Indictments are imminently expected following a federal investigation into efforts from Donald Trump and his allies to subvert the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. The former president announced he received a target letter – a document formally indicating he is the subject of an investigation – in connection with a sprawling US Department of Justice special counsel probe into an alleged scheme to preserve Mr Trump’s presidency against the wills of millions of voters. A case will not likely be revealed in full until an indictment is unsealed in US District Court, but a wealth of evidence uncovered by members of Congress and in other documents suggests that the former president and potential co-defendants could be prosecuted in what would be a second round of federal charges against him. A House select committee spent a year and a half investigating the events surrounding and leading up to the attack on the US Capitol on 6 January, 2021, including a series of blockbuster public hearings laying out evidence and witness testimony describing the depth of Mr Trump’s attempts to remain in office at whatever cost. The panel’s final 845-page report provides a detailed account of Mr Trump’s refusal to cede power – regardless of the outcome of a democratic election – while privately acknowledging that he lost, as his baseless “stolen election” narrative fuelled his supporters to riot in the halls of Congress, an argument that also bolstered his second impeachment in the House of Representatives. In December, lawmakers on the House committee unanimously voted to recommend charges against the former president, claiming that there is enough evidence to prosecute him for at least four crimes – including aiding or providing comfort to an insurrection aimed at toppling the United States government. The panel also referred Mr Trump to the Justice Department for the obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the US, and conspiracy to make a false statement to the federal government. John Eastman, the attorney who argued that Mr Pence could reject election results, and Kenneth Chesebro, who helped develop the fake elector scheme, were also implicated in the committee’s report, along with former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, attorney Rudy Giuliani, and former assistant US Attorney General Jeffrey Clark. It was a mostly symbolic vote, marking the culmination of the committee’s months-long investigation, but it sent a powerful signal from a bipartisan group of lawmakers bolstered by mountains of evidence that a former president should be held accountable for his alleged crimes against the government. That report and countless investigations into the events surrounding January 6 have painted the attack on the Capitol as part of a much-larger effort to preserve a fragile American democracy in a volatile battle to determine the truth and who wields it. Who is under investigation? The Justice Department, meanwhile, had separately been investigating Mr Trump’s rejection of 2020 results, building on the years of work from federal prosecutors to investigate more than 1,000 people in connection with the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, fuelled by the former president’s ongoing false claims that the election was rigged against him. Prosecutors have talked to a number of chief aides and officials in Mr Trump’s circle, including Mr Pence, White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, former attorney Rudy Giuliani, former White House counsel Pat Cipollone, his former deputy Pat Philbin, and former National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien, among several others. They also have spoken with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who was on the other end of a call with Mr Trump demanding that the state’s top elections official “find 11,780 votes” – enough for him to overturn Mr Biden’s victory in the state. That call, which was taped, also is at the centre of a separate investigation from Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis into election interference in the state. Arizona – ground zero for an election denialism movement that gave rise to leading GOP candidates for the top three statewide offices, including failed candidate for governor Kari Lake – was a focal point for the Trump campaign and his allies, who filed several lawsuits against the state and some counties in an attempt to overturn the lawful results. Mr Biden won the state by roughly 10,000 votes. Federal prosecutors have talked to former Arizona Governor Doug Ducey, who silenced a call from Mr Trump while Mr Ducey was in the middle of certifying his state’s election results – a process that was being live-streamed and carried across news outlets. Mr Smith’s office also subpoenaed the office of Arizona Secretary of State and has met with top elections officials in Wisconsin, New Mexico and Pennsylvania. Prosecutors also have interviewed Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, whose office provided a tranche of documents that included communications between the state’s election officials and Mr Trump’s former lawyers and members of his campaign as the former president’s allies targeted the critical battleground state. Central to the investigation is whether Mr Trump knew that he lost but pressed ahead with spurious efforts to overturn results anyway, with federal prosecutors reportedly speaking to his son-in-law and former adviser Jared Kushner and former communications directors Hope Hicks and Alyssa Farah Griffin with those questions in mind. What charges could prosecutors bring against Trump? Based on evidence uncovered by the select committee and other filings and reporting, prosecutors are likely investigating several key elements of the sprawling effort to reverse the 2020 election: Mr Trump’s lies about the outcome, his campaign’s attempts to pressure state officials and push false slates of electors to obstruct the certification of the results, a failed attempt to persuade Mr Pence to refuse the outcome, and Mr Trump’s failure to stop a mob of his supporters from breaking into the Capitol. Mr Trump knew he had lost the election but