ReportWire

Tag: trump news

  • Israel’s army says it will advance preparations for the first phase of Trump’s plan

    TEL AVIV, Israel — Israel’s army said Saturday that it would advance preparations for the first phase of U.S. President Donald Trump’s plan to end the war in Gaza and return all the remaining hostages.

    The army said it was instructed by Israel’s leaders to “advance readiness” for the implementation of the plan. An official who was not authorized to speak to the media on the record said that Israel has moved to a defensive-only position in Gaza and will not actively strike. The official said no forces have been removed from the strip.

    This announcement came hours after Trump ordered Israel to stop bombing Gaza once Hamas said it had accepted some elements of his plan. Trump welcomed the Hamas statement, saying: “I believe they are ready for a lasting PEACE.”

    Trump appears keen to deliver on pledges to end the war and return dozens of hostages ahead of the second anniversary of the attack on Tuesday. His proposal unveiled earlier this week has widespread international support and was also endorsed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

    On Friday, Netanyahu’s office said Israel was committed to ending the war that began when Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, without addressing potential gaps with the militant group. Netanyahu has come under increasing pressure from the international community and Trump to end the conflict. The official told the AP that Netanyahu put out the rare late-night statement on the sabbath saying that Israel has started to prepare for Trump’s plan due to pressure from the U.S. administration.

    The official also said that a negotiating team was getting ready to travel, but there was no date specified.

    A senior Egyptian official says talks are underway for the release of hostages, as well as hundreds of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli detention. The official, who is involved in the ceasefire negotiations, also said Arab mediators are preparing for a comprehensive dialogue among Palestinians. The talks are aimed at unifying the Palestinian position toward Gaza’s future.

    On Saturday, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the second most powerful militant group in Gaza, said it accepted Hamas’ response to the Trump plan. The group had previously rejected the proposal days earlier.

    Also on Saturday, Gaza’s Health Ministry said that the death toll in the nearly two-year Israel-Hamas war has topped 67,000 Palestinians. The death toll jumped after the ministry said it added more than 700 names to the list whose data had been verified.

    Gaza’s Health Ministry does not say how many were civilians or combatants. It says women and children make up around half the dead. The ministry is part of the Hamas-run government, and the U.N. and many independent experts consider its figures to be the most reliable estimate of wartime casualties.

    Progress, but uncertainty ahead

    Yet, despite the momentum, a lot of questions remain.

    Under the plan, Hamas would release the remaining 48 hostages – around 20 of them believed to be alive – within three days. It would also give up power and disarm.

    In return, Israel would halt its offensive and withdraw from much of the territory, release hundreds of Palestinian prisoners and allow an influx of humanitarian aid and eventual reconstruction.

    Hamas said it was willing to release the hostages and hand over power to other Palestinians, but that other aspects of the plan require further consultations among Palestinians. Its official statement also didn’t address the issue of Hamas demilitarizing, a key part of the deal.

    Amir Avivi, a retired Israeli general and chairman of Israel’s Defense and Security Forum, said while Israel can afford to stop firing for a few days in Gaza so the hostages can be released, it will resume its offensive if Hamas doesn’t lay down its arms.

    Others say that while Hamas suggests a willingness to negotiate, its position fundamentally remains unchanged.

    This “yes, but” rhetoric “simply repackages old demands in softer language,” said Oded Ailam, a researcher at the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs. The gap between appearance and action is as wide as ever and the rhetorical shift serves more as a smoke screen than a signal of true movement toward resolution, he said.

    Unclear what it means for Palestinians suffering in Gaza

    The next steps are also unclear for Palestinians in Gaza who are trying to piece together what it means in real terms.

    “What we want is practical implementation. … We want a truce on the ground,” said Samir Abdel-Hady, in Gaza’s Khan Younis. He worried that talks will break down like they’ve done in the past.

    Israeli troops are still laying siege to Gaza City, which is the focus of its latest offensive. On Saturday Israel’s army warned Palestinians against trying to return to the city calling it a “dangerous combat zone”.

    Experts determined that Gaza City had slid into famine shortly before Israel launched its major offensive there aimed at occupying it. An estimated 400,000 people have fled the city in recent weeks, but hundreds of thousands more have stayed behind.

    Families of the hostages are also cautious about being hopeful.

    There are concerns from all sides, said Yehuda Cohen, whose son Nimrod is held in Gaza. Hamas and Netanyahu could sabotage the deal or Trump could lose interest, he said. Still, he says, if it’s going to happen it will be because of Trump.

    “We’re putting our trust in Trump, because he’s the only one who’s doing it. … And we want to see him with us until the last step,” he said.

    ___

    Magdy reported from Cairo

    Copyright © 2025 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

    AP

    Source link

  • Trump asks Supreme Court to uphold restrictions he wants to impose on birthright citizenship

    WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump ‘s administration is asking the Supreme Court to uphold his birthright citizenship order declaring that children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens.

    The appeal, shared with The Associated Press on Saturday, sets in motion a process at the high court that could lead to a definitive ruling from the justices by early summer on whether the citizenship restrictions are constitutional.

    Lower-court judges have so far blocked them from taking effect anywhere. The Republican administration is not asking the court to let the restrictions take effect before it rules.

    The Justice Department’s petition has been shared with lawyers for parties challenging the order, but is not yet docketed at the Supreme Court.

    Any decision on whether to take up the case probably is months away and arguments probably would not take place until the late winter or early spring.

    “The lower court’s decisions invalidated a policy of prime importance to the president and his administration in a manner that undermines our border security,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote. “Those decisions confer, without lawful justification, the privilege of American citizenship on hundreds of thousands of unqualified people.”

    Cody Wofsy, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who represents children who would be affected by Trump’s restrictions, said the administration’s plan is plainly unconstitutional.

    “This executive order is illegal, full stop, and no amount of maneuvering from the administration is going to change that. We will continue to ensure that no baby’s citizenship is ever stripped away by this cruel and senseless order,” Wofsy said in an email.

    Trump signed an executive order on the first day of his second term in the White House that would upend more than 125 years of understanding that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment confers citizenship on everyone born on American soil, with narrow exceptions for the children of foreign diplomats and those born to a foreign occupying force.

    In a series of decisions, lower courts have struck down the executive order as unconstitutional, or likely so, even after a Supreme Court ruling in late June that limited judges’ use of nationwide injunctions.

    While the Supreme Court curbed the use of nationwide injunctions, it did not rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The justices did not decide at that time whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional.

    But every lower court that has looked at the issue has concluded that Trump’s order violates or likely violates the 14th Amendment, which was intended to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, had citizenship.

    The administration is appealing two cases.

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco ruled in July that a group of states that sued over the order needed a nationwide injunction to prevent the problems that would be caused by birthright citizenship being in effect in some states and not others.

    Also in July, a federal judge in New Hampshire blocked the citizenship order in a class-action lawsuit including all children who would be affected.

    Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers who are in the country illegally, under long-standing rules. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment.

    The administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.

    Copyright © 2025 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

    AP

    Source link

  • Rubio arrives in Israel as Israeli strikes intensify in northern Gaza

    JERUSALEM — U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio arrived in Israel on Sunday, as Israel intensified its attacks against northern Gaza, flattening another high-rise building and killing at least 12 Palestinians.

    Rubio said ahead of the trip that he will be seeking answers from Israeli officials about how they see the way forward in Gaza following Israel’s attack on Hamas operatives in Qatar last week that upended efforts to broker an end to the conflict.

    His two-day visit is also a show of support for the increasingly isolated Israel as the United Nations holds what is expected to be a contentious debate on commitment to the creation of a Palestinian state. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu strongly opposes the recognition of a Palestinian state.

    Attack on Qatar

    Rubio’s visit went ahead despite President Donald Trump’s anger at Netanyahu over the Israeli strike against Hamas leaders in Doha, which he said the United States was not notified of beforehand.

    On Friday, Rubio and Trump met with Qatar’s prime minister to discuss the fallout from the Israeli operation. The dual, back-to-back meetings with Israel and Qatar illustrate how Trump administration is trying to balance relations between key Middle East allies despite the attack’s widespread international condemnation.

