Tag: Inquiry

Categories
Health

Juul Settles Multistate Youth Vaping Inquiry for $438.5 Million

Juul Settles Multistate Youth Vaping Inquiry for $438.5 Million

Juul Labs, which is struggling to survive in the United States, on Tuesday tentatively agreed to pay $438.5 million to settle an investigation by nearly three dozen states into marketing and sales practices they allege they started the teenage e-cigarette crisis.

The company said it did not acknowledge any wrongdoing in the settlement but was trying to “resolve past issues” while awaiting a decision from the Food and Drug Administration on whether it can continue to sell its products. Juul has attempted to reposition itself as a seller of vaping products that could help adults quit smoking traditional cigarettes to restore its tarnished reputation and improve its diminished market value.

The preliminary agreement prohibits the company from marketing to youth, funding education in schools and misrepresenting the nicotine content of its products. But Juul had already halted several marketing practices and withdrawn many of its flavored pods, which appealed to teenagers, several years ago, under public pressure from lawmakers, parents, and health experts when the vaping crisis was at its height.

“We believe this will go a long way in stemming the influx of vaping among youth,” Connecticut Attorney General William Tong said at a news conference Tuesday. “We are under no illusions and cannot claim that it will discourage the youth from vaping. It remains an epidemic. It’s still a big problem. But we essentially took away a large chunk of the former leader.”

The cross-country investigation found the company was targeting young people by hiring young models, using social media to woo teenagers and giving out free samples, he said. And, he added, the research found that the company had a “weak” age verification system for its products and that 45 percent of its Twitter followers were between the ages of 13 and 17.

Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares pointed out in a statement that the company’s previous strategy of selling flavors like mango and crème brûlée appealed to the youth, as did its device’s sleek design, which was easy to conceal. A condition of the settlement prohibited the company from depicting anyone under the age of 35 in its marketing images, Mr Miyares’ statement said.

Juul said Tuesday that the settlement agreement was “aligned with our current business practices, which we began implementing following our company-wide reset in the fall of 2019.”

“We remain focused on the future as we work to fulfill our mission to move adult smokers away from cigarettes – the leading cause of preventable deaths – while tackling underage smoking,” the company’s statement said.

The agreement does not resolve all of the Company’s litigation. While Juul previously reached settlements in lawsuits filed by attorneys general in North Carolina, Washington, Louisiana and Arizona, nine similar cases remain. Major lawsuits filed by New York and California, among others, remain pending. And about 3,600 lawsuits from individuals, school districts and local governments were consolidated in a lawsuit that is still moving through a California court.

Juul is still selling tobacco- and menthol-flavored capsules and vaping products while its application for permanent sale is under FDA review. The agency originally denied the company’s application in June, saying Juul failed to provide sufficient evidence that its products would benefit public health, citing “inadequate and conflicting” data from the company.

Juul received a temporary pardon in court. It has since argued that it has helped two million adult smokers quit traditional cigarettes and has taken issue with the agency’s conclusions on chemicals in its products. The FDA then relented its rejection and announced that it would conduct an additional review of “scientific issues” in the application.

States differ in how they use settlement funds, which must be paid over six to 10 years. A spokeswoman for the Connecticut Attorney General said her share (more than $16 million) would go towards vaping and nicotine cessation and addiction treatment. Texas estimated it would receive nearly $43 million, and Virginia put its share at $16.6 million.

Meredith Berkman, co-founder of Parents Against Vaping E-Cigarettes, said she was pleased to learn of the settlement. She became involved with the group after Juul sent a representative to her son’s ninth-grade high school to speak at a gathering in 2018. Her son passed on that the rep had called the product “perfectly safe,” a conversation Ms. Berkman told a congressional hearing in 2019.

Since then, she said, the group has heard from hundreds of families who claim their teens have become addicted to vaping Juul and other nicotine and marijuana devices. Some young people became seriously ill from vaping and others had to go to drug rehabilitation to get rid of nicotine addiction.

“It was Juul who showed up and opened this horrible Pandora’s box,” Ms. Berkman said. “No amount of money can undo the damage caused by Juul’s targeting and marketing to teenagers, whose use of the company’s stealth-by-design flavored products caused many children to experience severe nicotine addiction and physical harm.”

E-cigarette use among teens appears to have declined in recent years, although the coronavirus pandemic had brought new momentum to the leading monitor of teenage tobacco use, a survey conducted in schools by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In March, that survey showed that nearly 8 percent, or about two million college students, said they had used e-cigarettes in the past 30 days.

While Juul was once the youth favorite, the survey showed that the candy and fruit flavored Puff Bar vapes were the most popular among youth, with Juul ranking fourth among college students. Data from IRI, a market research firm, suggests the brand was attracting more adult customers by closely competing for market leadership with another brand, Vuse Vapes, with about 30 percent of recent sales.

Altria, which bought a 35% stake in Juul for $12.8 billion in December 2018, said in a recent filing with investors that the company’s stake is now worth about $450 million — almost the same amount that Juul had just agreed to settle investigations from nearly three dozen states and Puerto Rico.

After Juul received a thorough scrutiny of its seal of approval among youngsters, it lost significant market share and value when it gave in to public pressure and stopped selling the flavors that appealed most to youngsters.

Although the vaping market still accounts for a small percentage of overall cigarette and other inhalation product sales, the FDA has repeatedly fallen short in its efforts to curb youth-friendly e-cigarettes, which continue to emerge in new candy colors and flavors. After the agency tried to crack down on existing brands, companies and the market turned to synthetic nicotine to evade regulation.

In March, Congress gave the FDA authority to take synthetic nicotine off the market. But the agency is methodical, reviewing about a million applications it received this spring from manufacturers of non-tobacco nicotine products. She has to exercise a degree of caution in order for her judgments to stand up in court.

The agency also continues to review and approve some marketing authorization applications that were submitted years ago for leading vapes, typically sold in gas stations and convenience stores. However, she recently said she does not expect to complete the review of the applications already submitted before next year.

Involved in the settlement: Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Vermont, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Categories
Politics

Trump Doc Inquiry Poses Unparalleled Take a look at for Justice Dept.

Trump Document Inquiry Poses Unparalleled Test for Justice Dept.

WASHINGTON — As Justice Department officials haggled for months this year with former President Donald J. Trump’s lawyers and aides over the return of government documents at his Florida home, federal prosecutors became convinced that they were not being told the whole truth.

