Out of Office, Trump Still the Center of Attention, Investigations

Former U.S. President Donald Trump left office more than a year ago, but his conduct in the waning weeks of his presidency as he tirelessly sought to remain in power and his reported role in the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, remain a focal point of the American political scene and multiple investigations. 

Trump, with a wide base of Republican voter support, is teasing another run for the presidency in 2024 after losing in 2020 to Democrat Joe Biden, now the 46th U.S. president. Both men are in their 70s, but an electoral rematch in two years is possible. 

Trump is already assailing Biden’s performance during his first year in office, while Biden and his aides attack Trump, zeroing in on his baseless claims that he was cheated out of a second term by electoral fraud. 

But for the moment, the focus is not on 2024 or the nationwide congressional elections coming up in nine months. The current focus is on how the Trump presidency ended. 

Special grand jury 

A prosecutor in the southern city of Atlanta, Georgia, has convened a special grand jury to investigate Trump’s phone call to the top Georgia election official, Brad Raffensperger, in early 2021 asking him to “find” enough votes to overturn his loss in the state.

“So, look. All I want to do is this,” Trump said in a recording of the call to Raffensperger. “I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have, because we won the state.”

Meanwhile, several U.S. news outlets reported Tuesday that aides to Trump drafted orders, which apparently were never issued, calling on the Defense and Homeland Security departments to seize voting machines in key political battleground states in hopes of proving electoral fraud.

Trump lost one court challenge after another in states that Biden won. William Barr, Trump’s former attorney general, declared that federal investigators had not found evidence of fraud that would have changed the election outcome.

Undaunted, Trump turned his attention to the congressional certification of the Electoral College vote on January 6, 2021, imploring then-Vice President Mike Pence to reject the Biden electors from several key battleground states that the Democrat had won.

Shortly before Congress convened that day, Trump staged a rally near the White House in front of several thousand of his supporters, urging them to “fight like hell” to block certification of Biden’s win.

Hundreds of Trump supporters stormed into the U.S. Capitol, smashing windows and doors, ransacking offices and scuffling with police, injuring 140 of them. Five people died that day or in the immediate aftermath, with one Trump protester shot dead by a police officer. 

To this point, 768 people have been charged with criminal offenses during the chaotic melee at the Capitol, many with minor trespassing charges but some with assaulting police. A total of 178 have pleaded guilty, with many receiving a sentence of a few weeks in jail, although some facing assault charges have been sentenced to more than four years. The rest of the cases remain unresolved as investigators pore through vast video footage of the mayhem to identify the rioters. 

Congressional investigation 

A select committee in the House of Representatives — seven Democrats and two vocal anti-Trump Republicans — has been investigating the events leading up to the January 6 riot, interviewing more than 300 witnesses, including Marc Short, Pence’s chief of staff. 

Other key witnesses, including Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows, have refused to testify, but the committee expects to reach conclusions by midyear about how the riot unfolded, Trump’s role in fomenting it and why for three hours he declined to call off his supporters from the ensuing riot. 

Trump has belittled the investigation, issuing a statement saying, “The January 6th Unselect Committee composed of Radical Left Democrats and a few horrible RINO Republicans is looking to hold people in criminal contempt for things relative to the Protest, when in fact they should hold themselves in criminal contempt for cheating in the Election.”

Trump’s RINO reference — Republicans in Name Only — derisively referenced the two Republicans on the committee: Congresswoman Liz Cheney and Congressman Adam Kinzinger. 

This past weekend at a political rally in Texas, Trump spoke up for the rioters arrested at the Capitol, saying, “So many people have been asking me about it. If I run and if I win, we will treat those people from January 6 fairly. And if it requires pardons, we will give them pardons because they are being treated so unfairly.” 

But Trump faced immediate blowback for his pardon suggestion, drawing a rebuke from Cheney and other Republicans. 

“Trump uses language he knows caused the Jan 6 violence; suggests he’d pardon the Jan 6 defendants, some of whom have been charged with seditious conspiracy; threatens prosecutors; and admits he was attempting to overturn the election,” Cheney said on Twitter. “He’d do it all again if given the chance.” 

 

A close political ally of Trump’s, Republican Senator Lindsay Graham, rejected pardons as “inappropriate.” Graham told CBS News’ “Face the Nation” show, “I don’t want to send any signal that it was OK to defile the Capitol. There are other groups with causes that may want to go down the violent path if these people get pardoned.” 

White House press secretary Jen Psaki also assailed Trump, saying, “You know, his remarks this weekend, he defended the actions of his supporters who stormed the Capitol and brutally attacked the law enforcement officers protecting it. 

“I think it’s important to shout that out and call that out. He even attacked his own vice president for not, in his words, having ‘overturned the election.’ And it’s just a reminder of how unfit he is for office,” Psaki said. 

 

In One Small Prairie Town, Two Warring Visions of America

“In rural Minnesota we still have a work ethic, and I’ll call them Christian values, and that’s not reflected in our local newspaper,” said Al Saunders, a farmer and friend of Wolter’s who graduated from Benson High School a couple years after Anfinson.

“I just can’t stomach it anymore,” said Saunders, whose family settled on part of his sprawling farm more than a century ago, and who speaks almost lovingly about the rich brown soil. Anfinson’s editorials on farm subsidies and politics leave him fuming. “Trash gets thrown at you so many times and eventually you just give up.”

He grudgingly subscribes to the Monitor-News, which has a circulation of roughly 2,000. But just to follow local politics.

Anfinson does cover Swift County intensely — the city council, the county commissioners, the school board and nearly every other gathering of consequence. He’s there for school concerts, community fund-raisers, elections and livestock judging at the county fair. His white Jeep is often spattered with mud from the county’s dirt roads.

He works relentlessly. Wednesday afternoons, after he gets that week’s edition ready for printing the next morning, often count as his weekend.

Anfinson is 67 but looks at least a decade younger. A contemplative man who casually quotes Voltaire, he loves newspapers deeply, and mourns the hundreds of small-town papers that have gone under in recent years.

Still, Anfinson sometimes is surprised to find himself in Benson.

Family is a powerful force here, and this town is knitted together in ways that few Americans understand anymore. His grandfather, a poetry-loving plumber and child of Norwegian immigrants, came to Benson as a child. His father came home from World War II, became a reporter at the Monitor-News and eventually bought the newspaper with a partner.

Anfinson grew up planning on a journalism career somewhere beyond small-town Minnesota. But he found those plans upended when his father’s health began declining in the late 1970s.

“I thought I’d come back here just for a little while,” he said. “It turned into the rest of my life.”

Not that he regrets it.

He’s proud that his reporting means something here, whether it’s a high-school student getting an award or an expensive building project the community rejected after he wrote about it.

Still, there are times when it’s exhausting. And expensive. With declining circulation and ads, he estimates his three little local newspapers are worth at least $1 million less than a decade ago.

“The easy part is speaking truth to power. The hard part is speaking truth to your community. That can cost you advertisers. That can cost you subscribers,” he said.

