ReportWire

Tag: brand safety-nsf mature

  • Media organizations, including CNN, seek unsealing of Trump indictment and ask to broadcast Tuesday proceedings | CNN Politics

    Media organizations, including CNN, seek unsealing of Trump indictment and ask to broadcast Tuesday proceedings | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Several media outlets, including CNN, have asked a New York judge to unseal the grand jury indictment against former President Donald Trump. The news organizations are also asking for permission to broadcast Trump’s expected appearance in a Manhattan courtroom on Tuesday for his arraignment on the charges.

    In their letter Friday seeking to make the indictment public, the media outlets told Judge Juan Merchan – who is slated to preside over the historic proceedings – that “the right of access is at its zenith when applied to the first ever indictment of a former U.S. president.”

    The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal are among the outlets making the request.

    “And no higher values are served by keeping the indictment under seal. Aside from the fact that a former U.S. president is not a flight risk, maintaining the indictment under seal, despite the public disclosure of its existence, only fuels speculation as to its contents. Full disclosure of the indictment will enhance both the general public’s and the parties’ right to an accurate public understanding of the charges,” the request said. “As such, former President Trump’s indictment should be unsealed without delay.”

    If the judge does not grant the media outlets’ unsealing request, it is expected that the indictment will be made public when Trump appears in court Tuesday.

    With their request to broadcast those proceedings, the media outlets told the court that “the gravity of this proceeding – the unprecedented and historic arraignment of a former U.S. President – and, consequently, the need for the broadest possible public access, cannot be overstated.”

    The news organizations are asking for a “limited number of photographers, videographers, and radio journalists to be present at the arraignment,” and said in the letter that they are making “this limited request for audio-visual coverage in order to ensure that the operations of the Court will not be disrupted in any way.”

    “The News Organizations stand ready to work cooperatively with the Court to ensure that the public have an opportunity to observe this monumental and historical proceeding,” the media outlets said, while proposing that the court hold a hearing on the matter if it would helpful to making a decision.

    Merchan is expected to issue an order Monday on camera access in the courtroom for Trump’s Tuesday arraignment. On Sunday, he invited lawyers for Trump and for the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office to submit by 1 p.m. Monday any concerns or objections to the media outlets’ request to broadcast the arraignment.

    Trump faces more than 30 counts related to business fraud in the indictment. The investigation by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office began when Trump was still in the White House and relates to a $130,000 payment made by his then-personal attorney Michael Cohen to adult film star Stormy Daniels in late October 2016, days before the presidential election, to silence her from going public about an alleged affair with Trump a decade earlier.

    Trump has denied the affair.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Abortion foes take aim at ballot initiatives in next phase of post-Dobbs political fights | CNN Politics

    Abortion foes take aim at ballot initiatives in next phase of post-Dobbs political fights | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    After a string of recent ballot-box victories for abortion rights groups, opponents of the procedure are redoubling their efforts – including, in some places, pushing to make it harder to use citizen-approved ballot measures to guarantee abortion access.

    An anti-abortion coalition in Ohio, for instance, recently unleashed a $5 million ad buy targeting an effort to enshrine abortion rights in the state’s constitution through a ballot initiative – just as the initiative’s organizers won approval to collect signatures to put the question to voters in November. Meanwhile, legislators in Ohio and other states are weighing bills that would make it more difficult to pass citizen-initiated changes to state constitutions.

    The US Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade last year left abortion laws up to the states, and abortion rights groups quickly scored wins on ballot measures in six of them – including in the battleground state of Michigan, where voters protected abortion access, and in the Republican strongholds of Kansas, Kentucky and Montana, where voters defeated efforts to restrict abortions.

    “What we saw in the midterms last year was a wake-up call,” said Kelsey Pritchard, director of state public affairs for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America. She said helping local groups defeat abortion-related ballot measures is one of the top three priorities for the group’s state affairs team.

    Groups on both sides of the abortion divide have poured big sums into an upcoming state Supreme Court race in Wisconsin that has seen record spending and offers a key test of the potency of the abortion issue among voters in a battleground state. Whether a conservative or liberal candidate wins a swing seat Tuesday on the seven-member high court there could determine the fate of abortion rights in the state. A Wisconsin law, enacted in 1849, that bans nearly all abortions is being challenged in court and is likely to land before the state Supreme Court.

    More fights over ballot initiatives on abortion are stirring to life around the country. In addition to Ohio – where a state law banning abortion as early as six weeks into a pregnancy has been put on hold by a judge – abortion rights proponents have begun to push ballot proposals in South Dakota and Missouri. Most abortions are now illegal in those two states.

    And groups in at least more six states are considering citizen initiatives as a way to guarantee or expand access to abortions, said Marsha Donat, capacity building director at The Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, which helps progressive groups advance ballot measures.

    Ohio, however, looms as the next big abortion battleground on the 2023 calendar – with skirmishes already underway in the courts, the state legislature and on the airwaves.

    A state “fetal heartbeat” law that prohibits many abortions as early as six weeks into pregnancy took effect when the US Supreme Court struck down Roe with its decision last June in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. But the law has been put on hold by a judge in Cincinnati in a case that’s expected to end up before the state’s high court.

    Abortion rights supporters recently won approval to begin collecting signatures to put a measure on the November ballot that would guarantee Ohioans’ access to abortion. If approved by voters, state officials could not prohibit abortion until after fetal viability, the point at which doctors say the fetus can survive outside the womb.

    The initiative says that “every individual has a right to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions, including but not limited to decisions” on contraception, fertility treatment, continuing one’s own pregnancy, miscarriage care and abortion.

    It also would bar the state from interfering with an individual’s “voluntary exercise of this right” or that of a “person or entity that assists an individual exercising this right.”

    A conservative group called Protect Women Ohio immediately launched an ad campaign – putting $4 million on the air and $1 million into digital advertising – to cast the amendment as one that would strip parents of their authority to prevent a child from having an abortion or undergoing gender reassignment surgery, although the proposed constitutional amendment makes no mention of transgender care.

    Officials with Protect Women Ohio argue that the initiative’s language is broad enough to be interpreted as extending to gender reassignment surgery, an assertion initiative proponents say is false.

    In the campaign aimed at defeating the amendment, “we’ll make sure they have to own every last word of this radical initiative,” said Aaron Baer, the president of Center for Christian Virtue and a Protect Women Ohio board member, told CNN. “They chose this language for a reason, and we’re not going to let them off the hook.”

    Lauren Blauvelt – who chairs Ohioans for Reproductive Freedom, the group promoting the initiative – said the ad “is completely wrong” and called it an “unfortunate talking point from the other side.”

    “Our amendment … creates the fundamental right that an individual can make their own reproductive health care decisions” and does not touch on other topics, she said.

    But the ad campaign highlights the effort to link abortion to the transgender and parental rights issues currently animating conservative activists.

    Susan B. Anthony’s Pritchard said she believes that her side can win on the issue of limiting abortions but “we believe also that we broaden our coalition and broaden awareness of what these things actually do when we highlight the parental rights issue that is very real.”

    The initiative’s supporters need to collect more than 413,000 signatures from Ohioans by July 5 to qualify for the November ballot. Under current Ohio law, changes to the state’s constitution can be approved via ballot initiative by a simple majority of voters.

    A bill introduced by Republican state Rep. Brian Stewart would increase that threshold to 60% and would mandate that the signatures needed to put an amendment on the ballot come from all 88 counties in the state, instead of 44, as currently required.

    Ohio state Senate President Matt Huffman backs raising the threshold and also supports holding an August special election to change the ballot initiative rules. If successful, the higher threshold would be in effect before November’s election when voters could consider adding abortion rights to the state constitution.

    Neither Huffman nor Stewart responded to interview requests from CNN.

    Ohio lawmakers recently voted to end August special elections, citing their expense and low participation. But Huffman recently told reporters in Ohio that a special election – with a potential price tag of $20 million – would be worth the expense if it helped torpedo the abortion initiative.

    “If we save 30,000 lives as a result of spending $20 million, I think that’s a great thing,” he said, according to Cleveland.com.

    The Ballot Initiative Strategy Center is tracking 109 measures across 35 states that could affect initiatives put to voters in 2024. Some would increase the threshold for an initiative to pass. Others would increase the minimum number of signatures – or require that they come from a broader geographic area – before an initiative could qualify for the ballot in the first place, Donat said.

    Many of the bills that seek to make it more difficult to pass ballot initiatives do not specifically target abortion issues. But they come as progressive groups increasingly turn to the initiative process as a way to bypass Republican-controlled legislatures and put a raft of issues – from legalizing marijuana to expanding Medicaid eligibility and boosting the minimum wage – directly to voters.

    “Attacks, through state legislatures, on the ballot measure process have been pretty consistent and pretty aggressive for the last several (election) cycles,” said Kelly Hall, executive director of the Fairness Project, which has helped pass progressive measures in red states.

    Hall said the abortion issue, while not the sole focus of current efforts to curb ballot initiatives, has put “additional fuel on an already burning fire.”

    In Missouri, a state law banning most abortions – including in cases of rape and incest – took effect last year after Roe was overturned. A group called Missourians for Constitutional Freedom has filed petition language that proposes adding abortion protections to the state constitution via ballot initiative. In recent cycles, voters in Missouri have expanded Medicaid eligibility and legalized recreational marijuana use through such initiatives.

    This year, the state’s Republican-controlled legislature is weighing making it harder for those initiatives to succeed. In February, the state House voted to raise the bar for amending the state constitution from a simple majority to 60%. Voters would have to approve the higher threshold.

    “I believe the Missouri Constitution is a living document but not an ever-expanding document,” Republican state Rep. Mike Henderson, the measure’s sponsor, said during House floor debate. “And right now, it has become an ever-expanding document.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Florida House passes bill extending ban on sexual orientation and gender identity instruction to 8th grade | CNN Politics

    Florida House passes bill extending ban on sexual orientation and gender identity instruction to 8th grade | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Florida House voted Friday to extend a prohibition on teaching about sexual orientation and gender identity to eighth grade, reviving a debate from last year that sparked widespread condemnation from Democrats and copycat legislation in Republican statehouses around the country.

    The bill, which passed 77-35 in the Republican-controlled House, would go further than current Florida law to restrict the rights of transgender individuals in the state and limit what schools can discuss and teach about sex.

    The bill would force K-12 public schools to define sex as “an immutable biological trait” and says it is “false” to use a pronoun that doesn’t correspond to that sex. It would ban teachers from using their preferred pronouns when talking to a student, and it also says that schools cannot require teachers or students to refer to another person by their preferred pronouns if they differ from that person’s sex at birth.

    Under the bill, any materials used by schools as part of sex education curriculum would have to be approved by the state Department of Education.