That conclusion helped set in motion a decision that would amount to an unparalleled test of the Justice Department’s credibility in a deeply polarized political environment: to seek a search warrant to enter Mar-a-Lago and retrieve what prosecutors suspected would be highly classified materials, beyond the hundreds of pages that Mr. Trump had already returned.

By the government’s account, that gamble paid off, with FBI agents carting off boxloads of sensitive material during the search three weeks ago, including some documents with top secret markings.

But the matter hardly ended there: What had started as an effort to retrieve national security documents has now been transformed into one of the most challenging, complicated and potentially explosive criminal investigations in recent memory, with tremendous implications for the Justice Department, Mr. Trump and public faith in government.

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland now faces the prospect of having to decide whether to file criminal charges against a former president and likely 2024 Republican candidate, a step without any historical parallel.

Remarkably, he may have to make this choice twice, depending on what evidence his investigators find in their separate, broad inquiry into Mr. Trump’s efforts to reverse the outcome of the 2020 election and his involvement with the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

The department’s Jan. 6 investigation began as a manhunt for the rioters who attacked the Capitol. But last fall it expanded to include actions that occurred before the assault, such as the plan to submit slates of electors to Congress that falsely stated Mr. Trump had won in several key swing states.

This summer, prosecutors in the US attorney’s office in Washington began to ask witnesses directly about any involvement by Mr. Trump and members of his inner circle, including the former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, had in efforts to reverse his election loss.

For all his efforts to distance the department from politics, Mr. Garland cannot escape the political repercussions of his decisions. How he handles Mr. Trump will surely define his tenure.

It is still unclear how either case will play out. Prosecutors working on the investigation into Mr. Trump’s handling of classified information are nowhere near making a recommendation to Mr. Garland, according to people with knowledge of the inquiry. Court filings describe the work as continuing, with the possibility of more witness interviews and other investigative steps to come.

The Trump Investigations

Cards 1 of 6

The Trump Investigations

Numerous inquiries. Since former President Donald J. Trump left office, he has been facing several civil and criminal investigations into his business dealings and political activities. Here is a look at some notable cases:

The Trump Investigations

Jan 6 investigations. In a series of public hearings, the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack laid out a comprehensive narrative of Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. This evidence could allow federal prosecutors, who are conducting a parallel criminal investigation, to indict Mr. Trump.

The Trump Investigations

Georgia election interference case. Fani T. Willis, the Atlanta-area district attorney, has been leading a wide-ranging criminal investigation into the efforts of Mr. Trump and his allies to overturn his 2020 election loss in Georgia. This case could pose the most immediate legal peril for the former president and his associates.

The Trump Investigations

New York State civil inquiry. Letitia James, the New York Attorney General, has been conducting a civil investigation into Mr. Trump and his family business. The case is focused on whether Mr. Trump’s statements about the value of his assets were part of a pattern of fraud or were simply Trumpian showmanship.

So far, Mr. Garland has signaled that he is comfortable with owning all of the decisions related to Mr. Trump. He has resisted calls to appoint a special counsel to deal with investigations into the former president. In his first speech to the department’s 115,000 employees last year, he expressed faith that together they could handle any case. “All of us are united by our commitment to the rule of law and to seeking equal justice under law,” he said.

Over the course of this year, as prosecutors sought to understand how sensitive government documents ended up at Mr. Trump’s Florida resort, they began to examine whether three laws had been broken: the Espionage Act, which outlaws the unauthorized retention or disclosure of national security information; a law prohibiting the mishandling of sensitive government records; and a law against obstructing a federal investigation.

By summertime, the investigation into Mr. Trump’s handling of classified information had started to yield compelling indications of possible intent to thwart the law, according to two people familiar with the work. While there was not necessarily ironclad evidence, witness interviews and other materials began to point to the possibility of deliberate attempts to mislead investigators. In addition to witness interviews, the Justice Department obtained security camera footage of various parts of Mar-a-Lago from the Trump Organization.

What we consider before using anonymous sources.
How do the sources know the information? What’s their motivation for telling us? Have they proved reliable in the past? Can we corroborate the information? Even satisfied with these questions, The Times uses anonymous sources as a last resort. The reporter and at least one editor know the identity of the source.

The heavily redacted affidavit explaining the government’s desire for a search warrant said that the Justice Department had “probable cause to believe that evidence of obstruction will be found at” Mar-a-Lago, and that “the government has well-founded concerns that steps may be taken to frustrate or otherwise interfere with this investigation if facts in the affidavit were prematurely disclosed.”

But a decision about whether to charge Mr. Trump over attempts to obstruct the investigation, or his handling of sensitive national security information, would involve a variety of considerations.

At the heart of the case would be evidence uncovered by the FBI, which is still trying to understand how and why government records made their way to Mar-a-Lago and why some stayed there despite repeated requests for their return by the National Archives and a later subpoena from the Justice Department.

But the highly classified nature of some of the documents retrieved from Mar-a-Lago and the possible evidence of obstruction are only some elements that will go into any final decision about pursuing a prosecution.

Career national security prosecutors will conduct a robust analysis of whether that evidence persuasively shows that laws were broken. That process will include a look at how the facts have been applied in similar cases brought under those same laws, information that prosecutors examined when they investigated former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the former CIA director David H. Petraeus.

Key developments in the inquiries into the former president and his allies.

In the case involving Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server, for instance, officials in the national security division asked prosecutors to dive deep into the history of the Espionage Act. At issue was whether her handling of classified information indicated she had engaged in gross negligence. One compelling case of gross negligence that they did find, involving a former FBI agent, included far more serious factors. After examining past examples, they found that her case did not meet that standard. In the end, the consensus was not to charge Mrs. Clinton.

But Mr. Trump’s case presents the additional question of obstruction of justice, and the possibility that evidence could show that he or his legal team defied the Justice Department to hold onto documents that belonged to the government.

That in some ways echoes a previous obstruction inquiry conducted by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel who examined whether Russia interfered in the 2016 election. His final report showed that Mr. Trump tried to curtail, or even end, the special counsel inquiry as he learned more about it. But Mr. Mueller declined to say whether Mr. Trump had broken the law, allowing the attorney general at the time, William P. Barr, to clear Mr. Trump of that crime.

There is no way to know whether the Justice Department has facts regarding obstruction that meet its standard of prosecution, which is evidence that would “probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction.”

But the Justice Department’s own legal filings have thrust the question of obstruction into public view. Should Mr. Garland find that there is not enough evidence to indict Mr. Trump, the Justice Department under two successive administrations will have chosen not to recommend prosecuting Mr. Trump for that crime.

