Ten people were injured Friday morning when a bridge that carries
Forbes Avenue over Frick Park in Pittsburgh collapsed, officials said,
with six vehicles including a Port Authority bus left stranded in the
twisted mess of a bridge that had been listed in poor condition for the
past decade.
Three people were transported to a hospital with non-life-threatening
injuries, Pittsburgh fire Chief Darryl Jones said. A fourth person —
one of the two passengers on the bus — was taken to a hospital about two
hours after the crash, Port Authority spokesperson Adam Brandolph
said. UPMC said in a statement that all four were in fair condition.
“We were fortunate” that no one was killed, Pittsburgh Mayor Ed Gainey
said Friday morning from the scene of the collapse, where he was joined
by Allegheny County Executive Rich Fitzgerald and Pennsylvania Lt. Gov
John Fetterman, among others.
Editor’s note: The omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, has fueled a rapid surge in cases globally.
We asked a team of virologists and immunologists from the University of
Colorado Boulder to weigh in on some of the pressing questions that
people are asking about the new variant.
Beth Dalye Editor and General Manager
How is omicron different from previous variants?
There are two key differences between omicron and previous variants
of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that emerged in late 2019. Early data suggests
that omicron cases are milder
than infections caused by the delta variant. On the flip side, omicron
is far more transmissible – meaning it spreads easier – than previous
variants. It can be confusing to think about the overall effects of a
milder virus that is also far more infectious.
It’s difficult to put numbers around how intrinsically more
transmissible one variant is than another, because human behaviors and
vaccination percentages are constantly in flux. Those factors, together
with transmissibility, affect how a virus fares in a population.
In comparison with the original strain of SARS-CoV-2, omicron contains 72 mutations
throughout its genome. Some of these mutations account for the complex
new features that characterize this variant. Half of those changes are
in the spike protein, the critical surface protein that enables the
virus to latch on and infect cells. It is also the key virus feature
that is recognized by the human immune system.
Why is omicron spreading so quickly?
Initial studies suggest that omicron is more effective at reproducing in the upper airways, including the nose, throat and mouth,
than earlier variants, making it more similar to a common cold virus.
If data from these preliminary studies holds up, then it may help
explain omicron’s high transmissibility: Viruses replicating in the
upper airways may spread more easily, although the reasons for this are not completely understood.
In addition, omicron is often able to evade existing immunity
long enough to start an infection, cause symptoms and transmit onward
to the next person. This explains why reinfections and vaccine breakthrough infections seem to be more common with omicron.
Those properties, and the timing of this variant emerging during the
holiday season, resulted in the extraordinary surge in COVID-19
infections in the U.S. Add in wintertime – which brought people indoors –
along with pandemic fatigue, and you have the perfect storm for rapid transmission.
The good news is that vaccination and vaccine boosters nevertheless provide good protection
against severe disease and hospitalization. But given the current
number of cases, that still means a lot of illnesses, hospitalizations
and deaths in the weeks to come.
There are two key differences between omicron and previous variants
of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that emerged in late 2019. Early data suggests
that omicron cases are milder
than infections caused by the delta variant. On the flip side, omicron
is far more transmissible – meaning it spreads easier – than previous
variants. It can be confusing to think about the overall effects of a
milder virus that is also far more infectious.
It’s difficult to put numbers around how intrinsically more
transmissible one variant is than another, because human behaviors and
vaccination percentages are constantly in flux. Those factors, together
with transmissibility, affect how a virus fares in a population.
Understand new developments in science, health and technology, each week
In comparison with the original strain of SARS-CoV-2, omicron contains 72 mutations
throughout its genome. Some of these mutations account for the complex
new features that characterize this variant. Half of those changes are
in the spike protein, the critical surface protein that enables the
virus to latch on and infect cells. It is also the key virus feature
that is recognized by the human immune system.
Why is omicron spreading so quickly?
Initial studies suggest that omicron is more effective at reproducing in the upper airways, including the nose, throat and mouth,
than earlier variants, making it more similar to a common cold virus.
If data from these preliminary studies holds up, then it may help
explain omicron’s high transmissibility: Viruses replicating in the
upper airways may spread more easily, although the reasons for this are not completely understood.
In addition, omicron is often able to evade existing immunity
long enough to start an infection, cause symptoms and transmit onward
to the next person. This explains why reinfections and vaccine breakthrough infections seem to be more common with omicron.
Those properties, and the timing of this variant emerging during the
holiday season, resulted in the extraordinary surge in COVID-19
infections in the U.S. Add in wintertime – which brought people indoors –
along with pandemic fatigue, and you have the perfect storm for rapid transmission.
The good news is that vaccination and vaccine boosters nevertheless provide good protection
against severe disease and hospitalization. But given the current
number of cases, that still means a lot of illnesses, hospitalizations
and deaths in the weeks to come.
Could omicron move the population closer to herd immunity?
Herd immunity
occurs when enough people have immunity to a virus that it no longer
spreads well. It is only possible when two conditions are met. First, a
large fraction of the population must be vaccinated or recovered from
prior infection. Second, vaccination or prior infection must confer
enough immunity to block or slow future infections. Will vaccination
campaigns, combined with widespread omicron infection, be enough to
bring herd immunity?
Three issues complicate the hope of achieving a long-term herd
immunity after omicron. The first is that immunity naturally wanes over
time, regardless of whether it comes from a vaccine or prior infection.
It is not yet clear how long after infection or vaccination immunity to
this virus lasts, since SARS-CoV-2 has been infecting humans for only
two years. Eventually, controlled studies will be able to determine
this.
Second, children younger than age 5 are not yet eligible for COVID-19
vaccines, and new susceptible children are born every day. So, until
all age groups are eligible for vaccination, there will likely be
ongoing transmission in kids.
And third, we can’t rule out that new variants could escape existing immunity. As omicron has shown, infection with one variant doesn’t guarantee protection against infection by future variants.
Together, these three factors suggest that even if a large enough
fraction of the population recovers from omicron, long-term herd
immunity is unlikely. These are the same reasons that humans never
achieve long-lasting herd immunity to influenza and have to get a new
flu vaccine each year.
