The committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol has recommended bringing criminal charges against Donald Trump.
Catch up on Tuesday's updates.
Key events
Live updates
Stay up to date with the latest news and analysis
By Bridget Judd
This is where we'll have to leave the live blog for this morning, but thanks for following along (and a big thanks to the ABC's North America correspondents Jade Macmillan and Barbara Miller for stopping by to help unpack the hearing).
You can catch up on Tuesday's developments below, or download the ABC News app and subscribe to our range of news alerts for the latest news.
You can also stay across the key takeaways from the Capitol riot committee's final meeting.
These are the Trump associates named in the committee's findings
By Bridget Judd
A summary of the committee's report said the panel believed there were grounds to recommend criminal charges against some others close to Donald Trump, including attorney John Eastman.
The report summary named other Trump associates, including former Department of Justice official Jeffrey Clark, former White House chief of staff and House member Mark Meadows and two lawyers - Kenneth Chesebro and Rudy Giuliani - as participating in conspiracies the panel is linking to Trump.
An attorney for Mr Eastman responded with a statement criticising the committee as partisan, Reuters reports. Representatives of the others did not immediately respond to requests for comment or declined comment.
Republican politician referred to ethics committee labels decision a 'political stunt'
By Bridget Judd
As we heard earlier this morning, the House committee investigating the Capitol riot also referred four Republican House members to the chamber's ethics committee for failing to comply with subpoenas.
They include Scott Perry, Jim Jordan, Andy Biggs and Kevin McCarthy.
Spokespeople for Mr Jordan, Mr Perry and Mr Biggs have since dismissed the action as political stunts.
"An eleventh-hour referral to the House Ethics Committee provides the sham J6 Committee never truly needed our testimony," Andy Biggs said in a statement posted to social media.
"They only wanted the testimony to have the ability to edit and misconstrue our statement to further their own false narratives, as they did with so many other witnesses."
Mr McCarthy's office is yet to respond.
Donald Trump has been referred for criminal charges. So what happens next?
By Bridget Judd
Speaking on ABC News a short time ago, North America bureau chief Jade Macmillan says that depends on the Department of Justice.
Jade: It is already conducting its own investigation into January 6. It has recently appointed what's known as a special counsel to create, I suppose, another level of independence there into not only the January 6 inquiry, but also the separate investigation into Donald Trump's handling of classified documents at his Mara Lago property in Florida.
That decision was made after Donald Trump officially declared that he is again running for president in 2024. So we don't know at this stage exactly where either of those DOJ investigations are up to. The department is not compelled to act on the committee's recommendations.
Just tuning into the blog? Let's get you up to speed
By Bridget Judd
The US committee investigating the Capitol riot has recommended charges against former president Donald Trump.
-
They are obstruction of an official proceeding of Congress, conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to make a false statement, and insurrection.
-
The Department of Justice is conducting its own investigation into January 6 and is not compelled to act on the committee's recommendations.
-
The DOJ is not expected to make a decision until the first quarter of the new year.
-
The full report into the US Capitol riot is expected to be released on Thursday, Australia time.
Trump was 'the architect of most of this conspiracy'
By Bridget Judd
That's according to Margaret Russell, a law professor at Santa Clara University, who says today's hearing shows that the committee "does not see these proceedings as primarily about making a historical record".
"They have done more than that," she told AP.
"One big takeaway is that Trump is at the top of the pile. When the proceedings began it was not clear – though many people suspected and alleged – how much he knew, when he knew it, what he said before Jan. 6, what he knew and said before the election’s certification, and whether he knew he really had not won the election.
"It is now clear Trump was the architect of most of this conspiracy – and the committee is urging specific accountability for him and other people who played a part in it."
Donald Trump 'lit the flame' and 'poured gasoline on the fire'
By Bridget Judd
Speaking this morning, Democratic committee member Elaine Luria accused the former president of "watching the fire burn as rioters attacked the US Capitol".
Even if these referrals turn into criminal charges, Trump will still be able to run in 2024
By Bridget Judd
And he'll be able to serve as president if he wins.
Here's the breakdown courtesy of the Associated Press.
The US Constitution specifies in clear language the qualifications required to hold the office of the presidency. In Section 1, Clause 5 of Article II, it states: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
These three requirements – natural-born citizenship, age and residency – are the only specifications set forth in the United States’ founding document.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has made clear that constitutionally prescribed qualifications to hold federal office may not be altered or supplemented by either the US Congress or any of the states.
Justices clarified the court’s position in their 1969 Powell v. McCormack ruling. The case followed the adoption of a resolution by the House of Representatives barring pastor and New York politician Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. from taking his seat in the 90th Congress.
The resolution was not based on Powell’s failure to meet the age, citizenship and residency requirements for House members set forth in the Constitution. Rather, the House found that Powell had diverted congressional funds and made false reports about certain currency transactions.
When Powell sued to take his seat, the Supreme Court invalidated the House’s resolution on grounds that it added to the constitutionally specified qualifications for Powell to hold office. In the majority opinion, the court held that: "Congress has no power to alter the qualifications in the text of the Constitution."
