ReportWire

Tag: Trump

  • Pence Berates DOJ For Indicting Trump Over Handling Of Top-Secret Documents

    Pence Berates DOJ For Indicting Trump Over Handling Of Top-Secret Documents

    [ad_1]

    GREENSBORO, N.C. — Former Vice President Mike Pence on Saturday criticized the Department of Justice, rather than Donald Trump, for a devastating 37-count indictment accusing his former boss of conspiring to hide top-secret documents from authorities seeking their return.

    “The American people have a right to know the basis of this decision,” Pence told North Carolina Republicans gathered for their state convention, where Trump was scheduled to speak just hours later. “Attorney General Merrick Garland, stop hiding behind the special counsel and stand before the American people and explain why this indictment went forward.”

    Pence, as he was leaving following his 40 minutes on the stage, ignored repeated questions from reporters asking if he had read the indictment and if he believed it would’ve come had Trump turned over improperly retained classified documents when the FBI requested them.

    Pence’s choice to blame prosecutors for charging Trump with a crime — rather than Trump for refusing to turn over hundreds of the documents, even in the face of a subpoena — aligns him with most other candidates running for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination against Trump.

    Biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy went so far as to promise to pardon Trump on his first day in office, should he win.

    Only former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson and former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie have said Trump is to blame for his own troubles and that his behavior made him unfit for the presidency.

    After the FBI searched Trump’s Florida country club following his failure to turn over all the classified documents in his possession last summer, and after aides to Joe Biden also discovered files at the Democratic president’s home, Pence looked through his own residence and similarly found classified material. He called in the FBI, resulting in further searches. The DOJ announced recently that its investigation into Pence had been closed with no charges.

    “I took full responsibility, and I was pleased the Department of Justice concluded it was an innocent mistake,” he said at a campaign stop Friday in New Hampshire. “But it was a mistake. We must secure our nation’s secrets.”

    Pence was nearly killed during Trump’s Jan. 6, 2021, coup attempt in Washington. A mob, brought to a boiling rage as Trump criticized Pence for lacking the “courage” to help overturn his 2020 election loss, came within yards of encountering Pence at the Capitol. Many of Trump’s followers chanted, “Hang Mike Pence,” as they roamed the halls looking for him.

    Despite this, Pence has remained measured in his criticisms of Trump. Only in his campaign announcement last week did Pence say, for the first time, that Trump’s behavior after the 2020 election through the Jan. 6 insurrection disqualified him from being president again.

    He has echoed that belief in subsequent appearances, and did so again Saturday in North Carolina.

    “Anyone who puts themselves over the Constitution should never be president of the United States,” Pence said in his remarks. Republicans at the Sheraton ballroom in Greensboro offered polite applause as Pence explained his actions on Jan. 6, when he refused Trump’s demands.

    Melissa Crespo, a delegate from the Lincoln County party committee, said she absolutely could not support Pence.

    “I feel like he should not run against Trump. I just feel like that’s disloyal,” she said. “He’s betraying the people who supported him as vice president.”

    Pence’s “First in Freedom” luncheon brought in 600 convention-goers, who paid $75 each to attend the fundraiser. His was one of three ticketed meals the party is holding. A dinner featuring fellow GOP hopeful Ron DeSantis attracted about 900 attendees who paid $150 a ticket, while a Saturday night dinner with Trump sold nearly 1,000 tickets at $150 each.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Donald Trump’s Indictment Has A ‘But Her Emails’ Section

    Donald Trump’s Indictment Has A ‘But Her Emails’ Section

    [ad_1]

    In 2016, Donald Trump rode to the White House by vigorously criticizing his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, as “corrupt” and “crooked” amid an investigation into classified materials kept on a private email server during her time as secretary of state.

    “Lock her up,” his adoring crowds chanted.

    But now the shoe is on the other foot. Trump’s attacks on Clinton have come back to bite him as he himself is indicted over his handling of classified documents. His words are even featured in the indictment in a special “But her emails!” style section.

