Tag Archives: Jan

US

Trump defends ‘great woman’ Ginni Thomas after Jan. 6 testimony

Leave a comment



CNN
 — 

Former President Donald Trump praised the “courage and strength” of Ginni Thomas at a rally Saturday, days after the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas met with congressional investigators about her efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

In a four-and-a-half hour meeting with investigators on Thursday, Thomas discussed her marriage to the conservative justice, claiming in an opening statement obtained by CNN that she “did not speak with him at all about the details of my volunteer campaign activities.”

Thomas, who attended Trump’s “Stop the Steal” rally on January 6, 2021 landed on the radar of the House select committee investigating the attack on the US Capitol after text message exchanges she had with then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows about election fraud claims surfaced during the ongoing congressional probe.

Thomas had “significant concerns about fraud and irregularities in the 2020 election. And, as she told the Committee, her minimal and mainstream activity focused on ensuring that reports of fraud and irregularities were investigated,” her attorney Mark Paoletta said after her closed-door testimony.

During a campaign appearance in Michigan, Trump claimed that Thomas told the House panel “she still believes the 2020 election was stolen,” commending her because “she didn’t wilt under pressure.”

“Do you know Ginni Thomas?” the former President polled the crowd. “She didn’t say, ‘Oh, well I’d like not to get involved. Of course, it was a wonderful election.’ It was a rigged and stolen election. She didn’t wait and sit around and say, ‘Well let me give you maybe a different answer than [what] I’ve been saying for the last two years.’”

“No, no,” Trump continued, “She didn’t wilt under pressure like so many others that are weak people and stupid people… She said what she thought, she said what she believed in.”

Thomas, who has previously criticized the House probe into January 6, has long been a prominent fixture in conservative activism – even becoming a persistent annoyance to some Trump White House officials as she tried to install friends and allies into senior administration roles throughout his presidency. She and her husband attended a private lunch with Trump and his wife Melania at the White House shortly after the 2018 midterms, though CNN has previously reported that her direct interactions with the former President were fairly limited beyond that meeting.

But on Saturday, Trump praised Thomas as “a great woman,” comparing her to countless former aides and allies who have admitted in their own depositions with the House panel that they themselves didn’t believe Trump’s claims about voter fraud following the 2020 election.

Thomas said she “never spoke” with her husband about “any of the legal challenges to the 2020 election,” addressing ethical questions that were raised in the wake a Supreme Court ruling last year on a January 6-related case. Thomas and Meadows texted repeatedly about overturning the election results.

Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson, who chairs the committee, said that Thomas did confirm during her testimony that she still believes the election was stolen, adding that “at this point we are glad she came in.”

Read original article here

US

Kyle Young sentenced for Jan. 6 attack on D.C. officer Michael Fanone

Leave a comment

A member of the mob that launched a series of violent attacks on police — including D.C. officer Michael Fanone — in a tunnel under the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, apologized Tuesday as a judge sentenced him to seven years and two months in prison.

Kyle Young, 38, is the first rioter to be sentenced for the group attack on Fanone, who was dragged into the mob, beaten and electrocuted until he suffered a heart attack and lost consciousness.

“You were a one-man wrecking ball that day,” Judge Amy Berman Jackson said. “You were the violence.”

Fanone resigned from the D.C. police late last year, saying fellow officers turned on him for speaking so publicly about the Capitol attack and former president Donald Trump’s role in it. In court Tuesday, Fanone directly confronted his attacker, telling Young, “I hope you suffer.”

“The assault on me by Mr. Young cost me my career,” Fanone said. “It cost me my faith in law enforcement and many of the institutions I dedicated two decades of my life to serving.”

Young pleaded guilty in May to being in the group that attacked Fanone. Documents filed with his plea agreement offer this account:

Young and his 16-year-old son joined the tunnel battle just before 3 p.m., and Young handed a stun gun to another rioter and showed him how to use it. When Fanone was pulled from the police line, Young and his son pushed through the crowd toward him.

Just after that, authorities said, another rioter repeatedly shocked Fanone with the stun gun, and Young helped restrain the officer as another rioter stole his badge and radio.

Young lost his grip on Fanone as the mob moved. He then pushed and hit a nearby Capitol Police officer, who had just been struck with bear spray, according to documents filed with his plea.

Young also pointed a strobe light at the officers, jabbed at them with a stick and threw an audio speaker toward the police line, hitting another rioter in the back of the head, prosecutors said.

In a letter to the court, Young said he cried on the phone with his wife as he left D.C.

“I was a nervous wreck and highly ashamed of myself,” he wrote. “I do not condone this and do not promote this like others have done. Violence isn’t the answer.”

In court, he apologized to Fanone, saying, “I hope someday you forgive me. … I am so, so sorry. If I could take it back, I would.”

