DAMN!! How will HISTORY look back on Trump, Fox News & all his supporters during Coronavirus & AFTER he leaves office? UPDATE: Trump WON
- Thread starter playahaitian
- Start date
History is gonna look back on Trump and Faux News the same way History looks back on the Confederate flag. Half the country will see them as patients running the asylum. While the other half will see them as patriots who brought order to our country for the most briefest of times
They are going to look like nazi and nazi propaganda.
These motherfcukers don't care! It is like the jackoffs that talk about state rights when you ask them what the Civil War was about!
Why is this a news story like it's a surprise? Everyone besides dumb bootlickers knows that the republican support of police and military members ain't shit but lip service.
Politics: Arizona auditors say voter data is intact, walking back previous claims about Maricopa County audit,
Arizona auditors say voter data is intact, walking back previous claims about Maricopa County audit, according to fact-checkers On Tuesday, an Arizona firm commissioned by state Republicans to audit the 2020 election in Maricopa County walked back claims that a key database had been deleted...
www.bgol.us
White House press secretary Jen Psaki says she would caution ‘against disproving a negative’ after Fox News correspondent Peter Doocy questions the origins of COVID-19 during a press briefing on Thursday
As G.O.P. Blocks Inquiry, Questions on Jan. 6 Attack May Go Unanswered
The demise of an independent panel to investigate the riot means that the country is unlikely to get a definitive accounting for one of the most serious domestic attacks on the government in history.
A mob stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 after a rally where President Donald J. Trump spoke, urging supporters to reject the results of what he falsely claimed was a stolen election.
A mob stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 after a rally where President Donald J. Trump spoke, urging supporters to reject the results of what he falsely claimed was a stolen election.Credit...Jason Andrew for The New York Times
By Luke Broadwater
May 29, 2021, 11:51 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON — In blocking the formation of an independent commission to investigate the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, Republicans in Congress have all but closed off the possibility of a full and impartial accounting for one of the most serious assaults on American democracy in history, leaving unanswered critical questions with broad implications for politics, security and public trust.
Fearing political damage from any sustained scrutiny of the attack, Republicans united in large numbers against the inquiry, moving to shift an unwelcome spotlight away from former President Donald J. Trump, his election lies that fueled the attack, and the complicity of many G.O.P. lawmakers in amplifying his false claims of widespread voter fraud.
The result is that key details about a shocking act of domestic extremism against the United States government are likely to remain shrouded in mystery, and anything new that may be revealed about the assault at the Capitol will most likely be viewed through a partisan lens, with a substantial proportion of the country rejecting the reality of what transpired.
The public may never know precisely what Mr. Trump and members of his administration did or said as a throng of his supporters stormed the Capitol while Congress met to formalize President Biden’s victory, threatening the lives of lawmakers and the vice president. The full story may never be revealed of why security officials were so unprepared for the breach of the building, supposedly one of the most secure in the nation, despite ample warnings of potential violence. The extent of the role of Republican lawmakers closely allied with Mr. Trump in planning the Jan. 6 “Stop the Steal” rally that spiraled into a brutal onslaught may remain unexplored.
Despite its divisions, the United States formed fact-finding commissions after the attack of Pearl Harbor in 1941, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 and the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The failure to do so in this case, said those involved in some of the inquiries, would further erode trust in the government, and deprive the public of the kinds of lessons that could prevent another such attack.
“After many of the national tragedies we’ve experienced over the last 50 or more years, the response was to have a bipartisan investigation that would lay out the facts in a way that would be definitive,” said Michael Chertoff, who served as homeland security secretary under President George W. Bush in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. “It builds trust. It shows the public at a time of crisis, we can all come together and put the good of the country ahead of partisan interests.”
ImageSenator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, united most members of his party in blocking the Jan. 6 commission, which he said Democrats would use to try to harm them politically.
Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, united most members of his party in blocking the Jan. 6 commission, which he said Democrats would use to try to harm them politically.Credit...Erin Scott for The New York Times
Mr. Chertoff and three other former homeland security secretaries who served presidents of both parties had lobbied Republicans to support the creation of a Jan. 6 commission, saying the nation needed a better understanding of “how the violent insurrection at the Capitol came together to ensure the peaceful transfer of power in our country is never so threatened again.”
“We need to get a definitive explanation of what actually happened,” Mr. Chertoff said in an interview after the vote.
Even as the Justice Department moves to prosecute the rioters, congressional committees hold hearings and inspectors general examine their agencies’ responses to the attack, there is no outside group of experts charged with getting to the bottom of the myriad failings that led to the deadliest assault on the Capitol since the War of 1812.
What has been uncovered about the attack has only raised more questions:
Why did it take hours for the D.C. National Guard to receive approval to deploy to the Capitol to fight off the mob? Maj. Gen. William J. Walker, the D.C. National Guard commander at the time, has said he did not receive approval to mobilize troops until more than three hours after he had requested it. Defense Department and Capitol security officials have given conflicting statements about what happened.
What was Mr. Trump doing during the attack? He reportedly watched television as a mob stormed the Capitol, but later claimed that he had called in the National Guard, despite his defense secretary testifying that he never spoke to Mr. Trump that day. A Republican member of Congress said she was told that when Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the House Republican leader, phoned Mr. Trump to ask him to call off the mob, he refused, siding with the rioters whom he said were evidently more upset about the election than Mr. McCarthy was.
What accounts for the lax precautions taken as right-wing extremists and militias openly planned to converge and wreak havoc on the Capitol that dark day? Leaders with the Capitol Police instructed officers to not to use their most forceful crowd control techniques and missed concerning intelligence reports. Security officials reportedly feared the “optics” of sending the National Guard to face off against supporters of Mr. Trump.
How much coordination was there among extremist groups, and to what extent were members of Congress involved in the planning of the rally that preceded the violence? An organizer of the “Stop the Steal” rally said three members of Congress “schemed up” the event with him, though two of the three have denied that claim.
Some on the right who support creating a commission have put forward their own questions, such as demanding more information about the shooting death of a protester, Ashli Babbitt, who was killed by a Capitol Police officer as she tried to force her way into a lobby just off the House floor where lawmakers were taking cover.
And perhaps most importantly, how can the country prevent another similar scenario from happening again?
For the United States, which holds itself out as a beacon of democracy, the rule of law and transparency, the death of the commission has also raised a more fundamental question: What happens when one political party effectively squelches any effort to look inward to assess government failings that have shaken the public’s faith in the nation’s institutions?
Image
Mr. Trump at the “Stop the Steal” rally on Jan. 6. The Justice Department’s investigation into the Capitol riot includes several defendants who claim they were merely following the orders of Mr. Trump.Credit...Pete Marovich for The New York Times
“This was not just a random event; it was existential in nature,” said Lee H. Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana who was vice chairman of the 9/11 commission. “How in the world could this happen in this country? It was unbelievable that this far along in a democracy, we could have this kind of an event occur. It needs exploration.”
Many Republicans in Congress, whose leaders initially supported the idea of an independent commission, have spent the months since the assault trying to rewrite its history and downplay its severity. Their efforts appear to be working; a recent Quinnipiac Poll found that while 55 percent of Americans said they viewed what happened on Jan. 6 as an attack on democracy that should never be forgotten, nearly three-quarters of Republicans said that too much was being made of it and it was time to move on.
Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the minority leader, argued in advance of the vote that there was “no new fact about that day we need the Democrats’ extraneous commission to uncover.”
Mr. Hamilton said when he heard that, he thought to himself, “How does he know that?”
In the absence of a bipartisan commission, Democratic congressional leaders could create a select committee to investigate the attack, one with a broad mandate and subpoena power. Mr. Biden could also appoint a commission of his own, as some past presidents have done after national tragedies.
Alvin S. Felzenberg, a top aide and spokesman for the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks, said there was a chance that such an inquiry could address some pressing questions, citing the Truman Committee that examined war profiteering in the 1940s and the Ervin committee that investigated Watergate in the 1970s. But an independent commission would have benefited from the full-time attention of the investigators, he argued, and its conclusions would have been more likely to be trusted by the public.
“Sitting members of Congress are pulled away from their work to address ongoing business before Congress,” Mr. Felzenberg said. “They also are starting to think about the next election. The 9/11 Commission and staff tended to nothing other than to their charge, spelled out in legislation.”
Former Gov. Bill Weld of Massachusetts, who worked as a lawyer on the Watergate inquiry, said the country was being denied “closure” by Republicans’ refusal to embrace a Jan. 6 commission. He said a select committee investigation would need buy-in from both parties to be seen as legitimate.
“It would have to be bipartisan to be credible,” Mr. Weld said. “Everybody’s got to be on board for it.”
Image
Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, spoke out against members of her party that voted against creating the commission.Credit...Stefani Reynolds for The New York Times
Many of the Republicans who opposed the commission conceded there were a litany of unanswered questions about the events of Jan. 6, but they argued the independent commission’s work would be duplicative of several continuing investigations.
Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, said he favored inquires by Senate committees to explore “the many legitimate questions that remain to be answered” over what he viewed as a “political” commission.