    The Doha attack also appears to have ended attempts to secure an Israel-Hamas ceasefire and the release of hostages ahead of the upcoming U.N. General Assembly session, at which the Gaza war is expected to be a primary focus.

    Deadly airstrikes mount

    On Sunday, at least 13 Palestinians were killed and dozens were wounded in multiple Israeli strikes across Gaza, according to local hospitals.

    Local hospitals said Israeli strikes targeted a vehicle near Shifa hospital and a roundabout in Gaza City, and a tent in the city of Deir al-Balah that killed at least six members of the same family.

    Two parents, their three children and the children’s aunt were killed in that strike, according to the Al-Aqsa hospital. The family was from the northern town of Beit Hanoun, and arrived in Deir al-Balah last week after fleeing their shelter in Gaza City

    The Israeli military did not have immediate comment on the strikes.

    As part of its expanding operation in Gaza City, the Israeli military destroyed a high-rise residential building on Sunday morning, less than an hour after an evacuation order posted online by the military spokesman Avichay Adraee.

    Residents said said the Kauther tower in the Rimal neighborhood was flattened to the ground. There were no immediate reports of casualties.

    “This is part of the genocidal measures the (Israeli) occupation is carrying out in Gaza City,” said Abed Ismail, a Gaza City resident. “They want to turn the whole city into rubble, and force the transfer and another Nakba.”

    The word Nakba is Arabic for catastrophe and refers to when some 700,000 Palestinians were expelled by Israeli forces or fled their homes in what is now Israel, before and during the 1948 war that surrounded its creation.

    Israeli strongly denies accusations of genocide in Gaza.

    Starvation in Gaza

    Separately, two Palestinian adults died of causes related to malnutrition and starvation in the Gaza Strip over the last 24 hours, the territory’s health ministry reported Sunday.

    That has brought the death toll from malnutrition-related causes to 277 since late June, when the ministry started to count fatalities among this age category, while another 145 children died of malnutrition-related causes since the start of the war in October 2023, the ministry said.

    The war in Gaza began when Hamas-led militants stormed into southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, abducting 251 people and killing some 1,200, mostly civilians. There are still 48 hostages remaining in Gaza, of whom 20 Israel believes are still alive.

    Israel’s retaliatory offensive has killed at least 64,803 Palestinians, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry, which does not say how many were civilians or combatants. It says around half of those killed were women and children. Large parts of major cities have been completely destroyed and around 90% of some 2 million Palestinians have been displaced. ___

    Magdy reported from Cairo. Associated Press writer Melanie Lidman in Tel Aviv, Israel, contributed to this report.

    Copyright © 2025 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

    AP

    Source link

  • Illinois politicians condemn Trump’s threat to deploy National Guard to Chicago

    CHICAGO (WLS) — Illinois politicians stood united at a downtown press conference on Monday afternoon, saying there is no reason for President Donald Trump to send National Guard troops to Chicago to fight crime.

    ABC News confirmed that planning is underway, but no official decision has been made. A Pentagon spokesperson said, “We won’t speculate on further operations. The Department is a planning organization and is continuously working with other agency partners on plans to protect federal assets and personnel.”

    ABC7 Chicago is now streaming 24/7. Click here to watch

    Gov. JB Pritzker and Mayor Brandon Johnson said Monday that there has been no communication from the Trump administration regarding any possible National Guard deployment, which they say is unwarranted and unnecessary, because crime is falling in Chicago.

    “The last thing that Chicagoans want is someone from the outside of our city who doesn’t know our city try to dictate and tell us what our city needs,” Johnson said. “Instead of spending hundreds of millions of dollars for publicity stunt to invoke chaos and terror, the federal government should spend that money on proven solutions to crime and violence reduction.”

    Pritzker made his way to Monday afternoon’s press conference on a water taxi that started at the base of Chicago’s Trump Tower, in an effort to draw a contrast to what Trump says is a city in crisis.

    “If it sounds to you like I am alarmist, that is because I am ringing an alarm,” Pritzker said. “Donald Trump wants to use the military to occupy a U.S. city to punish its dissidents and score political points. If this were happening in any other country, we would have no trouble calling it what it is: a dangerous power-grab.”

    Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker condemned President Donald Trump’s threat to send the National Guard to Chicago on Monday.

    The governor says he has made no request for federal intervention.

    “The president of the United States is doing this for theatrics. This is not because we’ve asked for it. It is not because there is some justice that he is going to seek. It is because he wants to create chaos,” Pritzker said.

    Earlier Monday, the president suggested he might wait to be asked before sending in the guard, but said he would still consider acting without such a request.

    “Chicago, everybody knows how bad it is. Everybody standing there knows. We know. You don’t have to be doing any studies. They should be saying, ‘Please, come in,’” Trump said.

    But Trump also signed an executive order that aims to create specialized units in the National Guard trained in “quelling civil disturbances and ensuring the public safety and order.” It establishes a “quick reaction force… available for rapid nationwide deployment,” a clear sign the president wants to use the guard in domestic law enforcement.

    Local leaders push back

    Gov. JB Pritzker and Mayor Brandon Johnson, among other Illinois politicians, gathered for a press conference in downtown Chicago on Monday afternoon.

    Various officials from all levels of government were joined by dozens of Chicago business, civic, and faith leaders in a show of solidarity against what the president is considering. Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul and Sens. Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth were among those present.

    “The men and women who are brave enough to wear this country’s flag on their shoulder are doing so to defend our nation’s rights and freedoms, not to protect a tin pot dictator’s thin skin, or to police their own neighbors,” Duckworth said.

    Those at the press conference said that having the National Guard on the streets would disrupt businesses and the economy.

    “This is an authoritarian stunt. This is a declaration of war on our people,” said Rev. Ciera Bates-Chamberlain with Live Free Illinois.

    “It will impact businesses’ bottom lines and ability to operate efficiently. It will impact tourism and employees getting to their jobs,” said Civic Committee President Derek Douglas.

    One community leader said the guard would do more harm than good in Chicago, and he called out the president.

    “Before you dare speak about violence in Chicago… look into your mirror and address the violence coming from your White House,” said St. Sabina Church’s Fr. Michael Pfleger.

    Local leaders called on people to protest peacefully. And the governor had a warning for Trump administration officials helping to carry out what he says is an illegal action.

    “To any federal official who would come to Chicago and try to incite my people into violence as a pretext for something darker and more dangerous, we are watching, and we are taking names,” Pritzker said.

    Crime is down in Chicago

    Trump has touted his decision to send the National Guard to Washington, D.C. to fight crime as a success. In Chicago, local leaders say there is no need for the National Guard to be called up to help in the city, where crime is trending down.

    “Not one person here today will claim we have solved all crime in Chicago, nor can that be said of any major American metro area. But calling the military into a US city to invade our streets and neighborhoods and disrupt the lives of everyday people is an extraordinary action and it should require extraordinary justification,” Pritzker said.

    An ABC7 Data Team analysis of Chicago Police Department statistics shows overall violent crime and homicides at their lowest level year-to-date since 2014.

    Violent crimes are down 13% in 2025 compared to average of the past three years. Shooting incidents are down 31%, and murders are down by 27% compared to that same time period.

    “Over the past two years, we have seen significant reductions in crime and violence in the last year alone we have seen more than a 30% decline in homicides,” Johnson said.

    But Republicans say crime is still a problem that puts people’s lives in danger, and that the guard could help.

    “We need relief for the people of Chicago now, and people in the Southwest Side of Chicago have been waiting for decades to try to get a safe environment and community where they can develop and grow their kids and businesses want to come back, and under JB Pritzker and Brandon Johnson, that’s not happening,” said Cook County Republican Party Chairman Aaron Del Mar. “Because we’ve had peak crime for the last four or five years, there has been some small reductions in reported crime. I still think that we’re way over-the-top in what is an allowable amount of crime to be happening in the city of Chicago.”

    Del Mar added, “If we even save one life, I think it’s worth a challenge because Chicago has been crime-ridden for so long, and people have had enough.”

    Republican Illinois state Rep. Rep. Martin McLaughlin also weighed in, saying, “We should have done this a long time ago so that every neighborhood in Chicago deserves the same safety and security that we enjoy in the suburbs.”