Young has a long criminal history. While in prison for producing meth, he faced repeated sanctions for violence. His attorney said that after a difficult childhood, Young had straightened out his life, gotten married, raised four children and started working in HVAC installation. Until Jan. 6, he hadn’t been arrested in a dozen years, his attorney said.

His “conduct on January 6 is isolated to a unique set of circumstances that unfolded that are not likely to be replicated,” wrote his attorney, Samuel Moore.

Jackson said she believed Young had become a good husband and father. But she noted the continued possibility of political violence, with Trump and his allies responding to possible prosecution by “cagily predicting or even outright calling for violence in the streets.”

The sentence she gave Young is close to the eight-year statutory maximum for assaulting a police officer.

Two of the other men accused of involvement in the attack on Fanone have pleaded not guilty. One has admitted dragging Fanone down the Capitol steps; he is set to be sentenced in October.

Read original article here

US

Trump White House Called Capitol Rioter on Jan. 6, Book Says – The New York Times

Leave a comment

  1. Trump White House Called Capitol Rioter on Jan. 6, Book Says The New York Times
  2. The mysterious nine-second call from the White House to a January 6 rioter: CNN reveals the rioter’s identity for the first time CNN
  3. Former January 6 committee technical adviser Denver Riggleman: The 60 Minutes Interview 60 Minutes
  4. Analysis | There’s always demand for a Trump smoking gun. So there’s always supply. The Washington Post
  5. Meadows texts reveal direct White House communications with pro-Trump operative behind plans to seize voting machines CNN
  6. View Full Coverage on Google News

Read original article here

US

Trump lawyers try to limit Pence aides’ testimony to Jan. 6 grand jury

Leave a comment

Lawyers for former president Donald Trump have entered a high-stakes legal battle seeking to limit the scope of former top White House aides’ testimony to a federal grand jury that is investigating efforts to overturn the 2020 elections, according to people familiar with the matter.

The action sets up a potentially precedent-setting struggle that could affect the Justice Department’s investigation of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack, and address the scope of a former president’s assertion of executive or attorney-client privilege to preserve the confidentiality of advisers’ communications.

The specific contours of the fight, reported first by CNN, are unclear. One person familiar with the matter said that the dispute concerned the testimony of two top aides to former vice president Mike Pence — his former chief of staff, Marc Short, and former counsel, Greg Jacob. The men appeared before the grand jury in July and answered some, but not all, questions, based on Trump’s assertion of privilege, people familiar with the matter said.

Justice Dept. investigating Trump’s actions in Jan. 6 criminal probe

Grand jury matters are typically secret. However, the case spilled into light after Trump attorneys M. Evan Corcoran, John P. Rowley III and Timothy C. Parlatore were seen at federal court in Washington on Thursday with no publicly scheduled matters, along with a lead Jan. 6 federal prosecutor, Thomas Windom. A person with knowledge of the matter said Trump’s representatives were present for a Jan. 6-related proceeding.

The people spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing criminal investigation.

Trump’s attorneys and a spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office in D.C. said they could not comment on grand jury matters. Efforts to reach representatives for Short or Jacobs were not immediately successful Friday night.

A dispute over executive privilege and compelling a witness’s testimony before a grand jury would typically be heard by Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell in Washington. While Howell has in the past moved quickly, any appeal to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia would probably extend through the end of the year, and the arguments would be unlikely to be made public before then. A spokeswoman for Howell did not respond to a request for comment.

In most fights over executive privilege — which are often between Congress and the executive branch — both sides usually compromise and settle their differences rather than risk a precedent-setting defeat for either branch of government.

But the stakes of the criminal investigation into Trump’s actions during the presidential transition after he lost reelection in November 2020 may make negotiation more difficult.

The Justice Department is questioning witnesses about conversations with Trump, his lawyers and others in his inner circle who sought to substitute Trump allies for certified electors from some states Joe Biden won, people familiar with the matter have said. Prosecutors have asked hours of detailed questions about meetings Trump led in December 2020 and January 2021 and his pressure on Pence to overturn the election. Those lines of inquiry are separate from the investigation into classified documents recovered from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home — though that case, too, has produced legal fighting over issues of executive and attorney client privilege.

Both Short and Jacob have unique windows into those events. Both were with Pence on Jan. 6 at the Capitol. They testified with Pence’s approval before a House select committee conducting a parallel investigation, although the former vice president declined to do so himself. Jacob also told the committee that two days before the riot, private Trump attorney John Eastman conceded that the plot to have Pence help overturn the election was illegal.

In other legal proceedings, attorneys for Trump have defended executive privilege claims, warning that rulings to the contrary could damage the presidency by weakening the confidentiality afforded to the conversations of top presidential advisers. They have argued that allowing a sitting president to waive executive privilege of a predecessor unilaterally also could politicize and defeat the purpose of the privilege.