    On a page titled “TRUMP’s Public Statements on Classified Information,” the new indictment highlights excerpts from Trump’s campaign trail speeches in 2016 about the importance of protecting classified information and enforcing the law. These statements serve as evidence that the former president seemed to know that mishandling classified information is a serious crime.

    “In my administration I’m going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information,” Trump said on Aug. 18, 2016, as the indictment notes. “No one will be above the law.”

    “We also need to fight this battle by collecting intelligence and then protecting, protecting our classified secrets. … We can’t have someone in the Oval Office who doesn’t understand the meaning of the word confidential or classified,” Trump said on Sept. 6, 2016.

    “[O]ne of the first things we must do is to enforce all classification rules and to enforce all laws relating to the handling of classified information,” Trump is quoted as saying on Sept. 7, 2016.

    “We also need the best protection of classified information,” Trump said on Sept. 19, 2016.

    “Service members here in North Carolina have risked their lives to acquire classified intelligence to protect our country,” Trump said on Nov. 3, 2016.

    Prior to these statements, then-FBI Director James Comey announced that the Department of Justice would not bring charges against Clinton because “our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,” but added that she and her aides were “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

    A subsequent DOJ inspector general probe revealed that investigators decided not to bring a case becuase “None of the emails contained clear classification markings as required” under orders governing the handling of classified materials.

    Among the charges Trump faces are 31 counts of retaining and failing to hand over clearly marked confidential documents containing national defense information.

    Trump is set to be booked Tuesday for allegedly breaking the same laws he claimed Clinton should have been locked up for just seven years ago. If only someone had been around then to tell him about the importance of following the rules on handling classified information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Mike Pence classified-documents investigation closed by Justice Department with no criminal charges

    Mike Pence classified-documents investigation closed by Justice Department with no criminal charges

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK (AP) — The Department of Justice has informed former Vice President Mike Pence ‘s legal team that it will not pursue criminal charges related to the discovery of classified documents at his Indiana home.

    The department sent a letter to Pence’s attorney on Thursday informing him that, after an investigation into the potential mishandling of classified information, no criminal charges will be sought.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The debt ceiling deal: This clause is bad for Social Security

    The debt ceiling deal: This clause is bad for Social Security

    [ad_1]

    If there were no tax cheats in America, there would be no Social Security crisis. Benefits could be paid, and payroll taxes kept the same, for the next 75 years.

    That’s not me talking. That’s math. It comes from the number crunchers at the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service.

    And it explains why those of us who support Social Security should be pounding the table in outrage over one clause of the Biden-McCarthy debt ceiling deal: The part where the president has to retreat from his crackdown on tax cheats just so McCarthy and the House Republicans would agree to prevent America defaulting on its debts.

    It’s just two years since the administration got into law an extra $80 billion for the IRS to beef up enforcement. That was supposed to include hiring an estimated 87,000 IRS agents. 

    OK, so nobody likes paying taxes and nobody likes the IRS. Cue the inevitable critiques of an IRS tax “army,” and so on. But this isn’t about whether taxes should be higher or lower. It’s about whether everyone should pay the taxes that they owe.

    After all, if we’re going to cut taxes, shouldn’t they apply to those of us who obey the laws as well as those who don’t? Or do we just support the “Tax Cuts for Criminals” Act?

    Why would any voter rally around a platform of “I stand with tax cheats?”

    The Congressional Budget Office calculated that the extra funding for the IRS would have reduced the deficit, because it would more than pay for itself. But it’s now been cut by an estimated $21 billion out of $80 billion.

    If this seems abstract, consider the context and how it affects you and your retirement — and the retirements of everyone you know.

    Social Security is now running at an $80 billion annual deficit. That’s the amount benefits are expected to exceed payroll taxes this year. (So say the Social Security Administration’s trustees.)