continued to pursue efforts to remain in power, including the so-called alternate elector scheme to fraudulently certify the results submitted to Congress, prosecutors are likely to argue. On 18 July, Michigan attorney general Dana Nessel charged 16 “fake” electors in that state, marking the first criminal charges brought against so-called “alternate” electors who sought to overturn 2020 results. Charges against Mr Trump and others connected to those allegations and similar attempts in other states could include conspiracy to defraud the United States in the administration of elections, the obstruction of an official proceeding, and wire and mail fraud. Obstruction The target letter from federal prosecutors to Mr Trump cites three statutes that the former president likely violated in his attempts to reverse the outcome of the 2020 election. One charge – obstruction of an official proceeding – has already been brought against hundreds of people in connection with the Capitol attack. The House select committee and a federal judge who was involved in cases stemming from its inquiry argued that there is evidence that Mr Trump sought to corruptly obstruct the certification of electoral college votes in Congress – a crime punishable up to 20 years in prison, if convicted. Conspiracy That same federal judge and the House select committee also have argued that there is evidence to convict Mr Trump on a charge of conspiracy to defraud the government, which is punishable by up to five years in prison. Mr Trump’s efforts through his legal team and his inner circle to block the certification of Mr Biden’svictory in states that he lost, while falsely claiming widespread voter fraud and manipulation had stolen the election from him, would likely form the basis for that charge. The former president also is charged under this statute in the Mar-a-Lago documents case, where he is accused of using a lawyer to lie to the Justice Department. “The illegality of the plan was obvious,” California Judge David O Carer wrote in a ruling from a civil lawsuit involving John Eastman, who was central to the so-called “alternate” electors scheme. Mr Trump, ignoring the nation’s history of the peaceful transition of power, “vigorously campaigned for the vice president to single-handedly determine the results of the 2020 election,” the judge wrote. Fraud The special counsel investigation suggests that prosecutors are scrutinizing Mr Trump’s vast fundraising arm and the tens of millions of dollars it raised after pleas to supporters for donations to combat election fraud, despite no evidence to defend those claims. In May 2020, with the presidential election still months away, Mr Trump said it would be “rigged” against him if he were to lose. That June, he said the election would be the “scandal of our times”, called it “inaccurate and fraudulent” and the “greatest election disaster in history”. Not a single ballot had yet been cast. His own Justice Department and campaign found no evidence of widespread voter fraud, and dozens of lawsuits filed by his campaign and allies to overturn results were withdrawn or dismissed, while his attorneys and the right-wing network amplifying their false claims face massive defamation lawsuits from the voting machines companies and election workers at the center of them. Lawmakers on the House select committee argued that Mr Trump’s campaign “misled donors as to where their funds would go and what they would be used for,” US Rep Zoe Lofgren said during hearings. “So not only was there the ‘Big Lie,’” she said. “There was the ‘Big Rip-off.’” Is there a case for insurrection? After Mr Pence refused Mr Trump’s argument for his vice president to toss out the results, then-President Trump “went to his last resort: triggering an insurrection in the hope that it would throw Congress off course, delaying the transfer of power for the first time in American history,” according to legal experts at Just Security, outlining a model prosecution memorandum similar to what federal prosecutors would also likely be reviewing. And after delivering remarks to a rally of his supporters while a joint session of Congress convened to certify 2020 election results, a speech that allegedly incited his supporters to storm the Capitol, then-President Trump stood by for 187 minutes before he told them to go home. The House select committee unanimously agreed that Mr Trump should be charged for inciting an insurrection and giving aid or comfort to insurrectionists – a rare and severe charge that prosecutors will approach only with extreme caution, if they decide to prosecute at all. “We believe there is sufficient evidence to pursue it – as did the Select Committee in making a criminal referral of Trump under that statute – but prosecutors may make different choices,” experts at Just Security noted. A conviction on that charge mandates a sentence of up to 10 years in prison and would prohibit Mr Trump from holding office. None of the more than 1,000 people arrested in connection with the attack are facing this charge. What has Trump said about the probe? The former president has repeatedly characterised the multiple investigations against him, including the January 6 probe, as a politically motivated “hoax” and an attempt to “steal” the 2024 election from him. On 23 July, Mr Trump published several posts on his social network Truth Social, once again calling the special prosecutor “deranged”. He claimed that investigations into him were a “coordinated HOAX,” pointing to the probe into allegations of collusion between the Trump 2016 campaign and Russia. Mr Trump also went after President Joe Biden, claiming without providing evidence that he’s a “criminal” before going on to call him “the most corrupt and incompetent President in United States history”. “Get smart, Republicans, they are trying to steal the Election from you!” he wrote before referring to Democrats and federal and state prosecutors as “monsters” who are “destroying our country”. This story was initially published on 19 July and has been updated with developments Read More Trump news – live: Trump claims he’s ‘not frightened’ by Jan 6 target letter as potential indictment looms