If Mr. Garland chooses to move forward with charges, it will be a historic moment for the presidency, a former leader of the United States accused of committing a crime and possibly forced to defend himself before a jury of his fellow citizens. It is a process that could potentially unfold even as he runs again for the White House against an incumbent whose administration is prosecuting him.

That, too, runs huge risks for the department’s credibility, particularly if the national security threat presented by Mr. Trump’s possession of the documents, inevitably disclosed at least in part during the course of any trial, do not seem substantial enough to warrant such a grave move.

Mr. Garland and his investigators are fully aware of the implications of their decisions, according to people familiar with their work. The knowledge that they will be scrutinized for impropriety and overreach, they say, has underscored the need to hew to the facts.

But a decision to prosecute — or to decline to prosecute — has political implications that Mr. Garland cannot escape. And no matter of judiciousness can change the fact that he is operating within an America as politically divided as it has been in decades.

Mr. Trump’s supporters have viewed any investigative steps around the former president as illegitimate attacks by a partisan Justice Department that is out to get him. And his detractors believe that any decision not to prosecute, no matter the evidence, would show that Mr. Trump is indeed above the law.

Categories
Politics

The place Will the Home Inquiry on the Capitol Riot Go?

Where Will the House Inquiry on the Capitol Riot Go?

The Justice Department is aggressively trying to bring perpetrators of the Capitol Riot to justice, and more than 500 people have been arrested in connection with the January 6 attack.

But no full investigation had opened on Capitol Hill as of Wednesday after the Senate Republicans repulsed an attempt last month to set up a bipartisan commission.

That changed on Wednesday afternoon when the House of Representatives voted 222-190 to set up a special committee that will conduct an extensive investigation into the January 6th events and their causes. Only two Republicans joined an almost united Democratic faction. With the investigation having no end date and effectively under the aegis of Spokeswoman Nancy Pelosi and her party, attempts by Republicans to prevent a major investigation into the insurrection could lead to a more aggressive, painful and lengthy investigation.

Conservative commentators have tried to downplay the severity of the attack since the day it happened, but as a new 40-minute video from The Times of the Capitol riot shows, it’s hard to take it as anything other than one Attempt the workings of American democracy. Many of the rioters featured in the video arrived in Washington to confront, as the investigation shows, and they saw themselves as the president’s specific commandments.

When the House voted today, Ms. Pelosi had invited several officers injured in the attack to watch the proceedings from her box in the gallery of the house. These included Harry Dunn of the Capitol Police and two District of Columbia cops: Michael Fanone, who stood up for the Republicans to support an investigation, and Daniel Hodges, who was crushed in a doorway during the rampage. Relatives of Brian Sicknick, a Capitol cop who died after clashing with the rioters, were to join them.

Luke Broadwater, a congressional reporter, covered today’s House vote. I met him for a side talk about how the committee is likely to work and whether it could pose a threat to the Republicans.

House Democrats voted today to set up a special committee to investigate the January 6 attack on the Capitol. Give us an overview of how this committee will work and what it will examine. What will it – and will not – be empowered to do?

The Special Committee will have a full mandate to “investigate and report on the facts, circumstances and causes relating to the domestic terrorist attack on the United States Capitol Complex of January 6, 2021,” according to laws passed by the House of Representatives today. In particular, she is tasked with investigating law enforcement failures such as information gathering and the causes that led so many to turn violent, online platforms and potential “malicious foreign interference”.

We do not yet know all about how the committee will work, as its members have not yet been named. But there are still a number of unanswered questions about the attack, and the Democrats in particular want to know more about the role President Donald Trump played that day and any connections between those around Trump, the planners of the rally, the mob – Preceded violence, investigate, and right-wing groups.

What role should Republicans play on this special committee?

That is so far unclear. Most Republicans opposed the establishment of the select committee, but Rep. Kevin McCarthy, Republican leader of the House of Representatives, has five appointments to the panel with the approval of Speaker Nancy Pelosis.

Pelosi has also hinted that she could appoint a Republican to the committee herself. There is much speculation that it could be Wyoming MP Liz Cheney, the daughter of a former Republican vice president who harshly criticized Trump and his actions on Jan. 6. There are some other options too, such as Rep. Adam Kinzinger, Republican from Illinois, who urged his colleagues to leave Trump after the party lost the White House and both houses of Congress during his chaotic tenure as president.

GOP leaders avoided reopening the January 6 attack, and some said a recent Senate investigation into police neglect that day should be enough. But Polls show that a vast majority of Americans disagree. Do Republicans fear that rejecting a bipartisan investigation into the causes of the attack could hurt their standing with voters ahead of the 2022 midterm elections?

I would say a lot of Republicans I’ve spoken to in Congress think January 6th was a terrible and dark day in American history. There are people in the party who clearly deny that they have said some crazy things, but many believe that attacks on police officers and burglaries should be condemned.

However, they believe another Jan 6th review is a losing issue for their party. They know it was Trump supporters who committed the violence, and they know it was horrific, and they know that every day that is spent talking about January 6th gives Democrats a political one Gives advantage. Hoping to win back the House of Representatives in 2022, Republicans hope to shift public discussion to issues in the Biden administration, such as problems on the southern border or monetary inflation, rather than the violence perpetrated by Republican presidents’ supporters. as she tries to stop the peaceful transfer of power.

On the other hand, how much do the Democrats see this special committee as a crucial opportunity to clearly justify Trump’s role in inciting violence on Jan. 6, especially since he did wades back into the political battle before 2022?

The Democrats thought they had a clear case for Trump instigating the riot when they indict him a second time after the attack. However, the special committee will give them the opportunity to gather more evidence and interview more witnesses about the siege and Trump’s role in it.

Unlike the independent bipartisan commission that blocked Republicans in the Senate in May and should have finished its work this year, the special committee has the power to investigate with no end date until it finishes its report. That means it could potentially hold hearings and issue reports throughout the 2022 – or even 2024 – campaign cycle, potentially ensuring that voters are often reminded of the horrors of the day.

On Politics is also available as a newsletter. Sign up here to receive it in your inbox.

Is there something you think we are missing? Would you like to see more? We’d love to hear from you. Send us an email at onpolitics@nytimes.com.

