ReportWire

Tag: Legal Issues

  • No-Fire Season Is Real—Here’s Why Smart Companies Observe It

    It’s officially no-fire season — that is, unless someone commits an egregious act— you don’t terminate employees from the week before Thanksgiving until January.

    That’s the rule from employment attorney Todd Stanton, and it’s a good one. (In the interest of full disclosure, I wrote the forward to Stanton’s book, The 95% Rule: A Field Guide to Not Losing Your Mind or Making Your Lawyer Rich.)

    What’s the reason behind this rule? You may think that it’s just to be nice —nobody wants to lose their job around the holidays. And this is true. It is nice not to terminate people around the holidays. But it’s also arm of protection for your company.

    Stanton wrote on LinkedIn:

    As we learn in The 95% Rule and Employment Law Axiom No. 22, “Surprised people get angry. Angry people sue.” So at Stanton Law, LLC, we treat the week before Thanksgiving through the end of December as No Fire Season. Absent critical safety violations or severe rule infractions, employers considering terminations in this six-week spot should really ask themselves if timing is right to show someone the door. If you’ve put up with poor performance for as long as you have, gritting your teeth for another few weeks to let people get through the holidays may help you avoid getting coal (or a demand letter) in your stocking.

    The cost of a lawsuit

    Most lawsuit threats go nowhere, but any time a lawyer accepts a case from your terminated employee (no matter how ridiculous), it will cost you to respond. You hear a lot about companies settling without admitting guilt. They do this because, even when innocent, it’s often far cheaper to settle. Attorney Matthew Joseph Novian writes:

    “On average, it costs employers around $75,000 to work with an employment lawyer to settle a claim before it reaches trial. However, if the case progresses to court, the expenses can skyrocket, with pre-trial defense costs easily exceeding $125,000.”

    Note, these costs don’t include the amount you have to pay out to the employee. And you’ll still be out the money if you go to court and win. You can see why companies will settle a claim for $50,000 rather than go to court.

    So, of course, you want to avoid lawsuits — even ones you’ll win.

    Why people sue

    Not everyone who is wronged will sue. In fact, the EEOC estimates that up to 90 percent of people whose rights have been violated at work will not sue. Most people will let it go and move on.

    So what makes the difference between someone who lets it go and someone who hires an attorney? Well, as Stanton said, they are angry.

    In medical malpractice cases, the power of the apology has been so profound that several states have “apology laws.” This prevents patients from using a physician’s apology for a mistake in a lawsuit. It encourages doctors to apologize, and it doesn’t increase lawsuits. It’s a win-win. People often just want to know.

    Likewise, people don’t want to be embarrassed. From Thanksgiving to New Year’s Day, people are often with friends and family, and questions about jobs will naturally come up. Having your mother-in-law ask how work is going at the job that just fired you forces you to either confess over the turkey that you got fired or lie. Neither is good.

    And not to mention the financial pressure. It’s not that things are magically affordable come January; it’s that people tend to have extra year-end expenses. And having to tell kids that Santa isn’t coming because Daddy lost his job just adds to the anger.

    Often, companies slow down hiring in the fourth quarter as well, so it’s even more difficult to find a job.

    The more frustrated and angry a terminated employee is, the more likely they are to pick up a phone and call an attorney. Your i’s may be dotted and your t’s crossed, but if they can make a convincing case to the lawyer, you’ll still be on the hook for a few thousand for your attorney to pull together the information and speak with the plaintiff’s attorney.

    What about people who really need to go?

    Of course, Stanton’s rule doesn’t mean you never fire during this time. If someone is embezzling, sending naughty pictures on the company email, or punches a customer, you will terminate them, even if it’s Christmas Eve. 

    But for your standard employee who is struggling with a performance improvement plan, you can continue to work with them. If your financial straits mean you have no option but to let them go between now and January, Stanton adds:

    “If you are going to hand out pink slips with holiday cards, make sure to keep the process as considerate and generous as you can. You’re not rewarding the person you’re letting go, you’re protecting the folks you’re keeping.”

    You want to treat everyone with dignity. The employees who stay behind will see how you’ve treated their colleagues who lost their jobs. Remember that.

    Also, if you let people go for any reason other than gross misconduct and then show up to the company holiday party in your new six-figure sports car, your remaining employees will relay that information to the person you just laid off for “unavoidable cost reasons.” And their lawyer sees you as a deep-pocketed target.

    Not terminating during the holiday season is the nice thing to do, but even if you’re not a nice person, it’s the financially prudent thing to do. Follow Stanton’s advice and put a moratorium on almost all terminations. 

    The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com.

    The final deadline for the 2026 Inc. Regionals Awards is Friday, December 12, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply now.

    Suzanne Lucas

    Source link

  • The Supreme Court Seems Skeptical of Trump’s Tariffs. It Might Not Matter.

    The Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared doubtful about buying into the Trump administration’s rationale to justify its aggressive tariff strategy, with justices on both sides of the political aisle expressing great skepticism. 

    The nine justices grilled Trump’s Solicitor General John Sauer for nearly three hours on the Trump administration’s decision to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPAA), a 1970-era law invoked during national emergencies, to justify imposing sweeping tariffs across the globe. 

    Central to the debate was the so-called major questions doctrine, which requires government entities, in this case, the president, to have explicit authority from Congress to carry out measures with “national significance.”

    Chief Justice John Roberts underscored that IEEPAA has never been used to justify tariffs in the past. Sauer argued that the law allows the executive branch to regulate imports, which includes tariffs, since the president also has purview over foreign policy. 

    But even the court’s conservative justices seem unpersuaded by that argument, with Justice Neil Gorsuch underlining how future presidents may liberally use IEEPA for their own benefit, like imposing tariffs on gas-guzzling cars as a way to deal with the “extraordinary threat” of climate change.

    At one point, Justice Sonia Sotomayer, one of the court’s liberal justices, shot down Sauer’s claim that the tariffs are not taxes. 

    “It’s a congressional power, not a presidential power, to tax,” Sotomayer said. “You want to say tariffs are not taxes, but that’s exactly what they are – degenerating money from American citizens’ revenue.”

    More than a few businesses would likely agree with that sentiment, as entrepreneurs nationwide have contended with steep price increases in recent months. A group of small business plaintiffs filed suit to stop the tariffs, and the high court’s decision to hear the case is rooted in a string of lower court losses for the administration.

    A decision from on the high-stakes case may not come for weeks, if not months. They have until June of next year to do so. 

    Even if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the states and small businesses that originally brought the case to court, there are other mechanisms that the Trump administration might use to justify its tariff strategy. That’s according to Michael Cornett, a tax lawyer and managing director at Forvis Mazars, an accounting firm headquartered in Springfield, Missouri.

    One avenue is using Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which allows the president to levy retaliatory tariffs of up to 50 percent on other nations if foreign nations have lobbed “unreasonable” duties against the U.S. Trump has long argued that countries have ripped off the U.S. for decades.

    “Justice Alito raised the issue that the President could impose Section 338 tariffs if he were to lose this case, which is solely focused on IEEPA,” Cornett said. “This reinforces that [..] the tariff debate will continue; This would be consistent with the Court’s approach to address issues narrowly and not address future impacts of a narrow decision.”

    The early-rate deadline for the 2026 Inc. Regionals Awards is Friday, November 14, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply now.

    Melissa Angell

    Source link

  • I Ask Candidates Their Salary Expectations, and I Don’t Feel Bad About It

    Inc.com columnist Alison Green answers questions about workplace and management issues—everything from how to deal with a micromanaging boss to how to talk to someone on your team about body odor.

    A reader asks:

    You’ve talked about how inappropriate it is for employers to ask candidates about their salary expectations without giving out any info on salary themselves.

    I became a small business owner without having received training in that aspect of things, but learned early on when I am hiring to always ask the candidate their salary expectations before giving any information out about the range I am willing to offer. Why? Firstly, the money comes directly from our pockets and frankly if we can get away with paying $20/hour instead of $22/hour, why wouldn’t we? It also gives us room for raises, bonuses, etc. without taking too much of a financial hit. You always advocate that employees look out for their own interests. Why should that be so different for me as an employer? Maybe we tend to think of employers as big corporations but in our case we’re just hard-working individuals hoping to keep expenses in check.

    The second reason I want that information first is that if I were to give my range, a candidate expecting more might well say, “Sure, that’s fine,” while planning to take the job and keep looking for something else. Frankly, I want to know if they’re likely to be unhappy with that salary! Hearing that they expect more is valuable information for us to have and if I can get it, I will.

    So there you have it from a brazenly unapologetic employer who plans to continue asking the question. (For what it’s worth, we are excellent employers whose staff have been with us for years and seem very happy).

    Green responds:

    Well, I’ll happily tell you why you should stop.

    First, your current practice is likely to lead you to break the law. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 makes it illegal for you to pay a man and woman differently for doing the same work. So if you have a man who negotiated a higher salary than a woman did, and they’re doing substantially equal work, you are violating federal law. The law is clear that it doesn’t matter whether or not they negotiated differently and it doesn’t matter whether or not you intended to engage in wage discrimination; the fact that you’re paying them differently is itself illegal. (There’s an exception if you can prove the difference in pay is due to a seniority system or a merit system.) This is true if the genders are reversed, too — you can’t pay men and women differently, period.

    So if you want to look out for your own interests, ensuring you don’t break the law — with the significant fines and penalties that go with that — is a pretty good baseline to start with.

    Second, there’s tons of data showing that setting pay the way you’re doing disproportionately harms women and people of color, who are less likely to negotiate. I’m sure you don’t want to be perpetuating a system that keeps women and people of color’s wages depressed.

    Third, if you’re worried about losing candidates once they hear your range, then either your range is too low for the market and the candidates you want to attract or those candidates aren’t well matched for the role you’re filling. As the employer, you need to figure out the value of the work to you and to the market, come up with a range that reflects that, and be able to explain to people where they fit into it and why.

    Fourth, you’re far better equipped than your candidates are to know what the job should pay. You’re intimately familiar with the role’s responsibilities, pressures, and challenges in a way an outside candidate never can be. You’re asking candidates to name a number first when they’re not the one with the deep understanding of those factors — which can result in new hires who discover the salary doesn’t match up with the job after they start, which can mean they don’t stick around or don’t go above and beyond in the way they might if they felt fairly compensated.

    And last, the world is increasingly scoffing at employers that operate the way you do, and more and more employers are jettisoning the practice. When you refuse to disclose your budgeted salary range and insist on the candidate naming theirs, you’re sending a signal about your culture that will increasingly turn off your best candidates.

    I think the reason you’re “brazenly unapologetic” about a practice that hurts people is because it’s what you’ve done in the past and you don’t want to change something that you’ve grown comfortable with. But it’s a poor way to operate and at some point will have you violating the law if you haven’t already.

    The times are changing. Change with them — and don’t gloat about doing something that hurts people.

    Want to submit a question of your own? Send it to alison@askamanager.org.

    The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com.

    Alison Green

    Source link

  • The Hidden Costs of a Product Recall | Entrepreneur

    Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

    For entrepreneurs, few events are more damaging than a product recall. The immediate image is always financial: refunds, fines and settlements. But anyone who has been inside these cases knows the true cost runs far deeper. Recalls erode consumer trust, unravel years of brand building and expose systemic failures in leadership.

    I have seen firsthand how these crises unfold. In nearly every instance, the warning signs were there. Companies knew about risks. Employees raised concerns. Complaints trickled in. Yet leadership chose to wait, to monitor, to hope the problem would fade. It never does. When companies delay action, injuries multiply, lawsuits escalate, and reputations are permanently scarred.

    Related: Soar Above, Rather Than Survive, a Product Recall

    When delay turns deadly

    Consider Peloton. The company faced reports of injuries and even the tragic death of a child linked to its Tread+ treadmill. Instead of acting swiftly, Peloton resisted recalling the product. That decision led to one of the largest penalties in Consumer Product Safety Commission history. Peloton paid $19 million for failing to immediately report defects. The fine was only part of the story. The brand damage continues to ripple years later.

    Onewheel, the self-balancing electric skateboard, now faces lawsuits tied to sudden stopping issues that led to consumer deaths. The legal actions are only beginning, but the company’s reputation has already been drawn into headlines that focus on tragedy rather than innovation.

    Other cases may not grab as many headlines but still leave lasting scars. Ninja recalled hundreds of thousands of pressure cookers after reports of severe burns. Portable blenders were pulled from the market after blades came loose during operation. Werner ladders were recalled when they broke without warning. In every case, the cost of waiting outweighed the cost of acting early.

    Lawsuits are the beginning, not the end

    When a product injures a consumer, lawsuits arrive quickly. For many founders, that is the first moment they truly grasp the scale of the crisis. Litigation is costly, time-consuming and distracting, but lawsuits are not the end. They are the beginning.