    The conservative group “Chicago Flips Red” said despite CPD’s numbers showing crime is down, many still don’t feel safe, and welcome the National Guard.

    “It’s too much crime; so, it needs to be some type of law and order. And if this administration cannot get it done, the Johnson administration can’t get it done, then yeah, we need the National Guard,” said Zoe Leigh with Chicago Flips Red.

    But Ald. Michael Rodriguez, who represents the 22nd Ward, says city officials have to keep investing in what is working.

    “Imagine 26th Street, tanks rolling down our street,” Rodriguez said. “Do you think people are going to want to go to church? Go to school? Invest in our businesses with that kind of presence here? The answer is, ‘No.’”

    Rodriguez and Ald. Jeylu B. Gutierrez plan to introduce a resolution at the next Chicago City Council meeting, they said, that Trump “stands down.”

    Possible legal battle

    The National Guard has been brought into Chicago in recent years.

    Back in 2020, then-Mayor Lori Lightfoot requested the guard after civil unrest and protests over the murder of George Floyd became difficult for Chicago police to handle alone.

    They were also put on standby for the Democratic National Convention in Chicago last year. But they were never called in to respond, and Pritzker said they were solely there to support CPD, not actively police or patrol.

    “We’ve had guardsmen in the street before, but they were ordered in by the governor,” said Chicago-Kent College of Law Professor Douglas William Godfrey.

    And while Trump doubled down on ramping up deployments of the National Guard to Democratic cities on Monday, Illinois Democratic leaders say, not so fast. The White House does not have the same authority over cities beyond Washington.

    When the president calls on troops without the governor’s permission, the guard is limited to protecting federal buildings and personnel. And constitutional experts say the president can only nationalize the guard in the event of a rebellion, foreign invasion or when federal laws cannot be enforced.

    “Has the presence of the guard had any impact on public safety in LA? No. Huge waste of taxpayer dollars and maybe a violation of the law. We certainly believe that it is,” said Rep. Chuy Garcia, D-Chicago.

    “D.C. and LA are actually not safer because he deployed the National Guard,” said Rep. Delia Ramirez, D-Chicago. “It’s actually people are living in less safety. People are scared. He’s attempting to do the same thing here in Chicago.”

    At Monday’s press conference, Raoul was asked if he is considering some type of preemptive legal action ahead of a possible deployment. He said that could be difficult from a legal standpoint, and he is not anticipating that he will take that action.

    Johnson has vowed legal action if a deployment occurs, but it is unclear if the courts would block such a move.

    “Brave men and women who signed up to serve our country did not sign up to occupy American cities,” Johnson said.

    Weeks after the National Guard was sent to Los Angeles, a judge has yet to rule on California’s lawsuit.

    Johnson said in a statement Monday, “Mayor Johnson’s primary focus over his first two years in office has been driving down violent crime in Chicago. Since taking office, Chicago has recorded historic reductions in crime and violence as the Johnson administration has implemented a holistic approach to community safety. In the first six months of this year, Chicago has seen a 33% reduction in homicides and a 38% reduction in shootings.

    “To improve police clearance rates, Mayor Johnson added detectives and restructured the detectives bureau at the Chicago Police Department (CPD) to more efficiently allocate resources. This work has resulted in a citywide homicide clearance rate of 77.4%, the highest in more than a decade.

    “To address the root causes of violence, Mayor Johnson has doubled the number of mental health professionals responding to mental health crisis calls, expanded youth summer employment by 47%, and enhanced partnerships between police officers and community violence intervention (CVI) groups.

    “Year-to-date statistics
    – Overall Violent Crime: -21.6%
    – Homicides: -32.3%
    – Overall Shooting Incidents: -37.4%
    – Multi-Victim Shooting Incidents: -44.6%
    – Robberies: -31.9%
    – Vehicular Hijackings: -49%
    – Aggravated Assault: -18.1%”

    Pritzker said in a statement, “While the Trump Administration plans to deploy the National Guard, active-duty military, or federal agents into Democratic-led states, Illinois is showing that smart, data-driven policies, investment in strong law enforcement, and community engagement produce real results.

    “In contrast to the declines in violent crime in Illinois and Chicago, a number of Republican-led states continue to see a high level of violent crime. Yet, the Trump Administration ignores these crime levels, undermining their public safety claims. Deploying military officers only seeks to undermine the hard work both state and local police departments and community members have built on to regain trust, including the ways that state and local law enforcement already coordinate with federal law enforcement to tackle crime.

    “Instead, the Trump Administration should focus on releasing critical crime prevention and law enforcement funding back to local communities and states, rather than undermining the hard work of local police and communities.”

    Copyright © 2025 WLS-TV. All Rights Reserved.

    Stephanie Wade

    Source link

  • Senator Durbin speaks out against ‘political’ firing of immigration judges in Chicago

    CHICAGO (WLS) — Political retribution. That’s what Illinois U.S. Senator Dick Durbin describes as the only possible reason for the unprompted firing of immigration judges in Chicago and across the country.

    In a new letter, he is demanding answers from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, saying it’s something judges are protected from by law.

    One of those fired immigration judges spoke candidly the ABC7 I-Team.

    ABC7 Chicago is now streaming 24/7. Click here to watch

    Former Immigration Judge Carla Espinoza said she was under intense scrutiny from Trump administration officials during a high-profile immigration case just weeks before she was removed from her position.

    “There was a lot of pressure regarding the decision that I would render,” she said.

    When due process of law and the rule of law is eroded, as I believe is happening in this case, people distrust the process, and there’s a fair reason to do that under the circumstances

    Carla Espinoza, former immigration judge

    The case involved Ramon Morales-Reyes, who was accused of threatening to kill President Donald Trump, but Wisconsin investigators believe he was framed by a man trying to get him deported by sending threatening letters.

    “I’m also concerned that my ruling in that particular case played a significant role in my subsequent termination,” Espinoza said.

    Because evidence in the case presented to Espinoza showed Morales-Reyes was framed, she granted him bail, despite public comments from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, saying “Thanks to our ICE officers, this illegal alien who threatened to assassinate President Trump is behind bars.”

    “The only fair result was for me to rule in the case efficiently and based on the law, and that’s what I did,” explained Espinoza, who is one of 103 immigration judges summarily fired or who have opted to take a deferred resignation by the Trump administration. Some were notified by mail with no justification included.

    Espinoza said she was one of the judges who received no explanation, but she described for the I-Team what she saw as a troubling and illegal pattern in the firings she said are potentially based on race, ethnicity and gender.

    “All of the judges that were sworn along me that have a Hispanic last name, such as myself, have been terminated,” Espinoza said. “All of those that have a Middle Eastern or South Asian last name have been terminated. All of those who are openly LGBTQ have been terminated.”

    RELATED | More immigration judges terminated as Trump administration works to cut down massive case backlog

    Matt Biggs, president of The International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, the union representing immigration judges, said this is a broad attack on the rule of law and due process.

    “Chicago’s there at the top of the list as one of the one of the courts that’s been targeted,” he added. “Either bring in political hacks that will rule the way that President Trump demands they rule, and or just get to a point where you say, Hey, we don’t have enough judges to hear these cases, so we’re just going to deport people, period.”

    Senator Durbin, recently standing side by side with Espinoza and other fired immigration judges, is now demanding answers from Attorney General Bondi. In a recently-released letter, he said in part, “The only plausible explanation for firing immigration judges… is a political one. However, immigration judges have protections from politicized hiring and firing.”

    Espinoza is now back in private practice. She worries what about the future of a court system she cares deeply about.

    “When due process of law and the rule of law is eroded, as I believe is happening in this case, people distrust the process, and there’s a fair reason to do that under the circumstances,” she said.

    Espinoza said she is pursuing all legal avenues to remedy what she calls her illegal firing.

    The I-Team reached out to Attorney General Bondi’s office, but has not heard back.

    Copyright © 2025 WLS-TV. All Rights Reserved.