It’s important to remember that, with all variants to date, most of the people who are hospitalized for COVID-19 are unvaccinated. This shows that vaccines are an effective tool for reducing disease severity and can be beneficial even against new variants.
Where do new variants like omicron come from?
When viruses make more copies of themselves inside of human cells,
they make mistakes in that process – mutations – that alter their
genetic code. Most of these mutations will not be beneficial to the
virus. However, in some instances, a virus hits on a jackpot of one or
more beneficial mutations that fuel its spread through a population. The
alpha variant possessed some mutations in the spike protein that made
it easier for viruses to infect cells. The delta variant had additional mutations that improved viral spread.
Omicron, with its staggering number of mutations, is a true oddity.
It’s rare for a coronavirus to rapidly accumulate so many mutations in
its genome.
The origins of omicron are still poorly understood. One prevailing
theory is that an immunocompromised person was infected with a
coronavirus for an extended period of time, leading to accelerated viral evolution. Another theory
speculates that omicron could have evolved in another animal species
and then reinfected humans. Alternatively, omicron could have evolved
gradually in a location with poor sequencing surveillance.
There is still much more that needs to be understood about the factors
that led to the emergence of this highly mutated variant.
Could omicron mutate to become more deadly?
The variants that have risen to prominence have done so because they
contain advantageous mutations for the coronavirus. We are essentially
witnessing Darwinian evolution – survival of the fittest – in real time.
Variants with beneficial mutations, such as those providing escape from
antibodies or shorter incubation periods, are rapidly displacing their
less fit predecessors.
The most important thing to remember about virus evolution is that
natural selection favors variants that spread better than other
variants. The great news is that more pathogenic – or dangerous –
variants are less likely to spread well. This is because individuals who
feel particularly sick tend to naturally self-isolate, reducing the
virus’s chance to transmit.
Also good news is that, because infection with one variant provides partial immunity to others, omicron’s rapid spread has brought on delta’s swift decline.
At this point it is expected that all new variants that spread widely – so-called variants of concern – will continue to be highly transmissible.
What about the buzz around ‘deltacron’ and ‘flurona’?
In early January 2022, researchers in Cyprus reported cases of COVID-19 infections containing sequences of both omicron and delta, dubbed “deltacron.” However, other scientists are speculating that this is nothing more than a laboratory contaminant
– an omicron sample contaminated with delta. While more details are
needed, as of now, there is not cause for alarm over this possible
hybrid because it has not been commonly observed.
And in recent weeks the term “flurona” has surfaced,
referring to an individual who is infected with both influenza virus
and a coronavirus at the same time. While rare, such situations do
happen, and it’s important that you reduce your risk by receiving both
the influenza and COVID-19 vaccines. But it’s important to note that
flurona is not a new combination of the flu and coronavirus genomes,
making this term a bit of a misnomer.
Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas) last year left little doubt why she was
voting against a $1-trillion bipartisan infrastructure measure, calling
it nothing more than a "socialist plan full of crushing taxes and
radical spending.”
Yet, when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
announced on Wednesday that very same infrastructure bill would be
funding a $403-million flood control project in her district in the Fort
Worth area, Granger wasted no time in hailing the effort.
“This
is a great day for Fort Worth," she said in a statement. She did not
mention where the Army Corps was getting the money but thanked the
agency for its "hard work and tireless commitment" to making her
community safer.
President
Biden and lawmakers who supported the bipartisan infrastructure plan
are expected to highlight its benefits on the campaign trail.
Republicans who fiercely fought the measure are praising projects it is
funding in their districts and states. (Associated Press)
Rep.
Kay Granger (R-Texas) last year left little doubt why she was voting
against a $1-trillion bipartisan infrastructure measure, calling it
nothing more than a "socialist plan full of crushing taxes and radical
spending.”
Yet, when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced on
Wednesday that very same infrastructure bill would be funding a
$403-million flood control project in her district in the Fort Worth
area, Granger wasted no time in hailing the effort.
“This is a
great day for Fort Worth," she said in a statement. She did not mention
where the Army Corps was getting the money but thanked the agency for
its "hard work and tireless commitment" to making her community safer.
Granger
is not the only Republican cheering on projects generated by a bill
that she voted to kill. In recent days, at least four other Republican
members of Congress have praised initiatives made possible by the
infrastructure law they opposed. Political analysts say they are not
likely to be the last.
"Infrastructure remains a relatively
nonpartisan issue, so even though those lawmakers may have not voted for
the bill, they still have to answer to their constituents, and they
want to align themselves with things that are popular," said Cynthia Peacock, a professor of political communications at the University of Alabama.
The
law, which passed Congress in November, drew bipartisan support.
Nineteen Senate Republicans, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell
of Kentucky, voted with Democrats to approve the bill. In the House of
Representatives, only 13 Republicans supported it.
The White House
and the measure's backers say it will create thousands of jobs, address
a backlog of neglected infrastructure projects and create an electric
vehicle charging network across the nation.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield) fought the
legislation, as did former President Trump. They encouraged Republican
lawmakers to block the bill, insisting it was bad policy and
inextricably linked to a larger Democratic social spending package, an
initiative that has stalled in the Senate.
If Democrats "brought
just an infrastructure bill by itself up, you would find,
overwhelmingly, Republicans want to work with you and get one through,”
McCarthy said in October. “But what they want to do is restructure and
transform America.”
Democrats and Republicans who supported the
measure are expected to promote its benefits on the campaign trail ahead
of the midterm elections. That has put Republicans who voted against
the package — and its popular components — in a bind, especially as the
government is expected to announce more projects in coming months.
Among
the Republicans who bashed the law but are taking credit for its
initiatives in recent weeks are two lawmakers representing Louisiana:
Rep. Steve Scalise, the House minority whip, and Rep. Clay Higgins,
whose district spans the southern part of the Bayou State.
Scalise, in a news release, highlighted $400 million in initiatives (made possible by the law) that mitigate flooding.
Higgins similarly applauded more than $190 million in funding for waterway projects in his district.
In
a statement last week, Higgins was upfront about his opposition to "the
infrastructure bill in its totality based on unwavering principle,"
though he admitted "there are certain elements within the bill that my
office fully supports."
A spokeswoman for Scalise said in a statement that the congressman has long promoted funding for projects in his district.