Unlike the work being done by Senate committees, which are focused on security breakdowns, the commission — a panel of 10 experts, evenly split between Republican and Democratic appointees — would have had the broad authority to connect various threads of inquiry and compile a single comprehensive record for American history, as the 9/11 Commission did after those terrorist attacks.
Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney both testified before that commission, and supporters of a Jan. 6 commission were hopeful it could force testimony from Mr. Trump or at least those who spoke with him as the violence escalated, such as Mr. McCarthy.
“Is it going to reveal anything more than we would have gotten otherwise?” Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, said before breaking with her party to vote to move ahead with the commission. “I don’t know and I guess now we’ll never know. But isn’t that part of the problem — that we’ll never know?”
The Justice Department’s investigation into Jan. 6 is, at this point, one of the largest criminal inquiries in U.S. history, with more than 400 defendants. In court filings, several of the defendants have said that they were merely following the orders of Mr. Trump, saying the former president urged them on to storm the Capitol. But none of those prosecutions are looking into security or governance breakdowns.
“We need to figure out who knew what when,” said Lt. Gen. Russel L. Honoré, who was chosen by Speaker Nancy Pelosi to lead a security review of the Capitol in the aftermath of the riot, adding that an independent commission was still badly needed. “Our government did not work that day.”
Republican leaders, he said, had killed the commission because it “might make them look bad in the next election.”
“That’s a damn crying shame,” General Honoré said in an interview. “What a damning message this sends to the Capitol Police.”
Image
Officer Brian Sicknick’s mother, Gladys, made a last-ditch effort to lobby for an independent investigation, visiting Republican senators’ offices before the vote to urge them to drop their opposition.Credit...Erin Scott for The New York Times
About 140 officers were injured in the attack on the Capitol. Many were smashed in the head with baseball bats, flag poles and pipes. Officer Brian D. Sicknick, who was allegedly sprayed with bear spray, collapsed and died afterward, and two officers who clashed with the mob later took their own lives.
Officer Sicknick’s mother, Gladys, and a small group of officers who survived the assault made a last-ditch effort to lobby for an independent investigation, visiting Republican senators’ offices this week to urge them to drop their opposition.
“If Jan. 6 didn’t happen, Brian would still be here,” Harry Dunn, a Black Capitol Police officer who fought the mob as they hurled racial slurs at him, told reporters between visits.
But ultimately, Republicans rallied behind Mr. McConnell, who told his colleagues that Democrats would try to use the commission to hurt their party in the 2022 midterm elections, and urged them to block it.
The demise of an independent panel to investigate the riot means that the country is unlikely to get a definitive accounting for one of the most serious domestic attacks on the government in history.
A mob stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 after a rally where President Donald J. Trump spoke, urging supporters to reject the results of what he falsely claimed was a stolen election.
A mob stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 after a rally where President Donald J. Trump spoke, urging supporters to reject the results of what he falsely claimed was a stolen election.Credit...Jason Andrew for The New York Times
By Luke Broadwater
May 29, 2021, 11:51 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON — In blocking the formation of an independent commission to investigate the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, Republicans in Congress have all but closed off the possibility of a full and impartial accounting for one of the most serious assaults on American democracy in history, leaving unanswered critical questions with broad implications for politics, security and public trust.
Fearing political damage from any sustained scrutiny of the attack, Republicans united in large numbers against the inquiry, moving to shift an unwelcome spotlight away from former President Donald J. Trump, his election lies that fueled the attack, and the complicity of many G.O.P. lawmakers in amplifying his false claims of widespread voter fraud.
The result is that key details about a shocking act of domestic extremism against the United States government are likely to remain shrouded in mystery, and anything new that may be revealed about the assault at the Capitol will most likely be viewed through a partisan lens, with a substantial proportion of the country rejecting the reality of what transpired.
The public may never know precisely what Mr. Trump and members of his administration did or said as a throng of his supporters stormed the Capitol while Congress met to formalize President Biden’s victory, threatening the lives of lawmakers and the vice president. The full story may never be revealed of why security officials were so unprepared for the breach of the building, supposedly one of the most secure in the nation, despite ample warnings of potential violence. The extent of the role of Republican lawmakers closely allied with Mr. Trump in planning the Jan. 6 “Stop the Steal” rally that spiraled into a brutal onslaught may remain unexplored.
Despite its divisions, the United States formed fact-finding commissions after the attack of Pearl Harbor in 1941, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 and the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The failure to do so in this case, said those involved in some of the inquiries, would further erode trust in the government, and deprive the public of the kinds of lessons that could prevent another such attack.
“After many of the national tragedies we’ve experienced over the last 50 or more years, the response was to have a bipartisan investigation that would lay out the facts in a way that would be definitive,” said Michael Chertoff, who served as homeland security secretary under President George W. Bush in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. “It builds trust. It shows the public at a time of crisis, we can all come together and put the good of the country ahead of partisan interests.”
ImageSenator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, united most members of his party in blocking the Jan. 6 commission, which he said Democrats would use to try to harm them politically.
Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, united most members of his party in blocking the Jan. 6 commission, which he said Democrats would use to try to harm them politically.Credit...Erin Scott for The New York Times
Mr. Chertoff and three other former homeland security secretaries who served presidents of both parties had lobbied Republicans to support the creation of a Jan. 6 commission, saying the nation needed a better understanding of “how the violent insurrection at the Capitol came together to ensure the peaceful transfer of power in our country is never so threatened again.”
“We need to get a definitive explanation of what actually happened,” Mr. Chertoff said in an interview after the vote.
Even as the Justice Department moves to prosecute the rioters, congressional committees hold hearings and inspectors general examine their agencies’ responses to the attack, there is no outside group of experts charged with getting to the bottom of the myriad failings that led to the deadliest assault on the Capitol since the War of 1812.
What has been uncovered about the attack has only raised more questions:
Why did it take hours for the D.C. National Guard to receive approval to deploy to the Capitol to fight off the mob? Maj. Gen. William J. Walker, the D.C. National Guard commander at the time, has said he did not receive approval to mobilize troops until more than three hours after he had requested it. Defense Department and Capitol security officials have given conflicting statements about what happened.
What was Mr. Trump doing during the attack? He reportedly watched television as a mob stormed the Capitol, but later claimed that he had called in the National Guard, despite his defense secretary testifying that he never spoke to Mr. Trump that day. A Republican member of Congress said she was told that when Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the House Republican leader, phoned Mr. Trump to ask him to call off the mob, he refused, siding with the rioters whom he said were evidently more upset about the election than Mr. McCarthy was.
What accounts for the lax precautions taken as right-wing extremists and militias openly planned to converge and wreak havoc on the Capitol that dark day? Leaders with the Capitol Police instructed officers to not to use their most forceful crowd control techniques and missed concerning intelligence reports. Security officials reportedly feared the “optics” of sending the National Guard to face off against supporters of Mr. Trump.
How much coordination was there among extremist groups, and to what extent were members of Congress involved in the planning of the rally that preceded the violence? An organizer of the “Stop the Steal” rally said three members of Congress “schemed up” the event with him, though two of the three have denied that claim.
Some on the right who support creating a commission have put forward their own questions, such as demanding more information about the shooting death of a protester, Ashli Babbitt, who was killed by a Capitol Police officer as she tried to force her way into a lobby just off the House floor where lawmakers were taking cover.
And perhaps most importantly, how can the country prevent another similar scenario from happening again?
For the United States, which holds itself out as a beacon of democracy, the rule of law and transparency, the death of the commission has also raised a more fundamental question: What happens when one political party effectively squelches any effort to look inward to assess government failings that have shaken the public’s faith in the nation’s institutions?
Image
Mr. Trump at the “Stop the Steal” rally on Jan. 6. The Justice Department’s investigation into the Capitol riot includes several defendants who claim they were merely following the orders of Mr. Trump.Credit...Pete Marovich for The New York Times
“This was not just a random event; it was existential in nature,” said Lee H. Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana who was vice chairman of the 9/11 commission. “How in the world could this happen in this country? It was unbelievable that this far along in a democracy, we could have this kind of an event occur. It needs exploration.”
Many Republicans in Congress, whose leaders initially supported the idea of an independent commission, have spent the months since the assault trying to rewrite its history and downplay its severity. Their efforts appear to be working; a recent Quinnipiac Poll found that while 55 percent of Americans said they viewed what happened on Jan. 6 as an attack on democracy that should never be forgotten, nearly three-quarters of Republicans said that too much was being made of it and it was time to move on.
Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the minority leader, argued in advance of the vote that there was “no new fact about that day we need the Democrats’ extraneous commission to uncover.”
Mr. Hamilton said when he heard that, he thought to himself, “How does he know that?”
In the absence of a bipartisan commission, Democratic congressional leaders could create a select committee to investigate the attack, one with a broad mandate and subpoena power. Mr. Biden could also appoint a commission of his own, as some past presidents have done after national tragedies.