    The existing law, signed last year by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, restricts instruction about sexual orientation and gender identity in the classroom through third grade or in an age-appropriate manner for older grades. Democrats, LGBTQ groups and some businesses, most notably Disney, objected to the measure, which opponents dubbed the “Don’t Say Gay” law.

    DeSantis argued at the time that young children should not be exposed to concepts such as gender identity. However, his administration this month proposed extending the prohibition through high school.

    A Senate version of the House bill passed received a favorable recommendation from a committee on March 20 and is awaiting further action.

    The bill that passed Friday would also give parents and citizens more power to challenge classroom materials they consider pornographic or believe contain sexual conduct. Schools would have five days to remove any book that is challenged. Schools must hold public meetings to determine whether the material should be allowed. If a parent disagrees with the decision, the school will have to pay for a special magistrate picked by the state Department of Education to review the material and make a determination.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ex-Fox producer said she gave misleading testimony in Dominion case ‘to keep my job’ | CNN Business

    Ex-Fox producer said she gave misleading testimony in Dominion case ‘to keep my job’ | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Abby Grossberg, the former Fox News producer who accused the right-wing network of pressuring her into giving misleading testimony in the Dominion defamation case, told NBC News Thursday in her first TV interview that she was “bullied, intimidated and coerced” into protecting the right-wing network to keep her job.

    “It felt awful. I mean it felt terrible because I knew that I was bullied, intimidated, and coerced into saying that just to keep my job and stay at the company,” Grossberg told NBC.

    Asked why she did that, Grossberg said “Because I made the decision to keep my job so that I can keep paying my bills. It seemed like the safer decision for me at the time.”

    Her latest comments echo what she said last week in an interview with CNN’s Oliver Darcy, where she said she filed the lawsuit to protect her career and “expose the lies and deceit” that she says is rampant at the right-wing network.

    Fox News contests all of her allegations, and said in a prior statement that, “the assertion that Ms. Grossberg was coached or intimidated into being dishonest during her Dominion deposition is patently false.”

    Fox News also denies wrongdoing in the underlying Dominion case, and says it didn’t defame anyone.

    Last week, Grossberg filed explosive lawsuits in New York and Delaware accusing Fox News lawyers of pressuring her into providing misleading testimony in the Dominion case – testimony that would protect the network and its top talent. Since filing the lawsuit, she submitted new sworn testimony in the Dominion defamation case that undermines some of Fox’s defenses.

    She also claimed in her lawsuit that she had been subjected to a toxic and sexist work environment while at Fox News. The network has vehemently pushed back against these allegations.

    After filing the lawsuit, Grossberg was fired from Fox News. The right-wing network said in a statement that she violated corporate rules improperly exposed legally privileged information in her lawsuit.

    During Thursday’s interview, Grossberg said that she experienced harassment so severe that she thought about killing herself.

    “I reached a breaking point where the harassment was so bad that I called a crisis line,” Grossberg told NBC News. “I thought I could just walk in front of a car and I wouldn’t have to go to work tomorrow.”

    Describing the allegedly toxic workplace at the right-wing network, Grossberg said: “Women were objectified. It was a game. It was a sport. Female politicians who came on the show were mocked. There were debates about who they’d rather sleep with. C-word all the time.”

    A Fox News spokesperson didn’t offer any comment when asked about Grossberg’s mention of suicide. But the spokesperson denied Grossberg’s claims of workplace misogyny, saying her lawsuit was “riddled with false allegations against the network and our employees.” The spokesperson also noted that women are currently serving as the CEO of Fox News Media and the presidents of two of its networks.

    Fox News is no stranger to claims of workplace sexism. Fox News founder Roger Ailes, former primetime star host Bill O’Reilly and other men were forced out amid sexual harassment allegations, and the network has paid tens of millions to settle related lawsuits.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump leans into extremism at first 2024 rally as legal woes mount | CNN Politics

    Trump leans into extremism at first 2024 rally as legal woes mount | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Donald Trump is igniting his White House bid at a moment of unprecedented peril in the criminal investigations against him – a confluence that could send America into a new political and legal collision.

    Trump’s wild rhetoric at his first official 2024 campaign rally Saturday previewed the divisive national moment ahead should he be indicted in any of multiple criminal probes. As he whipped up a demagogic fervor in Waco, Texas, to try to secure a new presidency dedicated to “retribution,” Trump’s extremism – laced with suggestions of violence – left no doubt he would be willing to take the country to a dark place to save himself.

    Yet Trump’s chilling warnings that the Biden administration’s “thugs and criminals” have created a “Stalinist Russia horror show” by “weaponizing” justice against him also spelled electoral danger for a GOP hurt by his authoritarianism in recent elections. An extraordinary prolonged character attack on Ron DeSantis, in which Trump depicted his biggest potential rival of 2024 tearfully begging for his endorsement in 2018, demonstrated the political firestorm the Florida governor will have to deal with if he jumps into the White House campaign.

    Even with the ex-president’s reputation for hyperbole and inflammatory rhetoric, such demagoguery has never previously been heard in the first official rally of any modern American election campaign.

    Meanwhile, House committee chairs eager to appeal to the Trump base are increasing their efforts to use the power of their Republican majority to thwart Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s inquiry into Trump – even before it releases any possible indictment or evidence. House Oversight Chair James Comer told CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday that the GOP moves were justified because the investigation into Trump’s alleged role in a hush money scheme to pay an adult film actress was based purely on politics.

    “This is the, for better or worse, leading contender for the Republican nomination of the presidential election next year, as well as a former president of the United States,” the Kentucky Republican told Jake Tapper.

    Many legal experts have questioned whether the potential Bragg investigation will produce the strongest of cases against Trump, who’s also facing several other probes over his actions around the 2020 election and his handling of classified documents. (Trump, who maintains he’s done nothing wrong, so far has not been charged in any of the criminal probes against him.)

    And given the greater national impact of those other investigations, a possible attempt to use a business accounting violation in this yearslong hush money case to suggest a possible violation of campaign finance law could be especially controversial. Yet Comer’s comments also created the implication that an ex-president or White House candidate could be protected from investigation even if they had committed a criminal offense. This gets to the core of the possible cases against Trump: Would failing to investigate him and charge him, if the evidence justifies such a step, mean an ex-president is above the law? Or would some attempts to call him to account risk subjecting him to a level of scrutiny that other citizens might not face?

    Comer and House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, who were among the three committee chairs writing to Bragg this weekend with intensifying demands for his testimony, won a warm shout-out from Trump at his rally in Texas, reflecting the way the new House GOP is acting as a political tool for the ex-president and his radical campaign. Bragg responded to the chairmen in a statement saying it was not appropriate for Congress to interfere with local investigations and vowed to be guided by the rule of law. He was backed up this weekend by nearly 200 former federal prosecutors who wrote a letter denouncing efforts to intimidate him.

    The grand jury in the Trump case is expected to reconvene on Monday, following a week of rampant public speculation over whether Bragg would call more witnesses and whether the case was sufficiently serious to merit the potential first indictment ever of an ex-president. Trump falsely predicted earlier this month that he would be arrested last Tuesday – a move that fired up an effort by his allies to intimidate Bragg. But the week came and went without any indictment news.

    CNN reported last week that the district attorney’s office was trying to determine whether to call back Trump’s former lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen, to refute the testimony provided by attorney Robert Costello, who appeared at the request of Trump lawyers – or to call an additional witness to buttress its case before the grand jurors consider a vote on whether to indict the former president.

    The escalating confrontation over Bragg’s inquiry came as other investigations around Trump seemed to be nearing their own conclusions.

    In a totally separate case on Friday, Trump’s primary defense attorney, Evan Corcoran, appeared before a grand jury in Washington, DC, that is hearing evidence over the ex-president’s handling of classified documents at his home in Florida, including possible obstruction of justice when the government tried to get those documents back. Prosecutors have made clear in court proceedings that are still under seal that they believe Trump tried to use Corcoran to advance a crime.

    Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe told CNN’s Erin Burnett on Friday that Corcoran’s appearance represented a serious development for Trump. “That is an unprecedented thing that we’re seeing, and Evan Corcoran is in a position to provide unbelievably damaging testimony against him,” he said.

    Besides looking into the documents issue, special counsel Jack Smith is investigating Trump’s conduct around the 2020 election – which even this weekend the former president again falsely claimed he had won – and in the run-up to the attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.

    In another probe related to the 2020 election, a district attorney in Georgia said at the end of January that decisions were “imminent” in the investigation into Trump’s attempts to overturn President Joe Biden’s victory in the key swing state. CNN reported last week that prosecutors are considering bringing racketeering and conspiracy charges.

    Charges in any one of these investigations would test the strength of the country’s political and judicial institutions, given that an ex-president and current presidential candidate is involved. And the fact that Trump is showing such willingness to inflame the country’s politics in his own defense makes this a deeply serious moment for the nation.

    Trump’s fiery rally in Waco pulsated with falsehoods about the 2020 election and his one-term presidency and misrepresented the legal cases against him. Coming a day after he warned in a social media post about “death and destruction” if he is indicted, his speech boiled with conspiracy theories and personal resentments – rhetoric that is especially dangerous in the aftermath of January 6. It wasn’t lost on observers that his event coincided with the 30th anniversary of a law enforcement raid on a cult compound in Waco that’s seen on the far right as a symbol of government overreach, although the campaign maintained the location had been chosen for convenience.

    The ex-president has often used extremist speeches to try to get more time in the limelight or more attention, whether from adoring onlookers or outraged critics. It is too early to judge how well his tactic is working in the 2024 campaign and as his legal plight seems to worsen. To date, there have been no big protests of the kind Trump has repeatedly called for. The price his supporters could pay for turning violent has also been demonstrated by the hundreds of convictions of those who invaded the Capitol more than two years ago after his big Washington rally. So there is at least the possibility that while Trump remains widely popular with his GOP base, his angry rhetoric lacks the power that it once did.

    But it is also clear after this first campaign rally that Trump, who is still leading the Republican pack for 2024, has crossed a new political line. He is painting a picture of a decrepit and powerless nation – plagued by corruption, rigged elections and the criminal manipulation of the law against his supporters – that is far more extreme than the “American carnage” he invoked in his inaugural address in 2017.

    “The abuses of power that are currently with us at all levels of government will go down as among the most shameful, corrupt and depraved chapters in all of American history,” Trump said, lashing the US as a “third world banana republic.”

    “Either the deep state destroys America, or we destroy the deep state,” he said at one point.

    And while Trump’s intent is to shock, history suggests that authoritarians seeking power follow exactly the same playbook of populist nationalism – discrediting free elections, demonizing the legal system and taking aim at vulnerable sectors of society – that Trump is pioneering in his new campaign.

