ReportWire

Tag: Elections

  • Biden zeroes in on economic message as campaign winds down

    Biden zeroes in on economic message as campaign winds down

    [ad_1]

    SYRACUSE, N.Y. (AP) — President Joe Biden zeroed in Thursday on economic issues as he fine-tuned his closing argument in upstate New York for voters trying to cope with raging inflation and fears of a recession heading into the Nov. 8 election.

    Biden’s visits to a congressional battleground in Syracuse and then to Philadelphia on Friday are part of a strategic two-step crafted for a persistently unpopular president: promote his administration’s accomplishments at official White House events while saving the overt campaigning for states where his political power can directly bolster Democratic candidates.

    The White House of late has paid outsize attention to Pennsylvania, where Democrats are aggressively contesting a Republican-held Senate seat to help offset potential losses in other marquee Senate races.

    “The previous president left a string of broken promises in places like Wisconsin, Indiana and Ohio, where promised investments in jobs and manufacturing never materialized,” Biden said, criticizing former President Donald Trump and Republicans for their economic policies. “On my watch, ‘Made in America’ isn’t just a slogan, it’s a reality.”

    Biden got a boost on the news Thursday that the economy grew at a better-than-expected 2.6% annual rate from July through September, overcoming inflation and interest rates and snapping two straight quarters of economic contraction.

    “For months, doomsayers have been arguing that the U.S. economy is in a recession and congressional Republicans have been rooting for a downturn,” Biden said in a statement. “But today we got further evidence that our economic recovery is continuing to power forward. This is a testament to the resilience of the American people.”

    Biden jogged over to reporters before he left for New York and said it was a “Great economic report today – GDP report — things are looking good.”

    In Syracuse, Biden showcased a significant investment by the U.S.-based company Micron, one of the largest microchip manufacturers in the world. The company has credited a new law boosting domestic production of semiconductors for its new facility that will create 50,000 jobs, which will pay an average of $100,000 a year.

    “This is going to be massive,” Micron CEO Sanjay Mehrotra told Biden, showing off a model of what the facility would look like in 20 years. “This is going to be the largest investment in semiconductor manufacturing in the U.S.”

    Biden called it the “largest American investment of its kind, ever, ever, ever in our history” and said the announcement was “the latest example of my economic plan at work.”

    He warned against GOP proposals that he said would raise drug prices for older people and cut taxes on corporations. Biden also cited comments by Republicans suggesting they would use the debt limit as leverage in negotiations with the White House should they retake the majority in Congress.

    “They’re determined to cut Social Security, Medicare and they’re willing to take down the economy over it,” Biden said.

    Publicly, the White House and senior Democratic leaders express optimism that they’ll defy traditional midterm headwinds and retain control of Congress. But in private, there is angst that the House will be lost to Republicans and that control of the Senate is a coin flip.

    It’s a position that Democrats point out is far more favorable than earlier in the election cycle — particularly before the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade ended constitutional protections for abortion and upended the political landscape — yet many in the party are nonetheless bracing for the loss of at least one chamber.

    Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer was captured on camera Thursday delivering a mixed assessment of the Senate map to Biden when he landed in Syracuse, expressing optimism about Nevada and the situation in Pennsylvania after John Fetterman’s debate performance Monday set off alarm bells among national Democrats. But Schumer raised his concerns about the state of the race in Georgia.

    “It looks like the debate didn’t hurt us too much in Pennsylvania as of today, so that’s good, and basically we’re picking up steam in Nevada,” Schumer was heard telling Biden. “The state where we’re going downhill is Georgia. It’s hard to believe that they will go for Herschel Walker.”

    But Schumer added that Democrats were performing well in early voting in Georgia, where incumbent Sen. Raphael Warnock is aiming to hold off the Trump-backed challenger.

    The president has had a steady uptick in travel in recent weeks, although he has avoided states such as Nevada and Arizona in which Democratic candidates prefer not to be tagged with the national party brand. He has appeared with a smattering of vulnerable House Democrats at official White House events in California and New York and raised campaign cash for candidates in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Oregon, as well as millions of dollars for the Democratic National Committee at fundraisers in Washington and elsewhere. He held a trio of virtual fundraisers Wednesday night for congressional candidates in Iowa, Nevada and Pennsylvania.

    A reception scheduled for Friday in Philadelphia with the state Democratic Party, which Vice President Kamala Harris will also attend, will mark Biden’s 15th visit to Pennsylvania during his presidency. Plans for a joint appearance in the state with former President Barack Obama are in the works for next week.

    Also next week, Biden is scheduled to headline a political rally Tuesday in Florida. Democratic gubernatorial candidate Charlie Crist has been publicly encouraging the president to campaign with him in a state that has increasingly trended toward Republicans in recent election cycles.

    Biden sought to use the Micron event to hammer home a closing message aimed at framing the contrast between the two parties’ economic agendas — an argument that the president began sketching out at a Democratic National Committee event earlier this week.

    “Everybody wants to make it a referendum, but it’s a choice between two vastly different visions for America,” Biden said of the midterms. “Democrats are building a better America for everyone with an economy that grows from the bottom up and the middle out, where everyone does well. Republicans are doubling down on their mega MAGA trickle-down economics that benefits the very wealthy.”

    He continued: “It failed their country before and will fail it again if they win.”

    In recent weeks, Biden has used the presidential bully pulpit considerably to promote Democratic accomplishments. But there’s some concern among Democrats that voters are not connecting economic growth in their communities often enough to what a Democratic-controlled government has completed during the first two years of Biden’s presidency.

    “I think we have to be far more aggressive,” said Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif. “We’re actually bringing jobs back, but we’re not going out enough and acknowledging people’s anger and fear and say, ‘Here’s what we’re doing.’”

    The Syracuse area is home to a House race for a seat being vacated by moderate Republican Rep. John Katko, a critical pickup opportunity for Democrats in a district that Biden won by more than 7 percentage points in 2020. Biden’s visit could also give a boost to New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, whose reelection contest against Republican Lee Zeldin has tightened in recent weeks.

    Cabinet officials are fanning out nationwide to promote the administration’s economic message. For instance, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen traveled to Cleveland on Thursday to talk about Biden’s manufacturing agenda with Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio. The retirement of his Republican colleague, Sen. Rob Portman, has led to another critical Senate race, this one between Republican J.D. Vance and Democrat Tim Ryan.

    According to a White House tally, through Friday, members of Biden’s Cabinet will have gone to 29 states and Puerto Rico on 77 separate trips, with about half focused on amplifying Biden’s economic message.

    AP White House Correspondent Zeke Miller in Washington contributed to this report.

    ___

    Follow the AP’s coverage of the 2022 midterm elections at https://apnews.com/hub/2022-midterm-elections. And check out https://apnews.com/hub/explaining-the-elections to learn more about the issues and factors at play in the midterms.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Bosnia’s Dodik declared winner in disputed election after recount

    Bosnia’s Dodik declared winner in disputed election after recount

    [ad_1]

    Milorad Dodik wins the race for president of the country’s Serb entity, following a recount after the opposition cried foul, election officials announce.

    Bosnian Serb political leader Milorad Dodik has been declared the winner of the presidency of Bosnia’s Serb entity, election officials announced, following a recount after the opposition cried foul.

    Thursday’s result comes weeks after Bosnians cast ballots in a dizzying range of contests in early October that included a race for the president of Republika Srpska (RS) – the country’s Serb entity.

    Bosnia has been governed by a dysfunctional administrative system created by the 1995 Dayton Accords that succeeded in ending the conflict in the 1990s, but largely failed in providing a framework for the country’s political development.

    The recount “confirmed that the candidate Milorad Dodik representing the Serb people and who was in the lead… and remained so with the greatest number of votes won,” said Suad Arnautovic, chairman of the Central Election Commission of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

    The final figures for the race were still being compiled, according to officials, who said the opposition still had a narrow window to contest their findings.

    A preliminary count following the election gave the victory for the RS presidency to Dodik – with the Kremlin-friendly leader winning 48 percent of the vote compared to 43 percent for opposition candidate Jelena Trivic.

    The Central Election Commission said the repeated count revealed numerous irregularities it had notified judicial authorities about, but that none were on a level that would have changed the outcome of the vote.

    Stoking tensions

    On the day after the election, opposition parties accused Dodik and his party of “organised plundering of the elections” and demanded a recount.

    Thursday’s announcement comes just days after Dodik rallied thousands of supporters in the RS’s capital of Banja Luka, where the longtime leader of the country’s Serbs remained defiant that he would be victorious in the race for the presidency.

    “I am here tonight to tell you that Milorad Dodik is going nowhere. Milorad Dodik will be in the presidential palace very soon,” Dodik told the crowd.

    Bosnian Serb leader Milorad Dodik waves a Serbian flag during a protest against the Central Election Commission of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the city of Banja Luka on Tuesday [Radivoje Pavicic/AP Photo]

    The recount cements Dodik’s third term as the president of the RS, after he completed a stint in the tripartite presidency.

    For years, Dodik has been stoking tensions with his frequent calls for Bosnia’s Serbs to separate even further from the country’s central institutions, earning him fresh sanctions from the United States in January.

    Running on an anti-corruption ticket, Dodik’s rival Trivic – a 39-year-old professor of economics – sought to offer an alternative to RS voters, while also trumpeting the Serbs’ desire to maintain their autonomy in Bosnia.

    Three parties supporting Trivic held two big rallies in the city of Banja Luka, asking for the recount of ballots.

    Dodik, who has long pursued separatist policies, this week reiterated that his political goal was the secession of the Serb entity from Bosnia.

    On Thursday the US Embassy in Sarajevo responded on Twitter, saying that any action taken towards Bosnia’s dissolution would violate the 1995 Dayton peace agreement and “carry grave consequences”.