    Mark Rivera

    Source link

  • Donald Trump says appeal is ahead after hush money trial conviction

    Donald Trump says appeal is ahead after hush money trial conviction

    NEW YORK — Former President Donald Trump addressed reporters on Friday morning — the day after being found guilty on all 34 counts in his hush-money trial, during which he said his legal team would appeal the conviction and repeated claims that the trial was “rigged.”

    “The people of our country know it’s a hoax, they know it’s a hoax, they get it,” Trump claimed. “You know, they’re really smart. And it’s really something, so we’re going to be appealing this scam.”

    In a rambling speech, Trump spoke from the atrium of Trump Tower — just feet away from the golden escalator he rode down in 2015 when he kicked off his first bid for president.

    Former President Donald Trump speaks during a news conference at Trump Tower, Friday, May 31, 2024, in New York.

    AP Photo/Julia Nikhinson

    Now, nearly nine years later, Trump further responded to his conviction and the legal battles he faces that have been much of the focus of his third presidential bid. He was surrounded by campaign officials and some supporters.

    “If they can do this to me, they can do this to anyone,” Trump said as he kicked off his remarks. “These are bad people. These are, in many cases, I believe, sick people.”

    Trump then dove into some of his signature campaign rhetoric, going after migrants coming to the United States and economic competition with China.

    His attention, though, quickly turned back to the New York criminal trial. He continued to claim, without evidence, the trial was “rigged” with a biased judge and prosecutors.

    “Nobody’s ever seen anything like it,” he said.

    ALSO SEE: Trump found guilty on all counts in historic case | What happens next

    Former President Donald Trump has been found guilty on all 34 felony counts related to a 2016 hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels.

    Trump went on to air a litany of grievances against central figures in the case, including Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and his former attorney Michael Cohen, and portrayed himself as a political martyr — a theme that has been central to his 2024 campaign.

    “In a way, I’m honored,” he said. “It’s not that it’s pleasant. It’s very bad for family, it’s very bad for friends and businesses, but I’m honored to be involved in it because somebody has to do it, and I might as well keep going and be the one.”

    Trump did not take any questions from the media after his remarks.

    In the wake of his guilty verdict, Trump and his campaign have sought to center their focus back on the campaign trail, arguing that “the real verdict” will happen on Election Day and urging supporters to donate to Trump’s campaign.

    ALSO SEE: Michael Cohen says Trump’s guilty verdict has been ‘a long time coming’

    Michael Cohen says Trump’s guilty verdict has been ‘a long time coming’

    Trump has been attempting to turn the verdict around to his advantage by aggressively fundraising off of it, blasting out fundraising emails to smaller dollar donors, calling himself a “political prisoner,” and also attending a fundraiser with major Republican donors in Manhattan Thursday night just hours after the verdict dropped.

    Trump currently doesn’t have any public campaign events scheduled for next week, however, he is expected to do a fundraising blitz through the West Coast.

    The presumptive Republican nominee is facing additional criminal charges with two cases brought in federal courts and an additional one in state court. Trump is set to be sentenced on July 11 — three days prior to the Republican National Convention where he will become the Republican presidential nominee.

    Trump was convicted of 34 felony charges in a scheme to illegally influence the 2016 election through a hush money payment to a porn actor who said the two had sex. The hush money trial and subsequent conviction mark the first time a former U.S. president has ever been tried or convicted in a criminal case.

    Here’s the latest:

    TRUMP’S CONVICTION AND ITS IMPACT ON THE 2024 ELECTION

    Donald Trump’s conviction in his New York hush money trial is a stunning development in an already unorthodox presidential election with profound implications for the justice system and perhaps U.S. democracy itself.

    But in a deeply divided America, it’s unclear whether Trump’s status as someone with a felony conviction will have any impact at all on the 2024 election.

    RELATED: What the Biden campaign thinks the Trump verdict means: ‘It matters’

    Trump remains in a competitive position against President Joe Biden this fall, even as the Republican former president now faces the prospect of a prison sentence in the run-up to the November election.

    In the short term at least, there were immediate signs that the unanimous guilty verdict was helping to unify the Republican Party’s disparate factions as GOP officials in Congress and in state capitals across the country rallied behind their presumptive presidential nominee, while his campaign expected to benefit from a flood of new fundraising dollars.

    REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS RALLIED TO TRUMP’S DEFENSE

    Several Republican lawmakers reacted with fury to Donald Trump’s felony conviction on Thursday and rushed to his defense – questioning the legitimacy of the trial and how it was conducted.

    House Speaker Mike Johnson said it was a “shameful day in American history” and labeled the charges as “purely political.”

    South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, who has been one of Trump’s most frequent allies, said, “This verdict says more about the system than the allegations.”

    And while Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell refrained from attacking the judge or jury, he said the charges “never should have been brought in the first place.”

    Many GOP lawmakers, including Johnson, visited the courthouse in New York to support Trump during his criminal trial.

    UNLESS HE’S SENT TO PRISON, TRUMP CAN STILL VOTE

    Donald Trump may have been convicted of a felony and reside in Florida, a state notorious for restricting the voting rights of felons, but he can still vote as long as he stays out of prison in New York state.

    That’s because Florida defers to other states’ disenfranchisement rules for residents convicted of out-of-state felonies. In Trump’s case, New York law only removes their right to vote when incarcerated. Once they’re out of prison, their rights are automatically restored – even if they’re on parole, per a 2021 law passed by the state’s Democratic legislature.

    “If a Floridian’s voting rights are restored in the state of conviction, they are restored under Florida law,” Blair Bowie of the Campaign Legal Center wrote in a post explaining the state of law, noting that people without Trump’s legal resources are often confused by Florida’s complex rules.

    THE FIGHT IS FAR FROM OVER

    Donald Trump’s conviction Thursday on 34 felony counts marked the end of the former president’s historic hush money trial.

    Now comes the sentencing and the prospect of a prison sentence. A lengthy appellate process could follow, especially as Trump’s legal team has already been laying the groundwork for an appeal.

    And all the while, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee still faces three more criminal cases and a campaign that could see him return to the White House.

    The Associated Press contributed to this report.

    Copyright © 2024 ABC News Internet Ventures.

    ABCNews

    Source link

  • Donald Trump says appeal is ahead after hush money trial conviction

    Donald Trump says appeal is ahead after hush money trial conviction

    NEW YORK — Former President Donald Trump addressed reporters on Friday morning — the day after being found guilty on all 34 counts in his hush-money trial, during which he said his legal team would appeal the conviction and repeated claims that the trial was “rigged.”

    “The people of our country know it’s a hoax, they know it’s a hoax, they get it,” Trump claimed. “You know, they’re really smart. And it’s really something, so we’re going to be appealing this scam.”

    In a rambling speech, Trump spoke from the atrium of Trump Tower — just feet away from the golden escalator he rode down in 2015 when he kicked off his first bid for president.

    Former President Donald Trump speaks during a news conference at Trump Tower, Friday, May 31, 2024, in New York.

    AP Photo/Julia Nikhinson

    Now, nearly nine years later, Trump further responded to his conviction and the legal battles he faces that have been much of the focus of his third presidential bid. He was surrounded by campaign officials and some supporters.

    “If they can do this to me, they can do this to anyone,” Trump said as he kicked off his remarks. “These are bad people. These are, in many cases, I believe, sick people.”

    Trump then dove into some of his signature campaign rhetoric, going after migrants coming to the United States and economic competition with China.

    His attention, though, quickly turned back to the New York criminal trial. He continued to claim, without evidence, the trial was “rigged” with a biased judge and prosecutors.

    “Nobody’s ever seen anything like it,” he said.

    ALSO SEE: Trump found guilty on all counts in historic case | What happens next

    Former President Donald Trump has been found guilty on all 34 felony counts related to a 2016 hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels.

    Trump went on to air a litany of grievances against central figures in the case, including Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and his former attorney Michael Cohen, and portrayed himself as a political martyr — a theme that has been central to his 2024 campaign.

    “In a way, I’m honored,” he said. “It’s not that it’s pleasant. It’s very bad for family, it’s very bad for friends and businesses, but I’m honored to be involved in it because somebody has to do it, and I might as well keep going and be the one.”

    Trump did not take any questions from the media after his remarks.