    From my own work in product defect litigation, I have seen how one case rarely stands alone. A single injury multiplies into dozens of filings. What begins as an isolated incident can grow into a class action. Through discovery, internal safety reports, cost-cutting memos and ignored warnings come to light. That evidence does not just determine the verdict — it drives the headlines. The reputational damage is often far worse than the financial cost.

    Entrepreneurs must recognize that litigation is not just about settlements and legal fees. It is about the company’s culture being put on trial. Once a jury sees that safety took a back seat to profits, rebuilding consumer trust is nearly impossible.

    Related: Companies Often Choose Profits Over Consumer Safety — Here’s What It Takes to Hold Them Accountable

    The leadership failure behind every recall

    What connects these cases is not simply defective products. It is defective leadership.

    Too often, product safety is left to compliance teams or buried in operations. The CEO only steps in once the crisis explodes. By then, it is too late.

    The truth is simple. Product safety is a CEO-level issue. It belongs at the very top of the agenda. Decisions in the first hours and days after a safety concern emerges define the future of a company. Listening to engineers, taking consumer complaints seriously and acting quickly to protect customers are leadership choices. They are not legal technicalities.

    Entrepreneurs who understand this protect both their consumers and their companies. Those who treat safety as a secondary issue risk losing everything they have built.

    The hidden costs entrepreneurs miss

    Most founders understand the financial hit of a recall. Few recognize the long-term damage that follows.

    The hidden costs include the loss of consumer trust that cuts into lifetime customer value, the greater scrutiny from regulators and watchdog groups, higher insurance premiums, difficulty securing future coverage, the distraction of leadership who must focus on crisis management instead of growth and the brand damage that affects hiring, partnerships and investor confidence.

    These costs linger long after the settlement checks have been written. They erode the very foundation of a business.

    Why acting early saves businesses

    Entrepreneurs have one key advantage over larger corporations. They can move quickly. Without layers of bureaucracy, a founder can make bold decisions to protect consumers and preserve trust. Acting early may feel painful in the moment, but it prevents the cascading damage of lawsuits, headlines and regulatory intervention.

    The choice is not between acting and ignoring. The choice is between acting early when you have some control or acting later when you have none.

    Related: How to Avoid a Product Recall: Quality Control Essentials

    Protecting the future of the brand

    Every recall is ultimately a test of leadership. The companies that survive are those where CEOs accept responsibility and act decisively. The companies that fail are those where leaders delay, deflect or deny until the crisis consumes them.

    For entrepreneurs, the lesson is clear. Safety cannot be delegated away. It cannot be viewed as a legal technicality. It is a core leadership responsibility that protects both people and the future of the business.

    The real cost of a recall is not measured only in dollars. It is measured in trust lost, in reputations destroyed and in businesses that never recover. Entrepreneurs who understand this truth will treat safety not as a burden but as the foundation of lasting success.

    For entrepreneurs, few events are more damaging than a product recall. The immediate image is always financial: refunds, fines and settlements. But anyone who has been inside these cases knows the true cost runs far deeper. Recalls erode consumer trust, unravel years of brand building and expose systemic failures in leadership.

    I have seen firsthand how these crises unfold. In nearly every instance, the warning signs were there. Companies knew about risks. Employees raised concerns. Complaints trickled in. Yet leadership chose to wait, to monitor, to hope the problem would fade. It never does. When companies delay action, injuries multiply, lawsuits escalate, and reputations are permanently scarred.

    Related: Soar Above, Rather Than Survive, a Product Recall

    The rest of this article is locked.

    Join Entrepreneur+ today for access.

    Donald Fountain

    Source link

  • Moulton urges Israel to increase aid to Gaza

    BOSTON — U.S. Rep. Seth Moulton is leading a group of House Democrats and veterans calling on Israel to allow more food and other aid to enter Gaza amid increasing warnings of a humanitarian disaster in the region.

    In a letter to Israeli ambassador to the U.S. Yechiel Leiter, the lawmakers expressed “serious concern with the dire humanitarian aid situation in Gaza” and called on Israel to “flood Gaza with humanitarian aid” which they said would also help Israel deprive the terrorist group Hamas of the “leverage” it has gained in restricted aid to the region.


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm“pD G6E6C2?D @7 p>6C:42’D 4@F?E6C:?DFC86?4J 42>A2:8?D @G6C E96 =2DE ad J62CD[ H6 36=:6G6 xDC26= 92D 2 C6DA@?D:3:=:EJ 2?5 >@C2= @3=:82E:@? E@ 24E:G6=J AC6G6?E 92C> E@ 4:G:=:2?D[ A2CE:4F=2C=J 49:=5C6?[” |@F=E@?[ s$2=6>[ 2?5 @E96C =2H>2<6CD HC@E6] “u@@5 D42C4:EJ 92D AC@G:565 w2>2D 2? @AA@CEF?:EJ E@ H62A@?:K6 2:5 7@C AC@7:E 2?5 4@?EC@=]”k^Am

    kAm%96 =2H>2<6CD D2:5 :7 7@@5 😀 “23F?52?E 2?5 62D:=J 2G2:=23=6[ :E H:== 56?J w2>2D E96 23:=:EJ E@ FD6 :E 2D 2? :?DECF>6?E @7 4@6C4:@?” 4:E:?8 E96 6I2>A=6D @7 &]$] A@=:4:6D @? 9F>2?:E2C:2? 2:5 5FC:?8 E96 H2CD 😕 xC2B 2?5 p7892?:DE2?]k^Am

    kAm“}@E ;FDE C6DE@C:?8 2:5[ 3FE AC@G:5:?8 72C >@C6 2:5 E92? 😕 E96 A2DE[ H:== D9@H !2=6DE:?:2?D E92E E96:C 7FEFC6 😀 AC@E64E65 ?@E 3J w2>2D 3FE 3J E96 :?E6C?2E:@?2= 4@>>F?:EJ[ 2?5 :E H:== 96=A A2G6 E96 H2J E@ 2 462D67:C6 E92E :?4=F56D E96 C6EFC? @7 C6>2:?:?8 9@DE286D 2?5[ F=E:>2E6=J[ 2 =@?8E6C> A@=:E:42= D@=FE:@? 7@C =2DE:?8 A6246 😕 E96 C68:@?[” E96J HC@E6]k^Am

    kAm|@C6 E92? `__ 2:5 8C@FAD H@C<:?8 😕 E96 v2K2 $EC:A 2?5 E96 (6DE q2?< 92G6 244FD65 xDC26= @7 “H62A@?:K:?8 2:5” H:E9 ?6H CF=6D 7@C C68:DE6C:?8 8C@FAD :?G@=G65 😕 56=:G6C:?8 9F>2?:E2C:2? 2DD:DE2?46 E@ E96 C68:@?] %96 8C@FAD 4=2:>65 E96 C6BF:C6>6?ED 2C6 “56D:8?65 E@ 4@?EC@= :?56A6?56?E @C82?:K2E:@?D[ D:=6?46 25G@424J 2?5 46?D@C 9F>2?:E2C:2? C6A@CE:?8]”k^Am

    kAm“%9:D @3DECF4E:@? 92D =67E >:==:@?D @7 5@==2CD’ H@CE9 @7 7@@5[ >65:4:?6[ H2E6C 2?5 D96=E6C :E6>D DEC2?565 😕 H2C69@FD6D 24C@DD y@C52? 2?5 t8JAE[” E96 8C@FAD HC@E6 😕 2? @A6? =6EE6C]k^Am

    kAm%96 2:5 8C@FAD D2:5 >@DE @7 E96> 925 ?@E 366? 23=6 E@ 56=:G6C “2 D:?8=6 ECF4<” @7 7@@5 @C @E96C 9F>2?:E2C:2? 2DD:DE2?46 D:?46 |2C49 H96? xDC26= :>A=6>6?E65 2 3=@4<256]k^Am

    kAmp D9@CE286 @7 H2E6C 92D 4@?EC:3FE65 E@ E96 DAC625 @7 5:D62D6 😕 v2K2 😕 255:E:@? E@ C:D:?8 DE2CG2E:@?] &}#(p — E96 &]}] 286?4J 7@C !2=6DE:?:2? C67F866D — D2:5 %9FCD52J :ED 962=E9 46?E6CD ?@H D66 2? 2G6C286 `_[b__ A2E:6?ED 2 H66< H:E9 :?764E:@FD 5:D62D6D[ >@DE=J 5:2CC962 7C@> 4@?E2>:?2E65 H2E6C]k^Am

    kAm#6=:67 @C82?:K2E:@?D 2C6 H2C?:?8 E92E 2446DD E@ 7@@5[ H2E6C 2?5 @E96C 2:5 4@F=5 36 7FCE96C 5:DCFAE65 3J xDC26=’D A=2?D E@ =2F?49 2 ?6H @776?D:G6 @? D@>6 @7 E96 =2DE 2C62D @FED:56 :ED >:=:E2CJ 4@?EC@=] %9@D6 :?4=F56 56?D6=J A@AF=2E65 v2K2 r:EJ 2?5 |FH2D:[ H96C6 C67F866D 92G6 7=65 E96 7:89E:?8]k^Am

    kAmr9C:DE:2? |] (256 4@G6CD E96 |2DD249FD6EED $E2E69@FD6 7@C }@CE9 @7 q@DE@? |65:2 vC@FAUCDBF@jD ?6HDA2A6CD 2?5 H63D:E6D] t>2:= 9:> 2E k2 9C67lQ>2:=E@i4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>Qm4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>k^2m]k^Am

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Merrick Garland didn’t ‘veto’ attempted assassination charges against Ryan Routh

    Merrick Garland didn’t ‘veto’ attempted assassination charges against Ryan Routh

    Ryan Wesley Routh, the suspect in the Sept. 15 apparent assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump at a Florida golf course, was charged a day later at a West Palm Beach court with two federal gun crimes.

    The charges seem to have left some social media users confused and falsely speculating about Attorney General Merrick Garland’s intentions in the case.

    “So, Attorney General Merrick Garland just vetoed charging Ryan Routh with attempted assassination,” a man said in a Sept. 18 TikTok video that had nearly 200,000 likes by Sept. 20.

    The speaker described what happened at the golf course that day and said, “To not charge him with attempted assassination, that means that Merrick Garland has found some reason to think that Ryan Routh was there for some other reason, wearing body armor and carrying a fully loaded rifle.”

    Users on X and Instagram shared the same video. A man in another TikTok video made the same accusation about Garland.

    TikTok identified this video as part of its efforts to counter inauthentic, misleading or false content. (Read more about PolitiFact’s partnership with TikTok.)

    Routh in his first court appearance was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and possession and receipt of a firearm with an obliterated serial number. But the TikTok videos ignore that the Justice Department said its federal investigation continues, and that more serious charges may come.

    (TikTok screenshot)

    The Justice Department didn’t respond to PolitiFact’s request for comment, but Garland spoke about the case in a Sept. 17 speech before the community policing group Concerns of Police Survivors in Washington, D.C.

    He said the FBI is “continuing to investigate the apparent assassination attempt” against Trump in coordination with local and state law enforcement partners, and that “we will spare no resource in this investigation.”

    On Sept. 17, FBI agents went to Routh’s Hawaii home searching for evidence. CNN reported Sept. 19, citing unnamed law enforcement sources, that federal investigators were working to build an attempted assassination case against Routh.

    The court set a Sept. 23 bond hearing on Routh’s gun charges and a Sept. 30 arraignment.

    It is common for suspects to initially be charged with lesser crimes as an investigation of more serious ones continues, legal experts say.

    MSNBC legal analysts Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord, both former federal prosecutors, explained why in a Sept. 18 episode of their podcast, “Prosecuting Donald Trump.”

    Weissman noted that Routh was charged in a criminal complaint, rather than an indictment. An indictment will require a grand jury to vote on whether charges should be brought as felonies.

    McCord said initial charges in a case depend on whether it is “arrest-generated” or generated by a prearrest investigation. In an arrest-generated event, such as Routh’s case, “by law, there’s only a short period of time where that person has to be presented in court.” A judge would then need to find that there was probable cause for an arrest based on a criminal complaint.

    “There hasn’t been time for presenting this case to a grand jury. Yet, obviously the government is not ready for Mr. Routh to go about his merry way,” McCord said. 

    McCord said the government will “take the most readily chargeable offenses,” in this case, the gun charges, to keep a suspect behind bars as an investigation continues.

    Weissman said sometimes prosecutors will bring charges to put someone “on ice immediately when there’s clear danger.” He recalled another case involving a plane bombing suspect where less serious charges were brought initially as the investigation continued.

    He was referring to the case of Colombian hitman Dandeny Muñoz-Mosquera, who was a suspect in the 1989 bombing of an Avianca jet that killed 107 people, including two Americans.

