ReportWire

Tag: iab-law

  • German man accused of spying for Russia | CNN

    German man accused of spying for Russia | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A German national who worked for a government agency that equips the German armed forces, has been arrested on suspicion of spying for Russia, the German Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office said in a statement Wednesday.

    The man was employed the Federal Office of Bundeswehr Equipment, Information Technology and In-Service Support– and is alleged to have passed information to the Russian intelligence service, the federal prosecutor’s office said.

    “The defendant is strongly suspected of having worked for a foreign intelligence service,” it added. “Starting in May 2023, he approached the Russian Consulate General in Bonn and the Russian Embassy in Berlin several times on his own initiative and offered cooperation.”

    “On one occasion, he passed on information he had obtained in the course of his professional activities for the purpose of forwarding it to a Russian intelligence service,” the statement said.

    The man was arrested in the western Germany city of Koblenz and as part of the investigation, his and workplace were searched. An arrest warrant was issued by a Federal Supreme Court judge on July 27, 2023, the federal prosecutor’s office said.

    “The investigation was conducted in close cooperation with the Federal Military Counter-Intelligence Service and the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution,” the federal prosecutor’s office said.

    The man was brought before the Federal Supreme Court investigating judge on Wednesday. The judge ordered that he be remanded in custody, the federal prosecutor’s office said.

    The Federal Office of Bundeswehr Equipment, Information Technology and In-Service Support has almost 12,000 people working for it, including 18,000 soldiers, according to Reuters.

    In December, a German citizen who worked for the country’s foreign intelligence service was arrested on charges of spying for Russia.

    It comes after a large expulsion of Russian diplomats, many of whom are alleged to be operating as spies, from European countries last year following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • NYT: Architect of Trump fake electors plot thought SCOTUS would ‘likely’ reject plan, but pushed ahead anyway | CNN Politics

    NYT: Architect of Trump fake electors plot thought SCOTUS would ‘likely’ reject plan, but pushed ahead anyway | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    An internal Trump campaign memo from December 2020, made public Tuesday by The New York Times, reveals new details about how the campaign initiated its plan to subvert the Electoral College process and install fake GOP electors in multiple states after losing the 2020 presidential election.

    In the December 6, 2020, memo, pro-Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro laid out the plan to put forth slates of Republican electors in seven key swing states that then-President Donald Trump lost. The memo then outlines how then-Vice President Mike Pence, while presiding over the Electoral College certification on January 6, 2021, should declare “that it is his constitutional power and duty, alone, as President of the Senate, to both open and count the votes” from the GOP electors.

    Chesebro conceded in the memo that this idea was a “controversial” long shot that would “likely” be rejected by the Supreme Court – but nonetheless promoted the strategy. He wrote that despite the legal dubiousness, “letting matters play out this way would guarantee that public attention would be riveted on the evidence of electoral abuses by the Democrats and would also buy the Trump campaign more time to win litigation that would deprive Biden of electoral votes and/or add to Trump’s column.”

    The fake electors scheme has become an integral part of the recent federal indictment against Trump, which alleges the plot took shape after it became clear that efforts to convince state officials to not certify Joe Biden’s victories would be unsuccessful.

    CNN previously reported that the scheme was overseen by Trump campaign officials and led by Rudy Giuliani. Chesebro, who authored the newly released memo, is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Trump indictment and was described by prosecutors as “an attorney who assisted in devising and attempting to implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding.” He has not been charged with any crimes.

    According to Trump’s January 6-related indictment and previous CNN reporting, there were multiple planning calls between Trump campaign officials and GOP state operatives, and Giuliani participated in at least one call. The Trump campaign lined up supporters to fill elector slots, secured meeting rooms for the fake electors to meet on December 14, 2020, and circulated drafts of fake certificates that they later signed.

    At the time, their actions were largely dismissed as an elaborate political cosplay. But it eventually became clear that this was part of an orchestrated plan.

    “Under the plan, the submission of these fraudulent slates would create a fake controversy at the certification proceeding and position the Vice President-presiding on January 6 as President of the Senate to supplant legitimate electors with the Defendant’s fake electors and certify the Defendant as president,” the indictment states.

    Prosecutors say Chesebro told Guiliani – both identified in the indictment only as co-conspirator 5 and co-conspirator 1, respectively – that he had been told by state-level operatives that “it could appear treasonous for the AZ electors to vote on Monday if there is no pending court proceeding.”

    “I recognize that what I suggest is a bold, controversial strategy, and that there are many reasons why it might not end up being executed on Jan. 6,” Chesebro wrote in the December 6 memo, despite pushing the idea and outlining a plan in the days to come. “But as long as it is one possible option, to preserve it as a possibility it is important that the Trump-Pence electors cast their electoral votes on Dec. 14.”

    That is ultimately what ended up happening on December 14, 2020.

    Many of the fake GOP electors who signed the phony certificates that day have since come under legal scrutiny: The fake electors from Michigan are facing state-level felony charges for forgery and publishing a counterfeit record, and many of the fake electors from Georgia are targets of the 2020-related criminal probe in Fulton County.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • A day of legal action in Trump imbroglio previews a chaotic 2024 election year | CNN Politics

    A day of legal action in Trump imbroglio previews a chaotic 2024 election year | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A whirl of developments in a quartet of cases in four separate cities encapsulate the vast legal quagmire swamping Donald Trump and threatening to overwhelm the entire 2024 presidential campaign.

    But Monday’s hectic lawyering was just a tame preview of next year when the ex-president and current Republican front-runner may be constantly shuttling between courtroom criminal trials and the campaign trail.

    A day of legal intrigue brought revelations, judgments, disputes and filings in cases related to Trump’s bid to overturn the 2020 election, the classified documents case, efforts to thwart Joe Biden’s win in Georgia, and even in a defamation case dating back to Trump’s personal behavior toward women in the 1990s.

    It’s already almost impossible for voters who may be asked to decide whether Trump is fit for a return to the Oval Office – or at least to carry the GOP banner into the election – to keep pace with all the competing legal twists and the scale of his plight.

    A confusing fog in which all the cases blend together could work to the former president’s advantage as he seeks a White House comeback while proclaiming he’s a victim of political persecution by the Biden administration.

    But the deeper his legal mire gets, Trump’s rivals for the GOP nomination are getting braver in suggesting that his fight against becoming a convicted felon could be a general election liability. Trump’s dominance in the GOP primary has been boosted from his criminal indictments to date. But the sheer volume of cases unfolding alongside his campaign is increasingly daunting.

    In Washington, Trump’s lawyers just beat a deadline to file a brief in a dispute over the handling of evidence ahead of a trial in the election subversion case, and accused the government of seeking to muzzle his voice as he runs for a new White House term.

    In another glimpse into the breadth of special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation that could prove troubling to the ex-president, CNN exclusively reported that Trump ally Bernie Kerik, the former New York City police commissioner, met Smith’s investigators for an interview on Monday. The discussion focused on what Trump’s former attorney and Kerik’s associate, Rudy Giuliani – otherwise known as Co-Conspirator 1 – did to try to convince the former president he actually won the 2020 election. The question will be a key one when the case finally comes to trial.

    Trump’s tough day in the courts had opened with a judge in Manhattan throwing out his defamation counter suit against E. Jean Carroll, which he did in stark language that recalled the ex-president’s loss in an earlier civil trial in which the jury found he sexually abused the writer.

    Then, in a surprise move in West Palm Beach, Florida, the Trump-appointed judge who will oversee his classified documents trial asked lawyers for co-defendant Walt Nauta to comment on the legality of prosecutors using a Washington grand jury to keep investigating. The fact the probe is still active despite several indictments is hardly a good sign for Trump. And Judge Aileen Cannon’s move revived debate over whether she was favoring the ex-president’s team following criticism of her earlier handling of a dispute over documents taken from Trump’s home in an FBI search.

    There were also new signs in Atlanta that indictments could be imminent in a probe into efforts to steal Biden’s election win in the key state, as it emerged that ex-Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan, a Republican and CNN political contributor, has been subpoenaed to testify to a grand jury.

    All of this frenzied activity unfolding on one day represents just a snapshot of the complex legal morass now surrounding Trump. It’s just a taste of the enormous strain the ex-president is about to feel as he campaigns for a return to the Oval Office. The crush of cases will also impose increasing financial demands. Already, Trump’s leadership PAC has been diverting cash raised from small-dollar donors to pay legal fees for the former president and associates that might instead have gone toward the 2024 campaign.

    In several of the cases on Monday, there were signs of the extraordinary complications inherent in prosecuting a former president and the front-runner for the Republican nomination. Judges, for instance, are faced with decisions that would normally go unnoticed by the public in the court system but that will now attract a glaring media and political spotlight.

    And while Monday was notable for a head-spinning sequence of legal maneuvering, it did not even encompass all of the pending cases against Trump. He is also due to go on trial in March – in the middle of the GOP primary season – in a case arising from a hush money payment to an adult film star. As with his other indictments, Trump has pleaded not guilty.

    For all his capacity to operate in the eye of converging storms of scandal and controversy, Trump’s mood is becoming increasingly agitated. In recent days he has attacked Smith, the Justice Department, the judge in the election subversion case, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell, and even the US national women’s soccer team after they crashed out of the World Cup on penalties.

    One of Trump’s most incendiary posts on his Truth Social network was at the center of one of Monday’s legal dramas – wrangling between Smith’s prosecutors and Trump’s lawyers over the handling of evidence at the center of the forthcoming trial.

    Prosecutors cited Trump writing on his Truth Social network on Friday, “If you go after me, I’m coming after you!” in a filing that requested strict rules on how he could use evidence that will be turned over to the defense as part of the pre-trial discovery process. Trump’s lawyers had asked for an extension to Monday’s deadline, but Judge Tanya Chutkan refused, in a fresh sign of her possible willingness to schedule a swift trial, which the ex-president wants to delay until after the 2024 election.

    In its brief, the defense proposed narrower rules than those sought by prosecutors. Spats over discovery aren’t unusual early in a trial process. But Trump’s filing added insight into how his team will approach a case in which he has pleaded not guilty.

    “In a trial about First Amendment rights, the government seeks to restrict First Amendment rights,” the attorneys said in the court filing.

    When it comes to Smith’s indictment, Trump’s lawyers are arguing that he was within his rights to claim the election was stolen. Smith’s strategy is, however, apparently designed to avoid a First Amendment trap, and alleges that the criminal activity occurred not in what Trump said, but in actions like the ex-president’s pressure on local officials over the election and on former Vice President Mike Pence to delay its certification.

    The Trump team’s filing went on to claim that the case was in itself an example of political victimization of their client, underscoring the fusion between his courtroom defense and his presidential campaign.

    “Worse, it does so against its administration’s primary political opponent, during an election season in which the administration, prominent party members, and media allies have campaigned on the indictment and proliferated its false allegations,” the filing said.

    In a Monday night order, Chutkan signaled she would hold a hearing this week on the dispute and told the parties to come up with, by 3 p.m. Tuesday, two options for when such a hearing could be held this week.

    Any prolonged debate over the terms of the pre-discovery process – let alone the many other expected pre-trial motions – will play into the hands of the defense. Trump is showing every sign that part of his motivation in running for a second White House term is to reacquire executive powers that could lead to federal cases against him being frozen. The timing of the January 6, 2021, case, and any potential conviction, is therefore hugely significant with a general election looming in November 2024.

    Trump has called for the recusal of Chutkan, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama. His legal team has called for a shift of trial venue away from the diverse US capital, potentially to West Virginia, one of the Whitest and most pro-Trump states in the nation. These pre-trial gambits are unlikely to succeed. But they help to create extreme pressure on the judge and to build a case for Trump supporters that the legal process is biased against him – a narrative that could provide especially inflammatory if he is eventually convicted.

    Trump’s rhetoric about the case has raised some concerns about the possibility of witness intimidation – especially as some of his supporters who were tried for their part in the mob attack on the US Capitol on January 6, have testified that they were spurred to action by his rhetoric.

    CNN observed increased security around Chutkan on Monday. Security is also increased around the Superior Court in Fulton County, Georgia, where a decision is expected in days on whether to hit Trump with a fourth criminal indictment.

    Any normal political candidate would have seen their political ambitions crushed by even one of the cases in Trump’s bulging portfolio of legal jeopardy. It is, however, a sign of the ex-president’s extraordinary and unbroken hold on the Republican Party and its voters that he is still the runaway front-runner in the primary.

    But one of his top rivals, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, is slowly becoming more willing to criticize Trump publicly, after being cautious about alienating Trump supporters who feel the ex-president is the victim of a political witch hunt. DeSantis told NBC that “of course” Trump lost the 2024 election, as he blitzes early voting states New Hampshire and Iowa and makes the case that the ex-president’s legal exposure is a distraction the GOP cannot afford if it is to oust Biden from the White House after a single term. It may seem absurd that DeSantis is risking his political career by stating the obvious truth about the 2020 election, but Trump has made signing up to his false reality a test of loyalty among base voters.

    And Pence, who rejected Trump’s public pressure to thwart the certification of Biden’s election – a scheme at the center of Smith’s case – indicated over the weekend that he may testify in Trump’s trial if required to do so by law.

    The spectacle of a former vice presidential running mate testifying against the man who picked him for his ticket would be an extreme twist even in the Trump era of shattered political conventions.