"It’s
unfortunate that Democrats decided to play politics with
infrastructure," the statement said, "and instead loaded their bill with
unrelated liberal agenda items."
Granger, the Texas Republican
who commended the Army Corps of Engineers for addressing flooding
problems, defended her vote against the legislation, saying she "wasn't
against this project."
"I was against some of the other parts of that bill," Granger said in a Thursday news conference.
A representative for Granger did not return emails seeking comment.
Douglas
Heye, a former spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said it
is common for lawmakers to oppose bills likely to pass even if it funds
much-needed projects in their districts.
Lawmakers "may want to
vote against the broader bill they think is too big despite supporting
specific projects that benefit their districts," Heye said.
Such tap-dancing has generated criticism.
When
Rep. Ashley Hinson (R-Iowa) tweeted that she had helped secure millions
in funding to upgrade dams along the Mississippi River, she quickly
found herself in the social media crosshairs of Democrats.
“Tell
the truth @RepAshleyHinson — you didn’t vote for this bill. You voted
for a dam collapse. If you had your way your neighbors would be
underwater," Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) tweeted. "Thankfully,
@HouseDemocrats passed this bill and we did your dam job. Give me a
break."
“That fucking guy Jim Jordan. That son of a bitch,” Liz Cheney, a Republican congresswoman from Wyoming, told the chairman of the joint chiefs, Gen Mark Milley, about the Republican congressman from Ohio, according to I Alone Can Fix It, by Washington Post reporters Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker.
“While
these maniacs are going through the place,” said Cheney, about the
insurrection at the Capitol on 6 January, “I’m standing in the aisle and
he said, ‘We need to get the ladies away from the aisle. Let me help
you.’ I smacked his hand away and told him, ‘Get away from me. You
fucking did this.’”
When the House Republican
leader, Kevin McCarthy, a congressman from California, named Jordan and
Jim Banks, of Indiana, both of whom challenged the legitimacy of Joe
Biden’s victory, to join the 13-member select committee on the Capitol
insurrection, Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected the two men.
“With
respect for the integrity of the investigation, with an insistence on
the truth and with concern about statements made and actions taken by
these members, I must reject the recommendations of Representatives
Banks and Jordan to the select committee,” Pelosi stated.
Jordan had said: “Americans instinctively know there was something wrong with this election.”
Banks had questioned
“the legality of some votes cast in the 2020 election” and charged:
“Make no mistake, Nancy Pelosi created this committee solely to malign
conservatives and to justify the left’s authoritarian agenda.”
McCarthy responded by withdrawing all of his five Republicans from participation in the investigation.
Jim
Jordan is a wiry, hyperactive bundle of nerves who tosses off his suit
jacket, coiled to leap into the ring and twist the arms of his
opponents. The former college wrestling champion in the 134lb class
represents the locker-room jock culture in the House of Representatives,
snapping his towel in committee hearings to show off his primacy as an
alpha big man on campus. Jordan’s political moves are drawn from his
wrestling repertoire: the leg shot, the half-nelson and the slam.
From
1987 to 1995, Jordan was an assistant wrestling coach at the Ohio State
University, where many athletes claim he knew about and turned a blind
eye to Dr Richard Strauss’s sexual abuse of at least 177 students.
Jordan has denied that he engaged in a cover-up. One of the abused
wrestlers, Mark Coleman, who was a close friend and roommate of Jordan
and became an Ultimate Fighting Champion, told the Wall Street Journal (in comments he would later retract):
“There’s no way unless he’s got dementia or something that he’s got no
recollection of what was going on at Ohio State.” Another abused
wrestler, Dunyasha Yetts, said:
“If Jordan says he didn’t know about it then he’s lying.” Jordan
refused to cooperate with the university’s investigation: goodbye,
Columbus.
The report
on the abuse, issued in 2019 by the law firm hired by OSU to conduct
the investigation, Perkins Coie, concluded that Strauss’s predatory
sexual behavior was an “open secret”, according to students, and that
“coaches, trainers and other team physicians were fully aware of
Strauss’ activities, and yet few seemed inclined to do anything to stop
it.” (Strauss killed himself in 2005.)
At a
hearing held by the Ohio state legislature’s civil justice committee, in
February 2020, Adam DiSabato, an OSU wrestling champion, testified
that Jordan tried to get him to persuade his brother, another OSU
wrestler, Mike DiSabato, who was a whistleblower about the abuse, to
withdraw his statement. Every year as assistant coach, Jordan awarded a
“King of Sauna” certificate to the wrestler “who talked the most smack”,
reported
the Columbus Dispatch. According to Mike DiSabato, Jordan was in the
sauna daily, where much of the sexual molestation took place. “Jim
Jordan called me crying, crying, groveling, on the Fourth of July …
begging me to go against my brother, begging me, crying for half an
hour,” Adam DiSabato said at the hearing. “That’s the kind of cover-up
that’s going on here. He’s a coward. He’s a coward.”
After
serving in the Ohio legislature, Jordan entered national politics in
the interregnum of rightwing extremism between the fall of Newt Gingrich
and the rise of the Tea Party. He was elected to the House in 2006,
during a midterm Democratic sweep that put them into the majority, but
the backbencher vaulted suddenly into prominence when the Republicans
captured the House in the reaction to the Obama administration in 2010.
Elected by the emboldened conservative faction to head the Republican
Study Group, he sought to trip up the Republican speaker of the House,
John Boehner, eventually forcing the federal government shutdown of
2013, which Boehner denounced as “fucking stupid”.
Jordan
founded the House Freedom Caucus, more radical than the Republican
Study Group, to push Boehner out. “Anarchists,” Boehner called
them. “They want total chaos.” He singled out Jordan as “a legislative
terrorist”. Boehner quit under the pressure in 2015. In an interview
with CBS about his memoir published this year, On the House, Boehner remarked
about Jordan: “I just never saw a guy who spent more time tearing
things apart – never building anything, never putting anything
together.”
Liz Cheney, who Pelosi has appointed
to the select committee, and was stripped of her position as chair of
the House Republican Conference in an effort led by Jordan, said McCarthy named Jordan to the committee in order to sabotage it.
