ReportWire

Tag: 2020 election

  • Conspiracy theorist-podcaster joins crowded GOP race for Colorado governor, but will candidacy ‘go nowhere’?

    [ad_1]

    A conservative podcaster who’s trumpeted false election conspiracies and called for the execution of political rivals, including Gov. Jared Polis, has formally joined the Republican race to become Colorado’s next governor.

    Joe Oltmann, who filed his candidacy paperwork Monday night, now seeks to participate in an electoral system that he has repeatedly tried to undermine.

    He is the 22nd Republican actively seeking to earn the party’s nomination in June. It’s the largest gubernatorial primary field for a major party in Colorado this century, surpassing the GOP’s previous records set first in 2018, and then again in 2022 — and it comes as the party hopes to break Democrats’ electoral dominance in the state.

    That field will almost certainly narrow in the coming months; four Republicans who’d filed have already dropped out. No more than four are likely to make it onto the ballot — either through the state assembly or by gathering signatures — for the summer primary, said Dick Wadhams, the Colorado GOP’s former chairman.

    The size of the primary field doesn’t really matter, he said, because few candidates will actually end up in front of voters. Eighteen candidates filed ahead of the 2022 race, for instance, but just two were on the primary ballot.

    On the Democratic side, a smaller field of seven active candidates is headlined by Attorney General Phil Weiser and U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet. Polis is term-limited from running again.

    For 2026, Wadhams counted only a half-dozen or so Republican candidates whom he considered “credible,” a qualifier that Wadhams said he used “very, very loosely”: Oltmann, state Sens. Barbara Kirkmeyer and Mark Baisley, state Rep. Scott Bottoms, ministry leader Victor Marx, Teller County Sheriff Jason Mikesell and former Congressman Greg Lopez.

    Wadhams said that other than Kirkmeyer, all of those candidates had either supported election conspiracies or a pardon for Tina Peters, the former Mesa County clerk now serving a nine-year sentence for convictions related to providing unauthorized access to voting equipment.

    Oltmann, of Castle Rock, has repeatedly — and falsely — claimed that the 2020 presidential election was not won by Democrat Joe Biden, while calling for the hanging of political opponents. He previously said he wanted to dismember some opponents to send a message, according to the Washington Post, before adding that he was joking.

    In his Dec. 26 announcement video, Oltmann baselessly claimed that Democrats, who have won control of the state amid demographic shifts and anti-Trump sentiment, were in power in Colorado only because of election fraud.

    He said Polis and Secretary of State Jena Griswold, along with 9News anchor Kyle Clark, were part of a “synagogue of Satan.” Polis and Griswold are both Jewish.

    In his announcement, Oltmann painted an apocalyptic picture of the state and said he hoped that three of its elected leaders — Polis, Griswold and Weiser — would all be imprisoned. He pledged to eliminate property taxes, to focus on the “have-nots” and to pardon Peters, whom President Donald Trump has also sought to release by issuing a federal pardon that legal experts say can’t clear Peters of state convictions.

    Oltmann’s decision to join the field is an example of “extreme candidates” from either major party “who file to run but will go nowhere,” predicted Kristi Burton Brown, another former state GOP chair. She now sits on the Colorado State Board of Education.

    She said the size of the Republican primary field was a consequence of Republicans’ difficulties winning statewide races in Colorado. Democrats have won all four constitutional elected offices for two straight election cycles.

    Burton Brown said it “might be a good idea moving forward” to require candidates to do more than just submit paperwork to run for office. That might include a monetary requirement: She said she didn’t support charging candidates significant sums but thought that “requiring some skin in the game” could prevent “unreasonable primaries.”

    [ad_2]

    Seth Klamann

    Source link

  • Epstein files: discharge petition gains signatures needed to force US House vote

    [ad_1]

    White House reacts to Epstein emails

    White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called new information today on Epstein emails regarding President Donald Trump a “manufactured hoax.”

    WASHINGTON – A bill concerning the release of files related to Jeffrey Epstein is set to spark a future debate in the U.S. House.

    A discharge petition regarding the release of the files gained its 218th signature on Wednesday, the threshold needed to force a U.S. House vote on the matter, according to The Hill. Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.) signed on immediately after being sworn in on Wednesday. 

    “It’s about time for Congress to restore its role as a check and balance on this administration and fight for we, the American people,” Rep. Grijalva said in her first speech on the House floor, where she also acknowledged the two Epstein survivors in attendance. “Justice cannot wait another day.” 

    The Epstein petition calls for a bill that would order U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to release unclassified Department of Justice documents related to the federal government’s case against Epstein; the petition is led by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.). 

    ‘Numerous references’ to the president 

    Dig deeper:

    Grijalva’s signature came just hours after House Democrats released emails which seem to indicate President Donald Trump knew more about Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation than he’s previously let on. These emails specifically accuse the president of spending “hours” at Epstein’s house with one of his sex trafficking victims. 

    In an exchange between Epstein and his partner Ghislaine Maxwell, he stated that “of course” Trump “knew about the girls.” 

    The other side:

    Speaking with reporters on Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that the emails didn’t prove anything about the president’s knowledge of the operation. 

    “What President Trump has always said is that he was from Palm Beach, and so was Jeffrey Epstein. Jeffrey Epstein was a member at Mar-a-Lago until President Trump kicked him out because Jeffrey Epstein was a pedophile, and he was a creep,” she said. 

    House Republicans released 23,000 pages from the Jeffrey Epstein estate on Wednesday as well; these files were obtained earlier this year via subpoena by the House Oversight Committee, according to The New York Times. These files also include “numerous references” to the president, The Times says. 

    Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., holds a ceremonial swearing-in for Rep. Adelita Grijalva, D-Ariz., left, who won the special election on Sept. 23 to replace her late father, Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., at the Capitol in Washington, Wednesd

    A long shot bill 

    What’s next:

    The soonest the House could vote on the bill would be in December, and even if it passes, the Republican-controlled Senate would also need to pass it before it would head to Trump’s desk for a signature. 

    The president signing on would be a long shot. 

    In a Truth Social post, the president said that Democrats “are trying to bring up the Jeffrey Epstein hoax again because they’ll do anything at all to deflect on how badly they’ve done on the shutdown.” 

    Plus, prior to the vote on Wednesday, the president and other administration officials reached out to Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-G.A.), three of the four Republicans that joined House Democrats in signing the discharge petition, according to The Times and several other outlets.

    As noted by The Hill, any one of these lawmakers removing their names would have prevented the petition from moving forward. 

    Big picture view:

    Notably, House leadership has the ability to “turn off the procedural mechanism” within a discharge petition that allows U.S. House members to force a vote, as noted by The Hill. They may do just that in this case, as Republican leaders continue to oppose the bill to release the unclassified Epstein files. 