    “There is no justification for responding to standard election integrity and accountability measures with the dangerous and irresponsible rhetoric about secession that we heard Monday in Banja Luka,” the embassy said.

    “Neither Dayton, nor the Constitution of [Bosnia & Herzegovina], offers any entity the right to secede.”

    October’s elections saw the three established ethnic parties secure major wins.

    The lone exception was the defeat of Bakir Izetbegovic, a two-time member of the country’s tripartite presidency who also leads the main Bosniak party – the Party of Democratic Action (SDA).

    Izetbegovic was clobbered by Denis Becirovic in a double-digit landslide win.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Russian TV personality Ksenia Sobchak arrives in Lithuania

    Russian TV personality Ksenia Sobchak arrives in Lithuania

    [ad_1]

    VILNIUS, Lithuania — Russian TV personality Ksenia Sobchak — the glamorous daughter of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s one-time boss — has arrived in Lithuania on an Israeli passport after fleeing Russian investigators who raided her home this week, officials said Thursday.

    “Citizens of (Israel) do not need a visa and are allowed to stay in the country for 90 days,” Darius Jauniskis, head of Lithuania’s State Security Department, told a local radio station. Jauniskis said Lithuania has no evidence of any threat that Sobchak could pose to national security.

    “If we had anything, certain appropriate measures would be taken,” he told the Ziniu Radijas station

    Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis told reporters that “Ms. Sobchak currently is not included in any sanctions list of the EU, U.K. or the U.S. This does not mean that it cannot occur.”

    Landbergis said Sobschak might already have left Lithuania as she had entered Europe’s passport-free travel zone — a 26-country area made up of most of the EU members plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. Israeli citizens with a valid passport can travel freely within Europe’s visa-free zone, known as the Schengen area.

    “Ms. Sobchak might have left Lithuania’s territory already because she is not restricted in her movement to Poland, to other European countries, or to the north,” he said, according to the Baltic News Service, the region’s main news agency.

    A video from a surveillance camera shows Sobchak entering Lithuania on foot and talking to border officials.

    Lithuania and other Baltic states along with Poland stopped admitting Russian citizens who hold a valid Schengen visa back in September, a move to support Ukraine. Hundreds were turned away, but many still entered after presenting passports of other countries at the border.

    Sobchak, 40, has often been critical of Putin, but many Russian opposition figures have accused her of serving the Kremlin’s agenda. In 2018, she became a liberal challenger in Russia’s presidential election, finishing a distant fourth with about 1.7% of the vote in what her critics described as a Kremlin effort to add a democratic veneer to Putin’s sweeping re-election.

    Russian media claimed she had bought tickets to Dubai and Turkey to mislead the authorities but eventually left for Belarus, from where she traveled to Lithuania. The reports claimed that investigators suspected Sobchak of being involved in an extortion scheme along with her media director and alleged that a warrant was issued for her arrest.

    The Russian news agency Tass also cited information from the probe indicating that Sergei Chemezov, a longtime Putin associate who heads the state Rostec corporation, a conglomerate controlling Russian aviation industries and other high-tech assets, was the victim of alleged extortion.

    The claims couldn’t be independently confirmed.

    Sobchak, the daughter of Anatoly Sobchak, a liberal mayor of St. Petersburg for whom Putin served as a deputy in the 1990s, has extensive contacts among Russia’s rich and powerful, and the search of her home topped domestic news.

    She has 9.4 million followers on Instagram, and her glamour, sharp wit and defiant ways have made her both loved and loathed. Sobchak first gained fame as a fashionable socialite and reality TV star and was once dubbed the “Russian Paris Hilton,” but later sought to shed her spoiled and arrogant image. She got involved in politics when joining the massive protests in Moscow against Putin in 2011-12, and later reinvented herself as a serious TV journalist and opposition activist.

    Sobchak has denied serving the Kremlin’s agenda by running as a challenger to Putin in 2018. Opposition leader Alexei Navalny denounced her for discrediting the opposition by joining the race, saying that she was a “parody of a liberal candidate” and her involvement in the campaign helped the Kremlin cast the opposition in a negative light.

    ———

    Jan M. Olsen in Copenhagen, Denmark, contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge Considers Stopping Phoenix Ballot Drop Box Watchers

    Judge Considers Stopping Phoenix Ballot Drop Box Watchers

    [ad_1]

    PHOENIX (AP) — A federal judge in Arizona said he hopes to decide by Friday whether to order members of a group to stop monitoring outdoor ballot drop boxes in the Phoenix area in an effort that has sparked allegations of voter intimidation.

    The groups Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans and Voto Latino asked U.S. District Judge Michael Liburdi during a Wednesday hearing to prevent members of Clean Elections USA from gathering within sight of drop boxes in Maricopa County, the state’s most populous, and from following voters and taking photos and videos of them and their cars.

    The attorney for Clean Elections USA said that such a broad restraining order would be unconstitutional.

    Liburdi said he hoped to issue a decision by Friday but could continue to weigh the matter into the weekend.

    The League of Women Voters filed a similar suit Tuesday in federal court in Arizona, alleging that Clean Elections USA is intimidating voters.

    That suit also alleges that the groups Lions of Liberty and the Yavapai County Preparedness Team, which are associated with the far-right anti-government group Oath Keepers, have undertaken their own effort to watch ballot boxes and film voters in Arizona’s Yavapai County.

    Election deniers around the United States have embraced a film that has been discredited called “2000 Mules” that claims that people were paid to travel among drop boxes and stuff them with fraudulent ballots during the 2020 presidential vote.

    There’s no evidence for the notion that a network of Democrat-associated ballot “mules” has conspired to collect and deliver ballots to drop boxes, either two year ago or in the upcoming midterm elections.

    Amid the complaints from voters who say they have been harassed, Maricopa County Sheriff Paul Penzone said this week his office has begun providing security around drop boxes. Sheriff’s deputies responded when two masked people carrying guns and wearing bulletproof vests showed up at a drop box in the Phoenix suburb of Mesa.

    The secretary of state this week said her office has received six cases of potential voter intimidation to the state attorney general and the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as a threatening email sent to the state elections director.

    The U.S. attorney’s office in Arizona said it is also keeping an eye on cases alleging voter intimidation and vowed to prosecute those who violate federal law.

    Federal officials said local police officers would be the “front line in efforts to ensure that all qualified voters are able to exercise their right to vote free of intimidation or other election abuses.”

    “We will vigorously safeguard all Arizonans’ rights to freely and lawfully cast their ballot during the election,” the office said Wednesday. “As the several election threat-related cases pending federal felony charges from alleged criminal activity arising out of our State show, acts which cross the line will not go unaddressed.”

    Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich is calling on voters to report any intimidation immediately to police and file a complaint with his office.

    “Regardless of intent, this type of misguided behavior is contrary to both the laws and values of our state,” said Brnovich, a Republican.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Britain wants an election. It’s not getting one

    Britain wants an election. It’s not getting one

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    LONDON — Now on their third prime minister since the last general election, the despairing British public want a vote on who runs the country. They appear to be out of luck.

    New U.K. premier Rishi Sunak did not secure the 2019 election win for the Tories. Neither did his predecessor Liz Truss, who instead for a chaotic 44 days tried to rip up many of the economic and policy promises in Conservative manifesto.

    It was, of course, Boris Johnson who secured the Tories’ 80-seat majority almost three years ago — before being kicked out of Downing Street in the summer by his own MPs following a string of humiliating scandals. His replacement Truss, elected by just 81,00 Conservative members, lasted less than two months before her colleagues wielded the knife again.

    This carousel of leaders has left some observers pondering how Britain, can repeatedly change its figurehead — not to mention, in Truss’ case, its entire economic direction — without once consulting the public.

    Unsurprisingly, it’s a question opposition leader, Labour’s Keir Starmer, hopes to capitalize on.

    Asking questions to the new PM in the House of Commons Wednesday, Starmer noted that the last time Sunak took part in a vote — his head-to-head contest with Truss — “he got trounced by the former prime minister … who herself got beaten by a lettuce.”

    “Let working people have their say,” Starmer told the PM, “and call a general election.”

    A defiant Sunak replied that his mandate “is based on a manifesto that we were elected on — an election that we won, and they lost.”

    Public panic

    Constitutionally, Sunak is correct.

    The U.K. government retains total control over whether a snap election should be called ahead of the January 2025 deadline for the next vote — unless dozens of Tory MPs suddenly go rogue and decide to bring down their own regime via a no-confidence vote in the Commons.

    And the Tories’ rock-bottom poll ratings mean any kind of electoral gamble is off the table for the foreseeable future. Conservative support among the public — already dire at the tail-end of the Johnson tenure — plunged to record lows under Truss.

    “The short answer to anyone at home or abroad asking why the Conservatives don’t have an election, is because they don’t have to have an election,” said Joe Twyman, director at U.K. polling firm Deltapoll. “Given the situation the polls are in, they would be assured of a loss.”

    Under the British political system, the public votes for a governing party rather than a specific prime minister — and it’s for each party to pick its leader as and when it sees fit. The set-up differs markedly from presidential systems in places like France and the U.S., which are led by directly-elected heads of state.

    “It’s a fundamental rule of a parliamentary democracy that it isn’t the prime minister who wins a mandate at a general election, it’s the parliamentary party,” said Catherine Haddon, a constitutional expert at the Institute for Government think tank. 

    “Once you start going down the route of arguing every prime minister needs to win a general election to be able to hold the job, you are fundamentally changing the system.”

    Furthermore, the U.K.’s “first-past-the-post” voting system tends to deliver single-party rule, meaning coalition governments — which might collapse in times of turbulence, so triggering an election — are historically rare.

    So Sunak retains a healthy parliamentary majority, inherited from Johnson’s 2019 victory.

    Left wanting

    But the one thing counting against the Conservatives is public opinion.