Categories
Entertainment

Britney Spears’s Father Requires Inquiry Into Singer’s Management Claims

Britney Spears’s Father Calls for Inquiry Into Singer’s Control Claims

James P. Spears, the father of Britney Spears and the man who has long played a leading role in overseeing his daughter’s affairs, on Tuesday called for an investigation into the singer’s allegations last week that she was molested under her supervision, including convicting them to carry out and take medication against their will.

The court records on behalf of Mr. Spears followed the singer’s first full public statement in 13 years about the complex legal regime that oversees her personal welfare and finances, calling for her to quit conservatory without undergoing a mental evaluation .

In her remarks at the June 23 hearing, broadcast in the courtroom and streamed online, Ms. Spears blamed her management team, janitors and family for their treatment, and made explicit mention of her father.

Now, Mr. Spears’ attorneys have requested an evidence hearing and challenged the actions of Ms. Spears’ current personal guardian and court appointed attorney, saying that “It is crucial that the court confirm that Ms. Spears’ testimony was correct or not “carefully to determine what corrective action, if any, needs to be taken.”

The filings, filed late Tuesday in Los Angeles and received by the New York Times, continued: “It is also imperative that all parties are given a full and fair opportunity to function properly in the Conservatory trial before this court Responding to allegations and claims. “Asserted against them.”

The twin-pronged conservatory, which manages Ms. Spears ‘personal life and estate, was first cleared by a probate court in Los Angeles in 2008 when Ms. Spears’ father moved for control of the singer’s business and welfare amid concerns regarding their mental health and their potential for substance abuse. The arrangement is usually reserved for people who cannot fend for themselves, although Ms. Spears continued to work and perform in the years that followed.

Mr. Spears is currently overseeing the singer’s finances, along with a corporate trustee whom Ms. Spears asked last year to join the arrangement. Her personal curator, Jodi Montgomery, temporarily took over from her father in September 2019 after Mr Spears resigned due to health issues.

But Ms. Spears’ recent statement, along with confidential court records obtained from the New York Times, revealed that in private Ms. Spears had consistently urged quitting conservatories, calling it “too, too much,” according to the Reported by a court investigator in 2016, adding that she was tired of being exploited.

In court last week, Ms. Spears called the setup abusive, likened it to sex trafficking, and described that in 2019 she was forced to tour, undergo psychiatric exams and take medication before her father gave up his role as her personal conservator.

She also said she could not remove her contraceptive even though she wanted to get married and have more children. Ms. Spears referred to her father as “the one who approved of everything”.

In a second filing on Tuesday, Mr. Spears’ attorneys denied the characterization that he was in command, arguing that Ms. Montgomery “has been fully responsible for the daily personal care and medical treatment of Ms. Spears” as of September 2019. , despite some allegations made by Ms. Spears prior to Ms. Montgomery’s appointment.

“Mr. Spears just is not involved in decisions related to Ms. Spears’ personal care or medical or reproductive problems,” his attorneys wrote. Spears cannot hear his daughter’s concerns and address them directly because he has been cut off from communicating with her. “

They added that Mr Spears had no intention of returning as his daughter’s personal curator, but said he was “concerned about the management and care of his daughter”.

Lauriann Wright, an attorney for Ms. Montgomery, said in a statement Wednesday that Ms. Montgomery, as a personal conservator, has been “a tireless advocate for Britney and her well-being” with “one primary goal – to support and encourage”. Britney on her way to no longer needing the person’s care. “

Ms. Wright pointed to Ms. Montgomery’s role as a “neutral decision maker in complex family dynamics” and said that Ms. Spears’ “decision to get married and have a family was never influenced by the Conservatory while Ms. Montgomery” was the Conservatory of the person. “

She added that Ms. Montgomery was looking forward to “finding a way to end the Conservatory.”

Mr. Spears attorneys also raised concerns about the role of Mrs. Spears’s court-appointed attorney, Samuel D. Ingham III, who was hired on the case in 2008 when the singer was deemed unable to choose her own representation.

In the documents, Mr. Spears’ attorneys asked if an earlier move to make the role of Ms. Montgomery permanent was what the singer wanted or even aware of, and found that “Ms. Spears has neither signed nor reviewed the petition to appoint her personal curator, “which was instead signed by Mr. Ingham.

Citing Mr. Ingham’s earlier claim that Ms. Spears was found to be unable to consent to medical treatment in 2014, they stated, “There has been no such finding and there is no such order.” This, too, requires an investigation in a subsequent hearing, the lawyers wrote.

When requesting an investigation, Mr. Spears’ attorneys said, “Either the allegations will turn out to be true and corrective action must be taken in this case, or they will be proven false, in which case the conservatory can continue.” It is unacceptable for restorers or the court to respond to Ms. Spears’ testimony. “

Previously, Ms. Spears had raised concerns about her father’s control over her, according to the investigator’s 2016 report. She cited her inability to make friends or to date without her father’s approval; the limits of her weekly allowance of $ 2,000, despite her success as a performer; and the fear and “very harsh” consequences she said are linked to conservatory violations, the investigator said.

At the time, the estate investigator concluded that the Conservatory was in Ms. Spears’ best interests because of her complex finances, vulnerability to outside influences, and “intermittent” drug problems, the report said. But it also called for “a path to independence and the eventual termination of the conservatory”.

Ms. Spears said in court last week that she did not know she could move to terminate the conservatories. “I’m sorry for my ignorance, but honestly I didn’t know,” she said.

Categories
Politics

Justice Dept. Ends Prison Inquiry Into John Bolton’s E book

Justice Dept. Ends Criminal Inquiry Into John Bolton’s Book

The Justice Department has stopped its criminal investigation into whether a derogatory memoir by President Donald J. Trump’s National Security Advisor John R. Bolton has illegally disclosed classified information and is closing a deal to resolve its lawsuit aimed at recovering profits from the To recover the book, to two people who have been briefed on the matter.

The deal would end an attempt that began under the Trump administration to silence Mr Bolton and sue him over the book’s profits. Closing both the investigation and the lawsuit is a clear reprimand from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland over the Trump Justice Department’s tactics on the matter.

The details of the agreement were unclear. A Justice Department deal is likely to prevent Trump administration officials from being forced to take oath to answer questions about their tenure. A federal judge had given Mr. Bolton’s attorney Charles J. Cooper permission to begin dismissing these officers, but a settlement would end that lawsuit.

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment.