    Meanwhile, an NPR/PBS News/Marist poll shows that about three-quarters of Americans support the release of all the Epstein files. 

    The Source: Information above was sourced from The Hill, The New York Times, Truth Social, NPR/PBS News/Marist and previous FOX 5 DC reporting. Rep. Adelita Grijalva’s first speech on the House floor and comments from White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt were also referenced. 

    U.S. HousePoliticsDonald J. TrumpNews

    [ad_2]

    Isabel.Soisson@fox.com (Isabel Soisson)

    Source link

  • Here’s how long the government shutdown could go on

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON – At 12 a.m. Wednesday morning, the federal government shut down after Congress failed to pass a continuing resolution to keep agencies operating. 

    Republicans have introduced a stopgap bill that would fund the government through Nov. 21, but Democrats have so far blocked it, as the bill does not include what they believe to be adequate health care funding. 

    Democrats want to negotiate with Republicans to extend the Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies that are set to expire at the end of the year and reverse cuts that were recently implemented to Medicaid funding as part of President Donald Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill.” 

    About 750,000 federal employees could be furloughed each day of the shutdown, with their total compensation costing roughly $400 million each day, according to the Congressional Budget Office. 

    While it’s true that federal agencies have some discretion in deciding which services to suspend and which to maintain, depending on how long the shutdown lasts, it could have a negative impact on the economy as a whole.

    So, how long could this shutdown last? 

    The soonest things could be resolved 

    Dig deeper:

    It’s rare that federal government shutdowns go on for multiple weeks, but it does happen. For example, the country saw a monthlong government shutdown, the longest in U.S. history, during Trump’s first term. 

    This shutdown is expected to last at least three days, as the Senate isn’t likely to hold any votes until at least Oct. 3. This is because lawmakers are observing the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur. 

    As of publication, however, Democrats and Republicans appear to be stuck in a blame game of sorts, so the exact timeline of the shutdown is hard to pinpoint. 

    What they’re saying:

    “If Republicans want Democratic participation, then they have to negotiate,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) told The Hill. “This is a core principle of why people elected us to office.” 

    “We’re not going to discuss and negotiate it while they’re holding the hostage of the federal government,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said Tuesday morning on CNBC. “Release the hostage, and we will have that conversation about how we can keep these exchanges up and going.” 

    Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., gestures while speaking with reporters as the government lurches toward a shutdown at the Capitol in Washington, Tuesday, Sept. 30, 2025. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

    Thune added on the Senate floor that negotiations over the ACA subsidies would only occur after the federal government reopens, according to the Hill. 

    “Anything that’s going to be done is going to have to be done with significant reforms,” he said. 

    But Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer isn’t buying that. 

    “We think that when they say later, they mean never,” he said on the Senate floor. 

    While it’s true that a dozen more moderate Republicans have signed on to support a bill from Rep. Jen Kiggans (R-Va.) that would extend the subsidies for one year, more conservative Republicans appear to be vehemently against doing so. 

    House Speaker Mike Johnson said last month that there was “zero chance” he would consider supporting it, for example. 

    Unclear timeline

    Big picture view:

    Senate Democrats voted again on Wednesday to block the Republican bill that would have funded the government through the third week of November.

    The bill failed in a 55-45 vote—the same as Tuesday’s vote—and 60 votes are needed to advance it.

    Three Democratic caucus members voted with Republicans on the bill: Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (Nev.), Sen. Angus King (Maine), an independent, and Sen. John Fetterman (Pa.). Republican Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) voted against the bill. 

    Since the House won’t convene again until Monday, the only real option the Senate has at this point in time is to pass the bill that’s already failed twice. Thune said Wednesday that he plans to keep the upper chamber in session over this weekend to vote again. He says this is the only scenario in which President Trump signs on. 

    “As of this morning, critical federal employees including members of the military, Border Patrol agents and air traffic controllers are working without pay,” Thune said on the Senate floor. “Democrats are well aware of the damage of a government shutdown.”

    The Source: Information above was sourced from The Hill, USA Today, the Congressional Budget Office, POLITICO, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Congress and Senate voting records and previous FOX 5 DC reporting. 

    U.S. SenateU.S. HousePoliticsDonald J. TrumpNews

    [ad_2]

    Isabel.Soisson@fox.com (Isabel Soisson)

    Source link

  • YouTube may reinstate channels banned for spreading covid and election misinformation

    [ad_1]

    Channels once banned by YouTube for spreading false information regarding the COVID-19 pandemic or the 2020 election may soon have the opportunity to get their channels back, in a decision transparently courting “conservative voices.”

    Alphabet, the parent company of Google and YouTube, has via counsel to the in which it alleges the company was pressured by the Biden administration to take down misinformation on YouTube related to the COVID-19 pandemic that did not violate the company’s existing policies at the time. It now describes the Biden administration’s actions as “unacceptable and wrong.”

    It also informed the committee that YouTube would be offering a path to reinstatement for creators whose channels were banned for repeatedly violating community guidelines on election-integrity-related content, as well as for COVID-19-related content. The guidelines under which those bans were carried out were removed by the company in 2023 and 2024, respectively. Details on exactly what the path for reinstatement looks like were not shared.

    “The COVID-19 pandemic was an unprecedented time in which online platforms had to reach decisions about how best to balance freedom of expression with responsibility,” the letter reads. “Senior Biden administration officials, including White House officials, conducted repeated and sustained outreach to Alphabet and pressed the company regarding user generated content related to the COVID-19 pandemic that did not violate its policies.”

    Alphabet goes on to denounce any government attempts to “dictate how the Company moderates content,” and says it will always “fight against those efforts on First Amendment grounds.”

    Notable YouTube channels banned for either COVID-19 or election-integrity-related content include , Co-Deputy Director of the FBI and the channel for , an organization previously linked with Secretary of HHS RFK Jr. “YouTube values conservative voices on its platform and recognizes that these creators have extensive reach and play an important role in civic discourse,” the company wrote. In its letter, Alphabet also expresses concern that the European Union’s could have a chilling effect on freedom of expression.

    The letter was sent in response to subpoenas as part of the House Judiciary Committee’s ongoing investigations into alleged government-directed content moderation. The committee recently on “Europe’s Threat to American Speech and Innovation,” among others.

    [ad_2]

    Andre Revilla

    Source link

  • Senate expected to vote Friday on dueling stopgap bills

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON – U.S. senators are expected to vote Friday on competing stopgap bills that both aim to temporarily fund the government past the Sept. 30 deadline, according to POLITICO. 

    This comes on the heels of Democrats releasing their own government funding extension plan on Wednesday in response to a Republican plan that was put forth earlier this week. 

    “The Democrats obviously want to vote on their [continuing resolution]…and we want to vote on the House CR,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said Thursday. He added that Senate leaders are “talking to see if they can get there.”