    His rally was also notable for the fact that it was almost totally dominated by his grievances and complaints, which may well hint at a sense of foreboding over his legal position. “Every piece of my personal life, financial life, business life and public life has been turned upside down and dissected like no one in the history of our country,” Trump said.

    This raises a question of whether he’s offering a message, rooted in his obsessions, that a majority of Republican voters would actually want to sign up for, even those who considered his presidency a success. In 2016, Trump emerged as an unlikely but highly skilled vehicle for the conservative grassroots, much of which felt patronized by politicians and left behind in a wave of globalization that sent millions of blue-collar jobs overseas.

    DeSantis may be trying something similar in 2024. In the early moves of his yet-to-be-declared campaign, the Florida governor has positioned himself as the champion of conservative voters who believe their way of life is under attack from liberals and multiculturalists pushing a “woke” ideology. One of the key questions of the GOP primary campaign will be whether this approach could appeal to more Republican voters than Trump’s incessant attempts to portray investigations into him as a symptom of a wider attack by a corrupt government on his followers.

    But ahead of yet another potentially pivotal week, Trump is proving that he will not turn away from the defining tactic of his political career: subjecting the country’s institutions to ever more intense and unprecedented stress tests.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Pope Francis expands Catholic Church sexual abuse law to cover lay leaders | CNN

    Pope Francis expands Catholic Church sexual abuse law to cover lay leaders | CNN

    [ad_1]


    Rome, Italy
    CNN
     — 

    Pope Francis has updated a 2019 church law governing clerical sexual abuse and extended it to include accountability for Catholic lay leaders of Vatican-approved religious organizations.

    Lay leaders are people other than clergy members who are on the professional rosters of the church.

    The norms were first defined by Francis in an Apostolic letter, Vos estis lux mundi, in 2019 and were originally mandated for a four-year period.

    Francis has now made minor changes to that document and made it permanent, effective April 30, according to a document released by the Vatican on Saturday.

    For decades the Catholic Church has been plagued by a series of sex abuse scandals in countries around the world.

    The new norms represent Pope Francis’ pledge to offer “concrete measures” to combat sexual abuse.

    One of the changes includes provisions for holding lay leaders of Vatican-approved associations accountable for cover-ups of sexual abuse. The norms previously only related to bishops and religious superiors.

    Another change involves the definition of abuse victims, which previously referred to “minors and vulnerable persons.”

    The updated document now specifies “a minor, or with a person who habitually has an imperfect use of reason, or with a vulnerable adult.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House committee chairmen double down on Manhattan DA oversight efforts | CNN Politics

    House committee chairmen double down on Manhattan DA oversight efforts | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    The chairmen of three House committees sent a letter Saturday to the Manhattan district attorney leading the probe into Donald Trump, doubling down on their efforts to intervene in the hush money investigation ahead of possible criminal charges against the former president.

    The letter from the chairmen of the House Judiciary, Oversight and Administration committees to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg pushed back on his case against appearing for a transcribed interview with their panels and argued that they now feel compelled to consider whether Congress should take legislative action on three separate issues “to protect former and/or current Presidents from politically motivated prosecutions by state and local officials.”

    The letter – written by Republicans Jim Jordan, James Comer and Bryan Steil – comes after they initially called on Bragg earlier this week to testify before their committees and criticized his investigation into Trump as an “unprecedented abuse of prosecutorial authority.”

    Bragg is investigating Trump’s alleged role in a scheme to pay adult-film star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 presidential election to keep silent about an alleged affair with Trump a decade earlier. Trump has denied having an affair with Daniels.

    Bragg’s general counsel had initially responded on Thursday, telling the House committee leaders that they lacked a “legitimate basis for congressional inquiry” and noting that their requests for information “only came after Donald Trump created a false expectation that he would be arrested the next day and his lawyers reportedly urged you to intervene.”

    The chairmen claimed in Saturday’s letter that Bragg had not disputed “the central allegations at issue” — that his office is under “political pressure from left-wing activists and former prosecutors” and is “planning to use an alleged federal campaign finance violation, previously declined by federal prosecutors, as a vehicle to extend the statute of limitations on an otherwise misdemeanor offense and indict for the first time in history a former President of the United States.”

    They argued that the potential criminal indictment of a former president and 2024 presidential candidate “implicates substantial federal interests, particularly in a jurisdiction where trial-level judges also are popularly elected.”

    Bragg responded to the chairmen’s letter Saturday evening on Twitter, writing, “We evaluate cases in our jurisdiction based on the facts, the law, and the evidence. It is not appropriate for Congress to interfere with pending local investigations. This unprecedented inquiry by federal elected officials into an ongoing matter serves only to hinder, disrupt and undermine the legitimate work of our dedicated prosecutors. As always, we will continue to follow the facts and be guided by the rule of law in everything we do.”

    Going further than they have before, Jordan, Comer and Steil wrote in the letter that they may choose to consider three areas of legislation, including broadening “the preemption provision in the Federal Election Campaign Act,” adding that such a measure could “have the effect of better delineating the prosecutorial authorities of federal and local officials in this area and blocking the selective or politicized enforcement by state and local prosecutors of campaign finance restrictions pertaining to federal elections.”

    The second piece of legislation they may consider regards tying federal funds to improved metrics for public safety funds — a measure they say would be prompted by allegations that the Manhattan DA is using public safety funds for his investigation into Trump.

    They also may consider a measure overhauling the authorities of special counsels and better delineating their relationships with other prosecuting entities, they said, arguing that the circumstances of the Trump investigation “stem, in part, from Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation.”

    This story has been updated with a response from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Before he represented Trump, defense attorney speculated Stormy Daniels saga was true and payment could be seen as an in-kind campaign contribution | CNN Politics

    Before he represented Trump, defense attorney speculated Stormy Daniels saga was true and payment could be seen as an in-kind campaign contribution | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Former President Donald Trump’s defense attorney repeatedly speculated as a legal pundit that Trump’s alleged affair with Stormy Daniels likely happened and that the $130,000 payment made to Daniels days before the 2016 election could be seen as an in-kind campaign contribution, contradicting his recent legal and public defense of Trump.

    Joe Tacopina, a defense attorney representing Trump in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office investigation of Trump, made the comments in 2018 as a prominent legal commentator – years before he would ultimately represent the former president in the case that may indict Trump.

    In multiple appearances on CNN in the spring of 2018, Tacopina speculated that Trump had an affair with Daniels after she detailed their encounter and because “to me, you know it means it’s true because he hasn’t threatened to sue” nor did he tweet about it. He also said that as a lawyer, he would have advised Trump to admit to the affair and move on.

    “I mean, it’s remarkable when you talk about the president of the United States, but it, honestly, it’s not remarkable when you’re talking about Donald Trump, the president of the United States,” Tacopina said. “No one was here, is going, ‘Oh my God, I can’t believe this!’ This is why I’ve been saying since day one if they had just said, ‘Yeah, OK.’ I mean, he survived much greater – I don’t even know if they’re called scandals – but episodes than this. This is from 2006. I mean, this is way before he was the president.”

    “I’ve said all along, if he had just come out and said, ‘Yeah, I did. So what?’ And just chalk that up to another one of the things on his list of minor scandals, he gets through,” said Tacopina in another appearance on CNN in 2018.

    “But she went into great detail about her one-night stand with him. What else can she say? There is nothing else to tell,” added Tacopina.

    And in the spring of 2018, Tacopina acknowledged that the episode could put Trump in jeopardy “because this could be looked as an in-kind contribution at the time of the election. This is a real problem. And they both, and I’m telling you this, the reason we’re here, I strongly believe is because of the words of both Michael Cohen and Donald Trump.”

    But five years later, acting as Trump’s defense attorney, Tacopina reversed his argument, calling the payment to Daniels “plain extortion,” dismissing potential campaign finance violations and repeating Trump’s denials that he ever had the affair.

    “This was a plain extortion. And I don’t know, since when we’ve decided to start prosecuting extortion victims. He’s denied, vehemently denied, this affair,” said Tacopina on “Good Morning America” last week. “But he had to pay money because there was going to be an allegation that was gonna be publicly embarrassing to him, regardless of the campaign. And the campaign finance laws are very, very clear, George, that you cannot have something that’s even primarily related to the campaign to be considered campaign finance law.”

    In a statement to CNN, Tacopina said that he offered his opinion based on a hypothetical and that “my mind hadn’t changed about the issue but what has changed is that I learned the facts.”

    The comment is just one of many that Tacopina made about the former president, according to a CNN KFile review of other comments. In one appearance, made in February 2021 on WABC radio, a local New York station, Tacopina said Trump deserved impeachment for his verbal attacks inciting his supporters – who he called “a bunch of idiots” and “lunatics” – to attack the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

    “I don’t think he did anything criminal,” Tacopina said on WABC in February 2021 when discussing the riot. “Did I think he did something impeachable? Yes, I do.”

    “Do I think they’re divisive? Yes. Do I think he spreads hate? Yes. Do I think everything he’s done is wrong? No. Do I think he did some good things? Yes. So I like to just sort of call it like I see it, and I’m not so partisan one way or another,” Tacopina continued. “But you know, when you say to a bunch of lunatics, a bunch of, you know, people who have had a propensity towards violence. Before these groups that are gathered, you know, which was a planned gathering, ‘Hey, go to the Capitol and fight and fight.’ Fight for what? Go to the Capitol and fight for what does fight mean to these idiots? What do you think it meant?…They killed people.”

    “Do I think he thought they were gonna break some windows and do some things? Absolutely,” he later added.

    Tacopina would later represent one of the Capitol rioters who assaulted Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, who later died of natural causes on January 7; the rioter was sentenced to 80 months in prison.

    Tacopina also previously criticized the former president for attacking the justice system.

    “This is the Justice Department, how it works every single day of the week. But for some reason, the president cannot cope with that,” said Tacopina in 2018.

    “What chills me as a lawyer, forget about being a defense lawyer or a former prosecutor as I am, is that our president is attacking the foundation of our justice system in this country by calling to question the FBI, the Justice Department, his own attorney general, every judge whoever rules against him. Yeah, it’s just unhealthy for the sort of the health of this justice system.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates clash over 1849 abortion ban in lone debate | CNN Politics

    Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates clash over 1849 abortion ban in lone debate | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The two candidates battling for a seat on Wisconsin’s Supreme Court clashed Tuesday over the state’s 1849 abortion ban in their lone debate, underscoring the high stakes of an election that could decide the issue in one of the nation’s most important swing states.

    Former Justice Daniel Kelly, a conservative, and liberal opponent Milwaukee County Judge Janet Protasiewicz will square off April 4 in an election that will decide the balance of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. In a state where control is split between a Democratic governor and a Republican-controlled legislature, the high court could decide the outcome of legal battles over the state’s abortion laws, its legislative maps and more.

