1/6 Insurrection Investigation

[Rick Plant]

Adam Schiff on Jan 6th, Republican lies big and small — and prosecuting Donald Trump

Rep. Adam Schiff, the California Democrat who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, is not the type of person who uses hyperbole just to create soundbites. This former prosecutor has a clear record of sober, measured public rhetoric. So we should all take note when Schiff states that the Department of Justice "should be doing a lot more" when it comes to investigating "any criminal activity that Donald Trump was engaged in," as he did in our recent Salon Talks conversation. In describing the former president's long list of possible or apparent crimes, Schiff said, "I don't think you can ignore the activity and pretend it didn't happen."

I spoke to Schiff about his new book, "Midnight in Washington: How We Almost Lost Our Democracy and Still Could," which is currently at No. 1 on the New York Times nonfiction bestseller list. The clear message Schiff has for America is this: "We came so close to losing our democracy," and that threat is far from over. One of his main motivations in writing the book, Schiff said, is a sense that most people don't "feel a sufficient sense of alarm" over the threat posed by Trump and much of today's Republican Party.

To that end, Schiff opens the book with a gripping retelling of the Jan. 6 act of "domestic terrorism," as the FBI has officially labeled that attack. Schiff says he felt compelled to give that personal account in order "to bring the reader inside that chamber, let them know what it was like to hear the doors being battered, the windows breaking as this mob was trying to get in."

Schiff also discussed what it was like to become a "villain" in Trump's world, as the recipient of a barrage of crude insults launched by the former president and his supporters. Schiff says his sense of humor helped him cope with those slings and arrows, but it was more difficult to face the death threats from those incited by Trump.

Watch the full interview with Schiff here, or read a transcript of our conversation below to hear more about Schiff's warning and call to action. "We don't have the luxury of despair," he told me. "It needs to motivate us to be active."

This conversation has been edited for clarity and length

Your book opens with a retelling of Jan. 6. You paint a great picture — first of all with your sense of humor, but also of the fear involved and how this was very real. Can you share a little bit about what you went through, and other members went through, with gas masks being handed out and everything else. There are Republicans, as you may have heard, who are trying to depict Jan. 6 as a "tourist visit." So I think the reality needs to be relayed to people about what really went on from the inside.

This is one of the reasons that I wanted to write this down. I wanted to bring the reader inside that chamber, let them know what it was like to hear the doors being battered, the windows breaking as this mob was trying to get in.

I wasn't on the floor the whole time. I had been assigned by the speaker to be one of a handful of managers to oppose the Republican efforts to decertify the election. I really was focused on what I was speaking, what I was saying, what the Republicans were saying. Then I looked up and the speaker was missing from her chair, which struck me because I knew from the preparations she planned to preside the entire time. Soon thereafter two Capitol police rushed onto the floor, grabbed [Majority Leader] Steny Hoyer, and whisked him off the floor so quickly. I remember thinking I'd never seen Steny move that fast.

It wasn't long before we started to get messages from the Capitol police, one after another, of increasing severity, that they were rioters in the building, that we needed to get out the gas masks from under our seats, that we should get prepared to get down on the ground, and ultimately that we needed to get out, and that a way had been paved for us to get out. But I still hung back because there was now a real scrum to get out the door behind the chamber. I still felt relatively calm and was waiting for other people to go ahead. A couple of Republicans came up to me on the floor and said, "Basically, you can't let them see you." One of them said, "I know these people, I can talk to these people, I can talk to my way through these people. You're in a whole different category."

At first, I was kind of touched that they were worried about my safety. And then, you know, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that if they hadn't been lying about the election, I wouldn't need to worry about my safety. None of us would. One of them, when I finally did head to the doors when they were really starting to break glass to get in, and I walked out with a Republican who was holding a wooden post — it wasn't just the Democrats were worried here — he was holding a post to defend himself. And I said to him, because he had a member pin on, but I didn't recognize him, "How long have you been here?" He said, "72 hours. I just got elected."