Alvin S. Felzenberg, a top aide and spokesman for the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks, said there was a chance that such an inquiry could address some pressing questions, citing the Truman Committee that examined war profiteering in the 1940s and the Ervin committee that investigated Watergate in the 1970s. But an independent commission would have benefited from the full-time attention of the investigators, he argued, and its conclusions would have been more likely to be trusted by the public.
“Sitting members of Congress are pulled away from their work to address ongoing business before Congress,” Mr. Felzenberg said. “They also are starting to think about the next election. The 9/11 Commission and staff tended to nothing other than to their charge, spelled out in legislation.”
Former Gov. Bill Weld of Massachusetts, who worked as a lawyer on the Watergate inquiry, said the country was being denied “closure” by Republicans’ refusal to embrace a Jan. 6 commission. He said a select committee investigation would need buy-in from both parties to be seen as legitimate.
“It would have to be bipartisan to be credible,” Mr. Weld said. “Everybody’s got to be on board for it.”
Image
Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, spoke out against members of her party that voted against creating the commission.Credit...Stefani Reynolds for The New York Times
Many of the Republicans who opposed the commission conceded there were a litany of unanswered questions about the events of Jan. 6, but they argued the independent commission’s work would be duplicative of several continuing investigations.
Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, said he favored inquires by Senate committees to explore “the many legitimate questions that remain to be answered” over what he viewed as a “political” commission.
Unlike the work being done by Senate committees, which are focused on security breakdowns, the commission — a panel of 10 experts, evenly split between Republican and Democratic appointees — would have had the broad authority to connect various threads of inquiry and compile a single comprehensive record for American history, as the 9/11 Commission did after those terrorist attacks.
Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney both testified before that commission, and supporters of a Jan. 6 commission were hopeful it could force testimony from Mr. Trump or at least those who spoke with him as the violence escalated, such as Mr. McCarthy.
“Is it going to reveal anything more than we would have gotten otherwise?” Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, said before breaking with her party to vote to move ahead with the commission. “I don’t know and I guess now we’ll never know. But isn’t that part of the problem — that we’ll never know?”
The Justice Department’s investigation into Jan. 6 is, at this point, one of the largest criminal inquiries in U.S. history, with more than 400 defendants. In court filings, several of the defendants have said that they were merely following the orders of Mr. Trump, saying the former president urged them on to storm the Capitol. But none of those prosecutions are looking into security or governance breakdowns.
“We need to figure out who knew what when,” said Lt. Gen. Russel L. Honoré, who was chosen by Speaker Nancy Pelosi to lead a security review of the Capitol in the aftermath of the riot, adding that an independent commission was still badly needed. “Our government did not work that day.”
Republican leaders, he said, had killed the commission because it “might make them look bad in the next election.”
“That’s a damn crying shame,” General Honoré said in an interview. “What a damning message this sends to the Capitol Police.”
Image
Officer Brian Sicknick’s mother, Gladys, made a last-ditch effort to lobby for an independent investigation, visiting Republican senators’ offices before the vote to urge them to drop their opposition.Credit...Erin Scott for The New York Times
About 140 officers were injured in the attack on the Capitol. Many were smashed in the head with baseball bats, flag poles and pipes. Officer Brian D. Sicknick, who was allegedly sprayed with bear spray, collapsed and died afterward, and two officers who clashed with the mob later took their own lives.
Officer Sicknick’s mother, Gladys, and a small group of officers who survived the assault made a last-ditch effort to lobby for an independent investigation, visiting Republican senators’ offices this week to urge them to drop their opposition.
“If Jan. 6 didn’t happen, Brian would still be here,” Harry Dunn, a Black Capitol Police officer who fought the mob as they hurled racial slurs at him, told reporters between visits.
But ultimately, Republicans rallied behind Mr. McConnell, who told his colleagues that Democrats would try to use the commission to hurt their party in the 2022 midterm elections, and urged them to block it.
Why the Capitol Riot Inquiries Leave Room for a Broader Commission
Republicans have argued that the existing Justice Department and congressional investigations will address the assault. But they have strict limits.
Senator Mitch McConnell claimed that the commission that would investigate the Jan. 6 attack was redundant, noting that the Justice Department and congressional committees are already looking into the assault.Credit...Stefani Reynolds for The New York Times
By Alan Feuer and Nicholas Fandos
May 25, 2021
As the Senate moves this week toward voting on the creation of a 9/11-style commission to investigate the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, Republicans have raised a series of arguments against it. They have objected to the inquiry’s scope, its length and even the process for hiring its staff.
But last week, announcing that he too would oppose the plan, the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, made another argument: He claimed that the commission was redundant, noting that the Justice Department and congressional committees are already looking into the assault.
“It’s not at all clear what new facts or additional investigation yet another commission could lay on top of the existing efforts by law enforcement and Congress,” Mr. McConnell said.
What he failed to mention was that the criminal investigation into the riot, despite being one of the largest in American history, was narrowly bounded by federal law and would not — indeed could not — seek the answers to several crucial questions about Jan. 6. The same can be said about the major congressional effort to investigate the assault, a tightly focused inquiry into the broad government response to the violence that day.
Here is what the current investigations can and cannot do, and what an independent commission might bring to the table.
The political roots of Jan. 6
One of the complexities about the Capitol attack is the inextricable link between criminal activity and legal behavior protected by the First Amendment. After all, the riot took place after — and was in part incited by — rallies led by figures including President Donald J. Trump, his lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani and his onetime adviser Roger J. Stone Jr.
In the early days of the Justice Department’s investigation, there were scattered signs that prosecutors were looking for information about some political activists who organized protests that preceded the attack.
In January, for example, the F.B.I. searched the homes of two men from Southern California, Alan Hostetter and Russell Taylor, who appeared with Mr. Stone on Jan. 5 at an election protest event outside the Supreme Court. Mr. Stone himself also came under scrutiny at one point, prosecutors said, as the authorities examined communications between him and right-wing extremists who breached the building.
But those efforts have not resulted in any charges, and there is no public evidence that prosecutors are still investigating the political roots of Jan. 6. One challenge is the tools they have at their disposal, like search warrants, which require proof that a crime may have been committed. An independent commission, armed with subpoena power, could more easily compel testimony from political operatives who may have knowledge about Jan. 6, even if they did not clearly break the law.
“Criminal investigators are only supposed to investigate crimes,” said Joel Hirschhorn, a veteran defense lawyer who has represented several clients charged in political riots. “But a commission is better suited and better able to look at the political reasons behind Jan. 6.”
The question of motive
As many as 500 rioters may face charges in connection with the Capitol attack, prosecutors have said. Many questions will eventually be answered: How did all of those people get to Washington on Jan. 6? What exactly did they do on the grounds of the Capitol? And what happened once they went back to their homes?
But one important question, crucial to understanding the events of that day, is not likely to be answered — at least not by the government — even in the hundreds of cases. And that is why those charged with crimes took part in storming the Capitol.
While the issue of motive is a staple of police procedurals on TV, it is less important at actual trials in real-life courtrooms. Defense lawyers may decide to discuss their clients’ motives with the judge at a sentencing hearing in an effort to reduce potential penalties, but prosecutors in their public statements are much more likely to stick to the facts of who did what when rather than delving into why they might have done it.
“In criminal prosecutions, the issue is generally one of behavior inferred by circumstance and corroborated by evidence like documents, emails and cooperating witnesses,” Mr. Hirschhorn said. “Motive is never really an issue when the government is trying to make its case at a trial and prove guilt or innocence. It’s just not relevant.”
The big picture
Even though prosecutors have charged an unprecedented number of people in the riot, that does not mean they are looking at the big picture — exactly what a commission would be asked to do. Indeed, at the urging of judges and under pressure from defense lawyers, investigators in the inquiry have taken pains to treat each of the 450 or so people charged so far as individual defendants.
“The job of a prosecutor is to prosecute the cases directly in front of them, not to zoom way out and give their views on the totality of the events in question,” said Alan Rozenshtein, a former Justice Department official who now teaches at the University of Minnesota Law School. “It would go against their training to just start freestyling in a courtroom about the broad state of American democracy.”
Even if prosecutors did want to provide a panoramic view of Jan. 6, they would not have much of an opportunity, Mr. Rozenshtein said. Many, if not most, of the Capitol defendants are likely to plead guilty in the weeks to come and avoid a trial where their stories would be told in full.
“With so many plea agreements,” Mr. Rozenshtein said, “there will never be a complete exploration of the facts and issues with witnesses and evidence.”
Congress is investigating, but only narrowly
When Republican senators say that Congress is already studying Jan. 6, they usually have one particular inquiry in mind: a joint investigation by the Senate Homeland Security and Rules Committees.
That investigation is no small undertaking. It is bipartisan — a rarity in today’s Congress — and together, the two committees have oversight jurisdiction to look at the Capitol Police, the Defense Department and the broad government response to the violence. They plan to release a modest report about their findings and recommendations to secure Congress in early June.
But the scope of their work is tightly focused on questions of security and policing, rather than on what fueled the mob in the first place, what role Mr. Trump may have played and how the government coordinated its actions. The congressional investigators have also given themselves about only four months, meaning they will necessarily leave behind valuable information, and the dozen or so staff members involved in the investigation are also responsible for maintaining the committees’ regular work at the same time.