    Thanks to Trump’s unfathomable and widening legal nightmare, nothing about the 2024 election is going to be anywhere near normal.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump argues against more restrictive rules over evidence in 2020 election interference case | CNN Politics

    Trump argues against more restrictive rules over evidence in 2020 election interference case | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Former President Donald Trump’s legal team has proposed narrower rules than those sought by prosecutors over what he can do with evidence he is provided in the criminal election interference case.

    In a new court filing on Monday, Trump’s lawyers leaned heavily into claims that special counsel prosecutors are on a politically motivated campaign to restrict his First Amendment rights.

    “In a trial about First Amendment rights, the government seeks to restrict First Amendment rights,” the attorneys said in the court filing. “Worse, it does so against its administration’s primary political opponent, during an election season in which the administration, prominent party members, and media allies have campaigned on the indictment and proliferated its false allegations.”

    Prosecutors have proposed a more restrictive protective order over evidence in the case, pointing to Trump’s public statements that they say could have a “harmful chilling effect on witnesses or adversely affect the fair administration of justice in this case.”

    The latest filing shows that prosecutors and Trump’s lawyers are in disagreement over the most granular details of the so-called protective order, a type of order that can usually be issued in a case without much drama.

    The Justice Department previously hasn’t asked for any special protections over records Trump’s team already has that may relate to the case, or information that’s already publicly available.

    Smith’s and Trump’s teams have also fought bitterly in court filings over the schedule for resolving the dispute over the rules.

    Trump’s new submission to US District Judge Tanya Chutkan – who rejected his weekend bid to push back the deadline for his response to the prosecutors’ proposal – pointed to comments from President Joe Biden and even a meme posted on his Twitter account that Trump’s lawyers claim show how Biden has “capitalized on the indictment.”

    Trump’s lawyers acknowledged in the filing that there was a need to keep private certain classes of evidence handed over to him in the case, suggesting that – despite the tone of their submission – their position was not actually that far apart from what prosecutors recommended.

    “However, the need to protect that information does not require a blanket gag order over all documents produced by the government,” the Trump filing said. “Rather, the Court can, and should, limit its protective order to genuinely sensitive materials – a less restrictive alternative that would satisfy any government interest in confidentiality while preserving the First Amendment rights of President Trump and the public.”

    Among the changes to the Smith team proposal that Trump is asking for is a narrowing of what would be considered “sensitive” discovery materials in the case – a subset of documents for which prosecutors are seeking stricter disclosure rules. The former president also wants to expand who can access certain evidentiary materials, so to include people not being employed to work on Trump’s case, such as volunteers.

    Trump’s lawyers also recommended changes to procedures for establishing how non-public evidence will be dealt with during pre-trial proceedings, as well as in trial.

    Prosecutors in a criminal case can seek a protective order from a court to prevent defendants from speaking publicly about sensitive and confidential information produced during discovery in the case.

    The government usually asks for such orders to ensure other individuals involved in a case – like witnesses – won’t be potentially subjected to undue pressure by defendants in a case. Such orders also often hew to federal rules that limit what can be made public from a grand jury proceeding and under what circumstances that information can be disclosed. Requests for the orders are routine, and judges typically issue them in both criminal and civil cases.

    Unlike protective orders, which tend to be narrow in scope, a gag order prevents a defendant from talking publicly about a pending case. These orders are seen more often in high-profile cases but are still less common than protective orders due to the constitutional concerns surrounding them.

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Two Israelis arrested after Palestinian man killed in West Bank | CNN

    Two Israelis arrested after Palestinian man killed in West Bank | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Two Israelis have been arrested for questioning and five others detained following the reported killing of a Palestinian man in the West Bank, Israel Police said in a statement Saturday.

    It is rare for Israeli settlers to be arrested for attacks on Palestinians in the occupied West Bank. They are almost never prosecuted, even if arrested.

    A Palestinian man was shot and killed by Israeli settlers in the village of Burqa, near Ramallah in the occupied West Bank, the Palestinian Ministry of Health said late Friday.

    It is the first accusation from the Ministry that settlers have killed a Palestinian villager since February, and the second this year, although both Palestinian officials and international observers regularly document violence by settlers against Palestinians.

    The ministry said Qusai Jamal Maatan, 19, was fatally shot in the neck by Israeli settlers during an attack on his village. Two others were injured, according to the ministry.

    Maatan was buried Saturday morning.

    The IDF said in a statement that they arrived after reports of “violent clashes between Israeli civilians and Palestinians,” and that “it was reported that during the clashes, Israeli civilians shot toward the Palestinians and as a result, there was a Palestinian casualty.”

    The IDF also said Israeli civilians were reportedly injured by rocks hurled at them.

    There was no immediate comment from the Shomron (Samaria) Council, which represents settlers in the northern West Bank and would not normally issue a statement on Shabbat.

    A legal aid group that defends settlers said Saturday that the settler who shot the Palestinian was acting in self-defense after Palestinian villagers began harassing an Israeli shepherd.

    Honenu, the legal group, said the incident began when Palestinians from Burqa threatened the shepherd from Oz Zion – a settler outpost – which is illegal not only under international law but under Israeli law.

    The shepherd called other settlers “to prevent deterioration,” Honenu said, after which dozens of Palestinians attacked them with clubs, fireworks and rocks.

    One of the settlers was hit in the head with a rock “at point blank range and was seriously injured,” according to Honenu, and he managed to defend himself with a licensed gun he was carrying.

    He is currently in intensive care following an operation at Shaare Zedek hospital in Jerusalem, and under arrest, Honenu said.

    The second Israeli settler who was arrested helped transport him to the hospital, Honenu said.

    Honenu attorney Nati Rom said: “My client acted according to the law, and as is required of any licensed firearm holder – to protect his life and the lives of other civilians.”

    A statement released by the Israeli military said both Israelis and Palestinians threw stones in the West Bank confrontation.
    The army has imposed a closed military zone on the area while investigations by Israel Police and the Shin Bet security agency (ISA) are ongoing.

    The US State Department qualified the incident as a “terror attack”.

    In a statement released on Twitter, now known as X, it said: “We strongly condemn yesterday’s terror attack by Israeli extremist settlers that killed a 19-year old Palestinian.”

    “The US extends our deepest sympathies to his family and loved ones. We note Israeli officials have made several arrests and we urge full accountability and justice.”

    The Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates strongly condemned attacks by what they referred to as “organized and armed terrorist settler militias” against unarmed Palestinian citizens in Burqa.

    The ministry expressed concern over the lack of real punishment for attacks by settlers on Palestinian villagers, saying the incidents have emboldened settlers to commit further crimes. The ministry accused Israeli government ministers and their followers of incitement.

    The coalition government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu includes two parties primarily supported by settlers, Israelis who live in the West Bank in order to cement the country’s hold on the Palestinian territory. Settlements are considered illegal under international law. Israeli asserts the West Bank is “disputed,” not “occupied,” and denies that the settlements are illegal.

    The United Nations warned last month of a dramatic rise in West Bank settler attacks on Palestinian people and property, with nearly 600 such incidents registered during the first half of the year.

    The UN humanitarian agency OCHA said it had recorded 591 settler-related incidents in the territory in the first six months of 2023, resulting in Palestinian casualties, property damage, or both.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump heads to South Carolina after a week filled with his legal drama | CNN Politics

    Trump heads to South Carolina after a week filled with his legal drama | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Former President Donald Trump is set to visit South Carolina on Saturday, wrapping up a week that has been defined by his historic third indictment.

    Trump’s Saturday trip to the early-primary state – he’ll visit Columbia, South Carolina, for the state GOP’s Silver Elephant Dinner – follows a Friday night stop in Alabama. The two were his first campaign events after his arraignment Thursday in Washington,DC, in special prosecutor Jack Smith’s investigation into his efforts to remain in the White House despite losing the 2020 election to President Joe Biden.

    In Montgomery on Friday night, Trump conflated his actions in seeking to overturn the 2020 election with those of Democrats, including Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Stacey Abrams after the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election, in the wake of their losses. He said he faces “bogus charges.”

    He also said if he is elected in 2024, he would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Biden’s family.

    “When they indicted their political opponent and they did that, I said, well, now the gloves are off,” Trump said of Biden. “The Republicans better get tough, and they better get smart, because most of them look like a bunch of weak jerks right now. … You have to fight fire with fire. You can’t allow this to go on.”

    Trump’s campaign on Friday went on the attack against the prosecutors who have brought cases against or are investigating the former president. It released a video attacking those prosecutors one day after Trump was arrested and arraigned for a third time.

    The video attacks Smith, New York Attorney General Letitia James, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis, dubbing the group the “Fraud Squad.”

    “Meet the cast of unscrupulous accomplices he’s assembled to get Trump,” the narrator says in the video of Biden.

    The video also uses footage of Biden falling off his bike and tripping up the stairs to Air Force One.

    Lashing out over the costs of defending himself and his allies in myriad legal battles, Trump also called for the Supreme Court to “intercede.”

    “CRAZY! My political opponent has hit me with a barrage of weak lawsuits, including D.A., A.G., and others, which require massive amounts of my time & money to adjudicate,” Trump complained on Truth Social. “Resources that would have gone into Ads and Rallies, will now have to be spent fighting these Radical Left Thugs in numerous courts throughout the Country. I am leading in all Polls, including against Crooked Joe, but this is not a level playing field. It is Election Interference, & the Supreme Court must intercede.”

    His campaign has used the legal proceedings as a fundraising tool, hauling in small-dollar donations.

    “Trump is in THE AIR!” his campaign said in an email to supporters Thursday. “Before he arrives at the courthouse for his hearing, can 10,000 pro-Trump patriots sign on to defend him & end the witch hunt?”

    A handful of GOP presidential candidates, including former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, former Texas Rep. Will Hurd and former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, have criticized Trump’s actions.

    Hurd, on Fox News on Thursday, said that Trump’s court appearance was the “third time in four months in courts. It’s unacceptable, we didn’t have to be here.”

    Former Vice President Mike Pence’s campaign is selling T-shirts and hats branded with the phrase “Too Honest,” referencing a phrase Trump allegedly uttered to Pence when he refused to go along with the then-president’s request to reject electoral votes and change the outcome of the 2020 election.

    According to the federal indictment, in one conversation on January 1, 2021, Trump told Pence he was “too honest” when the then-vice president said that he lacked the authority to change the results.

    After Trump was indicted earlier this week, Pence said that “anyone who puts themselves over the Constitution should never be president” and added that Trump “was surrounded by a group of crackpot lawyers who kept telling him what his itching ears wanted to hear.”

    However, much of the Republican field has so far refused to take aim at Trump over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, which are at the heart of the federal charges he faces in Washington.

    Trump’s top-polling rival, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, on Friday said he would pardon Trump if he is elected in 2024. He also defended the former president, arguing that the laws federal prosecutors say Trump broke were “never intended to apply to this type of situation.”

    The Florida governor, who was campaigning in Iowa, told reporters his candidacy for president would be focused on the future and starting to heal “divisions in this country.”

    DeSantis indicated that he would pardon Trump if he were convicted, echoing comments he recently made on “Outkick” with Clay Travis.

    “I’ve said for many weeks now, I don’t think it’s in the best interest of the country to have a former president – that’s almost 80 years old – go to prison. Just like Nixon or Ford pardoned Nixon, you know, sometimes you got to put this stuff behind you,” he said.

    DeSantis’ comments underscored the reality that most of Trump’s 2024 GOP rivals see little to gain by angering a base that is still largely supportive of the former president.

    South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott on Friday criticized the Justice Department for the “weaponization of their power” in his first on-camera reaction to the third indictment and arraignment of Trump.

    Scott told reporters following an immigration roundtable event in Yuma, Arizona, he believes DOJ spends “a lot of time hunting Republicans” while protecting Democrats, specifically referencing the president’s son Hunter Biden.

    “My perspective is that the DOJ continues to weaponize their power against political opponents. It seems like they spend a lot of time protecting Hunter Biden and Democrats and a lot of time hunting Republicans,” Scott said.

    The most recent polls show that Trump remains the clear front-runner in the 2024 GOP primary. A poll of likely Republican caucusgoers in Iowa from The New York Times/Siena College released Friday showed Trump with 44% support, compared to DeSantis’ 20% and Scott’s 9%, with no other candidate topping 5%.

    His lead is even wider nationally. Trump holds the support of 54% of likely GOP primary voters, a New York Times/Siena College poll released earlier this week found, while DeSantis has 17% support and no other candidate exceeds 3%.

    Just 17% of likely Republican primary voters think that Trump has “committed any serious federal crimes,” and only 10% more say that although they don’t think he committed a serious crime, he “did something wrong in his handling of classified documents.” Three-quarters (75%) say that after the 2020 elections, Trump “was just exercising his right to contest the election,” while only 19% believe he “went so far that he threatened American democracy.” And 71% say that regarding the investigations Trump is facing, Republicans “need to stand behind Trump.”

    The Republican base could be at odds with the broader electorate: Two-thirds of Americans (65%) say that the charges Trump faces over efforts to overturn the 2020 elections are serious, according to a new poll from ABC News and Ipsos conducted after Trump’s latest indictment.

    There are broad partisan gaps in views of the seriousness of the new charges, with 91% of Democrats calling them serious along with 67% of independents, though just 38% of Republicans agree. The gap between Democrats and Republicans widens to 65 points when looking at those who call the charges “very serious” (84% of Democrats feel that way vs. 19% of Republicans; 53% of independents say the same).

