Former Starbucks CEO testifies during Senate hearing on treatment ...

WASHINGTON — Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz testified in a Senate hearing Wednesday, grilled by Democrats on the committee about whether the coffee company violated federal labor laws.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee targeted Schultz and Starbucks to examine the corporation's treatment of employees working to unionize.

It's part of a larger push from the committee, led by Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, to hold accountable billionaires and corporations for potentially illegal business practices.

Schultz said multiple times and unequivocally that Starbucks did not break the law.

His testimony comes as Starbucks employees walked out of more than 100 stores last week across the United States to protest the company's anti-union efforts. More stores plan to hold union elections.

Schultz defended the company to the Senate HELP committee, saying Starbucks respects their employees' rights and repeated that allegations the company violated labor laws will be proven false.

His testimony follows a threat from the committee to subpoena the former CEO after he previously declined to appear for questioning.

More:Get political news, fast and to the point, delivered to your inbox.

"The fundamental issue we are confronting today is whether we have a system of justice that applies to all or whether billionaires and large corporations can break the law with impunity," Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who chairs the committee, said.

Did Starbucks violate federal labor laws?

The National Labor Relations Board, or NLRB, filed more than 80 complaints against Starbucks for violating federal labor laws. Charges included the illegal firing of Starbucks workers for working to form a union, employees collectively bargaining for benefits, and advocating for increased wages and better working conditions.

Additionally, there have been more than 500 unfair labor practice charges against the company, according to the Senate committee.

A Starbucks in Buffalo, New York, was the first to unionize in December 2021. Since then, more than 360 stores in nearly 40 states have held union elections. There are now nearly 300 unionized stores in the country.

In March, an administrative judge found Starbucks guilty of “egregious and widespread misconduct” and that the company showed “a general disregard for the employees’ fundamental rights” in the union-organizing efforts in Buffalo. The judge also found Starbucks retaliated against its employees for pushing to unionize.

"We're confident that those allegations will be proven false," Schultz said when asked about the allegations.

Former Starbucks CEO: 'Starbucks coffee company did not break the law'

Schultz defended the company and said he respects the right of every employee whether they choose to join a union or not.

"Starbucks coffee company unequivocally has not broken the law," he repeated throughout the hearing.

Because of an arrangement made by the union and NLRB in Buffalo, union negotiations must take place at one single store at a time. Sanders and other Democrats on the committee accused Starbucks of intentionally delaying these meetings.

Schultz responded that they have tried to arrange more than 350 separate meetings, which they say must take place through face-to-face negotiations.

Sanders asked Schultz to promise to the committee that the company will exchange proposals with the union.

"On a single store basis, we will continue to negotiate in good faith," Schultz said.

Republicans defend former Starbucks CEO

Republican senators on the committee defended the CEO, who has ties to the Democratic Party, and applauded him for his success despite their political disagreements.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said Americans spending an extraordinary amount of money for a cup of coffee is a testament to capitalism.

"I don't want to be part of any witch hunt that vilifies any American business so count me out," Paul said. "Count me as one who is ecstatic that Starbucks is an American success story and I'll have no party in trashing their success."

Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, the top Republican on the committee, said allegations against Starbucks have not been fully investigated.

"I am not here to defend Starbucks. I have my own questions about the alleged misconduct and the law should be filed and upheld.... but let's not kid ourselves. This is not a fair and impartial hearing," he said.

Mullin points fingers at Sanders

Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., turned his questioning to Sanders saying he took offense that Sanders feels all CEOs are corrupt because they're millionaires.

"It's bothering to me because Mr. Chairman, you yourself have been very successful," Mullin said, adding that public records show the Vermont senator has amassed more than $8 million.

"Why is it that all CEOs are corrupt because they're wealthy? And yet our chairman is wealthy – and I'm glad you are – is not?" Mullin asked Sanders.

Sanders responded that if he's worth $8 million, "that's good news for me."

"I'm not aware of it. That's a lie," he said, adding that Mullin has no evidence he ever said that all CEOs are corrupt. "I have never, ever said that."

"What this hearing is about is whether workers have the constitutional right to form a union," Sanders said.

Watch: Howard Schultz Senate hearing testimony on Starbucks ...

Dee-Ann Durbin

The Associated Press

Longtime Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz will face sharp questioning Wednesday when he appears before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee to defend the company's actions during an ongoing unionizing campaign.

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont Independent who has been a vocal supporter of Starbucks labor organizers, has been seeking Schultz's testimony for months. Schultz had tried to sidestep the hearing, suggesting that others in the company were more deeply involved in the union effort, which Starbucks opposes.

But Sanders had argued that Schultz — a longtime leader who stepped down as interim CEO last week but remains on the company’s board — was instrumental in setting the company's policies. Under threat of a subpoena, Schultz agreed to testify.

USA TODAY will stream the testimony and have full coverage of the hearing.

At least 293 of Starbucks' 9,000 company-owned U.S. Starbucks stores have voted to unionize since late 2021, according to the National Labor Relations Board. Starbucks Workers United, the labor group organizing the stores, has yet to reach a contract agreement with Starbucks at any of those stores.

Workers say they're seeking higher pay, more consistent schedules and better benefits. But Starbucks argues that it already provides some of the best pay and benefits in the industry, and says its stores function better when it works directly with employees.

More coverage from USA TODAY

Former Starbucks CEO, AUMF repeal, Narcan: Wednesday's news

A Senate panel scrutinized Starbucks' business practices during a hearing with the company's former CEO. The Food and Drug Administration approved the sale of an overdose-reversal drug without a prescription. And legislation repealing decades-old military authorizations was passed by the Senate.

👋 Hi, Julius here. And it's Wednesday. Let's get into today's news, shall we?

⚾ But first: Get familiar with new MLB rules. Some of the biggest Major League Baseball rule changes in history roll out when the season begins tomorrow, including a 15-second pitch clock.

The Short List is a snappy USA TODAY news roundup. Subscribe to the newsletter here.

🌤 What's the weather up to in your neck of the woods? Check your local forecast here.

Ex-Starbucks CEO defends company in face of labor complaints

Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz told senators Wednesday that his company did not break labor laws, despite the company facing more than 80 complaints from the National Labor Relations Board for doing just that. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee targeted Schultz and Starbucks to examine the corporation's treatment of employees working to unionize. Schultz's testimony comes after Starbucks employees walked out of more than 100 stores last week to protest the company's anti-union efforts. Here's what else was said during Wednesday's hearing.

After Nashville, little hope for gun reform on Capitol Hill

Lawmakers from both parties said the prospects for major gun control legislation advancing in Congress are slim even as President Joe Biden said he's exhausted what he can do to address gun violence through executive action. It appears the nation's latest mass shooting – a massacre at a Christian school in Nashville, Tennessee – could turn into a familiar story: Calls for sweeping gun reform, followed by inaction. A ban on assault weapons lacks the votes in the Republican-led House and even faces an uphill fight in the Democratic-led Senate. Here's why major gun law changes are unlikely.

What everyone's talking about

The Short List is free, but several stories we link to are subscriber-only. Consider supporting our journalism and become a USA TODAY digital subscriber today.

FDA approves over-the-counter sale of Narcan

The FDA on Wednesday approved selling the overdose-reversal drug Narcan without a prescription, a move long sought by advocates to improve access to the lifesaving drug. The approval would make the nasal spray used to counteract fentanyl and opioid overdoses more available to consumers who could buy the medication at stores without a prescription or pharmacist's recommendation. FDA Commissioner Robert Califf urged the drug's manufacturer to make Narcan widely available at an affordable price. Here's what the FDA's approval means.

Senate votes to repeal military authorizations for Iraq, Gulf wars

The Senate passed legislation Wednesday repealing decades-old military authorizations and formally ending the Iraq and Gulf wars. The bipartisan legislation would prevent future presidents from misusing military force without congressional authorization. It also gives Congress more power in determining when to send troops into combat. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Wednesday the odds are high it will be signed into law before the end of the year because there's a lot of support in the House and from Biden.

A break from the news

Facebook whistleblower's explosive testimony: Company makes ...

WASHINGTON — A Facebook whistleblower who raised alarms about several of the company's business practices testified Tuesday before Congress after a series of incriminating revelations about the company.

Frances Haugen, a former project manager at Facebook who leaked a massive trove of internal documents to the Wall Street Journal, told a Senate subcommittee that Facebook "put their astronomical profits before people" and asked for congressional action to rein in the tech giant.

"We can have social media we enjoy that connects us without tearing our democracy apart or democracy, putting our children in danger, and sowing ethnic violence around the world," Haugen said.

The documents Haugen released unearthed several explosive revelations about the company's tactics in the pursuit of growth, including bids to market its products directly to children, documents underscoring the severity of the platform's public health misinformation crisis and internal research that found its Instagram platform is destructive to young girls' mental health.

►Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg:CEO breaks his silence as Congress demands answers after whistleblower testimony

►'Profits before people':After Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen argued her case, will Congress act?

"The choices being made inside of Facebook are disastrous for our children or our public safety for privacy and for our democracy. And that is why we must demand Facebook changes," Haugen told senators on Tuesday.

Facebook hasn't outright denied any of the Journal's reporting, but it claims the characterizations are "misleading" and has strenuously pushed back on them.

►More:Who is Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen? Everything you need to know

Lawmakers questioned Haugen over the implications of the documents, which come as opinion on Capitol Hill had already turned sharply against the tech giant across both sides of the aisle.

►More:Would you take a Facebook or Instagram break? Why civil rights groups want you to log out

Facebook responds to whistleblower's testimony

Following Haugen's Capitol Hill appearance, her former employer rebutted her testimony.

“Today, a Senate Commerce subcommittee held a hearing with a former product manager at Facebook who worked for the company for less than two years, had no direct reports, never attended a decision-point meeting with C-level executives – and testified more than six times to not working on the subject matter in question," Lena Pietsch, Facebook's director of policy communications, said in a statement to USA TODAY. "We don’t agree with her characterization of the many issues she testified about."