    A YouGov poll this week found 59 percent of the British public think Sunak should call an election — including 38 percent of all Conservative voters — compared with just 29 percent who thought he shouldn’t. That’s far higher than normal, and way above even the peak figure of 41 percent who wanted an election at the height of the Partygate scandal

    “Turmoil in the government, with the Conservatives now two leaders removed from the one who took them to election victory in 2019, has clearly convinced many Britons that the time is right for a new vote,” said YouGov’s head of data journalism, Matthew Smith.

    An internal poll for the opposition Labour Party this week found similar results, with support for an election strongest among swing voters, according to a Labour official. Even a third of those 2019 Conservative voters who are still planning to vote the same way next time round want a snap election, the official said. Those leaning toward Labour are even more enthusiastic about a fresh campaign.

    Other research confirms the public is getting restless. A focus group this week for the non-partisan “More in Common” campaign found seven out of eight participants wanted an election once the current economic crisis has died down — a significant increase on previous exercises.

    Luke Tryl, the U.K. director of More in Common, said most people want “a choice over who is in charge” — although he noted that the same people also often feel conflicted, being “exhausted with the constant politics of the past few years.”

    Consultants at the agency Public First have found similar results in their own focus groups. The firm’s founding partner James Frayne said demands for a general election had “surged in recent weeks, and won’t be going anywhere.” He added: “As far as most voters are concerned, one unelected PM screwed up the economy so badly that another unelected PM must impose brutal austerity in response.”

    Internal dissent

    Indeed, even some Conservatives — chiefly those supportive of Boris Johnson — have suggested an election is necessary following his departure from No. 10 Downing Street.

    Former Cabinet Minister Nadine Dorries said publicly that an election would be “impossible to avoid” after her fellow MPs rejected Johnson’s recent comeback bid. Backbencher Christopher Chope and Tory peer Zac Goldsmith both made similar claims.

    “Imposing a new prime minister no-one voted for goes against the grain of what is democratic,” said one Johnson-supporting Conservative MP. “Colleagues who removed Boris can’t have their cake and eat it. We’ve had a sh*t show since, and appointing Rishi without a single vote is precarious. But colleagues insist they don’t want a general election.”

    For the vast majority of Conservative MPs, who want to avoid a vote at all costs, Sunak appears their best hope of calming the waters and so holding off the clamor for an election.

    “It is legitimate to feel there should be an election,” said a former Johnson adviser. “But in a world where there’s no general election, the best thing for everyone is to have Rishi — because however well he ends up doing, I think he will be quite calm, professional, and not trying to do crazy things that f*ck up all our mortgages.”

    Twyman, from Deltapoll, suggested that ultimately, being accused of dodging democracy is probably the “lesser of two evils” for the Tories.

    “It doesn’t look good for the Conservatives,” he said. “But a Labour majority of 300 doesn’t look good for the Conservatives either.”

    Annabelle Dickson contributed reporting.

    Discover the London Playbook newsletter

    What’s driving the day in Westminster. Politics and policymaking in the UK capital.

    [ad_2]

    Emilio Casalicchio

    Source link

  • More than 4 in 5 U.S. voters say politicians’ crypto position could affect how they vote

    More than 4 in 5 U.S. voters say politicians’ crypto position could affect how they vote

    [ad_1]

    As the Nov. 8 U.S. midterm elections grow closer, the Crypto Council for Innovation released a poll of likely voters today highlighting the impact of crypto on voting decisions.

    Despite hardcore crypto supporters remaining a relatively small voting bloc, the results show the increasing influence of crypto on the population, as voters weigh the industry’s risks and the need for regulation. Some 84% of those polled said a politician’s position on cryptocurrency would be a factor in determining their vote, although the vast majority said it would be minor.

    According to the poll, 13% of likely voters hold cryptocurrencies, which is slightly less than the overall figure for adults recorded by the Pew Research Center in 2021 and 2022, compared with 16% of likely voters who hold individual company stocks.

    Cory Gardner, a former U.S. senator from Colorado who joined the Crypto Council for Innovation as its chief strategist for political affairs in 2022, said crypto’s parity with stock holdings demonstrates the growing influence of the investor class.

    “Voters want this to be taken seriously,” he told Fortune. “They want the potential to be recognized.” 

    The poll reveals that crypto is a motivating factor in voters’ decisions, whether they hold any cryptocurrency or not. Especially given the negative headlines of hacks and scams over the past year, as well as the lack of government regulation, safety and security are top of mind. About 52% of likely voters said there needs to be more regulation, with just 20% saying existing regulation is sufficient.  

    Another takeaway is the bipartisan nature of the results. Much of the proposed crypto legislation in Congress has been bipartisan, including two Senate bills—one introduced by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), and the other by Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.) and Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), as well as stablecoin legislation in the House proposed by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.).  

    The poll shows voters trust the Republican and Democratic parties equally when it comes to cryptocurrency, and that support from likely voters for cryptocurrency as a long-term part of the economy is split evenly along party lines.

    “[Voters] are looking at this as an opportunity to start something from scratch at the very beginning of a digital generation,” said Gardner.  

    The question remains whether crypto will be a significant enough factor to sway voters’ minds. Only 19% said it would be an important factor, with 65% saying it would be a minor factor, and just 32% of likely voters saying it was valuable for politicians to take a position on crypto.

    For Gardner, a political veteran, a tiny swing could be the key for political victory. 

    “I think in close elections, and states that are going to see a number of districts that are tied, courting the crypto voter and showing your pro-crypto bona fides will absolutely help,” he told Fortune.

    Sign up for the Fortune Features email list so you don’t miss our biggest features, exclusive interviews, and investigations.

    [ad_2]

    Leo Schwartz

    Source link

  • In Michigan governor’s debate, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer accuses Tudor Dixon of “stoking violence”

    In Michigan governor’s debate, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer accuses Tudor Dixon of “stoking violence”

    [ad_1]

    Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer accused her Republican challenger, Tudor Dixon, of “stoking violence” and pushing conspiracy theories meant to divide people, while Dixon said voters have felt the pain of the Democrat’s failures and told Michiganders “you deserve better.”

    The two faced each other in their final debate before the midterm elections in two weeks. Dixon, a former businesswoman and conservative commentator endorsed by former President Donald Trump, is hoping a late surge of support will help her unseat the first-term incumbent Democrat, who has a multimillion-dollar fundraising advantage.

    Whitmer and fellow Democrats spent months pummeling Dixon with ads before the Republican and her supporters — including the family of former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos — responded. The final weeks of the campaign have seemed more competitive, with both hopefuls running TV ads and the candidates holding public events around the state.

    “We always knew that this would be a close race,” Whitmer told reporters after the debate. “This is a great state, but it’s a divided state at times. I take no person, no vote, or no community for granted.”

    Economy and inflation

    Addressing the persistent inflation and high prices on voters’ minds, Dixon said Whitmer “has not done anything to help.” She criticized the governor for vetoing a GOP measure earlier this year to freeze the state’s 27-cents-per-gallon gas tax and warned that a recession is “at our doorstep.”

    Whitmer called the measure the Republican-led Legislature approved “a gimmick.” It would have frozen the tax for six months effective in 2023 — a delay Whitmer said wouldn’t have provided immediate help to people who need it.

    “I don’t have time for games, and I don’t think you do either,” Whitmer said, adding that inflation is a problem around the globe. She said her administration was able to help people in Michigan by providing help such as free or low-cost child care.

    Whitmer questioned how Dixon – who supports repealing the state’s income tax – would balance the state budget and ensure sufficient funding for areas like education without the roughly $12 billion the state receives from income taxes.

    Dixon countered that she would eliminate the tax over time, suggesting it could be done over eight to 10 years, and noted there are other states without an income tax and argued that it’s not a “radical” idea.

    School safety

    One of Whitmer’s sharpest lines of the night addressed school safety. The debate at Oakland University was held about 15 miles from Oxford High School, where a teenage student fatally shot four students last year. The 16-year-old shooter on Monday pleaded guilty to charges including first-degree murder.

    In an exchange about education, Dixon criticized Whitmer’s administration for allowing books in school libraries that she says are inappropriate because they reference sex and gender. 

    “Do you really think books are more dangerous than guns?” Whitmer asked. She dismissed the book issue as a distraction at a time when deadly school shootings occur with regularity. The governor called for stricter gun laws, including background checks and secure gun storage.

    Asked after the debate about the remark, Dixon said she doesn’t differentiate.

    “I think there are dangers all over for our children. I don’t rank one as different than the other,” she said. “I want to make sure our kids are safe no matter what.”

    Dixon is endorsed by the National Rifle Association and said during the debate that she supports having armed guards at schools and single-entry buildings. She pointed to a report on how to better secure schools and said if it had been implemented at Oxford “we might have saved lives.”

    Whitmer, a former prosecutor, countered, “Ask yourself, who’s going to keep your kids safe? A former prosecutor with plans or a candidate with thoughts and prayers?”

    Abortion

    The first question of the night once again centered on abortion, a topic that’s dominated the race since the U.S. Supreme Court in June overturned the landmark case granting the right to abortion. Before the high court’s decision, Whitmer filed a lawsuit to stop a 1931 abortion ban from taking effect in Michigan.

    A proposal on the state’s November ballot will let voters decide whether to enshrine the right to the procedure in the state constitution. The two candidates disagreed on what the constitutional amendment would allow.

    Dixon, who opposes abortion except to save the life of the mother, claimed the proposal would allow abortion “up to the moment of birth for any reason” while calling it the “most radical abortion law in the country.” But Dixon said voters could vote how they wanted on the proposal – while also voting for her.

    Whitmer said the proposal would return abortion rights that had been in place for 49 years before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade and said none of what Dixon said about the proposal was true.

    Women candidates

    Asked by moderators to say something nice about their opponents, each focused on the other’s role as a mother. Dixon has four school-aged daughters, while Whitmer has two college-aged daughters and three stepsons.