As you mentioned I used my sense of humor in dark moments to try to alleviate the stress. So he says he'd been there for 72 hours. I looked at him and I said, "It's not always like this." But I tell you, the anger after that day only grew. What I was most angry at was not the insurrectionists who really believed the Big Lie, although I was furious at them too. It was what I described as the insurrectionists in suits and ties, these members that I work with that knew it was a big lie. And even after that brutal attack, when we went back in the chamber with blood still on the floor outside of the chamber, they were still trying to overturn the election. That to me was unforgivable.

To watch it play off from our side, on TV, was stunning. For me, I'm Muslim and the same people on the right had demonized my community for years, saying we knew who the terrorists were and we weren't turning them in because we were soft on terrorism. All of these are lies. Now we actually have Republicans literally defending terrorists by name. You have Donald Trump defending the terrorists, the same man who wanted to ban Muslims from entering the country. I find that hard to process intellectually because it's just so devoid of any decency whatsoever. You mentioned a Republican congressmen saying to you, "These people might hurt you or kill you." They know their base, they know how dangerous they are. So what do we do?

I thought the most powerful speech that day came from a source I was not expecting. It came from Conor Lamb [a moderate Pennsylvania Democrat], this former Marine, generally very soft-spoken. When we went back on the floor after that insurrection to finish the joint session, he talked about how these people had come in and attacked the Capitol and they'd done so because of the big lies being pushed on the other side of the aisle, and how a lot of them had walked in free and walked out free. And he said, "I think we know why they were able to simply walk away."

What he was saying, of course, was that because of their color, because of who they were, because they were white nationalists and not people of color, that they were treated very differently. It was an inescapable truth. This was not just an insurrection against our form of government. It was also a white nationalist insurrection with Confederate flags and people wearing Auschwitz T-shirts. This too was a very sobering thing for me, which was to see where this was coming from and realizing just how far our country still had to go.

In your book, you share things about your family and growing up. One thing stuck out and it's a small thing: You write that in 2010, you were on a plane flight with Kevin McCarthy, a fellow member of the House from California, a Republican. It was before the midterms and you had a conversation. Then he literally goes out and fabricates something, claiming you had told him, "Republicans are going to win this." That was a lie and you went and confronted him. And I was stunned by his reaction, considering this is the man who might be the next speaker of the House. Can you share a little bit about that story?

Yes, and I tell this story because sometimes little vignettes tell us a lot about what people are made of. One of the most frequent questions I get from people is: When you talk to Republicans privately, do they really believe what they say publicly? And the answer, all too often, is no, they don't. They don't believe what they're saying publicly and they will admit it. In this particular case, I was seated next to McCarthy just by coincidence on United Airlines, flying back to Washington. We were having a nothing conversation about who was going to win the midterms. I said I thought Democrats would win. And he said he thought Republicans were going to win. Then the movie started and I was like, "Thank God the movie started."

So we get to D.C. and we go our separate ways and he goes off and does a press briefing and he tells the press, "Oh, Republicans are definitely going to win the midterms. I sat next to Adam Schiff on the plane and even he admitted Republicans were going to win the midterms." The next morning, when that came out, I was beside myself and I went up to him, I made a beeline for him on the House floor. And I said, "Kevin, I would have thought if we're having a private conversation, it was a private conversation. But if it wasn't, you know, I said the exact opposite of what you told the press."

He looks at me and says, "Yeah, I know Adam. But you know how it goes." And I was like, "No, Kevin, I don't know how it goes. You just make stuff up and that's how you operate? Because that's not how I operate." But it is how he operates, and in that respect, Kevin McCarthy was really made for a moment like this, when the leader of his party had no compunction about lie after lie after lie. You say what you need to say, you do what you need to do. The truth doesn't matter. What's right doesn't matter. And someone like that can never be allowed to go near a position of responsibility like the speaker's office.