Facebook also detailed steps it has taken or called for that would protect users in an emailed statement.

"Every day, we make difficult decisions on where to draw lines between free expression and harmful speech, privacy, security, and other issues, and we use both our own research and research from outside experts to improve our products and policies," the statement reads. "But we should not be making these decisions on our own which is why for years we’ve been advocating for updated regulations where democratic governments set industry standards to which we can all adhere."

►More:Is Facebook down? Instagram, WhatsApp, Messenger coming back after one of worst Facebook outages

Rep. Adam Schiff says Haugen needs to testify in Jan. 6 select committee

After Haugen's testimony in the Senate had wrapped, California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff said on Twitter that she deserved to be called into conversation with the House Select Committee that is investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

"According to this Facebook whistleblower, shutting down the civic integrity team and turning off election misinformation tools contributed to the Jan 6 insurrection," Schiff tweeted. "The Select Committee will need to hear from her, and get internal info from Facebook to flesh out their role."

Haugen says she lost faith in Facebook’s commitment to protecting users after it disbanded the civic integrity team after the 2020 presidential race. Facebook said it distributed the work to different teams. But Haugen says Facebook stopped paying close attention, leading to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

– Katie Wadington and Jessica Guynn

Misinformation propeled by serving it to those who are isolated

Sen. Todd Young, R-Indiana, dove into misinformation on Facebook, asking Haugen how it could be addressed.

Misinformation can be spread by a small number of users, she said.

But users who are constantly exposed to misinformation – "the misinformation burden," she called it – and "are exposed to ideas that are not true over and over again, it erodes their ability to connect with the community at large, because they no longer adhere to facts that are consensus reality," Haugen said.

Facebook knows, through its own research, that those most exposed to the most misinformation are often isolated in some fashion – divorced, recently widowed or having relocated to a new city, she said.

Since highly engaged users may propel misinformation, she said, there could be built-in curbs on them or their posts, she suggested.

"The fact that Facebook knows that its most vulnerable users, people who recently widowed, they're isolated, the systems that are meant to keep them safe like demoting this information stop working when people look at 2,000 posts a day," Haugen said. "It breaks my heart, the idea that these rabbit holes can suck people down and then make it hard to connect with others."

– Mike Snider

Parents need to be equipped to help children navigate online spaces

Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen expressed concern about how many parents around the world are poorly equipped to help their children navigate the dangers of social media given the relative novelty of the technology.

“Very rarely do you have one of these generational shifts where the generation who leads — these parents — have such a different set of experiences that they don’t have the context to support their children in a safe way,” Haugen told lawmakers.

She called on schools and the National Institutes of Health to create guidelines to help parents guide children through the pitfalls of the internet.

“They don’t have the context to support their children in a safe way,” Haugen cautioned lawmakers, urging for greater aid from public institutions.

“It should be easy for them to know what is constructive and not constructive because Facebook’s research alone shows that kids today feel like are struggling alone with these issues because their parents can’t guide them,” Haugen said.

The former Facebook product manager continued that some online critics calling on parents to simply "take a child's phone away" are unfair given the complexities of the issue in today’s society.

“The reality is that these issues are a lot more complicated than that,” she said. Haugen argued governments should provide aid to parents in navigating online platforms, like Facebook’s products, “because if Facebook won’t protect the kids we at least need to help parents to protect the kids.”

“Parents are anguished,” Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal said in response to Haugen’s testimony. The Connecticut lawmaker noted that Facebook disregarded recommendations in its internal research that sought to remedy many of the issues facing children and youth.

– Matthew Brown

Haugen has national security concerns about Facebook

Sen. Dan Sullivan asked Haugen about whether Facebook might be an active haven for terrorists and global rivals, including China and Russia.

"Do they provide a platform for those leaders who, in my view, clearly don't hold America's interests in mind?" the Alaska Republican asked.

Haugen worked on Facebook's counterespionage team, which found China surveilling the network and signs that the Iranian government was doing espionage "on other state actors," she said.

"So this is definitely a thing that is happening," Haugen said, "and I believe Facebook's consistent understaffing of the counterespionage information operations and counterterrorism teams is a national security issue, and I'm speaking to other parts of Congress about that."

In response, Sullivan asked, "So you are saying in essence that the, the platform, whether Facebook knows it, or not is being utilized by some of our adversaries in a way that helps push and promote their interests at the expense of Americans?"

Facebook is "very aware that this is happening," she said. "I believe the fact that Congress doesn't get a report of exactly how many people are working on these things internally is unacceptable because you have a right to keep the American people safe."

As the questioning ended, Blumenthal suggested that Sullivan's questions and Haugen's answers "may have opened up a new area for another hearing."

"I have strong national security concerns about how Facebook operates today," Haugen said.

– Mike Snider

Facebook's underpinnings explored as cause of conflict

Haugen broke down how Facebook's own algorithms can affect user behavior on its platforms and lead to social problems such as Jan. 6 revolt in Washington and conflict in places such as Ethiopia.

A process called engagement-based ranking amplifies topics users will see on Facebook or Instagram, based on subjects and topics users have looked at previously. The company has done tests to confirm how the networks' "amplification algorithms" can lead users to remain engaged, at the same time transporting them to new topics that could be harmful to users, she said.

"The way that they pick the content in Instagram for young users, for all users, amplifies preferences, and they have done something called a proactive incident response where they take things that they've heard for example like can you be led by the algorithms to anorexia content, and they have literally recreated that experiment themselves and confirmed. Yes, this, this happens to people," she told Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn. "So Facebook knows that they, that they are leading young users to anorexia content."

Facebook needs legislation to provide oversight, otherwise it will never put aside engagement-based rankings, she said. Otherwise, "Facebook is going to say ... you're not gonna like Facebook as much, if we're not picking out the content for you," Haugen said.

Without the algorithm, users might not engage as much. As the platforms stand, "we spend more time on their platform (and) they make more money," she said.

"They know that other people will produce more content, if they get the likes and comments and ratios, they prioritize content in your feed, so that you will give little hits of dopamine to your friends, so they will create more content, and they've run experiments on people producer-side experiments where they have confirmed (this)," Haugen said.

She suggested Congress make changes in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields online platforms from being responsible for what is posted by third parties on their sites, to make Facebook "responsible for the consequences of their intentional ranking decisions."

That could help prevent the viral spread of misinformation and content that results in violent incidents such as the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and repressive actions in Myanmar and Ethiopia, she said.

"I think the moment which I realized we needed to get help from the outside … that the only way these problems would be solved is by solving them together, not solving them alone, was when civic integrity was dissolved, following the 2020 election," Haugen said. "It really felt like a betrayal of the promises that Facebook had made to people who had sacrificed a great deal to keep the election safe by basically dissolving, our community and integrate and just other parts of the company."

– Mike Snider

Will the Facebook Files move Congress to act on social media?

The latest series of reports by the Wall Street Journal exposing a range of malpractices by the tech giant, lawmakers are rallying to regulate the company, a call that has been issued many times before.

“Here’s my message for Mark Zuckerberg: Your time of invading our private, promoting toxic content and preying on children and teens is over. Congress will be taking action,” Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., said in remarks during the Senate hearing.

“You can work with us or not work with us, but we will not allow your company to harm our children and our families and our democracy any longer,” the senator continued. “We will act."

Facebook is among a cadre of Big Tech companies that have come under increasing scrutiny from lawmakers across the globe as their influence and power have become more apparent.

While Washington has been slow to act on issues including antitrust, privacy, data portability and algorithmic bias among technology giants, regulators in the European Union have passed laws cracking down on Big Tech companies including Amazon, Alphabet, Apple and Facebook.

California lawmakers have also enacted policies targeting Big Tech from Sacramento on issues like privacy and taxation. The laws are considered by many industry watchers as a potential blueprint for if and when Washington finally moves on the issue.

On Tuesday, Markey and other lawmakers blamed Washington’s inaction on lobbying from the technology industry.

"We have not done anything to update our privacy laws in this country,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., lamented during the hearing, “because there are lobbyists around every single corner of this building that have been hired by the tech industry."

Haugen, the whistleblower, argued that any regulation of social media should also include a specified regulatory agency that has people well-versed in the technology because most people who best understand the underlying technology already work in the technology industry.

– Matthew Brown

Facebook likely to continue work on Instagram Kids, whistleblower speculates

Children's advocacy groups and some in Congress called on Facebook earlier this year to stop its work on a planned kids version of its social media app. But when Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, asked Haugen about the project, she doubted that work had stopped.

"I would be sincerely surprised if they do not continue working on Instagram kKds, and I would be amazed if a year from now we don't have this conversation again," she responded.

Haugen said Facebook had a need to ensure the "next generation is just as engaged" with Instagram. "And the way they'll do that is by making sure that children establish habits before they have good self regulation."

"By hooking kids?" Schatz asked.

Haugen: "By hooking kids."

She went on to note the research she had provided showed that "problematic use" of social media peaked at age 14.

"It's just like cigarettes. Teenagers don't have good self-regulation," she said. "They say explicitly, 'I feel bad when I use Instagram and yet I can't stop'."

– Mike Snider

Haugen: Algorithms encourage virality in face of incitement to violence on platforms

Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen discussed how the company's use of its algorithms to boost engagement leads to dangerous levels of violence and conflict around the world, something the company does not avoid because it would harm profits.

Haugen said Facebook needed to be “less twitchy, less reactive, less viral" as it develops products if it is going to avert the worst effects for individuals and society.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., asked Haugen about Facebook’s role in the 2020 election, during which the company briefly throttled engagement-boosting algorithms for American users ahead of the presidential voting.

“It seems that Facebook invests more in users who make them more money, even though the danger may not be evenly distributed based on profitability,” Haugen told Klobuchar.

“Facebook is presenting a false choice,” Haugen repeated, arguing that the company seeks profit through increased engagement at any cost. She said one of the major avenues for this, the engagement-based ranking of posts on Facebook and Instagram, is especially damaging.