    A New York Times article said federal officers arrested Muñoz-Mosquera in 1991 in New York who were told a Medellin assassin was in town. They couldn’t prove he was there to kill someone, but charged him with making false statements to federal officers and carrying false Colombian identification. As he served six years in prison on those charges, he was indicted, and later convicted for the plane bombing.

    “You can be sure that the FBI is going through any and all evidence, from witnesses, from documents, and getting all sorts of court orders to get access to emails, to find out everything about” Routh to see whether they can make a case for an attempted assassination charge, Weissman said.

    Weissman said the federal investigators are also likely looking for evidence about Routh’s mental state, because they will need to “show what his intent was.”

    The TikTok video’s claim that Garland vetoed an attempted assassination charge against Routh ignores that Garland said the federal investigation of the incident continues. Prosecutors sometimes bring lesser charges against suspects initially and add charges later.

    The claim is False.

    Source link

  • Mucarsel-Powell misleads on Scott’s abortion stance

    Mucarsel-Powell misleads on Scott’s abortion stance

    Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Debbie Mucarsel-Powell recently launched a Spanish-language radio ad across Florida that accused incumbent Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., of supporting limits on abortion without exceptions.

    The ad said Scott “wants to take away women’s reproductive rights with no exceptions.” (In Spanish, the ad says, Rick Scott “quiere quitarles los derechos reproductivos a las mujeres sin excepciones.”)

    Laws that govern abortion come with different exceptions, which vary by state. Some of the strictest state laws, such as in Texas and Louisiana, ban abortion at any point in pregnancy, and provide few exceptions. Other states provide more exceptions and later cutoffs.

    Does Scott, a former two-term Florida governor, support restrictions “with no exceptions?” No.

    Scott has defined himself as “pro-life” and supports limits on abortion, but with exceptions. He has said that if he were still Florida’s governor he would have signed the state’s current six-week abortion ban, which includes some exceptions. 

    Scott has also said he prefers abortion limits at 15 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the pregnant woman, because he believes that’s what most Americans support.

    Seven in 10 Americans think abortion should be legal in all or most cases, a July AP-NORC poll found. About one quarter of the respondents who said women should be able to get abortions for any reason also said states shouldn’t allow abortion after 15 weeks, The Associated Press reported.

    Jonathan Turcotte, a spokesperson for Scott’s reelection campaign, told PolitiFact that “Scott opposes a national abortion ban and supports the consensus at 15-weeks with exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother.”

    Scott’s abortion stance 

    Scott served as Florida’s governor from 2011 to 2019 and signed many anti-abortion policies into law, including an ultrasound-viewing requirement before women can undergo abortions. 

    Nothing he signed rivaled the six-week abortion ban Gov. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., signed into law.

    On April 13, 2023, Scott said on X that he would sign Florida’s six-week abortion ban if he were still governor.

    He reiterated his position a year later in an interview with Spectrum Bay News 9. “If I was the sitting governor and the six-week abortion ban came in front of me, I would sign it. I’d always said I would sign it,” Scott said April 16.

    Florida’s six-week ban includes exceptions in cases of rape, incest and human trafficking through 15 weeks of pregnancy, and if the pregnant woman’s health or life is “at serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment.”

    Scott has also repeated that, while he would have signed the law, he prefers a 15-week abortion limit, with exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the pregnant woman.

    “So if I was writing a bill, I’d think that 15 weeks with the limitations (for rape, incest and to protect the life of the pregnant woman) is where the state’s at. I think it’s important we do what there’s consensus” for, Scott told The Hill in an April interview. 

    Mucarsel-Powell’s campaign pointed to Scott’s support of Florida’s six-week law, saying it didn’t have mental health exceptions or exceptions for rape, incest and human trafficking. Florida had to clarify the exceptions in its law shortly after it took effect May 1, but it does have rape, incest and human trafficking exceptions, up to 15 weeks, and exceptions for the pregnant woman’s health.

    PolitiFact reviewed news archives from Scott’s tenure as Florida governor and found no evidence he has ever supported zero exceptions for abortions.

    Reproductive health experts say abortion exceptions are vague or require complicated steps that often don’t work in practice. Doctors say they wrestle with legal language that makes it difficult to determine whether a patient’s case qualifies.

    For example, Alabama outlaws abortion except when there are serious health risks to the pregnant woman. Its health exception includes mental health, but requires a psychiatrist to diagnose the pregnant woman with a “serious mental illness” and document that it’s likely the woman will engage in behavior that could result in her death or the fetus’s death, KFF reported. The law doesn’t define “serious mental illness” and doesn’t allow physicians to determine what illnesses qualify for the exception. 

    In complicated cases, physicians find themselves weighing patients’ medical conditions against concerns about their legal liability. The penalties for mistakes can be severe: In some states, violating abortion laws is considered a felony, and can be punishable by large fines and from a  decade to life in prison. 

    Our ruling

    Mucarsel-Powell said Scott does not support abortion exceptions.

    This is inaccurate. 

    Scott supports some exceptions. He has said that, if he were Florida’s governor, he would have signed the state’s current six-week abortion ban, which includes exceptions for rape and incest through 15 weeks of pregnancy and the pregnant woman’s health and life.

    Scott says he prefers abortion limits at 15 weeks of pregnancy with those three exceptions, because he believes that’s what most Americans support. 

    We found no examples of Scott saying exceptions should not be allowed.

    We rate this claim False.

    RELATED: All abortion bans include exceptions for a mother’s life. But are they working? 

    PolitiFact Researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.

    Source link

  • Juneau GOP claim planes full of refugees arriving

    Juneau GOP claim planes full of refugees arriving

    What’s more, the Facebook post misunderstands the meaning of the word refugee and the process by which refugees are allowed to enter the United States. In short, there is basically nothing right about the claim, and everything wrong about it.

    Immigration at the southern border is one of voters’ top concerns in the upcoming election.

    And Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s large-scale operation to bus thousands of migrants and asylum seekers to other U.S. cities has drawn both scrutiny and praise.

    But Wisconsin cities have not been locations where migrants, asylum seekers or other kinds of immigrants have been transported en masse.

    Despite that fact, the Republican Party of Juneau County on Facebook: “Ask Governor Evers why planes full of unvetted ‘refugees’ are being accepted at the Milw. & Madison airports!”

    The post, from June 25, 2024, has 31 shares as of July 2. Among those who shared the post were the Republican Party of Green and Lincoln counties.

    We found the claim is incorrect on multiple counts. 

    Planes full of migrants are not arriving in Wisconsin, officials say

    First, officials for both Milwaukee Mitchell International Airport and Dane County Regional Airport said planes full of refugees have not been arriving.

    “The source provides no proof, and we have no proof either. The information posted is not factual,” Harold Mester, director of public affairs and marketing for Milwaukee Mitchell Airport, said in an email.

    Kimberly Jones, director of the Dane County airport, agreed.

    “We certainly have not had ‘planes full’ of refugees coming in to our Airport. To my knowledge there is no accuracy to the statement,” Jones said in an email.

    And Gina Paige, the spokeswoman for the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families, which houses the state Bureau of Refugee Programs, said the department “has not been made aware of any migrant arrivals to Wisconsin airports.”

    Jim Mackman, director of philanthropy for Jewish Social Services of Madison, one of Wisconsin’s resettlement agencies, said the same:

    “I am not aware of a current surge of other types of migrants coming to Wisconsin.” 

    Refugees are not the same as those who cross the border without documents

    Second, the use of the word refugees in the claim is off the mark.

    The federal government defines refugees narrowly. They are not the same as migrants or asylum seekers, or others who cross the border without proper documentation.

    The State Department says a refugee is “an individual who is outside their country of nationality, or if no nationality, their last habitual residence, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unwilling or unable to avail themselves of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”

    In short, refugees are people who were forced to flee their home countries because of threats or persecution against their identity, and they are staying in a second country – often in a refugee camp – where they register with the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees. 

    After a screening process, the UNHCR then recommends refugees to be resettled in a third country. The U.S. set a ceiling of admitting 125,000 refugees in the 2024 fiscal year.

    “Refugee resettlement to the U.S. is traditionally offered to the most vulnerable refugee cases including women and children at risk, women heads of households, the elderly, survivors of violence and torture and those with acute medical needs,” the UNHCR said. 

    ‘Unvetted refugee’ is an oxymoron

    Further, the claim misunderstands how refugees are resettled in the U.S. 

    Once refugees are selected to be resettled, one of nine national refugee resettlement agencies takes their case and determines which of their local affiliates should handle the case.

    Local resettlement agencies and their volunteers set up refugees in homes, help them find jobs, take them to doctor’s appointments and English classes and more.

    Refugees do not cross the southern border to arrive, and they are not undocumented. When refugees are brought to the U.S., they receive permanent legal residency, also known as a green card.

    And while refugees do arrive in the U.S. on airplanes, they do not arrive on “planes full” of other refugees. Paige said refugees take flights as individuals, or as families, on commercial airlines.

    Finally, refugee resettlement leaders also note that an “unvetted refugee” is an oxymoron. 

    “Refugees are among the most vetted immigrants to the United States,” Mackman said.

    Paige echoed that comment.

    “Refugees go through a rigorous vetting process which usually takes 12-24 months,” she said.

    According to the UNHCR, the vetting process includes:

    • Screening by eight federal agencies including the State Department, Department of Homeland Security and the FBI

    • Six security database checks and biometric security checks screened against U.S. federal databases

    • Medical screening

    • Three in-person interviews with Department of Homeland Security officers

    It’s unclear whether the person who created the Facebook post was referring to refugees or migrants who cross the U.S.-Mexico border. People associated with the Republican Party of Juneau County, as well as the parties of Green and Lincoln counties, did not respond to emails, calls and text messages from PolitiFact Wisconsin.

    But the poster commented on their own post alluding to border crossers:

    “Where I work, I know 2 people who immigrated legally, one from Canada, one from Jamaica. Both said the process was vigorous and took weeks, and required a physical examination. Contrast that to what is going on at our borders,” the person wrote.

    Our ruling

    The Republican Party of Juneau County claimed on Facebook that planes full of unvetted refugees were being accepted to the Milwaukee and Madison airports.

    But officials from both airports, the state refugee bureau and a local resettlement agency said there was no evidence that planes full of unvetted individuals were arriving in Wisconsin. The party provides zero evidence of this, nor could we find any on our own.

    We rate the claim Pants on Fire.

     

    Source link

  • What SCOTUS ruling means for Trump, future presidents

    What SCOTUS ruling means for Trump, future presidents

    In a landmark ruling with potentially major impact on the 2024 presidential campaign, a U.S. Supreme Court majority ruled that presidents — including former President Donald Trump — have immunity from prosecution when carrying out “official acts.” 

    “Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority,” the court wrote. “And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.”

    The July 1 decision in Trump v. United States fell along partisan lines, with the six conservative justices voting in the majority and the three liberal justices dissenting.

    The ruling  follows the June 27 presidential debate and comes amid a campaign in which both political parties have cried foul over perceived abuses of presidential power. This issue is sure to become an issue on the campaign trail. 

    Here are some key facts to keep in mind from the ruling.

    The ruling almost certainly helps Trump avoid further trials before the election

    In the short term, the ruling will almost certainly delay past this November’s general election Trump’s federal prosecution on charges that he interfered with the 2020 election. That’s because the justices sent the case back to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to determine which elements of the indictment would count as official and unofficial acts, a process that legal experts said cannot be sorted out before Election Day, especially because any trial court decisions could be appealed.

    “Today’s ruling ensures that no criminal prosecution of Trump may proceed before the election,” Michael Gerhardt, a University of North Carolina law professor, said in an email. “Trump will raise this opinion as a defense.”

    The campaigns have highlighted perceived presidential power abuses 

    Trump replied on Truth Social, “BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!” In a fundraising email, the Trump campaign wrote “Crooked Joe Biden KNEW this case would fall apart, but he STILL had his out-of-control DOJ try to TAKE ME DOWN!” 

    Biden is not responsible for decisions by prosecutors to present cases to grand juries.

    Trump has previously called the New York case a “Biden trial” which we rated false. The Manhattan district attorney’s investigation into Trump’s business records began before Biden was president, but Biden was president by the time Trump was charged in 2023. While District Attorney Alvin Bragg hired a former Justice Department lawyer, that doesn’t prove that Biden directed the prosecution. 

    The Biden campaign said in a statement, “Today’s ruling doesn’t change the facts, so let’s be very clear about what happened on January 6th: Donald Trump snapped after he lost the 2020 election and encouraged a mob to overthrow the results of a free and fair election.” On that day, Trump held a “Save America” rally at which he repeatedly said there was a need to “fight” and invited his supporters to go to the Capitol. Trump often highlights that he used the word “peacefully” during his remarks. 

    The Biden campaign also highlighted past Trump statements including that he is “promising to be a dictator ‘on Day 1’” — a reference to Trump’s December interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, when Trump said during the interview that he would be a dictator only on “Day 1” adding “We are closing the border and we are drilling, drilling, drilling. After that I am not a dictator, OK?”

