We agree then.
The star chamber will never let Americans have the full story of what happened on january 6.

Why is that, what are they hiding?

 

Just because I answered for you does not in anyway, shape, of form, mean I agree with you.

 

Let's get down to some specifics.

king all of these facts into account, and based on the breadth of the evidence it has accumulated, the Committee makes the following criminal referrals to the Department of Justice’s Special Counsel.


I. Obstruction of an Official Proceeding (18 U.S.C. § 1512(c))

Section 1512(c)(2) of Title 18 of the United States Code makes it a crime to “corruptly” “obstruct[], influence[], or impede[] any official proceeding, or attempt[] to do so.”
594
Sufficient evidence exists of one or more potential violations of this statute for a criminal referral of President Trump and others.
595

First,
there should be no question that Congress’s Joint Session to count electoral votes on January 6th was an “official proceeding” under Section 1512(c). Many Federal judges have already reached that specific conclusion.
596

Second,
there should be no doubt that President Trump knew that his actions were likely to “obstruct, influence or impede” that proceeding. Based on the evidence developed, President Trump was attempting to prevent or delay the counting of lawful certified Electoral College votes from multiple States.
597
President Trump was directly and personally involved in this effort, personally pressuring Vice President Pence relentlessly as the Joint Session on January 6th approached.
598

Third,
President Trump acted with a “corrupt” purpose. Vice President Pence, Greg Jacob and others repeatedly told the President that the Vice President had no unilateral authority to prevent certification of the election.
599
Indeed, in an email exchange during the violence of January 6th, Eastman

admitted

that President Trump had been “advised” that Vice President Pence could not lawfully refuse to count votes under the Electoral Count Act, but “once he gets something in his head, it’s hard to get him to change course.”

600
In addition, President Trump knew that he had lost dozens of State and Federal lawsuits, and









(*
that the Justice Department, his campaign and his other advisors concluded that there was insufficient fraud to alter the outcome. President Trump also knew that no majority of any State legislature had taken or manifested any intention to take any official action that could change a State’s electoral college votes.
601
But President Trump pushed forward anyway. As Judge Carter explained, “ecause President Trump likely knew that the plan to disrupt the electoral count was wrongful, his mindset exceeds the threshold for acting ‘corruptly’ under § 1512(c).”

602
Sufficient evidence exists of one or more potential violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) for a criminal referral of President Trump based solely on his plan to get Vice President Pence to prevent certification of the election at the Joint Session of Congress. Those facts standing alone are sufficient. But such a charge under that statute can also be based on the plan to create and transmit to the Executive and Legislative branches fraudulent electoral slates, which were ultimately intended to facilitate an unlawful action by Vice President Pence –to refuse to count legitimate, certified electoral votes during Congress’s official January 6th proceeding.
603
Additionally, evidence developed about the many other elements of President Trump’s plans to overturn the election, including soliciting State legislatures, State officials, and others to alter official electoral outcomes, provides further evidence that President Trump was attempting through multiple means to corruptly obstruct, impede or influence the counting of electoral votes on January 6th. This is also true of President Trump’s personal directive to the Department of Justice to “just say that the election was was [sic] corrupt + leave the rest to me and the R[epublican] Congressmen.”
604
We also stress in particular the draft letter to the Georgia legislature authored by Jeffrey Clark and another Trump political appointee at the Department of Justice. The draft letter embraces many of the same theories that John Eastman and others were asserting in President Trump’s effort to lobby State legislatures. White House Counsel Pat Cipollone described that letter as “a murder-suicide pact,” and other White House and Justice Department officials offered similar descriptions.

605
As described herein, that draft letter was intended to help persuade a State legislature to change its certified slate of Electoral College electors based on false allegations of fraud, so Vice President Pence could unilaterally and unlawfully decide to count a different slate on January 6th.
606
The letter was transparently false, improper, and illegal. President Trump had multiple communications with Clark in the days before January 6

th

, and there is no basis to doubt that President Trump offered Clark the position of Acting Attorney General knowing that Clark would send the letter and others like it.

607
Of course, President Trump is also responsible for recruiting tens of thousands of his supporters to Washington for January 6
th
, and knowing they were angry and some were armed, instructing them to march to the Capitol and “fight like hell.”
608
And then, while knowing a violent riot was underway, he refused for multiple hours to take the single step his advisors and supporters were begging him to take to halt the violence: to make a public statement instructing his supporters to disperse and leave the Capitol.
609
Through action and inaction, President Trump corruptly obstructed, delayed and impeded the vote count. In addition, the Committee believes sufficient evidence exists for a criminal referral of John Eastman and certain other Trump associates under 18 U.S.C. §1512(c). The evidence shows that Eastman knew in advance of the 2020 election that Vice President Pence could not refuse to count electoral votes on January 6

th
.
610
In the days before January 6
th
, Eastman was warned repeatedly that his plan was illegal and “completely crazy,” and would “cause riots in the streets.”
611
Nonetheless, Eastman continued to assist President Trump’s pressure campaign in public and in private, including in meetings with the Vice President and in his own speech at the Ellipse on January 6th. And even as the violence was playing out at the Capitol, Eastman admitted in writing that his plan violated the law but pressed for Pence to do it anyway.
612
In the immediate aftermath of January 6
th
, White House lawyer Eric Herschmann told Eastman that he should “[g]et a great F'ing criminal defense lawyer, you’re going to need it.”
613
Others working with Eastman likely share in Eastman’s culpability. For example, Kenneth Chesebro was a central player in the scheme to submit fake electors to the Congress and the National Archives. The Committee notes that multiple Republican Members of Congress, including Representative Scott Perry, likely have material facts regarding President Trump’s plans to overturn the election. For example, many Members of Congress attended a White House meeting on December 21, 2020, in which the plan to have the Vice President affect the outcome of the election was disclosed and discussed. Evidence indicates that certain of those Members unsuccessfully sought Presidential pardons from President Trump after January 6
th
,
614
as did Eastman,
615
revealing their own clear consciousness of guilt.


https://www.scribd.com/document/615...-to-the-Final-Report-of-the-Select-Committee#

 

II. Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371)

Section 371 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code provides that “f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.” The Committee believes sufficient evidence exists for a criminal referral of President Trump and others under this statute.

616



First,

President Trump entered into an agreement with individuals to obstruct a lawful function of the government (the certification of the election). The evidence of this element overlaps greatly with the evidence of the Section 1512(c)(2) violations, so we will not repeat it at length here. President Trump engaged in a multi-part plan described in this Report to obstruct a lawful certification of the election. Judge Carter focused his opinions largely on John Eastman’s role, as Eastman’s documents were at issue in that case, concluding that “the evidence shows that an agreement to enact the electoral count plan likely existed between President Trump and Dr. Eastman.”

617

But President Trump entered into agreements – whether formal or informal

618

– with several other individuals who assisted with the multi-part plan. With regard to the Department of Justice, Jeffrey Clark stands out as a participant in the conspiracy, as the evidence suggests that Clark entered into an agreement with President Trump that if appointed Acting Attorney General, he would send a letter to State officials falsely stating that the Department of Justice believed that State legislatures had a sufficient factual basis to convene to select new electors. This was false – the Department of Justice had reached the conclusion that there was no factual basis to contend that the election was stolen. Again, as with Section 1512(c), the conspiracy under Section 371 appears to have also included other individuals such as Chesebro, Ruddolph Giuliani, and Mark Meadows, bu his Committee does not attempt to determine all of the participants of the conspiracy, many of whom refused to answer this Committee’s questions.
Second,

there are several bases for finding that the conspirators used “deceitful or dishonest means.” For example, President Trump repeatedly lied about the election, after he had been told by his advisors that there was no evidence of fraud sufficient to change the results of the election.

619

In addition, the plot to get the Vice President to unilaterally prevent certification of the election was manifestly (and admittedly) illegal, as discussed above. Eastman and others told President Trump that it would violate the Electoral Count Act if the Vice President unilaterally rejected electors. Thus Judge Carter once again had little trouble finding that the intent requirement (“deceitful or dishonest means”) was met, stating that “President Trump continuing to push that plan despite being aware of its illegality constituted obstruction by ‘dishonest’ means under § 371.”

620

Judge Carter rejected the notion that Eastman’s plan – which the President adopted and actualized – was a “good faith interpretation” of the law, finding instead that it was “a partisan distortion of the democratic process.”

621

Similarly, both President Trump and Clark had been told repeatedly that the Department of Justice had found no evidence of significant fraud in any of its investigations, but they nonetheless pushed the Department of Justice to send a letter to State officials stating that the Department had found such fraud. And Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and others made clear to President Trump that they had no authority to “find” him 11,780 votes, but the President relentlessly insisted that they do exactly that, even to the point of suggesting there could be criminal consequences if they refused.

622



Third

, there were numerous overt acts in furtherance of the agreement, including each of the parts of the President’s effort to overturn the election. As Judge Carter concluded, President Trump and Dr. Eastman participated in “numerous overt acts in furtherance of their shared plan.”

623

These included, but certainly were not limited to, direct pleas to the Vice President to reject electors or delay certification, including in Oval Office meetings and the President’s vulgar comments to the Vice President on the morning of January 6. Judge Carter also addressed evidence that President Trump knowingly made false representations to a court. Judge Carter concluded that Dr. Eastman’s emails showed “that President Trump knew that the specific numbers of voter fraud” cited in a complaint on behalf of President Trump “were wrong but continued to tout those numbers, both in court and to the public.” Judge Carter found that the emails in question were related to and in furtherance of a conspiracy to defraud the United States.

624

In finding that President Trump, Eastman, and others engaged in conspiracy to defraud the United States under Section 371, Judge Carter relied on the documents at issue (largely consisting of Eastman’s own emails) and evidence presented to the court by this Committee. This Committee’s investigation has progressed significantly since Judge Carter issued his first crime-fraud ruling in March 2022. The evidence found by this Committee and discussed in detail in this Report further document that the conspiracy to defraud the United States under Section 371 extended far beyond the effort to pressure the Vice President to prevent certification of the election. The Committee believes there is sufficient evidence for a criminal referral of the multi-part plan described in this Report under Section 371, as the very purpose of the plan was to prevent the lawful certification of Joe Biden’s election as President.

https://www.scribd.com/document/615...-to-the-Final-Report-of-the-Select-Committee#

 

)#
III. Conspiracy to Make a False Statement (18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1001)
President Trump, through others acting at his behest, submitted slates of fake electors to Congress and the National Archives. Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code applies, in relevant part, to “whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully— (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry.” According to the Department of Justice, whether a false statement is criminal under Section 1001 “depends on whether there is an affirmative response to each of the following questions: 1.

Was the act or statement material? 2.



Was the act within the jurisdiction of a department or agency of the United States? 3.