However, Trump’s legal options to withhold testimony may have been limited by a string of court decisions since Jan. 6.

Courts have long held that White House claims of executive or attorney-client privilege are easier to overcome when the information is sought in a criminal proceeding rather than by Congress. The standard for prosecutors is whether they can show a witness is likely to possess information important to the criminal probe not readily available otherwise.

And even though lawmakers must meet a higher bar, courts since January have sided with Congress and rejected an attempt by Trump to withhold thousands of pages of White House communications and records from the House Jan. 6 committee, and a similar effort by Eastman to do so claiming attorney-client confidentiality.

Read original article here

US

One of first Jan. 6 rioters to breach Capitol gets 4-year sentence

Leave a comment

A New Jersey man who was one of the first rioters to break into the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, then testified under oath that he didn’t know Congress met there, was sentenced Thursday to four years in prison.

Prosecutors had sought more than six years for Timothy Hale-Cusanelli, but a federal judge ruled that his actions did not obstruct “the administration of justice,” though they did obstruct the official proceedings of Congress that day. A jury convicted him of that offense in May.

Also Thursday, the only Jan. 6 defendant to testify about his conduct in front of the House select committee investigating the riot was sentenced to two years of probation for disorderly conduct. Stephen Ayres, a 39-year-old Ohio carpenter, said he thinks about Jan. 6 “every single day” and prays for the injured officers and everyone who lost a loved one.

Hale-Cusanelli, 32, worked as a security guard at Naval Weapons Station Earle and lived on the base in Colts Neck, N.J. In addition to being a supporter of President Donald Trump, the man was a white supremacist who supported Nazi ideology and admired Adolf Hitler, even wearing a “Hitler mustache” to work, the government said in court filings. But U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden ruled that Hale-Cusanelli’s racist preferences were too prejudicial to present to a jury, though he did allow the defendant’s comments that he wanted a civil war to come into evidence.

N.J. man found guilty of felony obstruction of Congress in Jan. 6 riot

Surveillance video showed Hale-Cusanelli climbing through a window on the Lower West Terrace at 2:13 p.m., moments after it was first smashed, wearing a gray suit and a red MAGA hat. Before entering, prosecutors said, he moved a bicycle rack barrier aside to enable crowds to get closer to the building, and then urged the mob forward by waving his arms and yelling, “Advance! Advance!”

Once inside, Hale-Cusanelli was part of a group that overwhelmed U.S. Capitol and D.C. police in the crypt. Photos and videos showed that he then attempted to pull a rioter away from a police officer who was arresting that person. Hale-Cusanelli claimed that he didn’t know the officer was an officer, and that he thought the electoral vote certification “was going to be in a building called ‘Congress.’ As stupid as it sounds, I did not realize that Congress sat in the Capitol building.”

On Thursday, McFadden called that “a risible lie,” and after the jury convicted Hale-Cusanelli in May, the judge suggested to prosecutors that he would consider a request for a longer sentence for “obstruction of justice.” And McFadden did, in fact, increase Hale-Cusanelli’s sentencing range for those sworn statements.

But prosecutors sought two even longer sentencing enhancements for obstructing and interfering with the “administration of justice” at the Capitol. Defense attorney Nicholas D. Smith said that while Congress’s act of certifying the electoral college vote might qualify as an “official proceeding,” and all but one D.C. federal judge has agreed, the certification did not qualify as administration of justice. Prosecutors argued in their sentencing brief that the “’administration of justice’ is synonymous with ‘official proceeding.’ ”

McFadden agreed with the defense. He said the electoral college count was “appreciably different” from the investigations and other justice-related actions of Congress. “I don’t think the administration of justice, as used in the sentencing enhancement, is a fair way to describe what is happening here.”

He then reduced the sentencing guidelines range of 70 to 87 months down to 21 to 27 months. The guidelines are advisory, but judges typically issue sentences within the range. The government had requested a sentence of 78 months for Hale-Cusanelli.

But McFadden then blasted Hale-Cusanelli for his racist, sexist and antisemitic remarks, some of which were captured on a recording made by his roommate when Hale-Cusanelli returned to New Jersey after the riot. The judge repeated a profane taunt that Hale-Cusanelli shouted at a female Capitol Police officer during the riot, and criticized his “decision to lie on the witness stand.”

“Neither the jury nor I believed your claim that you didn’t know Congress resides in the Capitol building … you participated in a national embarrassment,” the judge said.

Though he had lowered the sentencing range to 21 to 27 months, McFadden sentenced Hale-Cusanelli to 48 months, followed by three years of supervised release.

The judge credited Hale-Cusanelli for showing remorse.