    Trump has made other comments that sound authoritarian. The Biden campaign also said Trump had promised “a bloodbath if he loses.” 

    Trump was discussing the auto industry and electric vehicles in March when he made the “bloodbath” comment.

    Biden’s campaign also highlighted Trump’s remark about terminating the Constitution. In 2022, Trump said on Truth Social that election fraud could be the basis for the “termination” of rules found in the Constitution, although days later he sought to walk back his words, writing in a new post, “The Fake News is actually trying to convince the American People that I said I wanted to ‘terminate’ the Constitution, and called it “disinformation and lies.” 

    We fact-checked Trump’s statement that election fraud allows the termination of rules including in the Constitution and rated it Pants on Fire. 

    The ruling significantly limits checks on presidential power

    The ruling’s longer-term implications could be just as important as its impact on Trump’s legal cases. 

    Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion is the “ultimate clapback for Watergate,” Stephen Griffin, a Tulane University law professor, said in an email. In the 1970s, President Richard Nixon “need never have feared prosecution, and President Gerald Ford’s pardon would have been completely unnecessary.”

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor made this argument in her sharply worded dissent, which Mark Osler, a University of St. Thomas law professor, called “the most chilling part” of the opinions released today.

    Sotomayor wrote that the decision “effectively creates a law-free zone around the president, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the founding. … Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune. … In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.”

    The majority offered phrases in its opinion that suggest limits to presidential immunity. 

    Roberts argued that “the president is not above the law,” writing that “the president enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the president does is official.”

    However, Roberts added that a president “may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts.”

    The ruling “effectively makes criminal prosecutions of former presidents all but impossible, whatever Roberts may have said,” Frank Bowman, a University of Missouri emeritus law professor, said. “Virtually any awful thing a president can do in office can arguably be placed in either the core power or official conduct box, thus affording the president’s crimes either absolute or presumptive immunity.”

    The majority opinion also set other obstacles to prosecuting a president. For instance, the opinion says, “In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the president’s motives.”

    Another aspect of the ruling is notably sweeping, said Joan Meyer, a partner at the law firm Thompson Hine LLP who has worked as a federal and local prosecutor. 

    “Testimony or records of the former president and his advisors relating to the immune conduct may not be admitted into evidence at trial,” Meyer said. “It’s one thing to say that the immune conduct cannot be charged as a criminal violation. It is another to say the prosecutor cannot enter any evidence about it to explain the facts and circumstances supporting the permissible charges.”

    On this point, Justice Amy Coney Barrett broke with the majority’s other five members. “I appreciate the Court’s concern that allowing into evidence official acts for which the President cannot be held criminally liable may prejudice the jury,” Barrett wrote. “But the rules of evidence are equipped to handle that concern on a case-by-case basis.”

    Given how the oral arguments went, “I was not surprised that the court granted immunity for official acts,” Michigan State University law professor Brian Kalt said. However, he added that he was “surprised by how broadly they seemed to define what constitutes an official act.”

    Likely no impact on Trump’s conviction and sentencing in Manhattan case, for now

    A unanimous jury in the Manhattan case concluded May 30 that Trump was guilty of all 34 counts of falsifying business records in an alleged scheme to cover up a hush money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels before the 2016 presidential election. He is scheduled to be sentenced July 11, a few days before the Republican National Convention. Trump has said he will appeal.

    Jerry Goldfeder, a lawyer in New York who specializes in campaign finance and election law, said the immunity ruling shouldn’t affect Judge Juan Merchan’s sentencing decision in the business records case.

    Trump in his appeal may raise the immunity issue, which will be litigated up to the highest court in New York and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court, Goldfeder said.

    Trump’s case in Georgia could be affected, to a degree

    A legal expert said the Supreme Court’s decision  could have some impact in Trump’s fourth legal case, involving an indictment by a Fulton County grand jury for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia.

    Anthony Michael Kreis, a constitutional law professor at Georgia State University, told PolitiFact that the “vast majority of the Fulton County indictment against Trump is unaffected by today’s decision.”

    However, the ruling could restrict some evidence from being used, such as conversations between Trump and Trump administration officials including Jefffrey Clark, a Justice Department official, and Mark Meadows, Trump’s chief of staff, Kreis said. Clark and Meadows were among the co-defendants prosecuted by Fulton County.

    Those conversations “will be part of protected conduct that cannot be used against Trump as evidence in furtherance of proving other charges.”

    The ruling “also complicates how the defendants get tried,” Kreis said. “I am doubtful Clark and Meadows can be tried alongside Trump now, which somewhat complicates how the trial might move forward.”

    The Fulton County prosecution had already faced delays, which made a trial before November unlikely even before the Supreme Court’s ruling.

    University of Georgia law professor Melissa Redmon, a former Fulton County prosecutor, said that the Fulton case as a whole remains intact, but it will have some impact. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee said he would wait for the Supreme Court ruling on immunity before deciding how to proceed in the Georgia case.

    PolitiFact Researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.

    RELATED: Read all of PolitiFact’s coverage on Donald Trump indictments

    Source link

  • No, the 9th Circuit didn’t rule vaccine mandates unconstitut

    No, the 9th Circuit didn’t rule vaccine mandates unconstitut

    After an appeals court ruled in favor of Los Angeles school employees who opposed COVID-19 vaccination mandates, independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., celebrated on social media.

    “The ranks of the conspiracy theorists now include the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which just ruled Covid vax mandates unconstitutional because the vaccine does not stop transmission,” Kennedy wrote in a June 12 Facebook post. “I dunno, maybe it’s the brain worm, but I seem to remember the experts and authorities telling us otherwise.”

    But Kennedy’s characterization distorts the court’s ruling. Kennedy has made misleading anti-vaccine claims a hallmark of his work and campaign. Kennedy’s campaign of conspiracy theories was PolitiFact’s 2023 Lie of the Year.

    The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on June 7 ruled only that the lawsuit filed against the Los Angeles Unified School District could move forward. It overturned a lower court decision to dismiss the lawsuit, which was brought by the nonprofit Health Freedom Defense Fund, which advocates against vaccine mandates, and employees who opposed the district’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate.

    “The court did not rule on the legitimacy or accuracy of the plaintiffs’ factual allegations about the vaccines, such as their claims that the vaccines do not prevent transmission,” said Stacey B. Lee, a law and ethics professor at the Johns Hopkins Carey Business School.  

    Both Lee and Dorit Reiss, an expert on vaccine policy at University of California Law, San Francisco, told PolitiFact that the court didn’t directly address the constitutionality of vaccine mandates.

    “The question before the court was whether the district court was right to dismiss the case without letting it go to fact finding,” Reiss said. 

    That question had two main parts: Did the school district’s decision to revoke the mandate render the case moot? And did the lower court correctly apply a U.S. Supreme Court precedent related to vaccine requirements? 

    “We vacate the district court’s order dismissing this claim and remand for further proceedings under the correct legal standard,” Judge Ryan Nelson wrote in the court’s 2-1 decision. 

    We contacted Kennedy and received no response.

    (Screenshot from Facebook.)

    The school district’s vaccine mandate

    In 2021, the Los Angeles Unified School District announced — and repeatedly amended — policies that required employees be vaccinated against COVID-19 or risk losing their jobs.

    Vaccine mandate-opposed employees and the Health Freedom Defense Fund argued in their lawsuit that the policy violated their right to refuse medical treatment. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution’s due process clause protects a person’s right to refuse medical care. 

    The lower court dismissed the case. 

    Appealing that decision, the plaintiffs asked the courts to declare the vaccination requirements unconstitutional and to prevent the district from requiring it in the future, according to the 9th Circuit opinion. 

    The school district dropped its vaccination policy in September 2023. Administrators said the district weighed factors including the slower and more predictable spread of the virus and the availability of COVID-19 treatments, LAist reported.

    Oral arguments before the 9th Circuit took place Sept. 14, 2023, not long before the district’s school board voted to rescind the policy, according to the 9th Circuit opinion. 

    Nelson wrote that the school district had “reversed course several times” on its policy. 

    “LAUSD’s pattern of withdrawing and then reinstating its vaccination policies is enough to keep this case alive,” the 9th Circuit opinion said. 

    The appeals court said a Supreme Court precedent was incorrectly applied

    In dismissing the lawsuit, the lower court had relied in part on the Supreme Court’s 1905 ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, which the defense had argued supported the vaccine mandate’s constitutionality. That Jacobson decision established that a smallpox vaccination requirement was constitutional, saying states can implement “reasonable regulations” to protect public health and safety.

    The 9th Circuit ruling said the lower court’s application of the Jacobson precedent in the Los Angeles case was flawed. 

    The plaintiffs in the Los Angeles Unified School District case had argued that COVID-19 vaccines do not effectively prevent the spread of the virus and only mitigate symptoms for vaccine recipients. They argued COVID-19 vaccines are “a medical treatment, not a ‘traditional’ vaccine,” according to the 9th Circuit opinion.

    The appeals court ruled that the Jacobson standard would not apply if the plaintiffs’ anti-vaccine arguments were factually true — something the court noted had not been fully examined or factually established at this stage of the court proceedings. 

    “On a motion to dismiss, the court is compelled to take the plaintiffs’ allegations as true,” said Margaret Foster Riley, a law and public health sciences professor at the University of Virginia’s School of Law. “It is not meant to evaluate those claims, but rather to determine whether the plaintiff has a legally viable case assuming everything that they allege is true.”

    By allowing the case to continue, the plaintiffs now have the task of arguing the veracity of their COVID-19 vaccine claims. The defense, if it wants to use Jacobson as grounds for dismissal, has the task of submitting evidence to rebut the plaintiffs’ claims that vaccines don’t effectively prevent the virus’ spread.

    Alternatively, the school district could appeal and either request a larger bench of 9th Circuit judges hear their arguments for dismissal or appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

    “It’s crucial to note the court did not endorse the plaintiffs’ claims about the vaccines,” Lee said. The court found that “Jacobson alone would not definitively resolve the case at the outset,” if the plaintiffs’ allegations about the vaccines proved true. 

    The ruling said the appeals court’s findings on the application of Jacobson were preliminary. “We do not prejudge whether, on a more developed factual record, Plaintiffs’ allegations will prove true,” it read.

    Our ruling

    Kennedy claimed the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals “just ruled Covid vax mandates unconstitutional.”

    The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 to vacate a lower court’s dismissal of the vaccine mandate lawsuit; it did not rule on whether a vaccine mandate is constitutional. 

    We rate this claim False.

    PolitiFact Researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.

    Source link

  • Felony conviction doesn’t bar Trump from Texas ballot

    Felony conviction doesn’t bar Trump from Texas ballot

    Former President Donald Trump’s felony convictions have led to a lot of questions about what he can and can’t do with a criminal record. He will likely be able to vote in November. He can’t possess firearms. He can run for president. 

    A June 8 Threads post said Trump’s conviction means he can’t appear on the ballot in the red state of Texas, an important state for the Republican candidate because it delivers 40 electoral college votes. 

    “Trump can’t be on the Texas ballot because of our state constitution,” the post said. It appeared about one week after a Manhattan jury convicted Trump of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.

    The post continued: “The United States Constitution does not prohibit felons from holding elected federal office. However, various federal statutes provide that a conviction may result in loss of or ineligibility for office. Texas law prohibits any person convicted of a felony from being a candidate for public office or holding any public office position. A full pardon restores eligibility to run for office.”

    The post was flagged as part of Meta’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.)

    The post wrongly states that Texas’ constitution would knock Trump off the ballot. 

    “The qualifications of federal office are outlined by the U.S. Constitution, not the Texas Constitution,” Alicia Phillips Pierce, a spokesperson for Texas’ secretary of state, told PolitiFact in an email. 

    The Texas secretary of state’s website lists the qualifications for the presidency and does not  mention criminal history. That’s because it wouldn’t disqualify a candidate from running for the presidency.

    The U.S. Constitution upholds the principle that voters decide who should represent them, and its qualifications are limited to natural-born citizenship, age (35 by Inauguration Day) and residency in the United States (14 years).

    Texas election code prohibits anyone who is “finally convicted of a felony” from running for office in the state, but that doesn’t cover the U.S. presidency, which is a federal office, said Mimi Marziani, an adjunct professor at University of Texas at Austin law school who has taught constitutional law.

    “It does mean that if Trump were finally convicted — after his appeals, etc. — that he would be ineligible to run for, say, Texas Governor,” said Marziani, a lawyer in private practice and former president of the Texas Civil Rights Project, a nonprofit group advocating for voting rights. 

    Texas election code states that a political party is entitled to have the names of its nominees for president and vice president on the ballot as long as those nominees meet the qualifications “prescribed by federal law.”

