ReportWire

Tag: news trump

  • Trump says he may punish countries with tariffs if they don’t back the US controlling Greenland

    [ad_1]

    COPENHAGEN, Denmark — U.S. President Donald Trump suggested Friday that he may punish countries with tariffs if they don’t back the U.S. controlling Greenland, a message that came as a bipartisan Congressional delegation sought to lower tensions in the Danish capital.

    Trump for months has insisted that the U.S. should control Greenland, a semiautonomous territory of NATO ally Denmark, and said earlier this week that anything less than the Arctic island being in U.S. hands would be “unacceptable.”

    During an unrelated event at the White House about rural health care, he recounted Friday how he had threatened European allies with tariffs on pharmaceuticals.

    “I may do that for Greenland too,” Trump said. “I may put a tariff on countries if they don’t go along with Greenland, because we need Greenland for national security. So I may do that,” he said.

    SEE ALSO | In their words: Greenlanders talk about Trump’s desire to own their Arctic island

    He had not previously mentioned using tariffs to try to force the issue.

    Earlier this week, the foreign ministers of Denmark and Greenland met in Washington this week with U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

    That encounter didn’t resolve the deep differences, but did produce an agreement to set up a working group – on whose purpose Denmark and the White House then offered sharply diverging public views.

    European leaders have insisted that is only for Denmark and Greenland to decide on matters concerning the territory, and Denmark said this week that it was increasing its military presence in Greenland in cooperation with allies.

    A relationship that ‘we need to nurture’

    In Copenhagen, a group of senators and members of the House of Representatives met Friday with Danish and Greenlandic lawmakers, and with leaders including Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen.

    Delegation leader Sen. Chris Coons, a Delaware Democrat, thanked the group’s hosts for “225 years of being a good and trusted ally and partner” and said that “we had a strong and robust dialogue about how we extend that into the future.”

    Sen. Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, said after meeting lawmakers that the visit reflected a strong relationship over decades and “it is one that we need to nurture.” She told reporters that “Greenland needs to be viewed as our ally, not as an asset, and I think that’s what you’re hearing with this delegation.”

    The tone contrasted with that emanating from the White House. Trump has sought to justify his calls for a U.S. takeover by repeatedly claiming that China and Russia have their own designs on Greenland, which holds vast untapped reserves of critical minerals. The White House hasn’t ruled out taking the territory by force.

    “We have heard so many lies, to be honest and so much exaggeration on the threats towards Greenland,” said Aaja Chemnitz, a Greenlandic politician and member of the Danish parliament who took part in Friday’s meetings. “And mostly, I would say the threats that we’re seeing right now is from the U.S. side.”

    Murkowski emphasized the role of Congress in spending and in conveying messages from constituents.

    “I think it is important to underscore that when you ask the American people whether or not they think it is a good idea for the United States to acquire Greenland, the vast majority, some 75%, will say, we do not think that that is a good idea,” she said.

    Along with Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, a New Hampshire Democrat, Murkowski has introduced bipartisan legislation that would prohibit the use of U.S. Defense or State department funds to annex or take control of Greenland or the sovereign territory of any NATO member state without that ally’s consent or authorization from the North Atlantic Council.

    Inuit council criticizes White House statements

    The dispute is looming large in the lives of Greenlanders. Greenland’s prime minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, said on Tuesday that “if we have to choose between the United States and Denmark here and now, we choose Denmark. We choose NATO. We choose the Kingdom of Denmark. We choose the EU.””

    The chair of the Nuuk, Greenland-based Inuit Circumpolar Council, which represents around 180,000 Inuit from Alaska, Canada, Greenland, and Russia’s Chukotka region on international issues, said persistent statements from the White House that the U.S. must own Greenland offer “a clear picture of how the US administration views the people of Greenland, how the U.S. administration views Indigenous peoples, and peoples that are few in numbers.”

    Sara Olsvig told The Associated Press in Nuuk that the issue is “how one of the biggest powers in the world views other peoples that are less powerful than them. And that really is concerning.”

    Indigenous Inuit in Greenland do not want to be colonized again, she said.

    ___

    Superville reported from Washington. Emma Burrows in Nuuk, Greenland and Geir Moulson in Berlin contributed to this report.

    Copyright © 2026 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

    [ad_2]

    AP

    Source link

  • Prosecutors to make history with opening statements in hush money case against Trump

    Prosecutors to make history with opening statements in hush money case against Trump

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — For the first time in history, prosecutors will present a criminal case against a former American president to a jury Monday as they accuse Donald Trump of a hush money scheme aimed at preventing damaging stories about his personal life from becoming public.

    A 12-person jury in Manhattan is set to hear opening statements from prosecutors and defense lawyers in the first of four criminal cases against the presumptive Republican nominee to reach trial.

    The statements are expected to give jurors and the voting public the clearest view yet of the allegations at the heart of the case, as well as insight into Trump’s expected defense.