    In the wake of his guilty verdict, Trump and his campaign have sought to center their focus back on the campaign trail, arguing that “the real verdict” will happen on Election Day and urging supporters to donate to Trump’s campaign.

    ALSO SEE: Michael Cohen says Trump’s guilty verdict has been ‘a long time coming’

    Michael Cohen says Trump’s guilty verdict has been ‘a long time coming’

    Trump has been attempting to turn the verdict around to his advantage by aggressively fundraising off of it, blasting out fundraising emails to smaller dollar donors, calling himself a “political prisoner,” and also attending a fundraiser with major Republican donors in Manhattan Thursday night just hours after the verdict dropped.

    Trump currently doesn’t have any public campaign events scheduled for next week, however, he is expected to do a fundraising blitz through the West Coast.

    The presumptive Republican nominee is facing additional criminal charges with two cases brought in federal courts and an additional one in state court. Trump is set to be sentenced on July 11 — three days prior to the Republican National Convention where he will become the Republican presidential nominee.

    Trump was convicted of 34 felony charges in a scheme to illegally influence the 2016 election through a hush money payment to a porn actor who said the two had sex. The hush money trial and subsequent conviction mark the first time a former U.S. president has ever been tried or convicted in a criminal case.

    Here’s the latest:

    TRUMP’S CONVICTION AND ITS IMPACT ON THE 2024 ELECTION

    Donald Trump’s conviction in his New York hush money trial is a stunning development in an already unorthodox presidential election with profound implications for the justice system and perhaps U.S. democracy itself.

    But in a deeply divided America, it’s unclear whether Trump’s status as someone with a felony conviction will have any impact at all on the 2024 election.

    RELATED: What the Biden campaign thinks the Trump verdict means: ‘It matters’

    Trump remains in a competitive position against President Joe Biden this fall, even as the Republican former president now faces the prospect of a prison sentence in the run-up to the November election.

    In the short term at least, there were immediate signs that the unanimous guilty verdict was helping to unify the Republican Party’s disparate factions as GOP officials in Congress and in state capitals across the country rallied behind their presumptive presidential nominee, while his campaign expected to benefit from a flood of new fundraising dollars.

    REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS RALLIED TO TRUMP’S DEFENSE

    Several Republican lawmakers reacted with fury to Donald Trump’s felony conviction on Thursday and rushed to his defense – questioning the legitimacy of the trial and how it was conducted.

    House Speaker Mike Johnson said it was a “shameful day in American history” and labeled the charges as “purely political.”

    South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, who has been one of Trump’s most frequent allies, said, “This verdict says more about the system than the allegations.”

    And while Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell refrained from attacking the judge or jury, he said the charges “never should have been brought in the first place.”

    Many GOP lawmakers, including Johnson, visited the courthouse in New York to support Trump during his criminal trial.

    UNLESS HE’S SENT TO PRISON, TRUMP CAN STILL VOTE

    Donald Trump may have been convicted of a felony and reside in Florida, a state notorious for restricting the voting rights of felons, but he can still vote as long as he stays out of prison in New York state.

    That’s because Florida defers to other states’ disenfranchisement rules for residents convicted of out-of-state felonies. In Trump’s case, New York law only removes their right to vote when incarcerated. Once they’re out of prison, their rights are automatically restored – even if they’re on parole, per a 2021 law passed by the state’s Democratic legislature.

    “If a Floridian’s voting rights are restored in the state of conviction, they are restored under Florida law,” Blair Bowie of the Campaign Legal Center wrote in a post explaining the state of law, noting that people without Trump’s legal resources are often confused by Florida’s complex rules.

    THE FIGHT IS FAR FROM OVER

    Donald Trump’s conviction Thursday on 34 felony counts marked the end of the former president’s historic hush money trial.

    Now comes the sentencing and the prospect of a prison sentence. A lengthy appellate process could follow, especially as Trump’s legal team has already been laying the groundwork for an appeal.

    And all the while, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee still faces three more criminal cases and a campaign that could see him return to the White House.

    The Associated Press contributed to this report.

    Copyright © 2024 ABC News Internet Ventures.

    ABCNews

    Source link

  • LIVE: After conviction, Trump says appeal is ahead

    LIVE: After conviction, Trump says appeal is ahead

    NEW YORK — Former President Donald Trump addressed reporters on Friday morning — the day after being found guilty on all 34 counts in his hush-money trial, during which he said his legal team would appeal the conviction and repeated claims that the trial was “rigged.”

    “The people of our country know it’s a hoax, they know it’s a hoax, they get it,” Trump claimed. “You know, they’re really smart. And it’s really something, so we’re going to be appealing this scam.”

    In a rambling speech, Trump spoke from the atrium of Trump Tower — just feet away from the golden escalator he rode down in 2015 when he kicked off his first bid for president.

    Former President Donald Trump speaks during a news conference at Trump Tower, Friday, May 31, 2024, in New York.

    AP Photo/Julia Nikhinson

    Now, nearly nine years later, Trump further responded to his conviction and the legal battles he faces that have been much of the focus of his third presidential bid. He was surrounded by campaign officials and some supporters.

    “If they can do this to me, they can do this to anyone,” Trump said as he kicked off his remarks. “These are bad people. These are, in many cases, I believe, sick people.”

    Trump then dove into some of his signature campaign rhetoric, going after migrants coming to the United States and economic competition with China.

    His attention, though, quickly turned back to the New York criminal trial. He continued to claim, without evidence, the trial was “rigged” with a biased judge and prosecutors.

    “Nobody’s ever seen anything like it,” he said.

    ALSO SEE: Trump found guilty on all counts in historic case | What happens next

    Former President Donald Trump has been found guilty on all 34 felony counts related to a 2016 hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels.

    Trump went on to air a litany of grievances against central figures in the case, including Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and his former attorney Michael Cohen, and portrayed himself as a political martyr — a theme that has been central to his 2024 campaign.

    “In a way, I’m honored,” he said. “It’s not that it’s pleasant. It’s very bad for family, it’s very bad for friends and businesses, but I’m honored to be involved in it because somebody has to do it, and I might as well keep going and be the one.”

    Trump did not take any questions from the media after his remarks.

    In the wake of his guilty verdict, Trump and his campaign have sought to center their focus back on the campaign trail, arguing that “the real verdict” will happen on Election Day and urging supporters to donate to Trump’s campaign.

    ALSO SEE: Michael Cohen says Trump’s guilty verdict has been ‘a long time coming’

    Michael Cohen says Trump’s guilty verdict has been ‘a long time coming’

    Trump has been attempting to turn the verdict around to his advantage by aggressively fundraising off of it, blasting out fundraising emails to smaller dollar donors, calling himself a “political prisoner,” and also attending a fundraiser with major Republican donors in Manhattan Thursday night just hours after the verdict dropped.

    Trump currently doesn’t have any public campaign events scheduled for next week, however, he is expected to do a fundraising blitz through the West Coast.

    The presumptive Republican nominee is facing additional criminal charges with two cases brought in federal courts and an additional one in state court. Trump is set to be sentenced on July 11 — three days prior to the Republican National Convention where he will become the Republican presidential nominee.

    Trump was convicted of 34 felony charges in a scheme to illegally influence the 2016 election through a hush money payment to a porn actor who said the two had sex. The hush money trial and subsequent conviction mark the first time a former U.S. president has ever been tried or convicted in a criminal case.

    Here’s the latest:

    TRUMP’S CONVICTION AND ITS IMPACT ON THE 2024 ELECTION

    Donald Trump’s conviction in his New York hush money trial is a stunning development in an already unorthodox presidential election with profound implications for the justice system and perhaps U.S. democracy itself.

    But in a deeply divided America, it’s unclear whether Trump’s status as someone with a felony conviction will have any impact at all on the 2024 election.

    RELATED: What the Biden campaign thinks the Trump verdict means: ‘It matters’

    Trump remains in a competitive position against President Joe Biden this fall, even as the Republican former president now faces the prospect of a prison sentence in the run-up to the November election.

    In the short term at least, there were immediate signs that the unanimous guilty verdict was helping to unify the Republican Party’s disparate factions as GOP officials in Congress and in state capitals across the country rallied behind their presumptive presidential nominee, while his campaign expected to benefit from a flood of new fundraising dollars.

    REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS RALLIED TO TRUMP’S DEFENSE

    Several Republican lawmakers reacted with fury to Donald Trump’s felony conviction on Thursday and rushed to his defense – questioning the legitimacy of the trial and how it was conducted.

    House Speaker Mike Johnson said it was a “shameful day in American history” and labeled the charges as “purely political.”

    South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, who has been one of Trump’s most frequent allies, said, “This verdict says more about the system than the allegations.”

    And while Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell refrained from attacking the judge or jury, he said the charges “never should have been brought in the first place.”

    Many GOP lawmakers, including Johnson, visited the courthouse in New York to support Trump during his criminal trial.

    UNLESS HE’S SENT TO PRISON, TRUMP CAN STILL VOTE

    Donald Trump may have been convicted of a felony and reside in Florida, a state notorious for restricting the voting rights of felons, but he can still vote as long as he stays out of prison in New York state.

    That’s because Florida defers to other states’ disenfranchisement rules for residents convicted of out-of-state felonies. In Trump’s case, New York law only removes their right to vote when incarcerated. Once they’re out of prison, their rights are automatically restored – even if they’re on parole, per a 2021 law passed by the state’s Democratic legislature.

    “If a Floridian’s voting rights are restored in the state of conviction, they are restored under Florida law,” Blair Bowie of the Campaign Legal Center wrote in a post explaining the state of law, noting that people without Trump’s legal resources are often confused by Florida’s complex rules.

    THE FIGHT IS FAR FROM OVER

    Donald Trump’s conviction Thursday on 34 felony counts marked the end of the former president’s historic hush money trial.

    Now comes the sentencing and the prospect of a prison sentence. A lengthy appellate process could follow, especially as Trump’s legal team has already been laying the groundwork for an appeal.

    And all the while, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee still faces three more criminal cases and a campaign that could see him return to the White House.

    The Associated Press contributed to this report.

    Copyright © 2024 ABC News Internet Ventures.

    ABCNews

    Source link

  • The Supreme Court could decide Monday whether Trump can be barred from the 2024 ballot

    The Supreme Court could decide Monday whether Trump can be barred from the 2024 ballot

    WASHINGTON — Former President Donald Trump could learn Monday whether the Supreme Court will let him appear on this year’s ballot as the leading Republican presidential candidate tries to close in on his party’s nomination.

    The justices are expected to decide at least one case Monday, with signs strongly pointing to a resolution of the case from Colorado that threatens to kick Trump off some state ballots because of his efforts to overturn his election loss in 2020. Any opinions will post on the court’s website beginning just after 10 a.m. EST.

    Trump is challenging a groundbreaking decision by the Colorado Supreme Court that said he is disqualified from being president again and ineligible for the state’s primary, which is Tuesday.

    The resolution of the case on Monday, a day before Super Tuesday contests in 16 states, would remove uncertainty about whether votes for Trump will ultimately count. Both sides had requested fast work by the court, which heard arguments less than a month ago, on Feb. 8.

    The justices seemed poised then to rule in Trump’s favor.

    RELATED: Takeaways from the Supreme Court oral arguments on the Trump 14th Amendment case

    The Colorado court was the first to invoke a post-Civil War constitutional provision aimed at preventing those who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office. Trump also has since been barred from primary ballot in Illinois and Maine, though both decisions, along with Colorado’s, are on hold pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case.

    The Supreme Court has until now never ruled on the provision, Section 3 of the 14th amendment.

    The court indicated Sunday there will be at least one case decided Monday, adhering to its custom of not saying which one. But it also departed from its usual practice in some respects, heightening the expectation that it’s the Trump ballot case that will be handed down.

    Except for when the end of the term approaches in late June, the court almost always issues decisions on days when the justices are scheduled to take the bench. But the next scheduled court day isn’t until March 15. And apart from during the coronavirus pandemic when the court was closed, the justices almost always read summaries of their opinions in the courtroom. They won’t be there Monday.

    ALSO SEE: Trump faces deadline to ask SCOTUS for delay in election interference trial

    Separately, the justices last week agreed to hear arguments in late April over whether Trump can be criminally prosecuted on election interference charges, including his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. The court’s decision to step into the politically charged case, also with little in the way of precedent to guide it, calls into question whether Trump will stand trial before the November election.

    The former president faces 91 criminal charges in four prosecutions. Of those, the only one with a trial date that seems on track to hold is his state case in New York, where he’s charged with falsifying business records in connection with hush money payments to a porn actor. That case is set for trial on March 25, and the judge has signaled his determination to press ahead.

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

    AP

    Source link

  • Trump faces Monday deadline to ask SCOTUS for delay in election interference trial

    Trump faces Monday deadline to ask SCOTUS for delay in election interference trial


    WASHINGTON — Former President Donald Trump faces a Monday deadline for asking the Supreme Court to extend the delay in his trial on charges he plotted to overturn his 2020 election loss.

    His lawyers have indicated they will file an emergency appeal with the court, just four days after the justices heard Trump’s separate appeal to remain on the presidential ballot despite attempts to kick him off because of his efforts following his election loss in 2020.

    The filing would preserve a delay on what would be a landmark criminal trial of a former president while the nation’s highest court decides what to do. The federal appeals court in Washington set the deadline for filing when it rejected Trump’s immunity claims last week and ruled the trial could proceed.

    The Supreme Court’s decision on what to do, and how quickly it acts, could determine whether the Republican presidential primary front-runner stands trial in the case before the November election.

    RELATED: Takeaways from the Supreme Court oral arguments on the Trump 14th Amendment case

    There is no timetable for the court to act, but special counsel Jack Smith’s team has strongly pushed for the trial to take place this year. Trump, meanwhile, has repeatedly sought to delay the case. If Trump were to defeat President Joe Biden, he could potentially try to use his position as head of the executive branch to order a new attorney general to dismiss the federal cases he faces or even seek a pardon for himself.

    The Supreme Court’s options include rejecting the emergency appeal, which would enable U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to restart the trial proceedings in Washington’s federal court. The trial was initially scheduled to begin in early March.

    The court also could extend the delay while it hears arguments on the immunity issue. In that event, the schedule the justices might set could determine how soon a trial might begin, if indeed they agree with lower court rulings that Trump is not immune from prosecution.

    In December, Smith and his team had urged the justices to take up and decide the immunity issue, even before the appeals court weighed in. “It is of imperative public importance that Respondent’s claim of immunity be resolved by this Court and that Respondent’s trial proceed as promptly as possible if his claim of immunity is rejected,” prosecutors wrote in December.

    RELATED: Appeals court rejects Trump’s immunity claim in federal election interference case

    Trump’s legal team has ascribed partisan motives to the prosecution’s push for a prompt trial, writing in December that it “reflects the evident desire to schedule President Trump’s potential trial during the summer of 2024-at the height of the election season.”

    Now it’s up to a court on which three justices, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, were appointed by Trump when he was president. They have moved the court to the right in major decisions that overturned abortion rights, expanded gun rights and ended affirmative action in college admissions.

    But the Supreme Court hasn’t been especially friendly to Trump on legal matters directly concerning the former president. The court declined to take up several appeals filed by Trump and his allies related to the 2020 election. It also refused to prevent tax files and other documents from being turned over to congressional committees and prosecutors in New York.

    Last week, however, the justices did seem likely to end the efforts to prevent Trump from being on the 2024 ballot. A decision in that case could come any time.

    The Supreme Court has previously held that presidents are immune from civil liability for official acts, and Trump’s lawyers have for months argued that that protection should be extended to criminal prosecution as well.

    Last week, a unanimous panel of two judges appointed by President Joe Biden and one by a Republican president sharply rejected Trump’s novel claim that former presidents enjoy absolute immunity for actions that fall within their official job duties. It was the second time since December that judges have held that Trump can be prosecuted for actions undertaken while in the White House and in the run-up to Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol.

    ALSO SEE: New poll finds many Americans feel Biden, Trump are both too old to be president

    The case was argued before Judges Florence Pan and J. Michelle Childs, appointees of Biden, a Democrat, and Karen LeCraft Henderson, who was named to the bench by President George H.W. Bush, a Republican.