“There’s plenty more work to be done, and the more folks that are engaged in it, the better,” said Senator Gary Peters, Democrat of Michigan and one of the committee chairmen leading the inquiry. “They’re going to have more time and staff resources, and a commitment to do a real deep dive.”
Across the Capitol, House committees are taking a more scattershot approach, looking separately at domestic terrorism, the Capitol Police and intelligence failures. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has signaled that she could authorize a more comprehensive investigation, including the formation of a select committee, should the push for an independent commission collapse.
Government watchdogs are also at work.
Decades ago, Congress created a slew of independent inspectors general and embedded them in executive departments across the government as a kind of fail-safe against efforts to cover up wrongdoing or institutional failings. A handful have confirmed they are conducting investigations related to Jan. 6, but they are also taking narrow approaches, circumscribed by their jurisdictions.
At the Pentagon, the inspector general is taking a deep dive into two crucial outstanding questions about the riot: when the White House and Congress called for backup military support and why it took so long to arrive.
The Justice Department’s inspector general is looking at what federal law enforcement knew in advance of the attack as it collected intelligence about possible threats, and whether that information was properly communicated to those who could have prevented it.
And the inspector general of the Capitol Police has produced reports documenting in detail the breakdowns within the force as it battled for and lost control of the Capitol. The office is preparing to issue another report in the coming days on the department’s emergency response team and another after that looking at radio communications on Jan. 6.
Republicans have argued that the existing Justice Department and congressional investigations will address the assault. But they have strict limits.
Senator Mitch McConnell claimed that the commission that would investigate the Jan. 6 attack was redundant, noting that the Justice Department and congressional committees are already looking into the assault.Credit...Stefani Reynolds for The New York Times
By Alan Feuer and Nicholas Fandos
May 25, 2021
As the Senate moves this week toward voting on the creation of a 9/11-style commission to investigate the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, Republicans have raised a series of arguments against it. They have objected to the inquiry’s scope, its length and even the process for hiring its staff.
But last week, announcing that he too would oppose the plan, the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, made another argument: He claimed that the commission was redundant, noting that the Justice Department and congressional committees are already looking into the assault.
“It’s not at all clear what new facts or additional investigation yet another commission could lay on top of the existing efforts by law enforcement and Congress,” Mr. McConnell said.
What he failed to mention was that the criminal investigation into the riot, despite being one of the largest in American history, was narrowly bounded by federal law and would not — indeed could not — seek the answers to several crucial questions about Jan. 6. The same can be said about the major congressional effort to investigate the assault, a tightly focused inquiry into the broad government response to the violence that day.
Here is what the current investigations can and cannot do, and what an independent commission might bring to the table.
The political roots of Jan. 6
One of the complexities about the Capitol attack is the inextricable link between criminal activity and legal behavior protected by the First Amendment. After all, the riot took place after — and was in part incited by — rallies led by figures including President Donald J. Trump, his lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani and his onetime adviser Roger J. Stone Jr.
In the early days of the Justice Department’s investigation, there were scattered signs that prosecutors were looking for information about some political activists who organized protests that preceded the attack.
In January, for example, the F.B.I. searched the homes of two men from Southern California, Alan Hostetter and Russell Taylor, who appeared with Mr. Stone on Jan. 5 at an election protest event outside the Supreme Court. Mr. Stone himself also came under scrutiny at one point, prosecutors said, as the authorities examined communications between him and right-wing extremists who breached the building.
But those efforts have not resulted in any charges, and there is no public evidence that prosecutors are still investigating the political roots of Jan. 6. One challenge is the tools they have at their disposal, like search warrants, which require proof that a crime may have been committed. An independent commission, armed with subpoena power, could more easily compel testimony from political operatives who may have knowledge about Jan. 6, even if they did not clearly break the law.
“Criminal investigators are only supposed to investigate crimes,” said Joel Hirschhorn, a veteran defense lawyer who has represented several clients charged in political riots. “But a commission is better suited and better able to look at the political reasons behind Jan. 6.”
The question of motive
As many as 500 rioters may face charges in connection with the Capitol attack, prosecutors have said. Many questions will eventually be answered: How did all of those people get to Washington on Jan. 6? What exactly did they do on the grounds of the Capitol? And what happened once they went back to their homes?
But one important question, crucial to understanding the events of that day, is not likely to be answered — at least not by the government — even in the hundreds of cases. And that is why those charged with crimes took part in storming the Capitol.
While the issue of motive is a staple of police procedurals on TV, it is less important at actual trials in real-life courtrooms. Defense lawyers may decide to discuss their clients’ motives with the judge at a sentencing hearing in an effort to reduce potential penalties, but prosecutors in their public statements are much more likely to stick to the facts of who did what when rather than delving into why they might have done it.
“In criminal prosecutions, the issue is generally one of behavior inferred by circumstance and corroborated by evidence like documents, emails and cooperating witnesses,” Mr. Hirschhorn said. “Motive is never really an issue when the government is trying to make its case at a trial and prove guilt or innocence. It’s just not relevant.”
The big picture
Even though prosecutors have charged an unprecedented number of people in the riot, that does not mean they are looking at the big picture — exactly what a commission would be asked to do. Indeed, at the urging of judges and under pressure from defense lawyers, investigators in the inquiry have taken pains to treat each of the 450 or so people charged so far as individual defendants.
“The job of a prosecutor is to prosecute the cases directly in front of them, not to zoom way out and give their views on the totality of the events in question,” said Alan Rozenshtein, a former Justice Department official who now teaches at the University of Minnesota Law School. “It would go against their training to just start freestyling in a courtroom about the broad state of American democracy.”
Even if prosecutors did want to provide a panoramic view of Jan. 6, they would not have much of an opportunity, Mr. Rozenshtein said. Many, if not most, of the Capitol defendants are likely to plead guilty in the weeks to come and avoid a trial where their stories would be told in full.
“With so many plea agreements,” Mr. Rozenshtein said, “there will never be a complete exploration of the facts and issues with witnesses and evidence.”
Congress is investigating, but only narrowly
When Republican senators say that Congress is already studying Jan. 6, they usually have one particular inquiry in mind: a joint investigation by the Senate Homeland Security and Rules Committees.
That investigation is no small undertaking. It is bipartisan — a rarity in today’s Congress — and together, the two committees have oversight jurisdiction to look at the Capitol Police, the Defense Department and the broad government response to the violence. They plan to release a modest report about their findings and recommendations to secure Congress in early June.
But the scope of their work is tightly focused on questions of security and policing, rather than on what fueled the mob in the first place, what role Mr. Trump may have played and how the government coordinated its actions. The congressional investigators have also given themselves about only four months, meaning they will necessarily leave behind valuable information, and the dozen or so staff members involved in the investigation are also responsible for maintaining the committees’ regular work at the same time.
“There’s plenty more work to be done, and the more folks that are engaged in it, the better,” said Senator Gary Peters, Democrat of Michigan and one of the committee chairmen leading the inquiry. “They’re going to have more time and staff resources, and a commitment to do a real deep dive.”
Across the Capitol, House committees are taking a more scattershot approach, looking separately at domestic terrorism, the Capitol Police and intelligence failures. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has signaled that she could authorize a more comprehensive investigation, including the formation of a select committee, should the push for an independent commission collapse.
Government watchdogs are also at work.
Decades ago, Congress created a slew of independent inspectors general and embedded them in executive departments across the government as a kind of fail-safe against efforts to cover up wrongdoing or institutional failings. A handful have confirmed they are conducting investigations related to Jan. 6, but they are also taking narrow approaches, circumscribed by their jurisdictions.
At the Pentagon, the inspector general is taking a deep dive into two crucial outstanding questions about the riot: when the White House and Congress called for backup military support and why it took so long to arrive.
The Justice Department’s inspector general is looking at what federal law enforcement knew in advance of the attack as it collected intelligence about possible threats, and whether that information was properly communicated to those who could have prevented it.
And the inspector general of the Capitol Police has produced reports documenting in detail the breakdowns within the force as it battled for and lost control of the Capitol. The office is preparing to issue another report in the coming days on the department’s emergency response team and another after that looking at radio communications on Jan. 6.
Texas Senate Passes One of the Nation’s Strictest Voting Bills
Nick Corasaniti 4 hrs ago
The Republican-controlled Texas State Senate passed a bill early Sunday that would impose a raft of new voting restrictions in the state, moving a step closer to the expected full passage of what would be among the most far-reaching laws in Republicans’ nationwide drive to overhaul elections systems and limit voting.
© Go Nakamura for The New York Times About 127,000 people participated last year in the new drive-through voting program in Harris County, which includes Houston.
The bill would tighten what are already some of the country’s strictest voting laws, and it would specifically target balloting methods that were employed for the first time last year by Harris County, home to Houston.
In addition to banning drive-through voting and 24-hour voting, which were used by nearly 140,000 voters in Harris County during the 2020 election, the bill would prohibit election officials from sending absentee ballots to all voters, regardless of whether they had requested them; ban using tents, garages, mobile units or any temporary structure as a polling location; further limit who could vote absentee; and add new identification requirements for voting by mail.