    Dixon praised Whitmer’s emphasis on her daughters and her fight for women, while Whitmer said of Dixon that she appreciates “how hard it is to run for office and raise kids.”

    The race between Dixon and Whitmer is the first time two women have competed against each other for Michigan governor. Nationally, there are five woman-vs.-woman races this fall. That’s more than there have been, combined, in all elections in the country’s history, according to the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Arizona voters file complaints against armed vigilantes patrolling ballot boxes

    Arizona voters file complaints against armed vigilantes patrolling ballot boxes

    [ad_1]

    Multiple Arizona voters have filed formal complaints against armed vigilantes patrolling ballot drop boxes near Phoenix. And with just two weeks to go until the midterm elections, some candidates are even pushing theories of voter fraud in the state.

    1666653142552.png
    Voters in Arizona have filed formal complaints against armed vigilantes stationed at ballot boxes.

    CBS News


    Republican Kari Lake, who is running for governor, has been pushing threats of voter integrity throughout her campaign. Arizona’s Republican Secretary of State candidate Mark Finchem tweeted, “Watch all drop boxes. Period. Save the Republic.”

    Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer, who is in charge of voter registration and counting early voting, said he’s witnessed “Threats, you name it. Threats to harass you online, but also threats to physicaly harm you.”

    Richer, a Republican, told CBS News he’s appalled by his own party’s election deniers.

    “It’s especially frustrating when people knowingly do it to satisfy a self desire for political office or gain,” he added.

    Early voters are now crowding polls across America. Over the weekend, 80,000 residents in Georgia voted in a single day.

    It was an increase of 159% compared with the same day four years ago. Other states, like North Carolina and Florida, have reported similar surges amid the fight to control the U.S. Senate.

    CBS News has learned that former President Donald Trump has encouraged state lawmakers to repeal a law that allows all voters to mail in ballots.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Republican committee in US sues Google over email spam filters

    Republican committee in US sues Google over email spam filters

    [ad_1]

    The Republican National Committee accuses Gmail of ‘discriminating’ against it by unfairly sending its emails to users’ spam folders, impacting fundraising and get-out-the-vote efforts.

    The Republican National Committee (RNC) has filed a lawsuit against tech giant Google, alleging the company has been suppressing its email solicitations ahead of November’s midterm elections – an allegation Google denies.

    The lawsuit, filed in the District Court for the Eastern District of California, accuses Gmail of “discriminating” against the committee by unfairly sending the group’s emails to users’ spam folders, impacting both fundraising and get-out-the-vote efforts in pivotal swing states.

    “Enough is enough — we are suing Google for their blatant bias against Republicans,” committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said in a statement to The Associated Press. “For ten months in a row, Google has sent crucial end-of-month Republican GOTV and fundraising emails to spam with zero explanation. We are committed to putting an end to this clear pattern of bias.”

    Google, in a statement, denied the charges. “As we have repeatedly said, we simply don’t filter emails based on political affiliation. Gmail’s spam filters reflect users’ actions,” spokesman José Castañeda said, adding that the company provides training and guidelines to campaigns and works to “maximize email deliverability while minimizing unwanted spam.”

    Google’s ‘censorship’

    The lawsuit, filed on Friday evening, focuses on how Google’s Gmail, the world’s largest email service with about 1.5 billion users, screens solicitations and other material to help prevent users from being inundated by junk mail. To filter material that account holders may not want in their inboxes, Google and other major email providers create programmes that flag communications likely to be perceived as unwelcome and move them to spam folders that are rarely, if ever, perused by recipients.

    The suit says Google has “relegated millions of RNC emails en masse to potential donors’ and supporters’ spam folders during pivotal points in election fundraising and community building” — particularly at the end of each month when political groups tend to send more messages.

    “It doesn’t matter whether the email is about donating, voting, or community outreach. And it doesn’t matter whether the emails are sent to people who requested them,” it reads.

    Google contends its algorithms are designated to be neutral, but a study released in March by North Carolina State University found that Gmail was far more likely to block messages from conservative causes. The study, based on emails sent during the US presidential campaign in 2020, estimated Gmail placed roughly 10 percent of emails from left-wing candidates into spam folders while marking 77 percent from right-wing candidates as spam.

    Gmail rivals Yahoo and Microsoft’s Outlook were more likely to favour pitches from conservative causes than Gmail, the study found.

    The RNC seized upon that study in April to call upon the Federal Election Commission to investigate Google’s “censorship” of its fundraising efforts, which it alleged amounted to an in-kind contribution to Democratic candidates and served as “a financially devastating example of Silicon Valley tech companies unfairly shaping the political playing field to benefit their preferred far-left candidates”.

    Since then, the commission has approved a pilot programme that creates a way for political committees to get around spam filters so their fundraising emails find their way into recipients’ primary inboxes.

    Gmail is participating in the Verified Sender Program, which allows senders to bypasses traditional spam filters, but also gives users the option of unsubscribing from a sender. If the unsubscribe button is hit, a sender is supposed to remove that Gmail address from their distribution lists.

    The RNC had not signed up to participate in the pilot programme before it filed the lawsuit.

    Republicans who have tried to cast doubt on the outcome of the 2020 election without parroting the most extreme and baseless claims about corrupted voting machines and stolen votes have often tried to blame big technology companies like Twitter and Facebook. They accuse them of bias against former President Donald Trump.

    A long list of state and local election officials, courts and members of Trump’s own administration have said there is no evidence of the mass fraud Trump alleges.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Brazil election: What to know about the high-stakes race

    Brazil election: What to know about the high-stakes race

    [ad_1]

    BRASILIA, Brazil — Brazil is days from a presidential election featuring two political titans and bitter rivals that could usher in another four years of far-right politics or return a leftist to the nation’s top job.

    On one side is incumbent Jair Bolsonaro, a former army captain who built a base of hardcore support as a culture warrior with a conservative ideology. He has deployed government funds in what is widely seen as an effort to drum up last-minute votes. His adversary, former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, has sought to kindle nostalgia for his years presiding over an economic boom and social inclusion.

    Here’s what you need to know about the Brazilian presidential runoff, which is on Oct. 30.

    HOW OFTEN ARE ELECTIONS IN BRAZIL?

    Brazil holds general elections once every four years, choosing state and federal representatives as well as the president, governors and some senators. Mayors, city councilors and remaining senators are also chosen every four years, but on different years.

    HOW MANY TIMES CAN A PERSON BE ELECTED PRESIDENT IN BRAZIL?

    There is no limit to the number of times one can be elected president in Brazil, but the person can only serve two consecutive terms. That is why da Silva, who was president from 2003 to 2010, can run this year.

    WASN’T THERE ALREADY A BRAZILIAN ELECTION?

    Brazil held its first round of voting on Oct. 2, electing lawmakers at state and federal levels. Gubernatorial candidates garnering more than 50% of valid votes, which exclude blank and spoiled ballots, were also confirmed.

    None of the 11 presidential candidates got an outright majority, setting up a runoff between da Silva, who had 48% of votes, and Bolsonaro with 43%. Polls had significantly understated the support for the president and his allies, prompting backlash.

    WHAT HAPPENS IN THE OCT. 30 ELECTION?

    It’s a runoff for the presidency and for governorships in states where no candidate won a first-round majority. Most polls 2 1/2 weeks after the first round show da Silva retaining a slight lead over Bolsonaro.

    WHAT ARE BOLSONARO’S POLICIES?

    During the campaign, Bolsonaro has often repeated his guiding principles: “God, Family, Country.” He portrays Brazil as spiritually ill and presents himself as a Christian soldier standing guard against cultural Marxism. He has loosened restrictions on the purchase of guns and ammunition and weakened oversight of environmental crime in the Amazon rainforest, which critics say caused the biome’s worst deforestation in 15 years and a surge of man-made fires.

    He stresses his opposition to legalized abortion and drugs, while warning that da Silva’s return would produce the sort of leftist authoritarianism seen elsewhere in Latin America, persecution of churches, sexual education in public schools and the proliferation of so-called gender ideology.

    Recently, Bolsonaro has given government funds to poorer Brazilians, who traditionally have been inclined to vote for da Silva’s Worker’s Party. The Brazil Aid welfare program created during the COVID-19 pandemic was generous relative to other nations and a lifeline for many Brazilians. Recently, it was beefed up and extended through yearend, and Bolsonaro has said it will continue into 2023.

    Other measures include a subsidy for cooking gas, assistance for truck and taxi drivers and refinancing of debts.

    WHAT ABOUT DA SILVA?

    Da Silva, known universally as Lula, has focused on his prior terms, during which commodities exports surged and tens of millions of Brazilians joined the middle class. He has promised the poor — battered by economic distress for the better part of a decade — that they will again be able to afford three square meals a day and even weekend barbecues.

    But he has been vague on how he would ensure return of those halcyon days. Like Bolsonaro, he promises to extend Brazil Aid welfare into 2023, without explaining how it will be financed. He has said the state will once again assume a prominent role in economic development.

    Faced with Bolsonaro’s attempts to lump him in with leaders of Cuba and Venezuela, da Silva has declined to denounce their autocratic practices, instead saying other nations’ sovereignties must be respected, while also highlighting the fact he implemented no such policies during his presidency. In April, he said women should have the right to an abortion and then backtracked amid outcry, saying he is personally opposed.

    A corruption conviction in 2018 barred him from that year’s presidential race and allowed Bolsonaro to cruise to victory. But the Supreme Court in 2021 annulled his convictions, ruling that the presiding judge had been biased and colluded with prosecutors. That enabled his run this year.

    WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE VOTE IN BRAZIL?