“At
every opportunity, the minority leader has attempted to prevent the
American people from understanding what happened, to block this
investigation,” she stated. Jordan, she pointed out, could also not
serve on the committee because he “may well be a material witness to
events that led to that day, that led to 6 January”.
The
questions that Jordan may be asked if he were to testify would cover
his knowledge and involvement in the planning, organization and funding
of the insurrection, as well as his participation in the concerted
effort to prevent the constitutional certification of the presidential
election and the propagation of Trump’s “big lie” that the election was a
fraud and stolen.
1) On 20 October, Jim Jordan tweeted:
“Democrats are trying to steal the election, before the election.” He
objected to the Pennsylvania supreme court’s decision to allow the
counting of ballots postmarked on or before but received up to three
days after election day, as an attempt “to steal the election”.
(Pennsylvania never did count those ballots in determining certification
of Biden as the winner of the state and the total votes affected by the
procedure were minuscule compared with the margin of victory.)
What
does Jordan know about the creation of the “stop the steal” myth? Were
his statements about a fraudulent election and attacking the
Pennsylvania supreme court for its role in “stealing the election” made
in coordination with anyone at the White House or known to them in
advance? If he got marching orders, where did he get them from?
2) Two
days after the election, Jordan was a speaker of a “Stop the Steal”
rally in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, before the state capitol. The rally
was organized by Scott Presler,
a former field director for the Virginia Republican party, speaker at
the 2020 Conservative Political Action Conference, and activist for ACT
for America, cited by the Anti-Defamation League as an anti-Muslim hate group and labeled an “extremist hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
“The private Facebook page used to organize the
events was full of extreme anti-Muslim and white nationalist rhetoric
and went unpoliced despite the fact that new ACT hire Scott Presler was
an administrator for the group,” the SPLC reported.
Presler
mobilized support for the 6 January “Stop the Steal” rally. “I will
100% be in DC on January 6th to support President Trump. Who’s going?”
he posted on his Facebook page on 22 December. He tweeted a video showing his presence in the crowd on 6 January before the Capitol.
Who
funded the Harrisburg rally? What is Jordan’s relationship to Scott
Presler? What are the communications between Jordan, his staff and
Presler?
3) On 11 January, the
same day an article of impeachment was filed in the House against
Donald Trump for “incitement of insurrection”, Trump awarded Jordan the Presidential Medal of Freedom in a closed ceremony at the White House.
The
White House cited his defense of Trump in the investigation conducted
by the former FBI director Robert Mueller into Russian influence to
elect Trump in the 2016 campaign and in the first impeachment of Trump
for seeking to bribe the government of Ukraine in exchange for
fabricated political dirt about Joe Biden.
Jordan was being honored, according to the White House statement,
because he had “worked to unmask the Russia hoax and take on deep state
corruption – confronting senior justice department officials for
obstructing Congress and exposing the fraudulent origins of the Russia
collusion lie”, and had “led the effort to confront the impeachment
witch hunt”.
What conversations did Jordan have at the ceremony with Trump or others about overturning the election and how to defend Trump?
4) On 18 November, Jordan called
on Congress to investigate the election “amid troubling reports of
irregularities and improprieties” – though he presented no factual
evidence. On 4 December, Jordan tweeted:
“Over 50 million Americans think this election was stolen. That’s more
than one third of the electorate. For that reason alone, we owe it to
the country to investigate election integrity.”
During an interview with CNN on 7 December, Jordan was asked whether Trump should concede the election.
“No.
No way, no way, no way,” he replied. He claimed there were “all kinds
of crazy things happening in Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, all these in
Nevada.” He stated no facts. During an interview on Fox News on 9
December, Jordan said:
“I don’t know how you can ever convince me that President Trump didn’t
actually win this thing based on all the things you see.” He offered
nothing that anyone had seen.
Did Jordan
coordinate his statements with Trump, the White House staff, other
Republican House members, or Trump’s legal team led by Rudy Giuliani?
5) On
21 December, Jordan attended private meetings at the White House with
Trump and several other Republican House members “where they strategized
over a last-ditch effort to overturn the election results”, Politico reported.
“It was a back-and-forth concerning the planning and strategy for 6
January,” said Representative Mo Brooks, a Republican congressman from
Alabama.
What was said at that meeting? What
were those plans? Was the rally discussed? Was the idea discussed of
sending Trump supporters to intimidate and interrupt members of Congress
in the certification process? Was Jordan’s role on the House floor on 6
January against certification raised at that meeting? What did Jordan
say?
6) On Saturday night, 2 January, Jordan participated in a call
organized by the White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, with Trump
and 50 House members and senators “to address their goal of overturning
certain states’ electoral college results on Wednesday”, according to Fox News.
On Sunday morning, 3 January, Jordan and Brooks appeared together on
Fox News to discuss their strategy. Jordan stated that Republican
members of Congress were the “ultimate arbiter here, the ultimate check
and balance”, on the “unconstitutional” certification of the election
results on 6 January. Again, Jordan presented no evidence of fraud.
Senator Mitt Romney, a Republican from Utah, called the actions led by Jordan and others an “egregious ploy”.
Did Jordan broadcast falsehoods in order to encourage Trump supporters to come to Washington on 6 January?
7) On 5 January, Brian Jack, the political director in the White House, called
Mo Brooks to ask him to address the “Stop the Steal” rally on 6
January. “Today is the day American patriots start taking down names and
kicking ass,” Brooks shouted
at the 6 January rally “Are you willing to do what it takes to fight
for America? Louder! Will you fight for America?” Subsequently, Kevin
McCarthy hired Brian Jack as his political director.
What
does Jordan know about Brian Jack’s role in the organization of the
January rally? Did he speak with Brian Jack about the planning and the
rally? Has he spoken to him since about the events of 6 January?
8) On 5 January, Adam Piper, the executive director of the Republican Attorneys General Association (Raga), participated in a call
organized by the White House to help plan the rally and events of 6
January. The non-profit arm of Raga, the Rule of Law Defense Fund,
promoted attendance at the rally through robocalls to Republican
activists. “At 1pm, we will march to the Capitol building and call on
Congress to stop the steal,” said the robocall, according to the investigative organization Documented. “We are hoping patriots like you will join us to continue to fight to protect the integrity of our elections.”