You also write about being the brunt of Trump's attacks, over and over. Were you able to laugh it off? What was it like to be a Trump villain? Was it more fun to be villain than a hero like they say in the movies?

You know, much of the time I was able to laugh it off, and my family helped me laugh it off. In fact, I remember walking down the street in New York with my daughter, who lives in Soho. I was wearing blue jeans and a canvas jacket and sunglasses, and I was getting stopped. And I was astonished that I was getting stopped and eventually it started to get annoying to my daughter, because there's only one center of attention in our family, and it's her, not me. So finally, Lexi says, "Enough already." I said to her, "I'm just shocked that people can recognize me." She looks at me and she says, "Well, you know, Dad, it's the pencil neck." This is what you get from your own kid.

I do want to say, on a more serious note, that I found it so upsetting that he would demean his office by engaging in these kinds of juvenile taunts. It just brought the presidency down. But the more serious thing were the not-so-veiled threats he would make, calling me a traitor and saying, "Well, we used to have a way of dealing with traitors." At one point he met with, I think, the president of Guatemala and said, "Well, you know, you used to have a way in your country of dealing with people like Adam Schiff." Something along those lines. And, you know, that reaches people that are not well. I get death threats, and that part, you really couldn't laugh off.

In the book, you write that after Jan. 6 there was no need for impeachment hearings just to have the vote: "No investigation would be necessary given we were all witnesses to his crimes," speaking of Trump. When you think back on that now, do you think the Department of Justice should be doing more in terms of criminal prosecution of Donald Trump and the people around him?

I do think the Justice Department should be doing a lot more than what I can see — which is, with respect to some things, nothing at all. What I would point to most specifically is Donald Trump on the phone with the secretary of state of Georgia, Brad Raffensperger, essentially trying to browbeat him into finding 11,780 votes that don't exist. I think if you or I were on that call, or any of my constituents, they would have been indicted by now. I understand the reluctance on the part of the attorney general to look backward, but you can't have a situation where a president cannot be prosecuted and when they leave office they still can't be prosecuted — that they're too big to jail, somehow.

I think that any criminal activity that Donald Trump was engaged in needs to be investigated. It may be ultimately that the attorney general makes the decision after investigating that for what he thinks is the country's best interests it makes sense not to go forward with a particular charge. But I don't think you can ignore the activity and pretend it didn't happen.

Last week we had the vote in the House on charges of criminal contempt against Steve Bannon. Then it goes to the Justice Department. Do you have any sense what they will do? If they choose not to indict Bannon or to prosecute him, would you be calling for changes in the DOJ?

Well, first of all, I think they are going to move forward. That's my personal opinion. It's my hope and expectation. I say that because of a couple of things. They have repeatedly made it clear now, as they did to Mr. Bannon but in other contexts as wel,l that they are not asserting executive privilege, that the public interest here far outweighs any claim of privilege. So Steve Bannon had no basis in which to simply refuse to appear. I also think that because the Justice Department itself has not resisted our efforts to interview high-ranking, former Justice Department individuals, they understand the importance of this. Should he not go prosecuted, it will essentially send a message that the rule of law doesn't apply to certain people close to the former president. And I just cannot imagine that's a message that the Justice Department wants to send.

Rolling Stone recently reported about certain members of the House, including perhaps Rep. Paul Gosar [of Arizona], meeting with some of the Jan. 6 organizers. It's not completely clear because it's from anonymous sources, but there was an allegation that Gosar promised blanket pardons to people through Donald Trump. I know you're on the Jan. 6 committee, will you be investigating that?

Yes, we will be investigating these issues to see whether the public reports are accurate or not accurate, what role members of Congress played or didn't play. We are determined to be exhaustive. Nobody gets a pass, so yes, we will be looking into all these things. Look, you can't dismiss those allegations as being too incredible to be true because Donald Trump was dangling pardons to people like Paul Manafort. He was attacking those who did cooperate, like Michael Cohen, calling him a rat. The idea that they would dangle more pardons cannot be excluded. And if members of Congress played a role in that, then the public has a right to know. Ultimately Congress and the Justice Department will have to figure out what the consequences need to be.