    Dig deeper:

    Cornyn’s comments represent a shift in the perspective of Senate Republicans, who reportedly met again behind closed doors on Thursday to discuss a path forward. Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters just hours earlier that there wasn’t “much sentiment” inside the GOP about giving the Democrats a vote on their alternative proposal. 

    Sen. Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., center, speaks during a news conference after a policy luncheon at the Capitol, Tuesday, Sept. 16, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)

    Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer floated the idea of voting together on competing funding bills on the Senate floor Thursday morning. 

    “Tomorrow Republicans can choose: either listen to Donald Trump and shut the government down or break this logjam by supporting our bill and keeping the government open,” he said. 

    It’s worth noting that both bills would need to meet the 60-vote threshold to be adopted, and with the current level of partisanship in Congress, that’s unlikely to happen in either case. 

    If the vote does not occur tomorrow, the next vote on the GOP’s stopgap bill would come on the evening of Sept. 29, just one day before the deadline. 

    The problem 

    Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said in a joint statement earlier this week that their respective chambers would not support the Republican bill unless the two parties could compromise on health care spending. 

    “The House Republican-only spending bill fails to meet the needs of the American people and does nothing to stop the looming health care crisis,” the statement reads. “At a time when families are already being squeezed by higher costs, Republicans refuse to stop Americans from facing double-digit hikes in their health insurance premiums.”

    Schumer and Jeffries specifically suggested that Republicans could add an extension of the Obamacare subsidies that are set to expire at the end of 2025 to their bill. House Speaker Mike Johnson said Tuesday that there was “zero chance” he would consider adding this to the Republican bill, however. 

    House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., tells reporters that Republicans are jeopardizing health care for Americans with their policies and their strategy to fund the government before the deadline at the end of the month, at the Capitol in Wa

    Many Democrats have also pushed to reverse cuts that were recently implemented to Medicaid funding as part of President Donald Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill.” 

    The alternative bill proposed by Democrats on Thursday would extend the Obamacare subsidies and reverse the cuts to Medicaid. It also includes $90 million and $66.5 million for the House and the Senate sergeant at arms’ security, respectively. 

    Both bills do include, however, $30 million for general lawmaker security. 

    The Democratic bill also includes language that would increase oversight of how the Trump administration distributes funding that Congress authorizes. 

    Big picture view:

    Democrats appear to be taking a more aggressive stance against the Trump administration in rejecting the Republican bill and putting forth their own. 

    Some Democratic senators are even saying that a government shutdown may be the only way to send a “message” to President Trump. 

    “Donald Trump gave us the middle finger. There is no alternative,” one Democratic senator, who requested anonymity to discuss caucus strategy with The Hill, said. 

    “If Trump declares martial law, well, let him be transparent and show the world that’s what he thinks his ultimate goal is,” another lawmaker added. 

    Democrats are also facing increased pressure from their constituents and the more progressive wing of their party to stand up to the Trump administration. 

    Federal workers are pressuring lawmakers in this way, as well. On Thursday, hundreds of them from across 60 agencies and departments sent a letter to Congress urging them to rein in the White House, even though a shutdown would mean that many of them would go without pay. 

    “The continuing resolution (CR) you pass—or fail to pass—can determine whether Congress reasserts its constitutional powers, or allows further erosion of our democracy and harm to the public,” the letter reads. 

    As noted by Axios, this represents “the broadest protest yet to emerge from inside the civil service — a sign of widespread discontent, anger and worry over the Trump administration’s cuts to research, spending and the workforce.” 

    The Source: Information above was sourced from POLITICO, The Washington Post, USA Today, The Hill, NPR, Axios, the Maryland Democratic Party, The United States Committee on Finance, several statements from politicians and federal workers and previous FOX 5 DC reporting. 

    U.S. SenatePoliticsNews

    [ad_2]

    Isabel.Soisson@fox.com (Isabel Soisson)

    Source link

  • Dems to propose alternative to GOP stopgap bill as government shutdown looms

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON – On Tuesday, top Congressional Democrats said they opposed House Republicans’ stopgap spending bill that would fund the government past the Sept. 30 deadline, and said they plan to offer an alternative bill in its place.

    Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said in a joint statement that their respective chambers would not support the Republican bill unless the two parties could compromise on health care spending. 

    “The House Republican-only spending bill fails to meet the needs of the American people and does nothing to stop the looming health care crisis,” the statement reads. “At a time when families are already being squeezed by higher costs, Republicans refuse to stop Americans from facing double-digit hikes in their health insurance premiums.”

    Democrats angered the more progressive wing of their party earlier this year when senators allowed a similar temporary spending bill to advance. This time, it appears they’re digging their heels in. 

    Dig deeper:

    Earlier in the day, House Republicans unveiled their bill, which would fund the government through Nov. 21—current funding levels for federal agencies would be extended for seven weeks.

    Their bill also includes $58 million to boost security for members of the executive branch and the Supreme Court, and another $30 million for general lawmaker security. Republicans would need at least seven Democrats to advance this bill, and more likely, as some Republican lawmakers have said they will not support it.

    “We need responsible options to keep the government open while all this work continues and Republicans are committed to making that happen,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said Tuesday. 

    Stuck on health care 

    Schumer and Jeffries specifically suggested that Republicans could add an extension of the Obamacare subsidies that are set to expire at the end of 2025 to their bill. These enhanced tax credits were passed during the COVID-19 pandemic to help Americans afford coverage.

    Congress has extended these subsidies twice already. And while twelve Republicans and seven Democrats are backing legislation that would extend these subsidies for one year, Johnson said on Tuesday that there was “zero chance” he would consider doing so as part of this temporary spending bill.

    “Predictably and unfortunately, there are some Democrats who are openly pining for a government shutdown,” he said.

    Many Democrats have also pushed to reverse cuts that were recently implemented to Medicaid funding as part of President Donald Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill.” U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, D-Ore., led Senate Democrats last month in introducing legislation that would repeal these changes. 

    Following a policy luncheon on Capitol Hill Tuesday, U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., told reporters that Democrats plan to offer a stopgap bill that includes the health care language they’re looking for, as well as restrictions on Trump’s ability to rescind federal funding previously approved by Congressional lawmakers. 

    “We think we’re going to have…an alternative that American people will like a whole lot better,” he said.

    Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said she’s involved in developing this alternative Tuesday. She told reporters that the alternative bill will not only address the expiring health care subsidies, but will address “health care writ large.” This includes federal spending cuts to health agencies. 

    WASHINGTON, DC – SEPTEMBER 16: House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) appears during a House Rules Committee hearing on Capitol Hill on September 16, 2025 in Washington, DC. An emergency measure, the Continuing Appropr

    DeLauro, along with Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., the Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chair, issued their own joint statement on Tuesday saying that they’ve been working with their Republican counterparts to draft a bipartisan spending bill. 