    Next year, that deficit is expected to top $150 billion. By 2026, we’re looking at $200 billion and rising. The trust fund will run out of cash by 2034, and without extra payroll taxes will have to slash benefits by a fifth or more.

    Over the next 75 years, says the Congressional Budget Office, the entire funding gap for the program will average about 1.7% of gross domestic product per year.

    Meanwhile, how much are tax cheats stealing from the rest of us? A multiple of that.

    According to the most recent estimates from the IRS, tax cheats steal about $470 billion a year. And that figure is four years out of date, relating to 2019. That’s the figure after enforcement measures.

    Oh, and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration says that’s a lowball number.

    But it still worked out at around 12% of all the taxes people were supposed to pay (including payroll taxes). And around 2.3% of GDP.

    Over the next 10 years, based on similar ratios to GDP, that would come to another $3.3 billion. 

    Sure, Social Security’s trust fund is theoretically separate from the rest of Uncle Sam’s finances. But that’s an accounting issue: A distinction without a difference.

    Social Security is America’s retirement plan. Few could retire in dignity without it. Yet it is facing a fiscal crisis. By 2034, without changes, the program will be forced to cut benefits — drastically.

    Some people want to cut benefits. Others want to raise the retirement age, which also means cutting benefits. Others want to raise taxes on benefits — which also means cutting benefits. Others want to hike payroll taxes, either on all of us or (initially) only on very high earners.

    At last — just 40 or so years out of date — some are starting to talk about investing some of the trust fund like nearly every other pension plan in the world, in high-returning stocks instead of just low-returning Treasury bonds. 

    (It is hard for me to believe that it’s now almost 16 years since I first wrote about this ridiculously obvious fix And, yes, I’ve been boring readers on the subject ever since, including here and most recently here, and, no, I have no plans to stop.)

    But if investing some of the trust fund in stocks is a no-brainer, so, too, is insisting everyone obey the law and pay the taxes they actually owe each year. I mean, shouldn’t we do that before we think about raising taxes even further on those who abide by the law?

    How could anyone object? Any party that believes in law and order would support enforcing, er, law and order on tax evasion. And any party of fiscal conservatism would support measures, like tax enforcement, to narrow the deficit.

    And, actually, any party that truly supported lower taxes for all would be tough on tax evasion: It is precisely this $500 billion in evasion by a small, scofflaw minority that forces the rest of us to pay more. We have, quite literally, a tax on obeying the law.

    One of the many arguments in favor of taxing assets or wealth, instead of just income, is that enforcement would be easier and evasion much harder

    Washington, D.C., seems to be a place where people come up with complex proposals just so they can avoid the simple, fair ones.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Oath Keepers Founder Sentenced To 18 Years For Seditious Conspiracy

    Oath Keepers Founder Sentenced To 18 Years For Seditious Conspiracy

    [ad_1]

    The founder of the far-right Oath Keepers group has been sentenced to 18 years in prison for his role in a seditious conspiracy to disrupt the electoral count, the stiffest punishment to date to stem from the violent assault on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. What do you think?

    “Well, at least he overthrew the government.”

    Fiona Lassetter, Seaweed Artisan

    “Strange considering that Trump is still secretly the president.”

    Ivan Winter, Unemployed

    “Luckily, he’ll be out in time for the 2042 insurrection.”

    Ben Kadapul, Hike Navigator

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • NAACP and other civil-rights groups issue Florida travel advisories

    NAACP and other civil-rights groups issue Florida travel advisories

    [ad_1]

    Ron DeSantis signs the Parental Rights in Education bill, known as the “Don’t say gay” bill, in March at Classical Preparatory School in Shady Hills, Fla.


    Douglas R. Clifford/Tampa Bay Times/AP/file

    ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — The NAACP over the weekend issued a travel advisory for Florida, joining two other civil rights groups in warning potential tourists that recent laws and policies championed by Gov. Ron DeSantis and Florida lawmakers are “openly hostile toward African Americans, people of color and LGBTQ+ individuals.”