“The choices that were happening on the platform was how reactive and twichty was the platform, how viral was the platform, and Facebook changed those safety defaults in the run-up to the election because they knew they were dangerous,” Haugen told lawmakers.

“And because they wanted that growth back, they wanted the acceleration of the platform back after the election, they returned to their original defaults. And the fact that they had to break the glass on Jan. 6 and turn them back on, I think that’s deeply problematic.”

– Matthew Brown

Haugen: Facebook needs to admit 'moral bankruptcy' to move forward

In answering questions from Connecticut Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal about Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen said there is no one at the company holding its cofounder accountable.

"The buck stops with Mark," she said.

Facebook's corporate strategy has led to its current trials, she added.

"The metrics make the decision. Unfortunately that in itself is a decision and in the end, (Zuckerberg) is the CEO and the chairman of Facebook, he is responsible for those decisions," she said.

After Blumenthal called Zuckerberg "the algorithm designer in chief," Haugen described how the CEO and chairman's management style has led to a troublesome cycle.

"Facebook has struggled for a long time to recruit and retain the number of employees in needs to tackle the large scope of projects it has chosen to take on," she said. "That causes it to understaff projects, which causes scandals, which then makes it harder to hire."

That is why the company, "needs to come out and say, 'We did something wrong. We made some choices that we regret,' she said. "The only way we can move forward and heal Facebook is we first have to admit the truth."

– Mike Snider

Haugen: 'The choices being made inside Facebook are disastrous'

In her opening remarks, Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen recounted her experience at Facebook and pleaded with lawmakers to tackle the tech giant's behavior head on.

“The choice being made at Facebook are disastrous,” Haugen said in her opening remarks, adding that many of the decisions made through its business practices and products have “led to actual violence that harms and even kills people.”

Haugen highlighted instances of radicalization on Facebook’s platforms around the world, including mob violence and genocides in many countries like Myanmar and Ethiopia.

She said the company was fully aware of its platforms’ effects on people, especially children. “This is about Facebook choosing to grow at all costs,” Haugen said.

“Almost no one outside of Facebook knows what happens inside of Facebook,” Haugen said, comparing the company’s opacity to other tech giants like Alphabet, which owns Google and YouTube.

Haugen said Facebook “intentionally hides” its inner workings from the American public and governments around the world in an effort to hide the effects of its company.

“Until the invectives change, Facebook will not change. Left alone, Facebook will continue to make choices against the common good. Our common good,” she said.

Haugen called on lawmakers to intervene in the situation and reign in the social media company’s behavior, comparing Facebook's behavior to that of the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries avoiding accountability in the past.

Haugen said that because of the black box nature of Facebook’s algorithms, the government and the public are left to judge the company’s algorithms by their end result, which is less effective than seeing the technology from the inside.

“A safer, free speech respecting social media is possible,” Haugen said, arguing that the many revelations about the company “are only the first chapters in a story so terrifying, no one wants. To read the end of it.”

– Matthew Brown

Sen. Marsha Blackburn calls out Facebook's role in addiction in kids

Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., charged that Facebook continues to put profit ahead of the safety of the children and teen users on its platform – a bipartisan issue that could unite legislators against the tech giant.

She cited research provided by Facebook after Haugen's revelations, which found 66% of teen girls and 40% of teen boys on Instagram experienced negative social comparisons. Another finding: 52% of teen girls who experienced negative social comparison on Instagram said it was caused by images related to beauty.

"Social comparison is worse on Instagram because it is perceived as real life, but based on celebrity standards," Blackburn said.

The resulting social media consumption cycle can lead to "a downward emotional spiral encompassing a range of emotions from jealousy to self-proclaimed body dysmorphia," Blackburn said.

Facebook also accepts that users can become addicted, Blackburn said, using a term it "calls conveniently 'problematic use,'" which is "most severe in teens peaking at age 14."

"Big tech companies have gotten away with abusing consumers for far too long," Blackburn said. "It is clear that Facebook prioritizes profit over the well-being of our children and all users."

– Mike Snider

Facebook CEO Zuckerberg, COO Sandberg silent amid crisis

As lawmakers and the public again train their attention on Facebook amid its most damaging scandal in years, the company’s top executives are silent.

Facebook Chief Executive Officer and co-founder Mark Zuckerberg is absent from the national spotlight. The company’s chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, is also missing in action.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., has said he will call on Zuckerberg to testify about the latest reports on the company’s internal research. Facebook has not yet issued a statement on whether he would testify before Congress.

Since the latest reports from the Wall Street Journal, the company’s vice president for global affairs and communications, Nick Clegg, has been the main spokesperson for the company, pushing back on the latest reports.

Instagram's top executive, Adam Mosseri, has also made media appearances since the latest revelations, including announcing that the company would halt work on its Instagram Kids project amid public backlash.

Zuckerberg and Sandberg’s absence from the public eye mirrors past major crises for the company, including the 2018 Cambridge Analytica scandal.

– Matthew Brown

Facebook's Monday outage stranded billions of users

Tuesday's hearing comes less than 24 hours after Facebook and its associated apps came back to life following one of the longest outages in its history.

Monday’s outage of Facebook, Facebook Messenger, Instagram and WhatsApp marooned billions of users who rely on the social media giant and its apps for everything from connecting with friends to running their businesses and logging into websites.

The social network and the Facebook-owned platforms stopped working around 11:30 a.m. EDT Monday, according to the site Downdetector.com. At around 5:40 p.m., some users were able to access the platforms, but not all functions were back.

Facebook said late Monday that “the root cause of this outage was a faulty configuration change” and that there was “no evidence that user data was compromised as a result.”

– Terry Collins

Follow Matthew Brown online @mbrownsir.

Starbucks says it's 'deeply concerned' White House met union ...

New York CNN Business —

Starbucks isn’t pleased that the White House left management out of a meeting with union representatives.

On Thursday, union organizers representing workers at Starbucks, REI and Amazon, among others, met with Vice President Kamala Harris and Labor Secretary Marty Walsh at the White House. President Joe Biden also stopped by the meeting to greet the organizers.

Representatives for Starbucks (SBUX) weren’t present. That doesn’t sit well with the company.

“We are deeply concerned” that union representatives were invited to the meeting while “official Starbucks representatives” weren’t there to share their views, wrote AJ Jones II, SVP of global communications and public affairs at Starbucks, in a Friday letter addressed to Steve Ricchetti, counselor to the president.

Starbucks is "deeply concerned" that it was excluded from a White House meeting with union representatives. Spencer Platt/Getty Images

“We believe this lack of representation discounts the reality that the majority of our partners oppose being members of a union,” he said. “I am requesting the opportunity to meet with you and bring a diverse, representative group of Starbucks [employees] … so that they can share points of view and experiences.” The White House didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the letter.

Starbucks Workers United, which has been working to unionize Starbucks stores, said in a statement that “if Starbucks … grants us equal company time to talk to partners for every anti-union meeting they hold, we’d be happy to have them tag along next time we get invited to the White House.”

The group added that “the President, VP and Sec Walsh took the time yesterday to hear Laura Garza, a proud 22-year [employee] at Starbucks, explain what it’s like to be intimidated and harassed by a company she has devoted her working life to.” The company added that “she spoke on behalf of the partners at over 60 stores across the US who have voted to unionize.”

So far, dozens of company-operated Starbucks (SBUX) stores have so voted to unionize. That’s just a sliver of Starbucks (SBUX)’ roughly 8,800 US corporate stores. But the movement is gaining momentum, and Starbucks (SBUX) is eager to squash it.

Earlier this week, Starbucks’ interim CEO Howard Schultz said during an analyst call that unionized workers could be left out of future wage hikes. Starbucks Workers United said that it is filing charges with the National Labor Relations Board, requesting an order that would require the company to give all Starbucks workers access to the new benefits.

— CNN’s Brian Fung contributed to this report.

7 takeaways from Tuesday's shocking January 6 hearing

CNN —

The House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, Capitol Hill insurrection reconvened Tuesday for a hastily scheduled hearing, featuring blockbuster testimony from Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson.

Hutchinson has cooperated extensively with the investigation, having sat for four closed-door depositions. She revealed how then-President Donald Trump and his inner circle were warned about the potential for violence on January 6, and how Trump wanted to join the throngs of his supporters at the US Capitol.

The testimony bolstered the narrative that the committee has been driving toward over the last few weeks: That Trump incited and supported the insurrection as part of a desperate power grab to steal a second term, and that many of his top advisers thought his schemes were illegal.

Here are takeaways from Hutchinson’s key testimony.

Trump and his chief of staff were warned about violence – including armed attendees of rally

Hutchinson really moved the ball forward in terms of establishing that Trump was personally aware of the potential for violence, yet forged ahead on January 6 with his attempts to rile up his supporters to interfere with the joint session of Congress to certify President Joe Biden’s victory.

She said Trump was told that morning that weapons were being confiscated from some of his supporters who came for his rally. Later, when Trump and his team were at the Ellipse – the large oval lawn on the south side of the White House – and before his speech, Trump barked out orders to his staffers to “take the mags away” – referring to the metal detectors – because the people in the crowd, “they’re not here to hurt me.”

Trump also said, “I don’t f**king care that they have weapons,” according to Hutchinson. This is particularly shocking, because Trump then encouraged the same crowd to march to the Capitol while lawmakers were affirming Biden’s win. (Hundreds of Trump’s diehard supporters soon stormed the Capitol, many carrying knives, bear spray, metal poles, tasers and a few guns.)

Ex-aide was backstage with Trump at his Jan. 6 rally. Here's what she heard him say 02:52 - Source: CNN

When Hutchinson told her boss, Meadows, about early reports of weapons getting confiscated, Meadows didn’t even look up from his phone, according to Hutchinson. Two days earlier, he told her that “things might get real, real, bad on January 6.”

“The potential for violence was learned or known before the onset of the violence, early enough for President Trump to have taken steps to prevent it,” said Republican Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the panel’s GOP vice chair. She added that Trump could have urged his supporters not to march to the Capitol, or condemned the violence more quickly, but didn’t, because he “had something else in mind.”