    “House Republican Leadership has decided they would rather take us to the brink of a shutdown instead of working with Democrats on a bipartisan continuing resolution to keep the government funded, protect Congress’ power of the purse and improve health care,” they wrote. 

    The lawmakers then called on Speaker Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune to join their fellow Republicans in drafting a new bill. 

    “Speaker Johnson and Leader Thune need to finally come to the table to negotiate with Democratic leadership on health care, lowering the cost of living and other critical issues—something they have outright refused to do for weeks.”

    Schumer: ‘Things have changed’ 

    Big picture view:

    More broadly, the Democrats’ rejection of this Republican stopgap bill appears to be a rejection of Trump’s way of governing. 

    Recently, the president took to social media to urge Congressional Republicans to unite around a so-called “clean” continuing resolution. 

    “In times like these, Republicans have to stick TOGETHER to fight back against the Radical Left Democrat demands, and vote ‘YES!’” the president posted on his platform, Truth Social.

    Sen. Chuck Schumer weathered much of the backlash in March when he voted with Republicans to keep the government open, but this time he says, “things have changed.” 

    In an interview with the Associated Press, Schumer said that a shutdown wouldn’t necessarily worsen a U.S. political environment that already has the president challenging the authority of Congress. 

    “It will get worse with or without it,” he said, “because Trump is lawless.” 

    The Source: Information in this article was sourced from social media, several statements and pieces of legislation, The Medical Economics Journal, The New York Times, The Associated Press, The National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, NPR, POLITICO, The Hill, USA Today and The United States Committee on Finance. 

    NewsPoliticsU.S. HouseU.S. SenateDonald J. Trump

    [ad_2]

    Isabel.Soisson@fox.com (Isabel Soisson)

    Source link

  • Newsmax to pay $67M to Denver’s Dominion Voting Systems to settle defamation case over 2020 election claims

    [ad_1]

    The conservative network Newsmax will pay $67 million to settle a lawsuit accusing it of defaming a Denver-based voting equipment company by spreading lies about President Donald Trump’s 2020 election loss, according to documents filed Monday.

    [ad_2]

    Nicholas Riccardi

    Source link

  • Key Moments From Donald Trump In His Oh So Friendly Conversation With Joe Rogan

    Key Moments From Donald Trump In His Oh So Friendly Conversation With Joe Rogan

    [ad_1]

    With millions of Americans already voting, and just over a week until Election Day, here’s a snapshot of what Rogan and Trump covered on Friday:

    Rogan Says Trump Has Been Attacked More Than Anyone In History

    Rogan started the interview by talking about Trump’s appearance on The View when running for president for the first time. Back then, the crowd cheered as Trump received a warm welcome on the show.

    “They all loved you,” Rogan began. “And then you actually started winning in the polls and then the machine started working towards you—there’s probably no one in history that I’ve ever seen that’s been attacked the way you’ve been attacked.”

    Trump responded by discussing his work on The Apprentice, later denigrating the all-female cast of The View, “I was very popular, and all those people loved me. I mean this, some of these women, they’re so, they’re so stupid.”

    Election Denialism

    Throughout the entire interview, Trump continued to bring up the 2020 election, reiterating his Big Lie—that he won despite an alleged coordinated effort against him. At one point, Rogan bemoans that people always “cut off” Trump when he talks about how he won four years ago—something he wouldn’t do.

    “I did great the second time. I did much better. I don’t want to get you in any disputes, but I won that second election so easy,” Trump said. The two also discussed how supposed censorship against Trump on social media and Hunter Biden’s laptop led to election interference.

    “I won by like, I lost by like—I didn’t lose,” Trump said later. Rogan laughed again.

    The host also compared questioning the election results and being labeled an election denier to questioning Covid-19 vaccinations and being branded anti-vax.

    In 2022, Rogan was “criticized for spreading what was widely seen as misinformation about the coronavirus,” the New York Times reported.

    Trump Again Goes After Harris’s Intelligence

    “Can you imagine Kamala doing this show?” Trump asked.

    “She was supposed to do it, and she might do it, and I hope she does. I will talk to her like a human being,” Rogan responded.

    Vice President Kamala Harris had been in talks to do a spot with Rogan, but it “didn’t pan out,” according to NBC News. Campaign spokesperson Ian Sams told MSNBC on Thursday that they “talked with Rogan and his team about the podcast, unfortunately, it isn’t going to work out right now because of the scheduling of this period of the campaign.”

    [ad_2]

    Katie Herchenroeder

    Source link

  • The Woman Who Engineered Donald Trump’s Rise From the Ashes of 2020

    The Woman Who Engineered Donald Trump’s Rise From the Ashes of 2020

    [ad_1]

    DeSantis told Trump and Stepien that he thought Wiles lied and leaked to the press.“Fair enough,” Stepien replied. “But you won, and so did Donald Trump in Florida in 2016.”

    Trump made the final decision. “We’re hiring Susie.” She was back in the fold by the beginning of July.

    The most immediate prospect for reasserting control over his party—which would also double as a test of rank-and-file fidelity to him and his MAGA movement—would be picking and choosing among the GOP candidates announcing for office in 2022 and issuing a battery of his trademark “complete and total” endorsements. But without any kind of process in place for Trump to make endorsements, he had already begun to endorse candidates haphazardly, doling out his support to Republicans that Donald Trump Jr. and some of his aides viewed as “squishy,” or not sufficiently MAGA, like Kansas senator Jerry Moran, who in their view had been too critical of Trump’s trade policies and was not sufficiently loyal.

    At the end of February, his closest remaining political advisers were summoned to Mar-a-Lago to start charting out how they would approach things like endorsements.

    It was a strange and empty time at Trump’s club. COVID-19 had scared off some of its members (the next month, the club would be temporarily shut down by an outbreak of the coronavirus). Other members had left after Trump’s 2020 loss and January 6, when it became clear to them the hefty membership fee was worthwhile only when Trump was in power. Being associated with someone who inspired a bloody attack on the Capitol didn’t have the same social clout as being associated with a president.

    The meeting was held in the empty tea room at Mar-a-Lago, a dining room just off the main living room. Trump’s former campaign managers, Brad Parscale and Bill Stepien; Justin Clark, a White House lawyer and deputy campaign manager; Dan Scavino; Jason Miller; and Corey Lewandowski sat in banquet chairs around a table with a white tablecloth. After working in the White House and on Trump’s 2020 campaign, they found the setup oddly informal.

    There was no set agenda. No one was in charge, and—unusual for Trumpworld—no one was angling to be. Trump wanted to be a political Godzilla, but at the moment he barely had the capacity to send out an email, let alone fundraise. Among the top priorities they discussed that afternoon was sorting out who was going to do mail, and some kind of process for making endorsements, so as to block people from pushing their friends on Trump. Word had already gotten back to Trump Jr. that Senator Lindsey Graham, Trump’s ally and golfing buddy, had been lobbying endorsements.

