January 6th hearings on Trump's failed insurrection.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A U.S. Capitol Police officer has been indicted on obstruction of justice charges after prosecutors say he helped to hide evidence of a rioter’s involvement in the Jan. 6 insurrection.

The officer, Michael A. Riley, is accused of tipping off someone who participated in the riot by telling them to remove posts from Facebook that had showed the person inside the Capitol during the Jan. 6 attack, according to court documents.

Riley, 50, appeared virtually in federal court in Washington and was released with several conditions, including that he surrender any firearms and not travel outside the U.S. without permission from a judge. He was ordered to return to court later this month.

Riley, who responded to a report of a pipe bomb on Jan. 6 and has been a Capitol Police officer for about 25 years, had sent the person a message telling them that he was an officer with the police force who “agrees with your political stance,” an indictment against him says.

The indictment spells out how Riley sent dozens of messages to the unidentified person, encouraging them to remove incriminating photos and videos and telling them how the FBI was investigating to identify rioters.

Riley’s attorney did not immediately respond to a reporter’s message seeking comment.

In a statement, U.S. Capitol Police Chief Tom Manger said the department learned of the investigation against Riley several weeks ago and placed him on administrative leave when he was arrested Friday. Manger called the indictment a “very serious allegation” and said the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility was also opening an internal investigation.

His arrest and the accusation that an active duty Capitol Police officer was trying to obstruct the investigation into the attack is particularly notable because many of his colleagues were brutally beaten in the insurrection. The riot left dozens of police officers bloodied and bruised as the crowd of pro-Trump rioters, some armed with pipes, bats and bear spray, charged into the Capitol, quickly overrunning the overwhelmed police force.

One officer was beaten and shocked with a stun gun repeatedly until he had a heart attack; another was foaming at the mouth and screaming for help as rioters crushed him between two doors and bashed him in the head with his own weapon.

More than 600 people face charges in the Jan. 6 attack, in which a mob loyal to then-President Donald Trump stormed the Capitol, battled police and tried to stop the certification of the election victory for President Joe Biden.

In the days after the attack, scores of rioters flaunted their participation in social media posts that bragged about their ability to get inside the Capitol. But then many started realizing it could be used as evidence and began deleting it.

An Associated Press review of court records has found that at least 49 defendants are accused of trying to erase incriminating photos, videos and texts from phones or social media accounts documenting their conduct as the pro-Trump mob stormed Congress and briefly interrupted the certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s election victory.

Experts say the efforts to scrub the social media accounts reveal a desperate willingness to manipulate evidence once these people realized they were in hot water. They say it can serve as powerful proof of people’s consciousness of guilt and can make it harder to negotiate plea deals and seek leniency at sentencing.

Riley told the rioter that the scene was a “total s---show.” “I’m glad you got out of there unscathed. We had over 50 officers hurt, some pretty bad,” the officer wrote, according to the complaint.

When the rioter said through messaging that he didn’t think he’d done anything wrong, Riley responded, according to court papers: “The only thing I can see is if you went into the building and they have proof you will be charged. You could always articulate that you had nowhere to go, but that’s for court.”

Later in January, after two had discussed their love of fishing, Riley told the man to get off social media.

“They’re arresting dozens of people a day,” he wrote, according to the posting. “Everyone that was in the building. Engaged in violent acts or destruction of property and they’re all being charged federally with felonies.”

Making digital content vanish isn’t as easy as deleting content from phones, removing social media posts or shutting down accounts. Investigators have been able to retrieve the digital content by requesting it from social media companies, even after accounts are shut down. Posts made on Facebook, Instagram and other social media platforms are recoverable for a certain period of time, and authorities routinely ask those companies to preserve the records until they get court orders to view the posts.

Despite initial criticism that Capitol police did not do enough to stop the rioters, Riley is the first Capitol police officer to be charged with a crime involving the insurrection.

But several current and former police officers were arrested on riot-related charges, including two Virginia police officers who posed for a photo during the attack. In July, authorities arrested an off-duty Drug Enforcement Administration agent accused of posing for photographs in which he flashed his DEA badge and firearm outside the Capitol during the riot.

Other law enforcement officers were investigated for their presence at the Capitol that day or at Trump’s rally before the riot. In January, an Associated Press survey of law enforcement agencies nationwide found that at least 31 officers in 12 states are being scrutinized by their supervisors for their behavior in the District of Columbia or face criminal charges for participating in the riot.