    While many of Trump’s rivals are carefully avoiding direct confrontation with the former president, Trump is taking direct aim at DeSantis.

    Top Trump advisers Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita sent an open memo on Thursday attacking DeSantis’ efforts to reboot his campaign.

    “DeSantis’s campaign is marred by idiocy,” the memo reads, as it touts Trump’s lead in polls over his GOP rivals.

    The memo compared DeSantis’ campaign to Sen. John McCain’s 2008 bid and argued both campaigns overspent and didn’t fundraise enough. The late McCain and Trump had a bitter feud for years.

    “John McCain did not spend the opening week of his reboot explaining why his staff produced a video with Nazi imagery, and defending his comments that slavery provided ‘some benefit’ to enslaved Americans – while attacking black Republicans publicly in the process,” the memo reads, referencing several recent missteps DeSantis and his campaign have made.

    Developments on Capitol Hill also underscored that most of the GOP has not abandoned Trump.

    North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis, a member of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s Republican leadership team, on Thursday called on Congress to scrutinize the federal investigation into Trump’s actions.

    Tillis said in a statement that the new indictment carries “a heavy burden” to show that “criminal conduct actually occurred.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • DeSantis appointee to Disney board taught seminar using discredited research claiming White people were slaves in America | CNN Politics

    DeSantis appointee to Disney board taught seminar using discredited research claiming White people were slaves in America | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    An appointee by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to an oversight board of Disney’s special tax district taught a seminar in 2021 falsely claiming “Whites were also slaves in America,” using discredited research to say there was an “Irish slave trade.”

    The comments were made by Ron Peri, one of five people DeSantis appointed earlier this year to oversee the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District to replace the old board after the company spoke out against what critics dubbed the “Don’t Say Gay” law in Florida.

    Peri, an Orlando-based pastor and CEO of a Christian ministry group called The Gathering, made the comments in an hourlong class for his group posted on YouTube about critical race theory called “Cunningly Devised Fables.”

    In other comments Peri spread false claims that Irish slaves were forcibly bred with enslaved Africans. He also said a “significant” number of free Blacks in the antebellum era owned slaves, claims disputed by reputable historians who say the number was minimal. CNN archived Peri’s comments from 2021, which he deleted from YouTube following his appointment to the Disney oversight board.

    The oversight board, previously called the Reedy Creek Improvement District, governed Disney’s sprawling 25,000 acre footprint around Orlando. Created in 1967, its duties include providing services like sewage, fire rescue and road maintenance and issuing debt for infrastructure projects supporting Disney’s theme park empire.

    “Slavery is a moral wrong wherever it exists or existed and is one of America’s great historical wrongs,” Peri told CNN in a statement Tuesday. “Similarly, racism is likewise wrong. I countenance neither to any degree, so the criticism of the belief that thousands of people being held in slavery was significant and a terrible wrong is severely misplaced. Even one person in slavery is egregious and morally reprehensible, regardless of race.”

    The DeSantis administration but did not respond to CNN’s request for comment.

    Peri’s 2021 comments came in the context of him pushing back on claims of “systemic racism” in the United States from past White ownership of slaves.

    “Look at old newspapers, as old as you can find, and you’ll find that Whites were also slaves in America,” said Peri. “The Irish slave trade began when James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the new world. His proclamation of 1625, which you can go back and see, required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies.”

    “By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat,” Peri added. “From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English, and another 300,000 were sold as slaves.”

    “The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion,” Peri added.

    Peri’s claims are based on fabricated material that has circled the Internet over the last two decades and has been the subject of repeated debunkings from news organizations like the New York Times, Reuters, the Associated Press, Snopes, and frustrated historians – many of whom signed an open letter in 2016 disputing the claims.

    Even the article Peri cited as evidence was updated before he used it in the seminar to note it contained a number of factual errors.

    Historians who spoke to CNN said that the research Peri cited is ahistorical and based on invented research: Whites were never considered slaves in America, legally or socially; 300,000 Irish were not sent as slaves to the Americas; English King James II – who Peri cited as issuing the proclamation in 1625 – was not born until 1633 and did not take the throne until 1685. Even then, no proclamations by King James II on Irish slaves exist. The Irish did not “breed” with African slaves, as Peri claimed.

    Irish immigrants in North America and the Caribbean were never considered slaves but were indentured servants, said Matthew Reilly, a professor of anthropology at City College of New York.

    Indentured servitude consisted of a fixed period of time, usually five to seven years, and was not inheritable. Whereas the race-based chattel form of slavery kept enslaved people as property for life and children would inherit their mother’s status.

    “The conditions may have been like that of slavery, but socio-legally, it was a very different form of unfreedom,” said Reilly.

    In another comment, Peri used data attributed to the 1830 census to say the numbers showed a “significant” and “large number” of free Blacks owned slaves. However, the 1830 census data cited by scholars show that out of 2,009,043 slaves in the United States, 3,776 free Blacks owned 12,907 slaves – 0.006%.

    “The justification that they have for it is they claim that systemic racism emanates from White ownership of slaves,” Peri said. “Therefore, all White wealth is based on the hard work and abuse of Black slaves and women. That’s their justification. Well, the reality is all races owned slaves.”

    “A significant number of these free Blacks were the owners of slaves,” Peri added.

    Historians, like esteemed Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., have noted that a large number of those Black slave owners “owned” their own family members to protect them – oftentimes by purchasing a family member. And that pointing to other races owning slaves is a way to minimize the brutal realities of slavery.

    “The vast majority, the overwhelming majority – to the tune of millions of people who were brought from West and West Central Africa to the Americas – they were enslaved. Not people who were perpetrating slavery themselves,” Jenny Shaw, a professor of history at the University of Alabama, told CNN. “There’s a small number who did because they rose up in society and did what society was doing, which was enslaving people.” And that some people of African descent enslaved people because they were family members bringing them into their households with the intent of freeing them.

    Peri’s unearthed comments come amidst the controversy over the Florida Board of Education’s new standards for teaching Black history.

    Peri’s appointment to the Disney oversight board followed a clash between the company and DeSantis over a state law that would restrict certain classroom instruction about sexual orientation and gender identity. While Disney first declined to weigh in publicly on the legislative fight over what critics called the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, then CEO Bob Chapek, under immense pressure from the company’s employees, later changed directions, and shared his concerns with the legislation. Later, after it became law, the company in a statement said it would work to get it repealed.

    However, Peri has also accused Disney in the past of adopting teachings of critical race theory in its company training. The comments touched on another top concern of DeSantis, who sought to ban employers from training workers about privilege and systemic racism when he signed the Stop Woke Act, parts of which were blocked by a federal judge from going into effect.

    “We’re seeing companies embracing CRT,” Peri said in his Zoom. “I’m gonna just share two – Walt Disney you’re quite familiar with. You know, down here in Orlando.”

    DeSantis has faced backlash in recent days over Florida’s board of education approving controversial new standards for teaching Black history in the state, which includes teaching “how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.” DeSantis has defended the state’s curriculum.

    Peri previously faced scrutiny after CNN’s KFile uncovered that the Orlando pastor had suggested tap water turned people gay. Peri disputed that he made the remark during a May 1 Central Florida Tourism Oversight District board meeting, saying from the dais, “I never said that. I don’t believe it, certainly.”

    The latest revelations about Peri’s beliefs come as DeSantis’ conflict with Disney is embroiled in dueling legal challenges. Peri is named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed by Disney, which alleges that the Florida governor has punished the company for exercising its First Amendment rights while describing his hand-picked board as a pawn in his “retribution campaign” against the entertainment giant.

    In its complaint, filed in the United States Circuit Court for the Northern District of Florida, Disney alleged DeSantis picked board members who would “censor Disney’s speech and discipline the Company” and that DeSantis’ action against the company “threatens Disney’s business operations, jeopardizes its economic future in the region, and violates its constitutional rights.”

    Peri, meanwhile, voted with the rest of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District board to sue Disney in state court. In the past week, a Central Florida judge rejected Disney’s request to dismiss the state lawsuit. In the federal case, lawyers for DeSantis have asked the court to delay a trial until after the presidential election while Disney attorneys suggested a timeline that would put the case before jurors next July.

    The board installed by DeSantis has said much of its power was stripped by Disney in an agreement reached before the governor’s appointees took over in February.

    Since then, DeSantis and the board have focused on clawing back authority while threatening to develop the land around Disney – including by building a prison or a competing theme park next to Disney World.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • A Florida man is charged with murder in the death of his wife, whose remains were found in suitcases | CNN

    A Florida man is charged with murder in the death of his wife, whose remains were found in suitcases | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A Florida man has been charged with first-degree murder on suspicion of killing and dismembering his wife, whose remains were found in suitcases at a beach last month, authorities said Thursday.

    William Lowe, who was arrested Wednesday, is accused of killing his 80-year-old wife, Aydil Barbosa Fontes, Delray Beach police Detective Mike Liberta said in a news conference Thursday.

    Investigators allege Lowe, 78, fatally shot Fontes in the head, dismembered her body at their apartment in Delray Beach and placed the remains in suitcases and a tote-like bag before discarding them at their local beach, Liberta said. Authorities believe Fontes was killed sometime between July 17 and July 20, police said previously.

    During his first court appearance Thursday, Lowe pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder and abuse of a dead body, online court records show.

    Marc Shiner, an attorney representing Lowe, told CNN in an email Thursday that Lowe is a “former Marine who honorably served our country.” Shiner added the defendant “is looking forward for the entire truth to come out in the courtroom.”

    Lowe was being held without bond Thursday at Palm Beach County’s jail.

    The investigation started July 21, when police received calls from people reporting seeing suitcases they thought contained human remains at or near the Intracoastal Waterway at Delray Beach, about 9 miles north of Boca Raton, according to a probable cause affidavit.

    The tips led detectives to three suitcases filled with human body parts that day. Police first found one suitcase floating in the water, and shortly after, they found two more suitcases at nearby locations along the beach, police have said.

    A tote-type bag with more remains was found during a search of the waterway the next day, the affidavit reads.

    02 delray beach human remains suitcases

    “This is probably the worst I’ve seen,” Liberta said.

    Video surveillance of the area where the bags were found and witness statements helped police locate the defendant, Liberta said.

    Witnesses told police they saw an older White man apparently look at one of the suitcases, and one witness said the man was there five or six times over a three-day period before authorities found the remains, according to the affidavit.

    Witnesses also told police about a vehicle they’d seen a man with the same description get into near where a suitcase was dumped on the same day police found it, the affidavit states. A detective reported seeing a similar vehicle in the area, and the vehicle’s tag revealed it belonged to Lowe, according to the affidavit.

    Upon questioning, Lowe told police on Monday his wife had been in Brazil for “about three weeks,” according to the document.

    Police searched Lowe’s apartment and spotted large amounts of blood in multiple areas in the home. A search of the suspect’s storage unit revealed a chainsaw police believe was used in the dismembering, Liberta said.

    “Detectives observed blood spatter throughout the residence to include the living room, dining room, hallway, both bathrooms and the master bedroom. Blood was detected in the master bath shower drain as well as the tub of the second bathroom,” the affidavit states.

    Police also saw drag marks in the living room, hallway and master bathroom along with numerous cleaning supplies, the affidavit notes.

    Investigators don’t know of a motive in the killing, Liberta said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Takeaways from the arraignment of Donald Trump in the special counsel’s election subversion case | CNN Politics

    Takeaways from the arraignment of Donald Trump in the special counsel’s election subversion case | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Former President Donald Trump pleaded not guilty in a Washington, DC, federal courthouse Thursday to federal criminal charges stemming from his plots to overturn the 2020 election, in a 27-minute proceeding where the first flashes of the defense’s tactics emerged.

    It was the third occasion that Trump was arraigned on criminal charges this year, and the hearing marked the public debut of the team of lawyers in special counsel Jack Smith’s office who will be leading the prosecution.

    Here are takeaways from the hearing:

    In the classified documents case that Smith has also brought against the former president in June, the Trump team has sought to slow-walk the schedule for the proceedings. There were hints of a similar strategy in the first hearing in the election subversion case.

    Much of Thursday’s hearing was staid and to-script. But the tone sharpened when the judge said the prosecutors should file recommendations for the trial date and length in seven days, and that the Trump team should respond within seven days after that.

    Trump attorney John Lauro told the judge that they would need to look at the amount of evidence they’ll be receiving from the government – which he said could be “massive” — before they could address that question.

    “There is no question in our mind, your honor, that Mr. Trump is entitled to a fair and just trial,” Lauro said, nodding both to Trump’s right to a speedy trial as well as his right to due process.

    Prosecutor Thomas Windom previewed that the special counsel would propose this case unfolding under a normal timeline under the Speedy Trial Act, which sets a time limit – unless certain exemptions are sought – for criminal cases to go to trial.

    Judge Tanya Chutkan intends to schedule a trial date at an August 28 hearing, a magistrate judge said Thursday. Before the trial, Chutkan may need to preside over disputes over whether the case should be dismissed to do legal flaws, when the trial should start and what evidence can be presented to a jury.

    Trump may argue that a trial should wait until after the 2024 election, an argument his legal team made unsuccessfully in the classified documents case, and his lawyers have also previewed efforts to seek a change of venue for the case, with claims that the DC jury pool is politically biased against the former president and 2024 Republican front-runner.

    There’s likely to be more added to the pile of legal problems on the former president’s plate.