    For those who had worked for Trump since 2016, having clearly delineated roles and responsibilities was a novel concept—an exciting change of pace, actually.

    And even if not much came from the meeting beyond an online process for candidates to make endorsement requests and a weekly call, there was also the sense in the group that if Jared Kushner had run things in 2020, it was Donald Trump Jr. who was going to assume a larger role moving forward.

    Kushner and Trump’s son were both wealthy, Ivy League–educated men, born just three years apart, but they had very different views of the world. After Kushner he served as a top adviser to Trump in the White House, he and his wife, Trump’s daughter Ivanka, were eager to move on and reingratiate themselves with the jet-set New York crowd, while Trump Jr. looked forward to disappearing into the wilderness of Pennsylvania to hunt deer and was eager to make his own mark on the MAGA movement.

    Don Jr., as he was referred to, made clear that when it came to his dad’s political capital, they needed to be scrupulous: Unless Trump was getting something in return, or unless the candidate in question proved they were true believers or allies, Trump wasn’t going to give out his endorsement.

    One idea came from Andy Surabian, a Republican strategist who had worked on Trump’s 2016 campaign as war-room director under Steve Bannon and went on to work closely with Don Jr. He suggested that candidates answer a one-page questionnaire about their positions on issues like immigration and foreign policy, and whether they would endorse Trump if he ran again in 2024. Everyone loved the idea, and questions were drafted. But the idea was later scrapped by Trump himself.

    Trump’s small team of advisers also needed to figure out fundraising vehicles that could drop money into upcoming midterm races. Save America, a leadership PAC, was formed right after the election, and Trump planned to use that to pay for staff and political expenses. In addition to Save America, a new super PAC, Make America Great Again Action, was created to raise and spend an unlimited amount of money on advertising in upcoming midterms races.

    Trump had just announced his first endorsements—for Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary turned gubernatorial candidate in Arkansas, and for Moran in Kansas—but he was eager to start endorsing more and was hell-bent on upending the campaigns of the Republicans who supported his impeachment or he felt had crossed him in the 2020 election.

    [ad_2]

    Meridith McGraw

    Source link

  • Rudy Giuliani’s Promising Legal Career Cut Short With New York Disbarment

    Rudy Giuliani’s Promising Legal Career Cut Short With New York Disbarment

    [ad_1]

    From showing up in a Borat movie with his hands down his pants to being criminally charged with trying to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia and Arizona, Rudy Giuliani has suffered many a rough day during his 80 years on Earth. Today’s kick in the pants? Losing his license to practice law in the state where he once served not only as mayor but as one of its most powerful prosecutors.

    Yes, Giuliani was officially—and permanently—disbarred in New York on Tuesday over his work as a personal and campaign lawyer for Donald Trump, which saw the ex-mayor and former US attorney for the Southern District of New York telling all manner of lies in an effort to keep Trump in power. Those lies, a New York State appellate court wrote, were “designed to create distrust of the elective system of our country in the minds of the citizens and to destroy their confidence in the legitimacy of our government.”

    The court added that “the seriousness of respondent’s misconduct cannot be overstated,” noting that Giuliani had “flagrantly misused his prominent position as the personal attorney for former president Trump and his campaign” and “baselessly attacked and undermined the integrity of this country’s electoral process.” In doing so, the court said, the ex-mayor “not only deliberately violated some of the most fundamental tenets of the legal profession, but he also actively contributed to the national strife that has followed the 2020 presidential election, for which he is entirely unrepentant.”

    Giuliani’s New York law license was initially suspended in 2021; in May, the board that oversees disciplinary recommendations for attorneys who have been admitted to the bar in Washington, DC, said he should not be allowed to practice law there. In response to the loss of his license in New York, Barry Kamins, a lawyer for Giuliani, told The New York Times: “Mr. Giuliani is obviously disappointed in the decision. We are weighing our appellate options.”

    Last December, Giuliani filed for bankruptcy after being ordered to pay nearly $150 million in damages to two Georgia election workers he defamed. Creditors have suggested in court filings he may be hiding assets; despite agreeing to a $43,000-a-month budget, he reportedly spent nearly triple that in January.

    Interesting take from this guy in particular

    X content

    This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

    “Watergate was fine” — Supreme Court conservatives, basically

    X content

    This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

    Elsewhere!

    RFK Jr.’s Family Doesn’t Want Him to Run. Even They May Not Know His Darkest Secrets.

    Vanity Fair • Read More

    Initial postdebate polls show Biden losing ground to Trump

    The Hill • Read More

    Democrats begin attacking Biden’s performance and campaign

    Politico • Read More

    Biden plans to meet personally with Democratic governors

    The Washington Post • Read More

    “No Bait and Switch”: The Trump Campaign Wants to Face Biden, Not a Replacement

    Vanity Fair • Read More

    Joe Biden Loyalists Make the Case for Gutting It Out

    Vanity Fair • Read More

    Lauren Windsor Has a “Substantial Amount” of Secret Recordings She Hasn’t Released Yet

    Vanity Fair • Read More

    Elon Musk’s Politics May Be Pushing Some Buyers Away From Tesla

    NYT • Read More

    Some Boston subway trains are now sporting googly eyes

    AP • Read More

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • As Biden and Trump Square Off in Their First Debate, Let’s Revisit Why Trump Won the 2016 Showdowns

    As Biden and Trump Square Off in Their First Debate, Let’s Revisit Why Trump Won the 2016 Showdowns

    [ad_1]

    Don’t worry about it, Little Marco …. Low energy …. You are the single biggest liar….

    The first 2024 presidential debate is set for Thursday, and there may be wisdom in the old adage: Past is prologue. A case can certainly be made that one of the main reasons Donald Trump earned his party’s nomination in 2016—and went on to win the general election—is because of the sheer must-see spectacle of his off-the-rails debate performances. Eight years later, a sizable audience will be either tuned into the faceoff, to be hosted by CNN, or will spend time scrolling through the online highlight reel. In preparation, it is useful to consider why those bygone showdowns played to Trump’s strengths.

    It is a given, of course, that Trump went into the early debates with a substantial advantage against the large GOP field. The main reason: he was a reality TV star, extremely comfortable with the medium of television and in tune with the audiences at home and in the studio. Experience in reality TV—a genre that is untethered to the real world—allowed Trump to parse the truth and make up facts on the fly, behavior that proved especially effective when courting a public with a compromised rumor-immune system.

    Not to belabor the obvious, but Trump knew how to treat politics itself as a reality show. In the first few months of the primaries, skeptics had viewed his candidacy as little more than his way of burnishing his brand. Full stop. Yet once Trump had gotten a debate or two under his belt, he realized—as did the political and media establishments—that he had found his political métier. In short order, the cable and network news divisions began to cast him in the lead.