Was the act done knowingly and willfully?”

625

In addition, and as explained above, 18 U.S.C. § 371 makes it a crime to conspire to “commit any offense against the United States.”

626
The evidence suggests President Trump conspired with others to submit slates of fake electors to Congress and the National Archives. Sufficient evidence exists of a violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1001 for a criminal referral of President Trump and others. As explained earlier and in Chapter 3 of this Report, the certifications signed by Trump electors in multiple States were patently false. Vice President Biden won each of those States, and the relevant State authorities had so certified. It can hardly be disputed that the false slates of electors were material, as nothing can be more material to the Joint Session of Congress to certify the election than the question of which candidate won which States. Indeed, evidence obtained by the Committee suggests that those attempting to submit certain of the electoral votes regarded the need to provide that material to Vice President Pence as urgent.
627
There should be no question that Section 1001 applies here. The false electoral slates were provided both to the Executive Branch (the National Archives) and the Legislative Branch.
628
The statute applies to “any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States.”
629
It is well established that false statements to Congress can constitute violations of Section 1001.
630
Finally, the false statement was made knowingly and willfully. There is some evidence suggesting that some signatories of the fake certificates believed that the certificates were











)$
contingent, to be used only in the event that President Trump prevailed in litigation challenging the election results in their States. That may be relevant to the question whether those electors knowingly and willfully signed a false statement at the time they signed the certificates. But it is of no moment to President Trump’s conduct, as President Trump (including acting through co-conspirators such as John Eastman and Kenneth Chesebro) relied on the existence of those fake electors as a basis for asserting that the Vice President could reject or delay certification of the Biden electors. In fact, as explained earlier and in Chapter 5 of this Report, Eastman’s memorandum setting out a six-step plan for overturning the election on January 6th begins by stating that “7 states have transmitted dual slates of electors to the President of the Senate.” The remaining question is who engaged in this conspiracy to make the false statement to Congress under Section 1001. The evidence is clear that President Trump personally participated in a scheme to have the Trump electors meet, cast votes, and send their votes to the Joint Session of Congress in several States that Vice President Biden won, and then his supporters relied on the existence of these fake electors as part of their effort to obstruct the Joint Session. Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel testified before this Committee that President Trump and Eastman directly requested that the RNC organize the effort to have these fake (i.e. Trump) electors meet and cast their votes.
631
Thus, the Committee believes that sufficient evidence exists for a criminal referral of President Trump for illegally engaging in a conspiracy to violate Section 1001; the evidence indicates that he entered into an agreement with Eastman and others to make the false statement (the fake electoral certificates), by deceitful or dishonest means, and at least one member of the conspiracy engaged in at least one overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy (
e.g.
President Trump and Eastman’s call to Ronna McDaniel).

https://www.scribd.com/document/615...-to-the-Final-Report-of-the-Select-Committee#

 

Then what did really happen on Jan 6th? We'd love to hear your take.

 

.

IV. “Incite,” “Assist” or “Aid and Comfort” an Insurrection (18 U.S.C. § 2383)
Section 2383 of Title 18 of the United States Code applies to anyone who “incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto.”
632
The Committee recognizes that §2383 does not require evidence of an “agreement” between President Trump and the violent rioters to establish a violation of that provision; instead, the President need only have incited, assisted or aided and comforted those engaged in violence or other lawless activity in an effort to prevent the peaceful transition of the Presidency under our Constitution. A Federal court has already concluded that President Trump’s statements during his Ellipse speech were “plausibly words of incitement not protected by the First Amendment.”

633
Moreover, President Trump was impeached for “Incitement of Insurrection,” and a majority of the Senate voted to convict, with many more suggesting they might have voted to convict had President Trump still been in office at the time.
634
As explained throughout this Report and in this Committee’s hearings, President Trump was directly responsible for summoning what became a violent mob to Washington, DC, urging them to march to the Capitol, and then further provoking the already violent and lawless crowd with his 2:24p.m. tweet about the Vice President. Even though President Trump had repeatedly been told that Vice President Pence had no legal authority to stop the certification of the election, he asserted in his speech on January 6 that if the Vice President









)%
“comes through for us” that he could deliver victory to Trump: “if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election.” This created a desperate and false expectation in President Trump’s mob that ended up putting the Vice President and his entourage and many others at the Capitol in physical danger. When President Trump tweeted at 2:24 p.m., he knew violence was underway. His tweet exacerbated that violence.

635
During the ensuing riot, the President refused to condemn the violence or encourage the crowd to disperse despite repeated pleas from his staff and family that he do so. The Committee has evidence from multiple sources establishing these facts, including testimony from former White House Counsel Pat Cipollone. Although Cipollone’s testimony did not disclose a number of direct communications with President Trump in light of concerns about Executive Privilege, the Department now appears to have obtained a ruling that Cipollone can testify before a grand jury about these communications. Based on the information it has obtained, the Committee believes that Cipollone and others can provide direct testimony establishing that President Trump refused repeatedly, for multiple hours, to make a public statement directing his violent and lawless supporters to leave the Capitol. President Trump did not want his supporters (who had effectively halted the vote counting) to disperse. Evidence obtained by the Committee also indicates that President Trump did not want to provide security assistance to the Capitol during that violent period.
636
This appalling behavior by our Commander in Chief occurred despite his affirmative Constitutional duty to act, to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed.
637
The Committee believes that sufficient evidence exists for a criminal referral of President Trump for “assist[ing]” or “ai[ding] and comfort[ing]” those at the Capitol who engaged in a violent attack on the United States. The Committee has developed significant evidence that President Trump intended to disrupt the peaceful transition of power and believes that the Department of Justice can likely elicit testimony relevant to an investigation under Section 2383. For example, Chief of Staff Mark Meadows told White House Counsel Pat Cipollone that the President “doesn’t want to do anything” to stop the violence.
638
Worse, at 2:24 p.m., the President inflamed and exacerbated the mob violence by sending a tweet stating that the Vice President “didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done.”

639

The President threw gasoline on the fire despite knowing that there was a violent riot underway at the Capitol. Indeed, video and audio footage from the attack shows that many of the rioters specifically mentioned Vice President Pence.
640
And immediately after President Trump sent his tweet, the violence escalated. Between 2:25p.m. and 2:28 p.m., rioters breached the East Rotunda doors, other rioters breached the police line in the Capitol Crypt, Vice President Pence had to be evacuated from his Senate office, and Rep. McCarthy was evacuated from his Capitol office.
641
Evidence developed in the Committee’s investigation showed that the President, when told that the crowd was chanting “Hang Mike Pence,” responded that perhaps the Vice President deserved to be hanged.

642

And President Trump rebuffed pleas from Rep. Kevin McCarthy to ask that his supporters leave the Capitol, stating “Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.” After hours of deadly riot, President Trump eventually released a videotaped statement encouraging the crowd to


















)&

disperse, though openly professing his “love” for the members of the mob and empathizing with their frustration at the “stolen” election. President Trump has since expressed a desire to pardon those involved in the attack.
643
Both the purpose and the effect of the President’s actions were to mobilize a large crowd to descend on the Capitol. Several defendants in pending criminal cases identified the President's allegations about the “stolen election” as the key motivation for their activities at the Capitol. Many of them specifically cited the President’s tweets asking his supporters to come to Washington, DC on January 6. For example, one defendant who later pleaded guilty to threatening House Speaker Nancy Pelosi texted a family member on January 6th to say: “[Trump] wants heads and I'm going to deliver.”
644
Another defendant released a statement through his attorney, stating: “I was in Washington, DC on January 6, 2021, because I believed I was following the instructions of former President Trump and he was my President and the commander-in-chief. His statements also had me believing the election was stolen from him.”
645
As the violence began to subside and law enforcement continued to secure the Capitol, President Trump tweeted again, at 6:01 pm to justify the actions of the rioters: “These are the things and events that happen,” he wrote, when his so-called victory was “so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away. . . .”

646
When he wrote those words, he knew exactly what he was doing. Before President Trump issued the tweet, a White House staffer cautioned him that the statement would imply that he “had something to do with the events that happened at the Capitol”—but he tweeted it anyway.
647
The final words of that tweet leave little doubt about President Trump’s sentiments toward those who invaded the Capitol: “Remember this day forever!”
648

https://www.scribd.com/document/615...-to-the-Final-Report-of-the-Select-Committee#

 

VI. The Committee’s Concerns Regarding Possible Obstruction of its Investigation
The Committee has substantial concerns regarding potential efforts to obstruct its investigation, including by certain counsel (some paid by groups connected to the former President) who may have advised clients to provide false or misleading testimony to the Committee.

654
Such actions could violate 18 U.S.C. §§ 1505, 1512. The Committee is aware that both the U.S. Department of Justice and the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office have already obtained information relevant to these matters, including from the Committee directly. We urge the Department of Justice to examine the facts to discern whether prosecution is warranted. The Committee’s broad concerns regarding obstruction and witness credibility are addressed in the Executive Summary to this Report

https://www.scribd.com/document/615...-to-the-Final-Report-of-the-Select-Committee#

 

VII. Accountability for Those Who Plotted Unlawfully to Overturn the Election is Critical.
To date, the Justice Department has pursued prosecution of hundreds of individuals who planned and participated in the January 6
th
invasion of and attack on our Capitol. But the Department has not yet charged individuals who engaged in the broader plan to overturn the election through the means discussed in this Report. The Committee has concluded that it is critical to hold those individuals accountable as well, including those who worked with President Trump to create and effectuate these plans. In his speech from the Ellipse on January 6

th

, President Trump recited a host of election fraud allegations he knew to be false, and then told tens of thousands of his angry supporters this: And fraud breaks up everything, doesn’t it? When you catch somebody in a fraud, you’re allowed to go by very different rules. So I hope Mike has the courage to do what he has to do. And I hope he doesn’t listen to the RINOs and the stupid people that he’s listening to.