What
does Jordan know about Raga’s involvement? Did Jordan speak with any
donors or groups about funding or participating in the events of 6
January? Did anyone ask him to raise money or speak with anyone
organizing for 6 January?
9) For
several days before 6 January, Democratic members of the House said
they observed a number of Republican members giving what appeared to be
tours of the Capitol to groups of people who may have later participated
in the insurrection. Representative Mikie Sherrill, a Democrat from New
Jersey, said she witnessed Republican House members on 5 January conducting what she described as a walk-through for “reconnaissance for the next day”.
“Those
members of Congress who had groups coming through the Capitol that I
saw on 5 January, a reconnaissance for the next day, those members of
Congress that incited this violent crowd,” Sherrill said, “those members
who attempted to help our president undermine our democracy, I’m going
to see that they’re held accountable.”
On 13 January, 30 Democratic House members signed a letter
calling for an investigation of these “tours” by the House and Senate
sergeant-at-arms and the Capitol police. “Members of the group that
attacked the Capitol seemed to have an unusually detailed knowledge of
the layout of the Capitol complex. The presence of these groups within
the Capitol complex was indeed suspicious,” they stated. “Given the
events of 6 January, the ties between these groups inside the Capitol
complex and the attacks on the Capitol need to be investigated.”
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Democratic congresswoman from Florida, said: “I do know that, yes, there were members that gave tours to individuals who participated in the riot.”
Steve Cohen, a Democrat from Tennessee, stated
he and John Yarmouth, a Democrat from Kentucky, saw Lauren Boebert, a
Republican congresswoman from Colorado, a far-right advocate of
antisemitic QAnon conspiracies who has equated vaccinations with Nazism,
leading a “large group” through the Capitol complex in the days before
the insurrection. She denied she had led any such “tours”.
Tim Ryan, a Democratic congressman from Ohio, disclosed
that federal prosecutors are “reviewing the footage” of video taken
within the Capitol to determine if any House members engaged in
“reconnaissance” missions with insurrectionists.
“Today is 1776,” Boebert tweeted on the morning of 6 January. On 24 July, Jim Jordan appeared at a fundraising event with Boebert in her district at the Mesa county Republican party, which in June posted on its Facebook page a conspiracy theory that George Floyd’s murder was a hoax.
Congressman
Bennie Thompson, a Democrat from Mississippi and chair of the House
select committee, was asked if he would depose members of the Congress
about their involvement. He replied: “Absolutely. Nothing is off limits.”
Does
Jordan support the select committee deposing House Republican members
and others to determine whether they conducted “reconnaissance” of the
Capitol with leaders of the insurrection before 6 January? Has he
discussed 6 January with Boebert?
10)
On the morning of 6 January, as Trump supporters gathered at the
Ellipse near the White House for the “Stop the Steal” rally, Jordan rose
in the House chamber to object to accepting the presidential electors
certified by Arizona.
There was, he claimed,
“something wrong with this election … Somehow the guy who never left
his house wins the election? Sixty million Americans think it was
stolen.” He rattled off a series of conspiracy theories. “All the
Democrats care about is making sure that President Trump isn’t
president. For four and a half years that’s all they’ve cared about.”
He
mentioned a former FBI director: “Jim Comey opens an investigation on
the president based on nothing.” He referred to Robert Mueller: “The
Russia hoax … for nothing.” He raised the impeachment of Trump, “based
on an anonymous whistleblower who worked for Joe Biden”. It was all,
Jordan said, “a pattern” that “violated the constitution … an end run
around the constitution”.
In conclusion, he called for the Arizona electors to be disqualified. The Republicans cheered. As the Congress began debating
the objection, at 1.30pm, the mob breached police lines and invaded the
Capitol. They chanted “Hang Mike Pence” and shortly after 2pm started
to force their way into the House chamber.
As
members raced to evacuate, Cheney states that Jordan grabbed her arm,
saying: “We need to get the ladies away from the aisle. Let me help
you.” After the violence was quelled and order restored, leaving five
dead and many of the police injured, and when the proceeding resumed
that evening with Pence presiding, Jordan voted with 138 other representatives to overturn the election results.
Did
the Trump White House or his legal team review his speech before it was
delivered? Did he communicate with anyone at the White House in the
hours between the suspension of the certification and its resumption?
11) On 12 January, in a hearing
of the House rules committee, the chair, Jim McGovern, a Democrat from
Massachusetts, said to Jordan: “I’m glad that all it took for you to
call for unity was for our democracy to be attacked, but the last
several months the gentleman from Ohio and others have given oxygen to
the president’s conspiracy theories … people came to the Capitol
building to launch a coup … I’m asking you to make a statement that Joe
Biden and Kamala Harris won fair and square.”
Jordan replied: “He is President-elect Joe Biden … in some states the rules were changed in unconstitutional fashion.”
“You refuse to answer that question,” said McGovern. “That is not the question I asked.”
Jordan finally claimed: “I never once said that this thing was stolen.”
Why,
then, did he tweet that the election was being stolen before it had
occurred, appear at a “Stop the Steal” rally and claim that “crazy
things” had changed the vote in swing states in addition to many other
statements?
12) On
13 January, Jordan joined with Paul Gosar from Arizona to call for
Cheney’s removal as chair of the House Republican conference, for
supporting the impeachment of Donald Trump for inciting the
insurrection. According to Ali Alexander, a far-right activist and
conspiracy theorist, he, Gosar, Mo Brooks and Andy Biggs, from Arizona,
conceived of the idea of the January rally.
“We four schemed up of putting maximum pressure on Congress while they were voting,” Alexander said.
Gosar
appeared at more than a dozen “Stop the Steal” rallies and just after
noon on 6 January he tweeted a photograph of the mob massed at the
Capitol and this message: “Biden should concede. I want his concession
on my desk tomorrow morning. Don’t make me come over there.”
On 10 March, Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, a Democrat from Washington, sent a letter
to the Office of Congressional Ethics requesting an investigation of
Boebert, Brooks and Gosar for “instigating and aiding” the insurrection.
Does Jim Jordan support this investigation and would he approve the select committee deposing Gosar, Brooks and Biggs?