    Andy Taylor, an election lawyer in Texas who has represented many Texas Republicans, agreed that the claim that Trump’s felony conviction bars him from the ballot is wrong. 

    “Trump can and will be on the ballot in Texas,” Taylor said.

    People convicted of felonies have run for president in the past. Lyndon LaRouche was convicted in 1988 of tax and mail fraud conspiracy and ran for president multiple times from 1976 to 2004. Eugene Debs was convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917 for an anti-war speech, then ran for president under the Socialist Party banner from a federal prison in Alabama in 1920. 

    Trump faces sentencing July 11. It is unknown whether he will receive jail time.

    Our ruling

    A Threads post said, “Trump can’t be on the Texas ballot because of our state constitution.”

    The U.S. Constitution does not state that felony convictions bar someone from running for president, and the federal framework supersedes any state rules on whether someone can run for president. 

    The state constitution can establish requirements only to run for state office, not a federal office such as president. 

    We rate this statement False.

    RELATED: Read all of PolitiFact’s coverage on Donald Trump indictments

    Source link

  • Evers did veto PFAS bill and is still asking for funding

    Evers did veto PFAS bill and is still asking for funding

    “Forever chemicals” have become a flashpoint for Wisconsin politics. 

    Although there has been money set aside — a $125 million trust fund — to address the growing number of communities and homeowners impacted by PFAS, Republicans and Democrats disagree over how best to release the money to the state Department of Natural Resources for spending. 

    Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, wants the department to decide how to best spend the money to help residents. Meanwhile, Republicans say they want a clear spending plan for the money, created through legislation. 

    Over the last several months, Evers has continually called for the release of the PFAS trust fund to the Department of Natural Resources, so the agency can focus on solving issues being caused by the chemicals. 

    But with that call for release has also come controversy, as pointed out by state Sen. Van Wanggaard, R-Racine, in April 15 on X. 

    “Do you think he realizes that he’s using the fact that he vetoed how to spend the money to ask that we give him the money anyways?” the post said. 

    Wanggaard’s post was meant as a comment on a previous post by Evers, in which the governor again called on the Legislature to “release these funds and get this important work done for folks and families across our state.” 

    But let’s look at Wanggaard’s claim – basically, he’s saying that Evers is asking the GOP to release money for PFAS, but “vetoed (a bill outlining) how to spend the money.” 

    Is that true? 

    PFAS have faced a partisan battle

    When asked for backup, a Wanggaard spokesperson declined to share any information about the claim. But plenty of information already exists, so let’s dive in. 

    PFAS, polyfluoroalkyl substances, are widely used, long-lasting synthetic chemicals found in a wide array of consumer products including stain-resistant carpet, waterproof clothing and nonstick cookware. They’re called “forever chemicals” because they’re nearly indestructible — they don’t dissolve in water and break down slowly. Scientific studies have linked exposure to some PFAS in the environment to harmful health effects in humans and animals.

    In April, Evers did veto a bill created by Republicans that outlined how they thought the $125 million trust fund should be spent. Issuing the veto, of course, is Evers’ prerogative.  

    The bill included a provision that some believe could harm the Department of Natural Resources ’ authority to address PFAS contamination, and another targeted at “innocent landowners” that environmental advocates worried would excuse some PFAS manufacturers and users from having to take responsibility for a contamination. 

    Officials with the department, Evers and Republican bill authors met several times throughout the drafting process and the amendment process, but did not reach a compromise, according to an Oct. 11, 2023, report from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 

    Republicans have insisted that the veto also blocks them from releasing the funds currently held in the trust fund, the Journal Sentinel report said. 

    Republicans voted along party lines to override Evers’ veto, but the Assembly — also controlled by Republicans — has offered no indication it will schedule its own vote.  

    So, the matter has been left in limbo. 

    Evers has repeatedly asked the Legislature to release the money. He even tried to call in the Joint Finance Committee to release the funding and his administration submitted several draft plans to the panel that outlined how the money could be spent without further legislation. 

    On May 7, 2023, for example, the committee released funding from the national opioid settlement agreement, after altering the Department of Health Service’s submitted plan, according to the Journal Sentinel. 

    But the committee twice refused to hold a vote. 

    Republican leaders on the committee said the panel can’t hold a vote to release the funding, because “it would be essentially ignoring the governor’s veto on the bill spending the money,” a May 14, 2024 report from the Journal Sentinel said.

    Leadership also suggested that releasing the funding after the veto could open the Legislature up to legal action. 

    Our ruling

    Wanggaard claimed that despite the governor’s calls for Republicans to release the PFAS “trust fund,” Evers “vetoed (a bill outlining) how to spend the money.” 

    Evers in April 2024 did veto a Republican-authored bill that outlined how the money could be spent, and created new programs to aid in cleaning up PFAS and protecting “innocent landowners” from being held liable for contamination on their property. 

    Of course, Evers isn’t obligated to agree to the Republican plan, any more than Republicans on the Joint Finance Committee are obligated to sign off on his administration’s plans to let the DNR spend the PFAS trust fund. 

    And without some sort of agreement between Republicans and Democrats, Wisconsin is unlikely to see the PFAS funding released to communities. 

    We rate this claim Mostly True. While Wanggaard’s statement is accurate, it needs clarification or additional information.

     

     

    Source link

  • Why Steve Bannon and Hunter Biden’s subpoena disputes differ

    Why Steve Bannon and Hunter Biden’s subpoena disputes differ

    After a federal judge ordered Steve Bannon, a political strategist and former adviser to then-President Donald Trump, to serve a four-month prison term for contempt of Congress, social media users drew comparisons to President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter.

    A June 6 Instagram post showed a photo of Bannon with text above it that read, “A judge just sent Steve Bannon to prison for ignoring a congressional subpoena. Hunter did the same thing. No prison.”

    Other Instagram posts made similar claims. These posts lack context.

    The Instagram posts were flagged as part of Meta’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.)

    Subpoenas are orders to produce records or testimony. Courts, government agencies and Congress have the power to issue subpoenas, and failure to comply can result in civil or criminal penalties.

    Although both Bannon and Biden disobeyed congressional subpoenas, Bannon received a prison sentence because he was convicted of contempt of Congress. Biden ultimately agreed to testify in front of Congress, so he did not face contempt charges.

    Steve Bannon appears in court in New York, Jan. 12, 2023. (AP)

    What happened when Steve Bannon was subpoenaed

    On Sept. 23, 2021, the House select committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol subpoenaed Bannon, requiring him to produce documents and testify before the committee. Bannon refused to comply.

    Then, on Oct. 21, 2021, the House of Representatives voted 229-202 to hold Bannon in contempt for defying the Jan. 6 committee’s subpoena. The vote was largely along party lines, with nine Republican members joining Democrats who then controlled the House.

    After this vote, the House referred the matter to the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, D.C., and Bannon was indicted on two counts of contempt of Congress; he was found guilty of these counts in July 2022.

    In October, 2022, he was sentenced to four months in prison and ordered to pay a $6,500 fine. (Each count of contempt of Congress is punishable up to one year in prison and up to $100,000 in fines, according to the Justice Department.)

    Judge Carl J. Nichols allowed Bannon to remain free while appealing the decision. After a federal appeals court in May upheld Bannon’s contempt conviction, Nichols ordered Bannon to report to prison by July 1.

    Hunter Biden, President Joe Biden’s son, talks to reporters as they leave a House Oversight Committee hearing as Republicans considered holding him in contempt of Congress, Jan. 10, 2024, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP)

    What happened when Hunter Biden was subpoenaed

    In November 2023, Republicans on the House Oversight Committee issued a subpoena to Hunter Biden, demanding he appear before lawmakers in a closed-door meeting. House Republicans subpoenaed other Biden family members as well.

    The subpoenas were part of the Republicans’ impeachment inquiry into President Biden, which focused on Hunter Biden’s international business affairs and whether President Biden profited from them.

    Initially, Hunter Biden refused to comply with the subpoena, offering instead to testify at a public hearing. Republicans rejected this offer, saying they wanted Biden to testify privately first.

    After months of back and forth, both parties agreed in January to hold a private deposition Feb. 28 under terms that the meeting would not be filmed and House Republicans would quickly release a transcript.

    Before the agreement was reached, House Republicans had been preparing to bring a vote to the full chamber on whether to hold Biden in contempt of Congress. If the House had voted to hold Biden in contempt, the issue would have been referred to the Justice Department, as it was in Bannon’s case.

    Because Biden ultimately agreed to testify before Congress and he was not charged with contempt of Congress, he was not sentenced to prison.

    Source link

  • Biden-Hur audio wasn’t leaked; it’s a deepfake

    Biden-Hur audio wasn’t leaked; it’s a deepfake

    Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives have threatened to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt for refusing to release an audio recording of Special Counsel Robert Hur’s interview of President Joe Biden in a classified documents case.

    A June 5 TikTok video claimed an audio clip from that interview may have already leaked.

    “Is this a leaked audio of special counsel Hur questioning Joe Biden,” the video’s caption said. “Is it real? If it’s fake, Joe Biden must release the real one. Otherwise, how can it be disputed?” 

    We found other social media posts sharing the same video.

    TikTok identified this video as part of its efforts to counter inauthentic, misleading or false content. (Read more about PolitiFact’s partnership with TikTok.)

    The Justice Department has been loath to release the audio recording of the Biden-Hur interview, partly, it says, because of the potential the audio could be manipulated using artificial intelligence to portray Biden or Hur saying something they did not say.

    The concern about deepfake audio recordings is real. As AI-generated audio recordings increase, the tools that can detect them lag, as PolitiFact reported in March. In January, a fake robocall mimicking Biden’s voice urged Democrats not to vote in New Hampshire primaries. Steven Kramer, a political consultant, was charged with numerous crimes  in that case related to voter suppression and impersonating a candidate.

    A Justice Department spokesperson said the department was confident the recording is fake, and deepfake experts told PolitiFact the recording had signs of manipulation. We also searched Google and the Nexis news database and found no reports of audio from the Biden-Hur interview being leaked. 

    (TikTok screenshot)

    “Although this is a pretty good deepfake of Biden’s voice, there is still a cadence in his voice that has the tell-tale signs of AI generation,” said Hany Farid, a University of California, Berkeley, computer science professor and digital forensics expert.

    The voices of Biden and Hur may sound comparable to their real voices and use similar language to the official transcript released by the Justice Department, but the audio in the TikTok video differs significantly with the transcript.

    Also, a transcript shown on-screen in the TikTok video also doesn’t match the released Biden-Hur interview transcript, omitting some words and adding others.

    Here’s what the TikTok video says the transcript and audio say:

    Mr. Hur: I wanted to ask some questions related to duties performed by — I guess I’ll call them front-office staff. Is that an accurate description?

    President Biden: Ah, I don’t really know, but OK.

    Mr. Hur: OK. Well what did you call the people who worked for you?

    President Biden: Uhh, by their names if I knew them.

    Mr. Hur: OK.

    President Biden: I’m not being facetious.

    Mr. Hur: No of course not.

    President Biden: I’m trying to think back ten years now, but — or more than 10 years, I guess. No, about ten years. No, wait. 2016, 2016, 2017, 2018, five, six, anyway.

    Mr. Hur: Mr. President, let’s continue.

    Here’s what the official transcript says:

    The official transcript of the interview contains some words in the video, but is significantly different. 

    Mr. Hur: We’ve gotten to know the names of some of the folks who worked in your front-office staff during your vice presidency, (name redacted), Michele Smith, (name redacted) and (name redacted) who then became (name redacted). So I wanted to ask some questions relating to duties that those — I guess I‘ll call them front-office staff. Is that an accurate description of them? 

    President Biden:  I never did, but sure. 

    Mr. Hur: OK. Well, what did you call them? 

    President Biden: By their first names. 

    Mr. Hur: OK.

    President Biden: I‘m not being facetious. 

    Mr. Hur: No. 

    President Biden: I’m not being facetious. And, by the way, a lot of this stuff would come back and whoever — if my intelligence team came in, and they gave me something, they, they’d come and pick it up, whatever it was. 

    So, for example, now, I’m trying to think back 10 years, but — or more than 10 years, I guess. No, about 10 years. But today, I had a briefing with — about what’s going on in Israel, a detailed briefing, in my residence upstairs in a room that’s not dissimilar to this off of the bedroom.

    A Justice Department spokesperson told PolitiFact in an email that the actual audio matches the actual transcript and is confident the TikTok video is fake. 

    The video is an example of why the department argued in court that not releasing the audio would make identifying fakes easier, the spokesperson said.

    In a lawsuit brought by a coalition of conservative groups, including Judicial Watch and the Heritage Foundation, and media outlets including The Associated Press and CNN, the Justice Department expressed concerns in a May 31 court filing that the Biden-Hur audio recording would be used to create deepfakes.