655
The meaning of President Trump’s comments was sufficiently clear then, but he recently gave America an even more detailed understanding of his state of mind. Trump wrote that allegations of “massive fraud” related to the 2020 election “allow[] for the termination of all rules, regulations and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”

656
And President Trump considered pardoning those involved in the attack and has since expressed a desire to pardon them – and even give them an apology – if he returns to the Oval Office.
657










)(
In the Committee’s judgment, based on all the evidence developed, President Trump believed then, and continues to believe now, that he is above the law, not bound by our Constitution and its explicit checks on Presidential authority. This recent Trump statement only heightens our concern about accountability. If President Trump and the associates who assisted him in an effort to overturn the lawful outcome of the 2020 election are not ultimately held accountable under the law, their behavior may become a precedent and invitation to danger for future elections. A failure to hold them accountable now may ultimately lead to future unlawful efforts to overturn our elections, thereby threatening the security and viability of our Republic.

https://www.scribd.com/document/615...-to-the-Final-Report-of-the-Select-Committee#

 

VIII Referral of Members to the House Ethics Committee for Failure to Comply with Subpoenas
During the course of the Select Committee’s investigation of President Trump’s efforts to subvert the election, the Committee learned that various Members of Congress had information relevant to the investigation. Accordingly, the Committee wrote letters to a number of Members involved in that activity inviting them to participate voluntarily in the Select Committee’s investigation. None of the members was willing to provide information, which forced the Select Committee to consider alternative means of securing evidence about the conduct of these Members and the information they might have. On May 12, 2022, the Select Committee subpoenaed several members of Congress—including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Representative Jim Jordan, Representative Scott Perry, and Representative Andy Biggs—to obtain information related to the Committee’s investigation. This was a significant step, but it was one that was warranted by the certain volume of information these Members possessed that was relevant to the Select Committee’s investigation, as well as the centrality of their efforts to President Trump’s multi-part plan to remain in power. Representative McCarthy, among other things, had multiple communications with President Trump, Vice President Pence, and others on and related to January 6th. For example, during the attack on the Capitol, Representative McCarthy urgently requested that the former President issue a statement calling off the rioters, to which President Trump responded by “push[ing] back” and said: “Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.”
658
And, after the attack, Representative McCarthy spoke on the House floor and said that, “[t]here is absolutely no evidence” that antifa caused the attack on the Capitol and instead called on President Trump to “accept his share of responsibility” for the violence.
659
As noted above, Representative McCarthy privately confided in colleagues that President Trump accepted some responsibility for the attack on the Capitol.
660
Representative Jordan was a significant player in President Trump’s efforts. He participated in numerous post-election meetings in which senior White House officials, Rudolph Giuliani, and others, discussed strategies for challenging the election, chief among them claims that the election had been tainted by fraud. On January 2, 2021, Representative Jordan led a conference call in which he, President Trump, and other Members of Congress discussed strategies for delaying the January 6th joint session. During that call, the group









))
also discussed issuing social media posts encouraging President Trump’s supporters to “march to the Capitol” on the 6th.
661
An hour and a half later, President Trump and Representative Jordan spoke by phone for 18 minutes.
662
The day before January 6th, Representative Jordan texted Mark Meadows, passing along advice that Vice President Pence should “call out all the electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all.”
663
He spoke with President Trump by phone at least twice on January 6th, though he has provided inconsistent public statements about how many times they spoke and what they discussed.

664

He also received five calls from Rudolph Giuliani that evening, and the two connected at least twice, at 7:33 p.m. and 7:49 p.m.
665
During that time, Giuliani has testified, he was attempting to reach Members of Congress after the joint session resumed to encourage them to continue objecting to Joe Biden’s electoral votes.
666
And, in the days following January 6th, Representative Jordan spoke with White House staff about the prospect of Presidential pardons for Members of Congress.
667
Like Representative Jordan, Representative Perry was also involved in early post-election messaging strategy. Both Representative Jordan and Representative Perry were involved in discussions with White House officials about Vice President Pence’s role on January 6th as early as November 2020.

668

Representative Perry was present for conversations in which the White House Counsel’s Office informed him and others that President Trump’s efforts to submit fake electoral votes were not legally sound.
669
But perhaps most pivotally, he was involved in President Trump’s efforts to install Jeffrey Clark as the Acting Attorney General in December 2020 and January 2021. Beginning in early December 2020, Representative Perry suggested Clark as a candidate to Mark Meadows,
670
then introduced Clark to President Trump.
671
In the days before January 6th, Representative Perry advocated for President Trump to speak at the Capitol during the joint session, speaking to Mark Meadows on at least one occasion about it.
672
He was also a participant in the January 2, 2021 call in which Representative Jordan, President Trump, and others discussed issuing social media posts to encourage Trump supporters to march to the Capitol on January 6th.
673
After January 6th, Representative Perry reached out to White House staff asking to receive a Presidential pardon.
674
Representative Biggs was involved in numerous elements of President Trump’s efforts to contest the election results. As early as November 6, 2020, Representative Biggs texted Mark Meadows, urging him to “encourage the state legislatures to appoint [electors].”

675

In the following days, Representative Biggs told Meadows not to let President Trump concede his loss.

676
Between then and January 6th, Representative Biggs coordinated with Arizona State Representative Mark Finchem to gather signatures from Arizona lawmakers endorsing fake Trump electors.
677
He also contacted fake Trump electors in at least one State seeking evidence related to voter fraud.
678
To date, none of the subpoenaed Members has complied with either voluntary or compulsory requests for participation. Representative McCarthy initially responded to the Select Committee’s subpoena in two letters on May 27 and May 30, 2022, in which he objected to the Select Committee’s composition and validity of the subpoena and offered to submit written interrogatories in lieu of deposition testimony. Although the Select Committee did not release Representative









)*
McCarthy from his subpoena obligations, Representative McCarthy failed to appear for his scheduled deposition on May 31, 2022. The Select Committee responded to Representative McCarthy’s letters this same day, rejecting his proposal to participate via written interrogatories and compelling his appearance for deposition testimony no later than June 11, 2022. Although Representative McCarthy again responded via letter on June 9, 2022, he did not appear for deposition testimony on or before the specified June 11, 2022, deadline. Representative Jordan also responded to the Select Committee’s subpoena just before his scheduled deposition in a letter on May 25, 2022, containing a variety of objections. Representative Jordan also requested material from the Select Committee, including all materials referencing him in the Select Committee’s possession and all internal legal analysis related to the constitutionality of Member subpoenas. Although the Select Committee did not release Representative Jordan from his subpoena obligations, Representative Jordan failed to appear for his scheduled deposition on May 27, 2022. On May 31, 2022, the Select Committee responded to the substance of Representative Jordan’s May 25th letter and indicated that Representative Jordan should appear for deposition testimony no later than June 11, 2022. On June 9, 2022, Representative Jordan again wrote to reiterate the points from his May 25th letter. That same day, Representative Jordan sent out a fundraising email with the subject line: “I’VE BEEN SUBPOENED.”
679
Representative Jordan did not appear before the Select Committee on or before the June 11, 2022, deadline. Representative Perry likewise responded to the Select Committee’s subpoena on May 24, 2022, in a letter, “declin[ing] to appear for deposition” and requesting that the subpoena be “immediately withdrawn.”
680
Although the Select Committee did not release Representative Perry from his subpoena obligations, Representative Perry failed to appear on May 26, 2022, for his scheduled deposition. Representative Perry sent a second letter to the Select Committee on May 31, 2022, with additional objections. That same day, the Select Committee responded to Representative Perry’s letters and stated that he should appear before the Select Committee no later than June 11, 2022, for deposition testimony. Representative Perry responded via letter on June 10, 2022, maintaining his objections. He did not appear before the June 11, 2022, deadline. Representative Biggs issued a press release on the day the Select Committee issued its subpoena, calling the subpoena “illegitimate” and “pure political theater.” The day before his scheduled deposition, Representative Biggs sent a letter to the Select Committee with a series of objections and an invocation of Speech or Debate immunity. Although the Select Committee did not release Representative Biggs from his subpoena obligations, Representative Biggs did not appear for his scheduled deposition on May 26, 2022. On May 31, 2022, the Select Committee responded to the substance of Representative Biggs’s May 25th letter and indicated that Representative Biggs should appear for deposition testimony no later than June 11, 2022. Although Representative Biggs responded with another letter on June 9th, he did not appear before the June 11, 2022, deadline. Despite the Select Committee’s repeated attempts to obtain information from these Members and the issuance of subpoenas, each has refused to cooperate and failed to comply with a lawfully issued subpoena. Accordingly, the Select Committee is referring their failure

https://www.scribd.com/document/615...-to-the-Final-Report-of-the-Select-Committee#










*+
to comply with the subpoenas issued to them to the Ethics Committee for further action. To be clear, this referral is only for failure to comply with lawfully issued subpoenas.

The Rules of the House of Representatives make clear that their willful noncompliance violates multiple standards of conduct and subjects them to discipline. Willful non-compliance with compulsory congressional committee subpoenas by House Members violates the spirit and letter of House Rule XXIII, Clause 1, which requires House Members to conduct themselves “at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.” As a previous version of the House Ethics Manual explained, this catchall provision encompasses “‘flagrant’ violations of the law that reflect on ‘Congress as a whole,’ and that might otherwise go unpunished.”
681
The subpoenaed House Members’ refusal to comply with their subpoena obligations satisfies these criteria. A House Member’s willful failure to comply with a congressional subpoena also reflects discredit on Congress. If left unpunished, such behavior undermines Congress’s longstanding power to investigate in support of its lawmaking authority and suggests that Members of Congress may disregard legal obligations that apply to ordinary citizens. For these reasons, the Select Committee refers Leader McCarthy and Representatives Jordan, Perry, and Biggs for sanction by the House Ethics Committee for failure to comply with subpoenas. The Committee also believes that each of these individuals, along with other Members who attended the December 21
st
planning meeting with President Trump at the White House,
682
should be questioned in a public forum about their advance knowledge of and role in President Trump’s plan to prevent the peaceful transition of power.

https://www.scribd.com/document/615...-to-the-Final-Report-of-the-Select-Committee#

 

.r.
EFFORTS TO AVOID TESTIFYING, EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION, AND ASSESSMENTS OF WITNESS CREDIBILITY
More than 30 witnesses before the Select Committee exercised their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refused on that basis to provide testimony. They included individuals central to the investigation, such as John Eastman, Jeffrey Clark, Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, Kenneth Chesebro, and others.
683
The law allows a civil litigant to rely upon an “adverse inference” when a witness invokes the Fifth Amendment. “[T]he Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions . . ..”
684
The Committee has not chosen to rely on any such inference in this Report or in its hearings. We do note that certain witness assertions of the Fifth Amendment were particularly troubling, including this: Vice Chair Cheney: General Flynn, do you believe the violence on January 6th was justified? Counsel for the Witness: Can I get clarification, is that a moral question or are you asking a legal question? Vice Chair Cheney: I'm asking both. General Flynn: The Fifth.