“My behavior that day was unacceptable and I disgraced my uniform and I disgraced the country,” Hale-Cusanelli said. He claimed he was “operating under the advice of counsel” when he testified about his confusion on where Congress sits. “I was challenging the law as it applied in my case.”

Elsewhere in the courthouse, Ayres told U.S. District Judge John D. Bates that he’s embarrassed and concerned by the political rhetoric that once captivated him. “I wish everybody in this country could stop and see where it’s going,” he said, in comments similar to those he made during a nationally televised meeting of the House Jan. 6 committee, where he said he hoped like-minded people would “take the blinders off.”

Prosecutors asked for 60 days in jail, citing violent social media comments Ayres made before Jan. 6 and his “lukewarm” response on Capitol Hill when asked if he still thought the 2020 presidential election was stolen. But Bates said he believed Ayres’s remorse was “sincere” and placed him on probation.

Read original article here

US

The Justice Dept.’s Jan. 6 investigation is looking at … everything

Leave a comment

Dozens of subpoenas issued last week show that the Justice Department is seeking vast amounts of information, and communications with more than 100 people, as part of its sprawling inquiry into the origins, fundraising and motives of the effort to block Joe Biden from being certified as president in early 2021.

The subpoenas, three of which were reviewed by The Washington Post, are far-reaching, covering 18 separate categories of information, including any communications the recipients had with scores of people in six states where supporters of then-President Donald Trump sought to promote “alternate” electors to replace electors in those states won by Biden.

One request is for any communications “to, from, or including” specific people tied to such efforts in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Most of the names listed were proposed fake electors in those states, while a small number were Trump campaign officials who organized the slates.

Taken together, the subpoenas show an investigation that began immediately after the storming of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and has cast an ever-widening net, even as it gathers information about those in the former president’s inner circle.

“It looks like a multipronged fraud and obstruction investigation,” said Jim Walden, a former federal prosecutor. “It strikes me that they’re going after a very, very large group of people, and my guess is they are going to make all of the charging decisions toward the end.”

After being told the various categories of information sought in the indictment, Walden noted the focus on wide categories of communications among the individuals. He said he suspected it was part of a prosecutorial strategy to try to blunt any claims that Trump activists were just following the advice of lawyers in seeking to block the certification of Biden’s victory.

“It’s hard to say you were just relying on all these lawyers if there are text chains showing conspirator conversations, or consciousness of guilt,” Walden said.

Prosecutors seek Trump PAC fundraising info

A subpoena is not proof or even evidence of wrongdoing, but rather a demand for information that could produce evidence of criminal conduct. The new batch of subpoenas point to three main areas of Justice Department interest, distinct but related:

  • the effort to replace valid Biden electors with unearned, pro-Trump electors before the formal congressional tally of the 2020 election outcome on Jan. 6, 2021
  • the rally that preceded the riot that day
  • the fundraising and spending of the Save America political action committee, an entity that raised more than $100 million in the wake of the 2020 election, largely based on appeals to mount pro-Trump legal challenges to election results.

Even those three prongs don’t capture other, important parts of the Justice Department’s Jan. 6 investigation, in which more than 870 people have been arrested for alleged crimes of violence, trespass and — in the case of two extremist groups who prosecutors say played key roles in the chaos — seditious conspiracy. Hundreds more are still being sought for crimes related to the riot.

The Justice Department inspector general is investigating a former senior Justice Department official, Jeffrey Clark, for possible conspiracy, false statements and obstruction, according to a new letter filed in his bar disciplinary case. According to emails and public testimony, Clark tried to get the Justice Department to publicly express doubts about the election results, even going so far as to be willing to take over the department from his then-boss, Jeffrey Rosen, to do so. He has denied wrongdoing.

In another sign that the Justice Department’s own role in 2020 is also part of the ever-growing investigation, the recent subpoenas seek any communications with “any member, employee, or agent of the United States Department of Justice, or any component, branch, litigating unit, or office” of the agency.

Echoes of Watergate: Trump’s appointees reveal his push to topple Justice Dept.

The subpoenas reviewed by The Post also seek broad categories of additional information from the recipients, who include former Trump aides and Republican activists. The subpoenas demand that recipients produce, within two weeks, all documents and communications “relating to Certification” of the election, as well as anything “relating to or constituting any evidence (a) tending to show that there was fraud of any kind relating to the 2020 Presidential Election, or (b) used or relied upon to support any claim of fraud in relation to the 2020 Presidential Election.”

Also requested is any documentation “relating to any information conveyed to you or any other person challenging, rebutting, undercutting, tending to show, or claiming that there was not fraud in the 2020 Presidential Election, or claiming or tending to show that any allegation of fraud was unfounded, baseless, or incorrect in whole or in part,” as well as anything sent to any local, state, or federal official about claims of election fraud, or efforts to persuade government officials to “change or affect” the election results, “or delay certification of the results.”