There was reporting in the Washington Post on the Willard Hotel war room and there were things in it I had never seen, including that Donald Trump and his allies in early January, after all the appeals were done, recounts had been done, the Electoral College had voted, and Trump was on the phone with over 300 state legislative officials in battleground states, telling them essentially to decertify the results. Could that potentially rise to a crime?

That ultimately would be a decision the Justice Department would have to make, whether it violated specific statutes and whether they could meet their burden of proof. But what we are most focused on is this violent attack on the Capitol, just the last stage in an effort to essentially bring about a coup. When all the litigation failed, when all the efforts to coerce the vice president failed, when the efforts to get Brad Raffensperger to find votes that didn't exist failed, then that was the plan: to use violence to intimidate the vice president or the Congress into not doing its job, to interrupt that peaceful transfer of power. Was that the plan all along, and what role did the president play, and people around him?

I think the biggest black box in terms of unknowns, is what was the president's role in all this. We know he incited the insurrection, and that was sufficient grounds to impeach and remove him. But what role did he play? How much was he aware of the propensity for violence, the participation of white nationalists? How much was he celebrating as he opened those doors and windows and heard the sound of the crowd the night before that they would use violence if necessary to make sure that he stayed in the office?

You're a former prosecutor. If Donald Trump is not punished some way criminally for his actions, what would stop Trump or a democratic demagogue one day or another president from mimicking the same conduct, thinking you can get away with this? This was a scene of two-prong coup attempt, one behind the scenes and one right in our face on Jan. 6, how could this be permissible in the United States of America?

It's a very good question and I think you can draw a straight line between the Trump's Russia misconduct in which he invited a foreign power to help them cheat in an election and then lied to cover it up. And feeling he gotten away with that after Bob Mueller testified, and that leading the very next day to his Ukrainian misconduct and new and different ways to try to cheat in the next election. And when he got acquitted and escaped accountability for that in the first trial, you can draw a straight line to the insurrection and even worse ways to help to try to cheat in the election.

If he were to ever take office again, where does that straight line continued to go? So, yes, I think the danger is real and what's going on around the country right now in which the Republicans are running with the big lie to strip independent elections officials of their duties and give them over to partisans seems to be the lesson they learned from the failed insurrection, which is next time, if they couldn't find a Secretary of State in Georgia to come up with votes that don't exist, there'll be sure they have someone there who will. And to me, that's why I titled the book "How Close We Came to Losing Our Democracy and Still Could." Because the danger that we still could is all too real.

In the book, you quote from Shakespeare's "Twelfth Night" talking about what we saw and went through and with Donald Trump. If this were a play on a stage now I can condemn it as an improbable fiction, but unfortunately it was real where we lived through this. And at this point I'm thinking of "Hamlet" and our democracy: To be, or not to be. It really seems that's where we are, and that it's that dire. Do you get a sense that enough Democrats, enough people in the media, share the dire view of the trajectory of our nation and where we're going? Where just because this republic has been here for 240-plus years doesn't mean it will be here for eternity, and that something needs to be done to save it?

I don't think people feel a sufficient sense of alarm. It's one of the main motivations for me to write this book. I got together recently with a couple of friends of mine. They're both a husband and wife married for decades. They're in their mid 90s. And I asked them, have you ever seen anything like the present? And they told me, "Look, we remember World War II, the Great Depression. We remember Korea and Vietnam, the Civil Rights struggles, the Cuban Missile Crisis. We've never been more worried about the future of our country and democracy than we are today. Because during all those former crises, we always knew we would survive and we would survive as a democracy. But right now we just don't know." And people do need to feel that sense of urgency, not despondent state, not despair we don't have the luxury of despair. It needs to motivate us to be active.