Trump intended to go the Capitol and pushed to do so until the last minute

The select committee effectively proved as much on Tuesday by featuring a mix of damning witness testimony and White House records that show Trump intended to join his supporters at the Capitol and was pushing to do so just minutes before the violence began to escalate.

It was previously known that Trump wanted to go to the Capitol, but Hutchinson’s testimony established for the first time that people around Trump had advance knowledge of this plan.

The reality of Trump’s intentions became clear to national security officials in real time as they learned the Secret Service was scrambling to find a way for the former President to travel to the Capitol while he was on stage urging his followers to march, according to National Security Council chat logs from that day that were revealed for the first time during Tuesday’s hearing.

The NSC chat logs provide a minute-by-minute accounting of how the situation evolved from the perspective of top White House national security officials on January 6 and, along with witness testimony delivered on Tuesday, contradict an account by Meadows in his book where he says Trump never intended to march to the Capitol.

“MOGUL’s going to the Capital … they are clearing a route now,” a message sent to the chat log at 12:29 p.m. ET on January 6 reads – referring to the former President’s secret service code name.

“MilAide has confirmed that he wants to walk,” a 12:32 p.m. message reads. “They are begging him to reconsider.”

“So this is happening,” a message sent at 12:47 p.m. states.

Hutchinson also testified that some in Trump’s orbit had made clear days before January 6 that Trump wanted to travel to the US Capitol.

She told the committee Tuesday that Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani told her on January 2 – four days before the US Capitol was attacked by Trump supporters – that “we’re going to the Capitol” on January 6, and that Trump himself was also planning to be there.

'This was obscene': Tapper reacts to ex-White House aide's Jan. 6 testimony 05:28 - Source: CNN

Aide recounts secondhand incident where Trump reached for steering wheel

Hutchinson testified Tuesday that she heard a secondhand account of how Trump was so enraged at his Secret Service detail for blocking him from going to the Capitol on January 6 that he lunged to the front of his presidential limo and tried to turn the wheel.

She said that Tony Ornato, then-White House deputy chief of staff, said that Robert Engel, who was the Secret Service agent in charge on January 6, repeatedly told Trump on their way back to the White House after Trump’s Ellipse speech that it wasn’t safe to go to the Capitol.

According to Hutchinson, Ornato recounted Trump screaming, “I’m the f**king President. Take me up to the Capitol now.” Trump then “reached up toward the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel,” Hutchinson remembered learning. She added that, according to Ornato, Trump used his other hand “lunge” at Engel.

Engel and Ornato have both testified to the committee behind closed doors, but their statements were not used in the hearing Tuesday.

After the testimony, a Secret Service official familiar with the matter told CNN that Ornato denies telling Hutchinson that the former President grabbed the wheel or an agent on his detail.

The Secret Service, through the Department of Homeland Security Office of Legislative Affairs, notified the committee Tuesday afternoon that it will make the agents involved available to testify under oath, the official said. The agents are also prepared to say under oath that the incident itself did not occur.

The lead agent, Engel, previously testified before the committee and described the interactions with Trump on January 6, including the former President’s desire to travel to the Capitol, but he was not asked about an altercation or being assaulted, the official said.

Asked about the Secret Service disputing the testimony, a committee spokesman said, “The committee trusts the creditability of a witness who is willing to testify under oath and in public but is also willing to hear any and all information that others may have that would aid in their investigation.”

Secret Service officials: Agents willing to dispute Trump SUV incident under oath 03:21 - Source: CNN

Hutchinson also recounted a separate Trump tantrum after then-Attorney General William Barr told the Associated Press in December 2020 there was no evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 election.

“I remember hearing noise coming from down the hallway,” Hutchinson began. She saw the President’s valet in the dining room, changing the tablecloth, ketchup dripping down the wall, and a porcelain plate shattered on the floor.

“The President was extremely angry at the attorney general’s … interview and had thrown his lunch against the wall,” Hutchinson said. “I grabbed a towel and started wiping the ketchup off the wall.”

The anecdote came up as the committee questioned Hutchinson about Trump’s state of mind after losing the election.

Cipollone warned: ‘People are going to die and the blood’s gonna be on your f**king hands’

Trump defended the rioters chanting for the hanging of then-Vice President Mike Pence on January 6, according to Hutchinson.

Hutchinson relayed a conversation she observed between White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and Meadows after they discussed with Trump the chants to inflict violence on Pence.

“I remember Pat saying something to the effect of ‘Mark, we need to do something more. They’re literally calling for the vice president to be f**king hung,’” Hutchinson recalled.

Meadows replied, “You heard him, Pat. He thinks Mike deserves it. He doesn’t think they’re doing anything wrong,” according to Hutchinson.

Cipollone responded, “This is f**king crazy. We need to be doing something more.”

Hutchinson testified that Cipollone had previously rushed into Meadows’ office after rioters breached the Capitol and told Meadows what had happened, and said they needed to go meet with Trump.

“Mark, something needs to be done, or people are going to die and the blood’s gonna be on your f**king hands,” Cipollone told Meadows, according to Hutchinson. “This is getting out of control.”

Hear John Dean's direct message to ex-Trump White House lawyer 01:48 - Source: CNN

‘There was a large concern’ in White House of the 25th Amendment being invoked after riot

Trump delivered a speech on January 7, 2021, finally acknowledging that Biden would be inaugurated in part because there was a “large concern” by the White House that Pence and the Cabinet could invoke the 25th Amendment to remove him from power, according to Cassidy’s testimony.

Hutchinson also testified that Trump did not want to include references in the speech to prosecuting the pro-Trump rioters, but instead wanted to float pardons for them. After the White House Counsel’s office pushed back, Trump did not mention pardons in that speech.

If the 25th Amendment had been invoked, Trump could’ve put his presidency up for a vote before Congress, where two-thirds would have been necessary to kick him out.

“There was a large concern of the 25th Amendment potentially being invoked, and there were concerns about what would happen in the Senate if it was,” Hutchinson testified.

The thinking at the time was that Trump needed the speech “as cover” to protect himself from the threat of his Cabinet trying to oust him from power, Hutchinson said. She said that was a “secondary reason” for Trump to give the speech; the first was that Trump needed to condemn the violent attack to try and prevent it from becoming his legacy.

While Trump gave the speech effectively conceding the election, he wanted to remove calls for “prosecuting the rioters or calling them violent” from early drafts of his January 7 speech, according to Hutchinson, but wanted to float pardons to his supporters.

“He didn’t want that in there,” Hutchinson said. “He wanted to put in that he wanted to potentially pardon them.”

“He didn’t think that they did anything wrong,” said Hutchinson, referring to the pro-Trump rioters. “The people who did something wrong that day-or-the person who did something wrong that day was Mike Pence, by not standing with him.”

Trump’s conduct on January 6 was ‘un-American’ and ‘unpatriotic,’ Hutchinson says

In emotional and powerful testimony, Hutchinson said Trump’s behavior on January 6 was “unpatriotic” and “un-American.”

The committee asked Hutchinson to describe her real-time reaction from January 6, when Trump attacked Pence in a tweet at 2:24 p.m. ET, which was after his supporters invaded the Capitol, forcing Pence, lawmakers, and staffers to run for their lives.

“As a staffer … I remember feeling frustrated, disappointed, and really, it felt personal. It was really sad,” Hutchinson said. “As an American, I was disgusted. It was unpatriotic. It was un-American. We’re watching the Capitol building get defaced over a lie. And it was something that was really hard in that moment to digest. … I still struggle to work through the emotions of that.”

Her condemnation of Trump’s behavior may shed some light on her motivations for coming forward with so much damaging information about January 6. Committee members have heaped praise on Hutchinson and other Republicans who have testified, calling them patriots.

See how close rioters got to Pence as they breached the Capitol 03:07 - Source: CNN

Committee teases evidence of witness tampering

The committee has secured testimony from some major witnesses members of Trump’s inner circle, even members of his family. But Cheney suggested during the hearing that there might be a Trump-imposed blockade of sorts, and that the panel has evidence of witness tampering.

She said one witness – whom the committee did not identify – testified that: “What they said to me is, as long as I continue to be a team player, they know that I’m on the team, I’m doing the right thing, I’m protecting who I need to protect, you know, I’ll continue to stay in good graces in Trump world.”

Another unidentified witness said they were told by someone in Trump’s orbit that Trump was “thinking about you” and that “he knows you’re loyal” and hopes that “you’re going to do the right thing when you go in for your deposition.”

Cheney said the committee takes this “seriously” and will be considering “next steps,” potentially hinting at a criminal referral, for possible witness tampering or obstruction. Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the committee chairman, issued a public plea for more cooperation, saying to potential witnesses that if “you discovered some courage you had hidden away somewhere, our doors remain open.”

Trump has denied all wrongdoing regarding January 6 and the related investigations.

The new evidence from the committee is consistent with a years-long pattern of behavior by Trump, who has repeatedly used private and public channels to pressure people who could testify against him. This happened with his former lawyer Michael Cohen and his 2016 campaign chairman Paul Manafort during the Russia investigation, and with a US ambassador during the 2019 impeachment hearings.

Trump has also retaliated against people who provided damaging public testimony against him, including a top White House national security official and his ambassador to the European Union, who both described his pressure campaign against Ukraine during House impeachment hearings in 2019.

This story has been updated with additional developments Tuesday.

CORRECTION: This story has been corrected to note that Trump did not mention pardons for rioters in his January 7, 2021, speech.

Marshall Cohen Zachary Cohen Alex Rogers

Democrat introduces resolution to expel Santos from House: Updates

WASHINGTON — A Democratic congressman Thursday launched an effort to expel GOP Rep. George Santos from Congress. California Rep. Robert Garcia referred a resolution to the House Ethics Committee to kick out tghe freshman New York lawmaker who lied about his background and finances during last year's campaign.