    In Georgia, in the coming weeks, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is expected to bring charges in her election subversion probe and it’s possible that Trump will be indicted in that.

    And then there’s the other case from Smith alleging Trump mishandled classified documents from his White House and then obstructed the probe into the materials. That case is currently scheduled to go trial next May, and there will be regular pre-trial proceedings (at which, Trump is not required to appear) before that. There’s also the criminal case that Manhattan prosecutors brought against Trump for a 2016 campaign hush money scheme, currently slated for trial in March.

    Additionally there’s number of civil lawsuits he faces, including a second defamation case brought by E. Jean Carroll, well as the New York attorney general’s civil fraud case against his family and businesses.

    This court calendar is overlaid against his 2024 campaign schedule as well. The first Republican presidential debate, for instance, is on August 23.

    Though Trump will not be required to appear in court for hearings on pre-trial matters, he may seek to do so, if he embraces a strategy of making a spectacle out of the election subversion case. Speaking on the airport tarmac, Trump made brief remarks that the prosecution was political after Thursday’s hearing, and he routinely fundraises off of every new development putting him in deeper legal trouble.

    Thursday marked the public debut of the Smith team that will handle the election subversion prosecution. (Some of the special counsel lawyers who are leading the classified documents case were previously involved in the public proceedings stemming from the lawsuit Trump filed last year challenging the FBI’s search of Mar-a-Lago).

    Smith himself attended the hearing, as he did for Trump’s first appearance in the classified documents case in Florida earlier this year. As the courtroom waited for the hearing to start, Smith and Trump occasionally looked over at one another – Smith looking towards Trump more often than Trump looked over to him.

    Windom – who moved from the US attorney’s office in Maryland to play a central role in the federal election subversion investigation, spoke on behalf of the government Thursday. Also at the prosecutors’ table was Molly Gaston, an alum of the DC US attorney’s public integrity section, which handles some of the most politically sensitive cases for the Justice Department.

    Gaston was a lead prosecutor on last year’s contempt of Congress case against ex-Trump adviser Steve Bannon, and also worked on the prosecutions of Rick Gates – a former Trump campaign aide – and Paul Manafort, Trump’s 2016 campaign chairman. Gaston was also present in the courtroom Tuesday when the foreperson of the grand jury for the 2020 election probe returned the indictment against Trump.

    Trump was represented by Lauro and Todd Blanche at Thursday’s hearing. Lauro is a relatively recent addition to the Trump legal team and is handling the 2020-election related matters.

    Blanche, meanwhile, has been across several Trump cases. He is representing Trump in Smith’s classified documents prosecution as well is in the 2016 campaign hush money case brought by Manhattan’s district attorney.

    Evan Corcoran, who has not formally entered an appearance in the case, attended the hearing, sitting on the row in the courtroom well behind the defense table.

    Lauro did the talking for the defense at Thursday’s hearing. He’s also made himself a prominent defender of the former president in the public arena, with multiple appearance in recent days on CNN and other networks.

    While the defense lawyers were mostly there Thursday to walk Trump through the steps of a first appearance and arraignment, Lauro had the opportunity to show the vigor with which he’ll argue on behalf of his client. He didn’t get into the substantive defense arguments that he has previewed in TV hits, but his insistence that the Trump team may need more time before nailing down a trial schedule was emphatic.

    “All that we would ask, your honor, is the time to fairly defend our client. And to do that we need a little time,” he said.

    While Trump’s hearing Thursday largely followed the script of the arraignments he’s had in the classified documents and the 2016 hush money criminal cases against him. But it was happening in a courthouse that has had to constantly had to process and re-process the violence of January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol that his election lies helped provoke.

    For the last two-and-a-half years since the attack, the former president has been a stalking horse in the DC courthouse, which has hosted the proceedings for more than 1,000 Trump supporters who have been have been charged for the riot.

    Judges have obliquely acknowledged the role the former president played in egging on the mob, while recounting the direct view they had to the violence that day. Defense attorneys and prosecutors have argued over how much of the blame should be placed on him. Metropolitan and Capitol police officers are frequently seen in the courthouse to testify about the physical and psychological trauma they suffered from the riot. And defendants and their families, in their pleas for mercy, have invoked Trump as well.

    In the election subversion case, Trump’s attorneys have previewed arguments that the case should be moved elsewhere, given the city’s political bent. But the DC federal courthouse is where hundreds of his supporters have received fair trials, with some securing acquittals, in the Capitol mob cases.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 21 Donald Trump election lies listed in his new indictment | CNN Politics

    21 Donald Trump election lies listed in his new indictment | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Special counsel Jack Smith said Tuesday that the January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol was “fueled by lies” told by former President Donald Trump. The indictment of Trump on four new federal criminal charges, all related to the former president’s effort to overturn his defeat in the 2020 election, lays out some of those lies one by one.

    Even in listing 21 lies, the 45-page indictment does not come close to capturing the entirety of Trump’s massive catalogue of false claims about the election. But the list is illustrative nonetheless – highlighting the breadth of election-related topics Trump was dishonest about, the large number of states his election dishonesty spanned, and, critically, his willingness to persist in privately and publicly making dishonest assertions even after they had been debunked to him directly.

    Here is the list of 21.

    1. The lie that fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 election, that Trump “had actually won,” and that the election was “stolen.” (Pages 1 and 40-41 of the indictment)

    Trump’s claim of a stolen election whose winner was determined by massive fraud was (and continues to be) his overarching lie about the election. The indictment asserts that Trump knew as early as 2020 that his narrative was false – and had been told as such by numerous senior officials in his administration and allies outside the federal government – but persisted in deploying it anyway, including on January 6 itself.

    2. The lie that fake pro-Trump Electoral College electors in seven states were legitimate electors. (Pages 5 and 26)

    The indictment alleges that Trump and his alleged co-conspirators “organized” the phony slates of electors and then “caused” the slates to be transmitted to Vice President Mike Pence and other government officials to try to get them counted on January 6, the day Congress met to count the electoral votes.

    3. The lie that the Justice Department had identified significant concerns that may have affected the outcome of the election. (Pages 6 and 27)

    Attorney General William Barr and other top Justice Department officials had told Trump that his claims of major fraud had proved to be untrue. But the indictment alleges that Trump still sought to have the Justice Department “make knowingly false claims of election fraud to officials in the targeted states through a formal letter under the Acting Attorney General’s signature, thus giving the Defendant’s lies the backing of the federal government and attempting to improperly influence the targeted states to replace legitimate Biden electors with the Defendant’s.”

    4. The lie that Pence had the power to reject Biden’s electoral votes. (Pages 6, 32-38)

    Pence had repeatedly and correctly told Trump that he did not have the constitutional or legal right to send electoral votes back to the states as Trump wanted. The indictment notes that Trump nonetheless repeatedly declared that Pence could do so – first in private conversations and White House meetings, then in tweets on January 5 and January 6, then in Trump’s January 6 speech in Washington at a rally before the riot – in which Trump, angry at Pence, allegedly inserted the false claim into his prepared text even after advisors had managed to temporarily get it removed.

    5. The lie that “the Vice President and I are in total agreement that the Vice President has the power to act.” (Page 36)

    The indictment alleges that the day before the riot, Trump “approved and caused” his campaign to issue a false statement saying Pence agreed with him about having the power to reject electoral votes – even though Trump knew, from a one-on-one meeting with Pence hours prior, that Pence continued to firmly disagree.

    6. The lie that Georgia had thousands of ballots cast in the names of dead people. (Pages 8 and 16)

    The indictment notes that Georgia’s top elections official – Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger – a republican – explained to Trump in a phone call on January 2, 2021 that this claim was false, but that Trump repeated it in his January 6 rally speech anyway. Raffensperger said in the phone call and then in a January 6 letter to Congress that just two potential dead-voter cases had been discovered in the state; Raffensperger said in late 2021 that the total had been updated and stood at four.

    7. The lie that Pennsylvania had 205,000 more votes than voters. (Pages 8 and 20)

    The indictment notes that Trump’s acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen and acting deputy attorney general Richard Donoghue had both told him that this claim was false, but he kept making it anyway – including in the January 6 rally speech.

    8. The lie that there had been a suspicious “dump” of votes in Detroit, Michigan. (Pages 9 and 17)

    The indictment notes that Barr, the attorney general, told Trump on December 1, 2020 that this was false – as CNN and others had noted, supposedly nefarious “dumps” Trump kept talking about were merely ballots being counted and added to the public totals as normal – but that Trump still repeated the false claim in public remarks the next day. And Barr wasn’t the only one to try to dissuade Trump from this claim. The indictment also notes that Michigan’s Republican Senate majority leader, Mike Shirkey, had told Trump in an Oval Office meeting on November 20, 2020 that Trump had lost the state “not because of fraud” but because Trump had “underperformed with certain voter populations.”

    9. The lie that Nevada had tens of thousands of double votes and other fraud. (Page 9)

    The indictment notes that Nevada’s top elections official – Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske, also a Republican – had publicly posted a “Facts vs. Myths” document explaining that Nevada judges had rejected such claims.

    10. The lie that more than 30,000 non-citizens had voted in Arizona. (Pages 9 and 11)

    The indictment notes that Trump put the number at “over 36,000” in his January 6 speech – even though, the indictment says, his own campaign manager “had explained to him that such claims were false” and Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers, a Republican who had supported Trump in the election, “had issued a public statement that there was no evidence of substantial fraud in Arizona.”

    11. The lie that voting machines in swing states had switched votes from Trump to Biden. (Page 9)

    This is a reference to false conspiracy theories about Dominion Voting Systems machines, which Trump kept repeating long after it was thoroughly debunked by his own administration’s election cybersecurity security arm and many others. The indictment says, “The Defendant’s Attorney General, Acting Attorney General, and Acting Deputy Attorney General all had explained to him that this was false, and numerous recounts and audits had confirmed the accuracy of voting machines.”

    12. The lie that Dominion machines had been involved in “massive election fraud.” (Page 12)

    The indictment notes that Trump, on Twitter, promoted a lawsuit filed by an alleged co-conspirator, whom CNN has identified as lawyer Sidney Powell, that alleged “massive election fraud” involving Dominion – even though, the indictment says, Trump privately acknowledged to advisors that the claims were “unsupported” and told them Powell sounded “crazy.”

    13. The lie that “a substantial number of non-citizens, non-residents, and dead people had voted fraudulently in Arizona.” (Page 10)

    The indictment alleges that Trump and an alleged co-conspirator, whom CNN has identified as former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, made these baseless claims on a November 22, 2020 phone call with Bowers; the indictment says Giuliani never provided evidence and eventually said, at a December 1, 2020 meeting with Bowers, “words to the effect of, ‘We don’t have the evidence, but we have lots of theories.”

    14. The lie that Fulton County, Georgia elections workers had engaged in “ballot stuffing.” (Pages 13 and 14)

    This is the long-debunked lie – which Trump has continued to repeat in 2023 – that a video had caught two elections workers in Atlanta breaking the law. The workers were simply doing their jobs, and, as the indictment notes, they were cleared of wrongdoing by state officials in 2020 – but Trump continued to make the claims even after Raffensperger and Justice Department officials directly and repeatedly told him they were unfounded.

    15. The lie that thousands of out-of-state voters cast ballots in Georgia. (Page 16)

    The indictment notes that Trump made this claim on his infamous January 2, 2021 call with Raffensperger, whose staff responded that the claim was inaccurate. An official in Raffensberger’s office explained to Trump that the voters in question had authentically moved back to Georgia and legitimately cast ballots.

    16. The lie that Raffensperger “was unwilling, or unable,” to address Trump’s claims about a “‘ballots under table’ scam, ballot destruction, out of state ‘voters’, dead voters, and more.” (Page 16)

    In fact, contrary to this Trump tweet the day after the call, Raffensperger and his staff had addressed and debunked all of these false Trump claims.

    17. The lie that there was substantial fraud in Wisconsin and that the state had tens of thousands of unlawful votes. (Page 21)

    False and false. But the indictment notes that Trump made the vague fraud claim in a tweet on December 21, 2020, after the state Supreme Court upheld Biden’s win, and repeated the more specific claim about tens of thousands of unlawful votes in the January 6 speech.

    18. The lie that Wisconsin had more votes counted than it had actual voters. (Page 21)

    This, like Trump’s similar claim about Pennsylvania, is not true. But the indictment alleges that Trump raised the claim in a December 27, 2020 conversation with acting attorney general Rosen and acting deputy attorney general Donoghue, who informed him that it was false.

    19. The lie that the election was “corrupt.” (Page 28)

    The indictment alleges that when acting attorney general Rosen told Trump on the December 27, 2020 call that the Justice Department couldn’t and wouldn’t change the outcome of the election, Trump responded, “Just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.” (Deputy attorney general Donoghue memorialized the reported Trump remark in his handwritten notes, which CNN reported on in 2021 and which were subsequently published by the House committee that investigated the Capitol riot.)

    20. The lie that Trump won every state by hundreds of thousands of votes. (Page 34)

    The indictment says that, at a January 4, 2021 meeting intended to convince Pence to unlawfully reject Biden’s electoral votes and send them back to swing-state legislatures, Pence took notes describing Trump as saying, “Bottom line-won every state by 100,000s of votes.” This was, obviously, false even if Trump was specifically talking about swing states won by Biden rather than every state in the nation.