    “​The passage of time and advancements in audio, artificial intelligence, and ‘deep fake’ technologies only amplify concerns about malicious manipulation of audio files,” the department wrote. “If the audio recording is released here, it is easy to foresee that it could be improperly altered, and that the altered file could be passed off as an authentic recording and widely distributed.” 

    Bradley Weinsheimer, a Justice Department associate deputy attorney general, wrote in an affidavit that “malicious actors” could manipulate the recording. He said if the recording was not released, the department would be “better able to establish the illegitimacy of any malicious deepfake.”

    Weinsheimer said the written transcript accurately portrays the words in the audio recording, except for “minor instances” such as the use of filler words, including “um or uh,” or words that were repeated, such as “and, and.” Aside from that, he wrote, there are “no material differences between the audio recording and transcripts.”

    Weinsheimer said Hur and other FBI personnel who attended the interview confirmed the transcript accurately portrays the interview.

    In May, the Republican-led House Judiciary and Oversight committees voted to advance contempt proceedings against Garland for his refusal to turn over audio records of Hur’s interview of Biden.

    Garland testified June 4 before the House Judiciary Committee and said that the Justice Department had gone to “extraordinary lengths” to respond to Congress’ “legitimate request” for information, including providing legislators with Hur’s report, allowing Hur to testify before Congress for more than five hours and providing a transcript of the interview.

    “But we have made clear that we will not provide audio recordings from which the transcripts that you already have were created. Releasing the audio would chill cooperation with the department in future investigations,” Garland said. “And it could influence witnesses’ answers if they thought the audio of their law enforcement interviews would be broadcast to Congress and the public.”

    Experts told PolitiFact the audio has the markings of a deepfake.

    “The most relevant indicators reflect inconsistencies in speech rhythm and pitch, unnatural intonations, and lack of alignment between content in the audio” and the real transcript, said Manjeet Rege, director of the Center for Applied Artificial Intelligence at the University of St. Thomas. “The rhythm and cadence don’t align with what we know of President Biden’s normal speaking style.”

    He said technology has a hard time replicating the details of pitch, tone and pace.

    Hafiz Malik, a University of Michigan-Dearborn electrical and computer engineering professor, researches deepfakes using a software he created with his team that compares potential deepfake video and audio with hundreds of hours of authentic audio of public figures, including Biden.

    “Based on my analysis, it is a deepfake,” Malik told PolitiFact.

    Malik said in machine-generated content, he closely examines the pitch of the speaker. In normal conversation, speakers’ emotions and thought processes change — and their pitch also changes with them.

    “It doesn’t stay constant. It is changing every moment,” Malik said, adding that Biden’s voice in the TikTok recording was monotonous.

    He also looked at high-frequency bands from the audio. Those fade away in real voice, he said, but not in machine-generated content. Finally, he said in natural speech, phrases differ in length, but in machine-generated speech such as this, they are shorter.

    Our ruling

    A TikTok video that claims it may be a leaked clip of an audio recording between Biden and Hur includes audio and a transcript that differs from the official transcript released by the Justice Department. 

    Hur, according to a Justice Department official, confirmed that the official transcript accurately reflects the audio interview, which the department has declined so far to release.

    There are no credible news reports about a portion of the audio recording being leaked. The Justice Department and three deepfake experts said the audio is a deepfake.

    The claim is False.

    PolitiFact Researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this fact-check.

    Source link

  • Who will hear Donald Trump’s appeal?

    Who will hear Donald Trump’s appeal?

    During a May 31 press conference, former President Donald Trump said he plans to appeal his conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. 

    Even before he announced that intent, however, some people speculated about which justices might hear a Trump appeal. 

    “The appeals court,” one X user wrote, sharing a photo of five African American women in judicial robes. “I’m thinking the appeal won’t go well.” 

    The conservative X account Hodgetwins reshared that post, echoing the sentiment, “Trump is screwed on appeal.” 

    The photo spread beyond conservative accounts. 

    Liberal commentator and podcast host Brian Tyler Cohen also shared the viral photo of the five justices, though he did not echo the claim that the demographics of the photographed justices would affect the outcome of Trump’s appeal.

    “New: Trump’s appeal oral arguments will take place in front of the first all-Black women appellate bench,” he wrote on X May 31.

    (Screenshots from X.)

    Claims that the photo shows the justices who will hear Trump’s appeal are inaccurate.

    Experts told PolitiFact it is impossible to know now which New York justices might hear Trump’s appeal. 

    Legal experts familiar with New York’s appellate system said that because the case is a Manhattan case, a randomly selected panel of justices from New York’s Appellate Division, First Department would hear Trump’s appeal.

    The Appellate Division’s First Judicial Department includes 21 justices of the court, according to its website. They include 13 women and eight men, all from various racial and ethnic backgrounds. 

    The five justices in the viral photo — from left, justices Bahaati Pitt-Burke, Troy K. Webber, Presiding Justice Dianne T. Renwick, Tanya R. Kennedy and Marsha D. Michael — are on the court. But there’s no guarantee these five justices would hear an appeal.

    A panel of four or five, but most likely five, judges would be selected to hear the case, according to Daniel A. Warshawsky, a professor at New York Law School who worked in the Office of the Appellate Defender for 15 years.

    “The panel of judges that will hear and decide Trump’s appeal gets selected after the briefs are in and before oral argument,” said Sam Feldman, an attorney who specializes in criminal appeals in New York City. “It’s a random process. There’s no way to know now who will be on that panel.” 

    Brooklyn Law School professor Cynthia Godsoe agreed with Feldman. The most we can know right now, she said, is that the justices will likely be selected from the pool of First Department justices, unless the case gets moved for some reason — for example, Trump’s team petitions for it to be moved somewhere else.

    “It’s just a pure jurisdiction thing,” Godsoe said. Trump’s legal team “could file to move it, like they tried to move the trial, but (it’d be) highly unlikely, especially for an appeal,” she said. 

    The First Department shared this photo of five judges in a Feb. 14, 2024, press release that acknowledged the first time oral arguments before the Appellate Division’s First Department were heard “by an all African-American bench.”

    PolitiFact contacted the court and received no response before deadline.

    The appeals process will likely take time, experts said. 

    “After sentencing, his lawyers will file a notice of appeal,” Feldman said. “Then the appeal needs to be briefed, which can take many months.” 

    Trump’s lawyers will file a brief, the prosecution will file a responding brief and then Trump’s lawyers can file a reply, he explained. After that, the case would be scheduled for oral argument.

    “In an ordinary case it can take years between sentencing and oral argument in the appeal,” Feldman said. “Even if things move quicker in Trump’s case, I would be very surprised if the oral argument occurred before 2025.”

    Godsoe said that it was probably statistically unlikely that the justices in the viral photo shared by social media users would be the ones randomly selected to hear Trump’s case. With 21 justices, more than 20,000 different five-person panels could be randomly generated, statisticians confirmed to PolitiFact.

    If they were, however, Godsoe said she knew of no reason they wouldn’t be impartial justices. 

    There are ethics policies in place that help ensure justices can rule on cases without bias. And there’s nothing inherent in a person’s race or gender that means they will not, Godsoe said: “White men hear claims by people who are very different from them all the time.”

    “If there’s a conflict of interest or even an appearance of impropriety, (justices) could recuse themselves or be required to recuse themselves,” Godsoe said. That means Trump would get five randomly assigned judges from the First Department, “but if somehow one of them had a conflict, then they would be off the five and they’d put someone else, randomly, on.” 

    Our ruling

    Social media users shared a photo they said showed the justices who will rule on Trump’s appeal.

    The group justices who will rule on Trump’s appeal will not be assigned until Trump’s legal team has filed an appeal and briefs have been filed, experts told PolitiFact.

    It’s possible the justices in the photo would be randomly selected to hear Trump’s appeal, but that has not been determined. They are among 21 people who could be chosen for a four- or five-person panel and chances are statistically slim those exact five would be picked. 

    Based on what is known May 31, one day after a jury convicted Trump, we rate these claims False.

    PolitiFact Researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.

    RELATED: Trump guilty in NY trial: Can he still run for president or vote as a convicted felon?

    RELATED: Following guilty verdict, fact-checking Donald Trump on Biden’s role, being a ‘political prisoner’

    Source link

  • Fact-check: Trump’s NY post conviction press conference

    Fact-check: Trump’s NY post conviction press conference

    In remarks from Trump Tower almost nine years after he launched his first presidential campaign there, former President Donald Trump lashed out about his Manhattan trial and sought to defend his record and his character. Trump criticized a judicial gag order and the prosecution that one day earlier resulted in 34 felony convictions for falsifying business records. 

    As he has since the first of his four criminal indictments, Trump blasted the prosecution as “political interference” and said the outcome was “rigged.” Over the course of 44 minutes, he attacked the trial judge and witnesses, including his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, and reiterated his claim that U.S. elections are corrupt.

    Trump did not take questions.

    He is scheduled to be sentenced July 11 and is expected to appeal his conviction, a process that could last beyond Election Day. But the verdicts mean his schedule could open a bit, allowing him more freedom to campaign because he is no longer in court multiple days a week. Trump has sought to parlay his legal troubles into energy among his voter base, which responded with a cash infusion that the campaign says topped $30 million in one day.

    Trump listed grievances that echo those he often shares in campaign rallies. Meanwhile, at the White House, President Joe Biden praised the justice system and its resilience.

    “The American principle that no one is above the law was reaffirmed” in the Manhattan case, Biden said, adding that Trump was afforded the opportunity to defend himself.

    Biden also sought to counter Trump’s narrative, saying “it’s reckless, it’s dangerous, it’s irresponsible for anyone to say this was rigged, just because they don’t like the verdict.” 

    Here is a fact-check of some of Trump’s May 31 remarks at Trump Tower. 

    Trump continued his theme of trashing U.S. elections

    “Our elections are corrupt,” Trump said. Trump has falsely described elections as “rigged” at least since 2016. Elections are administered in thousands of local areas nationwide, each with safeguards, making any attempt to “rig” a national vote highly improbable.

    Trump falsely linked New York case to Biden (again)

    Trump said his Manhattan trial was “all done by Biden and his people.” That’s False. The Manhattan district attorney’s investigation began in 2018 before Biden was his party’s presidential nominee. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg filed the charges in 2023; Trump’s fighting a subpoena lengthened the timeline before trial.

    Trump has been critical of Bragg’s hiring of Matthew Colangelo, a former Justice Department prosecutor who, when he worked for the New York attorney general, investigated Trump. It’s common for seasoned prosecutors to move among federal, state and local offices. Reasonable people may question the political wisdom of Bragg’s hire, but it doesn’t prove Biden has directed the Manhattan investigation.

    Trump was convicted of felonies, not misdemeanors

    “It’s only a misdemeanor,” Trump said. On its own, falsifying records in the second degree is a misdemeanor. However, the charge transforms into a felony if the person accused is convicted of falsifying business records intending to commit another crime or to aid or conceal a crime committed. The upgrade would make the crimes Class E felonies, New York’s lowest level.

    Trump was correct that he has been fined for violating gag order

    “Now I’m under a gag order” Trump said. He called it a “nasty gag order, where I’ve had to pay thousands of dollars in penalties and fines, and was threatened with jail.” An April 1 gag order bars Trump from talking about witnesses or jurors in the New York case about falsifying business records. Trump has been found in violation 10 times, and fined $1,000 for each violation.

    Is Trump “supposed to go to jail for 187 years”?

    Even if Judge Juan Merchan does hand down a sentence that includes prison time, legal experts say Trump’s characterization of 187 years is a wild exaggeration.

    If Trump gets any prison time at all, he would likely be sentenced to serve the sentences for each count concurrently. Legal experts also told PolitiFact that the crime Trump was convicted of has prison time capped at 20 years.

    “On a class E felony, which this is, the maximum sentence is four years,” said Cheryl G. Bader, an associate clinical law professor at Fordham University. “The judge has discretion to sentence consecutively on the multiple counts, but I can’t imagine a sentence of more than four years. I also can’t imagine a sentence of four years, and I think any sentence of incarceration is unlikely and would be only a token amount of time to make the point that Trump is not above the law.”

    Trump omitted full story about DA Alvin Bragg

    “Bragg didn’t want to bring that,” Trump said of his case. That’s not the full story.

    Bragg took office as Manhattan district attorney in January 2022. The next month, two prosecutors who were heading the investigation into Trump’s business dealings resigned.

    Days later, Bragg’s office said a new prosecutor had been assigned to lead the case. 

    But even then it wasn’t clear whether Bragg was pursuing the case against Trump. In March 2022, The New York Times published the resignation letter of Mark Pomerantz, one of the prosecutors who resigned. In the letter, Pomerantz told Bragg  he disagreed with his decision not to prosecute Trump and take the case to a grand jury. 

    Bragg said in an April 7, 2022, statement that the investigation against Trump was continuing. 