*"
Vice Chair Cheney: Do you believe the violence on January 6th was justified morally? General Flynn: Take the Fifth. Vice Chair Cheney: Do you believe the violence on January 6th was justified legally? General Flynn: Fifth. Vice Chair Cheney: General Flynn, do you believe in the peaceful transition of power in the United States of America? General Flynn: The Fifth.
685
President Trump refused to comply with the Committee’s subpoena, and also filed suit to block the National Archives from supplying the Committee with White House records. The Committee litigated the National Archives case in Federal District Court, in the Federal Appellate Court for the District of Columbia, and before the Supreme Court. The Select Committee was successful in this litigation. The opinion of the D.C. Circuit explained: On January 6 2021, a mob professing support for then-President Trump violently attacked the United States Capitol in an effort to prevent a Joint Session of Congress from certifying the electoral college votes designating Joseph R. Biden the 46th President of the United States. The rampage left multiple people dead, injured more than 140 people, and inflicted millions of dollars in damage to the Capitol. Then-Vice President Pence, Senators, and Representatives were all forced to halt their constitutional duties and flee the House and Senate chambers for safety.
686
Benjamin Franklin said, at the founding, that we have “[a] Republic” – “if [we] can keep it.” The events of January 6th exposed the fragility of those democratic institutions and traditions that we had perhaps come to take for granted. In response, the President of the United States and Congress have each made the judgment that access to this subset of presidential communication records is necessary to address a matter of great constitutional moment for the Republic. Former President Trump has given this court no legal reason to cast aside President Biden’s assessment of the Executive Branch interests at stake, or to create a separation of powers conflict that the Political Branches have avoided.
687
Several other witnesses have also avoided testifying in whole or in part by asserting Executive Privilege or Absolute Immunity from any obligation to appear before Congress. For example, the President’s Chief of Staff Mark Meadows invoked both, and categorically refused to testify, even about text messages he provided to the Committee. The House of Representatives voted to hold him in criminal contempt.
688
Although the Justice Department









*#
has taken the position in litigation that a former high level White House staffer for a former President is not entitled to absolute immunity,
689
and that any interests in the confidentiality of his communications with President Trump and others are overcome in this case, the Justice Department declined to prosecute Meadows for criminal contempt. The reasons for Justice’s refusal to do so are not apparent to the Committee.
690
Commentators have speculated that Meadows may be cooperating in the Justice Department’s January 6th investigation.
691
The same may be true for Daniel Scavino, President Trump’s White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications and Director of Social Media, whom the House also voted to hold in contempt.
692
Steve Bannon also chose not to cooperate with the Committee, and the Justice Department prosecuted him for contempt of Congress.
693
Bannon has been sentenced and is currently appealing his conviction. Peter Navarro, another White House Staffer who refused to testify, is currently awaiting his criminal trial.
694
Although the Committee issued letters and subpoenas to seven Republican members of Congress who have unique knowledge of certain developments on or in relation to January 6th, none agreed to participate in the investigation; none considered themselves obligated to comply with the subpoenas. A number of these same individuals were aware well in advance of January 6th of the plotting by Donald Trump, John Eastman, and others to overturn the election, and certain of them had an active role in that activity.
695
None seem to have alerted law enforcement of this activity, or of the known risk of violence. On January 5th, after promoting unfounded objections to election results, Rep. Debbie Lesko appears to have recognized the danger in a call with her colleagues: I also ask leadership to come up with a safety plan for Members [of Congress]. . . . We also have, quite honestly, Trump supporters who actually believe that we are going to overturn the election, and when that doesn’t happen—most likely will not happen—they are going to go nuts.
696
During our hearings, the Committee presented the testimony of numerous White House witnesses who testified about efforts by certain Republican Members of Congress to obtain Presidential pardons for their conduct in connection with January 6th.
697
Cassidy Hutchinson provided extensive detail in this regard: Vice Chair Cheney: And are you aware of any members of Congress seeking pardons? Hutchinson: I guess Mr. Gaetz and Mr. Brooks, I know, have both advocated for there'd be a blanket pardon for members involved in that meeting, and a — a handful of other members that weren't at the December 21st meeting as the presumptive pardons. Mr. Gaetz was personally pushing for a pardon, and he was doing so since early December. I’m not sure why Mr. Gaetz would reach out to me to ask if he could have a meeting with Mr. Meadows about receiving a presidential pardon. Vice Chair Cheney: Did they all contact you?









*$
Hutchinson: Not all of them, but several of them did. Vice Chair Cheney: So, you mentioned Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Brooks. Hutchinson: Mr. Biggs did. Mr. Jordan talked about Congressional pardons, but he never asked me for one. It was more for an update on whether the White House was going to pardon members of Congress. Mr. Gohmert asked for one as well. Mr. Perry asked for a pardon, too. I’m sorry. Vice Chair Cheney: Mr. Perry? Did he talk to you directly? Hutchinson: Yes, he did. Vice Chair Cheney: Did Marjorie Taylor Greene contact you? Hutchinson: No, she didn't contact me about it. I heard that she had asked White House Counsel’s Office for a pardon from Mr. Philbin, but I didn't frequently communicate with Ms. Greene.
698
Many of these details were also corroborated by other sources. President Personnel Director Johnny McEntee confirmed that he was personally asked for a pardon by Representative Matt Gaetz (R-FL).
699
Eric Herschmann recalled that Rep. Gaetz “… asked for a very, very broad pardon.… And I said Nixon’s pardon was never nearly that broad.”
700
When asked about reporting that Reps. Mo Brooks and Andy Biggs also requested pardons, Herschmann did not reject either possibility out of hand, instead answering: “It’s possible that Representative Brooks or Biggs, but I don’t remember.”
701
The National Archives produced to the Select Committee an email from Representative Mo Brooks to the President’s executive assistant stating that “President Trump asked me to send you this letter” and “… pursuant to a request from Matt Gaetz” that recommended blanket Presidential pardons to every Member of Congress who objected to the electoral college votes on January 6th.
702
These requests for pardons suggest that the members identified above were conscious of the potential legal jeopardy arising from their conduct. As noted
infra
[], the Committee has referred a number of these individuals to the House Ethics Committee for their failure to comply with subpoenas, and believes that they each owe the American people their direct and unvarnished testimony. The Select Committee has also received a range of evidence suggesting specific efforts to obstruct the Committee’s investigation. Much of this evidence is already known by the Department of Justice and by other prosecutorial authorities. For example:
",

The Committee received testimony from a witness about her decision to terminate a lawyer who was receiving payments for the representation from a group allied with President Trump. Among other concerns expressed by the witness:









*%
!

The lawyer had advised the witness that the witness could, in certain circumstances, tell the Committee that she did not recall facts when she actually did recall them;
!

During a break in the Select Committee’s interview, the witness expressed concerns to her lawyer that an aspect of her testimony was not truthful. The lawyer did not advise her to clarify the specific testimony that the witness believed was not complete and accurate, and instead conveyed that, “They don’t know what you know, [witness]. They don’t know that you can recall some of these things. So you saying ‘I don't recall’ is an entirely acceptable response to this.”;
!

The lawyer instructed the client about a particular issue that would cast a bad light on President Trump: “No, no, no, no, no. We don’t want to go there. We don’t want to talk about that.”;
!

The lawyer refused directions from the client not to share her testimony before the Committee with other lawyers representing other witnesses. The lawyer shared such information over the client’s objection;
!

The lawyer refused directions from the client not to share information regarding her testimony with at least one and possibly more than one member of the press. The lawyer shared the information with the press over her objection.
!

The lawyer did not disclose who was paying for the lawyers’ representation of the client, despite questions from the client seeking that information, and told her, “we’re not telling people where funding is coming from right now”;
!

The client was offered potential employment that would make her “financially very comfortable” as the date of her testimony approached by entities apparently linked to Donald Trump and his associates. Such offers were withdrawn or did not materialize as reports of the content of her testimony circulated. The client believed this was an effort to impact her testimony. Further details regarding these instances will be available to the public when transcripts are released.
#,

Similarly, the witness testified that multiple persons affiliated with President Trump contacted her in advance of the witness’s testimony and made the following statements:
•

What they said to me is, as long as I continue to be a team player, they know that I am on the right team. I am doing the right thing. I am protecting who I need to protect. You know, I will continue to stay in good graces in Trump World. And they have reminded me a couple of times that Trump does read transcripts and just keep that in mind as I proceed through my interviews with the committee.









*&
Here is another sample in a different context. This is a call received by one of our witnesses:
•

[A person] let me know you have your deposition tomorrow. He wants me to let you know he’s thinking about you. He knows you’re a team player, you’re loyal, and you’re going do the right thing when you go in for your deposition.
703

$,

The Select Committee is aware of multiple efforts by President Trump to contact Select Committee witnesses. The Department of Justice is aware of at least one of those circumstances.
!"

Rather than relying on representation by Secret Service lawyers at no cost, a small number of Secret Service agents engaged private counsel for their interviews before the Committee.
704
During one such witness’s transcribed interview, a retained private counsel was observed writing notes to the witness regarding the content of the witness’s testimony while the questioning was underway. The witness’s counsel admitted on the record that he had done so.
705
Recently, published accounts of the Justice Department’s Mar-a-Lago investigation suggest that the Department is investigating the conduct of counsel for certain witnesses whose fees are being paid by President Trump’s Save America Political Action Committee.
706
The public report implies the Department is concerned that such individuals are seeking to influence the testimony of the witnesses they represent.
707
This Committee also has these concerns, including that lawyers who are receiving such payments have specific incentives to defend President Trump rather than zealously represent their own clients. The Department of Justice and the Fulton County District Attorney have been provided with certain information related to this topic. The Select Committee recognizes of course that most of the testimony we have gathered was given more than a year after January 6th. Recollections are not perfect, and the Committee expects that different accounts of the same events will naturally vary. Indeed, the lack of any inconsistencies in witness accounts would itself be suspicious. And many witnesses may simply recall different things than others. Many of the witnesses before this Committee had nothing at all to gain from their testimony, gave straightforward responses to the questions posted, and made no effort to downplay, deflect, or rationalize. Trump Administration Justice Department officials such as Attorney General Bill Barr, Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, and Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue are good examples. Multiple members of President Trump’s White House staff were also suitably forthcoming, including Sarah Matthews, Matthew Pottinger, Greg Jacob, and Pat Philbin, as were multiple career White House and agency personnel whose names the Committee agreed not to disclose publicly; as were former Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia, Bill Stepien, and certain other members of the Trump Campaign. The Committee very much appreciates the earnestness and bravery of Cassidy Hutchinson, Rusty Bowers, Shaye Moss, Ruby Freeman, Brad Raffensperger, Gabriel Sterling, Al Schmidt, and many others who provided important live testimony during the Committees hearings.
708