    The debate – the only one scheduled between Protasiewicz and Kelly – took place on the same day Wisconsin voters began casting early ballots in person.

    It’s the nation’s most expensive judicial contest on record, with about $30 million already spent on advertising and counting, as there are two weeks remaining in the campaign. Wisconsin is one of 14 states in the country that directly elects Supreme Court justice in this manner.

    Protasiewicz focused her attacks on Kelly on abortion, with the state’s 1849 ban on nearly all abortions currently being challenged in court and likely to land before the state Supreme Court.

    “If my opponent is elected, I can tell you with 100% certainty, that 1849 abortion ban will stay on the books. I can tell you that,” Protasiewicz said in Tuesday’s debate.

    She said she is “making no promises” on how she would rule on the 1849 abortion law. But she also noted her personal support for abortion rights, as well as endorsements from pro-abortion rights groups. And she pointed to Kelly’s endorsement by Wisconsin Right to Life, which opposes abortion rights.

    Kelly shot back that Protasiewicz’s comments are “absolutely not true.”

    “You don’t know what I’m thinking about that abortion ban,” he said. “You have no idea. These things you do not know.”

    The debate took place before a crowd of about 100 people who were seated in an auditorium at the offices of the State Bar of Wisconsin in Madison. The candidates answered questions from a panel of three Wisconsin reporters as the audience watched in silence.

    The rhetoric grew increasingly bitter and testy, particularly on the topics of abortion, redistricting and criminal sentencing, with the two rivals standing several feet apart on a small stage. The differences that have been aired in a multi-million television ad campaign came alive.

    Kelly looked directly at his opponent and repeatedly raised pointed questions about her integrity, saying at one point: “This seems to be a pattern for you, Janet, telling lies about me.” He called her by her first name, Janet, rather than judge.

    Protasiewic only occasionally looked toward her challenger, but pushed back against an allegation that she is soft on crime: “I have worked very hard to keep our community safe, each and every day I’m on the bench.”

    Kelly accused Protasiewicz of handing down light sentences to violent offenders.

    He cited the case of Anton Veasley, who in 2021 was convicted of child enticement and third degree sexual assault and was released after Protasiewicz stayed his five-year prison sentence with four years of probation, giving him credit for 417 days he’d already spent in jail.

    “We look at the sentencing she has composed and the reasoning she used to reach those conclusions, and that’s just irresponsible to allow dangerous convicted criminals back out so easily with no repercussions into the communities they just got done victimizing,” Kelly said.

    Protasiewicz acknowledged that “hindsight is 20/20.” But she said Kelly was mischaracterizing her record.

    “I have sentenced thousands of people. And it’s interesting that a handful of cases have been cherry-picked and selected and twisted, and insufficient facts have been provided to the electorate,” she said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • With Trump facing legal peril, DeSantis steps out and sharpens attacks | CNN Politics

    With Trump facing legal peril, DeSantis steps out and sharpens attacks | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has stylized himself as a political brawler willing to take on all comers, from Disney and the corporate media to high school students wearing masks.

    But his brewing battle with Donald Trump was for months a one-sided affair.

    That changed this week when DeSantis for the first time leaned into the burgeoning rivalry in earnest. In public remarks, DeSantis goaded the former president’s legal troubles and invited comparisons between their leadership style and character. He doubled down by granting a lengthy interview to Piers Morgan, a noted Trump supporter-turned-critic, and didn’t push back as the British television host assailed the former president as untruthful and intensely jealous of his one-time ally’s political success.

    The two laughed over Trump’s attempts to nickname DeSantis.

    “You can call me whatever you want,” DeSantis said in an excerpt of the interview published in the New York Post, “just as long as you also call me a winner.”

    DeSantis until now has mostly brushed off questions about his 2024 aspirations even as he makes moves toward a likely campaign for president. The noticeable shift in approach comes as the extraordinary legal troubles surrounding Trump have intensified in recent days, with the possibility of an indictment hanging over the former president and bringing unprecedented uncertainty to the looming GOP nominating contest.

    It also follows a coordinated campaign by Trump’s allies over the weekend to pressure potential Republican rivals to stand by the former president as a Manhattan grand jury considers evidence related to a hush-money payment scheme to adult film star Stormy Daniels.

    Other Republican presidential contenders came to Trump’s defense by leveling accusations at Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, the Democrat readying a decision on whether to indict Trump. Former Vice President Mike Pence, who is still weighing a bid, told ABC News, “It just feels like a politically charged prosecution here.” Businessman Vivek Ramaswamy, a longshot candidate, called the grand jury probe “a textbook case of politicizing prosecutorial power.” And former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley said it was “more about revenge than justice.”

    DeSantis, though, opted to poke the bear, telling a Panama City, Florida, crowd on Monday that he doesn’t “know what goes into paying hush money to a porn star to secure silence over some type of alleged affair.” Hours later, with Trump surrogates publicly fuming on social media, DeSantis stood by the quip during his interview with Morgan. He went on to tout the no-nonsense management of his administration, pandemic response and 19-point victory last fall – encouraging a contrast with Trump’s chaotic four years in office that culminated with a loss to Joe Biden.

    It was enough for Morgan to declare in the New York Post that the Florida governor had “finally taken the gloves off,” and Trump and his allies responded as if that was the case. Trump adviser and spokesman Jason Miller tweeted that DeSantis “has finally shown his true colors. An establishment Never Trumper who despises the MAGA base and was faking it the entire time.”

    Yet DeSantis’ criticism of Trump remained mostly implicit and shrouded in subtext – an uncharacteristically reserved counter punch for a political figure who once cosplayed as a “Top Gun” pilot to drive home the point he will “never back down from a fight” and ended his reelection campaign by suggesting he was created by God to be a fighter.

    Morgan’s frequent attempts to bait DeSantis into attacking Trump – at one point comparing their relationship to Frankenstein and Frankenstein’s monster – were mostly met with familiar dodges. DeSantis suggested that is unlikely to change even as he and Trump appear headed for a collision course.

    “If I were to run, I’m running against Biden,” DeSantis said. “Like (Trump and DeSantis) are competing for the Republican, potentially, I get that, but ultimately you know the guy I’m gonna focus on is Biden because I think he’s failed the country. I think the country wants a change. I think they want a fresh start and a new direction and so we’ll be very vocal about that.”

    Trump, meanwhile, has for weeks escalated attacks on DeSantis, characterizing the governor and former ally as ungrateful, disloyal and a mediocre political talent boosted by Florida’s sunshine. On Monday, Trump leveled a series of personal attacks against DeSantis and elevated a photo that suggested DeSantis had behaved inappropriately with teenage girls while teaching history in Georgia in his early 20s, an image the former president previously shared on social media.

    “It gets to the point where you’re a candidate by default and you have to engage,” one DeSantis adviser told CNN. “The governor can’t afford to be marginalized from the get go. He clearly made the calculus it was time to push back.”

    Even as DeSantis sharpens his critiques of Trump, he is pivoting elsewhere toward the former president as he inches closer to a bid for the White House. He has so far avoided outlining any significant policy differences between himself and his former ally-turned-future rival. Instead, DeSantis has ditched some long-held beliefs in favor of adopting Trump’s more populist leanings.

    Once an outspoken proponent of arming Ukraine as a member of Congress, DeSantis recently characterized Russia’s aggression in Eastern Europe as a “territorial dispute,” aligning himself with Trump. (After considerable blowback from his party, DeSantis told Morgan his words had been “mischaracterized” and clarified he believed “Russia was wrong to invade.”)

    Earlier this month, he asserted, “We’re not going to mess with Social Security as Republicans,” a clear break from his days as a tea party Republican who supported privatization of Social Security and raising the retirement age to 70. Trump recently declared that entitlement programs shouldn’t be included in federal budget negotiations.

    In his recent travel to early nominating states, DeSantis has also fashioned his likely candidacy on many of the most animating pillars of Trump’s first run for president, including immigration, attacking the media and questioning the security of elections. His moves against so-called “wokeness” in society are the ripples from Trump’s 2016 gripes against political correctness.

    DeSantis’ advisers and allies believe the chief challenge for DeSantis is not differing himself from Trump on policy, but demonstrating to Republican primary voters that he can be more effective at enacting a platform. Trump, without the baggage, as some have offered.

    Or, as Trump recently put it, “Whatever I want, he wants.”

    To many Republican primary voters, Trump and DeSantis are viewed as politically aligned, leaving voters with a choice centered on electability and less on policy differences. In a recent CNN poll of potential GOP voters, 40% say they would most likely back Trump and 36% would vote for DeSantis. No other candidate reached double digits.

    “What the Republican voters are going to look at at the end of the day is where is our best chance of winning because both men resonate with Republican voters on policy,” Chris Ager, the chairman of the New Hampshire Republican Party, told CNN in a recent interview. “If the policies are both good, then who has the best chance of winning and implementing them again? I think that’s going to be a bigger factor in many decisions.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Your Trump questions answered. Yes, he can still run for president if indicted | CNN Politics

    Your Trump questions answered. Yes, he can still run for president if indicted | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

    A version of this story appeared in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.



    CNN
     — 

    Could he still run for president? Why would the adult-film star case move before any of the ones about protecting democracy? How could you possibly find an impartial jury?

    What’s below are answers to some of the questions we’ve been getting – versions of these were emailed in by subscribers of the What Matters newsletter – about the possible indictment of former President Donald Trump.

    He’s involved in four different criminal investigations by three different levels of government – the Manhattan district attorney; the Fulton County, Georgia, district attorney; and the Department of Justice.

    These questions are mostly concerned with Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s potential indictment of Trump over a hush-money payment scheme, but many could apply to each investigation.

    The most-asked question is also the easiest to answer.

    Yes, absolutely.

    “Nothing stops Trump from running while indicted, or even convicted,” the University of California, Los Angeles law professor Richard Hasen told me in an email.

    The Constitution requires only three things of candidates. They must be:

    • A natural born citizen.
    • At least 35 years old.
    • A resident of the US for at least 14 years.

    As a political matter, it’s maybe more difficult for an indicted candidate, who could become a convicted criminal, to win votes. Trials don’t let candidates put their best foot forward. But it is not forbidden for them to run or be elected.

    There are a few asterisks both in the Constitution and the 14th and 22nd Amendments, none of which currently apply to Trump in the cases thought to be closest to formal indictment.

    Term limits. The 22nd Amendment forbids anyone who has twice been president (meaning twice been elected or served part of someone else’s term and then won his or her own) from running again. That doesn’t apply to Trump since he lost the 2020 election.