Meanwhile, the Republican head of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee ramped up his probe of President Joe Biden’s son and brother. Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., is requesting Hunter and James Biden for documents since 2009 covering communications with intelligence agencies, travel and financial records since Biden was vice president

Here's what else is happening in politics:

Smart analysis delivered to your inbox: Sign up for the OnPolitics newsletter

Fetterman's doctors rule out stroke as cause of recent dizziness

Sen. John Fetterman's doctors have concluded that the Pennsylvania Democrat who was hospitalized late Wednesday for lightheadedness did not suffer a stroke.

Fetterman, who suffered a stroke during his 2022 Senate campaign in Pennsylvania, was taken to George Washington University Hospital after feeling dizzy toward the end of a Senate Democratic retreat Wednesday, according to his spokesperson, Joe Calvello.

On Thursday, Calvello said the results of an MRI "along with the results of all of the other tests the doctors ran, rule out a new stroke. He is being monitored with an EEG for signs of seizure - so far there are no signs of seizure, but he is still being monitored."

- Candy Woodall

Minnesota congresswoman attacked in apartment building elevator

Minnesota Democratic Rep. Angie Craig was assaulted at her apartment building in Washington Thursday morning, according to the congresswoman’s office.

The incident occurred in an elevator around 7:15 a.m.

“Rep. Craig defended herself from the attacker and suffered bruising, but is otherwise physically okay,” Craig’s chief of staff, Nick Coe, said in a statement.

Coe added that “there is no evidence that the incident was politically motivated.”

- Phillip M. Bailey

‘Time for him to go‘: Democrats introduce resolution to expel George Santos

Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., referred a resolution Thursday to the House Ethics Committee to expel GOP Rep. George Santos from Congress. The freshman Democrat called Santos a fraud and a liar for misrepresenting his background and finances during his campaign last year for New York's third district.

“It’s time for him to go,” Garcia said. “We have given him plenty of time to resign and he has chosen not to do so.”

The odds of expulsion are long. It would take two-thirds of the chamber to vote for such a move. Santos told USA TODAY “it’s their prerogative" to introduce a resolution, and maintained his position that he will not resign from office.

“They can do whatever they want. For people who like to talk about silencing voters, they want to silence 142,000 people who voted to send me here," he said.

- Rachel Looker and Candy Woodall

Santos probes:George Santos controversy: Here's a look at investigations of the House Republican

Donald Trump's Facebook account is officially restored

Brace yourselves for Donald Trump's first new Facebook post.

Meta Platforms Inc. mechanically restored Trump's Facebook and Instagram accounts Thursday, more than two years after suspending him for improper content in the wake of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.

The social media giant announced Jan. 25 that it would lift Trump's suspension, and threatened more penalties if the ex-president again violates their content policies.

– David Jackson

Why Biden keeps revisiting the Social Security, Medicare heckling episode

President Joe Biden won’t let Republicans forget about their heckling – and apparent commitment not to touch Medicare or Social Security – from his State of the Union address this week.

“It sounded like they agreed to take these cuts off the table. I sure hope so. I mean it," Biden said, speaking Thursday at the University of Tampa in Florida.

Republicans booed and jeered Biden during the State of the Union when he accused them of wanting to cut Social Security and Medicare, pointing to a proposal by Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., to sunset all federal programs every five years. The White House believes the moment boxed Republicans – who have pushed unspecified spending cuts during debt ceiling talks – into a corner.

“I know that a lot of Republicans' dream is to cut Social Security and Medicare. Well, let me say this. If that's your dream, I'm your nightmare,” Biden said.

- Joey Garrison and Maureen Groppe

Nikki Haley schedule update: Iowa is also on her announcement itinerary

Having already announced events in South Carolina and New Hampshire, soon-to-be presidential candidate Nikki Haley has added another early contest state to her announcement tour: Iowa.

Haley, who formally announces her candidacy Wednesday in Charleston, S.C., will conduct a town hall in Urbandale, Iowa, on Feb. 20, and Marion, Iowa, on Feb. 21, according to her campaign. The 2024 GOP presidential campaign kicks off in the Hawkeye State which holds the first caucus in the nation.

The former United Nations ambassador who is challenging Donald Trump for the GOP nomination in 2024 has two halls in New Hampshire late next week.

– David Jackson

GOP Congressman calls Santos 'a joke' but wouldn't vote to expel him

Rep. Dusty Johnson, a South Dakota Republican and key ally of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, is joining the growing number of members in his party who believe Rep. George Santos doesn’t belong in Congress.

“George Santos is a joke, and he shouldn’t be in Congress,” Johnson told USA TODAY Thursday. But Johnson was hesitant about a Democratic resolution to expel Santos.

“It’s the voters who get to decide who to hire and fire,” he said. “Before we start exercising a veto over the decision of the voters, I think we really want to proceed cautiously.”

- Candy Woodall

'Sick puppy':Mitt Romney calls George Santos 'a sick puppy' after Biden State of the Union

House unanimously condemns China’s spy balloon

A usually divided House came together Thursday to slam the Chinese government for sending a spy balloon to fly over much of the continental U.S. this month.

Five days after the military shot down the surveillance device, lawmakers unanimously passed a resolution condemning the foreign nation that called the incident “a brazen violation of (American) sovereignty.”

State Department officials said Thursday the balloon, which was shot down off the South Carolina coast, was fashioned with equipment that was "clearly for intelligence surveillance.”

“An event like this… must not happen again. And it cannot go unanswered,” Republican Rep. Michael McCaul, of Texas, who is chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said during Thursday’s floor debate.

- Phillip M. Bailey

White House calls House inquiry ‘political stunt’

A White House spokesperson slammed a House hearing scheduled Thursday as a “political stunt” aimed at getting participants more attention on Fox News.

The Judiciary subcommittee on the weaponization of the federal government will hear from witnesses including Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Ron Johnson, R-Wis., who have investigated Hunter Biden’s foreign business deals. Other witnesses include former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, a Fox News contributor, and former FBI agent Nicole Parker.

“These extreme MAGA Republicans in Congress are choosing to make it their top priority to go down the rabbit hole of debunked conspiracy theories about a ‘deep state’ instead of taking a deep breath and deciding to work with the President and Democrats in Congress to improve Americans’ everyday lives,” Ian Sams, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement.

– Bart Jansen

Hunter Biden laptop story enflames House lawmakers:7 takeaways from Twitter hearing

Report: Election deniers lost, but election threats remain

Many Donald Trump-backed election deniers lost bids for office last year, but the threat of election subversion remains, says a new report – particularly physical threats to election workers.

“While the most feared threats to election administration and vote counting did not materialize in 2022, that doesn’t mean that the elevated risks to our elections have disappeared and we can lower our guard,” said Wendy Weiser, Vice President for Democracy at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law.

Weiser is a member of the National Task Force on Election Crises, which issued a report Thursday warning that there are still some current government officials – mostly Trump-style Republicans – who want to manipulate voting and election laws to favor their candidates.

The report urged the government to remain vigilant about election threats, especially from partisans willing to physically threaten election officials to try and get their way.

"The threat of political violence was one the most concerning aspects of the 2022 cycle and one that shows no signs of abating," the report said.

– David Jackson

Sen. Fetterman hospitalized:Democratic Sen. John Fetterman, who suffered a stroke on campaign trail, hospitalized for lightheadedness

Comer demands documents from president’s son, brother

The head of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee ratcheted up his investigation of President Joe Biden’s son and brother with a request to them for documents since 2009 covering communications with intelligence agencies, travel and financial records since Biden was vice president.

Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., said the letters to Hunter and James Biden, and their business associate Eric Schwerin, would help the panel draft stronger ethics legislation for federal officials and their families. The request followed a six-hour hearing Wednesday about Twitter stifling news coverage of Hunter Biden’s laptop, which contained information about foreign business deals.

Joe Biden dismissed the inquiry. “The public’s not going to pay attention to that,” Biden told the PBS NewsHour on Wednesday. “If the only thing they can do is make up things about my family, it’s not going to go very far.”

--Bart Jansen

Biden's GOP antagonists:Biden’s most vocal GOP antagonists emerge, World Economic Forum preview: 5 Things podcast

Hunter Biden lawyer calls Comer inquiry ‘inaccurate’ and ‘baseless’

Abbe Lowell, a lawyer representing Hunter Biden, replied to Rep. James Comer’s request for documents from the president’s son as “peddling inaccurate and baseless conclusions.”

As head of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, Comer, R-Ky., had demanded Hunter Biden documents about intelligence agencies, travel and finances since 2009 to draft stronger ethics legislation. But Lowell said Hunter Biden is a private citizen and the panel lacks a legitimate legislative purpose.

“Peddling your own inaccurate and baseless conclusions under the guise of a real investigation, turns the Committee into ‘Wonderland’ and you into the Queen of Hearts shouting, ‘sentence first, verdict afterwards,’” Lowell wrote in a four-page letter to Comer.

– Bart Jansen

Hunter Biden's art dealer says his work is 'important':Why the paintings factor into GOP probes.

Pentagon: China conducted spy balloon program for years

The Chinese balloon shot down off the South Carolina coast was part of a large surveillance program that China has been conducting for “several years,” the Pentagon said Wednesday.

When similar balloons passed over U.S. territory on four occasions during the Trump and Biden administrations, the U.S. did not immediately identify them as Chinese surveillance balloons, said Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder, the Pentagon press secretary. But he said “subsequent intelligence analysis” allowed the U.S. to confirm they were part of a Chinese spying effort and learn “a lot more” about the program.

– Associated Press

Spy balloon flew over sensitive US sites:Chinese spy balloon flew over other US missile and nuclear weapons sites, lawmaker says

White House hits back at GOP after State of the Union heckling over Social Security, Medicare

During President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address Tuesday, GOP lawmakers responded with vocal outrage when the president suggested Republicans want to cut Social Security and Medicare. But on Thursday, the White House pulled out the receipts.