I paint a portrait of a lot of the heroes that came through this period of time, Marie Yovanovitch and Fiona Hill and others. We need to use them to inspire us to act. We can't all be Marie Yovanovitch, but in our own way we can figure out what we can do to come to the rescue of our democracy in this dark hour.

https://www.rawstory.com/adam-schiff-donald-trump-2655455765/

[Rick Plant]

Trump ignored warnings 'Pence is in trouble' so he could watch the Capitol riot on TV: WaPo reporter

Appearing on MSNBC on Sunday morning, Washington Post reporter Robert Costa was asked to explain what was going on in the White House as the Jan 6th Capitol riot unfolded.

Noting the battle that was going on between Vice President Mike Pence's lawyer and Donald Trump attorney John Eastman over who was at fault for the insurrection that followed the "Stop the Steal" rally, Costa said the former president was unfazed when an aide told him Pence's life was in danger.

"I just want to confirm he was talking during the siege, on the 6th while Mike Pence was potentially hearing chants from the marauders in the Capitol saying, 'Hang Mike Pence?' That's the kind of exchange that was going on as he was literally hiding for his life?" host Witt asked.

"It's not just Eastman who's reacting like that," Costa recalled. "It's Eastman interacting with Greg Jacob, Pence's lawyer, being disappointed by Pence's conduct."

'You also see President Trump," he continued. "Trump, he's in the Oval Office and he's confronted by [National Security Advisor] Keith Kellogg, 'Pence is in trouble over at the Capitol,' and Trump just keeps watching television, as almost an idle person as this insurrection unfolds. And yet Trump, of course, had been very aggressive in pushing Pence in the days prior."

Watch below:

[Rick Plant]

Coup-promoting Trump DOJ official will talk with Capitol riot committee on Friday

Former Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division Jeffrey Clark, a key figure in former President Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election, is reportedly meeting with the House Select Committee investigating the January 6th Capitol riots.

According to CNN's Zachary Cohen, Clark "is expected to appear tomorrow for an interview with the January 6th Select Committee," where he is expected to be interviewed about his efforts to keep Trump in the White House despite losing decisively to President Joe Biden last year.

Clark is talking with the committee even though Trump has directly instructed former administration officials to ignore any subpoenas that come from the House select committee investigating the January 6th Capitol riots.

The committee subpoenaed Clark last month on the grounds that he was "reportedly involved in efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and interrupt the peaceful transfer of power."

The subpoena went on to say that it was seeking "deposition testimony and records from Mr. Clark as part of the Select Committee's investigation into the events of January 6th and the causes of that day's violence."

According to the subpoena, Clark "proposed delivery of a letter to state legislators in Georgia and others encouraging to delay certification of election results" and he also "recommended holding a press conference announcing that the Department was investigating allegations of voter fraud despite the lack of evidence that such fraud was present."

https://www.rawstory.com/jeffrey-clark-capitol-riot-2655496868/

[Rick Plant]

Amazing how all these right wingers feel that they are above the law.   

Jenna Ryan, Texas realtor who tweeted she was 'definitely not going to jail,' gets 60 days in jail

Ryan was one of a group of Texans who took a private plane to Washington, D.C., on January 6 and eventually entered the U.S. Capitol Building.

WASHINGTON — A Texas real estate agent who infamously claimed her blonde hair and white skin would keep her out of jail was sentenced Thursday to 60 days behind bars for her role in the January 6 Capitol riot.

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper told Jenna Ryan, of Frisco, Texas, it was clear she knew what she was doing when she left her hotel to travel to the Capitol after watching coverage of the riot on Fox News.

“You knew it when you walked out of your hotel room and said, ‘We’re going to war and we’re going to be breaking windows,’” Cooper said.