*'
The Committee, along with our nation, offers particular thanks to Officers Caroline Edwards, Michael Fanone, Harry Dunn, Aquilino Gonell, and Daniel Hodges, along with hundreds of other members of law enforcement who defended the Capitol on that fateful day, all of whom should be commended for their bravery and sacrifice. We especially thank the families of Officer Brian Sicknick, Howard Liebengood and Jeffrey Smith, whose loss can never be repaid. The Committee very much appreciates the invaluable testimony of General Milley and other members of our military, Judge J. Michael Luttig, and the important contributions of Benjamin Ginsberg and Chris Stirewalt. This, of course is only a partial list, and the Committee is indebted to many others, as well. The Committee believes that White House Counsel Pat Cipollone gave a particularly important account of the events of January 6th, as did White House lawyer, Eric Herschmann. For multiple months, Cipollone resisted giving any testimony at all, asserting concerns about executive privilege and other issues, until after the Committee’s hearing with Hutchinson. When he did testify, Cipollone corroborated key elements of testimony given by several White House staff, including Hutchinson – most importantly, regarding what happened in the White House during the violence of January 6th – but also frankly recognized the limits on what he could say due to privilege: “Again, I’m not going to get into either my legal advice on matters, and the other thing I don’t want to do is, again, other witnesses have their own recollections of things.” Cipollone also told the Committee that, to the extent that other witnesses recall communications attributable to White House counsel that he does not, the communications might have been with his deputy Pat Philbin, or with Eric Herschmann, who had strong feelings and was particularly animated about certain issues.
709
Of course, that is not to say that all witnesses were entirely frank or forthcoming. Other witnesses, including certain witnesses from the Trump White House, displayed a lack of full recollection of certain issues, or were not otherwise as frank or direct as Cipollone. We cite two examples here, both relating to testimony played during the hearings. Kayleigh McEnany was President Trump’s Press Secretary on January 6th. Her deposition was taken early in the investigation. McEnany seemed to acknowledge that President Trump: (1) should have instructed his violent supporters to leave the Capitol earlier than he ultimately did on January 6th;
710
(2) should have respected the rulings of the courts;
711
and (3) was wrong to publicly allege that Dominion voting machines stole the election.
712
But a segment of McEnany’s testimony seemed evasive, as if she was testifying from pre-prepared talking points. In multiple instances, McEnany’s testimony did not seem nearly as forthright as that of her press office staff, who testified about what McEnany said. For example, McEnany disputed suggestions that President Trump was resistant to condemning the violence and urging the crowd at the Capitol to act peacefully when they crafted his tweet at 2:38 p.m. on January 6th.
713
Yet one of her deputies, Sarah Matthews, told the Select Committee that McEnany informed her otherwise: that McEnany and other advisors in the dining room with President Trump persuaded him to send the tweet, but that “… she said that he did not want to put that in and that they went through different phrasing









*(
of that, of the mention of peace, in order to get him to agree to include it, and that it was Ivanka Trump who came up with ‘stay peaceful’ and that he agreed to that phrasing to include in the tweet, but he was initially resistant to mentioning peace of any sort.”
714
When the Select Committee asked “Did Ms. McEnany describe in any way how resistant the President was to including something about being peaceful,” Matthews answered: “Just that he didn’t want to include it, but they got him to agree on the phrasing ‘stay peaceful.’”
715
The Committee invites the public to compare McEnany’s testimony with the testimony of Pat Cipollone, Sarah Matthews, Judd Deere, and others, Ivanka Trump is another example. Among other things, Ivanka Trump acknowledged to the Committee that: (1) she agreed with Attorney General Barr’s statements that there was no evidence of sufficient fraud to overturn the election; (2) the President and others are bound by the rulings of the courts and the rule of law; (3) President Trump pressured Vice President Pence on the morning of January 6th regarding his authorities at the joint session of Congress that day to count electoral votes; and (4) President Trump watched the violence on television as it was occurring.
716
But again, Ivanka Trump was not as forthcoming as Cipollone and others about President Trump’s conduct. Indeed, Ivanka Trump’s Chief of Staff Julie Radford had a more specific recollection of Ivanka Trump’s actions and statements. For example, Ivanka Trump had the following exchange with the Committee about her attendance at her father’s speech on January 6th that was at odds with what the Committee learned from Radford: Committee Staff: It’s been reported that you ultimately decided to attend the rally because you hoped that you would calm the President and keep the event on an even keel. Is that accurate? Ivanka Trump: No. I don’t know who said that or where that came from.
717
However, this is what Radford said about her boss’s decision: Committee Staff: What did she share with you about why it was concerning that her father was upset or agitated after that call with Vice President Pence in relation to the Ellipse rally? Why did that matter? Why did he have to be calmed down, I should say. Radford: Well, she shared that he had called the Vice President a not – an expletive word. I think that bothered her. And I think she could tell based on the conversations and what was going on in the office that he was angry and upset and people were providing misinformation. And she felt like she might be able to help calm the situation down, at least before he went on stage. Committee Staff: And the word that she relayed to you that the President called the Vice President – apologize for being impolite – but do you remember what she said her father called him? Radford: The “P” word.
718










*)
When the Committee asked Ivanka Trump whether there were “[a]ny particular words that you recall your father using during the conversation” that morning with Vice President Pence, she answered simply: “No.”
719
In several circumstances, the Committee has found that less senior White House aides had significantly better recollection of events than senior staff purported to have. The Select Committee also has concerns regarding certain other witnesses, including those who still rely for their income or employment by organizations linked to President Trump, such as the America First Policy Institute. Certain witnesses and lawyers were unnecessarily combative, answered hundreds of questions with variants of “I do not recall” in circumstances where that answer seemed unbelievable, appeared to testify from lawyer- written talking points rather than their own recollections, provided highly questionable rationalizations or otherwise resisted telling the truth. The public can ultimately make its own assessment of these issues when it reviews the Committee transcripts and can compare the accounts of different witnesses and the conduct of counsel. One particular concern arose from what the Committee realized early on were a number of intentional falsehoods in former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows’s December 7, 2021 book,
The Chief’s Chief
.
720
Here is one of several examples: Meadows wrote, “When he got offstage, President Trump let me know that he had been speaking metaphorically about going to the Capitol.”
721
Meadows goes on in his book to claim that it “was clear the whole time” President Trump didn’t intend to go to the Capitol.
722
This appeared to be an intentional effort to conceal the facts. Multiple witnesses directly contradicted Meadows’s account about President Trump’s desire to travel to the Capitol, including Kayleigh McEnany, Cassidy Hutchinson, multiple Secret Service agents, a White House employee with national security responsibilities and other staff in the White House, a member of the Metropolitan Police and others. This and several other statements in the Meadows book were false, and the Select Committee was concerned that multiple witnesses might attempt to repeat elements of these false accounts, as if they were the party line. Most witnesses did not, but a few did. President Trump’s desire to travel to the Capitol was particularly important for the Committee to evaluate because it bears on President Trump’s intent on January 6th. One witness account suggests that President Trump even wished to participate in the electoral vote count from the House floor, standing with Republican Congressmen, perhaps in an effort to apply further pressure to Vice President Mike Pence and others.
723
Mark Meadows’s former Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations Anthony Ornato gave testimony consistent with the false account in Meadows’s book. In particular, Ornato told the Committee that he was not aware of a genuine push by the President to go to the Capitol, suggesting instead that “it was one of those hypotheticals from the good idea fairy . . . ecause it’s ridiculous to think that a President of the United States can travel especially with, you know, people around just on the street up to the Capitol and peacefully protest outside the Capitol . . ..”
724
He told the Select Committee that the only conversation he had about the possibility of the President traveling to the Capitol was in a single meeting officials









**
from the President’s advance team,
725
and his understanding is that this idea “wasn’t from the President.”
726
Two witnesses before the Committee, including a White House employee with national security responsibilities and Hutchinson, testified that Ornato related an account of PresidentTrump’s “irate” behavior when he was told in the Presidential SUV on January 6th that he would not be driven to the Capitol.
727
Both accounts recall Ornato doing so from his office in the White House, with another member of the Secret Service present.
728
Multiple other witness accounts indicate that the President genuinely was “irate,” “heated,” “angry,” and “insistent” in the Presidential vehicle.
729
But Ornato professed that he did not recall either communication, and that he had no knowledge at all about the President’s anger.
730
Likewise, despite a significant and increasing volume of intelligence information in the days before January 6th showing that violence at the Capitol was indeed possible or likely, and despite other intelligence and law enforcement agencies similar conclusions,
731
Ornato claims never to have reviewed or had any knowledge of that specific information
732
He testified that he was only aware of warnings that opposing groups might “clash on the Washington Monument” and that is what he “would have brief to [Chief of Staff] Meadows.”
733
The Committee has significant concerns about the credibility of this testimony, including because it was Ornato’s responsibility to be aware of this information and convey it to decisionmakers.
734
The Committee will release Ornato’s November Transcript so the public can review his testimony on these topics.

https://www.scribd.com/document/615...-to-the-Final-Report-of-the-Select-Committee#

 

House Republicans release counter report on Jan. 6 security failures at Capitol
Republican report blames leadership, law enforcement failures for allowing Jan. 6 violence at US Capitol.

Ahead of the House January 6 committee's final report, the five Republicans who were originally nominated to sit on the select committee on Wednesday released a counter-report on security failures at the Capitol, which they said "the Democrat-led investigation has thus far ignored."

Reps. Jim Banks, R-Ind., Rodney Davis, R-Ill., Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, Kelly Armstrong, R-N.D., and Troy Nehls, R-Texas, largely blamed bureaucratic mismanagement and "political pressures" from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., exerted on the House Sergeant at Arms that left U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) unprepared for the violence of the Jan. 6, 2021 riot.

"When Speaker Pelosi made the unprecedented decision to reject Jim Banks and Jim Jordan from sitting on the January 6 Select Committee — we knew she intended to play politics instead of addressing the massive security failures that lead to that day," the lawmakers said in a statement.

"We said then that we would investigate and get to the bottom of why the Capitol was left so unprepared that day, and what needs to be done to make sure our security apparatus is never left so unprepared again," they added. "Unsurprisingly, the Select Committee appears to have spent almost no time on this issue. We release the following report to answer these questions, and to lay groundwork for security reforms as we prepare to lead a safer and more secure Campus in the 118th Congress and beyond."

The GOP report blames "leadership and law enforcement failures" for making the Capitol vulnerable. It said changes to USCP intelligence protocols in the lead-up to Jan. 6 "caused confusion and rendered a key USCP component ineffective" during the mob violence.

Republicans accused former House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving of being "compromised by politics," coordinating closely with Pelosi and her staff but leaving GOP lawmakers out of discussions about security. The report said Democratic leaders were concerned over the "optics" of deploying the National Guard in response to the riot, given the Black Lives Matter riots that took place in the summer of 2020. The GOP lawmakers alleged these concerns prevented early deployment of the National Guard.

"To make matters worse, systemic issues have crippled the security apparatus for years. USCP line officers were under-trained and ill-equipped to protect the Capitol complex," the report said. "One officer testified to investigators that he went into the fight on January 6, 2021 with nothing but his USCP-issued baseball cap. Even if every USCP officer had been at work that day, their numbers would still have been insufficient to hold off the rioters due to a lack of training and equipment. The USCP was set up to fail, and there have been scant signs of progress toward addressing these weaknesses."