In a fact sheet titled “Congressional Republicans’ Many Proposals to Cut Social Security and Medicare, and Increase Prescription Drug Prices and Health Care Premiums,” the White House called out the party and several GOP lawmakers by name for having a “different record” on the popular programs than they loudly claimed Tuesday.

The fact sheet shows the White House’s growing boldness in calling out the opposite party as the 2024 election rapidly approaches.

-Ella Lee

State of the Union takeaways:Blue-collar Joe, GOP boos and a 2024 preview

'Moms for Liberty' asks Iowa lawmakers to get 'inappropriate' books out of schools

Five Iowa moms, all members of the conservative "Moms for Liberty" group, made their case to lawmakers this week about their efforts to remove or limit inappropriate books in schools.

"This legislature needs to come together and find common ground on protecting children from obscenity," said Mandy Gilbert, a Johnston parent and secretary for the Polk County Moms for Liberty chapter.

Outside the Iowa House Government Oversight Committee room, a small group held signs that condemned book banning. Former Iowa teacher Alena Treat said she's concerned the push against inappropriate books is part of a larger effort to remove LGBTQ representation from schools.

– Katie Akin, Des Moines Register

Read the full story:'Moms for Liberty' calls on Iowa legislature to rid schools of 'inappropriate' books'

Hunter Biden laptop story enflames House lawmakers

The House hearing Wednesday into Twitter’s brief suppression of a story about Hunter Biden’s laptop outlined the queasiness of former executives to block it and provided a bare-knuckle arena for partisan lawmakers to debate allegations against President Joe Biden.

Former Twitter executives told the House Oversight and Accountability Committee the company blocked links to the New York Post story in October 2020 because of similarities to the posting of leaks from hacked Democratic computers before the 2016 election. The executives called the 24-hour suppression a mistake and said it was difficult to judge between contentious and dangerous speech during a campaign.

Republican lawmakers argued Twitter’s decision could have thrown the election to Biden rather than former President Donald Trump, while Democrats called the hearing “silly” and a "bizarre political stunt.”

– Bart Jansen

Read the full story:Hunter Biden laptop story enflames House lawmakers: 7 takeaways from Twitter hearing

Sen. John Fetterman hospitalized for lightheadedness

Sen. John Fetterman, who had a stroke during his 2022 Senate campaign in Pennsylvania, is in the hospital, his office said late Wednesday night.

Fetterman was taken to George Washington University Hospital after feeling lightheaded toward the end of the Senate Democratic retreat Wednesday, according to a statement from his spokesperson, Joe Calvello.

"Initial tests did not show evidence of a new stroke, but doctors are running more tests and John is remaining overnight for observation," Calvello said.

-- Candy Woodall

Read the whole story here:Democratic Sen. John Fetterman, who suffered a stroke on campaign trail, hospitalized for lightheadedness

Biden schedule today

President Joe Biden will travel to Floriday as part of his post-State of the Union travel to bring his key issues to an outside-the-Beltway audience. He will focus today is on Social Security and Medicare.

Biden's event at 1:30 pm will be held in Tampa.

Biden to bring Social Security fight to Florida

President Joe Biden will continue his attacks on Republicans over Social Security and Medicare when he travels to Florida.

Biden has accused Republicans – including Florida Sen. Rick Scott – of endangering the popular retirement programs by proposing all federal legislation by renewed every five years. Scott says Biden is twisting his words.

Biden appeared to relish the dispute over the issue during his State of the Union address when Republican lawmakers interrupted his speech to challenge him.

Biden said Wednesday he hopes that means Republicans have agreed not to cut Social Security and Medicare but, “I’ll believe it when I see it.”

– Maureen Groppe

More:Marjorie Taylor Greene, other Republicans spar with Biden over Social Security, Medicare

Subcommittee on weaponization of the government set to hold first hearing Thursday

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., will testify Thursday during a GOP-led hearing of the congressional subcommittee investigating the alleged weaponization of the government against Republicans.

Johnson plans to speak about the “roadblocks” he faced from government agencies during his investigation into President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, that concluded in 2020 while Johnson was the chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Johnson's office told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, former Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, who recently quit the Democratic Party, and former FBI special agent Nicole Parker will also testify during the hearing, according to CNN, which was first to report the developments.

– Lawrence Andrea

Biden under scrutiny:House Republicans gear up investigations of the president

Biden: Republican investigations of my family 'won’t go very far'

President Joe Biden said House Republicans’ investigations into the business dealings of his son, Hunter Biden, and other members of his family "won’t go very far."

"The public’s not going to pay attention to that," Biden said in an interview Wednesday on PBS NewsHour. "They want these guys to do something. If the only thing they can do is make up things about my family, it’s not going to go very far."

The Republican-led House Oversight Committee held its first hearing Wednesday investigating the Biden family as former Twitter executives faced questions about media coverage of Hunter Biden’s laptop. It's the start of a string of probes into the president that Republicans have long promised.

– Joey Garrison

7 takeaways from Twitter hearing:Hunter Biden laptop story enflames House lawmakers

'It's war.' Tensions remain high at first Amazon warehouse in US to ...

CNN Business —

In the two months since workers at an Amazon warehouse in Staten Island, New York, voted to form the company’s first US labor union, the organizers have been on a victory lap.

Leaders for the newly formed Amazon Labor Union have visited the White House, testified before a Senate committee, been featured on Time’s list of the 100 most influential people and rallied alongside prominent progressive political figures such as Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The fired-Amazon-worker-turned-union-president, Chris Smalls, has also been recognized publicly, both as a labor leader and for his fashion sense, with his style written up by the New York Times.

But inside the Staten Island facility, known as JFK8, tensions remain high between the union and Amazon. Several worker-organizers at the facility have been fired, sparking heated responses from the union. Amazon has yet to sit down at the bargaining table with the union, prompting Sen. Sanders and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand on Friday to urge Amazon’s CEO to recognize the union rather than fight it. And Amazon is currently attempting to have the election results thrown out after filing more than two dozen objections, not only concerning alleged behavior of union leaders but also that of the regional office of the National Labor Relations Board, which oversaw the election. The agency has denied Amazon’s charges against it.

A hearing on the objections kicked off Monday at an NLRB regional office in Phoenix, Arizona, given the accusations alleged in Amazon’s objections against the local regional office in New York. Amazon pushed to keep the hearing closed to the public, but the federal labor agency ruled against it in a recent filing. “The Board’s hearings are not secret. Accordingly, preventing the public from viewing its important processes is not an option,” the filing stated. The ALU, meanwhile, has indicated plans to travel to Phoenix to rally for recognition.

The ongoing saga at the facility shows how the surprise victory for the underdog Amazon Labor Union is far from the end of a long battle for collective bargaining between some warehouse workers and one of the country’s largest employers. It also points to a playbook Amazon could use with other warehouses, at a time when the pandemic has heightened concerns among some employees about working conditions at the e-commerce giant. At Amazon, only a few other US locations have held a union election and, so far, they’ve failed to successfully unionize.

“Amazon is not willing to recognize having a union,” said Kate Bronfenbrenner, the director of Labor Education Research Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations. She added that the developments at JFK8 reveal major weaknesses in US labor laws. “One of the problems under our labor law is that if a company refuses to bargain, the worst penalty is a piece of paper saying, ‘Go bargain.’”

Union organizer Christian Smalls speaks following the April 1, 2022, vote for the unionization of the Amazon Staten Island warehouse in New York. Andrea Renault/AFP/Getty Images

Amazon has repeatedly emphasized in statements that while employees have a choice to join a union, it prefers to communicate with workers directly — a common refrain among employers facing a wave of workplace activism during the pandemic. In a recent interview at the Bloomberg Technology Summit, Amazon CEO Andy Jassy reiterated this point, stating the company believes its workers are “better off without a union.”

Among its complaints, Amazon alleged in a filing that the NLRB’s regional office, which oversaw the election at the facility, “unfairly and inappropriately facilitated the [Amazon Labor Union’s] victory.” Amazon also accused the grassroots union, spearheaded by Smalls, of intimidating employees, among other allegations.

Seth Goldstein, an attorney for the union, called the objections “racist, baseless, and absurd” in a statement online. Smalls added, “These objections are insulting to the workers of JFK8 who survived the pandemic and defeated a trillion-dollar company just to see Amazon use their highly-paid lawyers to silence the voices of thousands of their workers.”

The new union, meanwhile, has strongly taken issue with staff firings at JFK8. After news last week that the company had fired another worker-organizer at the facility, marking at least the third to have been dismissed since the initial election results, the newly formed union did not mince words.

“It’s war,” the Amazon Labor Union tweeted on Thursday. Days earlier, the union had issued a similar warning to “Amazon’s lawyers” in a tweet: “If you fire the person you’re thinking about firing right now we’ll take it as an act of war.”

In a statement to CNN, Amazon spokesperson Kelly Nantel said the employee was let go due to violent workplace behavior. The union did not respond to requests for comment.

Amazon's JFK8 Staten Island fulfillment center is seen in Staten Island on March 25, 2022 in New York City. Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

In early May, there was also a reported dismissal of a group of managers at JFK8. Asked about this by CNN Business at the time, Amazon did not provide a comment but, in an explanation to the New York Times, said the management changes came after evaluating “operations and leadership” at the facility.

Bronfenbrenner said Amazon’s actions since the union election are not surprising for an employer that has opposed and avoided unionization efforts for so long.

“They’re going to fight to stay non-union for a very long time,” she said, “until the cost of being non-union becomes greater than the cost of being union, and that’s going to take having their customers and their investors put a great deal of pressure on them.”

Catherine Thorbecke Sara Ashley O'Brien
Catherine Thorbecke
Sara Ashley O'Brien

'Shut your mouth': GOP Sen. Mullin tangles with union boss in hearing

WASHINGTON–The clash between a union boss and Republican senator could be a preview of what's to come in the Sen. Bernie Sanders-led Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

Sanders has vowed to take on corporate, "union busting" CEOs as chair of the HELP committee, and a Thursday hearing served up rowdy moments of drama as the Vermont progressive keeps his promises.