Legal action against Mr Bolton began last year after Mr Trump publicly and privately pressured White House staff and Justice Department officials to use their powers to prevent Mr Bolton from reading his book about his time at the White House by Mr. Trump. “The Room It Happened In.” In June 2020, the Justice Department sued Mr. Bolton for an attempt to stop the publication of the memoirs and recover the profits made from them; a judge ruled that the department could continue to pursue profits but could not stop their publication.

Last September, it was revealed that the Justice Department had opened a criminal investigation to investigate whether Mr Bolton had unlawfully disclosed secret information in the book – an investigation that began after the Trump administration did not stop publication. As part of the investigation, the department issued a grand jury subpoena to the book’s editor, Simon & Schuster, for communications records of the memoir.

Drawing on detailed accounts of Mr. Bolton’s tenure as national security advisor, the book portrayed Mr. Trump as a corrupt leader who puts his personal and financial interests over the country’s national security.

Released in June, it became an instant best-seller and fed an increasingly damaging narrative about Mr Trump during his re-election campaign. The Justice Department continued its lawsuit to seize Mr. Bolton’s profits and the criminal investigation, including the unusual move of Simon & Schuster’s subpoena.

The Biden Justice Department inherited the matter and had spent the past few weeks negotiating the terms of the settlement with Mr Bolton’s legal team, according to one person who was briefed on the matter.

During the transition to president, Biden advisors investigated a number of difficult questions related to Mr. Trump and the way the Justice Department under Attorney General William P. Barr worked that they would likely face after taking office.

From an examination of the publicly available materials on Mr Bolton’s case, the Biden transition advisors concluded that the department had acted in a highly political manner. The ministry, the advisors argued, could allow the book-win lawsuit, but it has the potential to expose unsavory behavior by Trump’s White House and Justice Department. The transition advisors found it inappropriate to simply embarrass an unsubstantiated case in order to embarrass the Trump administration, and officials recommended that the department drop it.

The White House’s efforts to meddle in Mr Bolton’s book came to light in September when a career administration official accused Trump advisers of improperly intervening to prevent Mr Bolton’s account of his time as national security advisor by Mr. Trump becomes public.

The officer, a classified book screening specialist named Ellen Knight, said the aides made false claims that Mr. Bolton had leaked classified information and suggested that if she refused, they would take revenge on her. to participate.

She also said an adviser to Mr. Trump “instructed her to withhold any response temporarily” to a request from Mr. Bolton to review a chapter on the president’s dealings with Ukraine to prevent it from being opposed during the first impeachment trial Mr Trump will be released The focus was on allegations that he had abused his powers in foreign policy with the Kiev government.

Categories
Politics

F.B.I. Is Pursuing ‘A whole bunch’ in Capitol Riot Inquiry, Wray Tells Congress

F.B.I. Is Pursuing ‘Hundreds’ in Capitol Riot Inquiry, Wray Tells Congress

WASHINGTON — The F.B.I. is pursuing potentially hundreds more suspects in the Capitol riot, the agency’s director told Congress on Tuesday, calling the effort to find those responsible for the deadly assault “one of the most far-reaching and extensive” investigations in the bureau’s history.

“We’ve already arrested close to 500, and we have hundreds of investigations that are still ongoing beyond those 500,” Christopher A. Wray, the F.B.I. director, told the House Oversight Committee.

His assurances of how seriously the agency was taking the attack by a pro-Trump mob came as lawmakers pressed him and military commanders on why they did not do more to prevent the siege despite threats from extremists to commit violence.

“The threats, I would say, were everywhere,” said Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, a New York Democrat who is the chairwoman of the Oversight Committee. “The system was blinking red.”

Ms. Maloney confronted Mr. Wray with messages from the social media site Parler, which she said referred threats of violence to the F.B.I. more than 50 times before the attack on Jan. 6. One message, which Ms. Maloney said Parler had sent to an F.B.I. liaison on Jan. 2, was from a poster who warned, “Don’t be surprised if we take the Capitol building,” and “Trump needs us to cause chaos to enact the Insurrection Act.”

“I do not recall hearing about this particular email,” Mr. Wray replied. “I’m not aware of Parler ever trying to contact my office.”

In hearings before two congressional committees on Tuesday, lawmakers sought new information about the security failures that helped lead to the violence.

At one hearing, Ms. Maloney presented her committee’s research into the delayed response of the National Guard, which showed that the Capitol Police and Washington officials made 12 “urgent requests” for their support and that Army leaders told the National Guard to “stand by” five times as the violence escalated.

“That response took far too long,” Ms. Maloney said. “This is a shocking failure.”

Documents obtained by the committee showed that, beginning at 1:30 p.m. on Jan. 6, top officials at the Defense Department received pleas for help from the Capitol Police chief, Mayor Muriel Bowser of Washington and other officials. But the National Guard did not arrive until 5:20 p.m., more than four hours after the Capitol perimeter had been breached.

“The National Guard was literally waiting, all ready to go, and they didn’t receive the green light for a critical time period, hours on end,” said Representative Ro Khanna, Democrat of California and a member of the committee.

Lawmakers had tough questions for Gen. Charles Flynn, who commands the U.S. Army Pacific, and Lt. Gen. Walter E. Piatt, the director of the Army staff, both of whom were involved in a key phone call with police leaders during the riot in which Army officials worried aloud about the “optics” of sending in the Guard, according to those involved. It was the first time lawmakers had heard from either general.

In their testimony, they described the frantic call in which the chiefs of the Capitol Police and the Metropolitan Police became agitated as they tried unsuccessfully to get military support while rioters attacked their officers at the Capitol.

“Both speakers on the phone sounded highly agitated and even panicked,” General Flynn recalled.

By contrast, he said, General Piatt was a “calm” and “combat-experienced leader.”

General Piatt has defended his caution in initially advising against sending in the National Guard, telling the committee that he was “definitely concerned” in the days before Jan. 6 “about the public perception of using soldiers to secure the election process in any manner that could be viewed as political.”

He told the committee that National Guard forces were “not trained, prepared or equipped to conduct this type of law enforcement operation.”

“When people’s lives are on the line, two minutes is too long,” General Piatt said. “But we were not positioned for that urgent request. We had to re-prepare so we would send them in prepared for this new mission.”

General Flynn is the brother of Michael T. Flynn, President Donald J. Trump’s disgraced former national security adviser who has emerged as one of the former president’s biggest promoters of the lie of a stolen election.

In submitted testimony, General Flynn said he had not participated in the call but merely overheard portions of it when he entered the room while it was in progress. He said that he had not heard any discussion of political considerations with regard to sending in the Guard.