    21. The lie that Pennsylvania “want[s] to recertify.” (Page 38)

    Trump made this false claim in his January 6 speech. In reality, some Republican state legislators in Pennsylvania had expressed a desire to at least delay the congressional affirmation of Biden’s victory – but the state’s Democratic governor and top elections official, who actually had election certification power in the state, had no desire to recertify Biden’s legitimate win.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump and team seek to destroy credibility of his election subversion trial before a date is even set | CNN Politics

    Trump and team seek to destroy credibility of his election subversion trial before a date is even set | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Donald Trump and his legal team are escalating efforts to discredit and delay a trial over his alleged attempt to overturn the 2020 election, as his fight to avert criminal convictions becomes ever more indistinguishable from his presidential campaign.

    The former president’s attorney Sunday vowed to petition to relocate the trial from Washington, DC, claiming that a local jury won’t reflect the “characteristics” of the American people. And as prosecutors seek a speedy trial, he warned that his team will seek to run out the process for years in an apparent attempt to move it past the 2024 election.

    Trump demanded the judge set to hear the case recuse herself in a flurry of assaults on the process that may fail legally, but will play into his campaign narrative that he is a victim of political persecution by the Biden administration designed to thwart a White House comeback.

    Trump pleaded not guilty when he was arraigned in Washington last week – his third such plea in a criminal case in the past four months. But his new efforts to tarnish an eventual trial in this case mirror his long-term strategy of seeking to delegitimize any institution – including the courts, the Justice Department, US intelligence agencies and the press – that contradicts his narrative or challenges his power.

    They unfolded as the precarious nature of his position after his third indictment began to sink in and the ramifications for the 2024 election widened.

    Mike Pence, speaking on CNN this weekend, did not rule out providing testimony in a Trump trial if compelled, which would be a staggering potential scenario for a vice president to provide evidence against his ex-running mate.

    Trump’s former Attorney General William Barr, meanwhile, dismissed one of the arguments the ex-president and his allies have turned to – that he was simply exercising his right to freedom of speech in seeking to reverse the election result in 2020. Barr, who told Trump there was no evidence of widespread voter fraud during his final weeks in office, also said Sunday that “of course” he would appear as a witness at the trial if asked.

    Trump’s status as the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination has left his rivals with a painful political tightrope walk as they seek to take advantage of his plight while avoiding alienating GOP primary voters. But several candidates stiffened their criticism of the former president over the issue this weekend as campaigning heated up.

    Pence said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that in the tense days ahead of Congress’ certification of President Joe Biden’s election, Trump asked him to put loyalty to him above his oath to the Constitution and halt the process. “I’m running for president in part because I think anyone who puts themselves over the Constitution should never be president of the United States,” Pence told Dana Bash.

    And Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis went a tiny bit further in his criticism of Trump, while still arguing that the Biden administration is weaponizing justice against the former president. On a campaign swing through Iowa on Friday, DeSantis – who is battling to preserve his tottering status as the No. 2 Republican in primary polls – said Trump’s false claims about election fraud were “unsubstantiated.”

    In a subsequent interview with NBC, DeSantis added: “Whoever puts their hand on the Bible on January 20 every four years is the winner.”

    “Of course, he lost,” DeSantis said. “Joe Biden’s the president.” The Florida governor also, however, chastised people in the media and elsewhere for acting like “this was the perfect election.”

    The fast-moving developments since Trump’s indictment last week are offering a preview of one of the most monumental criminal trials in American political history. They also suggest this case, and two others in which Trump has pleaded not guilty – to mishandling of classified documents and to charges arising out of a hush money payment to an adult film actress – are certain to deepen a corrosive national political estrangement.

    Defense teams have the right to use every courtroom mechanism within legal bounds to their client’s best advantage. Attempts to delay trials with pre-trial litigation are not unusual and prosecutors and defense lawyers often differ over matters of procedure and evidence. But Trump’s case is unique, given the visibility of the accused, the fact that he’s a former president running for another White House term, and that he is using his power and fame to mount a vitriolic campaign outside the courtroom to drain public confidence in the justice system. It is becoming increasingly clear that there is no distinction between his legal strategy and his political one in an election that is now consumed by his criminal exposure and the possibility of convictions.

    In posts on his Truth Social network that highlighted a furious state of mind, Trump on Sunday demanded the recusal of Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama appointee who is presiding over the case, and a venue change out of the capital. He blasted special counsel Jack Smith as “deranged” and claimed that the US was being “destroyed.” On Saturday night, in a speech in South Carolina, Trump demanded that Senate Republicans do more to protect him.

    His threatening rhetoric is already having a direct impact on pre-trial preparations as both parties shadow box ahead of a decision by the judge on a trial date.

    Smith’s prosecutors asked the court late Friday to impose strict limits on how Trump can publicize evidence that will be handed over as part of the discovery process. Trump’s team sought an extension of a Monday afternoon deadline to file on the matter, but Chutkan refused their request. Prosecutors want the judge to impose a protective order limiting how Trump could use such evidence because of his previous public statements about witnesses, judges, attorneys and others. In their filing, they included a screenshot of a Truth Social post in which Trump warned: “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!”

    Trump’s lawyer John Lauro argued on “State of the Union” Sunday that the special counsel was seeking to withhold evidence about the case from the press and the American people that “may speak to the innocence of President Trump.”

    Trump is seeking to delay and prolong the trial so that the country won’t have a final answer on his alleged culpability until after the election. If Trump wins the White House in November 2024, he will again gain access to executive powers and status that could freeze federal prosecutions against him or mitigate any guilty verdicts.

    Lauro said on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday that he had not known any similar case go to trial within two or three years of an indictment. He also said on other talk show appearances that he planned to relitigate the 2020 election, which he said had never been drawn out in court, as a way of challenging Smith’s charges. Trump, however, made multiple attempts to have the 2020 result overturned in court, and judges repeatedly threw out his claims of voter fraud as having no merit.

    Lauro also further revealed his hand on defense strategy by arguing that despite being told multiple times by officials and campaign advisers that he lost the election, Trump’s actions were not criminal since he was convinced he won.

    “The defense is quite simple. Donald Trump … believed in his heart of hearts that he had won that election,” he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday. “And as any American citizen, he had a right to speak out under the First Amendment. He had a right to petition governments around the country, state governments, based on his grievances that election irregularities had occurred.”

    But Barr, a conservative Republican who had been a staunch Trump defender until the very end of his administration, said that while Smith’s case was certainly “challenging,” he didn’t think it “runs afoul of the First Amendment.”

    Trump’s prospective defense raises the possibility that any future politician could create an alternative reality that bears no relation to the facts of an election outcome, and then take actions designed to retain power.

    Barr sought to clear up what he said was confusion about the case. “This involved a situation where the states had already made the official and authoritative determination as to who won in those states, and they sent the votes and certified them to Congress,” Barr said on “Face the Nation.”

    “The allegation, essentially, by the government is that, at that point, the president conspired, entered into a plan, a scheme that involved a lot of deceit, the object of which was to erase those votes, to nullify those lawful votes.”

    Another claim by Trump’s team being amplified on conservative media is that the former president cannot get a fair trial in Washington, where he won only 5% of the vote in the 2020 election. Lauro instead suggested one of the most pro-Trump states in the union, where the ex-president racked up nearly 70% of votes cast in the last election. “I think West Virginia would be an excellent venue to try this case,” he said on CBS.

    Most legal experts think a change of venue is unlikely. Such a step would implicitly strike at the heart of the legal system since it would suggest that verdicts and juries in one jurisdiction are more valid than those elsewhere and could set a precedent that politicians could choose juries in politically advantageous regions.

    Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, one of the handful of Republicans running for the 2024 nomination on an explicitly anti-Trump platform, insisted that Trump could get a fair trial in the nation’s capital.

    “I believe jurors can be fair. I believe in the American people,” Christie said on “State of the Union.”

    Christie: I believe DC jurors can be fair to Trump

    Christie, a former federal prosecutor in a blue state, also rejected the argument that Trump’s post-election conduct is protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. He argued that proof of Trump’s culpability lies in his failure to immediately seek to stop the ransacking of the US Capitol by his supporters during the certification of Biden’s victory on January 6, 2021.

    “He didn’t do that. He sat, ate his overdone hamburger in the White House Dining Room he has off the Oval Office and enjoyed watching what was going on,” Christie said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Why was Weiss named special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden? It’s complicated. | CNN Politics

    Why was Weiss named special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden? It’s complicated. | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Attorney General Merrick Garland did not provide a robust explanation on Friday for why he needed to give US attorney David Weiss special counsel status for the Hunter Biden probe, or why it was necessary five years after the investigation began.

    In a televised statement, Garland only said that Weiss informed him on Tuesday that “his investigation has reached a stage at which he should continue his work as a special counsel.” Garland said he reviewed Weiss’ request, “as well as the extraordinary circumstances relating to this matter” and “concluded it is in the public interest” to make him a special counsel.

    But the attorney general did not say what those “extraordinary circumstances” were. And Weiss didn’t make any statements on Friday.

    The simplest explanation is that the plea talks between Weiss and Hunter Biden over tax and gun charges have collapsed, and the case now appears to be headed to trial. Indeed, it is “extraordinary” for the Justice Department, which is part of the executive branch, to go to trial against the son of a siting president. Instead of a speedy resolution with a plea, a trial guarantees there will be months or even years of future litigation.

    But no one at the Justice Department has publicly offered this explanation. Friday, Garland never mentioned this major change in the trajectory of the case – from a misdemeanor plea deal to an unprecedented trial with potentially several felony charges.

    It’s not clear what else may have changed to trigger the special counsel appointment.

    IRS whistleblowers who worked on the case and congressional Republicans have claimed that Weiss needed special counsel powers because, as the US attorney in Delaware, he couldn’t pursue charges in other jurisdictions. The whistleblowers testified that Justice Department officials blocked Weiss from filing felony tax evasion charges in California and Washington, DC.

    But as these questions mounted, Weiss and Garland have repeatedly insisted that Weiss always had the powers he needed, even as a US attorney. Weiss said he retained “ultimate authority over this matter, including responsibility for deciding where, when and whether to file charges.” As recently as July 10, he said he never asked to be appointed as special counsel.

    So why elevate him to special counsel now?

    This is the third time Garland has appointed a special counsel. In the two past instances, he specifically mentioned that the ongoing investigations involved a presidential candidate and therefore the independence of a special counsel was warranted, for the public interest. (Those probes are separately scrutinizing President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump.)

    That raises the question of whether the ongoing Hunter Biden probe has moved closer to the president, though there is no public indication that this is the case.

    Indeed, the IRS whistleblowers told Congress they wanted to interview Biden family members, after finding financial improprieties in Hunter Biden’s tax records, but were blocked by Justice Department officials. Also, an unverified tip from an FBI informant about supposed bribes paid to Joe and Hunter Biden was passed onto Weiss’ prosecutors, potentially for further inquiry. (Joe Biden says these claims are false.)

    Politics is also hanging over the investigation, especially emanating from Capitol Hill.

    House Republicans are investigating the claims from the IRS whistleblower and are asking questions about how Hunter Biden nearly walked away with what they call a “sweetheart deal.”

    GOP Rep. Jim Jordan, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, is seeking interviews with nearly a dozen Justice Department officials who were involved in the investigation. He also has sought testimony from Weiss, who previously committed to appearing at a public hearing this fall.

    But Weiss’ new role as special counsel, and the implosion of the plea talks, could put all of that on ice. It will be much easier now for the Justice Department to do what it often does – swat away oversight requests because of an ongoing investigation, especially with a trial looming.

    Justice Department officials stressed Friday that Weiss will issue a public report as part of his special counsel responsibilities. But that could be years away: Past special counsels, like Robert Mueller and John Durham, only testified on the Hill after their reports were released.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • When John Roberts wants things done, he acts. What that means for ethics rules | CNN Politics

    When John Roberts wants things done, he acts. What that means for ethics rules | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Soon after he became chief justice of the United States, John Roberts faced what he believed was a “crisis” involving the judiciary: Federal judges were underpaid.

    What Roberts did next to address the situation stands in stark contrast to the way he has tiptoed through the current controversy over the Supreme Court’s integrity.

    As he pushed for a pay raise, he arranged a meeting at the White House to win support from then-President George W. Bush. He encouraged emissaries to talk to members of Congress. And he devoted an entire year-end report to the situation.

    “I am going to discuss only one issue – in an effort to increase even more the chances that people will take notice,” Roberts wrote on January 1, 2007. “That is important because the issue has been ignored far too long and has now reached the level of a constitutional crisis that threatens to undermine the strength and independence of the federal judiciary.”

    His concern: “I am talking about the failure to raise judicial pay.”

    Today, Roberts is at the center of the controversy over the court’s lack of transparency and absence of a formal code of ethics. The justices have been inconsistent in reporting travel and gifts bestowed on them by wealthy benefactors who may be trying to influence the court.

    The 68-year-old chief justice, who will be starting his 19th term in October, has moved with little apparent urgency.

    On Thursday, the issue was again in the spotlight as Justice Clarence Thomas filed a long-awaited annual financial disclosure form that pointed up his relationship with Texas real estate billionaire Harlan Crow. Thomas acknowledged that he had traveled on private jets at Crow’s expense for Dallas events and taken a separate vacation excursion to Crow’s opulent estate in the Adirondacks.