In September, Capitol Police said officials had recommended disciplinary action in six cases after an internal review of officer behavior stemming from the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. The department’s Office of Professional Responsibility had opened 38 internal investigations and was able to identify 26 of the officers involved, police said in a statement at the time. In 20 of the cases, no wrongdoing was found.

It isn’t clear whether Riley was among the officers who were referred for disciplinary action.

Click to expand...

According to a report from the Washington Post, the daughter of the founder of the Publix grocery store chain who helped finance the Jan 6th rally that turned into a riot at the Capitol, also spread more of her money to the nonprofit arm of the Republican Attorneys General Association to be used to promote the rally.

The report goes on to state that Julie Jenkins Fancelli's $150,000 contribution was " intended in part to promote the rally. The nonprofitorganization paid for a robocall touting a march that afternoon to the U.S. Capitol to 'call on Congress to stop the steal.'"

The revelation about the contribution comes as a House select committee is looking into the events of the day and Donald Trump's possible involvement as rioters forced lawmakers from both sides of the aisle to flee for their lives.

According to the new report, the wealthy Trump donor, "gave the previously undisclosed contribution to RAGA's nonprofit Rule of Law Defense Fund, or RLDF, records reviewed by The Washington Post show. On the same day, the records show that Fancelli gave $300,000 to Women for America First, the 'Stop the Steal' group that obtained a permit for the rally featuring former president Donald Trump."

The leaders of Women for America First have been subpoenaed by the committee and are being scrutinized for their part in possibly fomenting the riot and the revelation about the $150,000 donation will likely open up a new line of inquiry for investigators.

"We have many questions about coordination and funding, and we are actively seeking records and testimony that will answer those questions," said committee spokesman Tim Mulvey. "Many witnesses are already engaging with the committee, and we expect cooperation to help us get the answers we're seeking."

The Post notes that inquiries to Fancelli -- who is reportedly not involved in the family's business -- went unanswered and it is not known if she was aware exactly how the money would be spent.

You can read more here.

Click to expand...

WASHINGTON (AP) — Framed by the Capitol, President Joe Biden paid tribute Saturday to fallen law enforcement officers and honored those who fought off the Jan. 6 insurrection at that very site by declaring “because of you, democracy survived.”

Biden spoke at the 40th Annual National Peace Officers’ Memorial Service to remember the 491 law enforcement officers who died in the line of duty in 2019 and 2020. Standing where the violent mob tried to block his own ascension to the presidency, Biden singled out the 150 officers who were injured and the five who died in the attack’s aftermath.

“Nine months ago, your brothers and sisters thwarted an unconstitutional and fundamentally un-American attack on our nation’s values and our votes. Because of you, democracy survived,” Biden said. “Because of these men and women, we avoided a catastrophe, but their heroism came at a cost to you and your families.”

Hundreds of officers and their families sat on chairs assembled on the Capitol’s west front. Some in the audience dabbed their eyes as the president drew connections with their loss and his own history of grief, including the deaths of his first wife and two children, comparing it to “losing part of your soul.”

TOP STORIES
Gang with past abductions blamed for kidnapping missionaries
Bill Clinton released from Southern California hospital
Risky business: Some Capitol riot defendants forgo lawyers
Coast Guard: 1,200-foot ship dragged California oil pipeline

Biden also underscored the heavy burden placed on law enforcement officers, and rebuked the “defund the police” political movement, saying that those gathered before him would get “more resources, not fewer, so you can do your job.”

“We expect everything of you and it’s beyond the capacity of anyone to meet the total expectations,” Biden said. “Being a cop today is one hell of a lot harder than it’s ever been.”

Biden played up his working-class roots, noting that he had many childhood friends who went on to become police officers, and said he had spoken at the event many times before. But while Biden has throughout his political career sought to identify with the uniformed services, the organization that ran Saturday’s event, the National Fraternal Order of Police, endorsed Donald Trump in the 2020 election and many rank-and-file police officers supported the former president.

Biden’s efforts to pass a police overhaul bill to tighten practices after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis collapsed, with congressional negotiators announcing in September that talks had ended without an agreement. That was a setback for the Democratic president, who campaigned on the need for policing changes and had declared it an early priority.