Sign up for The Morning newsletter from The New York Times
Partisan poll watchers would also have more access and autonomy under the bill’s provisions, and election officials could be more harshly punished if they make mistakes or otherwise run afoul of election codes and laws.
The bill, which was hashed out in a closed-door panel of lawmakers over the past week, was rushed to the State Senate floor late Saturday. In a legislative power play orchestrated by Republican lawmakers and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, the Senate moved to suspend rules that require a bill to be public for 24 hours before a final vote. The maneuver came just hours after a 112-page report comparing the bill with its previous iterations was delivered to senators, and it set debate for the bill to begin at 10 p.m. before voting would unfold.
© Eric Gay/Associated Press Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican who has said that an election overhaul is a priority, is widely expected to sign the bill.
Democrats immediately objected, denouncing the prospect of a dark-of-night vote on a measure that Senator Borris L. Miles, a Democrat from Houston, said people in his largely Black and Latino district called “Jim Crow 2.0.”
“They do ask me, every time I’m in the neighborhood, is this 2021 or is this 1961?” Senator Miles said on the Senate floor. “And why are we allowing people to roll back the hands of time?”
After hours of debate, the Senate passed the bill just after 6 a.m. on Sunday by an 18-to-13 vote.
The Texas House, which did not move to suspend the 24-hour rule, is likely to vote on the bill later Sunday. Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican who has said that an election overhaul is a priority, is widely expected to sign the legislation.
Texas is one of several Republican-led states — including Iowa, Georgia and Florida — that have moved since the 2020 presidential contest to pass new laws governing elections and restricting voting. The impetus is both Republicans’ desire to appease their base, much of which continues to believe former President Donald J. Trump’s lies about a stolen election, and the party’s worries about a changing electorate that could threaten the G.O.P.’s longtime grip on power in places like Texas, the second-biggest state in the country.
In a statement on Saturday, President Biden called the proposed law, along with similar measures in Georgia and Florida, “an assault on democracy” that disproportionately targeted “Black and Brown Americans.” He called on lawmakers to address the issue by passing Democratic voting bills that are pending in Congress.
“It’s wrong and un-American,” Mr. Biden said. “In the 21st century, we should be making it easier, not harder, for every eligible voter to vote.”
Republican state lawmakers have often cited voters’ worries about election fraud — fears stoked by Mr. Trump, other Republicans and the conservative media — to justify new voting restrictions, despite the fact that there has been no evidence of widespread fraud in recent American elections.
And in their election push, Republicans have powered past the objections of Democrats, voting rights groups and major corporations. Companies like American Airlines, Dell Technologies and Microsoft spoke out against the Texas legislation soon after the bill was introduced, but the pressure has been largely ineffective so far.
The final 67-page bill, known as S.B. 7, proved to be an amalgamation of two omnibus voting bills that had worked their way through the state’s Legislature. It included many of the provisions originally introduced by Republicans, but lawmakers dropped some of the most stringent ones, like a regulation on the allocation of voting machines that would have led to the closure of polling places in communities of color and a measure that would have permitted partisan poll watchers to record the voting process on video.
Still, the bill includes a provision that could make overturning an election easier. Texas election law had stated that reversing the results of an election because of fraud accusations required proving that illicit votes had actually resulted in a wrongful victory. If the bill passes, the number of fraudulent votes required to do so would simply need to be equal to the winning vote differential; it would not matter for whom the fraudulent votes had been cast.
Democrats and voting rights groups were quick to condemn the bill.
“S.B. 7 is a ruthless piece of legislation,” said Sarah Labowitz, the policy and advocacy director at the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas. “It targets voters of color and voters with disabilities, in a state that’s already the most difficult place to vote in the country.”
But Republicans celebrated the proposed law and bristled at the criticism from Mr. Biden and others.
“As the White House and national Democrats work together to minimize election integrity, the Texas Legislature continues to fight for accessible and secure elections,” State Senator Bryan Hughes, one of the bill’s sponsors, said in a statement. “In Texas, we do not bend to headlines, corporate virtue signaling, or suppression of election integrity, even if it comes from the president of the United States.”
The bill took its final form after a contentious, monthslong debate; back-room negotiations; procedural errors by legislators; and extended, passionate debate by Democrats, who have tried to stall the bill’s passage through political and legislative maneuvers.
Voting rights groups have long pointed to Texas as one of the hardest states in the country for voters to cast ballots. One recent study by Northern Illinois University ranked Texas last in an index measuring the difficulty of voting. The report cited a host of factors, including Texas’ in-person voter registration deadline 30 days before Election Day, a drastic reduction of polling stations in some parts of the state, strict voter identification laws, a limited and onerous absentee voting process, and a lack of early voting options.
In the preamble to the new bill, the authors appear to pre-emptively defend the legislation from criticism, stating that “reforms to the election laws of this state made by this Act are not intended to impair the right of free suffrage guaranteed to the people of Texas by the United States and Texas Constitutions, but are enacted solely to prevent fraud in the electoral process and ensure that all legally cast ballots are counted.”
In March, Keith Ingram, the director of elections in the Texas secretary of state’s office, testified that last year’s election in the state had been “smooth and secure.” He added, “Texans can be justifiably proud of the hard work and creativity shown by local county elections officials.”
A day before the Texas bill emerged, a new report pointed to the vast sweep of Republicans’ nationwide effort to restrict voting.
As of May 14, lawmakers had passed 22 new laws in 14 states to make the process of voting more difficult, according to the report by the Brennan Center for Justice, a research institute.
In last year’s election, while Republicans won Texas easily — Mr. Trump carried the state by more than 630,000 votes and the party maintained control of both chambers of the Legislature — turnout soared in cities and densely populated suburbs, which are growing increasingly Democratic. In Harris County, one of the biggest counties in the country, turnout jumped by nearly 10 percent.
Republicans’ initial version of the bill put those densely populated counties squarely in the cross hairs, seeking to ban measures put in place during the 2020 election that helped turnout hit record numbers. The initial bill banned drive-through voting, a new method used by 127,000 voters in Harris County, as well as 24-hour voting, which was held for a single day in the county and was used by roughly 10,000 voters.
While those provisions were left out of an earlier version of the bill as it made its way through the Legislature, they were reinstated in the final version of the bill, though the bill does allow for early voting to begin as early as 6 a.m. and continue until as late as 9 p.m. on weekdays. It also maintains at least two weekend days of early voting.
More than any other state, Texas has also gone to great lengths to grant more autonomy and authority to partisan poll watchers. The observers have been a cornerstone of American voting for years, viewed as a watchdog for election officials, but their role has grown increasingly contentious, especially in Texas. Republican poll watchers have been egged on in particular by Mr. Trump, who implored them to go to major cities across the country and hunt for nonexistent voter fraud.
Across Texas during the 2020 election, there was an increase in anecdotal complaints of aggressive poll watchers, often on the Republican side, harassing both voters of color and election officials.
The new bill would make it a crime to refuse to admit the observers to voting sites or to block their ability to fully watch the process. It says poll watchers must be able to “sit or stand [conveniently] near enough to see and hear the election officers.”
It would also make it easier for partisan poll watchers to successfully pursue legal action if they argue that they were wrongfully refused or obstructed.
In addition, the bill would limit who can vote absentee by mail in Texas, which does not have universal, no-excuse absentee voting. The bill states that those with a disability may vote absentee, but a voter with “an illness, injury or disability that does not prevent the voter from appearing at the polling place on election day” may not do so.
Amid the new restrictions are multiple provisions that provide greater transparency into election administration. Counties must now provide video surveillance of ballot-counting facilities, and they must eventually make those videos available to the public. Discussions with voting equipment vendors must also be available to the public.
During the debate before Sunday’s vote, Senator Royce West, a Democrat from Dallas, raised concerns that a provision barring voting before 1 p.m. on Sundays would limit “souls to the polls” organizing efforts that are popular with Black churches. Senator Hughes said that clause was intended to allow poll workers to go to church.
Senator West noted that a separate bill passed by the Legislature will allow the sale of beer and wine starting at 10 a.m., two hours earlier than current law permits.
“We’re going to be able to buy beer at 10 o’clock in the morning, but we can’t vote until one o’clock,” Senator West said.
Austin Ramzy and Anna Schaverien contributed reporting.
Nick Corasaniti 4 hrs ago
The Republican-controlled Texas State Senate passed a bill early Sunday that would impose a raft of new voting restrictions in the state, moving a step closer to the expected full passage of what would be among the most far-reaching laws in Republicans’ nationwide drive to overhaul elections systems and limit voting.
© Go Nakamura for The New York Times About 127,000 people participated last year in the new drive-through voting program in Harris County, which includes Houston.
The bill would tighten what are already some of the country’s strictest voting laws, and it would specifically target balloting methods that were employed for the first time last year by Harris County, home to Houston.