    The case in Washington is one of four prosecutions Trump faces as he seeks to reclaim the White House. He faces federal charges in Florida that he illegally retained classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate, a case that was also brought by Smith and is set for trial in May.

    He’s also charged in state court in Georgia with scheming to subvert that state’s 2020 election and in New York in connection with hush money payments made to porn actor Stormy Daniels. He has denied any wrongdoing.

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



    AP

    Source link

  • Takeaways from the Supreme Court oral arguments on the Trump 14th Amendment case

    Takeaways from the Supreme Court oral arguments on the Trump 14th Amendment case


    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court signaled Thursday it is poised to back former President Donald Trump and fend off a blockbuster challenge to his eligibility to appear on Colorado’s ballot.

    During about two hours of arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts and the high court’s other conservative justices peppered the lawyers representing Trump’s challengers with a series of questions that suggested they were seeking a way to side with the former president – most likely based on reasoning that doesn’t address the question of whether he is or isn’t an insurrectionist.

    Eight of the nine justices suggested that they were open to some of the arguments made by Jonathan Mitchell, Trump’s lawyer at the Supreme Court.

    Even some members of the court’s liberal wing posed difficult questions to the lawyers opposed to the former president.

    The case is the most significant elections matter the justices have been forced to confront since the Bush v. Gore decision in 2000 effectively handed the presidency to George W. Bush. If the Supreme Court ultimately rules against Trump it would almost certainly end his campaign for another term.

    RELATED: Campaign finance report: Trump’s legal bills mount in new filing

    At issue is a provision in the 14th Amendment that bars certain public officials from serving in the government again if they took part in an insurrection. The voters who challenged Trump say his role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol makes him ineligible under that “insurrection ban.”

    The Supreme Court often takes a few months to craft opinions – and usually hands down its biggest cases at the end of its term in June. But because the court expedited the earlier stages of the Trump ballot case, it is likely the court will want to move quickly to decide the case, potentially within a matter of weeks.

    Here’s what to know from Thursday’s hearing:

    Conservatives suggest several ways to side with Trump

    Throughout the course of the arguments, the court’s conservatives repeatedly questioned whether the insurrection ban was intended to apply to former presidents and whether the ban could be enforced without Congress first enacting a law. Others delved into more fundamental questions about whether courts removing a candidate from the ballot is democratic.

    “Your position has the effect of disenfranchising voters to a significant degree,” conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh said in one of the more striking exchanges with attorneys.

    If Trump is removed from the ballot in Colorado, Roberts predicted that states would eventually attempt to knock other candidates off the ballot. That, he signaled, would be inconsistent with the purpose and history of the 14th Amendment.

    RELATED: Appeals court rejects Trump’s immunity claim in federal election interference case

    “It’ll come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election,” Roberts said. “That’s a pretty daunting consequence.”

    The amendment’s key provision, Section 3, says in part: “No person shall … hold any office … under the United States … who, having previously taken an oath … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

    Kavanaugh’s focus on a historical case

    One of the most notable line of questions came from Kavanaugh.

    A 19th Century Supreme Court case, In Re. Griffin, involved a defendant’s challenge to a criminal conviction based on the fact that the judge in the case had fought for the Confederacy. Chief Justice Salmon Chase, who was writing for an appeals court, ruled in 1869 that the “insurrectionist ban” could not be enforced against the judge unless Congress first passed a law.

    Trump and his allies raised the case during their written arguments to the Supreme Court.

    Ample evidence has emerged over the last year of what happened at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

    Kavanaugh repeatedly suggested that he believed the case offered important insight into the meaning of the insurrection ban. That would suggest that he, at least, is thinking about siding with Trump on the narrow grounds that states can’t enforce the ban without Congress first passing legislation.

    “It’s by the chief justice of the United States a year after the 14th Amendment,” Kavanaugh said in a reference to Chase. “That seems to me high probative of what the meaning or understanding of that otherwise elusive language is.”

    Jackson, liberals have tough questions for challengers

    Another sign that the court was leaning toward Trump’s position: Even some of the liberal justices posed difficult questions to the lawyers representing his challengers.

    Notably, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Joe Biden nominee, said that the 14th Amendment provision did not include the word “president,” even though it specifically listed other officials who would be covered, such as members of Congress. That is a central argument Trump’s attorneys have raised in the case.

    “They were listing people that were barred and ‘president’ is not there,” Jackson said. “I guess that just makes me worry that maybe they weren’t focused on the president.”

    Justice Elena Kagan questioned the implications of a single state banning a candidate in a presidential election.

    “Why should a single state have the ability to make this determination not only for their own citizens, but for the rest of the nation?” Kagan asked.

    All three of the court’s liberal justices – Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor and Kagan – asked tough questions of both sides but they generally focused on narrow provisions, avoiding broad questions about whether the president engaged in an insurrection. Heading into the arguments, many experts predicted that would suggest the arguments were moving in Trump’s direction.

    Justices didn’t focus on Trump’s January 6 actions

    The nine justices spent little time on the former president’s actions surrounding the January 6 attack on the US Capitol that sparked the ballot challenge in Colorado and elsewhere.

    There were more questions, in fact, about the Civil War and how the insurrectionist ban in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution was enacted in order to grapple with confederates who fought against the Union.

    When Trump’s attorney Jonathan Mitchell was questioned, none of the justices asked about whether Trump’s actions constituted an insurrection until Jackson raised it in her final question.

    “For an insurrection, there needs to be an organized concerted effort to overthrow the government of the United States through violence,” Mitchell said when asked to explain his argument that Trump’s actions did not involve an attempt to overthrow the government.

    “So if point is that a chaotic effort to overthrow the government is not an insurrection?” the justice responded.

    “This was a riot, it was not an insurrection,” Mitchell responded.

    Later, during questioning of Jason Murray, the attorney representing Colorado voters, Kavanaugh questioned why Trump should be removed from the ballot when he has not been convicted of inciting an insurrection. Kavanaugh noted there was a federal statute for insurrection and that Trump had not been charged with it, although he is facing other charges from special counsel Jack Smith related to his actions after the 2020 election.

    Murray argued that the federal insurrection statute was enacted before the 14th Amendment was adopted, and that a federal conviction was not required to remove Trump from the ballot.

    The provision does not say a conviction is necessary for disqualification, though some analysts have said a criminal conviction would help ensure that there was due process before anyone would be barred from office. After the Civil War, thousands of ex-Confederates were disqualified from office without prior criminal convictions.

    The-CNN-Wire & 2024 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.



    CNNWire

    Source link

  • Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Trump’s 14th Amendment ballot case | LISTEN LIVE

    Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Trump’s 14th Amendment ballot case | LISTEN LIVE


    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will hear arguments Thursday in a historic challenge to Donald Trump‘s eligibility to appear on the ballot, thrusting the high court into a raucous election as it threatens to abruptly end the former president’s campaign for a second term.

    The Supreme Court will hear arguments Thursday in a historic challenge to Donald Trump’s eligibility to appear on the ballot.

    Not since the court decided Bush v. Gore after the 2000 election have the nine justices been asked to dig into a case so intertwined with an ongoing presidential election. Though the appeal is ostensibly about Colorado’s ballot, both sides acknowledge the decision later this year will have nationwide implications.

    Standing before the justices inside the ornate courtroom, a lawyer representing the six voters who challenged Trump’s eligibility will argue a post-Civil War “insurrection ban” in the 14th Amendment bars the frontrunner for the GOP nomination from serving again because of his actions leading up to the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol.

    A lawyer for Trump will argue that the provision doesn’t apply to a former president.

    RELATED: Campaign finance report: Trump’s legal bills mount in new filing

    The court scheduled 80 minutes for the arguments that will kick off shortly after 10 a.m. ET, but the justices regularly blow past the set time on more mundane matters. It is more likely that they will press the attorneys arguing before them for hours.

    Though sometimes inconclusive, arguments often provide important insight into how the justices are thinking about the questions before them. While the debate may not decide the outcome of a case, they can shape the behind-the-curtain wrangling that unfolds as the justices stake out positions and begin drafting opinions.