“I did not use the word ‘optics,’ nor did I hear the word used during the call on Jan. 6, 2021,” he said.

The panel did not hear testimony from the acting chief of the Capitol Police, Yogananda D. Pittman, who declined to attend, citing her need to hear testimony at the other hearing, before the House Administration Committee. Republicans were quick to criticize her decision and repeatedly referred to her absence during the session, which stretched into the evening.

Ms. Maloney said she was also “disappointed,” but she added that Chief Pittman had committed to testifying on July 21.

In a simultaneous session on Tuesday afternoon, the House Administration Committee heard testimony from Michael A. Bolton, the Capitol Police inspector general, and Gretta L. Goodwin, the director of homeland security and justice for the Government Accountability Office.

Mr. Bolton testified about his fourth investigative report into the failures of Jan. 6, which found that the department’s tactical unit did not have access to “adequate training facilities” or adequate policies in place for securing ballistic helmets and vests (two dozen were stolen during the riot); the agency’s first responder unit was also not equipped with adequate less-lethal weapons, among other findings.

Mr. Bolton’s reports found that the Capitol Police had clearer warnings about the riot than were previously known, including the potential for violence in which “Congress itself is the target.” He also revealed that officers were instructed by their leaders not to use their most aggressive tactics to hold off the mob, in part because they feared that they lacked the training to handle the equipment needed to do so.

About 140 officers were injured during the attack, and seven people died in connection with the siege, including one officer who had multiple strokes after sparring with rioters.

“It is our duty to honor those officers who have given their lives but also ensuring the safety of all those working and visiting the Capitol complex by making hard changes within the department,” Mr. Bolton said.

Ms. Goodwin said that some of the command-and-control issues had been flagged by her agency in 2017. But the Capitol Police Board, which oversees the operations of the force, had not acted on the Government Accountability Office’s recommendations or responded to its requests for progress reports.

“As of today, the board has not provided us with any substantive information consistent with the practices noted above,” she said.

At previous hearings on the attack, some House Republicans used the opportunity to try to rewrite the history of what happened on Jan. 6, downplaying or outright denying the violence and deflecting efforts to investigate it.

On Tuesday, some Republicans on the Oversight Committee tried to redirect the inquiry into other topics, calling for investigations of Black Lives Matter protesters or the Biden family.

“I would love to ask about the Durham report, Hunter Biden’s laptop, Hunter’s business dealings in China and a host of other things,” said Representative Jody B. Hice, Republican of Georgia.

The hearings came as Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, highlighted on the Senate floor an assessment from the F.B.I. and the Department of Homeland Security that concluded that adherents to the pro-Trump conspiracy theory QAnon were likely to try to carry out violence, “including harming perceived members of the ‘cabal’ such as Democrats and other political opposition.”

Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said on Tuesday that she was considering moving forward with a select committee to further investigate the Capitol riot.

Ms. Pelosi said her preference was for the Senate to approve a bipartisan commission, but that no longer seemed possible after Senate Republicans blocked it.

“We can’t wait any longer,” she said.

Emily Cochrane and Glenn Thrush contributed reporting.

Categories
Politics

Robert Mueller will take legislation college students behind the decision-making means of the Russia inquiry.

Robert Mueller will take law students behind the decision-making process of the Russia inquiry.

Robert S. Mueller III will teach a course at the University of Virginia’s law school intended to take students inside his investigation that concluded Russia had interfered in the 2016 election to help Donald J. Trump, the university announced on Wednesday.

The course, called “The Mueller Report and the Role of the Special Counsel,” will be taught by Mr. Mueller alongside three former federal prosecutors: James L. Quarles III, Andrew D. Goldstein and Aaron Zebley, who was Mr. Mueller’s deputy. Mr. Mueller recruited the three men to work on the investigation, which spanned two years of the Trump administration.

Mr. Mueller will lead at least one of six in-person classes and said that he hoped to bring in other top prosecutors as guest speakers, according to the university.

The course will cover the investigation chronologically, from the hiring of Mr. Mueller as special counsel in 2017 until the inquiry’s conclusion in 2019. The instructors also intend to explain the challenges that prosecutors faced and “the legal and practical context” behind critical decisions, the university said.

The final class is expected to focus on obstruction of justice and the role of special counsels in presidential accountability. The Mueller report detailed actions by Mr. Trump that many legal experts said were sufficient to ask a grand jury to indict him on charges of obstruction of justice, but Attorney General William P. Barr cleared him of obstruction soon after the report was completed.

The announcement of the course is likely to revive curiosity around the Russian inquiry, which Mr. Trump repeatedly derided as a “witch hunt” and of which Mr. Mueller has seldom spoken publicly. He was a reluctant witness during a closely watched congressional hearing in July 2019, where he testified for nearly seven hours, giving many clipped answers and largely not straying from his report’s conclusions.

Last summer, Mr. Mueller wrote an opinion essay for The Washington Post the day after Mr. Trump commuted the prison sentence of his longtime friend Roger J. Stone Jr., a political operative. In the essay, Mr. Mueller defended the prosecution of Mr. Stone for federal crimes as part of the Russia inquiry.

“We made every decision in Stone’s case, as in all our cases, based solely on the facts and the law and in accordance with the rule of law,” Mr. Mueller wrote.

Mr. Zebley told the University of Virginia that the course instructors would rely on public records to explain the path of the investigation.

After the inquiry ended, Mr. Mueller, Mr. Zebley and Mr. Quarles left the Justice Department and returned to the private law firm WilmerHale in Washington, where they are partners. Mr. Goldstein is now a partner at the firm Cooley in Washington. Mr. Mueller and Mr. Zebley are both alumni of the University of Virginia’s law school.

All four lawyers had notable careers at the Justice Department and said they were looking forward to sharing those experiences with students, according to the university.

“I look forward to engaging with the students this fall,” Mr. Mueller said.

Categories
Health

Biden Orders Intelligence Inquiry Into Origins of the Coronavirus

Biden Orders Intelligence Inquiry Into Origins of the Coronavirus

The intelligence on the three workers came from outside the United States intelligence agencies’ own collection, which means its veracity is more difficult to authenticate. The source of the information was unclear, but several American officials said they believed the report that the three researchers got sick.

American intelligence officials do not know whether the lab workers contracted Covid-19 or some other disease, like a bad flu. If they did have the coronavirus, the intelligence may suggest that they could have become sick from the lab, but it also could simply mean that the virus was circulating in Wuhan earlier than the Chinese government has acknowledged.