13) On 9 February, Jordan posted an op-ed
on the Fox News website stating: “President Trump did not incite the
violence of 6 January.” He wrote: “At the end of the day, Democrats
don’t want President Trump to run for office again. Hopefully, one day,
he’ll get to do it again.”
Is Jordan trying to
protect Trump’s political viability for the 2024 election? Does Jordan
object to the select committee deposing Trump?
14) On
15 February, Jordan tweeted: “Capitol police requested national guard
help prior to 6 January. That request was denied by Speaker Pelosi and
her Sergeant at Arms.”His assertion was flatly false.
“Instead, public testimony shows she did not even hear about the request until two days later,” wrote
Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post. He awarded Jordan’s claim “four
Pinocchios”. Can Jordan explain how this misinformation was
manufactured?
15) On 20 May, Liz Cheney was questioned on ABC News’s This Week
about whether Kevin McCarthy should be subpoenaed by the investigating
committee. “He absolutely should, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he were
subpoenaed,” she said. According to Jaime Herrera Beutler, a Republican
from Washington, McCarthy called Trump during the siege of the Capitol to ask him publicly to call off the rioters.
Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset
about the election than you are,” Trump was quoted as saying. McCarthy
reportedly responded, “Who the fuck do you think you’re talking to?”
Yet, on 12 January, on the eve of Trump’s second impeachment, McCarthy told
Fox News: “President Trump won this election, so everyone who’s
listening, do not be quiet. We cannot allow this to happen before our
very eyes … join together and let’s stop this.”
Does Jordan support the select committee deposing Beutler and McCarthy to answer questions about this incident?
16) Jim Jordan told the Washington Post that he should not testify about 6 January.
“I
think this commission is ridiculous, and why would they subpoena me? I
didn’t do anything wrong – I talked to the president. I talk to the
president all the time. I just think that’s – you know where I’m at on
this commission – this is all about going after President Trump. That
seems obvious.”
Did Jordan speak with Trump on 6
January during the insurrection? Did he speak with him about it after
about the event? Will Jordan cooperate with the select committee as a
witness or will he stonewall it as he did the investigation into the
sexual abuse at OSU? Will he honor a subpoena or force the
sergeant-at-arms to wrestle with him to enforce it?
Former president Donald Trump, in a statement, Oct. 21
“The events of January 6, 2021, marked the most significant assault on the Capitol since the War of 1812.”
— Judge Patricia Millett, U.S. Court of Appeals, in an opinion issued Dec. 9
These quotes signify the vast gulf of understanding about the events of Jan. 6, 2021.
From
the perspective of the former president, the attack on the Capitol was
the result of an election that he falsely says was stolen. Trump claims
the attackers were mere protesters, falsely maligned by the media and
his opponents.
The
reality, backed by law enforcement officials and the judiciary, is that
Jan. 6 was the culmination of a sustained effort by a sitting president
to overturn the election results. “That attack, that siege was criminal
behavior, plain and simple,” said FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, who was appointed by Trump. “And it’s behavior that we, the FBI, view as domestic terrorism.”
One year later, here’s a reader’s guide to what is now known about the
assault, though investigations and prosecutions are not complete.
Trump inspired the attack
Before
the election, Trump seeded the ground for doubts about the election
with baseless claims that the only way he could lose reelection was
through fraud perpetrated by Democrats. Trump narrowly lost some key
states — just as he had narrowly won some in 2016 — and subsequently
decisively lost in the electoral college. As was his prerogative, he
pursued legal challenges in many states but they were rejected by state
officials and the courts.
Nevertheless,
Trump continued to make elaborate and baseless claims about election
fraud, even after the electoral college confirmed Joe Biden’s victory on
Dec. 14. Five days later, he tweeted: “Big protest in D.C. on January
6th. Be there, will be wild!” He then tweeted seven more times calling
attention to the event, including one on Jan. 1 that included the phrase
“StopTheSteal!”
Zignal
Labs, a media insights company, later reported that more than 90,000
mentions of “Storm the Capitol” appeared on social media platforms in
the 30 days before the attack. (“The Storm” is an expression that many
self-identified Trump and QAnon supporters have used to refer to the day
when Trump would unmask an alleged pedophile cabal run by Democrats.)
When Trump spoke to a crowd gathered on the mall,
he denounced the election results as “the most brazen and outrageous
election theft” and declared “We will stop the steal.” He asserted that
Vice President Mike Pence had “the absolute right” to reject the
electoral college count and “send it back to the states to re-certify
and we become president.” (Pence that morning had already indicated to
Trump he did not agree.) He complained about the “explosions of
bulls---” in the election count, promptly the crowd to chant the phrase.
He then urged the crowd to march on the Capitol: “You have to show
strength and you have to be strong.”
The
size of the crowd listening to Trump remains unclear, though it’s
smaller than the 250,000 he claimed during the rally. Organizers for the
rally obtained a permit for 30,000. William M. Arkin, writing in
Newsweek, reported
about “25,000 participants were screened by Secret Service Uniformed
Division officers to get into the restricted area” where he spoke. But
another 15,000 positioned themselves outside the restricted area,
between the Ellipse and the National Mall, Arkin said, citing classified
records. There were also permits for two other pro-Trump rallies
nearby, for 30,000 and 15,000 people.
At least 2,000 people are believed to have breached the Capitol. Some of those charged, in their defense, have said they were motivated to breach the Capitol by the commander in chief. Trump in July called the attackers “peaceful people” and “patriots.”
Trump aides and supporters actively sought to overturn the election
The Washington Post reported
that, before the attack, some of Trump’s most loyal lieutenants — such
as his personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani and former chief White House
strategist Stephen K. Bannon — worked to overturn the election from a
set of rooms and suites in the Willard Hotel, a block from the White
House.
The
effort was guided by a memo written by John Eastman, a Federalist
Society member, law professor and former clerk for Supreme Court Justice
Clarence Thomas. Eastman, who also spoke at Trump’s rally, had outlined
scenarios for denying Biden the presidency in an Oval Office meeting on
Jan. 4 with Trump and Pence. The key part of the strategy was for
enough states to decertify their results so Biden could not have a
majority in the electoral college, forcing the election to be placed in
the hands of the House of Representatives.