    “You can definitely get a sense of what the justices care about from how the oral argument goes,” said Kermit Roosevelt, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School. “You can’t always tell how they’re going to vote but you can get a sense of which issues they think are important.”

    Trump ballot fight pushes high court into unchartered territory

    Many of the legal theories raised in the insurrection dispute are new to the Supreme Court. Though the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, the court has never before wrestled with a claim based on the insurrection clause.

    The case, Trump v. Anderson, is on appeal from the Colorado Supreme Court, which in December ruled that the former president is no longer eligible to serve. In addition to Colorado, the top election official in Maine reached a similar conclusion in late December and determined Trump is constitutionally barred from office.

    Similar cases were rejected on procedural grounds in other states, where well-funded legal groups filed lawsuits on behalf of voters.

    Trump is simultaneously juggling four criminal prosecutions – including one that could reach the Supreme Court in coming days dealing with whether he can claim immunity from criminal prosecution. Not only has Trump repeatedly denied wrongdoing in those cases, he has lumped his legal woes together and tried to use them to his advantage on the campaign trail.

    RELATED: Appeals court rejects Trump’s immunity claim in federal election interference case

    While the stakes for Trump are enormous, they are also significant for the Supreme Court. Approval ratings of the court have sunk to record lows and a large portion of the country will likely be enraged by the decision in the ballot case.

    Will justices look for ways to rule without saying if Trump was an insurrectionist?

    One element to watch during arguments Thursday will be how much attention the justices pay to the narrow off-ramps Trump is offering the court to decide the case in his favor without addressing directly whether he took part in an insurrection. The six Republican and independent voters who sued Trump filled court papers with harrowing pictures from the attack on the US Capitol and striking language about the chaos that unfolded that day.

    But if the justices appear to be mostly focused on more technical points, that may be a good sign for Trump.

    “A lot of justices are going to be looking for a way to get out of this,” said Michael Gerhardt, a law professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “The court will be reluctant to decide the merits of this because that would then place the court in the middle of the election.”

    Ample evidence has emerged over the last year of what happened at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

    Trump and his allies argue the insurrection ban doesn’t apply to former presidents and, if it did, that Colorado courts have no authority to enforce it in this way. His briefs have focused less on the events of January 6 and more on his lead in the campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.

    The first sentence of Trump’s final brief notes he won the Iowa caucuses last month and the New Hampshire primary days later. Broadly, he argues that voters, not courts, should choose the president.

    Interplay between John Roberts and Elena Kagan may be key

    Though among the least talkative on the bench, Chief Justice John Roberts is always important to watch during arguments. Roberts, concerned about the court’s reputation, will likely seek to settle the politically fraught case in a narrow way that can bring together the court’s six conservatives and three liberals.

    Roberts’ questions could signal what he thinks is the best path to that outcome.

    That raises another dynamic to watch: The arguments Thursday may offer insight into the appetite within the court’s liberal wing – Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson – to find a compromise with Roberts. The chief justice and Kagan, who was nominated in 2010 by President Barack Obama, have found ways to work together in recent years.

    “Roberts is going to have a lot of incentive to get rid of this,” Gerhardt said. “He may have some support in trying to get rid of it, but I think that’s going to be foremost in his mind.”

    (The-CNN-Wire & 2023 Cable News Network, Inc., a Time Warner Company. All rights reserved.)



    CNNWire

    Source link

  • What to watch for as Supreme Court hears the Donald Trump 14th Amendment ballot battle

    What to watch for as Supreme Court hears the Donald Trump 14th Amendment ballot battle


    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will hear arguments Thursday in a historic challenge to Donald Trump‘s eligibility to appear on the ballot, thrusting the high court into a raucous election as it threatens to abruptly end the former president’s campaign for a second term.

    Not since the court decided Bush v. Gore after the 2000 election have the nine justices been asked to dig into a case so intertwined with an ongoing presidential election. Though the appeal is ostensibly about Colorado’s ballot, both sides acknowledge the decision later this year will have nationwide implications.

    Standing before the justices inside the ornate courtroom, a lawyer representing the six voters who challenged Trump’s eligibility will argue a post-Civil War “insurrection ban” in the 14th Amendment bars the frontrunner for the GOP nomination from serving again because of his actions leading up to the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol.

    A lawyer for Trump will argue that the provision doesn’t apply to a former president.

    RELATED: Campaign finance report: Trump’s legal bills mount in new filing

    The court scheduled 80 minutes for the arguments that will kick off shortly after 10 a.m. ET, but the justices regularly blow past the set time on more mundane matters. It is more likely that they will press the attorneys arguing before them for hours.

    Though sometimes inconclusive, arguments often provide important insight into how the justices are thinking about the questions before them. While the debate may not decide the outcome of a case, they can shape the behind-the-curtain wrangling that unfolds as the justices stake out positions and begin drafting opinions.

    “You can definitely get a sense of what the justices care about from how the oral argument goes,” said Kermit Roosevelt, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School. “You can’t always tell how they’re going to vote but you can get a sense of which issues they think are important.”

    Trump ballot fight pushes high court into unchartered territory

    Many of the legal theories raised in the insurrection dispute are new to the Supreme Court. Though the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, the court has never before wrestled with a claim based on the insurrection clause.

    The case, Trump v. Anderson, is on appeal from the Colorado Supreme Court, which in December ruled that the former president is no longer eligible to serve. In addition to Colorado, the top election official in Maine reached a similar conclusion in late December and determined Trump is constitutionally barred from office.

    Similar cases were rejected on procedural grounds in other states, where well-funded legal groups filed lawsuits on behalf of voters.

    Trump is simultaneously juggling four criminal prosecutions – including one that could reach the Supreme Court in coming days dealing with whether he can claim immunity from criminal prosecution. Not only has Trump repeatedly denied wrongdoing in those cases, he has lumped his legal woes together and tried to use them to his advantage on the campaign trail.

    RELATED: Appeals court rejects Trump’s immunity claim in federal election interference case

    While the stakes for Trump are enormous, they are also significant for the Supreme Court. Approval ratings of the court have sunk to record lows and a large portion of the country will likely be enraged by the decision in the ballot case.

    Will justices look for ways to rule without saying if Trump was an insurrectionist?

    One element to watch during arguments Thursday will be how much attention the justices pay to the narrow off-ramps Trump is offering the court to decide the case in his favor without addressing directly whether he took part in an insurrection. The six Republican and independent voters who sued Trump filled court papers with harrowing pictures from the attack on the US Capitol and striking language about the chaos that unfolded that day.

    But if the justices appear to be mostly focused on more technical points, that may be a good sign for Trump.

    “A lot of justices are going to be looking for a way to get out of this,” said Michael Gerhardt, a law professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “The court will be reluctant to decide the merits of this because that would then place the court in the middle of the election.”

    Ample evidence has emerged over the last year of what happened at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

    Trump and his allies argue the insurrection ban doesn’t apply to former presidents and, if it did, that Colorado courts have no authority to enforce it in this way. His briefs have focused less on the events of January 6 and more on his lead in the campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.

    The first sentence of Trump’s final brief notes he won the Iowa caucuses last month and the New Hampshire primary days later. Broadly, he argues that voters, not courts, should choose the president.

    Interplay between John Roberts and Elena Kagan may be key

    Though among the least talkative on the bench, Chief Justice John Roberts is always important to watch during arguments. Roberts, concerned about the court’s reputation, will likely seek to settle the politically fraught case in a narrow way that can bring together the court’s six conservatives and three liberals.

    Roberts’ questions could signal what he thinks is the best path to that outcome.

    That raises another dynamic to watch: The arguments Thursday may offer insight into the appetite within the court’s liberal wing – Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson – to find a compromise with Roberts. The chief justice and Kagan, who was nominated in 2010 by President Barack Obama, have found ways to work together in recent years.

    “Roberts is going to have a lot of incentive to get rid of this,” Gerhardt said. “He may have some support in trying to get rid of it, but I think that’s going to be foremost in his mind.”

    (The-CNN-Wire & 2023 Cable News Network, Inc., a Time Warner Company. All rights reserved.)



    CNNWire

    Source link