Some of the people who have received subpoenas said there was no way to comply within the two-week time frame, because there were so many categories of information and so many things to review, and some of the recipients don’t even have lawyers yet. It is not uncommon for recipients of subpoenas to seek and receive more time to produce all the requested information. Two Trump advisers said more than 30 people received subpoenas in the probe, including some who were low-level administrative staff. Trump’s team is arranging lawyers for at least some of the aides under subpoena, according to a person familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the investigation.

Trump himself has not received a subpoena, according to a person close to him, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the matter.

More than 840 suspect had been charged by July in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot

The burst of subpoenas comes about two months after a similar flurry in mid-June, which sought communications with dozens of individuals, including Trump lawyers and advocates such as Rudy Giuliani, Bernard Kerik and others.

Kerik is among those who were hit with a subpoena this month, showing that the Justice Department, which was criticized by some lawyers earlier this year for not aggressively investigating those close to Trump, is now examining the conduct of many different categories of people — including some very close to the former president.

Former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows received a subpoena earlier in the summer seeking documents he had already turned over the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, and has turned over responsive records, said a person familiar with the subpoena, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the matter. The subpoena did not seek Meadows’s testimony or documents he had withheld from the committee citing executive privilege, the person said.

CNN reported late Wednesday that Meadows provided documents to a Justice Department subpoena. Another former senior Trump adviser, Stephen Miller, also received a subpoena. His subpoena was first reported by the New York Times.

Prosecutors investigating Trump’s actions in Jan. 6 probe

After turning over thousands of emails and text messages to the House committee in response to a congressional subpoena, Meadows ended his cooperation with that panel, citing executive privilege. He also sued the House, seeking to quash the congressional subpoena; that case remains pending in federal court.

“Without confirming or denying any interaction with the Justice Department investigation, Mr. Meadows’ posture has been to meet his legal obligations as to both the production and privilege of documents or testimony,” George Terwilliger III, Meadows’s lawyer, said.

Meadows is far from the only subpoena recipient who has been asked to provide the Justice Department with records they have already provided to the House committee.

But the new batch of subpoenas ask others not only for whatever they have turned over to the committee but whatever documentation they have that would be responsive to the committee’s request — indicating that federal prosecutors are trying to make sure that if witnesses have come across new material, that they should provide that, too.

The status of key investigations involving Donald Trump

The request for copies of what was already given to the Jan. 6 committee also points to a long-festering problem for the Justice Department — the House committee has been slow to provide the department access to the committee’s evidence, a potentially critical issue as prosecutors prepare to go to trial against members of the Oath Keepers group and others. The new subpoenas appear to be an attempt by the department, at least in part, to gather that evidence by other means.

The subpoenas also seek all “documents and communications relating to the Save America PAC, including, but not limited to, documents related to the formation of the Save America PAC, the funding of the Save America PAC, and/or the use of money received by the Save America PAC.”

By seeking information about the political action committee, the Justice Department appears to be looking for evidence of fraud. Prosecutors must meet a high legal threshold to bring criminal charges in such cases.

“You have to prove they knew it was a lie, and fraudulently raised money off it anyways,” said a person familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation. “I’m not sure any of the people [who donated to the PAC] would want action.”

The Justice Department has added fraud and public corruption experts to its investigative team, this person said, and is “fully staffed for business,” though, as the subpoenas reflect, that work is still in the early stages.

Read original article here

US

Four men convicted in high-profile attacks on police during the Jan. 6 attack

Leave a comment

Four men were convicted Tuesday of assaulting or impeding police officers in some of the most violent attacks in the Jan. 6, 2021, siege at the U.S. Capitol, including a case in which one D.C. officer was pinned to a door and another in which an officer was dragged down steps and beaten with poles and sticks.

Three of the men were convicted at a bench trial in front of U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden but had other counts against them dropped, making McFadden the first federal judge in Washington to acquit members of the mob of felony charges. He found that while all three battled police, only one was clearly intending to obstruct Congress as it met to confirm President Biden’s election victory.

In a separate case, a fourth man pleaded guilty to assault.

The Lower West Terrace of the Capitol was the site of some of the worst violence on Jan. 6, as police dug in against the mob unaware that other Capitol entrances were already breached. Officers testified at trial about a slow and steady advance of rioters that they managed to thwart at heavy cost over 2½ hours. They suffered bruises, concussions and fractured bones; one was forced into medical retirement.

Patrick E. McCaughey III of Ridgefield, Conn., used a riot shield to pin D.C. police officer Daniel Hodges to the tunnel door, McFadden found, and hit another officer in the hand. Tristan C. Stevens of Pensacola, Fla., tried to engage the group in coordinated pushes, and personally shoved Capitol Police Sgt. Aquilino Gonell with another riot shield. David Mehaffie of Kettering, Ohio, directed members of the mob in and out of the tunnel.