Ryan and several friends – including two, Jason Hyland and Katherine Schwab, who have been charged in the January 6 case – took a private jet from Texas to attend former President Donald Trump’s “Stop the Steal” rally on January 6. At the Capitol, Ryan entered the building with other members of the mob and was later filmed at the front of a crowd encouraging the assault. She also posed for a photo next to a broken window, which she posted with the caption, “Window at The capital [sic]. And if the news doesn’t stop lying about us we’re going to come after their studios next…”



After returning to Texas, Ryan did a number of interviews with the media, including one with NBC in which she claimed she felt “like a martyr” and another with Fox in which she described her presence at the Capitol as “something noble.” Ryan, who has a large social media following, also posted multiple times about her role in the riot, saying in one message, “I deserve a medal for what I did.”

In her most infamous post, Ryan responded to another Twitter user that she was “definitely not going to jail. Sorry I have blonde hair white skin a great job a great future and I’m not going to jail.”



In court Thursday, her attorney, Guy Womack, attempted to downplay the significance of her posts.

“She’s a social butterfly,” Womack said. “She goes online and posts things.”

Cooper said he had to take those posts – and a letter Ryan wrote to him that talked more about her social media following than her regret for what she’d done – into account, but he also noted that it wasn’t her posts or her interviews that he was sentencing her for.

“No one is being prosecuted for coming to Washington,” Cooper said. “No one is being prosecuted for the belief that the election was stolen. If you had the good sense not to leave your hotel room, or not go in once you saw what was happening, you wouldn’t be here.”

In part because of the attention her own media appearances drew to the case, Cooper said people would be looking to her sentence to see what the penalty was for attacking democratic institutions.

“I think that sentence should show them we take it seriously,” he said.

Cooper ultimately agreed with the Justice Department’s recommended sentence and ordered Ryan to serve 60 days behind bars. She will also have to pay the standard $500 in restitution required in all January 6 misdemeanor plea deals.

Ryan pleaded guilty in August to one Class “B” misdemeanor count of parading, demonstrating or picketing in a Capitol building. She is one of more than 100 defendants who have now entered guilty pleas in connection to the riot.

After her sentencing Thursday, Ryan and her attorney spoke with WUSA9 Chief Investigative Reporter Eric Flack. She told him she was remorseful she entered the Capitol "for two minutes," and then blamed the media attention around her case for her sentence.

"I'm disappointed that I’m being used as an example, because other people that walked in for two minutes may not have the same thing, but because I’m a public person and I have a Twitter account, I’m being punished for that," Ryan said. "Because the media are doing what you’re all doing now, I’m being punished for this. And it’s actually causing my incarceration. I think that’s a travesty. I think that everybody should be able to tweet without being persecuted and treated like crap.”

Asked if she wishes she hadn't posted some of the things she did, Ryan said yes.

"Yes, I regret ever tweeting," she said.

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/national/capitol-riots/jenna-ryan-texas-realtor-who-tweeted-she-was-definitely-not-going-to-jail-gets-60-days-in-jail-white-skin-blonde-hair-donald-trump-guy-womack/65-fb717bf2-3a07-4581-9486-bb9d8e144abd

[Rick Plant]

Capitol riot investigators to issue 20 new subpoenas — but not to GOP lawmakers ‘yet’



Mississippi Democratic Congressman Bennie Thompson, chair of the House Select Committee investigating the Capitol insurrection, announced Thursday that he has signed 20 new subpoenas that will go out "soon," possibly by Friday.

"Thompson would not confirm if former Trump lawyer John Eastman, who CNN has reported the committee plans to subpoena, is a part of that group, but said of the next batch of the subpoenas: 'Some of the people have been written about. Some of the people haven't been written about,'" according to CNN. "Asked if there are lawmakers the committee is planning to subpoena, Thompson said: 'Not yet.'"

Also Thursday, Wyoming Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney, vice chair of the committee, said members have already interviewed 150 people.