In addition to banning drive-through voting and 24-hour voting, which were used by nearly 140,000 voters in Harris County during the 2020 election, the bill would prohibit election officials from sending absentee ballots to all voters, regardless of whether they had requested them; ban using tents, garages, mobile units or any temporary structure as a polling location; further limit who could vote absentee; and add new identification requirements for voting by mail.
Sign up for The Morning newsletter from The New York Times
Partisan poll watchers would also have more access and autonomy under the bill’s provisions, and election officials could be more harshly punished if they make mistakes or otherwise run afoul of election codes and laws.
The bill, which was hashed out in a closed-door panel of lawmakers over the past week, was rushed to the State Senate floor late Saturday. In a legislative power play orchestrated by Republican lawmakers and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, the Senate moved to suspend rules that require a bill to be public for 24 hours before a final vote. The maneuver came just hours after a 112-page report comparing the bill with its previous iterations was delivered to senators, and it set debate for the bill to begin at 10 p.m. before voting would unfold.
© Eric Gay/Associated Press Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican who has said that an election overhaul is a priority, is widely expected to sign the bill.
Democrats immediately objected, denouncing the prospect of a dark-of-night vote on a measure that Senator Borris L. Miles, a Democrat from Houston, said people in his largely Black and Latino district called “Jim Crow 2.0.”
“They do ask me, every time I’m in the neighborhood, is this 2021 or is this 1961?” Senator Miles said on the Senate floor. “And why are we allowing people to roll back the hands of time?”
After hours of debate, the Senate passed the bill just after 6 a.m. on Sunday by an 18-to-13 vote.
The Texas House, which did not move to suspend the 24-hour rule, is likely to vote on the bill later Sunday. Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican who has said that an election overhaul is a priority, is widely expected to sign the legislation.
Texas is one of several Republican-led states — including Iowa, Georgia and Florida — that have moved since the 2020 presidential contest to pass new laws governing elections and restricting voting. The impetus is both Republicans’ desire to appease their base, much of which continues to believe former President Donald J. Trump’s lies about a stolen election, and the party’s worries about a changing electorate that could threaten the G.O.P.’s longtime grip on power in places like Texas, the second-biggest state in the country.
In a statement on Saturday, President Biden called the proposed law, along with similar measures in Georgia and Florida, “an assault on democracy” that disproportionately targeted “Black and Brown Americans.” He called on lawmakers to address the issue by passing Democratic voting bills that are pending in Congress.
“It’s wrong and un-American,” Mr. Biden said. “In the 21st century, we should be making it easier, not harder, for every eligible voter to vote.”
Republican state lawmakers have often cited voters’ worries about election fraud — fears stoked by Mr. Trump, other Republicans and the conservative media — to justify new voting restrictions, despite the fact that there has been no evidence of widespread fraud in recent American elections.
And in their election push, Republicans have powered past the objections of Democrats, voting rights groups and major corporations. Companies like American Airlines, Dell Technologies and Microsoft spoke out against the Texas legislation soon after the bill was introduced, but the pressure has been largely ineffective so far.
The final 67-page bill, known as S.B. 7, proved to be an amalgamation of two omnibus voting bills that had worked their way through the state’s Legislature. It included many of the provisions originally introduced by Republicans, but lawmakers dropped some of the most stringent ones, like a regulation on the allocation of voting machines that would have led to the closure of polling places in communities of color and a measure that would have permitted partisan poll watchers to record the voting process on video.
Still, the bill includes a provision that could make overturning an election easier. Texas election law had stated that reversing the results of an election because of fraud accusations required proving that illicit votes had actually resulted in a wrongful victory. If the bill passes, the number of fraudulent votes required to do so would simply need to be equal to the winning vote differential; it would not matter for whom the fraudulent votes had been cast.
Democrats and voting rights groups were quick to condemn the bill.
“S.B. 7 is a ruthless piece of legislation,” said Sarah Labowitz, the policy and advocacy director at the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas. “It targets voters of color and voters with disabilities, in a state that’s already the most difficult place to vote in the country.”
But Republicans celebrated the proposed law and bristled at the criticism from Mr. Biden and others.
“As the White House and national Democrats work together to minimize election integrity, the Texas Legislature continues to fight for accessible and secure elections,” State Senator Bryan Hughes, one of the bill’s sponsors, said in a statement. “In Texas, we do not bend to headlines, corporate virtue signaling, or suppression of election integrity, even if it comes from the president of the United States.”
The bill took its final form after a contentious, monthslong debate; back-room negotiations; procedural errors by legislators; and extended, passionate debate by Democrats, who have tried to stall the bill’s passage through political and legislative maneuvers.
Voting rights groups have long pointed to Texas as one of the hardest states in the country for voters to cast ballots. One recent study by Northern Illinois University ranked Texas last in an index measuring the difficulty of voting. The report cited a host of factors, including Texas’ in-person voter registration deadline 30 days before Election Day, a drastic reduction of polling stations in some parts of the state, strict voter identification laws, a limited and onerous absentee voting process, and a lack of early voting options.
In the preamble to the new bill, the authors appear to pre-emptively defend the legislation from criticism, stating that “reforms to the election laws of this state made by this Act are not intended to impair the right of free suffrage guaranteed to the people of Texas by the United States and Texas Constitutions, but are enacted solely to prevent fraud in the electoral process and ensure that all legally cast ballots are counted.”
In March, Keith Ingram, the director of elections in the Texas secretary of state’s office, testified that last year’s election in the state had been “smooth and secure.” He added, “Texans can be justifiably proud of the hard work and creativity shown by local county elections officials.”
A day before the Texas bill emerged, a new report pointed to the vast sweep of Republicans’ nationwide effort to restrict voting.
As of May 14, lawmakers had passed 22 new laws in 14 states to make the process of voting more difficult, according to the report by the Brennan Center for Justice, a research institute.
In last year’s election, while Republicans won Texas easily — Mr. Trump carried the state by more than 630,000 votes and the party maintained control of both chambers of the Legislature — turnout soared in cities and densely populated suburbs, which are growing increasingly Democratic. In Harris County, one of the biggest counties in the country, turnout jumped by nearly 10 percent.
Republicans’ initial version of the bill put those densely populated counties squarely in the cross hairs, seeking to ban measures put in place during the 2020 election that helped turnout hit record numbers. The initial bill banned drive-through voting, a new method used by 127,000 voters in Harris County, as well as 24-hour voting, which was held for a single day in the county and was used by roughly 10,000 voters.
While those provisions were left out of an earlier version of the bill as it made its way through the Legislature, they were reinstated in the final version of the bill, though the bill does allow for early voting to begin as early as 6 a.m. and continue until as late as 9 p.m. on weekdays. It also maintains at least two weekend days of early voting.
More than any other state, Texas has also gone to great lengths to grant more autonomy and authority to partisan poll watchers. The observers have been a cornerstone of American voting for years, viewed as a watchdog for election officials, but their role has grown increasingly contentious, especially in Texas. Republican poll watchers have been egged on in particular by Mr. Trump, who implored them to go to major cities across the country and hunt for nonexistent voter fraud.
Across Texas during the 2020 election, there was an increase in anecdotal complaints of aggressive poll watchers, often on the Republican side, harassing both voters of color and election officials.
The new bill would make it a crime to refuse to admit the observers to voting sites or to block their ability to fully watch the process. It says poll watchers must be able to “sit or stand [conveniently] near enough to see and hear the election officers.”
It would also make it easier for partisan poll watchers to successfully pursue legal action if they argue that they were wrongfully refused or obstructed.
In addition, the bill would limit who can vote absentee by mail in Texas, which does not have universal, no-excuse absentee voting. The bill states that those with a disability may vote absentee, but a voter with “an illness, injury or disability that does not prevent the voter from appearing at the polling place on election day” may not do so.
Amid the new restrictions are multiple provisions that provide greater transparency into election administration. Counties must now provide video surveillance of ballot-counting facilities, and they must eventually make those videos available to the public. Discussions with voting equipment vendors must also be available to the public.
During the debate before Sunday’s vote, Senator Royce West, a Democrat from Dallas, raised concerns that a provision barring voting before 1 p.m. on Sundays would limit “souls to the polls” organizing efforts that are popular with Black churches. Senator Hughes said that clause was intended to allow poll workers to go to church.
Senator West noted that a separate bill passed by the Legislature will allow the sale of beer and wine starting at 10 a.m., two hours earlier than current law permits.
“We’re going to be able to buy beer at 10 o’clock in the morning, but we can’t vote until one o’clock,” Senator West said.
Austin Ramzy and Anna Schaverien contributed reporting.
I'm saddened that these fat disgusting traitorous hoes are still alive.
Trump and Giuliani ask judge to drop Capitol riot conspiracy case
Trump and Giuliani asked a judge to dismiss a suit accusing them of conspiring to incite the Capitol invasion, saying they are protected by the First Amendment.
Trump and Giuliani ask judge to drop Capitol riot conspiracy case
PUBLISHED THU, MAY 27 202110:47 AM EDTUPDATED THU, MAY 27 20218:55 PM EDT
Kevin Breuninger@KEVINWILLIAMB
SHAREShare Article via FacebookShare Article via TwitterShare Article via LinkedInShare Article via Email
KEY POINTS
- Former President Donald Trump and his onetime personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani on Thursday asked a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit accusing them of conspiring to incite the deadly invasion of the U.S. Capitol.