 

It can be easy, looking around Benson, to think it is a land that time forgot.

Bartenders often greet customers by name. The town’s cafes feel like high school lunchrooms, with people wandering between tables to say hello. Those in search of solitude go to the Burger King, where they sit alone at plastic tables, staring out the windows.

Benson was built in the 1870s as railways reached this part of the prairies, and trains remain the town’s background music. In the cafes, people barely look up when mile-long trains roar through downtown. Few people stop talking. They’ve been hearing those trains for generations.

Many farms and businesses have been owned by the same families for decades: through the droughts of the 1930s; through the thriving years around World War II; to the population decline that began in the 1950s.

But plenty has changed.

Stores closed. Little farms were bought up by more successful farmers. Families left. Swift County’s population has dropped about 30 percent since 1960, and now has about 10,000 residents. Meanwhile, a county that was 98% white in 1990 has seen a stream of new minority residents, particularly Latinos. The county is now 87% white – far whiter than much of America, but far more diverse than a generation ago.

Today, longtime locals can sometimes feel unmoored.

“There are a lot of people coming through that I don’t recognize,” said Terri Collins, Benson’s cheerful mayor, whose family has been in Benson for five generations. “I used to know all of my neighbors and now that’s different. And I don’t know what to blame for that.”

Once, neighborliness and good manners were near-commandments here. Now anger is on the rise.

Neighborhood shouting matches are more common, a local official’s car was vandalized, and a “F— Biden” flag now flies along a school bus route. Collins and the town police chief both say they sometimes worry about Anfinson’s safety.

“Ten years ago I don’t think anything like this would happen,” she said.

But that was then. Travel across the plains of western Minnesota and you’ll find plenty of people who are bestirred by a new and often dark vision of America.

They are not on the fringes, at least by current standards. They are, for the most part, mainstream conservatives who see a nation that barely exists in traditional newspapers and mainstream TV news broadcasts.

People like the store manager, sitting at an American Legion bar drinking $3 cocktails, who calls the billionaire financier George Soros, a Jewish survivor of the Nazis and a powerful backer of liberal causes, “one of the most evil men I’ve ever heard of.” And the semi-retired nurse who fears teams of sex traffickers she says operate freely in countless small towns.

But it would be a mistake to think they can be categorized easily.

Some desperately want Trump to run again; others pray he won’t. One farmer quietly admits he worries about the growing numbers of racial minorities; another enjoys hearing new accents at the grocery store. Many are nearly as dismissive of conservative media as they are of traditional news outlets.

While social conservatism has long run deep in Swift County — even the former, longtime Democratic congressman was anti-abortion and pro-gun rights — many say the presidency of Barack Obama marked a change.

Gay marriage was legalized and identity politics took hold. Growing calls for transgender rights seemed like an issue from another planet. The sometimes-violent racial justice protests that followed police killings of Black men had some here stocking up on ammunition.

Trump’s cries that he loved America resonated in an area where new approaches to teaching U.S. history, with an increased focus on race, were confounding.

So in a county where Obama won with 55% of the vote in 2008, Trump won with 64% percent in 2020.

“We’ve seen a shift here in Swift County,” said Al Saunders. “But you won’t see that in the newspaper.”

 

Anfinson’s weekly column, where he writes about everything from political divisions to rural housing shortages, is a local lightning rod.

He sighed: “That editorial page will have people hate me.”

Across the U.S., many smaller newspapers, already facing economic decline with the rise of the internet, have cut back or completely stopped running editorials, trying to hold onto conservative readers who increasingly see them as local arms of a fake news universe.

But Anfinson won’t consider that, even if sometimes he feels like he’s tilting at angry, small-town windmills. He says it’s his duty to expose people to new ideas, even unpopular ideas like stricter gun control.

The editorial page is, he says “the soul of a newspaper in a way.”

“I would be a traitor to the cause of journalism, of community newspapers,” by giving up on editorials, he said. “I would be cowardly.”

Some would call him stubborn, and his wife and business partner, Shelly, would not disagree. It can be complicated being married to Reed Anfinson.

Like the day last spring, when Anfinson was in the bar next to the office and a man loudly told a friend that Anfinson was a communist and “somebody should do something about that guy.”

Anfinson knows the man. So does Shelly. A longtime dental hygienist, she cleaned his teeth for 20 years. She still says hello when she passes the man on the street.

“I try not to create a bigger divide,” said Shelly, who, after a series of intensive classes on the newspaper business, began running another of the couple’s weekly papers two years ago.

“I’ve definitely lost sleep over some confrontations that he’s had,” she said. “But do you let that stand in the way of reporting the facts?”

Shelly is warm and gregarious and easy to like. And when it comes to politics, she’s not who you’d expect to be married to the man often tagged as Benson’s best-known liberal.

She’s a pro-life Republican who voted for Trump, at least the first time. It annoys her when news outlets talk down to conservatives. She worries that there are too few Republican journalists.

She and Reed married 20 years ago, after both had been divorced. She moved in across the street and soon he was walking her home.

She is often torn between support for Reed and worries over subscriber loss.

Still, she’s been pressing him to tone down the politics.

“It is a struggle. I can tell these things to my business partner. It’s harder to tell them to my husband.”

In the custom of small-town Minnesota, the Anfinson and Wolter families get along, at least outwardly. They wave when they see each other. When one family is out of town, the other will sometimes watch their home.

“We’re still personable,” Wolter says. “I just don’t trust him.”

“He’s not going to come to church and I’m not going to buy his newspaper. But we can still treat each other as neighbors.”

While he believes Anfinson is sincere in what he publishes, he does not believe his neighbor has a monopoly on truth.

Wolter also knows that plenty of people would write him off as just another conspiracy monger. But he’s far more complicated.

He worries his conservative opinions color what he believes: “There are times when I’ve thought: ‘Well, what if all my angst over this is misplaced?’” he said. “Maybe everyone else is right?”

But he worries more about America: “This is a dark time.”

He criticizes conservative politicians for trying to make it illegal to burn the American flag, but worries about far-right accusations that U.S. soldiers are hunting down American conservatives.

“Maybe five or 10 years ago, I would have said ‘That’s crazy!’” he said. “Now I acknowledge it might be possible. I’m not saying I think it’s happening, but at least I don’t dismiss it the way that I would have.”

Wolter, whose home library includes everything from Sophocles to “The Grapes of Wrath,” is a careful reader, in his own way. He’s wary of conservative news sites like Breitbart, believing it shapes its reporting to please conservative readers. Instead, he finds his news farther off the beaten path, like on Gab, a Twitter-like social media platform that has become home to many on America’s far right.

“For better or for worse I don’t really trust anything I read,” he says. The answer, he said, is research, probing the farthest corners of the internet.

The answers are not to be found, he insists, in the Swift Country Monitor-News.

Anfinson, for his part, doesn’t want to talk about Wolter, at least not directly. He’s watched Benson’s fragile web of community fray too much.