Republicans said the evidence gathered in their report came from witnesses and USCP sources whose identities are protected for fear of retaliation. Additionally, the House investigators interviewed USCP Chief Tom Manger, House Sergeant at Arms William Walker, and the Assistant Director of the Intelligence and Interagency Coordination Division Julie Farnam. The investigation also relied on public documents and news reports to supplement their findings.

The GOP report is meant to supplement a bipartisan report released by the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee and the Committee on Rules and Administration last year. That report identified several security, planning and response failures leading up to the riot, including FBI and Homeland Security intelligence officials neglecting to warn of potential violence and USPC unpreparedness.

"The intelligence failures, coupled with the Capitol Police Board’s failure to request National Guard assistance prior to January 6th, meant the District of Columbia National Guard (DCNG) was not activated, staged, and prepared to quickly respond to an attack on the Capitol," the Senate report found.

Pelosi has repeatedly denied GOP allegations that she or her office prevented the National Guard from deploying, or otherwise ignored threats of violence leading up to the riot.

The Democrat-led Jan. 6 select committee is expected release its final report on the Capitol riot Thursday. Seven Democrats and the two anti-Trump Republicans on the committee, Reps. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., and Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., have for months alleged that the "insurrection" mounted by former President Trump's supporters was the final step in his plan to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

The committee released a 154-page executive summary of their findings on Monday and referred criminal charges against Trump to the Justice Department.

"What Donald Trump proceeded to do after the 2020 election is something no president had done before in our country," said Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss. "In a staggering betrayal of his oath, Donald Trump attempted a plan that led to an attack on a pillar of our democracy."

The panel argued during the committee's final meeting that Trump's conduct before and after Jan. 6 was "unlawful." Lawmakers say they have sufficient evidence that Trump obstructed an official proceeding of Congress, conspired to defraud the federal government, made a false statement, and incited, assisted or aided an insurrection.

 

The January 6th Committee Is About To Spill All of The Tea

Jessica Washington
Thu, December 22, 2022 at 9:50 AM MST



WASHINGTON, DC - DECEMBER 19: January 6th Committee chair, U.S. Representative Bennie Thompson (D-MS), looks on as U.S. Representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) speaks while U.S. Representative Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) looks on as the committee meets for their final session at the Cannon House Office Building where the January 6th Committee on Monday December 19, 2022 in Washington, DC.
Things are about to get even crazier on Capitol Hill. Any moment now, the House January 6th Committee is going to release their 800-page report on the insurrection.

They clearly knew we couldn’t wait for the full-report on Thursday, so here are some of the most scandalous conclusions from the summary of report released earlier this week (yes: President Donald Trump is hella implicated).

Read more

• Aside from Halle Bailey, Here Are Other Black Disney Actors and Characters We Love
  
  
• The Best TV Series, Movies of 2022 to Binge Before the Year Ends
  
  
• Megan Thee Stallion Becomes 1st Black Woman to Land Forbes 30 Under 30 Cover
  

- ADVERTISEMENT -

“The evidence has led to an overriding and straight-forward conclusion: the central cause of January 6th was one man, former President Donald Trump,” the Committee wrote in the report. “None of the events of January 6th would have happened without him”

Pretty damning stuff, but what does that mean legally for the ex-President? The summary, which was released by the committee touches on that too.

“This report also examines the legal implications of Donald Trump and his co-conspirators’ conduct and includes criminal referrals to the Department of Justice regarding President Trump and certain other individuals,” reads the report.

The committee alleges that Trump was in violation of four criminal statues related to his involvement in the January 6th insurrection.

Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-MS) told the AP, that Trump “broke the faith” of the American people who voted in the 2020 election.

“I believe nearly two years later, this is still a time of reflection and reckoning,” Thompson said, according to the AP. “If we are to survive as a nation of laws and democracy, this can never happen again.”

The summary of the report does not mention one name, we’re sure is top of mind for our readers, wife of Supreme Court Justice, Ginni Thomas. Mrs. Thomas has had her hands all over this election scandal, but so-far doesn’t seem implicated in any of the criminal referrals. Although we could find out more about her involvement in the 800-page version of the report. (Feel free to read it and get back to us folks).

Just because the summary contained criminal referrals doesn’t mean anyone is necessarily going to jail. The Justice Department ultimately has the power to decide to pursue criminal charges or not. Although based on all the other legal drama surrounding the former-President, this may all be the least of his concern.

As we wait for the release of the entire report we can only hope there are some additionally riveting details to come out of this extensive report.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/january-6th-committee-spill-tea-165000150.html

 

Jan. 6 report says Trump floated plan for 10,000 troops to protect him - recap of findings
Ella Lee, Kevin McCoy, Donovan Slack, Kevin Johnson, Candy Woodall and Josh Meyer, USA TODAY
Fri, December 23, 2022 at 12:44 PM MST


The House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol released its highly anticipated final report Thursday, presenting a full account of its findings on former President Donald Trump's efforts to maintain power.

Here are some key findings from the report:

• Trump was "central cause": The report puts the blame squarely on the former president: "The central cause of January 6th was one man, former President Donald Trump, whom many others followed. None of the events of January 6th would have happened without him."
  
  
• Report is more than 800 pages: The more than 800-page report describes the panel's findings as a result of its 18-month investigation into the Capitol attack, including the basis for the committee's recommendation that the Justice Department prosecute a former president for the first time in U.S. history.
  
  
• Attack was "foreseeable": The report gives a damning account of law enforcement's response to troubling intelligence before the attack. The risk to the Capitol was "foreseeable," the report said.
  
  
• Eighteen times: Trump tried to speak with Georgia's secretary of state 18 times in an effort to overturn Joe Biden's win in the state.
  
  
• 'Entire White House senior staff" wanted Trump to intervene: "The entire White House senior staff was in favor of a Presidential statement” urging all rioters to leave the Capitol, the report said.
  
  
• Trump floated 10,000 troops to protect him: Two days before the assault, then-President Trump persisted in his desire to accompany demonstrators on a march to the Capitol, suggesting 10,000 National Guard troops could provide protection for him and an entourage.
  

Trump aide feared 'Trump world': Cassidy Hutchinson says 'Trump world' tried to stifle her – Takeaways from Jan. 6 records

The latest from the report:

Trump aides joked ‘dead voter’ claims exaggerated
Even as then-President Donald Trump and his legal team continued to claim that more than 10,000 dead people had voted in the 2020 election in Georgia, top White House aides jokingly acknowledged the exaggeration.

Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows and senior adviser Eric Herschmann, in an early December exchange of messages, privately debunked the assertions as Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani pressed the case in Georgia.

Meadows said that his son had found a scant “12 obituaries and 6 other possibles depending on the Voter roll acuracy [sic].”

Said Herschmann: “That sounds more like it. Maybe he can help Rudy find the other 10k ??"

– Kevin Johnson

'Scared' Kevin McCarthy called Jared Kushner – in the shower – for help in getting Trump to call off the rioters
The Jan. 6 committee disclosed that the Republican House leader tried repeatedly to reach former President Donald Trump, “and did at least once” while also asking multiple members of Trump’s family for help, including senior White House aides Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner.

“Kushner characterized Leader McCarthy’s demeanor on the call as “scared,” according to Kushner’s testimony. “I could hear in his voice that he really was nervous, and so, obviously, I took that seriously” and wanted to help. “I turned the shower off, threw on a suit, and, you know, and rushed into the White House as quickly as I could.”

Asked what McCarthy had asked Kushner for help with, he said, “I don't recall a specific ask, just anything you could do. Again, I got the sense that, you know, (lawmakers in the Capitol) were—they were—you know, they were scared.”

– Josh Meyer

RNC staffer refused to say Trump won Pennsylvania, report says
Ethan Katz, a Republican National Committee staffer in 2020, was asked to write a fundraising email saying former President Donald Trump had won Pennsylvania before the state had been called for either candidate.

Katz refused, and three weeks after the election he lost his job. His supervisor Hannah Allred, during an interview with the Jan. 6 committee, said she didn’t know why he was fired and the decision was not hers to make, according to the report.

In the days after the 2020 election, Katz had also challenged Trump campaign staffers about how copywriters were supposed to explain to voters the campaign wanted to keep counting votes in Arizona but stop counting votes in other battleground states such as Pennsylvania, Georgia and Michigan, according to the committee report.

– Candy Woodall

'Entire White House senior staff' wanted Trump to issue a statement instructing the violent rioters to leave the Capitol, but Trump refused
The committee’s final report disclosed that “the entire White House senior staff was in favor of a Presidential statement” urging all rioters to leave the Capitol. It cited, among other things, previously undisclosed testimony by then-White House Counsel Pat Cipollone.

“And when you talk about others on the staff thinking more should be done, or thinking that the President needed to tell people to go home, who would you put in that category?” committee Vice Chair Liz Cheney asked Cipollone during his testimony before the committee. Cipollone ticked off a long list of top staffers, including Pat Philbin, Eric Herschmann, chief of staff Mark Meadows and Trump’s daughter Ivanka. In fact, Cipollone responded, “I can’t think of anybody on that day who didn’t want people to get out of the Capitol once the—particularly once the violence started.”

As the committee disclosed during its televised hearings, an eyewitness said Meadows told Cipollone as the rioters broke into the Capitol that Trump “doesn’t want to do anything.” Cipollone confirmed to Cheney the gist of that exchange. “I had a conversation I’m sure with Mark Meadows, I’m sure with other people, of what I thought should be done,” Cipollone testified. “Did Mark say that to me? I don’t have a recollection of him saying that to me, but he may have said something along the lines.”

– Josh Meyer

Trump floated plan for 10,000 National Guard troops to protect him in march to Capitol
Two days before the Jan. 6 assault, then-President Donald Trump persisted in his desire to accompany demonstrators on a march to the Capitol, suggesting that 10,000 National Guard troops could provide protection for him and an entourage.

According to the committee, White House Senior Advisor Max Miller “shot it down immediately” out of concern for Trump’s safety, indicating that there was no additional conversation about the National Guard protection plan.

“Just glad we killed the national guard and a procession,” Miller later texted to Trump aide Katrina Pierson.

The episode stands out, as there is no evidence that Trump ever called on the National Guard to put down the eventual riot at the Capitol, contributing to the long-delayed military response to the violent assault.

– Kevin Johnson

RNC fundraised on Trump’s false claims
The Republican National Committee received millions in donations during the days that followed the 2020 election, having its most successful period of the campaign cycle while giving credence to former President Donald Trump’s unsubstantiated claims that he won, according to the Jan. 6 committee’s final report.