    RELATED: Full jury of 12 people, 6 alternates seated in Donald Trump’s hush money trial in New York

    Attorneys will also introduce a colorful cast of characters who are expected to testify about the made-for-tabloids saga, including a porn actor who says she had a sexual encounter with Trump and the lawyer who prosecutors say paid her to keep quiet about it.

    Trump is charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records and could face four years in prison if convicted, though it’s not clear if the judge would seek to put him behind bars. A conviction would not preclude Trump from becoming president again, but because it is a state case, he would not be able to attempt to pardon himself if found guilty. He has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.

    Unfolding as Trump vies to reclaim the White House, the trial will require him to spend his days in a courtroom rather than the campaign trail. He will have to listen as witnesses recount salacious and potentially unflattering details about his private life.

    Trump has nonetheless sought to turn his criminal defendant status into an asset for his campaign, fundraising off his legal jeopardy and repeatedly railing against a justice system that he has for years claimed is weaponized against him.

    Hearing the case is a jury that includes, among others, multiple lawyers, a sales professional, an investment banker and an English teacher.

    The case will test jurors’ ability to set aside any bias but also Trump’s ability to abide by the court’s restrictions, such as a gag order that bars him from attacking witnesses. Prosecutors are seeking fines against him for alleged violations of that order.

    ALSO SEE: Who are the key players in Donald Trump’s Manhattan hush money trial?

    The case brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg revisits a chapter from Trump’s history when his celebrity past collided with his political ambitions and, prosecutors say, he sought to prevent potentially damaging stories from surfacing through hush money payments.

    One such payment was a $130,000 sum that Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer and personal fixer, gave to porn actor Stormy Daniels to prevent her claims of a sexual encounter with Trump from emerging into public shortly before the 2016 election.

    Prosecutors say Trump obscured the true nature of the payments in internal records when his company reimbursed Cohen, who pleaded guilty to federal charges in 2018 and is expected to be a star witness for the prosecution.

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

    To convict Trump of a felony, prosecutors must show he not only falsified or caused business records to be entered falsely, which would be a misdemeanor, but that he did so to conceal another crime.

    RELATED: Here’s what we know about the jurors seated in Trump’s hush money criminal trial

    The allegations don’t accuse Trump of an egregious abuse of power like the federal case in Washington charging him with plotting to overturn the 2020 presidential election, or of flouting national security protocols like the federal case in Florida charging him with hoarding classified documents.

    But the New York prosecution has taken on added importance because it may be the only one of the four cases against Trump that reaches trial before the November election. Appeals and legal wrangling have delayed the other three cases.

    Copyright © 2024 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

    [ad_2]

    AP

    Source link

  • Prosecutors to make history with opening statements in hush money case against Trump

    Prosecutors to make history with opening statements in hush money case against Trump

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — For the first time in history, prosecutors will present a criminal case against a former American president to a jury Monday as they accuse Donald Trump of a hush money scheme aimed at preventing damaging stories about his personal life from becoming public.

    A 12-person jury in Manhattan is set to hear opening statements from prosecutors and defense lawyers in the first of four criminal cases against the presumptive Republican nominee to reach trial.

    The statements are expected to give jurors and the voting public the clearest view yet of the allegations at the heart of the case, as well as insight into Trump’s expected defense.

    RELATED: Full jury of 12 people, 6 alternates seated in Donald Trump’s hush money trial in New York

    Attorneys will also introduce a colorful cast of characters who are expected to testify about the made-for-tabloids saga, including a porn actor who says she had a sexual encounter with Trump and the lawyer who prosecutors say paid her to keep quiet about it.

    Trump is charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records and could face four years in prison if convicted, though it’s not clear if the judge would seek to put him behind bars. A conviction would not preclude Trump from becoming president again, but because it is a state case, he would not be able to attempt to pardon himself if found guilty. He has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.

    Unfolding as Trump vies to reclaim the White House, the trial will require him to spend his days in a courtroom rather than the campaign trail. He will have to listen as witnesses recount salacious and potentially unflattering details about his private life.

    Trump has nonetheless sought to turn his criminal defendant status into an asset for his campaign, fundraising off his legal jeopardy and repeatedly railing against a justice system that he has for years claimed is weaponized against him.

    Hearing the case is a jury that includes, among others, multiple lawyers, a sales professional, an investment banker and an English teacher.

    The case will test jurors’ ability to set aside any bias but also Trump’s ability to abide by the court’s restrictions, such as a gag order that bars him from attacking witnesses. Prosecutors are seeking fines against him for alleged violations of that order.

    ALSO SEE: Who are the key players in Donald Trump’s Manhattan hush money trial?

    The case brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg revisits a chapter from Trump’s history when his celebrity past collided with his political ambitions and, prosecutors say, he sought to prevent potentially damaging stories from surfacing through hush money payments.

    One such payment was a $130,000 sum that Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer and personal fixer, gave to porn actor Stormy Daniels to prevent her claims of a sexual encounter with Trump from emerging into public shortly before the 2016 election.