Instead, he talks proudly about the Monitor-News: how it prints letters to the editor that are harshly critical of it; how he reports the truth even if it costs him; how his coverage of the pandemic goes to the heart of journalists’ responsibility to keep their communities safe.

He mourns how some people see him as an enemy. His newspaper should bind people together, he says. Instead, America and Benson are growing angrier. Contentious midterm elections loom.

“It’s kind of sad,” he said. “But it would be foolish of me not to be aware of (my safety) with the sentiments out there.”

Does he carry a weapon? This soft-spoken man says he does not.

“But I know where one is if I need it.”

In America, Electoral Vote Perils Have Long History 

The president-elect was warned – there was a conspiracy to prevent the counting of the electoral ballots and disrupt his inauguration. There was even talk of seizing Washington by military force in a deeply divided nation.

It was not Joe Biden receiving the alarming reports after his 2020 election, but Abraham Lincoln following the vote of 1860.

“There was also an assassination plot against the president-elect to prevent him from arriving in Washington at all,” according to Lincoln historian Howard Holzer.

Members of a white supremacist secret society and a Baltimore militia, both committed to preserving slavery, had discussed seizing Washington by force before looking to sabotage the train carrying Lincoln to his inauguration.

Lincoln was inaugurated as the 16th president of the United States on March 4, 1861. By then southern states had already begun seceding to form the Confederated States of America. To get to the ceremony in Washington, Lincoln avoided going through the slaveholding city of Baltimore, as had been announced, detouring to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania disguised as an ordinary passenger in a sleeping car on a night train.

The plot to kill the president-elect (who was assassinated in 1865 after winning a second term) “turned out to be little more than rumor and drunken boasting and Lincoln was afterward so embarrassed that he had listened to any of it that he almost went to the other extreme in disregard of his personal safety,” according to Princeton University Professor Allen Guelzo.

As in 2020, some Americans in 1860 were incensed by unfounded charges about the legitimacy of the popular and electoral votes.

“It was even more ridiculous than the recent charges by Donald Trump,” Holzer told VOA of the claims that Lincoln was not legitimately elected because he prevailed in the North but had no electoral votes in the South.

Lincoln “won the election on the strength of the electoral college vote, but with only 39 percent of the popular vote. However, the states where he won the popular vote — and thus the electoral vote — gave him whopping margins of victory, so there was never any question about challenges to electors in those states,” says Guelzo, director of Princeton’s Initiative on Politics and Statesmanship of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. 

The first mob at the Capitol 

In another parallel to recent events, on Feb. 13, 1861, a mob tried to force its way inside the U.S. Capitol to disrupt the electoral vote count. Unlike the riot at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, authorities were prepared.

General Winfield Scott, a Southerner and hero of the Mexican War in charge of defending Washington, had even sent a cannon to Capitol Hill.

The general made it known that any intruder would be “be lashed to the muzzle of a twelve-pounder and fired out the window of the Capitol.” For emphasis, he added: “I would manure the hills of Arlington with the fragments of his body.” 

“That intimidated the group a bit,” notes Holzer.

A major difference between 1861 and 2021 is that all the senators and many of the House members from the breakaway states had already permanently departed Washington.

“So, there was no one there really to take votes and object to the state counts. And that’s one of the other reasons why it actually went much more smoothly than it did in 2020,” says Holzer, director of the Roosevelt House Public Policy Institute at Hunter College.

The vice president of the United States, who is the president of the Senate, in both 1861 and 2021 did not tamper with the ceremonial but crucial electoral vote count. On that fateful day in 1861, Vice President John Breckinridge of Kentucky (the runner-up presidential candidate from the Southern side of a split Democratic Party) presided over the event.

Two months later, civil war began when Confederate forces attacked a U.S. Army fort in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina.

Modern day dispute 

On the first anniversary of the Jan. 6, 2021, deadly attack on the Capitol, Biden declared: “We are in a battle for the soul of America,” accusing Trump of trying to unravel the country’s democratic system by continuing to repeat lies about the 2020 election.

Trump continues to insist, without evidence, there was “massive vote fraud” in several states he lost. 

A special House committee, meanwhile, is investigating the siege of the Capitol and the violent attempt to disrupt the electoral vote counting.

The U.S. election system has improved since Lincoln’s days, but more reform is needed, according to numerous politicians, analysts and historians.

“In those days, state electors were elected in many states by the legislature, not even by voters. There was a lot of possibilities for fraud, or at least over-politicization that ignored the will of the people,” says Holzer. “We don’t have that now. We have electronic and computer counts. We have poll-watchers, we have the popular vote.”

Numerous technical issues with the certification and counting of the electoral votes remain concerningly vague, however, according to Michael Morley, a law professor at Florida State University and a member of the National Task Force on Election Crises.

“It’s an issue that four years ago wouldn’t have been on anyone’s political radar,” says Morley, who explains he is now “cautiously optimistic that we might see some changes.” 

The danger for the next presidential election in 2024 in a deeply divided nation, as it was in Lincoln’s time, is “both the possibility, as well as a public perception of the possibility, that the outcome of the election could be determined by politically motivated decision-making rather than the dictates of the law and what the actual outcome of the vote is,” Morley tells VOA.

Will law be updated? 

Such concerns have a bipartisan group of U.S. senators examining ways to modernize the law concerning the electoral ballots. 

The 1887 Electoral Count Act is woefully out of date, Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine, told reporters on Wednesday. She explained that lawmakers are exploring how to raise the requirements for members of Congress to challenge state-certified election results and ensuring the vice president’s role is purely ceremonial when the electoral votes are certified.

The 1887 act written in reaction to the presidential election of 1876, in which Democrat Samuel Tilden won the popular vote but ultimately lost to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes. Three Southern states had sent in multiple competing electoral returns and Congress had no rules in place to resolve the conflicts.

It is critical, according to Collins, to prevent a repeat of last year when Trump pressured his vice president, Mike Pence, to overturn electoral results. 

“Fortunately, Vice President Pence did the right thing and followed the 12th Amendment, but the Electoral Count Act is ambiguous about the role of the vice president,” Collins told WMTW-TV. “But what if we had a vice president who wasn’t as ethical and bound by his constitutional duty?” 

 

Biden’s High Court Pledge Shows Growing Power of Black Women

As he struggled to survive the 2020 Democratic primary, Joe Biden made a striking pledge before voting began in heavily African American, must-win South Carolina: His first Supreme Court appointment would be a Black woman.

On Thursday, with his poll numbers reaching new lows and his party panicking about the midterm elections, Biden turned again to the Democratic Party’s most steadfast voters and reiterated his vow to replace retiring Justice Stephen Breyer with the first Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court.

The striking promise is a reflection of Black women’s critical role in the Democratic Party and the growing influence of Black women in society. It’s also a recognition that Black women have been marginalized in American politics for centuries and the time has come to right the imbalance of a court made up entirely of white men for almost two centuries, a change Biden said Thursday is “long overdue.”

 

Black women are the most loyal Democrats — 93% of them voted for Biden in the 2020 presidential election, according to AP VoteCast, a national survey of the electorate.