Trump and the RNC raised a combined $250 million after the 2020 election – mostly from small donors who believed they were giving money to help “stop the steal.”

– Candy Woodall

But RNC knew Trump lost and changed language to protect from 'legal exposure,' report says
But interviews and internal documents show the RNC knew Trump had lost, and its legal team maneuvered behind the scenes to carefully choose its language, the report said. For example, the RNC’s legal team advised copywriters to change language from “steal the election” to “try to steal the election,” according to the report. Copywriters were also advised not to use the term “rigged” or say that Joe Biden lost or Trump won. Instead, they were encouraged to use phrases like “finish the fight” and Trump “got 71 million legal votes.”

“Evidence obtained by the Select Committee shows that the RNC knew that President Trump’s claims about winning the election were baseless and that additional donations would not help him secure an additional term in office,” the report said. “They walked as close to the line as they dared—making several changes to fundraising copy that seemingly protected the RNC from legal exposure while still spreading and relying on President Trump’s known lies and misrepresentations.”

– Candy Woodall

Longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone connective thread between extremist groups
Roger Stone, a longtime political adviser to former President Donald Trump, had close ties to right-wing activists pushing incendiary rhetoric leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol attack and the extremist groups who led the charge that day.

At a November 2020 protest in Atlanta – led by InfoWars' Alex Jones, white supremacist Nick Fuentes and right-wing activist Ali Alexander, and secured by members of the extremist groups Proud Boys and Oath Keepers – Stone gave a speech via phone advancing election fraud claims and urging “victory or death,” the report says.

The Trump adviser was also in a Signal group chat titled “Friends of Stone” that included Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes, Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio and other members of extremist groups. Days after the election, Stone messaged in the chat: “We provide information several times a day. So please monitor the F.O.S. feed so you can act in a timely fashion.”

Stone was interviewed by the committee, though he invoked the Fifth Amendment in response to more than 70 questions about the Capitol attack and his communications with Trump, the panel said.

– Ella Lee

The Trump pressure campaign on state officials, by the numbers
The plan to overturn election results in the states by disregarding actual vote counts and appointing fake Trump electors was set in motion shortly after the 2020 presidential election, and by the time Biden’s victory was certified had included hundreds of instances of outreach by Trump loyalists, the report concludes.

The plan – which even top Trump aide Dan Scavino called “crazy,” according to the report, involved pressuring state legislators to effectively change the outcome of the election.

The Jan. 6 committee did the math on what that entailed for Trump and his inner circle:

• 68 meetings, attempted or connected phone calls, or text messages aimed at state or local officials
  
  
• 18 instances of prominent public remarks targeting the officials
  
  
• 125 social media posts, mostly from Trump
  
  
• The campaign contacted or tried to contact 200 state legislators, the report says. Hundreds joined a private briefing with Trump, Rudy Giuliani, and lawyer John Eastman. Trump urged attendees to exercise “the real power” to select electors that would keep him in power.
  

– Donovan Slack

Trump’s intent to go to the Capitol is what counts, report says
The final report says “it is difficult to fully reconcile” divergent accounts about Trump’s purported efforts to go to the Capitol after his Jan. 6, 2021 speech – including whether he tried to get physical with a member of his security detail.

But that’s not important, it’s Trump’s intent that counts, the report said.

“The principal factual point here is clear and undisputed: President Trump specifically and repeatedly requested to be taken to the Capitol. He was insistent and angry, and continued to push to travel to the Capitol even after returning to the White House,” the report said. Noting that the presidential motorcade did not disband, as usual, upon reaching the White House, the report said a Secret Service document shows that Trump planned “on holding at the White House for the next approximate two hours, then moving to the Capitol.”

– Kevin McCoy

High-profile Jan. 6 cases surface in report
Capitol rioters embroiled in some of the Justice Department’s most high-profile prosecutions related to the Jan. 6, 2021 attack made cameos in the House committee’s final report.

The report’s section on the conspiracy movement QAnon is opened with a description of Doug Jensen, an Iowa construction worker who chased U.S. Capitol Police officer Eugene Goodman through the Capitol while wearing a “Q” shirt. Jensen was found guilty of seven criminal charges tied to the Capitol attack and sentenced to five years in prison.

Jacob Chansley, better known as the “QAnon Shaman,” was pointed out by the committee as evidence of rioters’ susceptibility to former President Donald Trump’s directives. After the former president released a message urging the rioters to “go home,” Chansely told a crowd: “I’m here delivering the President’s message. Donald Trump has asked everybody to go home.” Another responded to Chansley: “That’s our order,” the report says. Chansley pled guilty in his Capitol riot case and was sentenced to 41 months in prison.

Details from the trial of five Oath Keepers – plus allegations against members of the Proud Boys, who await trial – bolstered the committee’s argument that the Capitol assault was planned by some in advance.

– Ella Lee

Dozens of witnesses impeded the Jan. 6 committee investigation by invoking the Fifth Amendment or refusing to testify, panel says
The committee revealed that it believed its investigation was impeded in serious ways by the fact that more than 30 witnesses invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, while others invoked executive privilege “or categorically refused to appear,” including Trump confidante and former advisor Steve Bannon, who was later convicted of contempt of Congress.

Many Trump lawyers and supporters, including Jenna Ellis, John Eastman, Phil Waldron, and former Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, all took the fifth when asked by the committee “what supposed proof they uncovered that the election was stolen.” Others who were central to understanding whether Trump conspired with others to engage in seditious conspiracy also took the fifth, the committee said, including Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows. Meadows, who refused to testify and was held in contempt of Congress, “could have specific evidence relevant to such charges, as may (other) witnesses who invoked their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination before this Committee.”

The committee said it was “particularly troubling” that certain witnesses took the fifth, including Flynn, for refusing to comment on such basic questions as whether he believed the violence on Jan. 6 was justified and whether he believed “in the peaceful transition of power” in the U.S. The House panel also suggested “that the Department of Justice further examine possible efforts to obstruct our investigation,” including why so many witnesses took the Fifth and what they might have been trying to hide.

– Josh Meyer

'Potus likes the crazies’: Trump aide concerned about Ellipse rally
While planning the Jan. 6, 2021 rally near the White House, an aide to then-President Donald Trump expressed deep concern about including election fraud promoters Roger Stone and Alex Jones.

In testimony before the House committee, Trump aide Katrina Pierson referred to Jones’ involvement in a volatile November 2020 demonstration as the “kind of thing” that gave her pause. But Pierson also acknowledged in a text message to an associate of the pressure Trump was exerting to pump up the crowd, saying “POTUS . . . likes the crazies.”

“Pierson said that she believed this was the case because President Trump ‘loved people who viciously defended him in public.’ But their 'vicious' defenses of the President clearly troubled Pierson.”

The lineup of controversial speakers was described as the “original psycho list,” and Pierson was so troubled that she reached out to Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows for help. “Things have gotten crazy and I desperately need some direction,” Pierson wrote.

– Kevin Johnson

Extremist groups, QAnon adherents led charge into the Capitol, committee finds
Members of right-wing extremist groups and adherents to the conspiracy movement QAnon led the assault on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, the House committee investigating the attack said in its final report.

The report found that members of the Proud Boys, who allegedly planned to storm the Capitol ahead of the riot, “led the attack at key breach points.” Members of the Oath Keepers formed military-style “stacks” to gain entry to the building. And extremists like the militia group Three Percenters, white nationalist Groypers and QAnon believers egged the mob on at the “frontlines,” the panel found.

“The January 6th attack has often been described as a riot — and that is partly true. Some of those who trespassed on the Capitol’s grounds or entered the building did not plan to do so beforehand,” the committee wrote. “But it is also true that extremists, conspiracy theorists and others were prepared to fight. That is an insurrection.”

– Ella Lee

Liz Cheney: ‘The most shameful findings’
GOP Rep. Liz Cheney, vice chair of the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, laid out in the beginning of the report what the committee found “among the most shameful findings” from the hearings: “President Trump sat in the dining room off the Oval Office watching the violent riot at the Capitol on television.”

The committee, like a previous USA TODAY report, said for hours Trump did not issue a public statement urging his supporters to leave the Capitol “despite urgent pleas from his White House staff and dozens of others to do so.”

During those 187 minutes when Trump was publicly silent, “law enforcement agents were attacked and seriously injured, the Capitol was invaded, the electoral count was halted and the lives of those in the Capitol were put at risk,” Cheney said.

– Candy Woodall

What Trump did during the attack: A breakdown of the 187 minutes Trump was out of view on Jan. 6 as aides urged him to act

Trump called claims of Dominion voting systems fraud 'crazy' before pushing that narrative himself
Top Trump advisor Hope Hicks told the Jan. 6 committee that Trump laughed at his campaign lawyer Sidney Powell's claims of how three foreign countries had helped Joe Biden win by manipulating Dominion voting systems – before going public with how Dominion lost him the election through widespread fraud.

Trump’s comments on Nov. 20, 2020 came a day after Powell and two other Trump campaign lawyers, Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis, held a press conference at Republican National Committee headquarters in Washington, where Powell claimed there was a “massive influence of communist money through Venezuela, Cuba, and likely China in the interference with our elections here in the United States.” She singled out Dominion’s election software and did the same in the follow-up call to Trump.

“While (Powell) was speaking, the President muted his speakerphone and laughed at Powell, telling the others in the room, ‘This does sound crazy, doesn’t it?'” But while the Trump campaign soon distanced itself from Powell, Trump began pushing the same narrative through tweets and other comments, the committee said.

– Josh Meyer

Hope Hicks' Jan. 6 testimony: Will Trump loyalist Hope Hicks' Jan. 6 testimony incriminate the former president?

Details emerge of parking garage meeting between Oath Keepers, Proud Boys leaders
Leaders of the right-wing extremist groups Oath Keepers and Proud Boys discussed standing as a united front on Jan. 6, 2021 during a parking garage meeting that took place the day prior, according to the final report by the House committee investigating the Capitol attack.

During the meeting, Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio acknowledged that he and Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes “don’t get along,” but needed to “unite regardless of our differences” in a “situation like this.” Tarrio had just been released from custody and ordered to leave Washington, D.C. after burning a church’s Black Lives Matter banner.

Parts of the meeting were captured on video by documentary filmmaker Nick Quested, though the committee conceded that much of the discussion between the two extremist group leaders is unknown because Quested was asked to stop filming. But the committee determined that the Oath Keepers' quick reaction forces, stockpiled with firearms in Virginia, were discussed at the meeting, according to the report.

– Ella Lee

Oath Keepers lawyer: 'Storming the Capitol' discussed, but 'normal'
Also present at the meeting were Latinos for Trump leader Bianca Gracia and Oath Keepers lawyer Kelley SoRelle.