Also toward the end of Mr. Trump’s term, State Department officials began examining the origins of the virus and concluded that it was highly unlikely to have appeared naturally and thus was likely the product of laboratory work.

CNN first reported the effort and suggested that the group’s efforts had been shut down by the Biden administration, prompting scathing Republican criticism. A State Department spokesman, Ned Price, denied that, saying that the team’s findings were briefed to senior officials in the department’s arms control bureau in February and March.

“With the report delivered, the work was ended,” Mr. Price said.

Mr. Trump issued a statement on Tuesday boasting of his early insistence that the Wuhan lab was the source of the virus. “To me, it was obvious from the beginning,” he said. “But I was badly criticized, as usual.”

Despite the absence of new evidence, a number of scientists have lately begun speaking out about the need to remain open to the possibility that the virus had accidentally emerged from a lab, perhaps after it was collected in nature, a lab origin distinct from a creation by scientists.

“It is most likely that this is a virus that arose naturally, but we cannot exclude the possibility of some kind of a lab accident,” Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, told senators on Wednesday.

Categories
Business

Brazil fears third Covid wave as Bolsonaro faces parliamentary inquiry

Brazil fears third Covid wave as Bolsonaro faces parliamentary inquiry

Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro is undergoing a congressional investigation into the mismanagement of the pandemic.

Andressa Anholete | Getty Images News | Getty Images

Health experts fear the Brazilian Covid-19 disaster could get worse in the coming months, while a parliamentary investigation into the government’s response to the pandemic is likely to increase political pressure on President Jair Bolsonaro.

South America’s largest country, previously known for its leadership skills in health crises, has grown into an international pariah amid the coronavirus pandemic. Brazil has had the highest number of coronavirus-related deaths in the world outside the US, has lagged behind on vaccinations and still lacks an effective and coordinated public health response to the outbreak.

An official investigation, approved by the Brazilian Supreme Court, opened late last month to look into the government’s handling of the pandemic, which killed more than 430,000 people. The investigation could pave the way for Bolsonaro’s impeachment, though analysts say political opponents of the right-wing leader may prefer to contest the president in the October 2022 election.

Bolsonaro has reportedly said he was “not concerned” about the investigation. A Brazilian government spokesman did not respond to a request for comment when contacted by CNBC.

Bolsonaro has repeatedly spoken out against public health measures, which have become a political battleground in Brazil, and continues to oppose any lockdown measures to contain the spread of the virus.

“The current unrestrained epidemic will not be overcome without a dramatic change in direction,” said Dr. Antonio Flores, Infectious Disease Specialist and Covid Medical Advisor at the Medecins Sans Frontieres aid group in Brazil.

He said that if life goes on normally, “with such a high daily incidence, all you can expect is a new wave of cases, an additional thousands of deaths and more pressure on the already stretched health system.”

A gravedigger walks among the graves of COVID-19 victims at the Nossa Senhora Aparecida cemetery in Manaus, Amazonas state, Brazil, on April 29, 2021.

MICHAEL DANTAS | AFP | Getty Images

His comments echo warnings from other health experts that Brazil could soon experience a third wave of Covid infections in the coming weeks. It is feared that the country’s weak vaccination efforts will not be enough to prevent a new surge in the winter months of June through September, when indoor gatherings and activities are particularly risky.

Flores told CNBC that all available public health measures should be stepped up “as soon as possible” and that the country’s vaccination campaign needs to be accelerated. He added the need to put in place an effective testing and traceability system, as well as coherent guidelines on public health restrictions.

“A crucial element in next year’s elections”

By May 12, according to statistics from Our World in Data, around 15% of Brazil’s 211 million inhabitants had received at least one dose of a Covid vaccine. Chile has now vaccinated nearly 46% of its population with at least one dose of a Covid vaccine, reflecting one of the highest vaccination rates in the world.

Brazil’s lower vaccination rate means millions of people across the country and beyond its borders are at risk from more than 90 variants of the coronavirus currently circulating in the country – in addition to any new mutations that may emerge.

Brazil’s Covid vaccination campaign is in stark contrast to its response to the H1N1 swine flu pandemic in 2009, when 92 million people were vaccinated against the virus in just three months. The main difference this time around, analysts say, is Bolsonaro’s refusal to take a science-led approach to addressing the health crisis.

This is a very dangerous government, but since it was democratically elected, very little can be done at the moment to push back.

Ilona Szabo

President of the Igarape Institute

The Pan American Health Organization announced on Wednesday that nearly 40% of all global Covid-related deaths reported in the past week have occurred in the Americas. Almost 80% of the intensive care units in the region are currently staffed with patients. PAHO director Carissa Etienne warned it was clear the broadcast “is far from being controlled,” even as the US and Brazil report reductions in some cases, Reuters reported.

Brazil recorded more than 74,000 cases of the coronavirus on Thursday, after peaking at over 100,000 daily infections in April. In terms of infection numbers, it remains the third worst Covid-affected country in the world after the US and India.

“I think while the situation in India has gotten significantly worse lately, the numbers in Brazil have risen to a very, very high level. The country has actually been in a collapse for months,” said Oliver Stuenkel, Associate Professor of International relations at the Getulio Vargas Foundation in Sao Paulo, said CNBC by phone.

A man will be vaccinated against Covid-19 by a health worker in a remote area of ​​Moju, Para state, Brazil on April 16, 2021.

JOAO PAULO GUIMARAES | AFP | Getty Images

“What is really so fascinating is that (former US President Donald) Trump and to some extent (Indian Prime Minister Narendra) Modi are paying a political price. Bolsonaro has been able to and has not retained fairly high political support by a combination of factors done. ” however, had to pay for it because its strategy of avoiding responsibility has so far been remarkably successful, “he added.

Analysts said the government’s investigation into treatment for the pandemic will typically take around three months, but the process can take much longer.

Stuenkel said he expected the investigation to take about six months since “the real goal is to hammer home the news on the evening news that Bolsonaro was to blame”.

“Essentially, I think the investigation will be vital because if the investigation cannot change public opinion at this point, after 400,000 people have died and basically the health system has finally collapsed, basically nothing can .. . For me the crucial element is next year’s election, “he added.

What happens next?

Earlier this week, former Brazilian Health Minister Luiz Henrique Mandetta, who was fired over a year ago after resisting Bolsonaro’s push to use the malaria drug chloroquine as a covid treatment, testified ahead of a parliamentary inquiry.