- Lawyers for Trump and Giuliani on Thursday argued that their clients’ incendiary remarks at a pre-riot rally near the Capitol were protected under the First Amendment.
- The lawsuit also names as defendants the extremist groups the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys and Warboys.
Jim Bourg | Reuters
Former President Donald Trump and his onetime personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani on Thursday asked a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit accusing them of conspiring to incite the deadly invasion of the U.S. Capitol.
The lawsuit, brought by Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., and 10 other House Democrats, accuses the defendants of violating the federal Ku Klux Klan Act on Jan. 6 by fomenting a mob of Trump’s supporters to stop Congress from confirming President Joe Biden’s electoral victory.
Separate motions to dismiss the suit on Thursday argued that Trump’s and Giuliani’s remarks at a pre-riot rally near the Capitol were protected under the First Amendment.
CNBC Politics
Read more of CNBC’s politics coverage:
- Biden and key Republican Capito agree to talk again Friday after Oval Office infrastructure meeting
- Robert Mueller to help teach law school class on his Trump-Russia probe
- Biden doubles down on U.S. efforts to get more Americans vaccinated by the Fourth of Julyhttps://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/01/mya...ist-danny-fenster-fights-for-his-release.html
But Trump’s lawyer Jesse Binnall noted at the top of his dismissal request that Trump had also told the audience to “peacefully and patriotically make [their voices] heard.”
WATCH NOW
VIDEO04:45
Washington Post’s Fahrenthold: Grand jury convened to hear evidence in Trump criminal probe
Democrats’ claims “directly contravene the absolute immunity” conveyed by the Constitution on the then-president and “fail to plausibly plead any viable conspiracy theory” against Trump, Binnall said.
Giuliani during the rally had called for “trial by combat.” But the former New York mayor’s lawyer argued in his motion to dismiss Thompson’s lawsuit that “no reasonable reader or listener would have perceived Giuliani’s speech as an instruction to march to the Capitol, violently breach the perimeter and enter the Capitol building, and then violently terrorize Congress into not engaging in the Electoral Certification.”
The Democrats’ conspiracy claim “defies all plausibility and believability on its face,” Giuliani’s lawyer wrote.
Lawyers representing the Democrats told CNBC that the plaintiffs would press forward with the lawsuit.
U.S. President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani gestures as he speaks as Trump supporters gather by the White House ahead of his speech to contest the certification by the U.S. Congress of the results of the 2020 U.S. presidential election in Washington, U.S, January 6, 2021.
Jim Bourg | Reuters
“We will respond in due course to these groundless motions,” said Joe Sellers, chair of a civil rights group at law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, and NAACP interim general counsel Janette McCarthy Wallace, in a joint statement.
But “it is apparent that these defendants, having fomented and participated in an insurrection to stop Congress from certifying a free and fair election, seek to avoid any and all legal responsibility for their extraordinary attack on our democracy.”
“We will continue to press ahead with our case and hold them accountable for their attempts to subvert our constitution,” Sellers and Wallace said.
The lawsuit also names as defendants the extremist groups the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys and Warboys.
The Oath Keepers filed their own motion to dismiss the case Thursday morning, arguing that the Democratic lawmakers lack “standing,” or the ability to sue based on the alleged injury they have received by the defendants.
The mob on Jan. 6 broke through lines of police officers outside the Capitol, leading hundreds of rioters to flood into the building. They physically attacked law enforcement, broke windows, burst into congressional offices, vandalized the grounds and stole property.
A man shouts as supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump gather in front of the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, January 6, 2021.
Leah Millis | Reuters
The invasion forced a joint session of Congress to evacuate their chambers and hide for their safety, temporarily derailing the lawmakers’ efforts to confirm Trump’s loss to Biden.
Thompson’s lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington in February, accused Trump and Giuliani of launching a “concerted campaign to misinform their supporters and the public, encouraging and promoting intimidation and violence in furtherance of their common plan to promote the re-election of Defendant Trump, even after the states had certified election results decisively showing he lost the election.”
That campaign, which included an effort to stop Congress from counting the Electoral College votes on Jan. 6, was undertaken “for the purpose of seeking to prevent Plaintiff Thompson and other members of Congress from certifying that former Vice President Biden won the presidential election,” Thompson’s lawsuit said.
In April, 10 more House members signed on to the lawsuit. They are: Reps. Karen Bass, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters, all of California; Steve Cohen, of Tennessee; Bonnie Watson Coleman, of New Jersey; Veronica Escobar, of Texas; Hank Johnson Jr., of Georgia; Marcy Kaptur, of Ohio; Jerry Nadler, of New York; and Pramila Jayapal, of Washington.
The Pathetic New Chapter of the Baby Trumps
The Pathetic New Chapter of the Baby Trumps HAS-BEENS OPINION Photo Illustration by The Daily Beast / Photo Paul Morigi/Getty Junior, Eric, Ivanka, Lara and the rest of them are out in the cold now that these cold-blooded kids don’t have Dad’s stolen heat to warm their bellies. Molly Jong-Fast...
www.bgol.us
Trump attempted a coup. Now there are emails that prove it.
Judd Legum 15 hr ago 52 4
President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump prepare to depart the White House on January 20, 2021. (Photo by Eric Thayer/Getty Images)
After he lost the election, Trump attempted a coup to keep himself in power. Trump hasn't been successful — but his no-holds-barred effort to overturn the election continues.
Trump's effort to cast aside the results of the 2020 presidential election and install himself for a second term was obvious from his tweets, his public statements, and the actions of his motley crew of lawyers. But a trove of emails and other documents, released on Tuesday by the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, provide new insight into the intensity of Trump's efforts to stay in the Oval Office.
The new documents involve communications between the White House and the Department of Justice in the last few weeks of Trump's presidency. They suggest that Trump sacked Barr in mid-December in an effort to find a new Attorney General who would assist him in overturning the election result.
On December 14, Trump's personal assistant, Molly Michael, sent an email to then-Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen with the subject line "From POTUS." Attached to the email was a document full of wild accusations about the vote in Michigan.
The "report" was prepared by Russell Ramsland Jr. "a Republican businessman who has sold everything from Tex-Mex food in London to a wellness technology that beams light into the human bloodstream." It argued, without valid evidence, that machines from Dominion Voting Systems were "intentionally and purposefully designed with errors to create systemic fraud." Ramsland previously told the Washington Post that he was in contact with Trump's lawyer, Rudy Guiliani, after the election.
The claims in the document are familiar to anyone who listened to Guiliani — or another Trump-aligned lawyer, Sidney Powell. But what's striking is what happened next. Two minutes after Trump's assistant sent the documents, "Associate Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue, through his assistant, sent the same documents to the U.S. Attorneys for the Eastern and Western Districts of Michigan."
Just 40 minutes later, "Trump tweeted that Attorney General Barr—who had said publicly that he had not seen widespread election fraud—would be stepping down, that Mr. Rosen would serve as Acting Attorney General, and that Mr. Donoghue would serve as Acting Deputy Attorney General."
Trump apparently viewed Rosen and Donoghue as potentially more open to assisting in his efforts to throw out the results of the election. Donoghue, in particular, seemed willing to play along.
But that was only the beginning.
The Supreme Court brief that was never filed
After dispensing with Barr, Trump attempted to convince the Department of Justice's new leadership to file an extraordinary brief with the United States Supreme Court.
On December 29, 2020, Michael emailed Donoghue and Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall. The message included a draft complaint to file in the Supreme Court and instructions of how to contact Trump to discuss.
The complaint was prepared by Kurt Olsen, a private attorney working with Trump. The same day Michael sent the email to Donoghue and Wall, Olsen contacted Rosen's Chief of Staff. Olsen said that Trump wanted him to meet with Rosen to discuss filing the complaint on behalf of the United States against Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Nevada.
The lengthy complaint claimed the statistical odds of Biden beating Trump in Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania were "one in a quadrillion, or 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000." It repeated debunked conspiracy theories about Dominion voting machines saying there were "grave questions" about their "vulnerability." As a remedy, it asked the Supreme Court "[d]eclare that the electoral college votes" in all five states were void and "[a]uthorize" a new "special election" to determine the winner.
The emails indicate that Olsen was able to talk to Rosen on December 29, 2020. Rosen asked Olsen for Supreme Court precedent backing up his argument. This request was a bad sign because the complaint itself should have contained all relevant precedent. The complaint was never filed.
But the emails reveal that Trump was absolutely serious about overturning the election results to stay in power. He was willing to do anything and everything possible to achieve this goal. Trump is no longer in the White House, but his quest to overturn the election results continues.
The coup continues
Trump has continued his quest to overturn the election from his properties in Florida and New Jersey. The facts and the law continue to be against him. But he presses forward anyway. Trump reportedly believes he will be "reinstated" as president sometime in August.