Additionally, his agenda on gun violence has largely stalled and his initial pick to run the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives stepped aside in the face of staunch opposition. More recently, Biden has expressed hope that he can still sign a comprehensive police overhaul bill into law, while exploring more executive actions to help hold police officers accountable for breaking the law.

At the ceremony, Biden expressed concerns for all officers in the line of duty and mentioned the three constable deputies shot in an ambush early Saturday while working at a Houston bar. One deputy was killed.

Click to expand...

A defendant who admitted tasing Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Officer Michael Fanone during the Jan. 6 breach of the U.S. Capitol Complex has filed court papers that indicate he may seek to blame former president Donald Trump for what occurred. The documents also contain a 195-page transcript of an FBI interview where the defendant, who said he was a former Trump campaign volunteer, told agents he became radicalized by listening to InfoWars host Alex Jones.

Daniel Rodriguez is one of several defendants accused in the attack on Fanone. Rodriguez provided notice that he “may” assert a defense of “public authority.” That notice is a precursor to a possible argument at trial that he was acting “on behalf of” a “law enforcement agency or federal intelligence agency” when he stormed the Capitol and admittedly attacked Fanone. Thus, the documents tee up a possible defense but do not directly employ it.

Under federal procedural rules, Rodriguez’s notice was required to contain the following information:

(A) the law enforcement agency or federal intelligence agency involved;
(B) the agency member on whose behalf the defendant claims to have acted; and
(C) the time during which the defendant claims to have acted with public authority.

Click to expand...

Accordingly, Rodriguez’s public defenders answered as follows:

(A) “The Executive Branch,”
(B) “Former President Donald Trump,” and
(C) the date of Jan. 6, 2021.

Click to expand...

The defense lawyers also launched into a brief bit of advocacy involving the relevant law.

“t offends due process to convict an individual who was acting upon authorization of a government official,” Rodriguez’s counsel argued while addressing the relevant rule of criminal procedure at play (Rule 12.3, for those keeping track) and attempting to simultaneously link Trump to the siege. They then briefly cited the relevant case law:

The genesis of the authority defense is the decision in United States v. Barker, 546 F. 2d 940 (D.C. Cir. 1976).
In United States v. Barker, defendants were recruited to participate in a national security operation led by a White House official, whom the defendants had previously known as a CIA agent. Barker, 546 F.2d at 949. In reversing the defendants’ convictions, the appellate court carved out an exception to the mistake of law rule that would allow exoneration of a defendant who relied on authority. Id. at 947-49.

Click to expand...

The defense noted that it was unclear in the Washington, D.C. Circuit how the “public authority” defense tactic may play out. The defense said it wished to at least assert the possible strategy “out of an abundance of caution” at this stage in the proceedings just in case they chose to pursue it.

The Defendant’s Purported Confession

A 195-page transcript of law enforcement interviews with Rodriguez indicates that the defendant confessed to tasing Fanone. His attorneys want the admission thrown out of court.

“I just came up to the steps again, and I saw them pulling him out, and I tased him,” Rodriguez said of the tug-of-war that left the D.C. officer (who, mind you, voted for Trump himself) fearing for his life.

Fanone was “dragged down the Capitol’s marble stairs, beaten with pipes and poles, tear-gassed and stun-gunned,” Time reported. He pleaded for his life when the crowd “threatened to shoot him with his own gun, telling the rioters he had kids.”

The officer suffered a mild heart attack allegedly triggered by Rodriguez’s stun gun, the Washington Post reported. He was knocked unconsciousbut survived to testify before Congress.


The transcripts reveal how the FBI pressed Rodriguez about what happened:

Q. How many times did you tase him?
A. Oh, just once.
Q. Where’d you tase him at? Like, on his body? Where?
A. Neck.
Q. In the neck? Did you do it twice?
A. No. No, for sure —
Q. Because the video shows it twice.
A. No. No. The video — if the video shows it twice, it’s a replay or something.

Click to expand...