And it’s Black women’s reliability as Democratic voters that makes it so important for the party to respond to their priorities and keep them in the fold, said Nadia Brown, a professor of government at Georgetown University. “Democrats know Black women are going to turn out for them so they have everything to lose if they don’t do this.”

Black women turned out to vote for Biden in greater numbers than for Hillary Clinton in 2016, and they were vital in Biden’s wins in states like Georgia, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Overall, they made up 12% of Biden’s voters and reached even higher percentages in heavily African American states like Georgia, where they represented 35% of his support. In that state, which Biden won by just over 12,000 votes, he earned the backing of 95% of Black women.

Biden, in particular, owes Black voters, and especially women, a debt from the primaries. His campaign was on life support before South Carolina’s primary in late February 2020, when he secured the endorsement of Rep. James Clyburn, the kingmaker of the state’s Democratic political orbit, by pledging to select a Black woman for the Supreme Court.

“His campaign was struggling,” Clyburn recalled on Thursday, citing Biden’s three straight losses in the early voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada. “This was quite frankly do or die for him, and I urged him to come out publicly for putting an African American woman on the Supreme Court.”

Biden already made a fundamentally important statement about the importance of Black women in his coalition by selecting Kamala Harris as his vice president. But putting a Black woman on the court is another historic step. Republican Ronald Reagan, in his 1980 presidential campaign, vowed to put the first woman on the Supreme Court and nominated Justice Sandra Day O’Connor once in office.

But Biden’s pledge also responds to issues Black women care about, said Glynda Carr, president of Higher Heights For America PAC, which advocates for Black women in politics. “Black women are very in tune with knowing the court is important to our daily lives,” said Carr, citing big cases on voting rights and abortion.

The decision isn’t just a win for Black women but for all voters concerned with ensuring that government reflects the actual population, said Tom Bonier, a Democratic data analyst. As such, he said, it should rally Democrats of all races.

“To the extent that Biden, at this point, is suffering from lower approval ratings, part of his challenge is just reassembling his coalition and reminding those voters who sent him to the White House why that vote mattered,” Bonier said.

 

Biden’s early discussions about a successor to Breyer have focused on U.S. Circuit Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, U.S. District Judge J. Michelle Childs and California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger, according to people familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss White House deliberations.

Childs is a favorite of Clyburn. The House majority whip said Thursday that she had “everything I think it takes to be a great justice.”

The robust roster of Black women for the Supreme Court is a testament to their growing professional progress over the past few decades, experts say. Black women — like women of all races — have been increasingly likely to earn college degrees over the past two decades. Although they still lag in other crucial categories such as pay, the court seat is another milestone.

“We could not have imagined the sheer number of overqualified women a few decades ago,” Brown said.

The nomination of a Black woman is also significant for Black men, said Adrianne Shropshire of BlackPAC, a political organization that tries to elect more Black Democrats. That’s in part because the current sole African American on the Supreme Court, Justice Clarence Thomas, is a conservative Republican whose decisions often go against the desires of the heavily Democratic Black community.

While Black men are not quite as Democratic as Black women, they still overwhelmingly back the party — 87% voted for Biden in 2020, according to AP VoteCast.

Still, Shropshire warned, a Supreme Court appointment is only one step in ensuring Black voters are motivated in 2022 and beyond.

“For Black folks in the country, the thing that looms largest is, are their daily lives changed?” Shropshire said. “For the president — and the vice president — it is going to be more than this appointment.”

“I don’t think it’s helpful for people to say, ‘Well, the one thing we got is a nomination on the Supreme Court,'” Shropshire added.

US House Committee Subpoenas Fake Trump Electors in 7 States 

The House committee investigating the U.S. Capitol insurrection subpoenaed more than a dozen individuals Friday who it says falsely tried to declare Donald Trump the winner of the 2020 election in seven swing states.

The panel is demanding information and testimony from 14 people who it says allegedly met and submitted false Electoral College certificates declaring Trump the winner of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, according to a letter from Mississippi Representative Bennie Thompson, the committee’s Democratic chairman. President Joe Biden won all seven states. 

“We believe the individuals we have subpoenaed today have information about how these so-called alternate electors met and who was behind that scheme,” Thompson said in the letter. “We encourage them to cooperate with the Select Committee’s investigation to get answers about January 6th for the American people and help ensure nothing like that day ever happens again.” 

The nine-member panel said it has obtained information that groups of individuals met on December 14, 2020 — more than a month after Election Day — in the seven states. The individuals, according to the congressional investigation, then submitted fake slates of Electoral College votes for Trump. Then “alternate electors” from those seven states sent those certificates to Congress, where several of Trump’s advisers used them to justify delaying or blocking the certification of the election during the joint session of Congress on January 6, 2021.

Lies about election fraud from the former president and his allies fueled the deadly insurrection on the Capitol building that day, as a violent mob interrupted the certification of the Electoral College results. 

Group obtained certificates

Last March, American Oversight, a watchdog group, obtained the certificates in question that were submitted by Republicans in the seven states. In two of them, New Mexico and Pennsylvania, the fake electors added a caveat saying the certificate was submitted in case they were later recognized as duly elected, qualified electors. That would have been possible only if Trump had won any of the several dozens of legal battles he waged against those states in the weeks after the election.

In the other five states, however, Republicans certified that they were their state’s duly elected and qualified electors. 

U.S. Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco said in a CNN interview this week that the Justice Department has received referrals from lawmakers regarding the fake certifications, and that prosecutors were now “looking at those.” 

An Associated Press review of every potential case of voter fraud in six of the battleground states disputed by Trump has found fewer than 475 — a number that would have made no difference in the 2020 presidential election. 

Biden won Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and their 79 Electoral College votes by a combined 311,257 votes out of 25.5 million ballots cast for president. The disputed ballots represent just 0.15% of his victory margin in those states. 

The fake electors are the latest to be subpoenaed in the large-scale investigation the committee has been pursuing since it came together last summer. The congressional probe has scrutinized Trump family members and allies, members of Congress and even social media groups accused of perpetuating election misinformation and allowing it to spread rampantly. 

The committee plans to move into a more public-facing phase of its work in the next few months. Lawmakers will be holding hearings to document to the American public the most detailed and complete look into the individuals and events that led to the Capitol insurrection.

Reports: Liberal US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to Retire

U.S. media reports say Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, for 27 years a staunch liberal voice on the country’s highest court, has decided to retire, handing President Joe Biden his first chance at filling an open seat after former President Donald Trump appointed three conservatives that tipped the court’s ideological balance sharply to the right. 

The 83-year-old Breyer, according to news accounts in Washington, plans to remain on the court through the end of the court’s current term in June, or until a replacement is named by Biden and confirmed by the politically divided Senate. 

Biden, unlike Trump when he ran for the presidency in 2016 and for re-election in 2020, has not released a list of judges he might consider for appointment to the nine-member Supreme Court.

But Biden, during his run for the presidency, has said he would name the court’s first Black woman, following his selection of then-Senator Kamala Harris, of Jamaican and South Asian descent, as his vice president. 