    Many political analysts have expressed concern that Bolsonaro has laid the groundwork to reject election results if he loses and will attempt to cling to power — much like former U.S. President Donald Trump, whom he admires. Such alarm largely stems from the president’s insistence that Brazil’s electronic voting machines are prone to fraud, though he has never presented evidence for his claims.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Rishi Sunak to be crowned UK prime minister after winning Tory leadership contest

    Rishi Sunak to be crowned UK prime minister after winning Tory leadership contest

    [ad_1]

    LONDON — Rishi Sunak will be appointed U.K. prime minister Tuesday after his last remaining rival Penny Mordaunt dropped out of the Tory leadership contest.

    Sunak, the former chancellor, won the public support of almost 200 of his Conservative MP colleagues to succeed Liz Truss, who resigned last Thursday after a chaotic six weeks in office.

    It caps a remarkable political comeback for Sunak, who only last month was defeated in a head-to-head leadership contest with Truss and was subsequently excluded from her top team. He faces a formidable in-tray, however, with the U.K. in the grip of an economic crisis, Conservative poll ratings in the doldrums, and the party riven by in-fighting.

    “I am humbled and honored,” he said. “It is the greatest privilege of my life to serve.”

    Mordaunt, who trailed Sunak in terms of support from her parliamentary colleagues, announced her withdrawal from the contest just as MPs’ nominations closed at 2 p.m. on Monday. Her decision avoids the need for a vote among the wider Conservative Party membership, who would have been balloted this week for a final decision.

    “This decision is an historic one and shows, once again, the diversity and talent of our party,” Mordaunt said, hailing the man who will now become the U.K.’s first British-Asian prime minister. “Rishi has my full support.”

    Sunak, 42, will become prime minister Tuesday lunchtime after meeting King Charles III. Truss, who remains prime minister until the formal handover of power, will chair her final Cabinet at 10.15 a.m. Tuesday, before making an exit speech on the steps of Downing Street and traveling to Buckingham Palace to make the transfer of power official.

    Sunak, who has barely spoken in public since his defeat to Truss was confirmed on September 5, made a brief address to the nation on Monday afternoon, in which he paid tribute to Truss for serving under “exceptionally difficult circumstances” — but warned the U.K. now faces “a profound economic challenge.”

    “I pledge that I will serve you with integrity and humility,” he said, “and I will work day in, day out to deliver for the British people.”

    Although Sunak faces intense pressure from the opposition Labour Party to call a general election following weeks of political turmoil, under the U.K.’s parliamentary system he will be under no obligation to do so until January 2025, as he now commands the confidence of the largest party in the House of Commons.

    Sunak’s coronation also follows a decision by Boris Johnson to pull out of the contest. The former prime minister, who was ousted in July, had been mulling a second tilt at the job after a weekend spent canvassing Tory MPs.

    But Johnson said on Sunday evening that it was “not the right time” for him to attempt a comeback and suggested he would not be able to govern effectively without “a unity party in parliament”.

    Critic of ‘fairytale’ economics

    Sunak was chancellor for over two years following his appointment in February 2020, and steered the U.K. economy through the coronavirus pandemic before resigning in the summer in an act that helped bring down Johnson’s premiership.

    He stood in the Tory leadership race that followed but was defeated in a final head-to-head contest with Truss, who secured 57.4 percent of votes from the party grassroots.

    Throughout the contest Sunak was a vocal critic of Truss’ controversial economic program, using a live TV debate to tell her: “Borrowing your way out of inflation isn’t a plan, it’s a fairytale.” He warned repeatedly — and presciently — that Truss’ debt-funded tax cuts would push up interest rates and send mortgage payments climbing.

    He will now be tasked with turning Conservative Party fortunes after the precipitous drop in the polls that followed Truss’ disastrous economic program — much of which has already been abandoned.

    Sunak’s most notable endorsement Monday might have been the drop in gilt yields that followed the announcement he is to take over. But the pound still came under selling pressure after a key economic survey showed a worsening downturn in the U.K.

    Labour’s Deputy Leader Angela Rayner said Sunak had been appointed to the U.K.’s top job “without him saying a single word about how he would run the country, and without anyone having the chance to vote.”

    She repeated the opposition’s call for a general election, adding: “Rishi Sunak has no mandate and no idea what working people need.”

    Hannah Brenton contributed reporting.

    [ad_2]

    Eleni Courea

    Source link

  • Rishi Sunak on course to be UK prime minister as Boris Johnson pulls out

    Rishi Sunak on course to be UK prime minister as Boris Johnson pulls out

    [ad_1]

    LONDON — Rishi Sunak could be installed as U.K. prime minister as early as Monday after Boris Johnson sensationally abandoned hopes of a return to No. 10 Downing Street.

    In a dramatic statement Sunday evening after a weekend spent canvassing Tory MPs, Johnson announced it was “not the right time” for him to attempt a comeback when Liz Truss steps down this week.

    His decision leaves Sunak, his fierce rival and former chancellor, in pole position to take over as U.K. prime minister in the coming days — although third-placed Penny Mordaunt could yet see a surge in support following Johnson’s abrupt departure from the race.

    “I believe I have much to offer,” Johnson said in a statement, “but I am afraid that this is simply not the right time.”

    The rules agreed by Tory Party chiefs following Truss’ resignation state that any candidate hoping to succeed her requires the support of 100 fellow Tory MPs by the time nominations close on Monday at 2 p.m.

    Sunak had easily cleared that hurdle by late Saturday afternoon, with both Johnson and Mordaunt lagging behind and seemingly struggling to make the cut.

    In his statement Sunday evening, Johnson claimed he did in fact have the numbers required, and that he was confident of winning sufficient support in the subsequent ballot of Tory grassroots members to put himself back in No. 10. But he said the urgent need for party unity meant he would pull out of the race instead.

    “You can’t govern effectively unless you have a united party in Parliament,” Johnson said. “And though I have reached out to both Rishi and Penny — because I hoped that we could come together in the national interest — we have sadly not been able to work out a way of doing this.

    “Therefore I am afraid the best thing is that I do not allow my nomination to go forward and commit my support to whoever succeeds.”

    Critics of Johnson claimed he simply never had the numbers to meet the 100-MP threshold, pointing to his lack of publicly-declared nominations and the deep-seated anger within the party over his scandal-hit years in Downing Street.

    Whatever the truth, with his main rival now out of the race Sunak will be optimistic of winning the contest at the first attempt Monday, without the need for a ballot of the party grassroots. Senior figures including Chancellor Jeremy Hunt rowed in behind Sunak Sunday evening following Johnson’s departure from the race.

    Allies of Mordaunt insisted she would remain in the contest and hoped to win enough support from former Johnson supporters to hit the magic total of 100 MPs — so forcing a ballot of members in the days ahead.

    But most observers believe Sunak is now firmly on course for Downing Street, just seven astonishing weeks after he was roundly defeated by Truss in the last Tory leadership contest. Victory would see him installed as Britain’s first-ever Hindu prime minister, and at Diwali — the five-day Hindu and Sikh festival of lights.

    In a series of tweets Sunday evening Sunak paid tribute to Johnson, the man who gave him his big break in politics in February 2020 — plucking him from the junior ministerial ranks to make him chancellor — before a dramatic falling-out between the pair saw Sunak quit the Cabinet in July 2022, precipitating Johnson’s own departure from No. 10.

    “Boris Johnson delivered Brexit and the great vaccine roll-out,” Sunak said. “He led our country through some of the toughest challenges we have ever faced, and then took on Putin and his barbaric war in Ukraine. We will always be grateful to him for that.

    “Although he has decided not to run for PM again, I truly hope he continues to contribute to public life at home and abroad.”

    Johnson had always made clear he hoped to one day return as prime minister after being ousted back in July. His parting shot to the House of Commons at his final session of Prime Minister’s Questions was “Hasta la vista, baby” — a reference to actor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s famous “I’ll be back” catchphrase from the ‘Terminator’ movies.

    Indeed, former colleagues of Johnson including his most senior ex-aide, Dominic Cummings, claim he tacitly supported Truss’ bid for No. 10 precisely because he believed she was unsuited to the role, and so would crash and burn once ensconced in No. 10 — potentially giving him the chance of a comeback.

    But even Johnson was taken by surprise at the speed of Truss’ meltdown. He was on holiday with his family in the Caribbean when she abruptly resigned Thursday after just 44 days in power, and was forced to fly home late Friday night to kickstart his nascent leadership bid.

    He was supported by several senior figures including Foreign Secretary James Cleverly, Cabinet Office Minister Nadhim Zahawi and Business Secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg.

    But many other former allies had advised him against another run, and several of the party’s most senior right-wing figures had backed Sunak instead.

    Even Johnson’s closest supporters were taken by surprise by his decision Sunday evening. Embarrassingly, a newspaper column written by Zahawi backing Johnson for the leadership was published at 9 p.m., the exact moment Johnson was pulling out of the race. Zahawi announced 29 minutes later that he was now backing Sunak instead.

    Another prominent Johnson supporter, James Duddridge, tweeted simply: “Well that was unexpected. Off to bed!” An hour later he, too, announced he was backing Sunak.

    [ad_2]

    Jack Blanchard

    Source link

  • Vote count shows Slovenia presidency to be decided in runoff

    Vote count shows Slovenia presidency to be decided in runoff

    [ad_1]

    LJUBLJANA, Slovenia — A right-wing politician and a centrist independent candidate will face each other in a runoff presidential election in Slovenia after no candidate achieved an outright victory in the first round of voting Sunday, partial results showed.

    Former Foreign Minister Anze Logar was leading the race with 34% of the vote, followed by lawyer and human rights advocate Natasa Pirc Musar with nearly 27%, state election authorities said after counting most of the ballots.

    Trailing third was Social Democrat Milan Brglez, the candidate of the ruling liberal government, who garnered some 15% of the vote, according to the official tally.

    Since none of the seven contenders who competed in the election managed to gather more than 50% of the ballots needed for an outright victory, a runoff between Logar and Pirc Musar will be held on Nov. 13.