Under
Eastman’s scenario, each state would get one vote, based on which party
holds the majority of U.S. House districts in the state — and
Republicans controlled a slim majority of state delegations (26 to 24)
to ensure a victory for Trump. The flaw in this theory was that House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) could have immediately halted the joint
session of Congress before such a vote. If the impasse had not been
resolved by Jan. 20, constitution procedures would have made Pelosi acting president.
Moreover, even if the results had been sent back to some states for
additional scrutiny, Trump would have had trouble securing victory.
Republicans and Trump supporters in 2021 demanded detailed audits and
reviews of the results in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and Texas — and uncovered no problems that would have overturned Biden’s victory.
The attack was violent
Trump as recently as December has asserted
the attack on the Capitol was a “completely unarmed protest” but as
more video footage and testimony emerged, the violence that day has come
in sharper relief. Of the 727 people arrested and charged with crimes, more than 75 have been charged
with entering a restricted area with a dangerous or deadly weapon.
including assaulting police officers with deadly or dangerous weapons.
Video evidence indicates that nearly 140 police officers collectively
weathered 1,000 assaults, according to prosecutors.
Some of the weapons confiscated as being used in the Capitol, according to a CNN review of court records,
include a baseball bat, a fire extinguisher, a wooden club, a spear,
crutches, a flagpole, bear spray, mace, chemical irritants, stolen
police shields, a wooden beam, a hockey stick, a stun gun and knives.
Only a handful of people have been charged with carrying a gun inside.
“A
baseball bat, a hockey stick, a rebar, a flagpole, including the
American flag, pepper spray, bear spray. So you name it. You had all
these items and things that were thrown at us and used to attack us.
Those are weapons,” U.S. Capitol Police Sgt. Aquilino Gonell told House members in July. “The way they were using these items, it was to hurt officers.”
Contrary to speculation in right-wing social media, no evidence has
emerged that the violence was spurred on by left-wing antifa supporters
or law enforcement officers in a “false-flag” operation. (The New York
Times revealed
one FBI informant was a member of the Proud Boys, a far-right group
with a history of violence, who entered the Capitol.) A Washington Post
review of court filings and public records last year found that the vast
majority of those charged federally were not known to be part of far-right groups or premeditated conspiracies to attack the Capitol.
Five people died during the attack or in the immediate aftermath, but
whether they can all be attributed to the attack is in dispute. One
clearly related death was Ashli Babbitt, an Air Force veteran with what
the Associated Press called “a history of erratic and sometimes threatening behavior.”
She was fatally shot by a U.S. Capitol police officer as she tried to
climb through a broken window that led to the Speaker’s Lobby. “Nothing
will stop us,” Babbitt tweeted Jan. 5.
“They can try and try and try but the storm is here and it is
descending upon DC in less than 24 hours....dark to light!” Babbitt has
been hailed as a martyr by Trump. The officer who shot her was cleared
of any wrongdoing by the Justice Department and the U.S. Capitol Police.
Three other Trump supporters also died during the attack, two of heart attacks and third from amphetamine intoxication.
Brian
D. Sicknick, a Capitol Hill officer, collapsed at his desk after the
attack and died a day later. The District medical examiner concluded
Sicknick had suffered two strokes nearly eight hours after being
sprayed with a chemical irritant. Sandra Garza, Sicknick’s partner, said this week she holds Trump “100% responsible” for Jan. 6 and “he needs to be in prison.”
Four other police officers died by suicide in the days and months after the attack, with family members saying the deaths are related to experiencing the trauma of the attack.
Ten U.S. Capitol Police and Metropolitan police officers have filed suit against Trump, seeking damages for physical and emotional injuries.
Trump took inadequate steps to calm the attackers
Reporting in The Post
and elsewhere has revealed that during the 187 minutes of the attack,
Trump avidly watched it unfold on television but took few steps to calm
the situation. His first tweet, about 10 minutes after Pence had been
removed by his Secret Service detail to protect him from the mob,
reiterated the lie that the election was stolen: “Mike Pence didn’t have
the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and
our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of
facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to
previously certify. USA demands the truth.”
Trump’s
other tweets that afternoon also fell short of telling the rioters to
leave the Capitol. At 2:38 p.m., he tweeted: “Please support our Capitol
Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country.
Stay peaceful!” Then Trump tweeted at 3:13 p.m.: “I am asking for
everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful.” Finally, after
President-elect Biden had already addressed the nation, Trump posted a
video at 4:17 p.m. urging people to go home — but telling them they were
“special” and again claiming the election outcome was illegitimate.
“We
had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election
and everyone knows it, especially the other side, but you have to go
home now,” Trump said in the video, adding: “You’re very special. You’ve
seen what happens. You see the way others are treated that are so bad
and so evil. I know how you feel. But go home and go home in peace.”
Many Republicans and Trump supporters, at least briefly, were appalled
The
select congressional committee investigating the attack has released
texts sent to then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows that show
that, behind the scenes, Trump supporters urged the president to take
more forceful action to end the violence. “He’s got to condemn this …
ASAP. The Capitol Police tweet is not enough,” Donald Trump Jr., the
president’s son, wrote. “We need an Oval address. He has to lead now. It
has gone too far and gotten out of hand.”
Fox
News host Laura Ingraham texted Meadows: “Hey Mark, the president needs
to tell people in the Capitol to go home. This is hurting all of us. He
is destroying his legacy.”
Publicly,
GOP congressional leaders also condemned the attack and Trump’s role in
it. “The president bears responsibility for Wednesday’s attack on
Congress by mob rioters,” said House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy on Jan. 13. “He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding.”
But after House Democrats impeached Trump — and he was acquitted by the
Senate — the tone among Republicans shifted. Many began to rally around
Trump and minimize his role. Instead, they falsely sought to pin the
blame on Pelosi for not ensuring enough National Guard troops — even
though that’s not under her control. Moreover, after claiming antifa was
to blame, and with others saying it was an FBI plot, now many are on
board with the idea that the rioters were patriots. In a Washington Post-University of Maryland poll conducted Dec. 17-19, 72 percent of Republicans and 83 percent of Trump voters said he bears “just some” responsibility for Jan. 6 or “none at all.”