Biden Calls Fox News Reporter at White House a Stupid SOB

President Joe Biden responded to a question about inflation by calling a Fox News reporter a vulgarity. 

The president was in the East Room of the White House on Monday for a meeting of his Competition Council, which is focused on changing regulations and enforcing laws to help consumers deal with high prices. Reporters in the room shouted questions after Biden’s remarks. 

Fox News’ Peter Doocy asked Biden about inflation, which is at a nearly 40-year high and has hurt the president’s public approval. Doocy’s network has been relentlessly critical of Biden. 

Doocy called out, “Do you think inflation is a political liability ahead of the midterms?”

Biden responded with deadpan sarcasm, “It’s a great asset — more inflation.” Then he shook his head and added, “What a stupid son of a bitch.”

The president’s comments were captured on video and by the microphone in front of him. Doocy laughed it off in a subsequent appearance on his network, joking, “Nobody has fact-checked him yet and said it’s not true.” 

Doocy told Fox News’ Sean Hannity that Biden called him later to the clear the air. Doocy said Biden told him, “It’s nothing personal, pal.” 

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The White House has insisted repeatedly that it is focused on curbing inflation, with Biden reorienting his entire economic agenda around the issue. But the president has also shown a willingness to challenge a media that he deems to be too critical, especially Fox News and Doocy. 

At his news conference last week, Biden said to Doocy with sarcasm, “You always ask me the nicest questions.” 

“I have a whole binder full,” the reporter answered. 

“I know you do,” Biden said. “None of them make a lot of sense to me. Fire away.” 

 

US Bank Freezes Accounts of Afghanistan’s US Embassy

Diplomats of the former Afghan government who have held on to their jobs in the U.S. are grappling with a new problem: their official bank accounts have been suspended. 

Two senior Afghan diplomats, who did not want to be named because the issue is under discussion with U.S. officials, confirmed to VOA that the Citibank accounts of the embassy in Washington and two Afghan consulates in the U.S. have been suspended for more than a month. 

The Afghan mission in Washington does not receive funds from Kabul, because the Afghan capital now under the control of the Taliban, and it has survived thus far through dwindling consular service fees. 

The consulates have run out of new passports but continue to renew expired passports. Because checks issued to cover passport renewal can no longer be made out to the Afghanistan Embassy, the remaining staff members deposit blank money orders into personal bank accounts, then meet at the end of each month to tally embassy revenue. 

“We’ve held talks with the Department of State, but so far there has been no breakthrough,” one Afghan diplomat said, adding that U.S. officials had advised the diplomats against discussing the matter publicly. 

While the government they represented collapsed more than five months ago, about 90 Afghan diplomats remain in four diplomatic posts in the U.S., including the Afghanistan Permanent Representative at the United Nations in New York. 

Suspension of their official bank accounts has adversely impacted the embassy’s financial transactions, including salaries, rent and health care insurance payments, the diplomats said. 

When asked about the status of the mission’s accounts, a State Department spokesperson told VOA, “There has been no change in the accreditation status of Afghan mission members,” but declined to comment on the account suspensions. 

A spokesman for Citibank also declined to comment. 

Policy confusion? 

The United States does not recognize the Taliban’s self-declared Islamic Emirate as the official government of Afghanistan, but U.S. officials have met with Taliban officials in Qatar, Norway and elsewhere. 

“As we seek to address humanitarian crisis together with allies, partners, and relief [organizations],” U.S. special envoy for Afghanistan Thomas West said before holding talks with the Taliban foreign minister, Amir Khan Muttaqi, in Oslo on Sunday. “We will continue clear-eyed diplomacy with the Taliban regarding our concerns and our abiding interest in a stable, rights-respecting and inclusive Afghanistan.” 

Analysts say the U.S. approach has led to confusion among Afghans who are trying to sort out visa and logistical issues, leaving them in legal limbo. 

“Not thinking through the ramifications and implications of having these two parallel governance structures going at the same time is a completely flawed approach,” said Candace Rondeaux, an expert at the Washington-based New America think tank. 

“I think the U.S. has been confused on Afghanistan for a long time,” said Jennifer Murtazashvili, an expert with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, adding that the U.S. will need a functioning Afghan mission to handle consular services for the tens of thousands of Afghans who are being brought to the U.S. since the collapse of the former Afghan government. 

The loss of the bank accounts is the latest blow to the Afghan diplomatic mission, which has already been laboring under severe financial restrictions. 

Calls to the embassy are directed to a voice message system as all local staff have been laid off, and diplomats say they have been working on-and-off on a voluntary basis and without pay for two months. 

The embassy in Washington, like many other Afghanistan diplomatic missions around the world, has refused to work with the Taliban foreign ministry, and diplomats say they represent the former Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. 

Despite repeated Taliban pleas for recognition of the Islamic Emirate as the de facto government of Afghanistan, no country has yet officially taken steps to recognize the regime. 

Diplomats seeking asylum 

At least three Afghan diplomats who worked at the embassy in Washington have sought asylum in Canada and the rest are exploring long-term options, the two diplomats said. 

“Obviously, we cannot return to Afghanistan,” one of the diplomats said, adding that his diplomatic visa is set to expire in December. “We are seeking a solution for the future of all our diplomats here.” 

Anticipating their move, the U.S. Citizenship, Immigration and Customs agency has announced specific steps for the Afghan diplomats to change their status in the U.S. 

“If you are an Afghan national who entered the United States as an A-1, A-2, G-1, or G-2 nonimmigrant; were performing duties that were diplomatic or semi-diplomatic on July 14, 2021; and are seeking a Green Card under Section 13, you may file Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, without a fee,” reads a public notice at the USCIS website. 

State Department Bureau Chief Nike Ching contributed to this story. 

 

Judges Approve Special Grand Jury in Georgia Election Probe

Judges have approved a request for a special grand jury by the Georgia prosecutor who’s investigating whether former President Donald Trump and others broke the law by trying to pressure Georgia officials to throw out Joe Biden’s presidential election victory. 

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis last week sent a letter to county superior court Chief Judge Christopher Brasher asking him to impanel a special grand jury. Brasher issued an order Monday saying the request was considered and approved by a majority of the superior court judges. 

The special grand jury is to be seated May 2 for a period of up to a year, Brasher’s order says. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney is assigned to supervise and assist the special grand jury. 

Willis wrote in her letter to Brasher that her office “has received information indicating a reasonable probability that the State of Georgia’s administration of elections in 2020, including the State’s election of the President of the United States, was subject to possible criminal disruptions.” She said her office has “opened an investigation into any coordinated attempts to unlawfully alter the outcome of the 2020 elections in this state.” 

The special grand jury “shall be authorized to investigate any and all facts and circumstances relating directly or indirectly to alleged violations of the laws of the State of Georgia, as set forth in the request of the District Attorney,” the order says. 