For the same reason, no limitation could now be placed on Trump’s candidacy. Nor could he be barred from taking office if he were to be indicted or even convicted.
When can we expect a response from the Department of Justice?
By Bridget Judd
The short answer is: not anytime soon.
The ABC's Barbara Miller has more from Washington:
Barbara: The Department is running its own investigation into the events of January 6, and while it will certainly be interested in the findings of the committee it’s not bound by them.
The DoJ has repeatedly asked for speedier access to the transcripts of the around one-thousand witnesses who spoke to the committee.
It’s understood the committee shared some of that material, but until now has not shared all of it. Pouring over it will take time.
In addition, Special Counsel Jack Smith appointed by Attorney-General Merrick Garland to oversee the investigation has only been in place for about a month.
The former war crimes prosecutor has already started issuing subpoenas, but he may need a little longer to present a case, if that’s what he decides to do, that the former President should face criminal charges.
That said, time is pressing, because Donald Trump has announced his intention to run for the Republican nomination for the 2024 Presidency.
The closer that gets, the more the Department of Justice could face allegations that any moves are politically motivated.
The best guess for a move by the Department of Justice is that it will come in the first quarter of next year, with the proviso that, as is often the case when Donald Trump is involved, this is really unprecedented.
This is the first time in US history that a national committee of Congress has recommended charging a former president
By Bridget Judd
Reporting by Thomas Oriti, Anna Pykett and Wing Kuang
Richard Painter, a law professor at the University of Minnesota and the former chief White House ethics lawyer for the Bush Administration, says he’s “not surprised at all” about the judgement.
“This investigation has been going on for two years. And it's really quite outrageous what Donald Trump has done after he lost the election,” Professor Painter told ABC NewsRadio.
“We cannot tolerate this in a representative democracy. It is the crime of subversion, insurrection, and Donald Trump should be criminally charged.”
Professor Painter believes specific charges of sedition and insurrection should be brought against Mr Trump, “and those other charges are also justified”.
He adds this is the first time in US history that a national committee of Congress has recommended charges over a former president.
Professor Painter thinks it’s important that the Department of Justice follows the recommendations.
“If Donald Trump is not prosecuted, we will see future presidents who will be tempted to do the same thing,” he says.
It's unlikely that action will be taken against Republicans referred to the ethics committee
By Bridget Judd
As we heard a little earlier,the committee has referred Scott Perry, Jim Jordan, Andy Biggs and Republican leader Kevin McCarthy to the chamber's ethics committee for failing to comply with its legal subpoenas as it investigated the Capitol riot.
Republicans will take the leadership of the House on January 3 and are unlikely to take disciplinary action against members of their own party.
Many of those who testified under oath weren't Trump's 'political enemies'
By Bridget Judd
This morning's hearing was mostly a summary of the evidence the committee has gathered over the past 18 months or so.
The ABC's North America correspondent Carrington Clarke says one of the key takeaways is that most of the people who testified under oath were aligned with the former president.
Carrington: These weren't his political enemies, at least they weren't at the time. These were people who were there in the room when many of these decisions were being made.
They were close to the the US president at the time of the January 6 attack on the US Capitol.
Donald Trump has faced a series of legal problems since leaving office
By Bridget Judd
Special Counsel Jack Smith was appointed last month to lead federal probes into the former president.
Mr Trump has faced a series of legal problems since leaving office. His real estate company was convicted earlier this month of carrying out a 15-year-long criminal scheme to defraud tax authorities.
The House Ways and Means Committee is due to meet on Wednesday (Australian time) to decide what to do with his tax returns, which it obtained late last month after a long court fight.
Mr Trump was the first presidential candidate in decades to not release his tax returns during either of his campaigns for president.
He has dismissed the many investigations he faces as politically motivated, saying that the January 6 committee, dominated by Democrats, is biased against him.
The full report into the US Capitol riot will be released on Thursday
By Bridget Judd
The eight-chapter report will include hundreds of pages of findings about the attack and efforts to subvert democracy, drawing on what the committee learned through its interviews with more than 1,000 witnesses.
Additional evidence, including some of the massive trove of video footage and testimony the committee collected, is expected to be released publicly before the end of the year.
Anticipation for the final report is high. Book publishers are already offering pre-release versions for sale to the public.
What does it mean to 'incite, assist or aid and comfort' an insurrection?
By Bridget Judd
The ABC's North America bureau chief Jade Macmillan is in Washington for today's hearing, and has been dropping by the blog to unpack some of those criminal referrals.
(You can read more on those first two charges a few posts back).
III. Conspiracy to Make a False Statement (18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1001)
Jade: This relates to allegations of a scheme to reverse the outcome of the 2020 election by submitting slates of fake electors to Congress and the National Archives.
“The evidence is clear that President Trump personally participated in a scheme to have the Trump electors meet, cast votes, and send their votes to the Joint Session of Congress in several States that Vice President Biden won, and then his supporters relied on the existence of these fake electors as part of their effort to obstruct the Joint Session,” the report said.