SoRelle told the panel that right-wing political activists – including Gracia, Rhodes, Vets for Trump leader Joshua Macias and Virginia State Sen. Amanda Chase – discussed “storming the Capitol” at a get-together ahead of the parking garage meeting, though she claimed talk like that was “normal” and not indicative of violence.

– Ella Lee

‘No evidence’ delayed National Guard response was intentional
The House committee described the National Guard’s delayed response to the Capitol violence as “unnecessary and unacceptable,” but the panel concluded that there was “no evidence” officials intended to deny assistance.

Investigators said the poor response was the “byproduct of military processes and institutional caution.”

“We have no evidence that the delay was intentional,” the committee concluded. “Likewise, it appears that none of the individuals involved understood what President Trump planned for January 6th, and how he would behave during the violence.”

The panel noted then-President Donald Trump’s unexpected “active encouragement” of the rioters, as prompting the “full-blown” assault that ultimately outpaced the response.

– Kevin Johnson

Trump tried to speak with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger 18 times
Much has been reported about the phone call on Jan. 2, 2021, when Trump asked Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find” votes to overturn Joe Biden’s election in the state.

But the final Jan. 6 committee report reveals just how vociferously the former president was chasing any basis to stay in power. Before the call, the report notes, Trump “had tried to speak by phone with Raffensperger at least 18 times.”

“Raffensperger, for his part, had avoided talking to the President because of ongoing litigation with the President’s Campaign,” the report says.

When they did speak, with lawyers on the line, Trump made the infamous ask of Georgia’s top election official to “find 11,780 votes” to tip the state his way. Not to do so, Trump threatened, would be a criminal offense.

– Donovan Slack

RNC staffers were assigned to help with fake electors scheme
The final report from the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack further revealed details surrounding the Trump campaign’s effort to send an alternate slate of electors to Congress in the former president’s effort to stay in power.

Republican National Committee Ronna McDaniel testified that former President Donald Trump and his attorney John Eastman in a phone call asked for the RNC’s help in gathering a slate of fake electors ahead of Dec. 14, 2020 in case the Trump campaign won any of its legal challenges.

The Jan. 6 report shows McDaniel called back Trump soon after that call ended, “letting him know that she agreed to his request and that some RNC staffers were already assisting.”

– Candy Woodall

Ex-Overstock.com CEO paid for Proud Boys leader’s flight to DC protest, committee says
Businessman Patrick Byrne, former Overstock CEO, paid for Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio’s travel by private jet to a November 2020 protest in Washington where he met with other extremists, according to the Jan. 6 committee’s final report.

Tarrio met with Ali Alexander, the “Stop the Steal” organizer, and described the Nov. 14 Million MAGA March protest as a “historic” meeting of Trump supporters, the report says.

Byrne confirmed that he paid for the flight on Friday, suggesting in a tweet he was told that “a bunch of patriotic Latinos” wanted to attend the rally before agreeing to front the cost for their travel.

A month after the protest, on Dec. 18, Byrne argued to Trump in a White House meeting that he had the authority to seize voting machines under a 2018 executive order, the report says. The suggestion was “forcefully condemned” by other administration officials at the meeting, according to the report.

– Ella Lee

Risk to Capitol was ‘foreseeable’
Although the House committee heaped primary blame on former President Donald Trump for the deadly Capitol assault, the report also offered a damning account of law enforcement’s response to troubling intelligence gathered in the weeks before the attack.

“Federal and local law enforcement authorities were in possession of multiple streams of intelligence predicting violence directed at the Capitol prior to January 6th,” the committee concluded. “Although some of that intelligence was fragmentary, it should have been sufficient to warrant far more vigorous preparations for the security of the joint session.”

The panel said the failure to share and act on the warnings “jeopardized the lives of the police officers defending the Capitol and everyone in it.”

“While the danger to the Capitol posed by an armed and angry crowd was foreseeable, the fact that the President of the United States would be the catalyst of their fury and facilitate the attack was unprecedented in American history.”

– Kevin Johnson

Ban Trump from government office?
Those who swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and then engaged in insurrection during the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot should be barred from government office of any kind, the committee’s final report recommends. The report based the proposal on the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which includes a disqualification clause originally intended to keep Confederates from taking part in the government after the Civil War.

The report said disqualification also should apply to former President Donald Trump.

“The Select Committee has referred Donald Trump and others for possible prosecution … including for assisting and providing aid and comfort to an insurrection,” the report said. “The Committee also notes that Donald J. Trump was impeached by a majority of the House of Representatives for Incitement of an Insurrection, and there were 57 votes in the Senate for his conviction.”

– Kevin McCoy

Trump speechwriter during Jan. 6 riot: ‘Potus im sure is loving this’
As rioters stormed the Capitol and the chilling images played out on television across the nation, Trump wanted to talk about upending the counting of electoral votes that would validate Biden’s victory.

“I said, ‘Mr. President, they’ve taken the Vice President out. They want me to get off the phone, I gotta go,’” Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., recalled telling him.

Trump then rang Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. The Republican leader said he urged the president to go on TV and Twitter and “call these people off.”

But the president was non-plussed, falsely asserting they weren’t his people and then telling McCarthy, “Kevin, maybe these people are just more angry about this than you are.”

As the violence at the Capitol escalated, Trump’s speechwriter, Gabriel Robert texted someone, “Potus im sure is loving this.”

– Donovan Slack

Trump reacts to Jan. 6 committee report
Former President Donald Trump on Thursday condemned the final report of the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol attack, decrying it as a “witch hunt” again.

Rather than respond to the report’s specific findings, Trump criticized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's over security issues. The post: "The highly partisan Unselect Committee Report purposely fails to mention the failure of Pelosi to heed my recommendation for troops to be used in D.C., show the 'Peacefully and Patrioticly' words I used, or study the reason for the protest, Election Fraud. WITCH HUNT!"

There is no evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 election.

– Ella Lee

Read the full PDF of the Jan. 6 committee report here
The committee’s final report made 17 findings about the Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021, including that Trump plotted to overturn the 2020 results despite knowing he’d lost, sent an angry and armed mob to the Capitol and failed to respond to the violence as it unfolded on television.

Committee recommended Trump be prosecuted at final hearing

• The committee voted Monday 9-0 to refer four criminal referrals against Trump to the Justice Department: obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to make a false statement, and "incite," "assist" or "aid and comfort" an insurrection.
  
  
• There could be enough evidence for criminal charges against other Trump allies, like attorneys John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, Jeffrey Clark and Kenneth Chesebro, the panel said.
  
  
• The committee also is recommending the House Ethics Committee investigate four Republican lawmakers – including Kevin McCarthy, the potential next House speaker – for defying the committee's subpoenas.
  

https://www.yahoo.com/news/jan-6-committees-final-report-134753140.html

 

Kind of wondered when they'd bring this up.

The speaker of the house has no control over the national guard. None.

 

Wonder when (or if) we'll ever get to read anything but the edited version the star chamber wants us to see ..............

 

Now, lookit here.
Cassidy Hutchinson says she initially lied to the January 6 committee about a claim that Trump grabbed the steering wheel of his SUV and lunged at a Secret Service agent (yahoo.com)

The chambers star witness, Hutchinson, admitted she lied to the committee before. Cause, you know, attorney said so. She "forgot" to tell the committee about Trump lunging for the wheel you see.
The real point however is that this was the testimony Hutchinson gave when she went back to the chamber to finally reveal the breathtaking news that a guy who knew a guy told her Trump lunged for the wheel, and which the star chamber made a highlight of one of it's broadcast circus shows.
Interesting, isnt' it, that Hutchinson's testimony about how she lied didn't make the editing cuts when the circus show was broadcast.

Demonstrating yet again; Nancy Antoinette's star chamber production is only feeding the American public what they want us to see.
Not the truth.
Not the evidence so we can make up our own minds about what, exactly, happened on January 6.
What that bunch wants us to see.

Why is that, do you suppose?
What are they so afraid of?

Shooter thinks they're afraid of yet another failed get trump scheme.

 

And again, space alien thinks he's entitled to classified information. Maybe he should use his matter disruptor to ferret out the info?

 

Rest assured I will never forgive or forget an entire party that turned traitors against the Constitution and the United States of America for just one man. You will always be treasonous conservative/America Hating/Republicans from then on and I will never let you forget it. You tired to steal a free and fair election and ended a more than 230 tradition of a peaceful transfer of power. So don't you ever try to claim you are an "American" again.

Schiff urges Americans not to forget role of GOP members of Congress in efforts to overturn election

Jared Gans
Sat, December 24, 2022 at 11:28 AM MST


Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a member of the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, urged the public not to forget the role that Republican members of Congress played in efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Schiff said in an op-ed published Thursday in The New York Times that only “scant attention” is given to the number of GOP members of the House and Senate who voted to contest the results of multiple states in the election.

“Even after Capitol Police and Metropolitan Police put down the insurrection at great cost to themselves, the majority of Republicans in the House picked up right where they left off, still voting to overturn the results in important states,” he said.

After Congress reconvened to count the votes of the Electoral College following the attack, 147 Republican members of Congress — eight senators and 139 representatives — objected to the results in Arizona or Pennsylvania, both of which were key states that helped seal President Biden’s victory in the election.

- ADVERTISEMENT -

“Even the Constitution cannot protect us if the people sworn to uphold it do not give meaning to their oath of office, if that oath is not informed by ideas of right and wrong, and if people are unwilling to accept the basic truth of things,” Schiff said. “None of it will be enough.”

Schiff’s op-ed came on the same day that the committee released its final report on the insurrection. The committee made four criminal referrals for former President Trump to the Justice Department (DOJ) earlier in the week.

The committee also referred multiple Republican representatives who refused to comply with its subpoenas to the House Ethics Committee. They include House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) and Reps. Jim Jordan (Ohio), Scott Perry (Pa.) and Andy Biggs (Ariz.).

Schiff said the country’s elected officials should be chosen based on their allegiance to the law and the Constitution and people should be guided by facts, “not factions.”

“It is our hope that this report will make a small contribution to that effort. Our country has never before faced the kind of threat we documented. May it never again,” he said.

Schiff also outlined the next steps following the committee’s report in an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times on Friday. He said the DOJ should hold itself to the standard it established at the start of its investigation into the attack as it determines what charges to pursue — a standard Schiff described simply as “follow the evidence wherever it leads.”

Among other reforms, he also called for Congress to pass legislation to clarify the House’s authority to enforce its subpoenas and that the vice president only has a ceremonial role in counting the votes of the Electoral College. Congress approved the Electoral Count Reform Act, which makes the latter clarification, as part of the omnibus government funding bill this week, sending the bill to Biden’s desk.

Schiff additionally called on the country to confront the “rising tide” of bigotry and racially motivated violent extremism.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/jan-6-th...use-committees-public-hearings-212803293.html