    While Logar took a lead on Sunday, analysts in Slovenia have predicted the tables could turn in the runoff if Slovenia’s centrist and liberal voters rally behind Pirc Musar.

    Logar, 46, served under former populist Prime Minister Janez Jansa, who moved Slovenia to the right while in power and faced accusations of non-democratic and divisive policies.

    A victory for Logar in the second round therefore might get interpreted as a setback for the liberal coalition that ousted Jansa from power six months ago.

    During the presidential campaign, Logar has sought to present himself as a unifier. He said “some may have seen this as me distancing myself (from Jansa,) but I was actually being me, Anže Logar, a candidate.”

    If Pirc Musar wins, she would become the first female president of Slovenia since the country became independent from the former Yugoslavia in 1991.

    Known as an LGBTQ rights advocate, Pirc Musar said she expected a “battle of values” in the runoff.

    “I’m looking forward to the second round,” she said. “I’m looking forward to the final.”

    Logar said he expected the debate to focus on issues important to Slovenia.

    Turnout by 1400 GMT was nearly 35%, somewhat higher than for the previous presidential election five years ago, election officials said as polls closed.

    Slovenia’s 1.7 million eligible voters are choosing a successor to incumbent Borut Pahor. He has served two full five-year terms and was banned from running for a third.

    While in office, Pahor tried to bridge Slovenia’s left-right divide that remains a source of political tension in the traditionally moderate and stable nation of 2 million.

    Prime Minister Robert Golob said the future president should have “moral authority” on the country’s political scene and “great trust among Slovenians.”

    Ziga Jelenec, a resident of Ljubljana, the capital, said he believed the election will show “how much our society is divided.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Am I allowed to drop off a ballot for someone else?

    Am I allowed to drop off a ballot for someone else?

    [ad_1]

    Am I allowed to drop off a ballot for someone else?

    In most states, the answer is yes — but there might be restrictions.

    For example, some states, like Arizona, only allow caregivers, family members or household members to drop off a ballot for someone else. Other states, like California, allow for a ballot to submitted by anyone chosen by the voter as long as they are not paid per ballot they collect.

    A few states require designated agents to sign a document confirming they have the authority to deliver someone’s ballot. And a few states explicitly prohibit dropping off someone else’s ballot. Other states don’t have laws on ballot collection at all.

    In total, more than half of states have laws that explicitly allow a third party to return a completed ballot, according to a tally from the National Conference of State Legislatures.

    Laws allowing ballot collection are designed to make voting more convenient, and to make it possible for people who can’t travel to deliver a ballot on their own. Political groups and campaigns from both parties have run ballot-collection programs with the goal of boosting turnout and helping older, homebound, disabled or rural voters get their ballots returned.

    However, in 2020, when the use of drop boxes spiked because of the coronavirus pandemic, some criticized the practice. Former President Donald Trump and others argued that ballot collection, often pejoratively called “ballot harvesting,” increased the risk that someone would try to illegally vote on someone else’s behalf or coerce them to vote a certain way. Surveys after the 2020 election found that voters who cast ballots for President Joe Biden were far more likely to report voting by mail than voters for Trump.

    Election security experts say that voter fraud is rare among all forms of voting, including by mail and at drop boxes. They point to a 2018 congressional election in North Carolina, when a Republican political operative and his staff illegally gathered ballots and forged signatures, as one of the few instances of voter fraud related to ballot collection. That election was overturned.

    After the 2020 election, a discredited film claimed without evidence that a multistate network of Democrat-aligned ballot “mules” were paid to illegally collect and drop off ballots in five states. But the film showed no evidence that the individuals it showed on surveillance tapes were part of a ballot scheme, and a state investigation found that at least one person featured in the film was legally dropping off ballots of family members. The film also pointed to cellphone geolocation data, which experts say is not precise enough to identify whether someone used a drop box or simply traveled near it. Drop boxes are frequently placed intentionally in public, high-traffic spaces.

    An Associated Press survey in May 2022 found that among states that used drop boxes in the 2020 presidential election, none reported instances of drop boxes being involved in fraud that could have affected the results.

    ___

    The AP is answering your questions about elections in this series. Submit them at: FactCheck@AP.org.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Can noncitizens vote in US elections?

    Can noncitizens vote in US elections?

    [ad_1]

    Can noncitizens vote in U.S. elections?

    Federal law bans noncitizens from voting in federal elections, including races for president, vice president, Senate or House of Representatives.

    The 1996 law states that noncitizens who vote illegally will face a fine, imprisonment or both. Noncitizens who cast a ballot and get caught may also face deportation.

    When people in the U.S. register to vote, they confirm under penalty of perjury that they are U.S. citizens. Several states also verify that registration against federal and state databases.

    Some politicians and pundits have raised alarm that noncitizens could be voting illegally in high numbers. Studies show this isn’t happening, according to Ron Hayduk, a political science professor at San Francisco State University who studies noncitizen voting laws.

    While there have been anecdotal reports of noncitizens registering and casting ballots, “the incidence of such occurrences is infinitesimal,” Hayduk said.

    Research by the Brennan Center for Justice in 2017 looked at 42 jurisdictions in the 2016 election, and reported that of 23.5 million votes cast, election officials only found about 30 cases of potential noncitizen voting that they referred for prosecution or further investigation.

    More recent investigations also haven’t shown proof of widespread noncitizen voting. A Georgia audit of its voter rolls conducted this year found fewer than 2,000 instances of noncitizens attempting to register to vote over the last 25 years, none of which succeeded. Millions of new Georgia voters registered during that time period.

    Federal law doesn’t stop states or municipalities from granting noncitizens the right to vote in local races — and a handful have, including 11 towns in Maryland and two in Vermont. New York City this year passed a law that would allow legally documented noncitizens and “Dreamers” to vote for mayor and other elected officials, but a judge blocked the move in June.

    ___

    The AP is answering your questions about elections in this series. Submit them at FactCheck@AP.org. Read more here:

    How are mail-in and absentee ballots verified?

    Am I allowed to drop off a ballot for someone else?

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • NOT REAL NEWS: A look at what didn’t happen this week

    NOT REAL NEWS: A look at what didn’t happen this week

    [ad_1]

    A roundup of some of the most popular but completely untrue stories and visuals of the week. None of these are legit, even though they were shared widely on social media. The Associated Press checked them out. Here are the facts:

    ___

    Trump did not sign an order to deploy 20,000 troops on Jan. 6

    CLAIM: Former President Donald Trump signed an order to deploy 20,000 National Guard troops before his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, but was stopped by the House sergeant at arms, at the behest of Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

    THE FACTS: While Trump was involved in discussions in the days prior to Jan. 6 about the National Guard response, he issued no such order before or during the rioting. New footage released last week of House lawmakers on Jan. 6 has sparked a resurgence of false claims and conspiracy theories about the insurrection. The videos, recorded by Pelosi’s daughter, showed the congresswoman negotiating with governors and defense officials in an effort to get Guard troops to the Capitol. Some on social media used the occasion to revive baseless claims that Pelosi had stopped a Trump order for tens of thousands of National Guard troops before the event. “Trump signed an order to deploy 20,000 Guardsmen on J6. It was refused by the House sergeant at arms, who reports to Nancy Pelosi,” said one post that spread on Gettr, Instagram and Twitter. As the AP has previously reported, Trump was not involved in decision-making related to the National Guard on Jan. 6, and Pelosi did not stand in their way. Trump did say during a 30-second call on Jan. 5 with then Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller that “they” were going to need 10,000 troops on Jan. 6, according to a statement Miller provided to a House committee in May 2021. But Miller added that there was “no elaboration,” and he took the comment to mean “a large force would be required to maintain order the following day.” There is no evidence that Trump actually signed any order requesting 10,000 Guard troops, let alone 20,000, for Jan. 6. Reached for comment, a spokesperson for the Department of Defense provided a timeline of the agency’s involvement in preparing for and responding to the attack on the Capitol. The timeline shows no such order, and notes only that on Jan. 3, the president concurred with activating the D.C. National Guard to support law enforcement at the behest of Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser. When the rioting started, Bowser requested more Guard help, on behalf of the Capitol Police. That request was made to Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy, who then went to Miller, who approved it. Neither Pelosi nor the House sergeant at arms could have stopped an ordered deployment of National Guard troops because Congress doesn’t control the National Guard, legal experts say. Guard troops are generally controlled by governors, though they can be federalized, said William C. Banks, a law professor at Syracuse University. The online claims “make no sense at all,” Banks said, adding, “The House sergeant at arms, he or she is not in the chain of command. Nor is Nancy Pelosi.” As the newly released footage showed, she and Mitch McConnell, then Senate majority leader, called for military assistance, including the National Guard. The House sergeant at arms does sit on the Capitol Police Board, which also includes the Senate sergeant at arms and the architect of the Capitol. That board opted not to request the Guard ahead of the insurrection, but did eventually request assistance after the rioting had already begun. There is no evidence that either Pelosi or McConnell directed the security officials not to call the guard beforehand, and Drew Hammill, Pelosi’s deputy chief of staff, said after the insurrection that Pelosi was never informed of such a request.

    — Associated Press writer Josh Kelety in Phoenix contributed this report.

    ___

    Immigrants not auto enrolled to vote under new driver’s license law

    CLAIM: A new Massachusetts law providing driver’s licenses for immigrants in the country illegally will also automatically register them to vote in elections.