Willis has declined to speak about the specifics of her investigation, but in an interview with The Associated Press earlier this month, she confirmed that its scope includes — but is not limited to — a Jan. 2, 2021, phone call between Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger; a November 2020 phone call between U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham and Raffensperger; the abrupt resignation of the U.S. attorney in Atlanta on Jan. 4, 2021; and comments made during December 2020 Georgia legislative committee hearings on the election. 

In a statement last week, Trump called his call to Raffensperger “perfect” and said he did not say anything wrong. Graham has also denied any wrongdoing. 

Special grand juries, which are not used often in Georgia, can help in the investigation of complex matters. They do not have the power to return an indictment but can make recommendations to prosecutors on criminal prosecutions. 

Willis wrote in her letter that the special grand jury is needed because it can serve for longer than a normal grand jury term, which is two months in Fulton County. It also would be able to focus on this investigation alone, allowing it to focus on the complex facts and circumstances. And having a special grand jury would mean the regular seated grand jury would not have to deal with this investigation in addition to their regular duties, Willis wrote. 

Willis’ investigation became public last February when she sent letters to top elected officials in Georgia instructing them to preserve any records related to the general election, particularly any evidence of attempts to influence election officials. The probe includes “potential violations of Georgia law prohibiting the solicitation of election fraud, the making of false statements to state and local government bodies, conspiracy, racketeering, violation of oath of office and any involvement in violence or threats related to the election’s administration,” the letters said. 

 

Senate Panel Moves Forward With Bill Targeting Big Tech

Legislation that would bar technology companies from favoring their own products in a way that undermines competitiveness moved forward Thursday after a Senate panel voted to move the bill to the Senate floor. 

The American Innovation and Choice Online Act received bipartisan support in a 16-6 vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

The bill targets Amazon; Alphabet, the parent company of Google; Apple; and Meta, which was formerly called Facebook. 

The companies had worked strenuously to sink the bill, arguing it could disrupt their services. 

Smaller tech companies that supported the bill argued it will benefit consumers through adding competition. 

“This bill is not meant to break up Big Tech or destroy the products and services they offer,” said Senator Chuck Grassley, the top Republican on the judiciary panel. “The goal of the bill is to prevent conduct that stifles competition.” 

Matt Schruers, president of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, was critical of the bill and said he thought it would not pass the full Senate. 

“Antitrust policy should aim to promote consumer welfare — not punish specific companies,” he said in a statement. 

Another bill aimed at Big Tech, which has bipartisan sponsorship, is also working its way through Congress. The Open App Markets Act would prevent the Apple and Google app stores from requiring app makers to use their payment systems. 

The House of Representatives is also considering versions of both bills. 

Some information for this report came from Reuters. 

US Capitol Riot Probe Seeks Ivanka Trump’s Cooperation

The congressional committee investigating the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol on Thursday asked former President Donald Trump’s daughter to voluntarily cooperate with its probe. 

In a letter to Ivanka Trump, committee Chairman Bennie Thompson said the panel wants her to tell them what she knows about her father’s efforts to thwart congressional certification that he lost the November 2020 election. They also want to know what he was doing as his supporters rampaged through the Capitol while lawmakers were in the initial stages of certifying Democrat Joe Biden as the new president.

It was not immediately known whether the former first daughter would cooperate with the investigation.

Thompson said the committee wants to meet with Ivanka Trump, a White House adviser to her father, because she was in direct contact with him at key moments on January 6, 2021, two weeks before Biden was inaugurated and Donald Trump left Washington. 

Thompson said the committee wants to know about the former president’s efforts to pressure then-Vice President Mike Pence to block congressional certification of election results in key states where Biden outpolled Trump.

“One of the president’s discussions with the vice president occurred by phone on the morning of January 6th,” Thompson wrote in the letter to Ivanka Trump. “You were present in the Oval Office and observed at least one side of that telephone conversation.” 

The committee also said it wanted to learn about Ivanka Trump’s efforts to get her father to call off rioters after they had stormed into the Capitol. At an earlier rally near the White House that day, then-President Trump urged supporters to go the Capitol and “fight like hell” to stop Biden from being declared the winner of the 2020 election. 

“Testimony obtained by the committee indicates that members of the White House staff requested your assistance on multiple occasions to intervene in an attempt to persuade President Trump to address the ongoing lawlessness and violence on Capitol Hill,” Thompson wrote. 

Then-President Trump remained publicly silent for more than three hours about the rampage of hundreds of his supporters at the Capitol but late in the afternoon he released a short video urging them to leave. 

As he does to this day, Donald Trump mentioned in the video the false conspiracy theory that he won the election, saying, “I know your pain; I know you’re hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election, and everyone knows it. Especially the other side. But you have to go home now. We have to have peace.” 

After the Capitol was cleared of protesters, Congress certified Biden’s election victory in the early hours of January 7. More than 700 rioters have been charged with an array of criminal offenses, some as minor as trespassing and others with felonies, such as attacking police and vandalizing the Capitol. 

At a political rally last Saturday, Donald Trump called the arrests “an appalling persecution of political prisoners.” 

The investigative committee has interviewed more than 300 witnesses and issued subpoenas to dozens more. This week, they included Rudy Giuliani and other members of Trump’s legal team who filed bogus legal challenges to the 2020 election supporting the former president’s false claim that he had been cheated out of a second term.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected the former president’s bid to keep the National Archives from sending hundreds of his White House documents related to the election and day of the riot to the investigative panel.

Republican Filibuster Blocks US Voting Bill

Voting legislation that Democrats and civil rights groups argued is vital for protecting democracy was blocked Wednesday by a Republican filibuster, a setback for President Joe Biden and his party after a raw, emotional debate.

Democrats were poised to immediately pivot to voting on a Senate rules change as a way to overcome the filibuster and approve the bill with a simple majority. But the rules change was also headed toward defeat, as Biden has been unable to persuade two holdout senators in his own party, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, to change the Senate procedures for this one bill.

“This is not just another routine day in the Senate, this is a moral moment,” said Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga.

The initial vote was 49-51, short of the 60 votes needed to advance over the filibuster. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., voted no for procedural reasons so Democrats can revisit the legislation.

The nighttime voting capped a day of piercing debate that carried echoes of an earlier era when the Senate filibuster was deployed in lengthy speeches by opponents of civil rights legislation.

Voting rights advocates are warning that Republican-led states nationwide are passing laws to make it more difficult for Black Americans and others to vote by consolidating polling locations, requiring certain types of identification and ordering other changes.

Vice President Kamala Harris presided, able to cast a potentially tie-breaking vote in the 50-50 Senate.

Democrats decided to press ahead despite the potential for defeat at a tumultuous time for Biden and his party. Biden is marking his first year in office with his priorities stalling in the face of solid Republican opposition and the Democrats’ inability to unite around their own goals. But the Democrats wanted to force senators on the record — even their own party’s holdouts — to show voters where they stand.

“I haven’t given up,” Biden said earlier at a White House news conference.

Sinema and Manchin have withstood an onslaught of criticism from Black leaders and civil rights organizations, and they risk further political fallout as other groups and even their own colleagues threaten to withdraw campaign support.