Capitol Hill security was deficient in part because of concerns about Trump
A
year later, there continues to be confusion about why it took so long
to deploy the National Guard after the Capitol was breached. Army
Secretary Ryan McCarthy withheld authority from William J. Walker, at
the time the commanding general of the D.C. National Guard, to activate a
quick reaction force, a requirement that Walker in congressional testimony
said was “unusual.” Other officials have testified that key Army
officials were concerned about the “optics” of troops at the Capitol.
Reporting in the past year suggests one reason
for the inadequate National Guard presence on Jan. 6 is that senior
military officials were concerned Trump would seek to invoke the
Insurrection Act. Gen. Mark A. Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, told associates that he feared Jan. 6 was Trump’s “Reichstag
moment,” referring to Adolf Hitler’s manufactured crisis in 1933 to
secure his grip on power.
Over the last year we have heard the word insurrection used to describe the
happeneings on January 6th 2021. The legal term for insurrection is: the act or
an instance of revolting esp. violently against civil or political authority or
against an established government. The truth is insurrection happened on
November 10, 1898 in Wilmington, North Carolina. On Nov. 10, 1898, white
supremacists murdered African Americans in Wilmington, North Carolina and
deposed the elected Reconstruction era government in a coup d’etat. It was the
morning of November 10, 1898, in Wilmington, North Carolina, and the fire was
the beginning of an assault that took place seven blocks east of the Cape Fear
River, about 10 miles inland from the Atlantic Ocean. By sundown, [Alex] Manly’s
newspaper [The Daily Record] had been torched, as many as 60 people had been
murdered, and the local government that was elected two days prior had been
overthrown and replaced by white supremacists. For all the violent moments in
United States history, the mob’s gruesome attack was unique: It was the only
coup d’état ever to take place on American soil. Lost in the fire that destroyed
The Daily Record were the lives of Black citizens and the spirit of a thriving
Black community, and also the most promising effort in the South to build racial
solidarity. — Adrienne LaFrance and Vann Newkirk in The Lost History of an
American Coup D’État WILMINGTON’S LIE The Murderous Coup of 1898 and the Rise of
White Supremacy By David Zucchino Today we Americans find ourselves struggling
with the ghosts of our past. Some among us reach for histories that affirm the
established view of who we are as a nation. Many believe the United States is,
and must always be, a white nation. But moments of storm and stress also
occasion the telling of different stories. We have seen this with The New York
Times’s 1619 Project. Now we have David Zucchino’s brilliant new book.
“Wilmington’s Lie” is a tragic story about the brutal overthrow of the
multiracial government of Wilmington, N.C., in 1898. The book is divided into
three parts. The first details how white supremacists rejected the goals of
Reconstruction and chafed under what they called “Negro domination.” We are
introduced to characters like “Colonel” Alfred Moore Waddell, who would play a
central role in the coup, and to the overall sense of moral panic that engulfed
the white community as it confronted black self-assertion — like that of Abraham
Galloway, the first black man in North Carolina to campaign in a statewide race
— in the aftermath of the Confederacy’s defeat. The second section charts the
campaign to reassert white rule in Wilmington. Zucchino shows how Josephus
Daniels, the editor and publisher of The News and Observer, the state’s most
important daily, and Furnifold Simmons, the state chairman of the Democratic
Party, exploited the prejudices and fears of white North Carolinians. As
Zucchino writes, “More than a century before sophisticated fake news attacks
targeted social media websites, Daniels’s manipulation of white readers through
phony or misleading newspaper stories was perhaps the most daring and effective
disinformation campaign of the era.” This was most clearly seen in the
exploitation of a column about race, sex and lynching in the black newspaper The
Daily Record to justify the coup. The article, written by one of the paper’s
publishers, Alexander Manly, became Exhibit A in the case that black men had
forgotten their place and represented a clear and present danger to the sanctity
of white womanhood. The first two parts of the book move in a deliberate
fashion. Zucchino, a contributing writer for The New York Times, does not
overwrite the scenes. His moral judgment stands at a distance. He simply
describes what happened and the lies told to justify it all. A generalized
terror comes into view as the white citizens of Wilmington mobilized to seize
power through violence and outright fraud. Advertisement Continue reading the
main story The details contained in the last part of the book are
heart-wrenching. With economy and a cinematic touch, Zucchino recounts the
brutal assault on black Wilmington. A town that once boasted the largest
percentage of black residents of any large Southern city found itself in the
midst of a systematic purge. Successful black men were targeted for banishment
from the city, while black workers left all their possessions behind as they
rushed to the swamps for safety. Over 60 people died. No one seemed to care. The
governor of North Carolina cowered in the face of the violent rebellion, worried
about his own life. President William McKinley turned a blind eye to the
bloodshed. And Waddell was selected as mayor as the white supremacists forced
the duly elected officials to resign. In the aftermath of it all, the white
community of Wilmington told itself a lie to justify the carnage, a lie that
would be repeated so often that it stood in for the truth of what actually
happened on Nov. 10. The editors of one newspaper wrote, “We must hope that by
far the greater part of Negroes in this city are anxious for the restoration of
order and quiet and ‘the old order’ — the rule of the white people.” The leaders
of the violence went on to celebrated political careers. Josephus Daniels was
appointed secretary of the Navy by Woodrow Wilson and later named ambassador to
Mexico by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Furnifold Simmons served 30 years as
a United States senator. No one was ever held responsible for the brutal murders
in Wilmington. In the end, Zucchino pulls the story into our present moment. He
interviews descendants of those who perpetrated the violence and those who bore
the brunt of it. What becomes clear, at least to me, is that memory and trauma
look different depending on which side of the tracks you stand. The last
sentence of “Wilmington’s Lie,” which quotes the grandson of Alex Manly, makes
that point without a hint of hyperbole. “If there’s a hell, I hope they’re
burning in it, all of them.” Editors’ Picks The Promises and Perils of
Psychedelic Health Care The Tech That Will Invade Our Lives in 2022 5 Minutes
That Will Make You Love Mezzo-Sopranos Continue reading the main story Eddie S.
Glaude Jr. is the chair of the department of African-American studies and the
James S. McDonnell distinguished university professor of African-American
studies at Princeton. WILMINGTON’S LIE The Murderous Coup of 1898 and the Rise
of White Supremacy By David Zucchino Illustrated. 426 pp. Atlantic Monthly
Press.