    What Trump omitted about actions of the FEC, Southern District

    Trump said the case about business records “was dropped by the highly respected Southern District,” ,a reference to the U.S. Attorney’s office of the Southern District of New York, and the Federal Election Commission. The Federal Election Commission’s general counsel recommended commissioners find reason to believe that Trump engaged in wrongdoing. But the case died after commissioners split on their vote along party lines. Trump also omitted the full story on the actions of the U.S. attorney’s office. 

    Did Michael Cohen’s legal trouble have nothing to do with Trump?

    Referring to Cohen without naming him, Trump said, “This was a highly qualified lawyer. … He did work. But he wasn’t a fixer. … Now he got into trouble, not because of me. He got into trouble because he made outside deals and he had something to do with taxicabs, and medallions and he borrowed money.”

    In news reports, Cohen has sometimes been called a “fixer,” a term with no formal definition. In August 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty in federal court to a series of criminal charges. Some of the charges were unrelated to his work with Trump, but they included a campaign finance law breach that implicated Trump.

    In announcing Cohen’s guilty pleas, the U.S. attorney’s office for New York’s Southern District wrote that he “caused $280,000 in payments to be made to silence two women who otherwise planned to speak publicly about their alleged affairs with a presidential candidate, thereby intending to influence the 2016 presidential election.”

    Trump disputed former aide’s testimony about his actions on Jan. 6, 2021

    Trump commented about testimony related to his actions on Jan. 6, 2021. “I did not attack the Secret Service agent in the front of a car,” he said. “It never happened. It was all made up. And that was proven to be made up. It proved to be a false story.”

    Former Trump aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified before a 2022 congressional committee that when Trump got into the presidential vehicle on the Ellipse, he thought he was headed to the Capitol. When he was told he wasn’t, he grabbed for the steering wheel and a Secret Service agent pulled Trump’s hand away, Hutchinson said, recounting information that she said Tony Ornato, the top White House aide for security, told her when she, Ornato and the agent met afterward. A House Republican report contradicted Hutchinson’s testimony.

    “None of the White House employees corroborated Hutchinson’s sensational story about President Trump lunging for the steering wheel of the Beast,” the report stated, referring to the president’s armored limousine.

    PolitiFact Copy Chief Matthew Crowley contributed to this story.

    Source link

  • Clinton said 2016 was tainted, but didn’t try to change it

    Clinton said 2016 was tainted, but didn’t try to change it

    As Election Day looms, many Republican politicians are facing the same question from reporters on the campaign trail: Will they accept the results of the 2024 election? 

    Amid former President Donald Trump’s repeated false claims that he won the 2020 election, including in Wisconsin, some Republicans took up his case, casting doubt on the results and advocating for probes and policy changes they say were aimed at making elections more secure. 

    Today, their answers to that question are mixed. 

    In a May 2 interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Trump did not commit to accepting the results of November’s election in Wisconsin if he lost, saying he would only do so “if everything’s honest.” The Cap Times reported that U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., said May 19 that he would reject the outcome if he believes it’s not “honest.” 

    Republican businessman Eric Hovde, who is running to oust Democratic U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin from office, has struck a different tone. 

    Appearing May 19 on WISN-TV’s “Upfront,” Hovde said he would accept the results of his election in November and that he believes “everybody should.” He also asserted it’s not just his party that deserves scrutiny on the issue. 

    “I love how this has been framed recently that this is just a Republican issue,” he said. “Let’s not forget, in 2016, Hillary Clinton said the election was stolen – Russian interference.” 

    It’s not the first time that a politician has sought to link the voter fraud claims Republicans pushed in 2020 to statements Clinton made in 2016.

    But the comparison isn’t quite apples to apples. 

    Here’s what to know about the issue. 

    Clinton has said 2016 election was tainted

    In 2016, Trump bested Clinton with 306 Electoral College votes to Clinton’s 232. However, Clinton won the popular vote, a scenario that has happened just a handful of times in American history. 

    Clinton has said on several occasions that election was tainted, including in 2019, when she said, “You can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you.” 

    The 2019 comment was part of a speech in Los Angeles, where she said she’d been telling candidates for the 2020 Democratic nomination that even if they ran a perfect campaign, the election could be stolen from them. 

    She said she’d been reading the report on Russian election interference from special counsel Robert Mueller, and warned the same tactics could be “alive and well” in 2020. 

    (The report and a bipartisan investigation conducted later by the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee found that Russia did run a campaign to help Trump win, but did not draw a conclusion on whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.)

    In a CBS News interview later that year, Clinton referred to Trump as an “illegitimate president” and said “he knows” about “the many varying tactics they used, from voter suppression and voter purging to hacking to the false stories.” 

    And in a 2017 interview with National Public Radio, she said she would not rule out questioning the 2016 election’s legitimacy if it was learned that Russia interfered more deeply than currently known. 

    Unlike Trump, Clinton didn’t take steps to change election results

    In 2020, President Joe Biden beat Trump with 306 Electoral College votes to Trump’s 232, and in the popular vote, getting more than 81 million votes to Trump’s 74 million. In some states, the vote totals were much closer — as in Wisconsin, where Biden won by about 20,000 votes. 

    Trump refused to concede to Biden’s 2020 win, repeating unfounded conspiracy theories and launching legal battles across the country to try to overturn the results – many of which were thrown out because no widespread fraud was found. His insistence that he won the election, and Republican support of his claims, drove the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.

    Trump maintains he won Wisconsin in 2020, but his loss has been confirmed by recounts he paid for in Dane and Milwaukee counties, court rulings, a nonpartisan state audit and a study by a prominent conservative group.

    Clinton — and other Democrats — have been plain about calling the 2016 election fishy due to events during the campaign leading up to it. But even when Clinton said she wouldn’t rule out questioning the legitimacy of the results, she never took steps to do so. She conceded Trump’s win immediately after the election. 

    In the 2017 NPR interview, she noted challenging the results of her election loss would be unprecedented and said, “I just don’t think we have a mechanism” for it. That’s where the comparison with Republicans’ claims of election fraud breaks down. 

    As such, while both of them raised questions about their election losses, what each decided to do about it was pretty different. Trying to equate the two responses is a stretch. 

    Our conclusion 

    It’s not hard to find proof that Clinton did have questions and theories that led her to believe her loss in 2016 wasn’t fair. She even used the term “stolen” to describe it. 

    But equating her response to that election with the Republican response to the 2020 election leaves out key context. Unlike Trump, Clinton immediately conceded, and her statements questioning the legitimacy of the 2016 election weren’t followed by action to change the results. 

    It makes the two responses not so similar after all. 

     

    Source link

  • Donald Trump is guilty in NY trial: What’s next?

    Donald Trump is guilty in NY trial: What’s next?

    In a landmark moment in U.S. political and legal history, a Manhattan jury on May 30 found former President Donald Trump guilty of multiple felony counts.

    A unanimous jury in the New York case concluded that Trump was guilty of all 34 counts of falsifying business records in an alleged scheme to cover up a hush money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels before the 2016 presidential election. 

    Trump, who was president from January 2017 to January 2021, has been the presumptive  Republican nominee against the incumbent Democratic president, Joe Biden. It’s unclear how the 34-count conviction could affect the presidential race. But, no matter what happens, Trump is still allowed to run for president.

    Judge Juan Merchan, who presided over the trial, will sentence Trump July 11. This is four days before the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, where Trump is slated to be formally nominated as the party’s presidential candidate.

    The Manhattan case is the first of four Trump trials. Because of legal delays in two federal cases on documents and election interference, and a Georgia election interference case, it may end up being the only trial to reach a jury verdict before November’s election. Trump is expected to appeal his conviction.

    The 12-person jury deliberated for about 10 hours over two days. 

    In brief remarks at the courthouse following the verdict, Trump repeated his view that the process was “rigged” and promised to “fight to the end.” He has regularly described the prosecution as politically motivated and complained that it was being held in New York City, a jurisdiction that overwhelmingly voted for Biden in 2020.

    Here’s what we know about what could happen next.

    Can Trump still run for president after his conviction?

    Yes. The U.S. Constitution upholds the principle that voters decide who should represent them, and its qualifications are limited to natural-born citizenship, age (35 by Inauguration Day) and U.S. residency (14 years).

    Convicted felons have run for president in the past. Lyndon LaRouche was convicted in 1988 of tax and mail fraud conspiracy and ran for president multiple times from 1976 to 2004. Eugene Debs was convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917 for an anti-war speech, then ran for president under the Socialist Party banner from a federal prison in Alabama in 1920. 

    Will Trump lose his voting rights?

    That’s unlikely. 

    Trump is a registered voter in Palm Beach County, Florida. The Florida Department of State website states that “a felony conviction in another state makes a person ineligible to vote in Florida only if the conviction would make the person ineligible to vote in the state where the person was convicted.” 

    New York law passed a law in 2021 that restores voting rights for people convicted of felonies upon their release from prison. Voters don’t lose their right to vote unless they are in prison serving a sentence for a felony conviction. People whose prison sentences are stayed pending appeal keep their voting rights. 

    What factors could influence the sentence Merchan imposes?

    For a typical defendant, sentencing would hinge on such factors as prior criminal record, age, overall character, the seriousness of the charges, any expressions of remorse and whether the defendant had demonstrated respect for the court process, said Matthew J. Galluzzo, a New York attorney.

    “In this case, though, there is of course the huge issue that he is the presumptive Republican nominee for president,” Galluzzo said. “This makes it especially difficult for the court to impose a sentence that will not be accused of being politically motivated. So, you could see the judge basing his decision at least in part on considerations of the public’s reaction.”

    Legal experts told PolitiFact that the prosecution winning guilty verdicts on all 34 counts without any acquittals likely won’t matter much at sentencing, partly because the falsifying business records charges were so similar.

    A wild card is how much Merchan emphasizes Trump’s record of being held in contempt 10 times for violating gag orders, and for any additional comments he makes before sentencing, said Joan Meyer, a former federal and local prosecutor who is now partner at the law firm Thompson Hine LLP.

    How flexible is the scheduling of court dates with a verdict now announced?

    Because the presidential election continues, “the defense lawyers will undoubtedly ask for an expedited appeal” said Jerry Goldfeder, a New York election law attorney.

    Legal experts agreed that Merchan will be open to reasonable scheduling concerns.

    “Judges can always adjust their docket if scheduling adjustment requests are reasonable,” Meyer said. “Given that Mr. Trump is a presidential candidate, I am sure that accommodations can be made for important events if they conflict with court proceedings.”

    Is Trump likely to receive prison time? 

    This is difficult to predict, experts said, and what Merchan might decide is anyone’s guess.

    Working in Trump’s favor: He lacks prior convictions and the charges are nonviolent felonies. Working against Trump: He has been held in contempt multiple times for breaching a gag order and hasn’t shown remorse.

    “If he had just been silent throughout the trial, I would think there would have been no realistic probability of a jail sentence. But he has said things publicly that I think create the possibility of incarceration,” Galluzzo said. “Normally speaking, being contemptuous of court and refusing to accept responsibility will get a defendant a jail sentence after trial. It would require a tremendous amount of backbone for Judge Merchan to do it, and I’m not sure he personally wants to deal with the blowback that would result.”

    How could an appeal of the guilty verdict play out?

    Trump is all but certain to appeal, and that process would likely extend beyond Election Day. 

    Trump has 30 days to state he intends to appeal in writing. He would have months more to file his actual appeal, said Karen Friedman Agnifilo, a criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan prosecutor. Once the appeal is filed, it would still take additional months before the appeals court hears oral arguments and, potentially, months more before the court renders a decision. 

    It would not be unusual for the process to take a year or more, experts said.

    If Trump is sentenced to incarceration, would he be imprisoned as his appeal progresses?

    It would be within the judge’s power to sentence a defendant to jail and then order his or her incarceration as an appeal is underway. But Merchan is almost certain to “stay,” or pause, the sentence’s enforcement until the appeal is complete.

    “Any prison sentence would be short, and Mr. Trump would otherwise serve it before his appeal could be completed or decided,” Galluzzo said. “So I would not expect him to be incarcerated until he has exhausted his appeals, which could take well over a year.”

    What are Trump’s most fruitful avenues for appeal?

    Legal experts said some of Trump’s arguments could be credible for the appeals court.

    “I am sure we will see an appeal on every aspect of the case, including Judge Merchan’s decision not to dismiss the indictment, the jury selection process, evidentiary rulings admitting or limiting evidence, and the charge he gave to the jury on the law,” said Cheryl G. Bader, an associate clinical law professor at Fordham University.

    Bill Otis, former head of the Appellate Division of the U.S. attorney’s office for Virginia’s Eastern District, wrote before the verdict that Trump has a reasonable shot at seeing a guilty verdict overturned.