    Impeachment. If a person is impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate of high crimes and misdemeanors, he or she is removed from office and disqualified from serving again. Trump, although twice impeached by the House during his presidency, was also twice acquitted by the Senate.

    Disqualification. The 14th Amendment includes a “disqualification clause,” written specifically with an eye toward former Confederate soldiers.

    It reads:

    No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

    Potential charges in New York City with regard to the hush-money payment to an adult-film star have nothing to do with rebellion or insurrection. Nor do potential federal charges with regard to classified documents.

    Potential charges in Fulton County, Georgia, with regard to 2020 election meddling or at the federal level with regard to the January 6, 2021, insurrection could perhaps be construed by some as a form of insurrection. But that is an open question that would have to work its way through the courts. The 2024 election is fast approaching.

    If he was convicted of a felony – reminder, he has not yet even been charged – in New York, Trump would be barred from voting in his adoptive home state of Florida, at least until he had served out a potential sentence.

    First off, there’s no suggestion of any coordination between the Manhattan DA, the Department of Justice and the Fulton County DA.

    These are all separate investigations on separate issues moving at their own pace.

    The payment to the adult-film actress Stormy Daniels occurred years ago in 2016. Trump has argued the statute of limitations has run out. Lawyers could argue the clock stopped when Trump left New York to become president in 2017.

    It’s also not clear how exactly a state crime (falsifying business records) can be paired with a federal election crime to create a state felony. There are some very deep legal dives into this, like this one from Just Security. We will have to see what, if anything, Bragg adds if he does bring an indictment.

    Of the four known criminal investigations into Trump, falsifying business records with regard to the hush-money payment to an adult-film actress seems like the smallest of potatoes, especially since federal prosecutors decided not to charge him when he left office.

    His finances, subject of a long-running investigation, seem like a bigger deal. But the Manhattan DA decided not to criminally charge Trump with regard to tax crimes. Trump has been sued by the New York attorney general in civil court based on some of that evidence.

    Investigations in Georgia with regard to election meddling and by the Justice Department with regard to January 6 and his treatment of classified data also seem more consequential.

    But these cases are being pursued by different entities at different paces in different governments – New York City; Fulton County, Georgia; and the federal government.

    “I do think that the charges are much more serious against Trump related to the election,” Hasen said in his email. “But falsifying business records can also be a crime. (I’m more skeptical about combining that in a state court with a federal campaign finance violation.)”

    One federal law enforcement source told CNN’s John Miller over the weekend that Trump’s Secret Service detail is actively engaged with authorities in New York City about how this arrest process would work if Trump is ultimately indicted.

    It’s usually a routine process of fingerprinting, a mug shot and an arraignment. It would not likely be a public event and clearly his protective detail would move through the building with Trump.

    New York does not release most mug shots after a 2019 law intended to cut down on online extortion.

    As Trump is among the most divisive and now well-known Americans in history, it’s hard to believe there’s a big, impartial jury pool out there.

    The Sixth Amendment guarantees “the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.”

    Finding such a jury “won’t be easy given the intense passions on both sides that he engenders,” Hasen said.

    A Quinnipiac University poll conducted in March asked for registered voters’ opinion of Trump. Just 2% said they hadn’t heard enough about him to say.

    The New York State Unified Court System’s trial juror’s handbook explains the “voir dire” process by which jurors are selected. Those accepted by both the prosecution and defense as being free of “bias or personal knowledge that could hinder his or her ability to judge a case impartially” must take an oath to act fairly and impartially.

    We’re getting way ahead of ourselves. He hasn’t been indicted, much less tried or convicted. Any indictment, even for a Class E felony in New York, would be for the kind of nonviolent offense that would not lead to jail time for any defendant.

    “I don’t expect Trump to be put in jail if he is indicted for any of these charges,” Hasen said. “Jail time would only come if he were convicted and sentenced to jail time.”

    The idea that Trump would ever see the inside of a jail cell still seems completely far-fetched. Hasen said the Secret Service would have to arrange for his protection in jail. The logistics of that are mind-boggling. Would agents be placed into cells on either side of him? Would they dress as inmates or guards?

    Top officials accused of wrongdoing have historically found a way out of jail. Former President Richard Nixon got a preemptive pardon from his successor, Gerald Ford. Nixon’s previous vice president, Spiro Agnew, resigned after he was caught up in a corruption scandal. Agnew made a plea deal and avoided jail time. Aaron Burr, also a former vice president, narrowly escaped a treason conviction. But then he left the country.

    That remains to be seen. Jonathan Wackrow, a former Secret Service agent and current global head of security for Teneo, said on CNN on Monday that agents are taking a back seat – to the New York Police Department and New York State court officers who are in charge of maintaining order and safety, and to the FBI, which looks for potential acts of violence by extremists.

    The Secret Service, far from coordinating the event as they might normally, are “in a protective mode,” Wackrow said.

    “They are viewing this as really an administrative movement where they have to protect Donald Trump from point A to point B, let him do his business before the court, and leave. They are not playing that active role that we typically see them in.”

    The New York Times published a report based on anonymous sources close to Trump on Tuesday that suggested he is, either out of bravado or genuine delight, relishing the idea of having to endure a “perp walk” in New York City. The “perp walk,” by the way, is the public march of a perpetrator into a police office for processing.

    “He has repeatedly tried to show that he is not experiencing shame or hiding in any way, and I think you’re going to see that,” the Times reporter and CNN political analyst Maggie Haberman said on the network on Tuesday night.

    “I do think there’s a part of him that does view this as a political asset,” said Marc Short, the former chief of staff to former Vice President Mike Pence, during an appearance on CNN on Wednesday. “Because he can use it to paint the other, more serious legal jeopardy he faces either in Georgia or the Department of Justice, as they’re politically motivated.”

    But Short argued voters will tire of the baggage Trump is carrying, particularly if he faces additional potential indictments in the federal and Georgia investigations.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Why Bucks County, Pennsylvania, is suing social media companies | CNN Business

    Why Bucks County, Pennsylvania, is suing social media companies | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    One mother in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, said her 18-year-old daughter is so obsessed with TikTok, she’ll spend hours making elaborate videos for the Likes, and will post retouched photos of herself online to look skinnier.

    Another mother in the same county told CNN her 16-year-old daughter’s ex-boyfriend shared partially nude images of the teen with another Instagram user abroad via direct messages. After a failed attempt at blackmailing the family, the user posted the pictures on Instagram, according to the mother, with some partial blurring of her daughter’s body to bypass Instagram’s algorithms that ban nudity.

    “I worked so hard to get the photos taken down and had people I knew from all over the world reporting it to Instagram,” the mother said.

    The two mothers, who spoke with CNN on condition of anonymity, highlight the struggles parents face with the unique risks posed by social media, including the potential for online platforms to lead teens down harmful rabbit holes, compound mental health issues and enable new forms of digital harassment and bullying. But on Friday, their hometown of Bucks County became what’s believed to be the first county in the United States to file a lawsuit against social media companies, alleging TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat and Facebook have worsened anxiety and depression in young people, and that the platforms are designed to “exploit for profit” their vulnerabilities.

    “Like virtually everywhere in the United States now … Bucks County’s youth suffer from a high degree of distraction, depression, suicidality, and other mental disorders, caused or worsened by the overconsumption of social media on a daily basis, which substantially interferes with the rights of health and safety common to the general public,” the lawsuit alleged.

    The lawsuit, which was filed in California federal court, said “the need is great” to continue to fund mental health outpatient programs, mobile crisis units, family-based mental health services, and in-school mental health programming and training to address the mental health of young people. Bucks County is seeking unspecified monetary damages to help fund these initiatives.

    Bucks County is joining a small but growing number of of school districts and families who have filed lawsuits against social media companies for their alleged impact on teen mental health. The unusual legal strategy comes amid broader concerns about a mental health crisis among teens and hints at the urgency parents and educators feel to force changes in how online platforms operate at a time when legislative remedies have been slow in coming.

    Seattle’s public school system, which is the largest in the state of Washington with nearly 50,000 students, and San Mateo County in California have each filed lawsuits against several Big Tech companies, claiming the platforms are harming their students’ mental health. Some families have also filed wrongful death lawsuits against tech platforms, alleging their children’s social media addiction contributed to their suicides.

    “I want to hold these companies accountable,” Bucks County district attorney Matthew Weintraub told CNN. “It is no different than opioid manufacturers and distributors causing havoc among young people in our communities.”

    He believes he has an actionable cause to file a lawsuit “because the companies have misrepresented the value of their products.”

    “They said their platforms are not addictive, and they are; they said they are helpful and not harmful, but they are harmful,” he said. “My hope is that there will be strength in numbers and other people from around the country will join me so there will be a tipping point. I just can’t sit around and let it happen.”

    In response to the lawsuit, Antigone Davis, the global head of safety for Instagram and Facebook-parent Meta, said the company continues to pour resources into ensuring its young users are safe online. She added that the platforms have more than 30 tools to support teens and families, including supervision tools that let parents limit the amount of time their teens spend on Instagram, and age-verification technology that helps teens have age-appropriate experiences.

    “We’ll continue to work closely with experts, policymakers and parents on these important issues,” she said.

    Google spokesperson José Castañeda said it has also “invested heavily in creating safe experiences for children across our platforms and have introduced strong protections and dedicated features to prioritize their well being.” He pointed to products such as Family Link, which provides parents with the ability to set reminders, limit screen time and block specific types of content on supervised devices.

    A Snap spokesperson said it is “constantly evaluating how we continue to make our platform safer, including through new education, features and protections.”

    TikTok did not respond to a request for comment.

    The latest lawsuit comes nearly a year and a half after executives from several social media platforms faced tough questions from lawmakers during a series of congressional hearings over how their platforms may direct younger users — particularly teenage girls — to harmful content, damaging their mental health and body image. Since then, some lawmakers have called for legislation to protect kids online, but nothing has passed at the federal level.

    Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law, believes it will be “difficult” for counties and school districts to win lawsuits against social media companies.

    “There will be the issues of showing that the social media content was the cause of the harm that befell the children,” he said. “But that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t file these lawsuits.”

    Tobias added that increased support for government regulation that would impose more restrictions on companies could impact the outcome of these lawsuits in their favor.

    “For now, there will be different judges or juries with diverse views of this around the country,” he said. “They aren’t going to win all of the cases but they might win some of them, and that might help.”

    Whatever the outcome, the mother of the 16-year-old whose intimate photos were shared on Instagram is applauding the district attorney’s office for sending a strong message to social media companies.