All three argued that they were merely trapped between violent protesters and police, an argument McFadden dismissed as “implausible.”

Police recall getting attacked with their own riot shields on Jan. 6

The defendants “knew what was happening,” he said, and were part of “shocking violence … no police officer should have had to endure.”

Separately on Tuesday, Jack Wade Whitton of Locust Grove, Ga., pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to assaulting police with a dangerous weapon at the same Capitol entrance about an hour later. He admitted to throwing kicks, punches and objects, telling police, “You’re going to die tonight,” and dragging a D.C. officer identified as B.M. down the stairs to be beaten by other rioters.

Whitton, 32, faces a statutory maximum penalty of 20 years in prison at sentencing on March 6 before Sullivan, or roughly five to eight years based on federal sentencing guidelines as set in a plea agreement.

In the case of the three who faced trial, McFadden agreed that McCaughey, 25, used a riot shield as a dangerous weapon against Hodges, causing “significant pain and large bruises.” But he found that in other attacks on police, McCaughey and Stevens used the shields in ways that could not cause severe harm.

“I do not believe that a shield is inherently a dangerous weapon,” he said. McFadden said he did not find support for Gonell’s testimony that Stevens, 26, also attacked with a police baton.

Gonell’s and Hodges’s testimony was “more that of victims than typical law enforcement,” McFadden said, potentially colored by their “understandable anger and resentment” toward the rioters. But he said he believed that any inaccurate recollections by the officers were unintentional, and that their testimony was largely supported by video evidence.

McCaughey and Mehaffie, on the other hand, both “shaded their testimony” to help themselves “more … than the facts allowed,” McFadden found.

Testifying in his own defense, Mehaffie, 63, said he was shoved into police lines by the crushing force of the crowd, shouted “Don’t hurt the police!” and had to fight his way back out of the tunnel. On video, he can be heard shouting, “Push! Push! Don’t throw things!” He said he was trying to control conflict as the crowd advanced and play a negotiating role, telling police, “If we don’t push, you won’t push.”

There was “no negotiation,” D.C. police officer Abdulkadir Abdi testified earlier. “Their objective was to get into the Capitol and we were pretty much in their way.”

Mehaffie struggled to explain why, if his goal was to avoid confrontation, he pounded on the glass doors, told other rioters they had to scale the walls for “battle,” helped pass a riot shield forward and remained in the tunnel.

“I don’t know that I had any expectation except to keep moving,” he testified.

McCaughey testified that he backed off when Hodges began screaming, showing that he had no desire to cause harm. McFadden said Hodges’s “gut-wrenching cries of pain” appeared to have inspired a “moment of humanity” in McCaughey but that his prior actions “cannot be undone by his subsequent kindness.”

The judge found that only McCaughey was trying to stop the counting of votes, based on comments he made to friends and to police, while Mehaffie and Stevens’s reasons for trying to get into the Capitol were unclear. Prosecutors argued that their intent could be inferred from their aggression.

“They were absolutely determined to get inside the U.S. Capitol building that day, no matter what stood in front of them,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Jocelyn Bond said in closing arguments at the bench trial. “They put their words behind it, they put their actions behind it.”

Stevens did not testify; his attorney Lauren Cobb argued in closing that he used the riot shield to protect himself from police batons. He only “bopped” an officer with it when pushed from behind, she said.

“The only plausible explanation” for Steven’s behavior, which included cursing and spitting at officers, was that he wanted to join the attack, the judge said.

McFadden said that there was less evidence of intent to disrupt Congress in this case than in previous Jan. 6 trials he has overseen. But he was also skeptical of defense claims that the three men only wanted to voice opinions. “They’ve been demonstrating outside. They’ve been demonstrating all day. Why go to such efforts, why hurt multiple officers just to go in and demonstrate inside? It doesn’t pass the laugh test,” he said.

McFadden noted that two officers testified that they were more hesitant to use force at the Capitol on Jan. 6 because of the Black Lives Matter movement and the previous summer’s racial justice demonstrations. The judge, however, directed blame at political leaders as well as the rioters, opining that the trial showed “the chaos and violence that can occur when senior government leaders fail to support law enforcement officers,” and suggesting that police should have been more aggressive and had more support on Jan. 6.

McCaughey, Mehaffie and Stevens will be sentenced in January and face many possible penalties.

McCaughey was taken into custody after the verdict; McFadden said that after his “incredible” testimony, “I frankly don’t trust that he would return for sentencing.”