    Soon, they were marketing the presidential race like a prime-time series. On two dozen evenings, TV provided live coverage of the primary and caucus results. Over the course of 15 months, beginning in August of 2015, there were 31 debates, town halls, and forums. In addition, Trump’s campaign rallies and primary night speeches were sometimes broadcast or streamed live.

    Jeff Zucker, for one—then the boss at CNN—was going all-in for Trump. No wonder: he’d been the executive at NBC who’d help steer the success of Trump’s own reality show, The Apprentice. Roger Ailes, then running Fox News, also saw the candidate as his kind of marquee talent: loud, brash, unpredictable, and physically imposing, all of which translated into ratings catnip. In no time, this saturation coverage on cable and broadcast got viewers hooked on The Great Race. The debates became, in effect, an episodic TV series, in simulcast. The program merged three formats, all of which had been perfected during the 1990s: the reality show, the talk/opinion show, and the monthslong TV-news saga, from “Conflict in the Gulf” (’90–’91), to the O.J. Simpson “Trial of the Century” (’94–’95), to the March to Impeachment (’98-’99), not to mention Bush v. Gore (’00–’01).

    The debates—and the race itself—turned out to be tailor-made for a reality-TV character like Trump: the serialized nature of the contest, the faux suspense, the obsession with process. So, too, was the fixation on the week’s winners (“We are going to win big-league, believe me”) and losers (“I like people who weren’t captured”). This was a format Trump knew intimately. And he solidified his hold on voters early by appearing in a setting that suited his showman’s flashiness and his insult-comic style.

    As the Republican candidates lined up on the debate stage, Trump would typically be positioned at the center lectern. He would field more questions than his competitors. The setting had hints of Survivor and The Apprentice. At times, the moderators would focus less on the candidates’ policies than on their views about one another: “Senator Cruz, you suggested Mr. Trump ‘embodies New York values.’ Could you explain what you mean by that?” This line of questioning encouraged conflict and helped amplify Trump’s tendency to razz his rivals. Meanwhile, the postmortems by experts would reverberate for days across websites, social media, the print press, and the news and opinion programs, prolonging the agony and the exegesis.

    All along, Trump was playing by reality-TV rules. He didn’t “prepare.” He played his malaprops and bluster as authenticity. He and his surrogates “spun” his performance in pre-interviews and post-interviews. He inserted his family into the process, which helped bolster his appeal and fill out his back story. He spread hearsay (“I’m hearing…”; “Everybody is saying…”). When things weren’t going his way, he blamed his mic or his earpiece. He cast doubt on the moderators. He whined and he sulked and he scowled.

    Trump seemed to have the facility to say whatever sounded sensible or outrageous in the moment. He would build a “beautiful wall” along the Mexican border—which Mexico would pay for. He would alter his positions, debunk fellow candidates he’d previously praised, deny saying things he’d actually said. And all of it went relatively un-fact-checked by his opponents—or even the moderators. While the other presidential hopefuls on the debate stage gave responses that were based IRL, by and large, Trump played virtually. He understood that on reality programs the cleverest half-truth could mortally wound an opponent, and the craftiest player would often win—and win over his audience.

    [ad_2]

    David Friend

    Source link

  • Colorado suspends ex-Trump lawyer Jenna Ellis’ law license for 3 years over Georgia election lies

    Colorado suspends ex-Trump lawyer Jenna Ellis’ law license for 3 years over Georgia election lies

    [ad_1]

    Jenna Ellis, a Colorado native and former lawyer for then-President Donald Trump in 2020, will not be allowed to practice law in Colorado for at least three years under an agreement approved Tuesday by the Colorado Supreme Court.

    Ellis, who is from Longmont, had faced the possibility of total disbarment after pleading guilty in October to a felony in Georgia related to efforts to overturn Trump’s 2020 election loss there. Daysha Young, a prosecutor in that case, told the court there that Ellis had “aided and abetted” two of Trump’s attorneys as they falsely told Georgia state senators that tens of thousands of illegal votes were cast in the state.

    Colorado’s governing body for attorneys previously had censured Ellis after she admitted making repeated false statements about the 2020 presidential election.

    In the agreement, lawyers for Ellis and the state of Colorado acknowledged that “while disbarment is the presumptive sanction for (Ellis’) misconduct, it is significant that her criminal culpability was due to her conduct as an accessory, not as a principal.” That, combined with her letter of remorse, may have saved her from total disbarment.

    In her letter, Ellis wrote that she “turned a blind eye” to the possibility that senior lawyers for the Trump campaign could be sharing false information as part of a “cynical ‘Stop the Steal’ campaign.”

    “In (accepting the suspension), I will hopefully encourage others who may still believe that the election was ‘stolen’ to consider changing their position,” Ellis wrote. “Everything that has come out since has not proven that claim.”

    [ad_2]

    Nick Coltrain

    Source link

  • Trump could avoid trial this year on 2020 election charges

    Trump could avoid trial this year on 2020 election charges

    [ad_1]