"We've had, actually, over 150 interviews with a whole range of people connected to the events, connected to understanding what happens, so that just gives you a sense," Cheney told Politico. "It is a range of engagements — some formal interviews, some depositions … There really is a huge amount of work underway that is leading to real progress for us."

According to Politico, Cheney's comments suggested that the public has seen only "the tip of the iceberg" in terms of the committee's investigation.

"This new number is an indication that the vast majority of the committee's work is happening out of public view," the site reported. "Though the panel has announced a flurry of subpoenas against former top aides to President Donald Trump and organizers of a rally that preceded the Jan. 6 insurrection, little is known about the voluntary interviews that have been conducted so far."

https://www.rawstory.com/capitol-riot-committee-subpoenas-2655497415/

[Rick Plant]

MAGA rioter gave House committee evidence of contacts with 'state-level GOP officials': report

A MAGA rioter has reportedly told the House Select Committee investigating the January 6th riots at the United States Capitol that they had contacts ahead of the riot with "state-level GOP officials who worked with former President Donald Trump as he attempted to overturn the 2020 election."

According to Politico, the rioter has interviewed with the committee twice within the last week and "described knowledge of contacts between GOP officials in a key state Trump lost and allies of the former president in the weeks leading up to the Jan. 6 attack."

The rioter is scheduled to talk with the committee again in the coming days and Politico's sources say they have already been asked questions that "ranged from the defendant's knowledge of those who organized travel to Washington for the Jan. 6 event as well as details about the preparation of legal affidavits in support of Trump's false claims of voter fraud."

The Capitol riot committee so far has interviewed more than 150 people in its efforts to uncover the full picture about what led up to the deadly events on January 6th.

https://www.rawstory.com/capitol-riot-committee-testimony-2655498095/


Committee interviews Jan. 6 rioter who witnessed state GOP contacts with Trump allies

Investigators are trying to connect the dots between protesters who broke into the Capitol and whether they coordinated with Republican officials.

Congressional investigators probing the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol are examining the contacts between one of the rioters who breached the Capitol and state-level GOP officials who worked with former President Donald Trump as he attempted to overturn the 2020 election.

The rioter, who interviewed with the committee twice in the past week, described knowledge of contacts between GOP officials in a key state Trump lost and allies of the former president in the weeks leading up to the Jan. 6 attack. The person interviewed was one of the 650-plus defendants charged in the attack, and discussed those contacts in a voluntary interview with congressional investigators.

A source familiar with the previously unreported interviews said committee investigators asked the defendant to return for a second interview after discussing details about these pre-Jan. 6 interactions. Questions from investigators ranged from the defendant’s knowledge of those who organized travel to Washington for the Jan. 6 event as well as details about the preparation of legal affidavits in support of Trump’s false claims of voter fraud.

POLITICO has agreed not to identify the defendant or state, out of the defendant’s fear of retaliation. Still, it’s a sign that the Jan. 6 committee is obtaining facts about Trump’s activities from unexpected sources: The defendants who breached the Capitol in his name.

More than 100 Capitol riot defendants have pleaded guilty for their roles in the attack, most to misdemeanor crimes. The Jan. 6 select committee began soliciting voluntary testimony last month from these rioters . That request appears to have begun bearing fruit. At least three convicted rioters have cooperated or signaled their intent to speak to the committee, including Leonard Gruppo, who provided testimony on Oct. 12, according to court records. And more may be coming: Judge Beryl Howell, chief of the district court of Washington D.C., recently credited Gruppo during his sentencing for cooperating with Congress.

The defendants’ interviews are part of more than 150 that the committee has conducted in recent days as it seeks details about Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election results. The panel has taken an expansive approach to its probe, subpoenaing top Trump aides like former chief of staff Mark Meadows, demanding testimony from the organizers of a Jan. 6 pro-Trump rally that preceded the Capitol attack and interviewing former DOJ officials who Trump pressured to help reverse his defeat.