Read original article here

US

Several Trump associates subpoenaed in Justice Department’s Jan. 6 probe

Leave a comment

A grand jury has subpoenaed several associates of former President Donald Trump in connection with the Department of Justice’s investigation into the origins of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, multiple people familiar with the case told CBS News.

It is not yet clear how many subpoenas were issued.

The Justice Department is looking into the Trump team’s fundraising between the 2020 presidential election and Jan. 6, 2021, and how that money was used. That investigation is separate from the inquiry into the former president’s handling of classified documents, which resulted in the FBI seizing materials from his Mar-a-Lago residence last month.

The department’s probe of the attack on the Capitol has accelerated over the last week.

William Russell, a close adviser to Trump, received a subpoena Wednesday related to the investigation.

Russell, 31, was often seen by Trump’s side, serving as White House deputy director of Advance and Trip Director. He was with the former president for part of the day of the riot and moved to Florida to continue working for Trump after his presidency.

FBI personnel visited Russell’s Florida home for questioning Wednesday morning but he was out, according to a person familiar with the matter. Investigators later reached him by phone and served a subpoena via email. 

A lawyer for Russell, Derek Ross, did not reply to a request for comment.

Russell, a Mississippi native, started working at the White House in 2017.

A spokesperson for Trump criticized the investigation, claiming the Justice Department was attempting to “intimidate” the former president’s supporters.

“It will not work. Save America is more committed than ever to working for liberty, free and fair elections, equal justice under the law, strong borders, safe streets, energy independence, great education, and more,” said Liz Harrington, the spokesperson.

Read original article here

US

Prosecutors seek details from Trump’s PAC in Jan. 6 probe

Leave a comment

The Justice Department is seeking details about the formation and operation of Donald Trump’s post-presidential political operation, according to three people familiar with the probe, sending a raft of subpoenas in a significant expansion of the criminal investigation of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

A federal grand jury sent subpoenas on Wednesday to a wide range of former campaign and White House staffers asking for information about the Save America PAC, according to the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing probe. They described the subpoenas as broad, seeking all documents and communications about opening the PAC and every dollar raised and spent.

At least one of the subpoenas also demanded information about the plan to submit slates of phony electors claiming Trump won pivotal states, including all communications with several key lawyers and advisers involved in the effort, one of the people said. They include Rudy Giuliani, Boris Epshteyn, Bruce Marks, Victoria Toensing and Joseph DiGenova, this person said.

Justice Dept. investigating Trump’s actions in Jan. 6 criminal probe

Another one of the three people, who has direct knowledge of one of the subpoenas, said the document was “wide ranging” and included multiple other categories of information, but this person declined to describe them. FBI agents served at least some of the subpoenas in person on Wednesday, one of the people with knowledge said.

Spokesmen for Trump and the Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Some of the details of the subpoenas were reported by ABC and the New York Times.

Epshteyn declined to comment. So did Toensing, who is married to DiGenova. Giuliani did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Marks said he was out of the country and wasn’t aware of a subpoena. He defended the effort to submit alternate electors but distanced himself from the pressure campaign on former vice president Mike Pence to unilaterally reject some states’ votes for Biden.

“I thought the vice president did the right thing,” Marks said. “We’re not all crazy in MAGA world.”

Trump’s post-presidential fundraising has already been a source of suspicion for investigators with the House Jan. 6 committee, as well as griping from some Republicans who want Trump to dip into his reserves to boost the party’s Senate campaigns amid signs their candidates are behind in polls and fundraising.

This week’s subpoenas were also the latest sign that the Justice Department has intensified its own parallel probe into Jan. 6. Prosecutors already charged hundreds of people involved in the Capitol riot with low-level offenses such as trespassing and attacking police, as well as accusing leaders of the violent extremist groups the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers of coordinating the attack. More recently, prosecutors began examining planning for the rally before the riot and Republican efforts to send Trump slates to the electoral college.

The status of key investigations involving Donald Trump

As part of the probe, prosecutors have sought phone records and other information from Trump’s inner circle and questioned close advisers to Pence before a federal grand jury. The Washington Post reported in July that the investigation included Trump’s possible role in the phony elector efforts and his pressure of federal and state officials to challenge the election results.

Some of those activities are also under scrutiny from Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis (D), an elected prosecutor in the Atlanta area. Willis has said she expects a special-purpose grand jury there to deliver a report including charging recommendations by the end of the year.

The Justice Department and House panel investigations are separate from the criminal probe into handling of government secrets after Trump left office, which led to a search warrant at his Florida resort in August. On Thursday, the Justice Department appealed a federal judge’s decision to appoint a special master to screen the documents seized in the search.

The government soon faces the 60-day period before an election when the Justice Department customarily avoids taking investigative steps that could be perceived as influencing voters.