    One argument, Otis wrote, could be that Merchan didn’t instruct the jury that paying hush money to Daniels was not, in itself, a crime. Another argument could focus on the judge’s instruction that jurors needed to unanimously agree on whether the business filings were falsified to further another crime, but that jurors didn’t need to be unanimous on which crime the filings were intended to conceal.

    Otis wrote that Bragg “wanted to prosecute Trump for being A Bad Person and did so. But that wasn’t, and of course could not have been, the charge written down in the indictment, nor the one the court of appeals will review.” 

    Still, Galluzzo said, “I really don’t think there were many controversial rulings in this case, aside from the gag order decision, which has already been upheld by the appeals courts.”

    Would Trump still have Secret Service protection if he goes to prison?

    The Secret Service, which handles former presidents’ security, has been planning for the possibility of Trump’s incarceration for gag order violations or a postconviction sentence, The New York Times, CBS and ABC have reported.

    “For all settings around the world, the U.S. Secret Service studies locations and develops comprehensive and layered protective models that incorporate state of the art technology, protective intelligence and advanced security tactics to safeguard those we protect,” Special Agent Joe Routh told PolitiFact before the verdict. “In order to maintain operational security, we do not comment on specific protective operations.”

    If probation is a part of the sentence, how would that work?

    Meyer said that if probation is imposed, Trump would be subject to certain restrictions and would have to report to a probation officer who would monitor his activities and whereabouts during the probationary period.

    Could Biden pardon Trump? Could Trump pardon himself?

    Because Trump was convicted on state charges, Biden cannot pardon him. The president can pardon only for federal charges, Michigan State University law professor Brian Kalt said.

    New York Gov. Kathy Hochul could pardon Trump, Kalt added, but that likelihood is considered low because she is a Democrat.

    Trump couldn’t pardon himself if he regains the presidency for the same reason that Biden can’t. (It’s also unclear whether presidents can pardon themselves for federal crimes, legal experts said.)

    What’s the status of the other criminal cases against Trump?

    It’s unlikely that the other criminal cases will go to trial before Election Day.

    The federal election interference case has been paused because of Trump’s claims of presidential immunity. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on that case by early July.

    The Supreme Court’s decision would not affect the New York case because much of the alleged conduct occurred before Trump’s presidency.

    The trial for the federal classified documents was set to start in Florida in May. But the judge postponed the date amid pending legal motions and has not rescheduled.

    In Georgia, an appeals court agreed May 8 to review a lower court ruling that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis can continue to prosecute Trump. That decision makes it less likely the case will reach trial before November.

    PolitiFact Senior Correspondent Amy Sherman contributed to this report.

    Updated, 9:30 p.m.

    RELATED: Read all of PolitiFact’s coverage on Donald Trump indictments

    Source link

  • Does Trump NY verdict need to be unanimous? Yes.

    Does Trump NY verdict need to be unanimous? Yes.

    As the jury in the Manhattan trial of former President Donald Trump headed toward deliberation May 29, Judge Juan Merchan gave jurors their instructions.

    Once the instructions filtered onto social media, however, they were distorted. 

    “Judge Merchan has instructed the jury they do not need to have a UNANIMOUS verdict in order to convict former President Donald J. Trump,” former Fox News writer and producer Kyle Becker wrote May 29 on X.

    “This is insane,” the conservative End Wokeness X account posted a few minutes later to its 2.5 million followers. “New York Judge Merchan just told jurors that they DO NOT have to unanimously agree on what crime Trump is guilty of.”

    Other social media posts, including from Trump-aligned political strategist Steve Bannon, also claimed the jury verdict did not have to be unanimous. The posts echoed a statement Trump made May 26 on Truth Social that said Merchan imparted “FAKE options for the jury to choose from, without requiring them to be unanimous, which is completely UNAMERICAN AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.”

    Trump’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

    The posts are inaccurate. If the jury decides to convict, Merchan told them, jurors must agree unanimously on two things: that Trump falsified business records and that he did so intending to commit a separate crime.

    Juror unanimity is not necessary on what separate crime Trump intended to commit. Merchan cited three possible crimes: violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act; the falsification of other business records; and a violation of tax laws.

    Jurors “all need to agree on the verdict, but they can get to that result through different paths and reasoning,” said Cheryl G. Bader, a Fordham University associate clinical law professor.

    Duncan P. Levin, a Brooklyn, New York-based lawyer with Levin & Associates PLLC, called the social media spin on Marchan’s instructions “absurd.”

    “It has to be unanimous on the elements of the crime,” namely that Trump “caused business records to be filed (and) intended to conceal election by unlawful means,” Levin said. But it doesn’t have to be unanimous on the means, he said. 

    “That is not unusual at all. (It’s) very standard,” Levin said. “Someone can be convicted of murder even if the jurors disagree about the type of murder weapon.”

    Merchan’s instructions were clear: a guilty or not guilty verdict must be unanimous

    In his instructions, Merchan told jurors that any verdict must be unanimous.

    “Your verdict, on each count you consider, whether guilty or not guilty, must be unanimous; that is, each and every juror must agree to it,” Merchan said. “To reach a unanimous verdict you must deliberate with the other jurors.”

    That’s standard in criminal law: The New York jury handbook says that in a criminal case, “a finding that the defendant is guilty or not guilty must be by unanimous vote of the jury.”

    But Merchan offered caveats about what aspects of a jury’s decision could diverge.

    Merchan said, “In order to find the defendant guilty, however, you need not be unanimous on whether the defendant committed the crime personally, or by acting in concert with another, or both.”

    He also said, “Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.”

    Neama Rahmani, a former prosecutor who co-founded the firm West Coast Trial Lawyers, said, “The verdict has to be unanimous, but the jurors don’t have to agree on the other crime that the false business records furthered or covered up.” 

    Bill Otis, former head of the Appellate Division of the U.S. attorney’s office for Virginia’s Eastern District and Special Counsel to former President George H.W. Bush, said that although this split structure for jury decisions is common, he understands why Trump allies express concern about it. Otis said the parts of this case that do not require the jury’s unanimity are unusually central to the question of Trump’s guilt.

    For this reason, Otis said, it could become a ripe issue for an appeals court to consider, if Trump is convicted.

    Our ruling

    Social media posts said Merchan told jurors the verdict in Trump’s trial does not need to be unanimous.

    That’s not what Merchan said. To convict, the jurors must agree unanimously on two things: that Trump falsified business records, and that he did so intending to commit a separate crime. “Your verdict, on each count you consider, whether guilty or not guilty, must be unanimous,” Merchan said. 

    The social media posts conflated this requirement with other aspects of the deliberations that don’t require unanimity — notably, which specific crime the jurors believe Trump tried to commit by falsifying business records. The judge said jurors would need to believe only that at least one of three cited crimes could be the one furthered by the records falsification. 

    We rate this statement False.

    RELATED: Read all of PolitiFact’s coverage on Donald Trump indictments

    Source link

  • Fact-checking Trump’s false claim about FBI deadly force

    Fact-checking Trump’s false claim about FBI deadly force

    Former President Donald Trump in a May 21 campaign email and social media posts falsely accused President Joe Biden of putting his life at risk in an August 2022 FBI raid of Mar-a-Lago.

    “BREAKING FROM TRUMP: BIDEN’S DOJ WAS AUTHORIZED TO SHOOT ME!” read an all-caps subject line on an email from Trump’s campaign.

    “It’s just been revealed that Biden’s DOJ was authorized to use DEADLY FORCE for their DESPICABLE raid in Mar-a-Lago. You know they’re just itching to do the unthinkable…Joe Biden was locked & loaded ready to take me out & put my family in danger,” the email said.

    Trump made similar claims in posts on Truth Social and Instagram, saying he “was shown reports” that “Biden’s DOJ” authorized the FBI to use deadly force in the Mar-a-Lago raid, calling Biden a “serious threat to democracy.”

    Trump’s Republican congressional allies Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., and Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., accused Biden of planning to assassinate Trump and ordering a hit on him. Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., in an X post called it a “weaponization of government” against Trump by his top political opponent.

    Social media users also shared Trump’s claim about deadly force being authorized. DC_Draino, a prominent conservative X account, said in a May 22 X post with more than 800,000 views that Attorney General Merrick Garland “wanted a shootout” at Mar-a-Lago. 

    Trump faces 40 federal charges in a federal case over his handling of classified documents. The claim takes Trump’s rhetoric about a politicized Justice Department investigation to new levels by invoking a threat of violence. Trump was not at Mar-a-Lago during the search. He was residing in his Bedminster, New Jersey, home, and was at Trump Tower in New York when the search happened, ABC News reported. 

    Lawyers in Trump’s criminal trial and a campaign spokesperson did not return PolitiFact’s request for comment. Trump’s comments followed reports by the New York Post and Fox News about newly unsealed documents in the federal classified documents criminal trial.

    In a February court filing, Trump’s attorneys made a motion to suppress evidence found in the search.

    Trump’s attorneys in that motion referred to an FBI “operations order” that included a policy statement about the “use of deadly force.” The statement, according to Trump’s lawyers, said “law enforcement officers of the Department of Justice may use deadly force when necessary.” 

    That summary of the statement is different from what the FBI said and omits language that limits when deadly force can be used.

    The operations order included a policy statement on the use of deadly force, dated July 19, 2022. It said, “Law enforcement officers of the Department of Justice may use deadly force only when necessary, that is, when the officer has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person.”

    Similar language is found on the Justice Department’s online manual and an FBI frequently asked questions webpage.

    The operations order also included language saying that the Justice Department and FBI would notify Trump’s attorney the morning of the search and request collaboration and assistance. It said that the search would require coordination with the Secret Service and Mar-a-Lago guest services. 

    It also noted that team leaders and on-scene command should be dressed in business attire and that case agents would be dressed in business casual attire with unmarked Polo or collared shirts, and that law enforcement equipment, including weapons and handcuffs, would be concealed.

    The FBI said in an emailed statement to PolitiFact that it “followed standard protocol in this search as we do for all search warrants, which includes a standard policy statement limiting the use of deadly force. No one ordered additional steps to be taken and there was no departure from the norm in this matter.” 

    FBI experts told PolitiFact that law enforcement officers always have the authority to use deadly force if needed, and it’s typical for the FBI to include that written policy in an operations order, such as the Mar-a-Lago search.

    The FBI also searched Biden’s home in January and the Penn Biden Center in November after Biden’s lawyers reported finding classified documents from his time as vice president. The FBI also searched former Republican Vice President Mike Pence’s Indiana home in February 2023 after Pence reported finding a small number of classified documents.

    Neither Biden nor Pence were charged in those cases. It’s not clear whether operations orders were created in those cases as both searches were voluntary. The FBI did not respond to a question about those searches.

    David Shapiro, a former FBI special agent and a lecturer and program director at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, said the “potential need to use deadly force can arise in any FBI operation,” even if it’s consensual.

    He said the agents’ weapons were concealed in the Mar-a-Lago search and likely would have also been in searches of Biden’s or Pence’s homes and offices.

    Luke William Hunt, a former FBI special agent and a University of Alabama associate philosophy professor, said FBI agents are law enforcement officers who carry firearms as part of their job description.

    “So they’re always permitted to use deadly force in a way that’s consistent with the Constitution and internal policies,” Hunt said.

    Hunt said an operations order is standard procedure when the FBI is carrying out any operation, such as a search or arrest warrant. It details everyone’s role in the plan, and there’s nothing unusual about including the FBI’s deadly force policy in the internal document.

    “That’s simply to reiterate when you can and cannot use deadly force. It’s almost like a reminder,” Hunt said. “That’s just the standard deadly force policy the FBI always has and you would put that in any operations plan.”

    Shapiro said language about the use of deadly force “is normally embedded in search warrants for what should be obvious reasons,” such as the “risk of conflict escalation initiated by others.”

    The general policy applied to the Mar-a-Lago search as it would in any operation, Shapiro said.

    “The Mar-a-Lago search was ordered to be conducted according to the policies applicable generally to FBI operations,” Shapiro said. “Agents facing a credible imminent risk of death or serious bodily harm to themselves, or others, were properly advised that the Mar-a-Lago search would be executed without any exceptional limitations unnecessarily endangering themselves or others.”

    Our ruling

    Trump said “Biden’s DOJ” was authorized to use deadly force and was “ready to take me out” in its raid of Mar-a-Lago.

    An FBI operations order Trump’s attorneys referred to in a court filing included language about the department’s deadly force policy — which Trump, his legal team and online supporters took out of context to back their claims the FBI was prepared to shoot Trump. The FBI statement said officers can use deadly force “only” when they reasonably believe they or someone else is in imminent danger of death or serious physical injury. This is standard protocol for search warrants. The order did not specify that Trump should be targeted; agents knew he was not at Mar-a-Lago at the time of the search.

    The claim is not only wrong but ridiculous. We rate it Pants on Fire!

    PolitiFact Researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this fact-check.

    Source link