Hetta segði Cassidy Hutshinson, ein av næstu ráðgevunum hjá Mark Meadows, aðalstjóra í Hvítu Húsunum, tá hon vitnaði í 6. hoyringini hjá kanningarnevndini av álopinum á Kongressina 6. januar 2021.
Undir sonevndu “bombshell” hoyringini týsdagin, sum miðlar kring allan heimin endurgóvu týskvøldið, greiddi hon í smálutum frá tí, sum hendi rundan um Donald Trump seinastu dagarnar undan og eftir álopið. Trump, sum undan álopinum, hevði hildið eina torutalu uttan fyri Hvítu Húsini, gjørdi alt hann kundi fyri at sleppa til Kongressbygningin og royndi eisini at taka yvir ræðið á bilføraranum, tá hesin vegna hættisligu støðuna royndi at koyra burtur frá Kongressbygninginum av trygdarávum.
Tað vildi Trump ikki hoyra talan um, segði hon, tí hann hevði eisini eina uppgávu at røkja har. Tá hann fekk at vita, at fleiri av uppreistrar- og mótmælisfólkunum bóru vápn, svaraði hann, at tað visti hann væl men hesi vápn vórðu ikki ætlað at brúka móti sær. Tá tað løtu seinni frættist, at fleiri av hansara viðhaldsfólkum ætlaðu at drepa varaforsetan Mike Pence, sum ikki vildi líða boðunum frá Trump um ikki at góðkenna valúrslitið, segði Trump, at hann skilti tey væl. Tað vóru ikki hansara viðhaldsfólk, sum høvdu svikið, tað var tvørturímóiti Mike Pence.
25 ára Caccidy er tað vitnið, sum higartil hevur tikið flest á bóli, nú hon segði frá øllum tí hon hoyrdi og upplivdi saman við Trump tær avgerandi løturnar kring 6. januar. M.a. kundi hon upplýsa, at hon hevði verið saman við Trump í tjaldinum nær Hvítu Húsunum stutt áðrenn hann helt røðu har og heitti á mótmælisfólkini at fara til Kongressina, og segði Trump tá við vaktarfólkini hjá Secret Service, at tey áttu at loyva mótmælisfólkunum inn í bygningin, sjálvt vitandi, at hesi vóru alvápnað.
-Eg stóð tætt við Trump, tá eg hoyrdi hann siga: "You know, I don’t even care that they have weapons. They’re not here to hurt me,”. Trump fór síðani á pallin og vendi sær móti sínum viðhaldsfólkum og segði m.a.:
“We’re going to walk down to the Capitol.” Og her eru onnur brot úr vitnishoyringini, sambært Washington Post:
“The president said something to the effect of ‘I’m the f-ing president. Take me up to the Capitol now,’ to which [Robert Engel, the head of the Secret Service detail] responded, ‘Sir, we have to go back to the West Wing.’ The president reached up towards the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel. Mr. Engel grabbed his arm, said, ‘Sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel. We’re going back to the West Wing. We’re not going the Capitol.’ Mr. Trump then used his free hand to lunge towards Bobby Engel,” Hutchinson testified, and said Ornato motioned to his clavicles to describe a kind of choking motion.”
Hutchinson greiddi eisini frá undir vitnisfrágreiðingini løtuna, tá forsetin “gekk amokk” á skrivstovuni í Hvítu Húsunum 1. desember í 2020, tá hansara løgmálaráðharri Bill Bar úttalaði til miðlarnar, at einki svik ella skeivt var farið fram á valinum. Tá tók forsetin allan morgunmatin við ketjuppfløskum og postalíntallerkum og tveitti hesi móti vegginum.
Hoyringin hevur fingið fleiri eygleiðarar at siga, at hon er møguliga tað skumpið, sum skal til at fáa løgmálaráðharran Merrick Garland at fara undir eina kanning av Trump og hansara leikluti í álopinum á Kongressina. Í eini av yvirskriftunum í Washington Post stóð at lesa í morgun, at frágreiðingini hjá ráðgevanum hjá aðalstjóranum hjá Trump var so mikið ógvuslig og sigandi, at hon er at meta sum “gullkort” fyri løgmálaráðharran skuldi hann loksins tikið stig til kanninga av Trump og hansara leikluti. Hinvegin eru tað advokatar, sum ivast í, um hetta er nóg mikið til at kunna ákæra Trump fyri brotsgerðir. Tað skal meira av ítøkiligum prógvum til tað, og um hesi fara at koma undan kavi til komandi hoyringarnar í juli og september, er ivasamt.