    Former President Donald Trump faces serious charges in two cases over whether he attempted to subvert the Constitution by overturning the results of a fair election and illegally remain in power.Yet it’s a New York case centered on payments to silence an adult film actor that might provide the only legal reckoning this year on whether the Republican tried to undermine a pillar of American democracy.Trump is charged in the hush money case with trying to falsify business records, but it was hard to tell that as the trial opened Monday.Lead prosecutor Matthew Colangelo wasted little time during opening statements tying the case to Trump’s campaigning during his first run for the presidency. He said the payments made to Stormy Daniels amounted to “a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election.”Whether the jury accepts that connection will be pivotal for Trump’s fate. The presumptive GOP nominee faces charges related to falsifying business records that would typically be misdemeanors unless the alleged act could be tied to another crime. Prosecutors were able to charge them as felonies because they allege that the false records were part of an effort to cover up state and federal election law violations — though that’s still not the type of direct election interference that Trump is charged with elsewhere.Trump has referred to the New York trial and the three other criminal cases against him as a form of election interference, suggesting without evidence that they’re part of a Democratic plan to undermine his campaign to return to the White House.“I’m here instead of being able to be in Pennsylvania and Georgia and lots of other places campaigning, and it’s very unfair,” he told reporters before Monday’s court session.While the charges are felonies, the New York case is seen as the least consequential against the former president. In the two election cases, Trump is accused of more direct involvement in trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election.He faces a four-count federal indictment in Washington in connection with his actions in the run-up to the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol by his supporters on Jan. 6, 2021. He and others were charged in Georgia with violating the state’s anti-racketeering law by scheming to illegally overturn his 2020 loss to Joe Biden. He has pleaded not guilty to all the charges against him in those cases and a fourth charging him with mishandling classified documents.All the other cases are tied up in appeals that are expected to delay any trials until after the November election. If that happens, the New York case will stand as the only legal test during the campaign of whether Trump attempted to illegally manipulate an election — and the case isn’t even about the election results he tried to overthrow.On Monday, Trump’s attorney quickly moved to undercut the idea that a case in which the charges center on record-keeping could seriously be considered an effort to illegally undermine an election.“I have a spoiler alert: There’s nothing wrong with trying to influence an election. It’s called democracy,” said his attorney, Todd Blanche. “They put something sinister on this idea, as if it’s a crime. You’ll learn it’s not.”Some legal experts monitoring the cases against Trump said they were skeptical of connecting the payments to a form of “election interference.” Doing so also runs the risk of diminishing the gravity of the other charges in the public mind.Richard Painter, a University of Minnesota Law School professor and former associate White House counsel during the George W. Bush administration, said he believed the facts of the case met the evidence needed to determine whether a felony had been committed that violated campaign law, but added, “The election interference part, I have a little bit of trouble on this.”Richard Hasen, a UCLA law school professor, said the New York case does not compare to the other election-related charges Trump faces.“We can draw a fairly bright line between attempting to change vote totals to flip a presidential election and failing to disclose embarrassing information on a government form,” he wrote in a recent Los Angeles Times column.In an email, Hasen said New York prosecutors were calling the case election interference “because that boosts what may be the only case heard before the election.”Some said prosecutors’ decision to characterize the New York case as election interference seemed to be a strategy designed to raise its visibility.“When (Manhattan District Attorney) Alvin Bragg calls it an election interference case, that’s more of a public relations strategy,” said Paul Butler, a professor at Georgetown Law and former federal prosecutor. “I think there was concern that people were looking at the other prosecutions and they weren’t discussing the Manhattan case.”Declaring the case a hush money trial made it seem less important than the others and “so they’ve styled it … as a case about election interference. But again, what he’s charged with is falsifying business records.”Trump has denied having a sexual encounter with Daniels and his lawyers argue that the payments to Cohen were legitimate legal expenses.The key question in the prosecution’s argument is why were the business records falsified, said Chris Edelson, an American University assistant professor of government. Their allegation is that “Trump was preventing voters from making an informed decision in the election.”It’s an argument he believes prosecutors can make. “I think that the prosecutors will have to explain this to the jury. I don’t think it’s impossible to do,” he said.The New York trial revolves around allegations of a $130,000 payment that Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer and personal fixer, made to Daniels to prevent her claims of a sexual encounter with Trump from becoming public in the final days of the 2016 race.“Candidates want to suppress bad news about them. But there’s a difference between trying to limit people knowing about that information and about breaking the law to keep them from finding out,” said Andrew Warren, a former state attorney in Florida who was suspended by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis and is running for his old office while his court battle continues.Warren said he believes the case has always been about more than the payments. If it is accepted as a hush money case, “Trump wins,” he said. “If there was intent to deceive the voters, the prosecution wins.”

    NEW YORK —

    Former President Donald Trump faces serious charges in two cases over whether he attempted to subvert the Constitution by overturning the results of a fair election and illegally remain in power.

    Yet it’s a New York case centered on payments to silence an adult film actor that might provide the only legal reckoning this year on whether the Republican tried to undermine a pillar of American democracy.

    Trump is charged in the hush money case with trying to falsify business records, but it was hard to tell that as the trial opened Monday.

    Lead prosecutor Matthew Colangelo wasted little time during opening statements tying the case to Trump’s campaigning during his first run for the presidency. He said the payments made to Stormy Daniels amounted to “a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election.”

    Whether the jury accepts that connection will be pivotal for Trump’s fate. The presumptive GOP nominee faces charges related to falsifying business records that would typically be misdemeanors unless the alleged act could be tied to another crime. Prosecutors were able to charge them as felonies because they allege that the false records were part of an effort to cover up state and federal election law violations — though that’s still not the type of direct election interference that Trump is charged with elsewhere.

    Trump has referred to the New York trial and the three other criminal cases against him as a form of election interference, suggesting without evidence that they’re part of a Democratic plan to undermine his campaign to return to the White House.

    “I’m here instead of being able to be in Pennsylvania and Georgia and lots of other places campaigning, and it’s very unfair,” he told reporters before Monday’s court session.

    While the charges are felonies, the New York case is seen as the least consequential against the former president. In the two election cases, Trump is accused of more direct involvement in trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

    He faces a four-count federal indictment in Washington in connection with his actions in the run-up to the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol by his supporters on Jan. 6, 2021. He and others were charged in Georgia with violating the state’s anti-racketeering law by scheming to illegally overturn his 2020 loss to Joe Biden. He has pleaded not guilty to all the charges against him in those cases and a fourth charging him with mishandling classified documents.

    All the other cases are tied up in appeals that are expected to delay any trials until after the November election. If that happens, the New York case will stand as the only legal test during the campaign of whether Trump attempted to illegally manipulate an election — and the case isn’t even about the election results he tried to overthrow.

    On Monday, Trump’s attorney quickly moved to undercut the idea that a case in which the charges center on record-keeping could seriously be considered an effort to illegally undermine an election.

    “I have a spoiler alert: There’s nothing wrong with trying to influence an election. It’s called democracy,” said his attorney, Todd Blanche. “They put something sinister on this idea, as if it’s a crime. You’ll learn it’s not.”

    Some legal experts monitoring the cases against Trump said they were skeptical of connecting the payments to a form of “election interference.” Doing so also runs the risk of diminishing the gravity of the other charges in the public mind.

    Richard Painter, a University of Minnesota Law School professor and former associate White House counsel during the George W. Bush administration, said he believed the facts of the case met the evidence needed to determine whether a felony had been committed that violated campaign law, but added, “The election interference part, I have a little bit of trouble on this.”

    Richard Hasen, a UCLA law school professor, said the New York case does not compare to the other election-related charges Trump faces.

    “We can draw a fairly bright line between attempting to change vote totals to flip a presidential election and failing to disclose embarrassing information on a government form,” he wrote in a recent Los Angeles Times column.

    In an email, Hasen said New York prosecutors were calling the case election interference “because that boosts what may be the only case heard before the election.”

    Some said prosecutors’ decision to characterize the New York case as election interference seemed to be a strategy designed to raise its visibility.

    “When (Manhattan District Attorney) Alvin Bragg calls it an election interference case, that’s more of a public relations strategy,” said Paul Butler, a professor at Georgetown Law and former federal prosecutor. “I think there was concern that people were looking at the other prosecutions and they weren’t discussing the Manhattan case.”

    Declaring the case a hush money trial made it seem less important than the others and “so they’ve styled it … as a case about election interference. But again, what he’s charged with is falsifying business records.”