The moment getting the most attention came during an intense exchange between GOP Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma and Teamsters President Sean O'Brien.

Heated debate between union president and Republican senator

Mullin, who said he's not anti-union, accused O'Brien of "sucking the paycheck" from workers to earn his nearly $200,000 salary.

O'Brien, who was at the hearing to testify about how employers intimidate employees, told Mullin he was out of line.

"Don't tell me I'm out of line," Mullin said. "You need to shut your mouth."

GOP senator fights with union leader

Mullin said he doesn't back down from a fight – and sometimes welcomes a physical fight – but he said he resents the type of union pressure he experienced as a businessman.

"I'm not afraid of a physical confrontation. In fact, sometimes I look forward to it," he said.

The Oklahoma senator claimed he came from less than nothing to build a multimillion-dollar plumbing company with hundreds of employees, and those non-union employees were intimidated by a local union.

"We hold greedy CEOs like yourself accountable," O’Brien said. "You want to attack my salary, I’ll attack yours. What did you make when you owned your company?"

Mullin claimed during the hearing he took a salary of $50,000 to be able to invest more revenue back into the company, but financial disclosures through the years show income between $200,000 and $2 million. U.S. senators earn $174,000 annually.

More:Teacher salaries become a bipartisan cause: Low pay 'a major crisis in education'

Candy Woodall is a Congress reporter for USA TODAY. She can be reached at cwoodall@usatoday.com or on Twitter at @candynotcandace.

What's in the Jan. 6 committee's report summary | CNN Politics

CNN —

The full report was published December 22, 2021. Read here.

The House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol has concluded that former President Donald Trump was ultimately responsible for the insurrection, laying out for the public and the Justice Department a trove of evidence for why he should be prosecuted for multiple crimes.

“That evidence has led to an overriding and straight-forward conclusion: the central cause of January 6th was one man, former President Donald Trump, who many others followed,” the committee writes in a summary of its final report released on Monday. “None of the events of January 6th would have happened without him.”

The summary describes in extensive detail how Trump tried to overpower, pressure and cajole anyone who wasn’t willing to help him overturn his election defeat – while knowing that many of his schemes were unlawful. His relentless arm-twisting included election administrators in key states, senior Justice Department leaders, state lawmakers, and others. The report even suggests possible witness tampering with the committee’s investigation.

The committee repeatedly uses forceful language to describe Trump’s intent: that he “purposely disseminated false allegations of fraud” in order to aid his efforts to overturn the 2020 election and to successfully solicit about $250 million in political contributions. “These false claims provoked his supporters to violence on January 6th.”

The full report, based on 1,000-plus interviews, documents collected including emails, texts, phone records and a year and a half of investigation by the nine-member bipartisan committee, will be released Wednesday, along with along with transcripts and other materials collected in the investigation.

Here’s what’s in the report summary:

The committee thinks Trump and others committed crimes, and is referring them to DOJ

The House committee lays out a number of criminal statutes it believes were violated in the plots to stave off Trump’s defeat and says there’s evidence for criminal referrals to the Justice Department for Trump, Trump attorney John Eastman and “others.”

The report summary says there’s evidence to pursue Trump on multiple crimes, including obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to make false statements, assisting or aiding an insurrection, conspiring to injure or impede an officer and seditious conspiracy.

Former President Donald Trump and John Eastman

The committee says it also has the evidence to refer Eastman on the obstruction charge, and it names him as a co-conspirator in other alleged criminal activity lawmakers have gathered evidence on.

In addition, several others are named as being participants in the conspiracies the committee is linking to Trump, including then-DOJ attorney Jeffrey Clark and Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows, as well as Trump-tied lawyers Kenneth Chesebro and Rudy Giuliani.

The committee alluded to evidence of criminal obstruction of the House investigation but the summary does not go into detail about that evidence.

Several of the individuals named by the committee – including Trump, Eastman and Giuliani – had their own responses Monday.

Trump’s false victory declaration was ‘premeditated’

The committee outlines 17 findings from its investigation that underpin its reasoning for criminal referrals, including that Trump knew the fraud allegations he was pushing were false and continued to amplify them anyway.

“President Trump’s decision to declare victory falsely on election night and, unlawfully, to call for the vote counting to stop, was not a spontaneous decision. It was premeditated,” the summary states.

The committee revealed emails from Tom Fitton, president of the conservative group Judicial Watch, from before the 2020 presidential election that say Trump should declare victory regardless of the outcome.

It also notes that Trump’s top allies, including those who testified before the committee, acknowledged they found no proof to back up the former president’s claims.

“Ultimately, even Rudolph Giuliani and his legal team acknowledged that they had no definitive evidence of election fraud sufficient to change the election outcome,” the summary states, referring to Trump’s then-personal attorney.

“For example, although Giuliani repeatedly had claimed in public that Dominion voting machines stole the election, he admitted during his Select Committee deposition that ‘I do not think the machines stole the election,’” it states.

Trump’s belief that the election is stolen is no excuse, lawmakers say

Sources familiar with Trump’s legal strategy in the Justice Department probe have told CNN that his attorneys believe prosecutors face an uphill battle in proving he did not believe the election was stolen despite being told as much by senior members of his own administration.

In making its case for a Justice Department prosecution of Trump, the House committee took aim at that possible defense.

In describing why the committee believes Trump’s conduct meet the prongs of each criminal statute, the summary stresses evidence that Trump had been warned that his schemes were unlawful.

Trump raised about $250 million by crying fraud

The committee says it gathered evidence indicating that Trump “raised roughly one quarter of a billion dollars in fundraising efforts between the election and January 6th. Those solicitations persistently claimed and referred to election fraud that did not exist.”

“For example, the Trump Campaign, along with the Republican National Committee, sent millions of emails to their supporters, with messaging claiming that the election was ‘rigged,’ that their donations could stop Democrats from ‘trying to steal the election,’ and that Vice President Biden would be an ‘illegitimate president’ if he took office,’” the summary states.

Several members of Congress are being referred to the House Ethics Committee

The select committee is referring several Republican lawmakers who refused to cooperate with the investigation to the House Ethics Committee.

Rep. Kevin McCarthy speaks to reporters at the US Capitol in Washington in November. Michael A. McCoy/Reuters

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, as well as Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio, Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and Andy Biggs of Arizona, could all face possible sanctions for their refusal to comply with committee subpoenas.

Concerns about witness credibility and Trump-allied attorneys

The committee raised concerns that attorneys paid by Trump’s political committee or allied groups were incentivized to protect the former president, saying, “lawyers who are receiving such payments have specific incentives to defend President Trump rather than zealously represent their own clients. The Department of Justice and the Fulton County District Attorney have been provided with certain information related to this topic.”

In one instance, a witness whose lawyer was being paid by a Trump-allied group was told she could “in certain circumstances, tell the Committee that she did not recall facts when she actually did recall them.” When the witness raised concerns with her lawyer about that approach, the lawyer said, “They don’t know what you know, [witness]. They don’t know that you can recall some of these things. So you saying ‘I don’t recall’ is an entirely acceptable response to this,” according to the report summary.

When it came to a specific issue that reflected negatively on Trump, the lawyer told his client, “No, no, no, no, no. We don’t want to go there. We don’t want to talk about that.”

The committee notes both Trump and his allies attempted to contact witnesses ahead of their committee testimony.

“The Select Committee is aware of multiple efforts by President Trump to contact Select Committee witnesses. The Department of Justice is aware of at least one of those circumstances,” according to the summary.

Ivanka Trump and Kayleigh McEnany

The committee also, in its final report, highlighted two high-profile witnesses – Ivanka Trump and then-White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany – as being less cooperative than others. They and others “displayed a lack of full recollection of certain issues, or were not otherwise as frank or direct as Cipollone.”

A video of Ivanka Trump is shown on screen during the seventh hearing held by the committee on July 12. Doug Mills/The New York Times/Pool/Getty Images

In another instance, Trump had an angry conversation with Pence in which he referred to the then-vice president as “The P word,” according to a committee interview with Ivanka Trump’s chief of staff, Julie Radford.

In Radford’s recollection, the name-calling was upsetting to Ivanka at the time, but when the committee asked Ivanka whether there were any “particular words” her father used in the conversation with Pence, “She answered simply: ‘No.’”

The summary states: “In several circumstances, the Committee has found that less senior White House aides had significantly better recollection of events than senior staff purported to have.”

As for McEnany, the committee called her testimony “evasive, as if she was testifying from pre-prepared talking points,” noting she was deposed early in the investigation and wasn’t as forthcoming as others from Trump’s press office.

Impropriety by Trump Justice Department officials

The report points the finger at two Trump appointees at the Justice Department who the committee believes abused their positions and acted unethically.

Clark, the former acting assistant attorney general for the Civil Division, is already well known for trying to weaponize the Justice Department to help Trump overturn the 2020 election. The committee raises the prospect that Clark broke the law. The Justice Department is already investigating Clark and federal agents have searched his home.

Jeffrey Clark, speaks during a news conference at the Justice Department in Washington in September 2020. Susan Walsh/Pool/AFP/Getty Images

One of the most egregious things Clark did was draft a letter for the Justice Department to send to election officials in battleground states, urging them to essentially overturn their results. The letter, crafted with help from fellow Trump appointee Ken Klukowski, falsely asserted that the department believed there were problems with the results.

“This was an intentional choice by Jeff Clark to contradict specific Department findings on election fraud, and purposely insert the Department into the Presidential election on President Trump’s behalf and risk creating or exacerbating a constitutional crisis,” the summary states.

In a new development, the panel flagged its concerns about Klukowski’s conduct.

He worked for the Trump campaign before joining the Justice Department during the final weeks of the administration. And while at the department’s civil division, he spent some of his time helping Clark with his attempts to overturn the election, “despite the fact that election-related matters are not part of the Civil portfolio,” the summary says.

Trump and others may try this again, committee warns

The summary’s section outlining the referrals makes a case for why the Justice Department’s prosecutions should extend beyond the rioters who physically breached the Capitol.