Recently, his focus has been on the recount of Maricopa County, Arizona. The recount, which is unofficial and cannot impact the results, is being run by Cyber Ninjas, an obscure firm with no experience in election audits. The CEO of Cyber Ninjas is Doug Logan, "who has a history of posting unsubstantiated claims of election fraud online." Logan deleted his Twitter account, @securityvoid, in January. But archives of the account preserved online shows that he trafficked in numerous conspiracy theories alleging the election was stolen from Trump.
The process has dragged on for months but is apparently nearing completion. Republican politicians from around the country, seeking to establish their MAGA bonafides, are making pilgrimages to Veterans Memorial Coliseum in Phoenix where the count is taking place.
Trump is pushing for similar recounts in other key states that Biden won, including Pennsylvania. He published the following statement to his website on June 4:
Republicans in states Trump won last November are now pushing for audits because "[f]ocusing on fraud claims allows Republican officials to raise money and attention from devoted Trump supporters."
None of this activity will put Trump back in the White House. But it has been effective in convincing millions of people to believe the lie that the election was stolen from Trump. As the world saw on January 6, that is very dangerous.
The enablers
Despite his obsessive focus on undermining the democratic process, Trump remains a revered figure in the Republican Party. Key Republican leaders in Congress are validating Trump's conduct by continuing to embrace Trump and his message.
One particularly close ally of Trump in 2021 is the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), which is chaired by Senator Rick Scott (R-FL). In April, Scott traveled to Florida to present Trump with an award on behalf of the NRSC. There have been no other winners of the award. It was made up for Trump.
Rick Scott @ScottforFlorida
This weekend I was proud to recognize President Donald Trump with the inaugural @NRSC Champion for Freedom Award. President Trump fought for American workers, secured the border, and protected our constitutional rights. bit.ly/NRSC_184
April 12th 2021
357 Retweets1,680 Likes
In June, Trump appeared in a fundraising video on behalf of the NRSC. In the video Trump said, "we’re gonna take back the White House, and… sooner than you think." The message appears intended to bolster the conspiracy theory that Trump will be "reinstated" later this summer.
The NRSC, despite legitimizing and publicizing Trump's efforts to undermine the democratic process, has attracted significant corporate support. The corporate PACs of Walmart ($30,000), General Electric ($30,000), Pfizer ($15,000), T-Mobile ($15,000), GM ($15,000), Ford ($15,000), and Altria ($15,000) have all donated to the NRSC this year.
Judd Legum 15 hr ago 52 4
President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump prepare to depart the White House on January 20, 2021. (Photo by Eric Thayer/Getty Images)
After he lost the election, Trump attempted a coup to keep himself in power. Trump hasn't been successful — but his no-holds-barred effort to overturn the election continues.
Trump's effort to cast aside the results of the 2020 presidential election and install himself for a second term was obvious from his tweets, his public statements, and the actions of his motley crew of lawyers. But a trove of emails and other documents, released on Tuesday by the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, provide new insight into the intensity of Trump's efforts to stay in the Oval Office.
The new documents involve communications between the White House and the Department of Justice in the last few weeks of Trump's presidency. They suggest that Trump sacked Barr in mid-December in an effort to find a new Attorney General who would assist him in overturning the election result.
On December 14, Trump's personal assistant, Molly Michael, sent an email to then-Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen with the subject line "From POTUS." Attached to the email was a document full of wild accusations about the vote in Michigan.
The "report" was prepared by Russell Ramsland Jr. "a Republican businessman who has sold everything from Tex-Mex food in London to a wellness technology that beams light into the human bloodstream." It argued, without valid evidence, that machines from Dominion Voting Systems were "intentionally and purposefully designed with errors to create systemic fraud." Ramsland previously told the Washington Post that he was in contact with Trump's lawyer, Rudy Guiliani, after the election.
The claims in the document are familiar to anyone who listened to Guiliani — or another Trump-aligned lawyer, Sidney Powell. But what's striking is what happened next. Two minutes after Trump's assistant sent the documents, "Associate Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue, through his assistant, sent the same documents to the U.S. Attorneys for the Eastern and Western Districts of Michigan."
Just 40 minutes later, "Trump tweeted that Attorney General Barr—who had said publicly that he had not seen widespread election fraud—would be stepping down, that Mr. Rosen would serve as Acting Attorney General, and that Mr. Donoghue would serve as Acting Deputy Attorney General."
Trump apparently viewed Rosen and Donoghue as potentially more open to assisting in his efforts to throw out the results of the election. Donoghue, in particular, seemed willing to play along.
But that was only the beginning.
The Supreme Court brief that was never filed
After dispensing with Barr, Trump attempted to convince the Department of Justice's new leadership to file an extraordinary brief with the United States Supreme Court.
On December 29, 2020, Michael emailed Donoghue and Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall. The message included a draft complaint to file in the Supreme Court and instructions of how to contact Trump to discuss.
The complaint was prepared by Kurt Olsen, a private attorney working with Trump. The same day Michael sent the email to Donoghue and Wall, Olsen contacted Rosen's Chief of Staff. Olsen said that Trump wanted him to meet with Rosen to discuss filing the complaint on behalf of the United States against Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Nevada.
The lengthy complaint claimed the statistical odds of Biden beating Trump in Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania were "one in a quadrillion, or 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000." It repeated debunked conspiracy theories about Dominion voting machines saying there were "grave questions" about their "vulnerability." As a remedy, it asked the Supreme Court "[d]eclare that the electoral college votes" in all five states were void and "[a]uthorize" a new "special election" to determine the winner.
The emails indicate that Olsen was able to talk to Rosen on December 29, 2020. Rosen asked Olsen for Supreme Court precedent backing up his argument. This request was a bad sign because the complaint itself should have contained all relevant precedent. The complaint was never filed.
But the emails reveal that Trump was absolutely serious about overturning the election results to stay in power. He was willing to do anything and everything possible to achieve this goal. Trump is no longer in the White House, but his quest to overturn the election results continues.
The coup continues
Trump has continued his quest to overturn the election from his properties in Florida and New Jersey. The facts and the law continue to be against him. But he presses forward anyway. Trump reportedly believes he will be "reinstated" as president sometime in August.
Recently, his focus has been on the recount of Maricopa County, Arizona. The recount, which is unofficial and cannot impact the results, is being run by Cyber Ninjas, an obscure firm with no experience in election audits. The CEO of Cyber Ninjas is Doug Logan, "who has a history of posting unsubstantiated claims of election fraud online." Logan deleted his Twitter account, @securityvoid, in January. But archives of the account preserved online shows that he trafficked in numerous conspiracy theories alleging the election was stolen from Trump.
The process has dragged on for months but is apparently nearing completion. Republican politicians from around the country, seeking to establish their MAGA bonafides, are making pilgrimages to Veterans Memorial Coliseum in Phoenix where the count is taking place.
Trump is pushing for similar recounts in other key states that Biden won, including Pennsylvania. He published the following statement to his website on June 4:
Republicans in states Trump won last November are now pushing for audits because "[f]ocusing on fraud claims allows Republican officials to raise money and attention from devoted Trump supporters."
None of this activity will put Trump back in the White House. But it has been effective in convincing millions of people to believe the lie that the election was stolen from Trump. As the world saw on January 6, that is very dangerous.
The enablers
Despite his obsessive focus on undermining the democratic process, Trump remains a revered figure in the Republican Party. Key Republican leaders in Congress are validating Trump's conduct by continuing to embrace Trump and his message.
One particularly close ally of Trump in 2021 is the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), which is chaired by Senator Rick Scott (R-FL). In April, Scott traveled to Florida to present Trump with an award on behalf of the NRSC. There have been no other winners of the award. It was made up for Trump.
Rick Scott @ScottforFlorida
This weekend I was proud to recognize President Donald Trump with the inaugural @NRSC Champion for Freedom Award. President Trump fought for American workers, secured the border, and protected our constitutional rights. bit.ly/NRSC_184
April 12th 2021
357 Retweets1,680 Likes
In June, Trump appeared in a fundraising video on behalf of the NRSC. In the video Trump said, "we’re gonna take back the White House, and… sooner than you think." The message appears intended to bolster the conspiracy theory that Trump will be "reinstated" later this summer.
The NRSC, despite legitimizing and publicizing Trump's efforts to undermine the democratic process, has attracted significant corporate support. The corporate PACs of Walmart ($30,000), General Electric ($30,000), Pfizer ($15,000), T-Mobile ($15,000), GM ($15,000), Ford ($15,000), and Altria ($15,000) have all donated to the NRSC this year.
Rudy Giuliani suspended from practicing law in New York state
Rudy Giuliani, the former personal lawyer for former President Donald Trump who once held one of the legal profession's most prestigious jobs, was suspended Thursday from practicing law in New York state by an appellate court that found he made "demonstrably false and misleading statements"...
amp.cnn.com
Trump seemingly acknowledges facts of prosecutors' case against Trump Organization while criticizing charges over 'fringe benefits'
Former President Donald Trump appeared to acknowledge the core facts in New York prosecutors' case against the Trump Organization and its chief financial officer even as he characterized the charges as a political attack aimed at him.
amp.cnn.com