Schumer contended the fight is not over and he ridiculed Republican claims that the new election laws in the states will not end up hurting voter access and turnout, comparing it to Donald Trump’s “big lie” about the 2020 presidential election.

The Democrats’ bill, the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, would make Election Day a national holiday, ensure access to early voting and mail-in ballots — which have become especially popular during the COVID-19 pandemic — and enable the Justice Department to intervene in states with a history of voter interference, among other changes. It has passed the House.

Both Manchin and Sinema say they support the legislation but are unwilling to change Senate rules. With a 50-50 split, Democrats have a narrow Senate majority — Harris can break a tie — but they lack the 60 votes needed to overcome the GOP filibuster.

Instead, Schumer put forward a more specific rules change for a “talking filibuster” on this one bill. It would require senators to stand at their desks and exhaust the debate before holding a simple majority vote, rather than the current practice that simply allows senators to privately signal their objections.

But even that is expected to fail because Manchin and Sinema have said they are unwilling to change the rules on a party-line vote by Democrats alone. 

Biden Draws Lines With Russian Leader Over Ukraine Moves

President Joe Biden ends his first year in office as tensions with Russia hit a fever pitch. He warned his Russian counterpart to choose a diplomatic resolution and to not invade neighboring Ukraine — a message his secretary of state also is pushing in Kyiv this week. VOA White House correspondent Anita Powell reports from Washington.
Producer: Kimberlyn Weeks

Biden Sums Up First Year; Ukraine Is Among Prime Topics 

During his first press conference of the year, U.S. President Joe Biden spoke candidly at the White House on Wednesday about the possibility of a Russian invasion in Ukraine.

“My guess is he will move in — he has to do something,” Biden said of Russian President Vladimir Putin. He warned that such an invasion would be met with the harshest measures. “He has never seen sanctions like the ones I promise will be imposed if he moves,” Biden said.

“What I’m concerned about is this could get out of hand,” he said on the potential confrontation between Moscow and NATO countries bordering Ukraine.

In an interview with VOA earlier Wednesday, Secretary of State Antony Blinken emphasized the administration’s message.

“We’ve equally made clear that if Russia chooses to renew its aggression against Ukraine, we — and not just we, the United States, we, many countries, throughout Europe, and even some beyond — will respond very forcefully and resolutely,” Blinken said in Kyiv, where he met with Ukrainian leaders.

But some analysts said Biden has ceded too much ground to Putin.

“For all his talk about these being unprecedented sanctions, we have yet to see sanctions change the Kremlin’s calculus,” Brett Bruen told VOA. Bruen was director of global engagement during the Obama administration and is president of the consulting firm Global Situation Room.

Biden stressed the importance of managing the brewing conflict that stems from Russia’s displeasure that Ukraine, a former Soviet country, may someday join NATO.

But Bruen said the president spoke too openly about doubts and divisions within the NATO alliance.

“This is really unfortunate and only helps Russia,” he added.

Biden repeated that he did not think Putin had made up his mind about invading Ukraine, and he continued to offer a diplomatic path out.

“I am hoping that Vladimir Putin understands that short of a full-blown nuclear war, he is not in a very good position to dominate the world,” he said.

On Iran, Biden said his administration planned to continue diplomatic talks in Vienna to try to revive the Iran nuclear deal.

“It’s not time to give up,” he said, arguing that progress was being made. For months, the Biden administration has tried to reach a deal with Iran after former President Donald Trump in 2018 withdrew from the 2015 agreement to curb Tehran’s nuclear weapons program.

On China, Biden said he did not believe this was the right time to lift tariffs on Chinese goods that were placed during the Trump administration.

First anniversary

On the eve of his first anniversary in office, Biden took questions for almost two hours, mostly on domestic concerns, including inflation that is dragging economic recovery, and confusion on the latest health protocols to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. It was his first news conference of 2022 and the ninth since he came into office.

Biden was defiant in the face of journalists grilling him on whether he overpromised on his campaign pledge to control the pandemic and rebuild the American economy.

“I didn’t overpromise. But I have probably outperformed what anybody thought would happen,” Biden said. “You’d have to acknowledge we’ve made enormous progress.”

Before the press conference, Mitch McConnell, the top Republican in the Senate, released a statement lambasting Biden’s record.

“Since President Biden was sworn in a year ago, he’s presided over the worst inflation in four decades and record-breaking increases in crime, failed to shut down COVID or handle the crisis at the southern border, and ordered a calamitous and shameful withdrawal from Afghanistan,” the statement said.

Biden pledged to continue to take steps to get the pandemic under control and acknowledged the frustration many Americans say they are feeling.

“Should we have done more testing earlier? Yes. But we’re doing more now,” he said, outlining his administration’s efforts to make free COVID-19 tests more widely available.

Biden acknowledged that he might not be able to pass Build Back Better, his $1.9 trillion signature social safety net and climate change plan that is stuck in the Senate, in its current form.

“I think we can break the package up, get as much as we can now, come back and fight for the rest later,” he said.

Biden pointed to obstructionism from the Republican Party on why progress has been limited.

“I did not anticipate that there’d be such a stalwart effort to make sure that the most important thing was that President Biden didn’t get anything done,” he said.

In his remarks before taking questions, Biden urged the U.S. Federal Reserve to take action to address inflation. Consumer prices jumped 7% in December compared with a year earlier, the highest inflation rate in 40 years. It has dampened economic recovery in a year that the administration says has shown the biggest job growth in American history.

Meanwhile, former President Donald Trump released his own statement, complaining about what he called preferential treatment by the press.

“How come Biden picks a reporter off a list, in all cases softball questions, and then reads the answer? I would never have been allowed to get away with that, nor would I have to!” Trump said.

Low poll numbers

Biden’s sunny demeanor belies the fact that his standing in voter opinion surveys has steadily fallen since the chaotic withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan last September.

Less than half of Americans approve of Biden, according to the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll. The national poll, conducted January 12-13, found that 45% of U.S. adults approved of Biden’s performance in office. Biden’s approval numbers have hovered below 50% since August.

“Generally speaking, the mood in the country is tough,” Mallory Newall, vice president of public affairs at Ipsos, told VOA, pointing to recent polls that suggest Americans’ behavior of bunkering at home is translating into dissatisfaction into other areas.

“The collective mood is one of questioning and frustration,” Newall said. “And I think that does spill over into issues related to the economy, getting back to work, curbing inflation, dealing with other domestic policies.” This is particularly the case when getting a grip on the pandemic was the number one issue that Biden campaigned on, she added.

Some analysts said Biden performed well during his question-and-answer session with the press.

“He showed stamina, he showed commitment, he showed energy. No one can argue he’s wasting away or that he’s ill-informed about what is going on,” said Jeremi Suri, a professor of history and public affairs at the University of Texas at Austin.

Suri told VOA that Biden showed how deeply committed he is to his legislative agenda.

“I think he moved the needle, at least persuading people that this is an agenda of his that he’s not going to abandon,” Suri added. “He did not, however, provide a clear pathway for how he’s going to go forward with it.” 