    Thomas also reported that Crow had in 2014 bought property in Savannah, Georgia, from Thomas and his family. Thomas’ lawyer said any delays or other filing errors were “inadvertent” and described public criticism of Thomas as “political blood sport.”

    Justice Roberts wrote ‘condescending’ letter to Senate when asked to testify about ethics

    The backdrop to Thursday’s filing by Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito, both of whom had sought extensions from a May deadline, is the rising attention to the Supreme Court’s inability to monitor itself on this front. The justices’ extracurricular activities and lack of any process for resolving complaints has become as much a topic of public scrutiny as their rulings pushing the law in America to the right.

    For years, individual justices have said the court was considering its own code of conduct, as now covers lower court judges. But that consideration has never produced any public result.

    Members of Congress, advocacy groups and even some justices have looked to Roberts for leadership, to no avail.

    Roberts told an audience of lawyers in Washington, DC, in May: “I want to assure people that I am committed to making certain that we as a court adhere to the highest standards of conduct. We are continuing to look at things we can do to give practical effect to that commitment.”

    Yet when the justices left town for their summer recess in June, they were at a stalemate on whether a formal code was even necessary.

    In separate public appearances this summer, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Elena Kagan, when asked about a possible ethics code, said they didn’t want to get out ahead of Roberts on the issue.

    While Roberts has sent muted signals, he has made his resistance to congressional involvement clear.

    Roberts in April declined an invitation to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee about judicial ethics, referring to “separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving judicial independence.”

    The Democratic-run Senate committee in July advanced legislation that would require a Supreme Court ethics code and a set of procedures for resolving complaints regarding their behavior. Given the tight partisan divide in the Senate and Republicans’ control of the House, the bill is unlikely to become law.

    So, much depends on the justices themselves.

    Roberts is known for formidable powers of persuasion. Before he became a US appeals court judge in 2003 and a Supreme Court justice in 2005, he was a star appellate advocate at the high court. But there are limits to his authority as chief, and the regard he engenders among individual colleagues varies.

    There may also be limits to the personal capital Roberts wants to put toward a dilemma that lies beyond the consideration of cases.

    The chief justice had made the judiciary’s pay raise a singular concern, and eventually judges and justices obtained full cost-of-living increases and higher pay.

    Unlike with judicial pay, which naturally generated support among black-robed colleagues, the ethics issue has defied consensus in Roberts’ ranks.

    Alito said in a Wall Street Journal interview published in July that he “voluntarily follows” the rules that apply to lower court judges, and he denigrated congressional efforts in this area: “I know this is a controversial view, but I’m going to say it. No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court – period.”

    Last month in Portland, Oregon, Kagan also referred to internal differences.

    “It’s not a secret for me to say that we have been discussing it,” she said, referring to a formal set of ethics rules. And it won’t be a surprise to know that the nine of us have a variety of views about this, as about most things. We’re nine free-thinking individuals.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fact check: Trump falsely claims polls show his Black support has quadrupled or quintupled since his mug shot | CNN Politics

    Fact check: Trump falsely claims polls show his Black support has quadrupled or quintupled since his mug shot | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Former President Donald Trump falsely claimed Wednesday that polls show his support among Black Americans has quadrupled or quintupled since his mug shot was released.

    The booking photo was taken on August 24, when Trump was arrested in Fulton County, Georgia, on charges connected to his efforts to overturn his defeat in the state in the 2020 election.

    On Wednesday, Trump claimed in a falsehood-filled interview with conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt that “many Democrats” will be voting for him in the 2024 election because they agree with him that the criminal charges against him in four cases are unfair. He then made this assertion: “The Black community is so different for me in the last – since that mug shot was taken, I don’t know if you’ve seen the polls; my polls with the Black community have gone up four and five times.”

    Facts First: National public polls do not show anything close to an increase of “four and five times” in Black support for Trump since his mug shot was taken, either in a race against President Joe Biden or in his own favorability rating; Trump’s campaign did not respond to CNN’s request to identify any poll that corroborates Trump’s claim. Most polls conducted after the release of the mug shot did find a higher level of Black support for Trump than he had in previous polls – but the increases were within the polls’ margins of error, not massive spikes, so it’s not clear whether there was a genuine improvement or the bump was just statistical noise. In addition, one poll found a decline in Trump’s strength with Black voters in a race against Biden, while another found a decline in his favorability with Black respondents even as he improved in a race against Biden.

    Because Black adults make up a relatively small share of the overall population, they tend to have small sample sizes in national public polls. That means the margins of error for this group are big and the results tend to bounce around from poll to poll. And even if Trump’s recent polling improvement captures a real change in voter sentiment, there is no evidence that change has anything to do with his mug shot, which no poll asked about; it could just as well have to do with, say, the summer increase in the price of gas or any of numerous other factors affecting perceptions of Biden.

    Regardless, Trump greatly exaggerated the size of the recent uptick seen in some polls. Here’s a look at what polls actually show about his recent standing with the Black population, plus a fact check of three of Trump’s many other false claims from the Hewitt interview.

    CNN identified five national public polls that: 1) included data on Black respondents in particular; 2) were conducted after Trump’s mug shot was released on August 24; 3) were conducted by pollsters who had also released polls in the recent past.

    Four of the polls showed gains for Trump among Black respondents, though much smaller gains than the quadrupling or quintupling he claimed to Hewitt.

    Trump gained 3 percentage points with Black respondents in polling by The Economist and YouGov, though within the margin of error – going from 17% against Biden in mid-August to 20% in late August. (The earlier poll asked the Trump-versus-Biden question of Black adults regardless of whether they are registered to vote, while the later poll asked the question to Black registered voters, so the results might not be directly comparable.) At the same time, Trump’s favorability with Black respondents was down 9 percentage points to 18%.

    Trump gained 3 percentage points with Black registered voters between a Messenger/Harris X poll in early July and a survey by the same pollster in late August, edging up from 22% against Biden to 25%. Trump gained 6 percentage points among Black adults in polling by the firm Premise, going from 12% against Biden in an Aug. 17-21 poll to 18% in an Aug. 30-Sept. 5 poll. He gained 8 percentage points among Black registered voters in polling by Republican firm Echelon Insights, going from 14% against Biden in late July to 22% in late August. Based on the sample sizes reported for Black respondents in each poll, all of those changes are within the margin of error.

    One of the five polls, by Emerson College, showed Trump’s standing with Black registered voters worsening after the mug shot was released, though this change was also within the margin of error. In Emerson’s mid-August poll, Trump had about 27% Black support in a race against Biden; in its late-August poll, he had about 19% support.

    In addition to looking at those five polls, we contacted The Wall Street Journal about an Aug. 24-30 poll, conducted jointly by Republican and Democratic pollsters, for which the newspaper has not yet released detailed demographic-by-demographic results. Aaron Zitner, a Journal reporter and editor who works on the poll, told us that Trump’s level of support with Black voters “didn’t change at all” between the paper’s April poll and this new poll, though Biden’s standing declined slightly within the margin of error.

    Exit polls estimated that Trump received 12% of the Black vote in the 2020 election. A post-election Pew Research Center analysis found that he received 8%.

    Mike Pence’s standing in 2016

    Trump made another false polling-related claim to Hewitt.

    This one was about how Mike Pence, Trump’s former vice president and his current opponent for the Republican nomination, had performed in polls during his 2016 campaign for reelection as governor of Indiana. Pence ceased his Indiana campaign when Trump selected him as his running mate in July 2016.

    Trump said Wednesday: “I’m disappointed in Mike Pence, because I took Mike from the garbage heap. He was going to lose. You know, he was running for governor, reelection. He was running for governor again, to continue his term, and he was absolutely, you know – he was down by 10 or 15 points.”

    Facts First: Trump’s claim that Pence was trailing by “10 or 15 points” in his 2016 race is false. It’s true that Pence had faced a tough battle for reelection as governor before he ended the campaign to run nationally with Trump, but no public poll had shown him down big.

    A May 2016 poll (commissioned by a Republican group that was founded by an opponent of Pence’s right-wing stance on gay rights and other issues) had showed Pence with 40% support and his Democratic opponent, John Gregg, with 36% support; the Indianapolis Star called this a “virtual dead heat” because of the poll’s margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points, but nonetheless, Pence certainly wasn’t “down by 10 or 15 points” like Trump said. An April 2016 poll had showed Pence with 49% support to Gregg’s 45%, again within the margin of error but not with Pence trailing.

    “There would not be any poll that would show Pence down 10-15 points to John Gregg at that time or frankly at any point even if Pence had stayed for the reelection campaign,” Christine Matthews, the president of Bellwether Research & Consulting and a Republican pollster who conducted surveys during that 2016 race in Indiana, including the May 2016 poll mentioned above, told CNN on Wednesday. Matthews said Pence could possibly have lost the race if he had remained in it, “but no poll would have shown him down by 10-15 points in that process.”

    Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina in 2020

    Trump repeated his usual lies about the 2020 election – saying, among other things, that “it was rigged and stolen.” In support of those lies, he said: “One of the top people in Alabama said you don’t win Alabama by 45 points or whatever it is I won, and then win South Carolina in a record, nobody’s ever gotten that many votes, and then you lose Georgia by just a couple of votes. It doesn’t work that way.”

    Facts First: Trump hedged his claim that he won Alabama by “45 points,” adding the “whatever it is I won,” but the “45 points” claim is not even close to correct no matter what “one of the top people” told him; he won Alabama by about 25.5 percentage points in 2020. He lost Georgia by far more than “just a couple of votes”; it was 11,779 votes. And while he did earn a record number of votes in South Carolina, he did not win the state with anything close to a “record” margin of victory; his roughly 11.7-point margin in 2020 was about 2.6 points smaller than his own margin in 2016 and also smaller than the margins earned by numerous previous winners.

    In addition, Trump’s claim that “it doesn’t work that way” – winning some states big while losing a nearby state – is also baseless. Even neighboring states are not the same. Georgia, which Trump lost fair and square, has key demographic and social differences from South Carolina and Alabama, as we explained in a previous fact check.

    Polls and election results weren’t the only things Trump exaggerated about in the interview.

    He invoked the price of bacon while criticizing the Biden administration for speaking positively about the state of inflation, which has declined sharply over the last year but remains elevated. “They try and say, ‘Oh, inflation’s wonderful.’ What about for the last three years, where bacon is five times higher than it was just a few years ago?”

    Facts First: Trump’s claim that the price of bacon has quintupled over the last few years is grossly inaccurate. The average price of bacon is higher than it was three years ago, but it is nowhere near “five times higher.” The average price for a pound of sliced bacon was $6.236 per pound in July 2023, up from $5.776 in July 2020, according to federal data – an increase of about 8%, nowhere near the 400% increase Trump claimed.

    You can come up with a larger percentage increase if you start the clock at a different point in 2020; for example, the July 2023 average price is a 13.4% increase from the February 2020 average price. But even that larger increase is way smaller than Trump claimed.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Google reaches $93 million settlement in tracking location case | CNN Business

    Google reaches $93 million settlement in tracking location case | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Google has reached a $93 million settlement with the state of California to resolve allegations that it was collecting consumers’ data without their consent, the state’s attorney general said in a statement Thursday.

    The California Department of Justice found that, after a multi-year investigation, the tech giant was “deceiving users by collecting, storing, and using their location data for consumer profiling and advertising purposes without informed consent.”

    California Attorney General Rob Bonta also said Google accepted taking future actions to prevent those practices. These actions would apply beyond California to other states, according to the proposed order.

    “Consistent with improvements we’ve made in recent years, we have settled this matter, which was based on outdated product policies that we changed years ago,” a Google spokesperson said.

    The company pointed to a 2022 blog post which introduced transparency tools, such as auto-delete controls and incognito mode on Google Maps.

    Google’s location-based advertising is an important part of its business because companies want to cater their content based on who lives where, the state said. The state also said that Google factors in location in its “behavioral profile” of users.

    Bonta had alleged Google wasn’t truthful about its location collection and storage tactics. For example, the original complaint said that Google continued to collect and store location data even when users turned off the “location history” setting, just in different ways.

    As part of the settlement, Google would have to be more transparent about its location tracking and disclose to users that their location information could be used for targeted ads. The proposed order is subject to court approval, the state’s attorney general said.

    A lawsuit by the Biden administration in January argued Google’s ad tech business should be broken up.

    Google’s practices are under scrutiny by other lawmakers right now, too. A landmark antitrust trial against Google opened earlier this week, with sweeping allegations from the US DOJ that for years the company intentionally stifled competition challenging its massive search engine, accusing the tech giant of spending billions to operate an illegal monopoly that has harmed every computer and mobile device user in the United States.

    For Google’s opening statement in that case, attorney John Schmidtlein said that Apple’s decision to make Google the default search engine in its Safari browser demonstrates how Google’s search engine is the superior product consumers prefer.

    Last week, Google reached an agreement in principle with multiple US states to settle an antitrust lawsuit for its alleged conduct in the Google Play Store. The lawsuit alleged the company inflated prices for paid apps and in-app purchases in the Android app market.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Does the US prosecute more Republicans or Democrats? Here’s some data | CNN Politics

    Does the US prosecute more Republicans or Democrats? Here’s some data | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

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



    CNN
     — 

    Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez was indicted Friday for the second time in 10 years on bribery and corruption charges.

    In this new case, federal authorities allege he and his wife accepted a luxury Mercedes, envelopes full of cash and multiple bars of gold in exchange for influence and favors. It’s wild. Read CNN’s report.