The defendant eventually called his own critical thinking skills into question when pressed further:

Q. The disparity is in between your story and what happened to Officer Fanone and what’s on video. I can show you the video of you tasering him twice.
A. It was not twice.
Q. I’ll show it to you in just a minute.
A. Show it to me, please.
Q. I will. But the disparity between what you’re saying happened, describing, oh, I’m such a benevolent man coming up to a poor officer who’s struggling to keep — to survive, thinking he’s going to die. Let me help him out. Let me taser him. Is that really the story you want to be written about you? Is that in all of my benevolence, I decided I was going to taser this man who is struggling for his life in that moment and thinking he’s going to die. Four daughters.
A. No. I wasn’t trying to kill him. I didn’t want him to die.
Q. Then, tell us what happened. Don’t leave the story be this crappy story that you’re telling us right now, that you were just there to help him and taser him.
A. No, I wasn’t — I was —
Q. Danny.
A. I’m not smart.
Q. Think about your mom.
A. No. I’m just not smart. I’m not lying to you guys. I’m not lying (indiscernible).

Click to expand...

Elsewhere, Rodriguez suggested that listening to InfoWars helped push him over the edge:

Q: What happened in your life? Like, how did you start going to these rallies?
A. InfoWars.
Q. InfoWars? So, like, Alex Jones stuff?

Click to expand...

He expounded later in a veritable monologue:

I’m so sorry. I’m so sorry. I didn’t know that we were doing the wrong thing. I thought we were doing the fucking right thing. I thought we were going to be — I’m so stupid. I thought I was going to be awesome. I thought I was a good guy. I wanted to — you know, my whole life, I’ve been, oh, fuck the police. I really have.

Click to expand...

And I started to be — I got involved — I came back from Arizona and I lived here and I — I came back home to California and I got involved with some of the — some bad people, some gang members and I start — I wanted to grow weed. I was growing weed. I got involved with the wrong people. I’m telling you, like, people — killers, like, tattoos all over their face, like, not good people.

Click to expand...

And I was growing weed with them and I was like, yeah, this is cool. They all got low riders and this and that, and I was like, oh, this is that lifestyle that’s for me. But it wasn’t. I didn’t fit in. I’m a good person trying to — and I wanted to be a bad person, and it just didn’t work for me. And I kept getting robbed and they kept taking from me.

Click to expand...

And then Trump — and I was listening to InfoWars and I was, like, getting patriotic and I was — and I ended up leaving all those people behind me and I ended up being homeless.

[ . . . ]

Click to expand...

I was homeless and I went — and I called my mom and I told her I needed somewhere to stay. I needed to come back home and move in. And I was already — Trump was already, like — this is 2015, and I was already into InfoWars and Alex Jones, and he’s backing up Trump. And I’m like, all right, man. This is it. I’m going to — this is — I’m going to fight for this. I’m going to do — I want to do this.

Click to expand...

Rodriguez elsewhere said he campaigned for Trump in the Whittier, Calif. area by manning telephones and going door to door.

The 195-page transcript was filed in court by Rodriguez’s own attorneys. They’re arguing that the FBI didn’t read Rodriguez his Miranda rights when they initially questioned him and that the FBI botched reading Rodriguez his rights when they finally chose to do so.

Rodriguez is charged with the following: one count of impeding, obstructing, or interfering with a law enforcement officer during the commission of a of civil disorder that obstructs an official proceeding; one count of assaulting a federal officer with a dangerous weapon; one count of theft of government property; one count of destruction of government property; and three slightly separate iterations of knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building without lawful authority.

Click to expand...

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former President Donald Trump on Monday sought to block the release of documents related to the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection to a congressional committee investigating the attack, challenging President Joe Biden’s initial decision to waive executive privilege.

In a federal lawsuit, Trump said the committee’s request was “almost limitless in scope,” and sought records with no reasonable connection to that day. He called it a “vexatious, illegal fishing expedition” that was “untethered from any legitimate legislative purpose,” according to the papers filed in federal court in the District of Columbia.

Trump’s lawsuit was expected, as he had said he would challenge the investigation and at least one ally, Steve Bannon, has defied a subpoena. But the legal challenge went beyond the initial 125 pages of records that Biden recently cleared for release to the committee. The suit, which names the committee as well as the National Archives, seeks to invalidate the entirety of the congressional request, calling it overly broad, unduly burdensome and a challenge to separation of powers. It requests a court injunction to bar the archivist from producing the documents.

The Biden administration, in clearing the documents for release, said the violent siege of the Capitol was such an extraordinary circumstance that it merited waiving the privilege that usually protects White House communications.

