mr Meadows and Donald Trump Jr and Fox News personalities, among others, revealing that they urged him to get Mr Trump to stop the riots in real-time. US Rep Liz Cheney revealed new texts on Tuesday, and US Senator Lindsey Graham revealed that he spoke with Ivanka Trump to deliver a message to her father urging him to “tell his people to leave.”

Mr Meadows has accused congressional Democrats of trying to “weaponise” the information he previously provided the committee as he faces explosive accusations of treasonous behaviour.

1639533540

House begins debate over Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, with Meadows contempt vote to follow

The House is now debating bicameral legislation on the Uyghur Forced LaborPrevention Act, which would ban the importation of goods made with forced labor in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region in China.

A House version of the bill passed last week.

In a statement on Tuesday night, press secretary Jen Psaki said “the president welcomes the agreement by Congress on the bipartisan Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act.”

“We agree with Congress that action can and must be taken to hold the People’s Republic of China accountable for genocide and human rights abuses and to address forced labor in Xinjiang,” she said. “The Administration will work closely with Congress to implement this bill to ensure global supply chains are free of forced labor, while simultaneously working to on-shore and third-shore key supply chains, including semiconductors and clean energy.”

A vote on the contempt resolution for former Trump aide Mark Meadows is expected after debate ends.

Alex Woodward15 December 2021 01:59

1639532781

Trump fails in latest effort to shield his tax returns from Congress

A federal judge has cleared the way for Congress to acquire Donald Trump’s tax returns from during much of his time in the White House.

The ruling rejected a lawsuit from the former president seeking to block the Treasury Department from handing over the records, which Mr Trump had argued would amount to political persecution.

Congress is owed “great deference” when making oversight requests, and Mr Trump was “wrong on the law,” wrote Washington DC district judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee, in his decision on Tuesday.

Alex Woodward15 December 2021 01:46

1639529800

GOP lawmaker accuses Omar of belonging to ‘terrorist organisations’ after objecting to legislation to address Islamophobia

Before the House votes on the contempt of Congress resolution, lawmakers debated legislation to monitor and combat Islamophobia, authored by US Reps Ilhan Omar and Jan Schakowsky as the Combating International Islamophobia Act.

The measure calls for the US Department of State to create an office headed by a special envoy to be appointed by the president. The office would then record Islamophobic incidents, including attacks and threats against Muslims and places of worship, schools and other centres.

Speaking in opposition to the measure, US Rep Scott Perry accused Rep Omar – among one of two Muslim women in Congress – of being affiliated with “terrorist organisations”. House Democrats objected to the comments and have asked his remarks to be removed from the proceedings.

Rep Omar has been at the centre of anti-Muslim right-wing attacks, most recently from far-right US Rep Lauren Boebert, who suggested in speeches to her constituents that she was mistaken for a terrorist at the US Capitol.

Alex Woodward15 December 2021 00:56

1639528217

Trump lawyer sues to block phone records from committee

Trump lawyer John Eastman has sued Verizon and the House committee investigation the Capitol riot to block the release of phone records sought by the committee.

Eastman, who represented the president in attempts to overturn election results and drafted memos arguing Mike Pence’s authority to reject them, previously said he plans to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination with the committee. He was summoned in a subpoena for a deposition and to turn over documents.

Alex Woodward15 December 2021 00:30

1639527312

Exclusive: Meadows texts rocked January 6 probe but chairman warns Trump loyalists could run out clock

The chairman of the House select committee investigating the Capitol riot has warned that Trump loyalists could run out the clock ahead of the chamber’s vote to hold former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows in contempt of Congress.

Committee chair Bennie Thompson told The Independent off the floor of the House of Representatives on Tuesday that “we didn’t get all the information we wanted, we tried to negotiate with him, it didn’t work out.”

“And so for our purposes, what we can do with the contempt vote, is just pass it on to the Department of Justice,” he said.

But with this being the second contempt vote the House has had, it is entirely possible that other Trump administration officials could follow Meadows and Steve Bannon, who was indicted for contempt by the Justice Department after the committee’s resolution.

“We’ll see what happens when that time comes, but I think anytime you bring senior people who worked in the administration in one capacity or another – one who used to, one who did before the change of the administration – I don’t know how high you can get beyond that,” Thompson told The Independent.

Alex Woodward15 December 2021 00:15

1639525841

Fox hosts Hannity and Ingraham to address their texts to Meadows

Fox News host Brett Baier reports that Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham will be addressing their texts to Mark Meadows “in depth” on the network tonight.

They have since downplayed the president’s role in the attack and turned their ire to Democrats for the investigation.

Alex Woodward14 December 2021 23:50

1639523929

Debate has ended

The House of Representatives has closed debate ahead of a vote on whether to refer criminal contempt of Congress charges to the US Department of Justice for former Trump chief of staff and former congressman Mark Meadows.

He is the second-ever congressman to face contempt charges from his own colleagues, and the second former Trump aide to face them in connection with the select committee’s probe into the events surrounding the Capitol insurrection, after Steve Bannon refused to appear before the committee.

The committee voted to support the resolution on Monday night. Here’s what happened:

Alex Woodward14 December 2021 23:18

1639523463

Liz Cheney: ‘How we handle Jan 6 is the moral test of our generation’

In closing remarks before a vote, Republican US Rep Liz Cheney criticised her colleagues who recognised the assault on democracy for what it was “yet now they are defending the indefensible,” she said.

“President Trump is hiding behind executive privilege,” she said. “How we handle Jan 6 is the moral test of our generation.”

Moments earlier, GOP congressman said the select committee investigating the attack is “not interested in doing anything to prevent something like Jan 6 from happening again.”

“It’s all about burying their political opponents,” he said.

Alex Woodward14 December 2021 23:11

1639521979

When then-congressman Mark Meadows complained about ignored subpoenas

In 2018, Mark Meadows complained about deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein ignoring subpoenas for information about special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian election interference.

In an interview with Fox News, Mr Meadows said: “For nine months we’ve asked for documents, and that’s all we want – the documents. And what we’ve found is, not only have subpoenas been ignored but information has been hidden, the efforts have been stonewalled.”

Alex Woodward14 December 2021 22:46

1639520719

Jim Banks complains about committee secrecy, lack of Republican membership

Rep Jim Banks characterised the January 6 select committee as shrouded in secrecy during remarks on Tuesday in the debate over Mr Meadows’s contempt resolution.

His remarks came without the obvious caveat that Republicans were offered the chance to participate before House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy withdrew all of his GOP nominees to the committee in protest.

“For the first time in history, Democrats have complete control over a Select Committee. I hope the American people are paying close attention. I hope they see what happens when Democrats get total power. They abuse it. They intimidate, they threaten, and they harass. They try to jail their political opponents,” Mr Banks argued.

“They don’t care about fairness or due process. The point isn’t cooperation, nor fact-finding. They care about punishment. The point is prosecution,” he continued.

A significant number of Republicans have attempted to diminish accounts of the severity of the attack on the Capitol, even despite the deaths among members of Capitol Police resulting from it.

John Bowden14 December 2021 22:25

Read original article here

The Ultimate News Site