    Menendez denies the allegations, and he has a track record of beating bribery charges. The last time the government took him to court, a jury deadlocked, a judge acquitted him of some charges and the government finally dropped that separate set of bribery charges. Menendez was able to win reelection.

    He’s up for reelection again next year, and Democrats badly need to keep his New Jersey seat if they have any hope of maintaining control of the Senate.

    The case, if nothing else, is a serious complication to former President Donald Trump’s often-repeated claim that he is the subject of a partisan “witch hunt.”

    An unusually feisty Attorney General Merrick Garland rejected any such claim during testimony on Capitol Hill this week.

    Watch Garland’s response to GOP accusations

    “Our job is not to do what is politically convenient,” he said. “Our job is not to take orders from the president, from Congress or from anyone else about who or what to criminally investigate.”

    The prosecution, again, of Menendez, which is a major headache for Democrats, could help prove this point. So should the prosecution of Hunter Biden, the president’s son, in a gun case that is rarely brought as a standalone charge.

    But it is worth looking at the recent history of Department of Justice prosecutions of lawmakers. Is one party targeted more than another?

    Here’s a look at active and recent federal cases against federal lawmakers and governors. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but it is what I could find going back to 2000 in CNN’s coverage and from other news outlets.

    There is one against a Republican, Rep. George Santos of New York, and one against a Democrat, Menendez.

    There is also a non-prosecution to mention. Rep. Matt Gaetz, the Florida Republican, was informed this year by the DOJ that he would not be charged in a long-running sex trafficking probe.

    These are federal cases against current or former federal lawmakers. I was able to find nine targeting Republicans and eight targeting Democrats.

    Former Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, a Republican from Nebraska Found guilty in 2022 of three felonies in a case that centered on campaign contributions.

    Former Rep. TJ Cox, a Democrat from California – Still awaiting trial after his 2022 indictment, including for fraudulent campaign contributions.

    Former Rep. Duncan Hunter, a Republican from California Sentenced to 11 months in prison for misusing campaign funds, but later pardoned by Trump.

    Former Rep. Chris Collins, a Republican from New YorkSentenced to 26 months in prison for insider trading, but later pardoned by Trump.

    Former Rep. Corrine Brown, a Democrat from Florida Served more than two years for setting up a false charity.

    Former Rep. Steve Stockman, a Republican from Texas Sentenced to 10 years in prison for multiple felonies including fraud and money laundering, but pardoned by Trump after serving part of his sentence.

    Former Rep. Anthony Weiner, a Democrat from New YorkSentenced to 21 months in prison for sexting with a minor.

    Former Rep. Chaka Fattah, a Democrat from Pennsylvania Sentenced to 10 years in prison for racketeering, fraud and money laundering.

    Former Rep. Michael Grimm, a Republican from New York Pleaded guilty and sentenced to eight months in prison for tax evasion. Attempted to run again for Congress.

    Former Rep. Rick Renzi, a Republican from ArizonaSentenced to three years for corruption. Pardoned by Trump after he served time.

    Sen. Bob Menendez, a Democrat from New Jersey Acquitted by a judge and other charges dismissed after a jury deadlocked in a bribery case.


    Former Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., a Democrat from IllinoisSentenced to 30 months in prison for misusing campaign funds.

    Former Sen. Ted Stevens, a Republican from AlaskaConviction by jury for lying on ethics forms was later set aside over allegations of prosecutorial misconduct.

    Former Rep. William Jefferson, a Democrat from LouisianaSentenced to 13 years for corruption and soliciting bribes. There was video of him taking $100,000 from an African official. Served multiple years in prison, but many of the charges were later vacated by a judge based on a US Supreme Court decision.

    Former Rep. Bob Ney, a Republican from Ohio – Sentenced to 30 months after a guilty plea for corruption tied to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

    Former Rep. RandyDuke” Cunningham, a Republican from CaliforniaSentenced to eight years in prison after a guilty plea for bribery. Later pardoned by Trump.

    Former Rep. James Traficant, a Democrat from Ohio Sentenced to eight years in prison for corruption after defending himself during trial. Was later expelled from the House.

    Two Republican governors and two Democratic governors have been convicted in federal courts in recent decades:

    Former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, a Republican, was convicted for bribery and corruption. But the US Supreme Court changed the rules in corruption and bribery cases when it threw out the case against McDonnell.

    Former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, a Democrat, was convicted for trying to sell his power to appoint a replacement to Barack Obama’s Senate seat. His sentence was later commuted by Trump.

    Former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, a Democrat, was convicted by a jury of bribery and corruption and was sentenced to more than six years in prison.

    Former Illinois Gov. George Ryan, a Republican, was convicted on corruption charges after an FBI sting.

    Did we miss a federal lawmaker convicted or charged? Let me know at zachary.wolf@cnn.com.

    Local prosecutions – like the state or local cases against former Rep. Trey Radel, the Republican from Florida, for cocaine possession in Washington, DC, or former Sen. Larry Craig, the Republican from Idaho, for lewd behavior in the Minneapolis airport – don’t really fit here since they were not conducted by the Department of Justice.

    Some notable recent DOJ prosecutions have focused on Democrats at the state level, like Andrew Gillum, the Democrat and former Tallahassee, Florida, mayor who ran for governor and lost to Gov. Ron DeSantis in 2018. Gillum was recently acquitted of lying to the FBI.

    Former Baltimore Mayor Catherine Pugh, also a Democrat, was sentenced to three years in prison after she pleaded guilty to charges related to a scheme in which local nonprofit organizations bought her self-published children’s book.

    Trump likes to argue he’s the subject of a conspiratorial “witch hunt” engineered by a deep state.

    Why, he will often say, was Hillary Clinton not prosecuted for her email server while he is being prosecuted for mishandling classified material?

    This forgets the history of the 2016 election, which Clinton has said she lost because of then-FBI Director James Comey’s handling of the investigation of her emails. Comey did not charge her before the election but did criticize her, and then, 11 days before Election Day, he said the investigation had been reopened.

    These whataboutisms can go on and on without changing anyone’s mind.
    This story has been updated to include additional details.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Major Supreme Court cases to watch in the new term | CNN Politics

    Major Supreme Court cases to watch in the new term | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Looking at an upcoming Supreme Court term from the vantage point of the first Monday in October rarely tells the full story of what lies ahead, but the docket already includes major cases concerning the intersection between the First Amendment and social media, gun rights, racial gerrymandering and the power of the executive branch when it comes to regulation.

    The court will still determine if it will hear oral arguments on issues such as medication abortion and transgender rights, not to mention the possibility of a flurry of emergency requests related to the 2024 election.

    Here are some of the key cases on which the court will hear oral arguments this term:

    After the Supreme Court issued a major decision last year expanding gun rights nationwide, lower courts began reconsidering hundreds of firearms regulations across the country under the new standard crafted by Justice Clarence Thomas that a gun law passes legal muster only if it is rooted in history and tradition.

    On the heels of that decision, a federal appeals court invalidated a federal law that bars an individual who is subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a firearm. That law, the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, “is an outlier that our ancestors would never have accepted.”

    The Biden administration has appealed, saying the ruling “threatens grave harms for victims of domestic violence.”

    In 2019, nearly two-thirds of domestic homicides in the United States were committed with a gun, according to Everytown for Gun Safety.

    Lawyers for Zackey Rahimi, a man who was prosecuted under the law in 2020 after a violent altercation with his girlfriend, have urged the justices to let the lower court opinion stand, arguing in part that there is no law from the founding era comparable to the statute at hand.

    Racial gerrymandering: South Carolina congressional maps

    Justices will consider a congressional redistricting plan drawn by South Carolina’s Republican-controlled legislature in the wake of the 2020 census. Critics say it was designed with discriminatory purpose and amounts to an illegal racial gerrymander.

    The case focuses the court’s attention once again on the issue of race and map drawing and comes after the court ordered Alabama to redraw the state’s congressional map last term to account for the fact that the state is 27% black. The decision, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, surprised liberals who feared the court was going to make it harder for minorities to challenge maps under Section 2 of the historic Voting Rights Act.

    In the latest case, the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and a Black voter named Taiwan Scott, are challenging the state’s congressional District 1 that is located along the southeastern coast and is anchored in Charleston County. Although the district consistently elected Republicans from 1980 to 2016, in 2018 a Democrat was elected in a political upset, though a Republican recaptured the seat in 2020.

    The person who devised the map has testified that he was instructed to make the district “more Republican leaning,” but that he did not consider race. He did, however, acknowledge that he examined racial data after drafting each version and that the Black voting age population of the district was likely viewed during the drafting process.

    A three-judge district court panel struck down the plan in January, saying that race had been the predominant motivating factor. “To achieve a target of 17% African American population,” the court said, “Charleston County was racially gerrymandered and over 30,000 African Americans were removed from their home district.”

    Expert explains why Justice Thomas’ gifts from wealthy friends are problematic

    In the latest attack against the so-called administrative state, the justices are considering whether to overturn decades old precedent to scale back the power of federal agencies, impacting how the government tackles issues such as climate change, immigration, labor conditions and public health.

    At issue is an appeal from herring fishermen in the Atlantic who say the National Marine Fisheries Service does not have the authority to require them to pay the salaries of government monitors who ride aboard the fishing vessels.

    In agreeing to hear the case, the justices signaled they will reconsider a 1984 decision – Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council – that sets forward factors to determine when courts should defer to a government agency’s interpretation of the law. First, they examine a statute to see if Congress’ intent is clear. It if is – then the matter is settled. But if there is ambiguity – the court defers to the agency’s expertise.

    Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the justices that the agency was acting within the scope of its authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and said the fishermen are not responsible for all the costs. The regulation was put in place to combat overfishing of the fisheries off the coasts of the US.

    Representing the fishermen, former Solicitor General Paul Clement argues that the government exceeded its authority and needs direct and clear congressional authorization to make such a demand. “The ‘net effect’ of Chevron,” Clement said, is that it “incentives a dynamic where Congress does far less than the Framers anticipated, and the executive branch is left to do far more by deciding controversial issues via regulatory fiat”

    For the second time in recent years, the court is taking aim at a watchdog agency created to combat unfair and deceptive practices against consumers, in a case that could deal a fatal blow to the future of the agency and send reverberations throughout the financial services industry.

    At the center of the case at hand is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau – an independent agency set up in the wake of the 2008 financial meltdown that works to monitor the practices of lenders, debt collectors and credit rating agencies.

    Congress chose to fund the CFPB from outside the annual appropriations process to ensure its independence. As such, the agency receives its funding each year from the earnings of the Federal Reserve System. But the conservative 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals held last year that the funding scheme violates the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution, that, the court said “ensures Congress’ “exclusive power over the federal purse.”

    According to the CFPB, the agency has obtained more than $18.9 billion in ordered relief, including restitution and canceled debts, for more than 195 million consumers, and more than $4.1 billion in penalties, in actions brought by the agency against financial institutions and individuals that have broken federal consumer financial protection laws.

    A handful of other agencies have similar funding schemes including the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

    Three years ago, the Supreme Court limited the independence of the CFPB by invalidating its leadership structure. A 5-4 court held that the structure violated the separation of powers because the president was restricted from removing the director, even if they had policy disagreements.

    Agency regulatory authority: Securities and Exchange Commission

    The justices are looking at the in-house enforcement proceedings of the US Securities and Exchange Commission in another case that invites the conservative majority to pare back the regulatory authority of federal agencies.

    The court’s decision could impact whether the SEC and other agencies can conduct enforcement proceedings in-house, using administrative courts staffed with agency employees, or whether such actions must be brought in federal court.

    On one side are critics of such agency courts who argue that they allow federal employees to serve as prosecutors, judges and jury, issuing rulings that could particularly hurt small businesses. On the other side are those who point out that several agencies, including the Social Security Administration, have such internal proceedings because the topics are often complex and the agency has more expertise than a federal judge.

    The case arose in 2013 after the SEC brought an enforcement action against George Jarkesy, who had established two hedge funds with his advisory firm, Patriot28, for securities fraud.

    The 5th Circuit ruled that the SEC’s proceedings deprive individuals of their Seventh Amendment right to a civil jury. In addition, the court said that Congress had improperly delegated legislative power to the SEC, which gave the agency unconstrained authority at times to choose the in-house administrative proceeding rather than filing suit in district court.

    In December, the court will examine the historic multibillion-dollar Purdue Pharma bankruptcy settlement with several states that would ultimately offer the Sackler family broad protection from OxyContin-related civil claims.

    Until recently, Purdue was controlled by the Sackler family, who withdrew billions of dollars from the company before it filed for bankruptcy. The family has now agreed to contribute up to $6 billion to Purdue’s reorganization fund on the condition that the Sacklers receive a release from civil liability.

    The Biden administration, representing the US Trustee, the executive branch agency that monitors the administration of bankruptcy cases, has called the plan “exceptional and unprecedented” in court papers, noting that lower courts have divided on when parties can be released from liability for actions that caused societal harm.

    “The plan’s release ‘absolutely, unconditionally, irrevocably, fully, finally, forever and permanently releases’ the Sacklers from every conceivable type of opioid-related civil claim – even claims based on fraud and other forms of willful misconduct that could not be discharged if the Sacklers filed for bankruptcy in their individual capacities,” Prelogar argued in court papers.

    For the second year running, the justices will leap into the online moderation debate and decide whether states can essentially control how social media companies operate.