Hinvegin er longu røringur í í løgmálaráðnum, sum fyrst í hesi vikuni framdi tvær rannsóknir hjá advokatum, sum hava staðið Trump nær.
Bretska blaðið Financial Times hevur eftir hoyrigina í gjár eina áhugaverda greining, har rithøvundin umrøður møguleikarnar hjá Garland fyri at taka málið upp á eitt hægri støði. Hansara niðurstøða er sum eitt tvíeggjað svørð. Tekur hann málið upp kann tað føra til borgarauppreistur. Tekur hann tað ikki upp kann tað føra til tað sama. Tvinnir eru kostirnir, hvørgin er mjúkur.
Sí leinkju niðanfyri til greiningina í Financial Times
Pity Merrick Garland. Whichever path America’s attorney-general takes — to prosecute Donald Trump or not — entails great risk. Putting the former president on trial would hasten the country’s drift towards political violence. Letting him walk away would make another coup attempt more likely. Garland is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. Either route could endanger US democracy. The evidence amassed by the US House of Representatives’ January 6 committee is making it much harder to turn a blind eye. Garland’s quandary is acute. The standard of proof for a criminal conviction is considerably higher than lay observers of the January 6 protests might assume. A botched prosecution would make Trump stronger and even help re-elect him. When you strike at a king — even a former one — you must kill him. Garland’s task would be to prove beyond doubt that Trump had criminal intent — a high bar that means showing not just that he tried to overturn the election but that he was fully aware what he was doing was illegal. We know Trump tried to reverse the result. Proving that he knew his actions were criminal means getting inside his head. The January 6 committee is making that job much easier. Critics of the hearings say it is a partisan exercise. In a way they are right. Almost all the witnesses, including the former president’s daughter Ivanka Trump, his attorney-general Bill Barr, his former campaign manager Bill Stepien, numerous campaign lawyers, White House staff and state election officials — are Republican. The Democratic-majority committee, which includes two Republicans, has been disciplined in laying out the facts without indulging in preaching. The effect of one Republican witness after another testifying that Trump was advised that Joe Biden’s victory was legitimate, that his plans to reverse it were unconstitutional, but that he nevertheless threatened those who failed to do his bidding, leaves little room for doubt. It seems Trump knew he was trying to overturn a fair election. The only question appears to be whether his lawyers would argue he was not of sound mind (though that defence would rule out his running for office again). Those pressing Trump to accept an orderly transition of power referred to themselves as “team normal”, according to Stepien. This included his vice-president Mike Pence and the White House legal advisers. The other team notably included John Eastman, the former Supreme Court clerk and architect of the plan for Pence to reject the results, who admitted to colleagues that his strategy was unconstitutional. Team abnormal was aware of its intent. Eastman even requested a presidential pardon in advance, which implies strong evidence of guilt. So what is holding Garland back? Almost nobody knows for sure — and the few who do know are not talking. Garland is scrupulous about keeping his process under wraps. He is also a stickler for the US Department of Justice’s independence. Since Garland was appointed by a Democratic president, his burden of proof is probably higher than the law requires. Any prosecution of a former president would have to be bulletproof and seen to be so. Biden is reportedly frustrated with the DoJ’s inaction. But in declining to pressure Garland, Biden is doing the opposite of what Trump would. Democrats, and constitutional Republicans, should beware of investing Garland with superhuman powers. They made that mistake with Robert Mueller, the special counsel whose damning 2019 report into Trump’s Russia collusion — and obstruction of attempts to investigate it — was neutralised by a more cynical Washington operator. Garland could be Mueller’s heir. He is a public servant who goes by the book in an America that has given up reading. Washington’s savviest are still betting that Trump will escape prosecution. Yet the savvy should also evaluate the cost of letting Trump get away with it. Roughly 40 per cent of America believes that the 2020 election was stolen. It is a small step from spurning concrete evidence to swallowing even darker myths. If that many Americans can deny what happened 18 months ago, how easy would it be to convince them that slavery, for example, was a lie? The risk of doing nothing is great. The law cannot be indifferent to the impact of its restraint. The conventional wisdom was to judge the January 6 hearings on whether they would sway public opinion. But it is increasingly clear that their primary audience is America’s prosecutors. History keenly awaits Garland’s decision. firstname.lastname@example.org
Vinarliga broyt tínar kennifíla - og privatlívsstillingar fyri at síggja hetta innihald