    Trump has denied having a sexual encounter with Daniels and his lawyers argue that the payments to Cohen were legitimate legal expenses.

    The key question in the prosecution’s argument is why were the business records falsified, said Chris Edelson, an American University assistant professor of government. Their allegation is that “Trump was preventing voters from making an informed decision in the election.”

    It’s an argument he believes prosecutors can make. “I think that the prosecutors will have to explain this to the jury. I don’t think it’s impossible to do,” he said.

    The New York trial revolves around allegations of a $130,000 payment that Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer and personal fixer, made to Daniels to prevent her claims of a sexual encounter with Trump from becoming public in the final days of the 2016 race.

    “Candidates want to suppress bad news about them. But there’s a difference between trying to limit people knowing about that information and about breaking the law to keep them from finding out,” said Andrew Warren, a former state attorney in Florida who was suspended by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis and is running for his old office while his court battle continues.

    Warren said he believes the case has always been about more than the payments. If it is accepted as a hush money case, “Trump wins,” he said. “If there was intent to deceive the voters, the prosecution wins.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump’s Federal Election Subversion Trial Postponed For Now: Judge

    Trump’s Federal Election Subversion Trial Postponed For Now: Judge

    [ad_1]

    U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan announced Friday that she was postponing the March 4 trial date in Donald Trump’s election interference case, as the former president’s claims of legal immunity have bogged down legal proceedings and prevented the case from moving forward.

    The federal judge promised to set a new trial date “if and when” Trump’s legal claims are resolved by a three-judge panel in an appeals court, which heard oral arguments in the case in early January. During a press conference, the judge seemed to acknowledge that the case had thrown a wrench into her scheduling, saying that she did “not know what my schedule will be in mid-April.”

    In the six months since Special Counsel Jack Smith handed down his indictment, it has been clear that Trump’s lawyers are angling to delay the trial until after November’s presidential election. If Trump wins before a ruling has been handed down, he can instruct his attorney general to dismiss any charges against him or seek a pardon for himself.

    Chutkan set the March 4 trial date back in August, promising a “prompt and efficient resolution of this matter” and rebuffing Trump’s legal team’s demand for the trial to be held in 2026. But the Obama-appointed judge put the case on hold in December to allow Trump’s legal team to pursue its claim that the former president enjoys immunity from prosecution.

    A D.C. appeals court took up the claim and moved quickly. But despite setting an extremely swift schedule—the panel told the defense and prosecution to file papers on successive Saturdays in late December and scheduled oral argument for January 9—it has yet to reach a verdict, though it has signaled skepticism of the immunity argument. Even if it does hand down a decision rejecting Trump’s claims, his legal team will likely appeal again, further adding to delays.

    “It is surprising, given how quickly they moved to have this appeal briefed and argued, for the court to not yet have issued a decision,” University of Texas at Austin law professor Stephen Vladeck told The New York Times. “It’s surprising both just because of how fast they moved and because of the broader timing considerations in this case — both the March 4 trial date and the looming specter of the election.”

    Vladeck added that the court—composed of two Biden appointees and one George H.W. Bush appointee—may be taking its time to reach a unanimous decision and avoid the public perception of division on such a crucial legal matter.

    The move is a blow to the team of federal prosecutors who have consistently pressed for as early a trial date as possible. Smith’s office asked the Supreme Court in December to fast-track Trump’s immunity case, but the court quickly rejected the request, handing a significant victory to Trump.

    One consequence of Chutkan’s decision is that the first of Trump’s four criminal cases to appear before a jury is more likely to be his New York state trial on charges of illegally arranging hush payments to porn star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 presidential election. That trial is currently scheduled for March 25.

    [ad_2]

    Jack McCordick

    Source link

  • Mike Flynn’s Hall of Fame induction halted after board resignations

    Mike Flynn’s Hall of Fame induction halted after board resignations

    [ad_1]

    Following a flurry of resignations and public outcry, the Rhode Island Heritage Hall of Fame announced it will defer its 2024 induction of Michael Flynn.

    In a guest column to the Providence Journal, Patrick Conley, the Hall of Fame’s past president, stated Flynn’s induction would be deferred “to a more peaceful and rational time and a more secure place.”

    “Discretion is the better part of valor,” said Conley, who currently serves as the board’s volunteer general counsel.

    In the guest column, Conley defended the board’s December 14 vote to induct Flynn, former President Donald Trump’s National Security Adviser. However, he said “the Hall of Fame exhibited ‘poor timing’ by choosing to honor General Flynn in this turbulent and politically charged environment.”

    According to The Journal, at least eight board members have resigned as a result of the vote to induct Flynn. Conley’s column said the Hall of Fame received 100 letters in protest of Flynn’s pending induction.

    Newsweek reached out to Conley via email for additional comments.

    Gen. Michael Flynn, former national security adviser to US President Donald Trump, is shown leaving Federal Court on December 1, 2017 in Washington, DC.
    AFP/Getty Images

    Flynn, a retired three-star general who grew up in Rhode Island, was let go as Trump’s national security advisor after three weeks in office when it was revealed that he was not truthful about a conversation he had with then Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak while speaking with former Vice President Mike Pence.

    In 2017, Flynn pleaded guilty for lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation about the conversation with Kislyak. Trump pardoned him in November 2020.

    Since then, Flynn has been associated with members of the QAnon conspiracy movement who have made baseless claims that a globalist cabal, made up of Democrats and wealthy businessmen, is involved in a worldwide child sex-trafficking ring.

    He also falsely claimed COVID was invented in order to steal the 2020 election from Trump. Last year, Flynn suggested a Myanmar-like military coup “should happen” in the U.S.

    “A majority of the board that voted to induct Flynn relied upon his 30-year record of public service and high attainments,” Conley wrote in his guest column. “It accepted as true the grant of clemency from the president of the United States asserting that no crime was actually committed and the fact that charges against Flynn were dropped by a weaponized Department of Justice.”

    John Parrillo, a history professor, was among the recent board resignations.

    In a resignation letter obtained by the Journal, Parrillo said he was “saddened to the core” by the vote to induct a man with Flynn’s “politics and far-right militaristic vision for America” and by the board’s unwillingness to reconsider his Hall of Fame merits.

    “For the last seven years, it has been my [privilege] to nominate at least seven Rhode Islanders into our RI Hall of Fame. A fresco painter. A Naval historian. A Hollywood filmmaker. Two creators of a music festival. An early father of the American Industrial Revolution and the creator of at least 14 Black colleges,” Parrillo wrote in his letter.

    “With a most heavy heart,” he said he must resign.

    In another letter obtained by the Journal, former Rhode Island state Senator Bea Lanzi and lawyer John Tarantino wrote: “There is an overall right and wrong in the universe, and what has happened here, in our view, and according to our moral compasses, and consciences, compels us to resign.”