    “Before the incident with my daughter, I would not have given a lawsuit filed by the county much thought,” she said. “But now that I know how hard it was to take content down and there’s only so much people can do; corporations need to do so much more to protect its users.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Justice Department convinces federal judge Trump used his attorney in furtherance of a crime in classified docs probe | CNN Politics

    Justice Department convinces federal judge Trump used his attorney in furtherance of a crime in classified docs probe | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Justice Department has convinced a federal judge that former President Donald Trump used one of his defense attorneys in furtherance of a crime or fraud related to the existence of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

    The finding – part of a major ruling Friday from Judge Beryl Howell of the DC District Court – makes clear for the first time that the Justice Department is arguing it has evidence that Trump may have committed a crime. And Howell ruled that prosecutors met the burden to overcome Trump’s right to shield discussions with his lawyers normally protected under attorney-client privilege.

    The evidence would likely be significant in the obstruction probe being pursued by special counsel Jack Smith’s team. It also underscores how critical the testimony of Trump’s defense lawyers would be in the federal grand jury investigation.

    ABC News first reported the development.

    The revelation comes as the former president continues to face a number of notable investigations and lawsuits, including a separate yearslong investigation into his alleged role in a scheme to pay hush money to an adult film star. There are signs that case is nearing an end and Trump and his advisers are awaiting a potential indictment.

    Trump has not been charged in the documents case, but is still under investigation by the grand jury in Washington. Prosecutors had relied on surveillance videos in arguing their case to Howell, one source said.

    A spokesman for the special counsel’s office did not immediately respond to CNN’s request for comment.

    The Justice Department is still seeking testimony from Trump defense attorney Evan Corcoran, after he cited attorney-client privilege, as well as from another Trump lawyer, Jennifer Little, CNN has learned.

    CNN has reached out to Corcoran and Little for comment.

    Corcoran’s critical testimony in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents investigation is now in the hands of the US DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

    CNN was first to report the action at the DC Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday referred to in anonymized court records and confirmed by CNN, following Trump’s loss on Friday before Howell.

    A three-judge panel – Judges Nina Pillard, Michelle Childs and Florence Pan – at the appeals court now is positioned to decide whether to put on hold a lower-court ruling that Corcoran must provide additional testimony to the grand jury about his conversations with Trump. Trump’s team has argued those conversations are covered by attorney-client privilege and should be shielded in the investigation.

    Howell, in her sealed ruling, determined prosecutors were able to show Corcoran’s legal services were used in furtherance of a crime, so attorney-client privilege didn’t apply, sources told CNN.

    What happens next is crucial because the Justice Department has successfully argued that Corcoran’s conversations with Trump would reveal Trump was trying to advance a crime – but the grand jury hasn’t yet heard from Corcoran directly about those conversations.

    If the appeals court sides with the Justice Department, Corcoran could be forced to testify again to a federal grand jury within days, ushering the investigation into the handling of classified documents and obstruction of justice toward a conclusion.

    The extremely tight deadlines – a turnaround essentially unheard of in this court – indicates the seriousness of the matter.

    The DC Circuit judges also mentioned documents involved in the dispute, asking that Trump’s side “specify” them. The court order doesn’t explain any further what’s happened with documents. But Corcoran also was ordered to hand over a number of documents, including handwritten notes and notes transcribed of a verbal conversation.

    Trump sent a statement to his supporters Tuesday night criticizing ABC and calling the details “illegally leaked false allegations.”

    When Corcoran first testified to the grand jury in January, he was asked about what happened in the lead up to the August search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence.

    Corcoran had drafted a statement in June 2022 that attested Trump’s team had done a “diligent search” of boxes moved from the White House to Florida and that all classified documents had been returned. Christina Bobb, the attorney who signed the letter, added the caveat, “to the best of my knowledge.”

    After that, the FBI searched Mar-a-Lago and found hundreds of government records, including classified material, raising questions about the lawyer’s attestation.

    This headline and story have been updated with additional reporting.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Grand jury indictments, explained | CNN Politics

    Grand jury indictments, explained | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

    CNN takes a closer look at the legal drama surrounding Donald Trump. Watch “CNN Primetime: Inside the Trump Investigations” Tuesday, March 21 at 9 p.m. ET.



    CNN
     — 

    While the country anticipates the first-ever indictment of a former president – assuming Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg charges Donald Trump with a crime – it’s worth looking at the mechanics of what’s going on in the legal system and how the process that applies to everyone is being applied to Trump.

    It’s hard enough to keep track of all the cases involving Trump:

    • Bragg is looking at a payment back in 2016 to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels.
    • Fulton County prosecutors in Georgia are looking at Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election results there.
    • A Department of Justice special counsel is looking at both the election meddling and his treatment of classified documents.

    One thing that ties all those investigations together – regarding hush money, election meddling and the documents – is that all three have been or are being presented to a grand jury.

    You’ll recall the foreperson for the special grand jury in Georgia spoke to CNN and other news outlets last month. She drew some criticism from legal watchers that she publicly discussed the broad outlines of evidence – but also made clear that it is a grand jury of regular people who must agree with prosecutors that there is enough evidence to bring a case.

    The old adage, meant to expose the one-sided grand jury portion of the judicial process, is that a prosecutor could get a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.” It’s just that easy.

    That turn of phrase has long been attributed, perhaps inaccurately, to the former chief judge of New York’s Court of Appeals, Sol Wachtler. If you’re watching the coverage of a possible Trump indictment, trust me, someone will repeat the phrase.

    A critic of the grand jury process, Wachtler wanted the state to scrap the system. He was clearly unsuccessful.

    I reached out to Elie Honig, a CNN legal analyst, former federal prosecutor and author of the new book, “Untouchable: How Powerful People Get Away With It,” for a refresher on how grand juries and indictments work. Our conversation, conducted by phone, is below.

    WOLF: What should we know about the difference between a grand jury and a trial jury?

    HONIG: A grand jury decides to indict, meaning to charge a case. A trial jury determines guilt or non-guilt.

    A grand jury is bigger, typically 23 members, and the prosecutor only needs the votes of a majority of a grand jury – as opposed to a trial jury, which has to be unanimous.

    The standard of proof in a grand jury is lower than a trial jury. In a grand jury, you only have to show probable cause, meaning more likely than not. But of course in a trial setting, you need to show proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

    The other thing to know is a grand jury is an almost entirely one-sided process.

    Usually the only people allowed in the room at all are the grand jurors, the prosecutors, the witnesses and a court reporter.

    In some instances, including New York, there’s a limited right of a potential defendant to present some evidence, but no defense lawyers are allowed in the room.

    There’s no cross-examination of the prosecution’s evidence. There’s no presentation of defense evidence.

    Close to every time a prosecutor seeks an indictment from a grand jury, he or she will get an indictment from the grand jury.

    WOLF: How would you define “indictment”?

    HONIG: It’s a document setting forth formal charges against the defendant.

    WOLF: We have three grand juries that are top of mind – for election meddling in Georgia, at the federal level for declassified documents and then the Manhattan DA. How much variation is there in grand juries between city, county and federal?

    HONIG: There are minor variations, but the basics remain the same.

    Here’s an example of one of the minor variations in New York State, but not in the federal system, meaning for DOJ. The defendant does have some limited right to be notified and given a chance to testify or present defense evidence, which we saw play out over the last week with Trump and then him asking Robert Costello to testify.

    That’s not the case federally. You do not have to give a defendant a chance to testify or present evidence. That’s one slight variation. But the basic fundamentals are the same.

    WOLF: All of these cases have been going on, at some level, literally for years. So we have this coincidence of them potentially coming to a head at the same time. That is going to feed the “witch hunt” narrative that Trump pushes.

    HONIG: Especially given that all three investigations have been pending for years. January 6 has been pending for two-and-change years. Mar-a-Lago is going on about two years. Fulton County is two-plus years, and the hush money is six-and-a-half years.

    I think the argument will be, when you have three or four different investigations, all of which have been outstanding for multiple years – if they all culminate within a fairly brief stretch as we head into the 2024 election, as multiple people, including Donald Trump, have declared their candidacies.

    You’re just naturally subjected to that type of criticism, that they’re targeting a candidate, perhaps a front-runner, of the other party.

    WOLF: What do you make of that?

    HONIG: I’ve been critical of all three investigations for moving too slowly. I don’t assume the worst. I don’t assume that that’s being done intentionally to get it as close to the election as possible.

    I think the more likely scenario is just they’re moving too slow. They’re too myopic and bureaucratic in their approach. That’s what I’ve said publicly about (Attorney General Merrick) Garland and (Fulton County District Attorney) Fani Willis for sure.

    WOLF: And now we have a sort of deadline because the election is happening.

    HONIG: It’s not a formal deadline. But it is a widely observed practice that you don’t want to take an overt dramatic step like drop an indictment or hold a trial close to an election.

    With DOJ, it’s a 60-day rule, or sometimes it’s understood as a 90-day rule. I think it’s unlikely that a judge would force Donald Trump and/or prosecutors to try a case, let’s say in the summer of 2024, with the presidential election just around the corner.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • DeSantis needles Trump as he breaks silence on hush money case | CNN Politics

    DeSantis needles Trump as he breaks silence on hush money case | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Breaking his silence on Donald Trump’s legal troubles, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday criticized the Manhattan district attorney who is pursuing charges against the former president and vowed his office would not be involved if the matter trickles into Trump’s adopted home state.

    But DeSantis, a rising rival for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, stopped well short of offering support for the former president and instead seemed to poke fun at the situation Trump has found himself in as he attempts a political comeback and a third campaign for the White House. A grand jury is in the final stages of determining whether Trump should face charges over an alleged payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels related to a supposed affair.

    “I don’t know what goes into paying hush money to a porn star to secure silence over some type of alleged affair,” DeSantis said as laughter broke out at a news conference in Panama City, Florida. “I just, I can’t speak to that.”

    DeSantis added: “I’ve got real issues to deal with here in the state of Florida.”

    The dismissive quips traveled quickly across the state to Mar-a-Lago, where Trump has decamped while he awaits for word on the New York grand jury’s findings. His allies immediately started attacking DeSantis across social media, suggesting he would face a political price for failing to recognize Republicans are rallying around Trump amid his mounting legal threats.

    Trump responded in a statement posted to his social media site, Truth Social, leveling a series of personal attacks against DeSantis.

    “Ron DeSanctimonious will probably find out about FALSE ACCUSATIONS & FAKE STORIES sometime in the future, as he gets older, wiser, and better known, when he’s unfairly and illegally attacked by a woman, even classmates that are ‘underage’ (or possibly a man!). I’m sure he will want to fight these misfits just like I do!” Trump wrote.

    As part of the post Trump also shared a photo that suggested DeSantis had behaved inappropriately with teenage girls while teaching history in Georgia in his early 20s, an image the former president previously shared on social media to go after the Florida governor.