In a letter obtained by The Associated Press, the White House worked to undercut Bannon’s argument before a scheduled committee vote on whether to recommend criminal contempt charges against him. Bannon is a onetime White House adviser who left the administration years before the insurrection.

Deputy Counsel Jonathan Su wrote that the president’s decision on the documents applied to Bannon, too, and “at this point we are not aware of any basis for your client’s refusal to appear for a deposition.”

“President Biden’s determination that an assertion of privilege is not justified with respect to these subjects applies to your client’s deposition testimony and to any documents your client may possess concerning either subject,” Su wrote to Bannon’s lawyer.

Bannon’s attorney said he had not yet seen the letter and could not comment on it. While Bannon has said he needs a court order before complying with his subpoena, former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and former White House and Pentagon aide Kashyap Patel are negotiating with the committee. It is unclear whether a fourth former White House aide, Dan Scavino, will comply.

The committee has also subpoenaed more than a dozen people who helped plan Trump rallies ahead of the siege, and some of them have already said they would turn over documents and give testimony.

Lawmakers want the documents as part of their investigation into how a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol building on Jan. 6 in a violent effort to halt the certification of Biden’s election win. The committee demanded a broad range of executive branch papers related to intelligence gathered before the attack, security preparations during and before the siege, the pro-Trump rallies held that day and Trump’s false claims that he won the election, among other matters.

Trump’s lawsuit says the “boundless requests included over fifty individual requests for documents and information, and mentioned more than thirty individuals, including those working inside and outside government.”

The files must be withheld, the lawsuit says, because they could include “conversations with (or about) foreign leaders, attorney work product, the most sensitive of national security secrets, along with any and all privileged communications among a pool of potentially hundreds of people.”

The suit also challenges the legality of the Presidential Records Act, arguing that allowing an incumbent president to waive executive privilege of a predecessor just months after they left office is inherently unconstitutional. Biden has said he would go through each request separately to determine whether that privilege should be waived.

While not spelled out in the Constitution, executive privilege has developed to protect a president’s ability to obtain candid counsel from his advisers without fear of immediate public disclosure and to protect his confidential communications relating to official responsibilities.

But that privilege has its limitations in extraordinary situations, as exemplified during the Watergate scandal, when the Supreme Court ruled it could not be used to shield the release of secret Oval Office tapes sought in a criminal inquiry, and following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Monday’s lawsuit was filed by Jesse Binnall, an attorney based in Alexandria, Virginia, who represented Trump in an unsuccessful lawsuit late last year seeking to overturn Biden’s victory in Nevada. Trump and his allies have continued to make baseless claims about voter fraud in the 2020 election.

Trump’s suit quotes from the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling in a case by House committees seeking the then-sitting president’s tax returns and other financial records. But that case involved courts enforcing a congressional subpoena. The high court in that case directed lower courts t o apply a balancing test to determine whether to turn over the records — it’s still pending.

Neither the White House nor the select committee had an immediate comment.

Click to expand...

hanimmal said:

1. I am not sure if Trump appointed a troll to the national archives (or if he could), so I do think it will be interesting to see how this turns out.

2. Couldn't Biden (the actual POTUS) just request the documents himself, declassify them, and upload them for the world to see, bypassing the courts altogether on this? Why allow Trump (twice impeached ex-POTUS) to troll our democracy any longer than necessary?

https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-joe-biden-lawsuits-734dc2a47d3875cc844456073e93cedc
View attachment 5012360

Click to expand...

CunningCanuk said:

This is to slow the process down. Even trump knows former presidents can’t claim executive privilege.

Click to expand...

WASHINGTON (AP) — A House committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection voted unanimously Tuesday to hold former White House aide Steve Bannon in contempt of Congress after the longtime ally of former President Donald Trump defied a subpoena for documents and testimony.

Still defending his supporters who broke into the Capitol that day, Trump has aggressively tried to block the committee’s work by directing Bannon and others not to answer questions in the probe. Trump has also filed a lawsuit to try to prevent Congress from obtaining former White House documents.

But lawmakers have made clear they will not back down as they gather facts and testimony about the attack involving Trump’s supporters that left dozens of police officers injured, sent lawmakers running for their lives and interrupted the certification of President Joe Biden’s victory.