According to the source familiar with the testimony of the defendant who interviewed this week, the defendant was also pressed to describe reasons for attending Trump’s Jan. 6 rally and then marching to the Capitol — and the answers made clear that the defendant and others traveled in response to Trump and marched to the Capitol at his direction. Many also left after he told them to go home — an invocation that came hours after lawmakers begged him to call off his supporters but got no response.

Gruppo’s attorney, Daniel Lindsey, offered a similar accounting of his client’s interview with the panel.

"He gave them specifics about why he went to Washington, what he did and all the events of that day,” Lindsey said. “Mr. Gruppo is a great man and it was an honor to represent him. Even the greatest of us make mistakes. Former President Trump has left chaos, damage and heart ache in his wake and he has shown no responsibility for all the lies.”

Prosecutors charged Gruppo with misdemeanor offenses for entering the Capitol illegally. In their sentencing recommendation, prosecutors say Gruppo drove with his wife from New Mexico to attend Trump’s “Stop the Steal” rally on the morning of Jan. 6.

The retired army lieutenant colonel, entered the Capitol despite obvious signs that police were attempting to turn them back, and prosecutors say Gruppo deleted evidence from his phone after seeing negative press coverage of the attack.

During sentencing, Howell rejected prosecutors’ request to sentence him to 30 days in prison. Rather, she gave him a sentence of probation and said he had demonstrated remorse “particularly by talking to members of Congress on the select committee.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/04/january-6-committee-rioter-interview-519580

[Rick Plant]

LISTEN: Judge laughs as Trump’s attorney defends claim that FBI cleared ex-president of wrongdoing on Jan 6

Lawyers for former President Donald Trump filed a legal brief this Tuesday falsely claiming that the FBI and the Senate have cleared him of wrongdoing in regards to the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

The attorneys say that Trump did nothing wrong by falsely claiming two separate investigations came to that conclusion.

"Notwithstanding their allegations and insinuations of conspiracy," the legal brief says of the bipartisan special committee, "investigations by the FBI and the Senate Committee on Government Affairs and Homeland Security rebuff their contentions of wrongdoing by Trump Administration officials."

While the lawyers presented their argument to Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on Thursday, her response indicated that she wasn't buying their argument.

"What's your basis for that assertion?" she asked Trump's lawyers.

"Just a published article," one of the lawyers said, "from Reuters ... quoting the FBI..."

"You cite an article ..." Chutkan began before chuckling in apparent disbelief. "I mean, that's your only support for that statement?"

Listen to the audio below:

https://www.rawstory.com/judge-laughs-at-trumps-attorney/

[Rick Plant]

Jeffrey Clark refused to answer questions during Capitol riot testimony -- and contempt charges 'on the table'



Former Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division Jeffrey Clark, a key figure in former President Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election, apparently refused to answer questions during his Friday testimony before the House Select Committee investigating the January 6th Capitol riots.

Politico reports that Clark cited attorney-client privileges and former President Donald Trump's assertions of executive privilege as justifications for refusing to answer the committee's questions.

However, as Politico notes, "any such privilege lies with the client to assert, and even if Trump were Clark's client under these circumstances, the former president has already declined to block Clark's testimony."

Select Committee Chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) tells Politico's Kyle Cheney that criminal contempt charges against Clark are "on the table" after his refusal to cooperate.

The House of Representatives last month referred criminal contempt charges against Trump ally Steve Bannon after he completely refused to comply with its subpoena.

The committee subpoenaed Clark last month on the grounds that he was "reportedly involved in efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and interrupt the peaceful transfer of power."

According to the subpoena, Clark "proposed delivery of a letter to state legislators in Georgia and others encouraging to delay certification of election results" and he also "recommended holding a press conference announcing that the Department was investigating allegations of voter fraud despite the lack of evidence that such fraud was present."

https://www.rawstory.com/jeffrey-clark-capitol-riot-2655506122/