Anita Powell and Myroslava Gongadze contributed to this report.

Trump’s Legal Troubles Expand in Jan. 6 Probe and in New York State

Former President Donald Trump’s legal troubles intensified Wednesday, as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that he cannot use executive privilege to shield hundreds of pages of documents related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol from a congressional committee empaneled to investigate its causes.

The ruling, which was released by the court early Wednesday evening, came less than a day after the New York attorney general moved to compel Trump and two of his children to testify and produce documents in a fraud investigation.

The ruling by the Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that denied Trump’s claim that executive privilege protected more than 700 pages of White House documents currently held by the National Archives.

According to a filing produced by the archives, the trove of documents includes presidential diaries, logs of White House visitors, a draft executive order on election integrity, handwritten notes from then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, and briefing material produced for former White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany.

The select committee is investigating the attack on the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob intent on disrupting the counting of the electoral votes from the 2020 presidential election. The committee is investigating whether and to what degree Trump himself was responsible for instigating the attack, which was tied to his false claim that the election was stolen from him.

The former president has also been criticized for being slow to call for the rioters to disperse, and members of his administration have been blamed for waiting too long to send National Guard troops to aid officers of the Capitol Police and the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department.

The documents now available to the select committee may shed light on the thinking of the former president and his aides during the attack and in the hours that followed.

New York AG alleges fraud

In a court filing late Tuesday, attorneys in the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James issued a 115-page filing with the New York Supreme Court requesting a ruling that Trump and two of his children, Donald J. Trump Jr., and Ivanka Trump, be required to deliver sworn testimony about how the Trump Organization reported the value of its various assets when dealing with financial institutions, tax authorities and other third parties.

The state’s contention is that the Trump Organization systematically misstated the value of its various assets in different official documents, for example, by lowering their estimates when calculating its tax bill and overstating them when seeking loans from banks.

New York state law allows the attorney general to bring a fraud proceeding “[w]henever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise.” In the filing, the office says it uncovered, “separate and distinct fraudulent or illegal acts which affected more than one individual.”

Delaying tactics

The Trump Organization, which owns numerous golf resorts, apartment and office buildings, and other real estate, has been fighting the investigation in court. Last month, Trump filed a lawsuit against James, claiming that her investigation of his company is a form of political harassment. James, a Democrat, was elected to her position after a campaign in which she promised to pursue legal action against Trump and his company.

In a statement, Alan Futerfas, an attorney representing Donald J. Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump, said, “In 160 pages of legal briefing, the Attorney General’s Office deliberately fails to address Ms. James’s repeated threats to target the Trump family and her assertions about her criminal investigation — all which are the essence of our motion to quash the subpoenas or stay them.”

For her part, James has characterized Trump’s resistance as an effort to delay the inevitable.

“For more than two years, the Trump Organization has used delay tactics and litigation in an attempt to thwart a legitimate investigation into its financial dealings,” James said in a statement issued Tuesday night.

“Thus far in our investigation, we have uncovered significant evidence that suggests Donald J. Trump and the Trump Organization falsely and fraudulently valued multiple assets and misrepresented those values to financial institutions for economic benefit,” James said. “The Trumps must comply with our lawful subpoenas for documents and testimony because no one in this country can pick and choose if and how the law applies to them. We will not be deterred in our efforts to continue this investigation and ensure that no one is above the law.”

Misstatements cataloged

The filing from the attorney general’s office lists multiple instances in which the Trump Organization provided information to counterparties in different transactions that does not square with other sources of data. It also notes that despite testimony from the company’s chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, that Trump kept paper records of his financial dealings in his Manhattan office, none of those documents have been produced to investigators.

Miriam Baer, the centennial professor of law at Brooklyn Law School, said the filing from the attorney general’s office is more detailed than might have been necessary to persuade a court to compel testimony from the former president. Baer said that suggests that James meant for it to draw attention not just from the court but from the media.

“It’s a very well-laid-out filing. It’s very straightforward and it’s quite rational,” Baer told VOA. “This is how you get a court to issue some sort of ruling that’s going to force compliance with a subpoena. So it’s both a necessary filing and also, in some ways, it’s doing a lot more work for the attorney general, in the sense that it’s obviously speaking to other audiences.”

“I would be surprised if [James] loses this motion,” Danya Perry, a founding partner of the law firm Perry Guha and a former New York deputy attorney general and federal prosecutor, told VOA. “It’s a strong, strong case that she’s put forward.”

Perry said that even if a judge compels testimony, the attorney general may not gain much from it. Weisselberg and Eric Trump, another of Trump’s children, were deposed in the case, and each invoked his constitutional right against self-incrimination more than 500 times.

However, Perry said, James makes a strong case for compelling the Trump Organization to turn over any documents related to the case. 

 

US Democrats’ Push for Voting Law Changes Likely to Fail

U.S. Democrats’ yearlong effort to overhaul the country’s voting rules comes to a head Wednesday night in the Senate, but indications are their quest likely will fail.

As debate began in the politically divided 100-member chamber, there was no sign that any Republicans would support the plan, which would allow for national oversight of elections to override new voting rules enacted by 19 Republican-controlled state legislatures. 

There also was no indication that two key centrist Democrats — Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin — would drop their opposition to altering the Senate legislative rules so the election law legislation could be enacted without Republican support. 

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell sparred at the outset over the necessity of enacting the voting measures, one of the key pieces of President Joe Biden’s legislative agenda.

The legislation would set uniform voting rules throughout the country, rather than leave in place state-by-state measures. It would, among other provisions, declare early November election days for congressional seats and the presidency as national holidays, require two weeks of early voting hours, and mandate new federal reviews of voting law changes made by states that have a history of discriminating against minority citizens. 

Schumer referenced the election of 1868, the first time that newly freed African American slaves could vote, and suggested that the question before the Senate was whether it would roll back Black voting rights first secured more than 150 years ago. 

McConnell scoffed at Democrats’ complaints about the newly enacted state laws tightening voting rules. Democrats contend the rules will curtail the voting rights of Black voters, who have over past elections overwhelmingly supported Democratic candidates.

McConnell described worries over the state laws as Washington Democrats’ “fake panic … that seems to exist only in their own imaginations.” He contended that the new measures would not suppress voting. 

Aside from the unified Republican opposition to the election law changes, Sinema and Manchin remained opposed to changing the Senate’s long-standing filibuster rule that gives the minority party — Republicans or Democrats — the right to demand that a supermajority of 60 votes be amassed to move to a vote on contentious legislation. 

The two Democrats, to the disdain of many of their fellow Democrats in the Senate, have said the filibuster should not be narrowly erased so the voting rights legislation can be approved by a simple majority vote. 

Sinema and Manchin have said use of the filibuster in the Senate protects minority views in the chamber and promotes bipartisanship in American democracy by forcing compromises on legislation. 

Democratic leaders had hoped to pass the election legislation on a 51-50 vote, with Vice President Kamala Harris casting the tiebreaker.