Want to shake off the doldrums of a long day with something bone-rattlingly exciting? You

Over the last five days, Israeli warplanes have pummeled Gaza with an intensity that its war-weary residents had never experienced

LONDON Buying Teck Resources' coal business as a standalone unit is a "distant second" for Glencore and Teck

Madison Beer's second album, 'Silence Between Songs', is scheduled to release on September 15 and will have a total of 14 tracks

The wildfire which swept from August 8 has claimed 115 lives so far with around 385 people still unaccounted for, authorities have claimed

Georgia Stanway stood on her own, isolated in a pocket of space. With her hands in the air, she saw the move before it unfolded. England had been searching for the gaps against Colombia, but going behind only sharpened their focus. After the explosion of Colombia’s goal, England could have lost their heads, but Stanway found hers and then the space. One thumping finish from Alessia Russo later and England were heading towards the semi-finals of the World Cup. Arguably, no one deserves this semi-final more than the Bayern Munich midfielder. Stanway had to be disciplined when Keira Walsh was injured, constrained when Lauren James was given the keys to England’s creative output. With James suspended, Stanway was released. With the bite in midfield to combat Colombia’s physicality, then the cool to pick holes in their defensive shape. Having to play through four games on a yellow card has meanwhile forced Stanway to do it all on a knife-edge, controlling the aggression when one wrong moment would have taken her semi-final away. The Lionesses also had to earn it, in a difficult contest that passed by in waves of England control and frantic Colombia pressure. The atmosphere fed into it: Colombia turned up in their numbers, dominating the 75,000 capacity stadium and its soundtrack; hostile when England had possession, electric when Colombia flew forward, the noise rising further when Linda Caicedo drove them on. England faced the battle they had been expecting. Then Colombia scored and a tournament that has been defined by obstacles was presented with a new one, as England trailed for the first time in the World Cup. But Stanway epitomised how England responded and took to their task. It was a different type of resilience to what England showed at the end, continuing to show, on the ball and off it. She showed her intelligence, baiting Colombia players in and waiting a moment, before releasing it. As a whole, there wasn’t a panic. Lauren Hemp’s equaliser was scrappy, arriving in a mess in the penalty box, but it had been coming. If anything, going behind sharpened England. England’s plan was clear enough: they had their control and build-up, neat passages of play as they found the gaps in Colombia’s shape, threading passes through for Stanway and Ella Toone to turn. England were sharper than against Nigeria, even if the final ball was missing. With James’s two-match ban forcing another rethink for Wiegman, the England manager combined something new with something old. The midfield three returned, with Stanway and Toone deployed as twin eights in front of England’s back five. But Colombia reached the quarter-finals by ensuring those spells do not last for long. Between England’s passing moves, Colombia rattled them and threatened with their quality, thriving off the match being in a scrappy and disrupted state. The South Americans broke England’s passing up and tore whatever momentum they were building down, a series of fouls to pause England’s flow. Then there were the challenges: Ana Guzman barging into Hemp, then leaving an arm on Rachel Daly, Santos pulling Stanway back by the arm. And in those spells England were sloppy, five-yard passes hit straight out of play, allowing themselves to take the safe or easy option, turning down the chance to turn. When Santos’s cross drifted in over the head of Mary Earps, England were faced with the worst. The response was crucial. In the six minutes of added time at the end of the first half, England stuck to how they had set up to play. The way Colombia were positioned allowed England to have those gaps in midfield and there was always a player to find. England had to be patient, to move it quickly enough and have the confidence to do more when they could turn. Hemp everywhere across the frontline, taking pressure off England with bursts downfield, Russo struggling to hold the ball up, but producing the devastating finish when it counted. England dropped deep, perhaps too early, but they did so safe in the knowledge that they had Millie Bright in this form. Bright was faultless as England defended their box, alongside the exceptional Alex Greenwood. It wasn’t the perfect team performance but this tournament has been about finding a way through. England are enjoying it, while Stanway just offers them that bit more. Read More England set up old rivalry on new stage thanks to Alessia Russo magic How many games will Lauren James miss at Women’s World Cup after red card? Who and when do England play next? Lionesses’ route to the World Cup final ahead of semi-final

The South African camp has rallied round hooker Bongi Mbonambi who has been accused of making a racial slur at England's Tom Curry, saying he was a...

Karen Koep and her husband Davido had been missing since Monday, November 13

The Philippine economy expanded much slower than expected in the second quarter as inflation remains above target and

LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Nov 22, 2023--

Marc Becker, a 27-year veteran of Apollo Global Management Inc. and co-head of impact investing at the private