Mandetta said Bolsonaro was fully aware that the treatment had no scientific basis. Former US President Donald Trump had also pushed for the use of the related drug hydroxychloroquine amid the pandemic, despite a lack of scientific evidence.

“Unfortunately, this is a very dangerous government, but since it was democratically elected, very little can be done right now to push back,” said Ilona Szabo, president of the Igarape Institute, a think tank based in Rio de Janeiro.

Szabo said that while she did not believe the investigation would have “immediate” political implications, “it is important that what happens today has ramifications for the future.”

“It is proven that they are responsible and that most of the deaths were preventable,” said Szabo.

Categories
Politics

Republicans Rewrite Historical past of the Capitol Riot, Hampering an Inquiry

Republicans Rewrite History of the Capitol Riot, Hampering an Inquiry

WASHINGTON – Four months after supporters of President Donald J. Trump stormed the Capitol in a deadly riot, an increasing number of Republicans in Congress are making great efforts to rewrite the January 6th story, downplaying or downplaying the violence denial and distraction to investigate it.

Their denialism, which has been intensifying for weeks, and which was vividly demonstrated at two congressional hearings this week, is one reason lawmakers have been unable to agree on the formation of an independent commission to review the attack on the Capitol. Republicans have insisted that any investigation include an investigation into violence by Antifa, a loose collective of anti-fascist activists, and Black Lives Matter. It also reflects an embrace of misinformation that has become a trademark of the Republican Party in the age of Mr Trump.

“A refusal to establish the truth is what we have to deal with,” said spokeswoman Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday. “We have to find the truth and we hope to do so in the most bipartisan way possible.”

It made a direct link between the overthrow of Wyoming Republican Representative Liz Cheney as her number 3 – a move that arose from Ms. Cheney’s vociferous rejection of Mr. Trump’s election lies that inspired the uproar – and her refusal to acknowledge them Reality of what happened on January 6th.

A House Oversight and Reform Committee hearing on the insurrection on Wednesday underscored the Republican strategy. Arizona Representative Andy Biggs, chairman of the right-wing House Freedom Caucus, used his time to show a video of mob violence allegedly by Antifa that took place in Portland, Ore, 2,800 miles away.

His member of Freedom Caucus, representative Ralph Norman from South Carolina, asked whether the rioters involved in the attack on the Capitol were actually Trump supporters – despite their Trump shirts, hats and flags, the “Make America Great Again” paraphernalia “And the professional’s trump chants and social media posts.

“I don’t know who took the poll to say they were Trump supporters,” said Norman.

Another Republican, Georgia Representative Andrew Clyde, described the scene during the attack – which injured almost 140 – as a “normal tourist visit” to the Capitol.

“Let’s face it with the American people: it wasn’t a riot,” said Clyde, adding that the floor of the house was never breached and that no firearms had been confiscated. “There was an undisciplined mob. There have been some rioters and some who have committed vandalism. “

He then asked Jeffrey A. Rosen, who was the acting attorney general at the time of the attack, whether he viewed it as a “riot or riot with vandalism similar to last summer,” apparently referring to protests against the racial justice system that swept over the country Country.

Immediately after the attack, many Republicans joined the Democrats in condemning the forcible takeover of the building known as the Citadel of American Democracy. But in the weeks that followed, Mr Trump, backed by right-wing news outlets and some members of Congress, expressed the fiction that it had been carried out by Antifa and Black Lives Matter, an allegation that federal authorities had repeatedly debunked. Now a much broader group of Republican lawmakers have agreed on more subtle efforts to tarnish and distort what happened.

The approach has hampered the creation of an independent commission, modeled on the one that dealt with the September 11, 2001, attacks to investigate the Capitol uprising, its roots and the government’s response. Ms. Pelosi said discussions stalled as Republicans insisted on including unrelated groups and events, and that Democrats may be forced to conduct their own investigation through existing committees of the House if the GOP doesn’t drop demand would.

“Now we get this outrageous Orwellian revisionist story where Donald Trump says his most loyal followers walked in – literally he said he hugged and kissed the Capitol officers,” said Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland. “My colleagues should stop all the evasive maneuvers, distractions and distractions. Let’s find out what happened to us that day. “

Republicans involved in efforts to divert attention from the January 6 attack are merely arguing that they are pointing to the hypocrisy of the Democrats in investigating supporters of the former president, but not those in favor of movements on the left Orient the page. The subject was the focus of Ms. Cheney’s fall this week.

Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the top Republican in the House of Representatives, has insisted that the commission investigate the violence of the left, while Ms. Cheney publicly undercut him, arguing that they are closely focused on the January 6th events should.

“This kind of intense, narrow focus threatens people in my party who may have played roles they shouldn’t have,” Ms. Cheney said in an interview that aired on NBC Thursday.

Ms. Cheney may be referring to the fact that some Republicans were actively promoting Mr. Trump’s lie that his election had been stolen, urging their supporters to come to Washington on January 6 for a defiant final stand to address him to keep the power. Legislators linked guns to the organizers of the so-called Stop the Steal protest that preceded the uprising and used inflammatory language to describe the operations.

Republicans are also deeply concerned that an independent investigation will target their party negatively in the upcoming 2022 midterm elections. And many Republicans say they listen to their voters who want them to continue to stand with Mr. Trump and reject Mr. Biden’s victory as illegitimate.

Representative Adam Kinzinger, Republican of Illinois and a supporter of Ms. Cheney, said some sort of circular logic has taken hold of his party where Mr Trump makes false statements, his supporters believe them, and then Republican lawmakers who need support from those voters who are to be re-elected, they repeat.

“The reality is that you can’t blame people for believing the election was stolen because that’s all they hear from their leaders,” said Kinzinger. “It’s the job of executives to tell the truth even when it’s awkward, and we don’t.”

Instead, Republicans portray themselves and their supporters as victims of a Democratic plan to silence them for their beliefs.

Arizona Representative Paul Gosar, a leading Congressional proponent of the Stop the Steal movement, used his time at the hearing earlier this week to accuse the Justice Department of “molesting peaceful patriots across the country.”

“Open propaganda and lies are used to unleash the national security state against law-abiding US citizens, especially Trump voters,” he said.

Republican Jody B. Hice, Republican of Georgia, identified Trump loyalists as the real victims of the January 6 attack.

“It was Trump supporters who lost their lives that day,” he said, “not Trump supporters who took the lives of others.”

Nicholas Fandos contributed to the coverage.