IV. 'Incite', 'Assist' or 'Aid and Comfort' an Insurrection (18 U.S.C. § 2383)
Jade: This is how committee member, Democrat Jamie Raskin, summed up this referral against the former president.
“An insurrection is a rebellion against the authority of the United States,” he told the hearing.
“It is a grave federal offence anchored in the Constitution itself.”
The committee alleges the former president committed this offence by encouraging the January 6 attack and then failing to put a stop to it.
“President Trump was directly responsible for summoning what became a violent mob to Washington, DC, urging them to march to the Capitol, and then further provoking the already violent and lawless crowd with his 2:24p.m. tweet about the Vice President,” the report says.
“President Trump refused repeatedly, for multiple hours, to make a public statement directing his violent and lawless supporters to leave the Capitol. President Trump did not want his supporters (who had effectively halted the vote counting) to disperse.”
Donald Trump has responded to the decision to refer him on criminal charges
By Bridget Judd
Well, sort of.
In a post on his social media platform Truth Social, the former President said:
“…But Liz Chaney [sic] lost by a record 40 points!”
The ABC's North America correspondent Barbara Miller has more.
Barbara: Liz Cheney is the Vice-Chair of the January 6 committee and Donald Trump’s post refers to her whopping loss in the Republican primary for her Wyoming seat earlier this year.
The daughter of former Vice-President Dick Cheney has been a vocal critic of Donald Trump in the wake of January 6 and took a prominent role in the work of the committee, one of only two Republicans who served on it.
That support cost her her Congressional seat, but Liz Cheney is not giving up on politics.
She’s founded her own Political Action Committee and is thought to be considering a possible run at the Presidency herself.
The vote to criminally refer Donald Trump will be one of the Congresswoman’s final acts before she leaves the House to make way for her successor, Harriet Hageman, a former Trump critic who changed her tune ahead of the primary.
Ms Cheney is a frequent target of Trump’s barbs and this one is nothing new.
We’ll have to wait and see if the former President responds more directly to the dramatic events of the day.
Donald Trump may be seen as an 'electoral liability' ahead of the 2024 election
By Bridget Judd
As the ABC's North America correspondent Carrington Clarke points out, despite the committee's investigation, Donald Trump "still has a hold over a core part of the support group for the Republican Party".
Carrington: Donald Trump has already announced that he is a candidate for the presidential election in 2024. He still has a hold over a core part of the support group for the Republican Party, although there is evidence in recent weeks that perhaps his hold... is starting to slip.
We still have seen in polls that Ron DeSantis, who is the governor of Florida, seems to be growing in popularity among some of those Republican Party people. Perhaps in part because Donald Trump now is seen as a bit of an electoral liability.
Four Republicans have been referred to the ethics committee
By Bridget Judd
They include Scott Perry, Jim Jordan, Andy Biggs and Republican leader Kevin McCarthy.
They've been referred to the chamber's ethics committee for failing to comply with its legal subpoenas as it investigated the attack.
What are the charges being recommended against Donald Trump?
By Bridget Judd
The ABC's North America bureau chief Jade Macmillan has dropped by the blog with a bit of a breakdown.
Jade: Let’s dig into those four criminal referrals against Donald Trump, with the help of a summary that the committee has released ahead of its full report coming out later this week.
I. Obstruction of an Official Proceeding (18 U.S.C. § 1512(c))
This relates to the joint session of Congress on January 6, 2021 to certify Joe Biden’s victory.
The committee argues Donald Trump knew his actions were likely to 'obstruct, influence or impede' the proceeding.
“Based on the evidence developed, President Trump was attempting to prevent or delay the counting of lawful certified Electoral College votes from multiple States,” the committee wrote.
“President Trump was directly and personally involved in this effort, personally pressuring Vice President Pence relentlessly as the Joint Session on January 6th approached.”
The committee also found Trump’s former lawyer John Eastman should be referred on this charge.
II. Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371)
The committee argues Trump engaged in a 'multi part plan' with the assistance of other individuals, including John Eastman, to 'obstruct a lawful certification of the election'.
“The evidence found by this Committee and discussed in detail in this Report further document that the conspiracy to defraud the United States under Section 371 extended far beyond the effort to pressure the Vice President to prevent certification of the election,” the report says.
“The Committee believes there is sufficient evidence for a criminal referral of the multi-part plan described in this Report under Section 371, as the very purpose of the plan was to prevent the lawful certification of Joe Biden’s election as President.”
The criminal referral has no legal standing, but it adds political pressure
By Bridget Judd
Specifically, on Attorney General Merrick Garland and special counsel Jack Smith, who are currently conducting an investigation into January 6 and Mr Trump’s actions.
The panel was formed in the summer of 2021 after Senate Republicans blocked the formation of what would have been a bipartisan, independent commission to investigate the insurrection.
When that effort failed, the Democratic-controlled House formed an investigative committee of its own.
While the committee’s mission was to take a comprehensive accounting of the insurrection and educate the public about what happened, they've also aimed their work at an audience of one: the attorney general.
Politicians on the panel have openly pressured Mr Garland to investigate Mr Trump’s actions, and last month he appointed a special counsel to oversee two probes related to the former president.