    THE FACTS: The law passed by Massachusetts state lawmakers this summer prohibits immigrants without legal permission to reside in the U.S. from being automatically registered to vote. Social media users have been reviving fears that the new Massachusetts law would give those living in the country illegally the right to vote since the state has automatic voter registration. The concerns come as residents weigh a ballot referendum on the law in next month’s election. The law, which takes effect July 1, 2023, would allow Massachusetts residents who cannot provide proof of lawful presence in the U.S. to obtain a driver’s license or permit if they meet all other requirements, such as passing a road test and providing proof of identity. “Giving Driver’s licenses to illegals gives them the right to vote,” the Massachusetts Republican Party said in a Facebook post. Republican gubernatorial candidate Geoff Diehl repeated the claim during a televised debate against Democratic rival Maura Healey. He noted that Republican Governor Charlie Baker vetoed the legislation in part over election concerns. Massachusetts’ Democratic-led legislature ultimately overrode the veto. But state Sen. Brendan Crighton, a Democrat who was a lead sponsor of the bill, told the AP that the voting concerns have “long been debunked.” He argued that green card holders, student visa holders and other types of noncitizens can already seek Massachusetts driver’s licenses, and there’s a system in place to ensure they’re not automatically registered to vote. The state in 2020 enacted an automatic voter registration law in which every eligible citizen who interacts with state agencies like the RMV is automatically registered to vote, unless they specifically opt out. The state’s current driver’s license form asks if the applicant is a U.S. citizen and a Massachusetts resident under a section for voter registration. If the applicant can’t answer “yes” to all the questions, they are then instructed to check a box that says, “Do not use my information for voter registration.” “The term ‘automatic voter registration’ is a misnomer in the sense that the individual is not registered to vote unless they are a citizen and over 18 years old,” Crighton said. “It is not actually automatic.” Amanda Orlando, Diehl’s campaign manager, didn’t dispute that Massachusetts’ new law specifically prohibits automatic voter registration for those seeking driver’s licenses. But she maintained the law, as constructed, “places the burden” of reviewing voting eligibility on the already overburdened and understaffed RMV. “What is written in the law, and what will happen in reality are different,” Orlando wrote in an email. “As noted by Governor Baker, they are not able to handle the volume they currently have, let alone increase it substantially with giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants.” The RMV declined to comment, but Secretary of State William Galvin’s office, which oversees Massachusetts elections, said the two agencies have been in communication ahead of the law taking effect next year. Under the current process, the RMV provides the secretary of state’s office with all the relevant information for voter registration — such as an applicant’s name, date of birth and address — and can provide additional information to further verify voting eligibility, said Debra O’Malley, Galvin’s spokesperson. “The RMV has a record of what evidence of lawful presence has been provided and removes from those batches anyone who hasn’t provided them with a U.S. birth certificate, U.S. passport, or U.S. naturalization papers,” she said by email.

    — Associated Press writer Phillip Marcelo in New York contributed this report.

    ___

    CNBC report on climate research didn’t confirm ‘chemtrails’ theory

    CLAIM: A CNBC story on research into technology to combat climate change admitted that “chemtrails” are real.

    THE FACTS: The story reported on a federal plan to research technology that could place materials in the atmosphere to reflect sunlight away from Earth, but experts say the idea is being investigated and is not currently in use. A TikTok video also shared on Instagram is distorting the facts around a recent CNBC story to advance a long-running conspiracy theory that the condensation trails, or contrails, left in the air by planes are actually dangerous “chemtrails.” “Chemtrails are real,” text shown in the video reads. The theory posits that aircrafts are spewing toxic chemicals as part of a nefarious and secret plot. The video, viewed more than 9,000 times on TikTok, shows screenshots of an Oct. 13 CNBC story headlined, “White House is pushing ahead research to cool Earth by reflecting back sunlight.” The person in the video then proceeds to show footage of vapor trails in the sky. But the CNBC story wasn’t “admitting” that chemtrails are real, and experts say the aerosol injection technology it discussed is not currently in use. The CNBC report looked at a White House plan to study ways to reduce the amount of sunlight that reaches Earth, in an effort to combat global warming. In passing a federal appropriations bill earlier this year, Congress directed federal agencies to coordinate with the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop a five-year plan assessing the use of such solar and climate interventions. One possibility is the use of stratospheric aerosol injection, an idea taken from the climate effects of large volcanic eruptions. These eruptions emit sulfur into the atmosphere, where it turns into “highly reflective microscopic droplets,” said Ben Kravitz, an assistant professor of earth and atmospheric sciences at Indiana University. Those sulfur droplets “reflect some sunlight back to space, and it cools the planet a little bit,” he said in an email. “Stratospheric aerosol injection is built on that idea — if nature can cool the planet, maybe we can do it on purpose.” The idea is not without risks, Kravitz added, and the point of research is so that decision makers can weigh whether to use such technology. “Currently nobody is doing this,” he said. David Keith, a Harvard University professor who researches this field, likewise told the AP that this is “a discussion about a technology that is possible but is not now used.” Keith said in an email that aerosol injection would not leave contrails like those left by planes. “If someone were doing climate-altering stratospheric aerosol injections – the sky would probably look a little whiter and hazier, much like it looks in a big city,” Kravitz said.

    — Associated Press writer Angelo Fichera in Philadelphia contributed this report.

    ___

    No suspected serial killer in Seattle, despite online rumor

    CLAIM: King County detectives have been notifying locals about a serial killer in Seattle after several women in a southern section of the city and the nearby city of Burien were found dead with their bodies posed in the same way.

    THE FACTS: The King County Sheriff’s Office and Seattle Police Department both said they are not investigating a suspected serial killer. The claims erupted on social media last weekend as Seattle residents warned each other about the alleged criminal. “King County Detectives have been notifying locals about a serial killer in Seattle right now,” read a tweet that was shared to Instagram, where it amassed nearly 40,000 likes. “Multiple women’s bodies have been discovered recently in the Burien and SODO area, apparently posed in the same way,” the post continued, referring to a district of downtown Seattle. “Serial killer warning in Seattle!” read another tweet, which included a screenshot of an email attributed to a local bar manager. The email claimed a killer had been targeting women in their 30s between 12 a.m. and 7 a.m. in the south Seattle area. The Seattle Police Department refuted the claims on Twitter and in an emailed statement, saying it did not have any serial homicide cases. The King County Sheriff’s Office, which is the main law enforcement agency for unincorporated areas of the county and 12 cities including Burien, also denied the claims on Twitter and by email. “The King County Sheriff’s Office is aware of unsubstantiated on-line social media reports that select death investigations, in the vicinity of South Park / SR509, may share similar characteristics,” the statement read. “At this time, the Sheriff’s Office has identified no evidence affirming this for any cases under our jurisdiction.” It’s unclear where the baseless rumors originated, though unsupported claims related to serial killers occasionally spread in cities across the country. The bar manager cited as the author of an email spreading the claims did not immediately respond to calls for comment.

    — Associated Press writer Ali Swenson in New York contributed this report.

    ___

    Find AP Fact Checks here: https://apnews.com/APFactCheck

    ___

    Follow @APFactCheck on Twitter: https://twitter.com/APFactCheck

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How do states ensure dead people’s ballots aren’t counted?

    How do states ensure dead people’s ballots aren’t counted?

    [ad_1]

    How do states ensure dead people’s ballots aren’t counted?

    Election officials regularly check death records. In many states, vital statistics agencies send them monthly lists of people who have died, which officials use to update voter registration files.

    Election clerks may also check for voter deaths through other means, such as coordinating with motor vehicle departments to track canceled driver’s licenses, searching for published obituaries or processing letters from the deceased person’s estate.

    Even if a dead voter’s ballot mistakenly gets mailed, signature verification and voter fraud laws create additional safeguards against anyone else filling it out and submitting it. Voters who forge dead relatives’ signatures on ballots can face fines, probation or prison. And in some states, absentee voting requirements such as witness signatures or notarization add an extra barrier to prevent this rare form of voter fraud.

    After the 2020 presidential election, former President Donald Trump and his supporters claimed thousands of votes had been cast fraudulently on behalf of dead voters, even naming specific deceased people whose ballots were supposedly counted.

    But these claims, which spread in many states including Arizona, Virginia, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia, were found to be false.

    When Arizona’s attorney general investigated claims that 282 dead people’s ballots were cast in 2020, he found just one case was substantiated.

    When Republican lawmakers in Michigan investigated a list of over 200 supposedly dead voters in Wayne County, they found just two. The first was due to a clerical error in which a son had been confused with his dead father and the second involved a 92-year-old woman who had submitted her ballot early, then died four days before the election.

    Whether or not a vote like hers counts depends on state law.

    At least 11 states — nine by statute and two based on attorney general opinions — prohibit counting votes from absentee voters who cast a ballot, then die before Election Day, while nine states specifically allow it, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Other states are silent on the matter.

    Election integrity groups scouring voter files often mistake a living voter for a deceased voter if they have similar names, birthdays or hometowns, resulting in false fraud claims, said Jason Roberts, a political science professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

    “You might think it’s weird that someone with the same name and the same date of birth died, but it’s actually not that strange when you think about a 350 million person country,” Roberts said. “It happens a lot.”

    There are occasional instances of voter fraud by impersonating a dead person. For example, a Las Vegas man admitted voting his dead wife’s ballot in 2020 and received a fine and probation for the crime. A Pennsylvania man who pleaded guilty to voting his dead mother’s ballot in 2020 was sentenced to five years of probation.

    However, Roberts said, only a handful of people try this type of fraud each election, making it “very, very rare.”

    ___

    The AP is answering your questions about elections in this series. Submit them at FactCheck@AP.org. Read more here:

    How are mail-in and absentee ballots verified?

    Am I allowed to drop off a ballot for someone else?

    Can noncitizens vote in U.S. elections?

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How are mail-in and absentee ballots verified?

    How are mail-in and absentee ballots verified?

    [ad_1]

    How are mail-in and absentee ballots verified?

    Whether a state requires voters to request an absentee ballot or participates in universal mail-in voting, all ballots cast by mail or dropped off at a drop box are vetted to ensure their legitimacy.