    The episode Monday was illustrative of the increasingly fraught rivalry between two of the GOP’s biggest stars as they battle for party supremacy — one made more awkward by their proximity inside the Sunshine State. Trump has suggested his arrest is forthcoming, and if he is in Florida at that moment, it could require a coordinated effort by police in DeSantis’ state.

    DeSantis said he is not aware of any arrangements with local law enforcement regarding Trump, and he said he had “no interest in getting involved in some type of manufactured circus.”

    The delayed remarks by DeSantis stand in stark contrast to the forceful defense he offered on Trump’s behalf last August when federal authorities seized documents from the former president’s Palm Beach estate. Just hours after the raid, DeSantis on Twitter called the FBI search at Mar-a-Lago “another escalation in the weaponization of federal agencies against the regime’s political opponents, while people like Hunter Biden get treated with kid gloves.”

    But there was no such tweet this time from DeSantis, who had remained quiet for days amid reports that a New York grand jury was interviewing witnesses and has largely avoided discussing Trump at all amid escalating attacks from the former president and his allies. DeSantis instead last week held events focused on relief for Hurricane Ian victims and the pandemic. He posted a picture from the World Baseball Classic picture standing next to the Miami Marlins mascot.

    Over the weekend, as other Republicans criticized Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, for pursuing charges in a case that dates back to the 2016 election, Trump allies engaged in a coordinated pressure campaign to get DeSantis to speak out in defense of the former president.

    “Thank you, Vice President @Mike_Pence and @VivekGRamaswamy, for pointing out how Radical Left Democrats are trying to divide our Country in the name of Partisan Politics,” Trump campaigdn adviser Jason Miller wrote on Twitter. “Radio silence from Gov. @RonDeSantisFL and Amb. @NikkiHaley.”

    Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., wrote in a tweet on Sunday: “Pay attention to which Republicans spoke out against this corrupt BS immediately and who sat on their hands and waited to see which way the wind was blowing.”

    MAGA, Inc sent several emails tracking which Republicans had commented on the potential criminal charges and hitting DeSantis for “remaining silent.” Trump allies acknowledged that this was a concerted effort to force DeSantis to weigh in on the matter, believing that he would have to offer support to Trump.

    When DeSantis finally weighed in Monday, it came during an unrelated press conference about central bank digital currencies, a recent area of concern among some conservatives but hardly the topic of the day, given the revelations about Trump’s legal case. He didn’t address Trump’s legal situation until asked by an individual from the Florida Standard, a conservative website friendly to DeSantis.

    DeSantis echoed other criticism of Bragg, accusing the Democrat of seeking charges against Trump for political reasons. He compared Bragg to the local state attorney in Tampa, Andrew Warren, who DeSantis controversially removed from office last year over his politics, and linked them both to George Soros, the Hungarian-born billionaire and progressive donor often at the center of conservative conspiracies.

    “If you have a prosecutor who is ignoring crimes happening every single day in his jurisdiction, and he chooses to go back many, many years ago to try to use something about porn star hush money payments, you know, that’s an example of pursuing a political agenda and weaponizing the office, and I think that that’s fundamentally wrong,” DeSantis said.

    But DeSantis also seemed to downplay Bragg’s pursuit of Trump as a lesser concern compared to issues related to crime in the city.

    “That’s bad, but the real victims are ordinary New Yorkers, ordinary Americans in all these different jurisdictions that they get victimized every day because of the reckless political agenda that the Soros DAs bring to their job,” he said. “They ignore crime and they empower criminals.”

    Haley weighed in later Monday, saying a prosecution of Trump would be “for political points.” The former South Carolina governor, who announced her White House campaign last month, told Fox News’ Bret Baier, “And I think what we know is that when you get into political prosecutions like this, it’s more about revenge than it is about justice.”

    “I think the country would be better off talking about things that the American public cares about than to sit there and have to deal with some revenge by some political people in New York,” added Haley, who served as ambassador to the United Nations under Trump.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump shadow looms large over House GOP policy retreat | CNN Politics

    Trump shadow looms large over House GOP policy retreat | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Orlando, Florida
    CNN
     — 

    House Republicans had hoped to use their annual retreat to get on the same page about upcoming policy battles and devise a strategy to preserve their fragile majority.

    Instead, they find themselves playing defense for former President Donald Trump.

    While most Republicans had hoped to steer clear of any presidential politics – despite being in Florida, home to two major potential GOP rivals in 2024 – Trump’s announcement over the weekend that he expects to be imminently arrested has put him back in the center of the conversation and forced Republicans to publicly rally to his side. Even some GOP lawmakers who have called for the party to move on from Trump have lined up to offer their full-throated defense of the ex-president, attacking the Manhattan District Attorney’s office that is investigating Trump as a political witch hunt.

    Speaker Kevin McCarthy, echoing calls from inside his conference, has instructed GOP-led committees to investigate whether the Manhattan DA used federal funds to probe a payment made by Trump’s then-personal attorney Michael Cohen to adult film star Stormy Daniels days before the 2016 presidential election.

    McCarthy said Sunday that he already talked to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, a Republican from Ohio, about an investigation into the matter, and hinted that there could be more developments on that front soon.

    “Remember, we also have a select committee on the weaponization of government, this applies directly to that. I think you’ll see actions from them,” McCarthy told reporters at a news conference kicking off their three-day policy retreat.

    But Republicans weren’t in complete lockstep with Trump. McCarthy carefully broke with Trump’s calls to protest and “take our nation back” if he is arrested, which has sparked concerns of political violence reminiscent of the January 6 attack on the Capitol.

    “I don’t think people should protest this, no,” McCarthy said. But he added: “You may misinterpret when President Trump talks … he is not talking in a harmful way, and nobody should. Nobody should harm one another … We want calmness.”

    Firebrand Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, however, offered a different take.

    “I don’t think there’s anything wrong with calling for protests,” she told reporters after the news conference on Sunday. “Americans have the right to assemble and the right to protest. And that’s an important constitutional right. And he doesn’t have to say ‘peaceful’ for it to mean peaceful. Of course he means peaceful.”

    The latest Trump drama is once again threatening to divide the GOP and overshadow their carefully-laid messaging plans – a familiar predicament for Republicans who served in Congress while Trump was in office and spent years being forced to answer for his regular controversies. Republican leaders who had hoped to focus on their legislative agenda during the first news conference of their policy retreat instead fielded numerous questions from reporters about Trump and the Manhattan DA’s investigation.

    Asked whether he thinks it would be appropriate for Trump to run for president if he is ultimately convicted, McCarthy said: “He has a constitutional right to run.”

    Multiple Republican lawmakers – including House GOP Conference Chair Elise Stefanik – have endorsed Trump, while at least two of his staunch supporters have thrown their weight behind other candidates in the race: South Carolina Rep. Ralph Norman is backing former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, and Rep. Chip Roy of Texas is supporting Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

    Most GOP lawmakers, however, have been reluctant to pick sides just yet, waiting to see how the field develops. Even McCarthy, who credited his speakership to Trump, has yet to make his preference known.

    “I could endorse in the primary, but I haven’t endorsed,” he told reporters on Friday. When pressed on if he will do so, he again repeated: “I could endorse but I haven’t.”

    Aside from a potentially bruising GOP primary contest, House Republicans have other major internal battles on the horizon. They are about to dive into some of the most complicated and divisive policy fights of their razor-thin majority, including lifting the nation’s borrowing limit, funding the government, reauthorizing federal food stamp programs and deciding whether to continue aid for Ukraine.

    Part of their goal during their annual retreat is to just get the conference in sync ahead of these looming debates.

    “The value of something like this is, can we keep the era of good feelings going within the Republican conference?” said Rep. Dusty Johnson of South Dakota, who chairs the centrist-leaning Main Street Caucus. “This is gonna be a nice opportunity for us to just get in the same room, have a couple hundred of us breathe the same air, and remind ourselves that we have more in common than we have apart.”

    While the GOP has notched a handful of victories since taking over the House, including a resolution to overturn a DC crime bill, most of their bills have been messaging endeavors thus far. And even measures that were thought to be low-hanging fruit, like a border security plan, have proved more challenging than expected in their slim majority.

    House Republicans know their biggest challenges lie ahead.

    “The question is really going to be as we get into phase two,” GOP Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, who co-leads a bipartisan caucus with Democrats, told CNN. “The real test is going to be the must-pass pieces of legislation.”

    The GOP’s investigations on a wide array of subjects, including Hunter Biden’s business deals and the treatment of January 6 defendants, have caused some consternation among the party’s moderates. And some were also skeptical about the need for a congressional response to a potential Trump indictment.

    “I’m going to wait until I hear more facts and read the indictment itself,” Rep. Don Bacon, a Nebraska Republican who represents a district President Joe Biden won, told CNN. “I have faith in our legal system. If these charges are political bogus stuff, and they may be, it will become clear enough soon.”

    GOP leaders are nonetheless expressing confidence in their ability to stay united.

    “House Republicans are working as a team,” House GOP Whip Tom Emmer of Minnesota said at the Orlando news conference. “Because that’s what the American people elected us to do.”

    Bacon framed the stakes of the legislative fights with Biden and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to come by saying, “We need to be the governing party that voters trust. This will determine 2024 results. This means we can’t cave to Biden’s and Schumer’s demands, but we can’t refuse to find consensus and make agreements on must pass legislation.”

    GOP Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee, who told CNN he is willing to shut down the government if conservatives do not get what they are calling for pertaining to the debt ceiling, reflected on how House Republicans could learn from their Democratic counterparts in presenting a unified front.

    “They’re better than us at the carrot and the stick. If they get in line, they get the carrot. If they don’t, they get the stick. They all tout the unity thing. Maybe that’s one of our weaknesses,” he told CNN.

    The must-pass pieces of legislation expose not only the fault lines of a slim majority, but also underscore the hurdles House Republicans face in cementing their transition from a nay-saying minority to a governing majority.

    “Campaigning is for dividing. Governing is for uniting,” GOP Rep. Tony Gonzales of Texas told CNN, adding that sentiment must extend beyond House Republicans to Biden and Senate Democrats.

    “I’d say in general, not everybody comes up here to be serious legislators. A lot of people come up here for fame and fortune. I spent 20 years in the military. I’m focused on being a serious legislator,” he added.

    Fitzpatrick told CNN, “It’s definitely an adjustment,” when describing the House Republicans’ transition from minority to majority, particularly for those members who have not served in the majority before. But Fitzpatrick pointed to the fact that the messaging bills that Republicans have brought to the floor so far have passed almost unanimously.

    Some of the House GOP’s biggest hurdles will come in trying to write a budget blueprint, which they hope will kick off negotiations over the raising debt ceiling, where Republicans are demanding steep spending cuts.