    Prosecutors say Trump obscured the true nature of the payments in internal records when his company reimbursed Cohen, who pleaded guilty to federal charges in 2018 and is expected to be a star witness for the prosecution.

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

    To convict Trump of a felony, prosecutors must show he not only falsified or caused business records to be entered falsely, which would be a misdemeanor, but that he did so to conceal another crime.

    RELATED: Here’s what we know about the jurors seated in Trump’s hush money criminal trial

    The allegations don’t accuse Trump of an egregious abuse of power like the federal case in Washington charging him with plotting to overturn the 2020 presidential election, or of flouting national security protocols like the federal case in Florida charging him with hoarding classified documents.

    But the New York prosecution has taken on added importance because it may be the only one of the four cases against Trump that reaches trial before the November election. Appeals and legal wrangling have delayed the other three cases.

    Copyright © 2024 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

    [ad_2]

    AP

    Source link

  • Judge throws out 6 counts of Trump’s Georgia election interference indictment

    Judge throws out 6 counts of Trump’s Georgia election interference indictment

    [ad_1]

    A Fulton County judge on Wednesday quashed multiple counts contained in the election interference indictment against former President Donald Trump and several of his co-defendants.

    The order from Judge Scott McAfee dismissed six counts related to a specific charge: Solicitation of Violation of Oath by a Public Officer.

    Of the 13 counts Trump faced, three of them were tossed by the judge’s order. Trump now faces 10 counts in the case.

    The ruling is a win for Trump and several of his co-defendants, who filed to dismiss the counts on the grounds that they were legally deficient.

    Judge McAfee essentially agreed, writing that they “fail to allege sufficient detail regarding the nature of their commission.” He said the “lack of detail concerning an essential legal element” is “fatal.”

    “They do not give the Defendants enough information to prepare their defenses intelligently, as the Defendants could have violated the Constitutions and thus the statute in dozens, if not hundreds, of distinct ways,” the order says.

    The motions, called demurrers, were brought by Trump, his former attorney Rudy Giuliani, former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, election lawyer John Eastman, and others.

    The judge’s order quashes three of the 13 counts against Giuliani, who now faces 10 counts.

    The order quashes one of the two counts against Meadows, who now faces one count — the racketeering or RICO count that all 19 defendants were charged with.

    It quashes one of the nine counts against Eastman; three of the 12 counts against Georgia lawyer Ray Smith III; and one of the 10 counts against Georgia lawyer Robert Cheeley.

    “The Court made the correct legal decision to grant the special demurrers and quash important counts of the indictment brought by DA Fani Willis,” Trump attorney Steve Sadow said in a statement. “The ruling is a correct application of the law, as the prosecution failed to make specific allegations of any alleged wrongdoing on those counts.”

    The Fulton County district attorney’s office declined to comment to ABC News.

    Trump and 18 others pleaded not guilty last August to all charges in a sweeping racketeering indictment for alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in the state of Georgia. Defendants Kenneth Chesebro, Sidney Powell, Jenna Ellis and Scott Hall subsequently took plea deals in exchange for agreeing to testify against other defendants.

    The former president has blasted the district attorney’s investigation as being politically motivated.

    Copyright © 2024 ABC News Internet Ventures.

    [ad_2]

    ABCNews

    Source link

  • Appeals court rejects Trump’s immunity claim in federal election interference case | LIVE

    Appeals court rejects Trump’s immunity claim in federal election interference case | LIVE

    [ad_1]

    LONDON — A three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals has rejected former President Donald Trump’s claim of presidential immunity as it pertains to his federal election interference case.

    The judges heard arguments in early January on Trump’s efforts to dismiss the case on immunity grounds.

    Last week, after waiting nearly a month for the appellate court’s decision, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan postponed the March 4 start date for Trump’s trial.

    MORE | RELATED: Biden holds early cash lead, Trump’s legal bills mount: Takeaways from new campaign finance reports

    Trump, who in August pleaded not guilty to charges of undertaking a “criminal scheme” to overturn the results of the 2020 election, was seeking the dismissal of the case on the grounds that he has “absolute immunity” from prosecution for actions taken while serving in the nation’s highest office.

    The former president, who attended the Jan. 9 hearing in person, has denied all wrongdoing and denounced the election interference charges as “a persecution of a political opponent.”

    The appeals court took up the matter after the Supreme Court in December denied special counsel Jack Smith’s request to immediately take up Trump’s claims of immunity, declining to grant a writ of certiorari before judgment — meaning it would allow a federal appeals court to hear the matter first, which is what Trump’s legal team had sought.

    Smith had asked the Supreme Court to step in and quickly rule on the issue — a potentially landmark decision that could, for the first time in American history, determine whether a former U.S. president can be prosecuted for actions taken while in office.

    The issue may still end up before the Supreme Court, depending on how the appeal plays out.

    This is a developing story. Come back for more information.

    Copyright © 2024 ABC News Internet Ventures.

    [ad_2]

    ABCNews

    Source link