The House committee investigating Jan. 6 has also shown interest in the finances of Trump’s PAC, alleging that the group used false claims about the election to solicit donations. At a June hearing, a committee investigator said the Trump campaign raised hundreds of millions by sending as many as 25 emails a day asking for donations to an “Official Election Defense Fund” that did not actually exist. The panel has focused on whether federal wire fraud laws could have been violated if people sought money using claims they knew were false, The Post has reported.

Trump has raised more than $100 million for the PAC with thousands of appeals to his supporters, many of them containing misleading or false statements about the election. He has largely hoarded the money, giving limited amounts to other candidates he supports and paying some of his staff and lawyers.

Devlin Barrett and Spencer S. Hsu contributed to this report.

Read original article here

US

Trump White House lawyer Pat Cipollone appears before Jan. 6 grand jury

Leave a comment

Comment

correction

An earlier version of this article incorrectly identified Cassidy Hutchinson as a former aide to Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone. She was an aide to Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows. The article has been corrected.

Former Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone appeared before a federal grand jury Friday in Washington investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, spending 2½ hours behind closed doors with jurors and prosecutors.

Cipollone became the highest-ranking White House aide known to appear before the grand jury in the Justice Department’s criminal investigation of efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, including President Donald Trump’s actions, that culminated in the siege of Congress as lawmakers met to confirm President Biden’s 2020 election victory. Cipollone’s deputy counsel Pat Philbin was expected to appear later Friday.

The two attorneys received federal grand jury subpoenas about four weeks ago for testimony and documents about that day and events leading up to it, CNN first reported. Their expected appearance Friday was reported by ABC News, and it followed grand jury appearances in July by former vice president Mike Pence’s former chief of staff, Marc Short, and attorney Greg Jacob.

It was not immediately clear what Cipollone or Philbin would discuss with the grand jury, and whether their testimony would steer clear of private presidential communications typically subject to executive and attorney-client privilege.

Cipollone and his attorney Michael M. Purpura walked into the federal courthouse in Washington shortly after 9:30 a.m., where they were greeted by lead federal prosecutor Thomas Windom and escorted to an elevator leading to the grand jury area. Cipollone left the building alone shortly after grand jurors broke for lunch at noon.

Purpura also represents Philbin, who entered the courthouse just before 12:30 p.m.

Justice Dept. investigating Trump’s actions in Jan. 6 criminal probe

Cipollone was the top White House lawyer at the end of the Trump administration, and he has emerged in several public accounts as a key witness to and critic of conversations held by the then-president with private lawyers and others in his inner circle who allegedly sought to substitute Trump allies for certified electors from some states Joe Biden won; pressure the Justice Department to falsely claim the election was rigged with fraudulent votes cast; or propose the seizure of voting machines by the U.S. attorney general, secretary of defense or other federal officials.

In videotaped testimony played at televised hearings this summer held by the House select committee investigating events leading to the Capitol breach, Cipollone told investigators that he vigorously resisted efforts by Trump and outside advisers to undo the election, and that he, like former Trump attorney general William P. Barr, did not believe there was sufficient fraud to have affected the outcome of Biden’s victory in any state.

At a late-night meeting at the White House on Dec. 18, 2020, that Cipollone termed “unhinged,” for instance, he said election lawyer Sidney Powell and former national security adviser Michael Flynn exhibited a “general disregard for backing what you actually say with facts.”

Of the conspiracy-fueled notion to seize voting machines, Cipollone recalled telling Powell, “I don’t understand why we even have to tell you why that’s a bad idea, it’s a terrible idea for the country.”

Cipollone also has been described as opposing the sending of a letter drafted by attorney Jeffrey Bossert Clark to officials in Georgia, falsely declaring that the Justice Department had “identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple states.”

Cipollone told Trump that Clark’s proposed letter was “a murder-suicide pact” that would “damage everyone who touches it,” according to a deposition by then-deputy attorney general Richard Donoghue. In a call on Dec. 27, 2020, witnesses have said, Trump told acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen that he wanted the department to say there was significant election fraud, and said he was poised to oust Rosen and replace him with Clark, who was willing to make that assertion.

“Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen,” Trump told Rosen, according to notes of the conversation reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Trump backed down after Rosen, Donoghue and Cipollone refused and said they and other senior government lawyers would resign en masse, participants have said.

Cipollone answered questions for eight hours earlier this year before the House Jan. 6 committee, following riveting testimony by Cassidy Hutchinson, a top aide to former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows, who described her boss as one of the last firewalls blocking Trump’s efforts to subvert the election results.

She testified that on the morning of Jan. 6, Cipollone warned her in words she paraphrased as “ ‘Please make sure we don’t go up to the Capitol, Cassidy. Keep in touch with me. We’re going to get charged with every crime imaginable if we make that movement happen.’ ”

Read original article here

The Ultimate News Site