    Further complicating the GOP’s goal to balance the budget and claw back federal spending, Republican leaders – egged on by Trump – have vowed not to touch Social Security and Medicare.

    Norman acknowledged how difficult it is going to be to coalesce around a framework that the entire conference can agree on. Before leaving Washington, the far-right House Freedom Caucus laid out their own hardline spending demands in the debt ceiling fight.

    “I don’t expect to get 218 on the first blush. What we present, there’s gonna be some gnashing of teeth,” he told CNN. “Every dollar up here has an advocate.”

    Burchett told CNN he stands behind the proposals being pushed by the Freedom Caucus.

    “It seems like every time the conservatives are the only ones that compromise. And we are just going to have to say no compromise,” he told CNN, adding he is willing to shut down the government on this issue. “I did it under Trump, and I’ll sure as heck do it under Biden.”

    McCarthy said he thought it was “productive” for his members to outline “ideas” for the budget, and dismissed the idea that anyone was drawing red lines.

    Asked about Biden’s insistence that House Republicans show them their budget before negotiations can continue, McCarthy replied, “Why do we have to have a budget out to talk about the debt ceiling? We’re not passing the budget, we’re doing a debt ceiling.”

    He added that he has told the president, “We’re not going to raise taxes, and we’re not going to pass a clean debt ceiling, but everything else is up for negotiation.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump and E. Jean Carroll agree to combine rape defamation trials | CNN Politics

    Trump and E. Jean Carroll agree to combine rape defamation trials | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Former President Donald Trump and E. Jean Carroll have agreed to combine two upcoming trials next month regarding Carroll’s claim that Trump raped her in the mid-1990s.

    In a joint court filing Friday, lawyers said they wanted to hold the trial April 25 in New York in two suits Carroll has filed – one for allegedly defamatory comments Trump made as president in 2019, and a second for battery and other statements Trump made after he left office.

    Trump denies all claims brought against him by Carroll.

    Carroll, a former magazine writer, alleged Trump raped her in a New York department store dressing room and defamed her when he denied the rape, said “she’s not my type” and alleged she made the claim to boost sales of her book.

    “[E]vidence relating to this central factual question ‘is relevant to both cases,’ and will be presented at both trials,” the lawyers wrote Friday. “Because of the overlapping nature of these proceedings, a single trial will reduce costs across the board, avoid the risk of inconsistent factual rulings or jury confusion, and economize matters for the Court (as well as for both parties’ witnesses).”

    A federal judge must still approve the proposal to combine the trials.

    The proposed combined trial, the lawyers added, should continue regardless of the ongoing legal attempt by the former president to have the first defamation lawsuit thrown out.

    Trump and the Justice Department said he was a federal employee and his statements denying Carroll’s allegations were made in response to reporters’ questions while he was at the White House. They argue that the Justice Department should be substituted as the defendant, which, because the government cannot be sued for defamation, would end the lawsuit.

    A Washington, DC, appeals court is reviewing if Trump was acting within the scope of his employment when he made the allegedly defamatory statements.

    Carroll brought her second lawsuit against Trump last November, after New York passed the Adult Survivors Act, which allows adults alleging sexual assault to bring civil claims years after the attack.

    At the same time, Carroll alleged that Trump continued his defamatory statements on his social media platform, Truth Social.

    “It is a Hoax and a lie, just like all the other Hoaxes that have been played on me for the past seven years. And, while I am not supposed to say it, I will. This woman is not my type!” the post said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Mike Pence calls potential Trump indictment ‘not what the American people want to see’ | CNN Politics

    Mike Pence calls potential Trump indictment ‘not what the American people want to see’ | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Former Vice President Mike Pence balked at the idea of a potential indictment of Donald Trump, categorizing any possible prosecutorial actions as “politically charged” and “not what the American people want to see.”

    Speaking with ABC’s Jon Karl during a taped interview Saturday, Pence defended any peaceful protests that may break out at Trump’s behest, after the former president called for his supporters to “take our nation back,” while still condemning the egregious violence that the country witnessed at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.

    “The American people have a constitutional right to peacefully assemble,” Pence said, adding, “The frustration the American people feel about what they sense is a two-tiered justice system in this country, I think is well founded. But I believe that people understand that if they give voice to this – if this occurs on Tuesday, that they need to do so peaceful and in a lawful manner.”

    Pence’s comments underscore his attempts to walk a fine line in issuing criticism and support for his former boss amid mounting expectations that he will vie for the Republican presidential nomination. Just last week, at the annual Gridiron Club dinner in Washington, DC, the former vice president issued his most blistering comments yet about Trump’s role in the attack on the Capitol.

    “President Trump was wrong. I had no right to overturn the election, and his reckless words endangered my family and everyone at the Capitol that day, and I know that history will hold Donald Trump accountable,” Pence said at the dinner.

    Trump has repeatedly pushed back on that assertion and argued Pence was at fault because he didn’t attempt to overturn the 2020 election results.

    “The president’s wrong,” Pence told ABC. “He was wrong that day, and I had actually hoped that he would come around in time, Jon, that he would see that the cadre of legal advisers that he surrounded himself with had led him astray. But he hasn’t done so and it’s … I think it’s one of the reasons why the country just wants a fresh start.”

    Pence said the former president let him and the country down on January 6 and Trump’s continued discourse on the events is one of the reasons why the former duo has gone their “separate ways.”

    Still, Pence maintained he is “taken aback at the idea of indicting a former president of the United States.”

    Trump said Saturday that he expects to be arrested in connection with the yearslong investigation into a hush money scheme involving adult film actress Stormy Daniels and he called on his supporters to protest any such move.

    In a social media post, Trump, referring to himself, said the “leading Republican candidate and former president of the United States will be arrested on Tuesday of next week” – though he did not say why he expects to be arrested. His team said after Trump’s post that it had not received any notifications from prosecutors.

    Law enforcement has discussed how to navigate the potential indictment on a criminal charge by a New York county grand jury and the choreography around the possibility of an unprecedented arrest of a former president.

    Should he be indicted, Trump is expected to surrender and be processed and arraigned at a New York courthouse, which includes fingerprinting and mug shots, a source familiar with the matter told CNN.

    “At a time when there’s a crime wave in New York City, the fact that the Manhattan DA thinks that indicting president Trump is his top priority just tells you everything you need to know about the radical left in this country,” Pence said Saturday.

    Turning to the subpoena he received from the special counsel investigating Trump’s post-2020 election activities, Pence said he is not challenging all the elements of the subpoena and that he and his lawyers aren’t asserting executive privilege. Trump, though, has already cited executive privilege in a motion to prevent Pence from testifying before a grand jury.

    As for 2024, Pence said he is “giving serious consideration” to a White House bid, and, speaking to reporters in Des Moines, Iowa, on Saturday, he said, “No one is above the law, and I’m confident President Trump can take care of himself. My focus is going to continue to be on the issues that are affecting the American people.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Manhattan DA says his office won’t tolerate ‘attempts to intimidate’ following Trump posts | CNN Politics

    Manhattan DA says his office won’t tolerate ‘attempts to intimidate’ following Trump posts | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg said in an email to staff on Saturday that his office will “not tolerate attempts to intimidate our office or threaten the rule of law in New York.”

    The email was sent after former President Donald Trump posted on social media that he expects to be arrested in connection with the ongoing investigation by New York prosecutors into a hush money scheme involving adult film actress Stormy Daniels and called on his supporters to protest any such move.

    Bragg said his office is coordinating with the New York City Police Department and the court to “ensure that any specific or credible threats against the office will be fully investigated and that the proper safeguards are in place so all 1,600 of us have a secure work environment,” according to the email, which was first obtained by Politico.

    Manhattan district attorney spokesperson Danielle Filson confirmed the contents of the email to CNN but would not provide further comment.

    The district attorney added that his office “will continue to apply the law evenly and fairly, and speak publicly only when appropriate,” as he said they do with all investigations.

    CNN’s John Miller reported Friday that meetings have been going on taking place among city, state and federal law enforcement agencies in New York City about security preparations for a possible indictment of Trump.

    National Security Council communications coordinator John Kirby said Sunday the White House is closely watching the situation but said he wasn’t aware of any White House preparations for protests or major activity in the wake of Trump’s posts.

    “We’re always monitoring the situation here as best we can,” Kirby told Fox News Sunday “And we obviously don’t want to see any activity grow violent, certainly nothing to the extent that we saw on January 6. But we’re watching this, we’ll watch it, of course, closely.”

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Democratic Arizona senator says there are ‘risks involved’ in potential Trump indictment | CNN Politics

    Democratic Arizona senator says there are ‘risks involved’ in potential Trump indictment | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Democratic Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly acknowledged there are “risks involved” in the potential indictment of former President Donald Trump by the Manhattan district attorney while reiterating that “nobody in our nation is or should be above the law.”

    “I would hope that if they brought charges that they have a strong case, because this is, as you said, it’s unprecedented. And, you know, there’s certainly, you know, risks involved here,” Kelly said in an interview that aired Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

    Kelly also defended Trump’s calls on social media for his supporters to stage protests and “take our nation back” ahead of a possible indictment and called on law enforcement agencies to do their part to keep any protests peaceful.

    “The president’s supporters, they have First Amendment rights, and they should be able to exercise those peacefully. I think it’s going to be important for law enforcement to pay attention to, you know, protests and make sure it doesn’t rise to the level of violence,” Kelly told CNN’s Jake Tapper.

    Trump said Saturday he expects to be arrested in connection with the yearslong investigation into a hush money scheme involving adult film actress Stormy Daniels and called on his supporters to protest any such move.

    In a social media post, Trump, referring to himself, said the “leading Republican candidate and former president of the United States will be arrested on Tuesday of next week” – though he did not say why he expects to be arrested. His team said after Trump’s post that it had not received any notifications from prosecutors.

    The former president has been agitating for his team to get his base riled up and believes that an indictment would help him politically, multiple people briefed on the matter told CNN – a posture that potential 2024 Republican presidential candidate New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu acknowledged on Sunday in a separate interview with Tapper.

    “I think it’s building a lot of sympathy for the former president,” Sununu said on “State of the Union.”

    “So, I just think that the – not just the media, but really a lot of the Democrats have misplayed this, in terms of building sympathy for the former president. And it does drastically change the paradigm as we go into the ’24 election,” he said.

    Kelly on Sunday declined to say whether he would support fellow Arizona senator Independent Kyrsten Sinema if she decides to run for re-election, but praised her record in the Senate, calling her “very effective.”

    “I’ve worked with her very closely over the last two years. I mean, really, in a very positive way. She’s very effective in the United States Senate. We’ve gotten a lot done and I look forward to doing that, you know, over the next months in the – in the rest of this year,” Kelly said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link