    If upheld, laws from Florida and Texas could open the door to more state legislation requiring platforms such as Facebook, YouTube and TikTok to treat content in specific ways within certain jurisdictions – and potentially expose the companies to more content moderation lawsuits.

    It could also make it harder for platforms to remove what they determine is misinformation, hate speech or other offensive material.

    “These cases could completely reshape the digital public sphere. The question of what limits the First Amendment imposes on legislatures’ ability to regulate social media is immensely important – for speech, and for democracy as well,” said Jameel Jaffer, the executive director of Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute, in a statement.

    “It’s difficult to think of any other recent First Amendment cases in which the stakes were so high,” Jaffer added.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Two Proud Boys sentenced for roles in Capitol attack on January 6 | CNN Politics

    Two Proud Boys sentenced for roles in Capitol attack on January 6 | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A federal judge handed down hefty sentences against two members of the Proud Boys for their role in attacking the Capitol on January 6, 2021, one who broke open a window to the building and another who took over the leadership role of the group that day.

    Their sentences, both among the longest yet of the over 1,000 people charged as part of the riot, are emblematic of how judges are working to separate key figures who furthered the violence that day from those who were swept up in the crowd.

    “If we don’t have the peaceful transfer of power, I don’t know what we have,” District Judge Timothy Kelly said during one of the hearings Friday. “Because that is the reflection of when we go to the ballot box, when we exercise the right to vote. That is the manifestation of that. And so, if we don’t have that, we don’t have anything.”

    Kelly continued, “that didn’t honor the founders, it was the kind of thing they wrote the constitution to prevent.”

    The first man to be sentenced Friday, Dominic Pezzola, was sentenced to 10 years in prison. Pezzola smashed through a window to the US Capitol with a police riot shield on January 6, allowing the first wave of rioters to storm the building as members of Congress were being evacuated. Pezzola quickly became a symbol of the violence that day.

    Ethan Nordean, a Proud Boy from Washington State who took over leading the group after longtime Proud Boys chairman Enrique Tarrio was arrested on his way to Washington, DC, days before the January 6 riot, was sentenced to 18 years in prison.

    Nordean’s 18-year prison sentence is tied for the longest handed down in connection with the January 6 insurrection. Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes was also sentenced to 18 years in prison for seditious conspiracy.

    Images of Pezzola, nicknamed “Spazzolini,” using the police riot shield to first breach the Capitol building quickly became a symbol of the violence that day.

    “The reality is you were the one who did it,” Kelly said during his sentencing hearing Friday. “You were the one who smashed that window in and let people begin to stream into the Capitol building and threaten the lives of our lawmakers. It is not something I would have ever dreamed I’d see in our country.”

    “You were really, in some ways, the tip of the spear,” the judge said.

    Before leaving the courtroom, Pezzola, with a raised fist, shouted, “Trump won!” just minutes after Kelly – who had already left the courtroom – said he hoped Pezzola had turned a corner.

    Pezzola was the only one of the five Proud Boys defendants not convicted of seditious conspiracy. Pezzola joined the Proud Boys shortly before January 6, according to evidence shown at trial, and was praised by the organization’s leadership for his violent actions at a separate rally weeks before the Capitol riot.

    The New York native was convicted of multiple other charges including assaulting or resisting a police officer, robbery of a police shield, destruction of government property and obstructing an official proceeding.

    In the at times rambunctious trial, which spanned several months, prosecutors argued that Pezzola’s co-defendants, leaders of the Proud Boys, pushed lower-level members like Pezzola to be on the front lines of the violence at the Capitol.

    In a written statement read aloud by prosecutors earlier this week, former Capitol police officer Mark Ode, who was assaulted by Pezzola, recounted being attacked by the mob and feeling like his life was leaving his body.

    Ode wrote that he was haunted by the memory of being “pinned down by multiple assailants, being pinned down by all of their weight, while simultaneously being choked by the chinstrap of my helmet.”

    “[I] felt my life fleeing my body,” Ode wrote, adding that he had “the most vivid visual of my own funeral.”

    During Friday’s sentencing hearing, prosecutor Erik Kenerson said that “many Americans will approach the ballot box in 2024 with trepidation” and “will go to bed on January 5, 2025 afraid of what might happen the next day. Mark Ode certainly will.”

    Pezzola, dressed in an orange jumpsuit, addressed the court during Friday’s hearing, while his wife, mother, daughter and a friend who served with him in the military sat in the courtroom.

    “I need to extend my sincere apology to Officer Ode,” Pezzola said, “and if he were here, I would look him in the eyes and apologize for all the grief I caused him.” Pezzola also apologized to his wife and children and the country, adding that “the events of J6 have crumbled the reputation of the nation I served in the Marine corps.”

    His wife, Lisa, told Kelly how her daughters have suffered through depression and been bullied at school since their father was arrested, saying that it “is very hard as a mother – to not be able to protect them from the outside world.”

    “In no way am I making excuses for Dominic’s actions that day. As I said on the stand, he was a f**king idiot,” she said through tears.

    Pezzola’s youngest daughter, Angelina, also spoke to the judge, saying that she was “everything good that my father has done” and that it’s because of him she’s a successful college student.

    “I hope you give him some mercy so he can see me graduate college, so he can see me get my first home, my first job,” she said as her father sobbed at the defense table.

    “All I crave is a hug from my father.”

    Nordean – who goes by the moniker “Rufio Panman” after a member of Peter Pan’s Lost Boys – rose to prominence within the organization in 2017 after a video of him knocking out an anti-fascist protester with one punch went viral online.

    On the morning of January 6, Nordean and his co-defendant Joseph Biggs, led a group of approximately 100 Proud Boys towards the Capitol, donning walkie-talkie style radios and leading chants over a bullhorn.

    Standing before the judge late Friday afternoon, Nordean apologized for his actions during the riot and said that “for a long time I thought of myself merely as an individual, comparing my actions that day to others… but I had to face the sobering truth: I didn’t come to January 6 as an individual, I came as a leader.”

    “The truth is I did help lead a group of men back to the Capitol,” Nordean said. “I had ample opportunity to deescalate… and I did nothing.’

    Defense attorney Nicholas Smith noted repeatedly Friday that Nordean “consumed at least six alcoholic beverages” on his way to the Capitol on January 6 and that his pockets were filled with empty containers. His wife and sister also addressed the judge, pleading for Nordean to be allowed to return home to his daughter.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • A moment of reckoning for gerrymandering | CNN Politics

    A moment of reckoning for gerrymandering | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

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



    CNN
     — 

    Americans’ reckoning with their own democracy extends beyond the looming presidential election to a much more local level.

    There are new details about how the conservative-dominated US Supreme Court issued its most unexpected decision of the past year and threw out Alabama’s congressional map, part of a secret negotiation between Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Read that incredible behind-the-scenes reporting from CNN’s Joan Biskupic.

    Meanwhile, in Wisconsin, the inverse is occurring – lawmakers who enjoy a majority thanks to gerrymandered state-level districts are keen on throwing out a liberal state Supreme Court justice even though she took the bench last month after being elected to a 10-year term.

    State and federal courts are hearing challenges to maps across the country, which could have a major impact on the coming election and help determine who controls Congress.

    Also this week:

    • A federal court has also thrown into question the congressional map drawn by Republicans that helped them gain seats in Florida.
    • There’s a trial over congressional maps underway in Georgia.

    The selective drawing of legislative district maps during periods of redistricting after the US census every 10 years – colloquially known as gerrymandering – is a practice that has been the subject of political and court fights for most of the country’s history. The Supreme Court has said partisan gerrymandering done for political reasons is not its concern, but this year it reaffirmed that racial gerrymandering that keeps minorities shut out of the power structure is not allowed.

    An endless series of adjustments has sought to address the issue of gerrymandering. These have ranged from major legislation like the Voting Rights Act in the 1960s to the adoption of nonpartisan or independent redistricting commissions in recent decades. The Congressional Research Service has a list of which states, many on the West Coast, have tried to de-politicize the process.

    But lawmakers in multiple states continue to work hard to protect their party control, a battle that is being fought on multiple fronts.

    Republicans in Alabama, for instance, unhappy with the Supreme Court’s decision this summer, essentially ignored the court by drawing a map that did not include an additional majority-Black district as the justices demanded. A federal court sent the state back to the drawing board again this week with the rebuke that it was “disturbed” by Alabama’s actions.

    Alabama argued that creating a second majority-Black district would be a sort of “affirmative action.”

    But the three-judge panel that threw out the map rejected that idea.

    “The Voting Rights Act does not provide a leg up for Black voters – it merely prevents them from being kept down with regard to what is arguably the most ‘fundamental political right,’ in that it is ‘preservative of all rights’ – the right to vote.” Read more from CNN’s Fredreka Schouten and Ethan Cohen.

    Alabama plans to appeal to the US Supreme Court again with an eye to changing Kavanaugh’s mind.

    Gerrymandered lawmakers target anti-gerrymander judge

    In Wisconsin, a Marquette University Law School review of data tells the story of how partisan gerrymandering – the kind the Supreme Court doesn’t concern itself with – makes it virtually impossible for Democrats to win the state’s assembly. When Gov. Tony Evers narrowly won statewide in 2018, he got 49.6%, or about half of the vote. But because of how the state’s legislative maps were drawn, the Republican then-Gov. Scott Walker got a majority in 63 of the state’s 99 assembly districts, just two fewer than in 2014, when Walker won a majority of votes in 2014.

    It is lawmakers elected from Republican-friendly maps who now want to remove the liberal state Supreme Court justice, Janet Protasiewicz, from office in part for her opposition to the maps. Read more from CNN’s Eric Bradner.

    North Carolina’s new Supreme Court overturns gerrymandering ruling

    North Carolina Republicans tried to cut the state courts out of the federal redistricting and elections process altogether by pushing a fringe legal theory known as the “independent state legislature theory.” The US Supreme Court rejected that argument, which could have upended how federal elections are contested in a consequential decision earlier this year.

    But North Carolina Republicans seem likely to ultimately get the map they want. Republicans gained a majority on the state’s Supreme Court this year, and the court has ruled it has no authority to oversee partisan gerrymandering.

    There are many more legal fights over congressional maps underway. The US Supreme Court in June also allowed for the Louisiana congressional map to be redrawn to allow for another majority-Black district.

    From CNN’s report on the Louisiana decision by Tierney Sneed: “Louisiana state officials were sued last year for a congressional map – passed by the Republican legislature over Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards’ veto – that made only one of its six districts majority Black, despite the 2020 census showing that the state’s population is 33% Black.”

    Congressional maps are in question in many states, including Georgia, where there is a trial underway in Atlanta.

    Kentucky’s Supreme Court is set to hear arguments later this month about whether gerrymandered maps violate the state’s constitution.

    On the flip side, Democrats are trying to get more friendly maps in New York, where a court-drawn map led them to lose congressional seats in 2022.

    One way to view these court decisions is that the US Supreme Court allowing or insisting that maps in Alabama or Louisiana be redrawn could have a real impact on who controls Congress after the 2024 election. Republicans hold a tiny five-seat majority.

    Another way to view these court decisions is that when the US Supreme Court allowed the GOP-drawn maps to be used in these states in the 2022 election, it helped Republicans gain that slim majority.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • TikTok fined $368 million in Europe for failing to protect children | CNN Business

    TikTok fined $368 million in Europe for failing to protect children | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A major European tech regulator has ordered TikTok to pay a €345 million ($368 million) fine after ruling that the app failed to do enough to protect children.

    The Irish Data Protection Commission, which oversees TikTok’s activities in the European Union, said Friday that the company had violated the bloc’s signature privacy law.

    An investigation by the DPC found that in the latter half of 2020, TikTok’s default settings didn’t do enough to protect children’s accounts. For example, it said, newly-created children’s profiles were set to public by default, meaning anybody on the internet could view them.

    TikTok didn’t sufficiently disclose these privacy risks to kids and also used so-called “dark patterns” to guide users toward giving up more of their personal information, the regulator noted.

    In another violation of EU privacy law, a TikTok feature designed as a parental control and known as Family Pairing did not require that an adult overseeing a child’s account be verified as the child’s actual parent or guardian, the DPC said. The lapse meant that theoretically any adult could weaken a child’s privacy safeguards, the regulator said.

    TikTok introduced Family Pairing in April 2020, allowing adults to link their accounts with child accounts to manage screen time, restrict unwanted content and limit direct messaging to children.

    The DPC’s decision gives the company three months to rectify its violations and includes a formal reprimand.

    TikTok didn’t immediately respond to CNN’s request for comment.

    But in a blog post Friday, the company said it “respectfully” disagreed with several aspects of the ruling.

    “Most of the decision’s criticisms are no longer relevant as a result of measures we introduced at the start of 2021,” wrote TikTok’s European privacy chief Elaine Fox.

    The changes TikTok made in early 2021 included making existing and new accounts private by default for users aged 13 to 15, Fox said. She added that later this month, “we will begin rolling out a redesigned account registration flow for new 16- and 17-year-old users” that will default to private settings.

    TikTok did not say Family Pairing would now be verifying an adult’s relationship to the child. But the company said the feature had been strengthened over time with new options and tools. It added that none of the regulator’s findings concluded that TikTok’s age verification measures violated EU privacy law.

    In April, TikTok was also fined in the United Kingdom for a number of breaches of data protection law, including misusing children’s personal data.

    [ad_2]

    Source link