    Election officials log every mail ballot so voters cannot request more than one. Those ballots also are logged when they are returned, checked against registration records and, in many cases, voter signatures are on file to ensure the voter assigned to the ballot is the one who cast it.

    Still, mail ballots are one of the most frequent targets of misinformation around voting, despite fraud being rare.

    Different states have different ballot verification protocols. All states require a voter’s signature, while some states have additional precautions, like having bipartisan teams compare that signature to a signature on file, requiring the signature to be notarized or requiring a witness to sign.

    In Arkansas, you must return proof of voter registration or a copy of your ID with the ballot. In states including Georgia, Minnesota and Ohio, you have to submit your driver’s license number or state ID card number, which will be compared with voter registration records before your vote is counted.

    In states that require voters to submit applications to receive absentee ballots, the application typically includes several pieces of identifying information to ensure you are who you say you are. In some cases, that includes a copy of your photo ID.

    In almost every state, mailed ballots can be tracked online through a unique bar code on the envelope, allowing voters to watch the movement of their ballot until it is counted. Ballot security features and ballot sorting at election offices help weed out any counterfeits, though election officials say fake ballots have not been a problem in U.S. elections. A Georgia investigation into allegations of counterfeit ballots in the 2020 election found no evidence to back up the claims.

    Secure ballot drop boxes are placed in public locations and emptied only by trained election staff, to prevent anyone else from tampering with the votes inside.

    As with other forms of election fraud, harsh penalties for voter fraud by mailed ballot act as another deterrent. Depending on the circumstance, voter fraud charges can result in a fine, prison time or both.

    Despite widespread claims of mail-in and absentee ballot fraud, the reality is it’s exceedingly rare. The Brennan Center for Justice in 2017 ranked the risk of ballot fraud at 0.00004% to 0.0009%, based on studies of past elections.

    Meanwhile, a May 2022 Associated Press survey of states that allowed the use of drop boxes in the 2020 presidential election found no cases of fraud, vandalism or theft involving drop boxes that could have affected the results.

    ___

    The AP is answering your questions about elections in this series. Submit them at FactCheck@AP.org.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Jan. 6 Capitol riot committee won’t let Trump turn testimony into a ‘circus,’ Cheney says

    Jan. 6 Capitol riot committee won’t let Trump turn testimony into a ‘circus,’ Cheney says

    [ad_1]

    Representative Liz Cheney, a Republican from Wyoming, during a hearing of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the US Capitol in Washington, D.C., US, on Thursday, July 21, 2022.

    Al Drago | Bloomberg | Getty Images

    The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol subpoenaed former President Donald Trump Friday, and Vice Chairwoman Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., said Trump will not be able to turn his testimony into a “circus.”

    “The committee treats this matter with great seriousness,” she told NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday. “It may take multiple days, and it will be done with a level of rigor and discipline and seriousness that it deserves.”

    The committee voted unanimously on the subpoena and is demanding relevant records and Trump’s testimony under oath next month.

    “We recognize that a subpoena to a former president is a significant and historic action,” the panel’s leaders wrote Trump in a letter on Friday. Committee Chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., and Cheney cited what they called Trump’s central role in a deliberate, “multi-part effort” to reverse his loss in the 2020 presidential election.

    The subpoena said that Trump would be deposed on Nov. 14, after the midterm elections. It is not clear whether he will comply.

    Former White House aide Stephen Bannon was sentenced to four months in jail earlier Friday for refusing to comply with subpoenas from the same committee. He remains free pending appeal.

    Cheney said the committee has made it clear what Trump’s obligations are, and that it plans to proceed accordingly.

    “This isn’t going to be his first debate against Joe Biden and the circus and the food fight that that became,” she said. “This is a far too serious set of issues.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Jan. 6 trial highlights missed warnings before Capitol siege

    Jan. 6 trial highlights missed warnings before Capitol siege

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — In a telephone call days after the 2020 election, Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes urged followers to go to Washington and fight to keep President Donald Trump in office.

    A concerned member of the extremist group began recording because, as he would later tell jurors in the current seditious conspiracy trial of Rhodes and four associates, it sounded as if they were “going to war against the United States government.”

    That Oath Keeper contacted the FBI, but his tip was filed away. He was only interviewed after Rhodes’ followers stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

    The defendants are charged with plotting to stop the transfer of presidential power, and their trial is raising more questions about intelligence failures in the days before the riot that appear to have allowed Rhodes’ anti-government group and other extremists to mobilize in plain sight.

    “You don’t have to have been invited to a secret meeting of the Oath Keepers … to know that the Oath Keepers presented a threat,” said Mike German, a former FBI agent and fellow with the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty & National Security Program.

    It’s unclear to what extent authorities were tracking Rhodes and his militia group before Jan. 6. But it has since become apparent that authorities had plenty of intelligence warning that some Trump supporters were planning an assault to stop the certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s victory.

    Despite that, police left unprepared on the front lines were quickly overwhelmed by the mob that engaged in hand-to-hand combat with officers, smashed windows and poured into the Capitol.

    Additional details emerged this month when the House committee investigating the attack disclosed messages showing that the Secret Service was aware of plans for Jan. 6 violence.

    Jurors in the Washington trial, which is expected to last several more weeks, have received a trove of evidence from prosecutors. That includes Rhodes’ secretly recorded call on Nov. 9, 2020, encrypted messages and surveillance footage from the Virginia hotel where the Oath Keepers stashed weapons for a “quick reaction force” that could quickly run guns into the capital if they were needed.

    Much of the evidence, however, has come in the form of statements and writings that Rhodes made publicly in the weeks before Jan. 6. They show how the former U.S. Army paratrooper and Yale Law School graduate was openly broadcasting his desire to overturn the election and threatening possible violence to attain that goal.

    Days after the election on Nov. 3, 2020, Rhodes announced on conspiracy theorist Alex Jones’ “Infowars” show that his group was already mobilizing to stop the transfer of power.

    “We have men already stationed outside of D.C. as a nuclear option in case they attempt to remove the president illegally, we will step in and stop it,” Rhodes said.

    Jurors also watched video of a speech Rhodes gave in December 2020 in Washington, where thousands of Trump supporters came to rally behind the then-president’s election lies. Rhodes urged Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act, which gives presidents wide discretion to decide when military force is necessary, to call up a militia and “drop the hammer” on the “traitors.”

    “He needs to know from you that you are with him, that if he does not do it now while he is commander in chief, we’re going to have to it ourselves later, in a much more desperate, much more bloody war. Let’s get it on now while he is still commander in chief,” Rhodes told the crowd.

    That day, Rhodes attracted the attention of a U.S. Capitol Police special agent who was doing counter-surveillance monitoring and had recently read a news article about the group. Rhodes was wearing a black cowboy hat, an eyepatch and an expired congressional badge from when he was a staffer for then-U.S. Rep. Ron Paul in the late 1990s. The agent took a photo and sent it to colleagues. Rhodes was also wearing a black cowboy as he roamed the exterior of the Capitol building as Oath Keepers entered on Jan. 6.

    Two weeks before the Capitol riot, Rhodes published an open letter to Trump on the Oath Keepers’ website, suggesting that his followers may need to “take to arms” if Trump doesn’t act over what he viewed as a stolen election.

    Rhodes and his associates are the first Jan. 6 defendants to stand trial on seditious conspiracy charges. On trial with Rhodes are Thomas Caldwell of Berryville, Virginia; Kenneth Harrelson of Titusville, Florida; Jessica Watkins of Woodstock, Ohio; and Kelly Meggs of Dunnellon, Florida.

    Abdullah Rasheed, the Oath Keeper member who recorded Rhodes’ call on Nov. 9, 2020, told jurors that that he tried to reach out to the FBI and others to share his concerns about Rhodes’ rhetoric. When asked whether anyone called him back, Rasheed responded: “Yeah, after it all happened.”

    An FBI agent acknowledged on the stand that the bureau first received a tip about the call in November 2020. Pressed by a defense lawyer about why the FBI didn’t investigate at the time, another agent said the FBI receives thousands of tips a day. The tip wasn’t ignored, but was “filed away for possible future reference,” the agent said.

    The Nov. 9 call appears to have been to discuss plans for a “Stop the Steal” rally in Washington that would happen days later, not the Jan. 6 insurrection. But Rhodes throughout the meeting repeatedly tells his followers to prepare for violence, instructing them at one point to make sure Trump knows they are “willing to die for this country.”

    Defense lawyers are not challenging many of the facts in the case, but say prosecutors have twisted the defendants’ intent. The lawyers have acknowledged the group had a “quick reaction force” stationed outside of Washington, but say it was a defensive force to be used only in the event of attacks from left-wing antifa activists or if Trump invoked the Insurrection Act.

    The defense team has hammered on prosecutors’ lack of evidence of any specific plan to attack the Capitol before Jan. 6. Rhodes’ lawyers say their client will testify that all his actions were in anticipation of Trump calling up a militia under the Insurrection Act. Trump never did that, but Rhodes’ lawyers say what prosecutors have alleged is seditious conspiracy was merely lobbying a president to use a U.S. law.

    Prosecutors recently showed jurors jurors a map pointing to where Rhodes made several stops to purchase guns and other gear on his trip from Texas to Washington before the riot. He spent thousands of dollars on weapons, including a AR-rifle, ammunition, sights, mounts and other items, according to records shown to jurors.

    Rhodes and the others are not charged with violating gun laws. Authorities have acknowledged there is no evidence that any of the weapons stashed at the Virginia hotel that housed the “quick reaction force” were brought into the District of Columbia.

    “So the armed rebellion was unarmed?” defense lawyer James Bright asked an agent.

    “The armed rebellion was not over,” the agent responded.

    _____

    Richer reported from Boston. Associated Press reporter Michael Kunzelman contributed to this report.

    ___

    For full coverage of the Capitol riot, go to https://www.apnews.com/capitol-siege

    [ad_2]

    Source link