The committee’s chairman, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said Tuesday that Bannon “stands alone in his complete defiance of our subpoena” and the panel will not take no for an answer.

He said that while Bannon may be “willing to be a martyr to the disgraceful cause of whitewashing what happened on January 6th — of demonstrating his complete loyalty to the former President,” the contempt vote is a warning to other witnesses.

“We won’t be deterred. We won’t be distracted. And we won’t be delayed,” Thompson added.

The Tuesday evening vote sends the contempt resolution to the full House, which is expected to vote on the measure Thursday. House approval would send the matter to the Justice Department, which would then decide whether to pursue criminal charges against Bannon.

The contempt resolution asserts that the former Trump aide and podcast host has no legal standing to rebuff the committee — even as Trump’s lawyer has argued that Bannon should not disclose information because it is protected by the privilege of the former president’s office. The committee noted that Bannon, fired from his White House job in 2017, was a private citizen when he spoke to Trump ahead of the attack. And Trump has not asserted any such executive privilege claims to the panel itself, lawmakers said.

Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney, one of just two Republicans on the committee, said: “Mr. Bannon’s and Mr. Trump’s privilege arguments do appear to reveal one thing, however: They suggest that President Trump was personally involved in the planning and execution of January 6th. And we will get to the bottom of that.”

The committee says it is pursuing Bannon’s testimony because of his apparent role in the events of Jan. 6, including his communications with Trump ahead of the siege, his efforts to get the former president to focus on Jan. 6, the day Congress certified the presidential vote, and his comments on Jan. 5 that “all hell is going to break loose” the next day.

Bannon “appears to have had multiple roles relevant to this investigation, including his role in constructing and participating in the ‘stop the steal’ public relations effort that motivated the attack” and “his efforts to plan political and other activity in advance of January 6th,” the committee wrote in the resolution recommending contempt.

The Biden White House has rejected Bannon’s claims, with Deputy Counsel Jonathan Su writing Bannon’s lawyer this week to say that “at this point we are not aware of any basis for your client’s refusal to appear for a deposition.” Biden’s judgment that executive privilege is not justified, Su wrote, “applies to your client’s deposition testimony and to any documents your client may possess.”

Asked last week if the Justice Department should prosecute those who refuse to testify, Biden said yes. But the Justice Department quickly pushed back, with a spokesman saying the department would make its own decisions.

While Bannon has said he needs a court order before complying with his subpoena, former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and former White House and Pentagon aide Kashyap Patel have been negotiating with the committee. It is unclear whether a fourth former White House aide, Dan Scavino, will comply.

Full Coverage: Capitol siege

The committee has also subpoenaed more than a dozen people who helped plan Trump rallies ahead of the siege, and some of them are already turning over documents and giving testimony.

The vote came a day after Trump sued the committee and the National Archives to fight the release of documents the committee has requested. Trump’s lawsuit, filed after Biden said he’d allow the documents’ release, claims that the panel’s August request was overly broad and a “vexatious, illegal fishing expedition.” Trump’s suit seeks to invalidate the entirety of the congressional request, calling it overly broad, unduly burdensome and a challenge to separation of powers. It requests a court injunction to bar the archivist from producing the documents.

The Biden administration, in clearing the documents for release, said the violent siege of the Capitol more than nine months ago was such an extraordinary circumstance that it merited waiving the privilege that usually protects White House communications.

Click to expand...

printer said:

Trump calls Liz Cheney a 'smug fool'
“Low-polling Liz Cheney (19%) is actually very bad news for the Democrats, people absolutely cannot stand her as she fights for the people that have decimated her and her father for many years,” Trump said of the Wyoming Republican, who voted to impeach Trump and serves as vice chair of the Jan. 6 panel investigating the Capitol riot.

“She is a smug fool, and the great State of Wyoming, together with the Republican Party, fully understands her act. To look at her is to despise her,” Trump continued. “Hopefully she will continue down this unsustainable path and she will soon be gone!”

Trump calls Liz Cheney a ‘smug fool’

Former President Trump on Wednesday called Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) a “smug fool” after she pressed the House to back a criminal contempt vote against former White House aide Stephen Bannon.&n…

thehill.com

Can't stand not being the center of attention.

Click to expand...

BudmanTX said:

course the orange avenger has to be in there somewhere

Click to expand...