The committee says that Trump “believed then, and continues to believe now, that he is above the law, not bound by our Constitution and its explicit checks on Presidential authority.”

“If President Trump and the associates who assisted him in an effort to overturn the lawful outcome of the 2020 election are not ultimately held accountable under the law, their behavior may become a precedent and invitation to danger for future elections,” the summary says. “A failure to hold them accountable now may ultimately lead to future unlawful efforts to overturn our elections, thereby threatening the security and viability of our Republic.”

The summary revisits Trump’s infamous phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, where he begged Raffensperger to “find” enough votes to nullify Biden’s victory in the state. The summary also highlights that Trump doxed the leader of the Michigan Senate by tweeting out his cell phone number after he publicly said he wouldn’t undermine the election results.

Lawmakers also highlighted the plight of former Georgia election workers Ruby Freeman and Wandrea “Shaye” Moss, who previously testified about the abuse they suffered when Giuliani and others in pro-Trump circles falsely accused them of rigging the results in Atlanta.

Like Freeman and Moss, other officials who faced Trump’s ire received death and rape threats and an avalanche of phone calls and emails, and some of them feared for their safety.

Pardon requests show that Trump allies knew they were in possible legal jeopardy

The evidence that Trump allies sought pardons as the administration drew to a close shows that they knew their conduct was legally problematic, the committee argues.

The summary points to previously public accounts of pardon requests from members of Congress, while providing new details of Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz’s alleged attempt for a pardon, which had been discussed in the public committee testimony of ex-White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson.

CNN previously reported that the McEntee testimony linked Gaetz’s pardon request to a separate DOJ probe; Hutchinson, however, said Gaetz and others asked “blanket” pardons for participants at a meeting where election-related schemes were discussed.

Intelligence and law enforcement agencies knew of threats of violence on January 6, but information didn’t get through

The summary of the report lays out how the intelligence community and law enforcement agencies were receiving information that January 6 was likely to be violent and shared that information with the White House and US Secret Service.

For example, on January 3, 2021, Department of Justice officials received an intelligence summary of plans to “occupy the Capitol” and “invade” the Capitol on January 6. According to testimony from Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley, then-Deputy Secretary of Defense David Norquist predicted on a National Security Council call that the Capitol could be the target of violence.

“I’ll never forget it,” Milley said in testimony revealed by the committee.

The panel suggests former White House deputy chief of staff Tony Ornato failed to adequately serve as the intermediary between the intelligence community and the White House when it came to security updates ahead of January 6.

“Ornato had access to intelligence that suggested violence at the Capitol on January 6th, and it was his job to inform Meadows and Trump of that. Although Ornato told us that he did not recall doing so, the Select Committee found multiple parts of Ornato’s testimony questionable,” the panel wrote.

The head of Trump’s security detail, Bobby Engel, testified to the committee that he shared critical information with Ornato as a means to convey messages to the White House.

Ornato confirmed Engel’s understanding of information sharing, but when pressed on whether he talked to Meadows about concerns of the threat landscape going into January 6 said, “I don’t recall; however, in my position I would’ve made sure he was tracking the demos, which he received a daily brief, Presidential briefing. So he most likely was getting all this in his daily brief as well.”

Hope Hicks, former senior adviser to President Donald Trump, displayed on a screen during a hearing of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the US Capitol in Washington, DC, US, on Monday, Dec. 19, 2022. The committee investigating the deadly Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection will complete its 17-month probe with votes on recommendations for the first-ever criminal prosecution of a former president, with offenses including insurrection. Al Drago/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Aides urged Trump to call for peaceful protests

Staffers close to Trump told the committee they tried to get the then-president to act preemptively to quell concerns about January 6.

Hope Hicks, Trump’s former communications director, texted spokesman Hogan Gidley as the violence was unfolding on January 6 that she had “suggested…several times” on January 4 and 5 that Trump should publicly state that January 6 remain peaceful. Hicks also testified that Herschmann advised Trump to make a preemptive public statement ahead of January 6 calling for there to be no violence that day. No such statement was ever made.

By the time of Trump’s rally on January 6, the committee says testimony it received indicates that the former president had received a security briefing and that the Secret Service mentioned that there were prohibited items being confiscated from individuals trying to attend.

Motorcade incident proves Trump’s intent to participate in overturning the election

The committee highlights Trump’s frustration with not being taken to the Capitol on January 6 as evidence that he intended to participate in efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

“The Committee’s principal concern was that the President actually intended to participate personally in the January 6th efforts at the Capitol, leading the attempt to overturn the election either from inside the House Chamber, from a stage outside the Capitol, or otherwise,” the summary of the report reads. “There is no question from all the evidence assembled that President Trump did have that intent.”

The report details that the panel was ultimately unable to get Ornato to corroborate a bombshell moment during the public hearings, in which Hutchinson recalled Ornato describing Trump’s altercation with the head of his security detail when he was told he would not be taken to the Capitol. The committee summary said both Hutchinson and a White House employee testified to the committee about the Ornato conversation. But “Ornato professed that he did not recall either communication, and that he had no knowledge at all about the President’s anger.”

Ultimately, the committee writes that it “has significant concerns about the credibility of this testimony” and vows to release his transcript publicly. Ornato did not recall conveying the information to Hutchinson or a White House employee with national security responsibilities, according to the report.

“The Committee is skeptical of Ornato’s account.”

The panel writes that it has obtained evidence from “several sources about a ‘furious interaction’ in the SUV.” The panel cites multiple members of the Secret Service, a member of the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Police and national security officials in the White House who described Trump’s behavior as “irate,” “furious,” “insistent,” “profane” and “heated.”

The driver of Trump’s motorcade on January 6 testified to the committee:

Trump’s former press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said Trump continued to push to travel to the Capitol even after he returned to the White House.

“So to the best of my recollection, I recall him being – wanting to saying that he wanted to physically walk and be a part of the march and then saying that he would ride the Beast if he needed to, ride in the Presidential limo,” McEnany said.

Another intent the committee’s report summary seeks to prove is that Trump’s call to his supporters to go the Capitol during his rally speech was pre-planned.

For example, the committee notes that January 6 rally organizer Kylie Kremer texted MyPIllow CEO Mike Lindell, “This stays only between us. … It can also not get out about the march because I will be in trouble with the national park service and all the agencies but POTUS is going to just call for it ‘unexpectedly.’”

Trump refused to act as riot unfolded

The committee lays out Trump’s failure to act as the riot unfolded, noting that as he watched the riot on television, he made no calls for security assistance and resisted efforts from staffers asking him to call off his supporters.

“President Trump did not contact a single top national security official during the day. Not at the Pentagon, nor at the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, the F.B.I., the Capitol Police Department, or the D.C. Mayor’s office,” the committee writes. “As Vice President Pence has confirmed, President Trump didn’t even try to reach his own Vice President to make sure that Pence was safe.”

Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the committee he had this reaction to Trump, “You know, you’re the Commander in Chief. You’ve got an assault going on on the Capitol of the United States of America. And there’s nothing? No call? Nothing? Zero?”

Trump did, however, take the time to reach out to his attorney.

White House staffers, meantime, described being appalled that as the Capitol was under attack, Trump fired off a tweet criticizing Pence.

Hicks texted a colleague that night to say, “Attacking the VP? Wtf is wrong with him,” according to the committee’s summary report.

“No photographs exist of the President for the remainder of the afternoon until after 4 p.m. President Trump appears to have instructed that the White House photographer was not to take any photographs,” the committee writes, citing testimony from former White House photographer Shealah Craighead.

In the aftermath, on the evening of January 6, Trump’s former campaign manager Brad Parscale told Katrina Pierson, one of the rally organizers, that that he felt guilty helping Trump win, the report states..

The events of the day, Parscale said, resulted from “a sitting president asking for civil war.”

GOP lawmakers called for help

The committee also highlights real-time reactions from Republican members of Congress who have since downplayed the Capitol attack or defended Trump.

Trump’s son-in-law and former White House senior adviser Jared Kushner described House GOP leader McCarthy as “scared” as McCarthy reached out to members of Trump’s family for help during the riot.

In a text to then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene wrote, “Mark I was just told there is an active shooter on the first floor of the Capitol Please tell the President to calm people This isn’t the way to solve anything,” according to the summary.

FILE - Violent rioters, loyal to President Donald Trump, storm the Capitol in Washington, Jan. 6, 2021. John Minchillo/AP

Trump’s reaction upon finding out the Capitol had been attacked: ‘Oh really?’

The committee reveals a conversation Trump had with a White House employee upon returning to the White House after his speech on January 6. Trump’s actions and conversations from when he returned to the White House to when he called off the rioters, referred to famously as the 187 minutes, continues to have huge gaps of information.

He asked the White House employee – whose identity the panel kept anonymous “to guard against the risk of retaliation” – if they had watched his rally speech on television. The White House employee responded, “Sir, they cut it off because they’re rioting down at the Capitol.”

When Trump asked what they meant, the employee repeated:

The committee says DOJ has tools to get more information

The summary acknowledges the roadblocks the House committee ran into in its investigation and says the Justice Department has the tools – such as grand jury subpoena power – to knock down those obstacles.

The summary also notes the invocations of privilege made by former Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone that prevented the committee from learning details about direct conversations with Trump. But the panels appears optimistic that a recent, under-seal court victory the DOJ secured will allow prosecutors to obtain that testimony from Cipollone.

“Based on the information it has obtained, the Committee believes that Cipollone and others can provide direct testimony establishing that President Trump refused repeatedly, for multiple hours, to make a public statement directing his violent and lawless supporters to leave the Capitol,” the summary says.

More than 30 witnesses before the select committee exercised their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refused, on that basis, to provide testimony. They included individuals central to the investigation, such as Eastman, Clark, Chesebro, Roger Stone, Michael Flynn and others.

Tierney Sneed Sara Murray Zachary Cohen Annie Grayer Marshall Cohen