    Don’t miss: Disney scraps plans on roughly $1 billion investment at new corporate campus in Florida 

    The NAACP, long an advocate for Black Americans, joined the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), a Latino civil-rights organization, and Equality Florida, a gay-rights advocacy group, in issuing travel advisories for the Sunshine State, where tourism is one of the state’s largest job sectors.

    The warning approved Saturday by the NAACP’s board of directors tells tourists that, before traveling to Florida, they should understand the state of Florida “devalues and marginalizes the contributions of, and the challenges faced by African Americans and other communities of color.”

    An email was sent Sunday morning to DeSantis’s office seeking comment. DeSantis is expected to announce a run for the GOP presidential nomination this week.

    See: Busy, and bellicose, legislative session winds down in Florida. Now it’s decision time for DeSantis.

    Florida is one of the most popular states in the U.S. for tourists, and tourism is one of its biggest industries. More than 137.5 million tourists visited Florida last year, marking a return to pre-pandemic levels, according to Visit Florida, the state’s tourism promotion agency. Tourism supports 1.6 million full-time and part-time jobs, and visitors spent $98.8 billion in Florida in 2019, the last year figures are available.

    The NAACP’s decision comes after the DeSantis’s administration in January rejected the College Board’s Advanced Placement African American Studies course. DeSantis and Republican lawmakers also have pressed forward with measures that ban state colleges from having programs on diversity, equity and inclusion, as well as critical race theory, and also passed the Stop WOKE Act that restricts certain race-based conversations and analysis in schools and businesses.

    In its warning for Hispanic travelers considering a visit to Florida, LULAC cited a new law that prohibits local governments from providing money to organizations that issue identification cards to people illegally in the country and invalidates out-of-state driver’s licenses held by undocumented immigrants, among other things.

    See: DeSantis criticizes Trump for implying Florida abortion ban is ‘too harsh’

    Also: Writers group PEN America and publisher Penguin Random House sue over book ban in Florida

    The law also requires hospitals that accept Medicaid to include a citizenship question on intake forms, which critics have said is intended to dissuade immigrants living in the U.S. illegally from seeking medical care.

    “The actions taken by Gov. DeSantis have created a shadow of fear within communities across the state,” said Lydia Medrano, a LULAC vice president for the Southeast region.

    Recent efforts to limit discussion on LGBTQ topics in schools, the removal of books with gay characters from school libraries, a recent ban on gender-affirming care for minors, new restrictions on abortion access and a law allowing Floridians to carry concealed guns without a permit contributed to Equality Florida’s warning.

    “Taken in their totality, Florida’s slate of laws and policies targeting basic freedoms and rights pose a serious risk to the health and safety of those traveling to the state,” Equality Florida’s advisory said.

    Read on:

    U.S. Border Patrol says illegal crossings are down dramatically since lifting of Title 42 asylum restrictions

    2024 Republican hopefuls rush to defend Marine who put New York subway rider in fatal chokehold

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden, McCarthy to meet in person Monday after ‘productive’ debt-ceiling talk

    Biden, McCarthy to meet in person Monday after ‘productive’ debt-ceiling talk

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden will meet in person Monday with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy about averting an economy-wrecking federal default, and the Republican leader expressed cautious optimism about a possible debt ceiling compromise as Washington races to raise America’s borrowing limit before the funds could be depleted early next month.

    The leaders spoke by phone Sunday while the president was returning home on Air Force One after the Group of Seven summit in Japan. McCarthy, R-Calif., told reporters at the Capitol that the call was “productive” and that the on-again, off-again negotiations between his staff and White House representatives would resume in the evening.

    Both sides have said progress was being made but that they remain far apart, and talks had lapsed for part of the weekend. Biden’s Treasury Department has said it could run out of cash as soon as June 1, and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said Sunday, “I think that that’s a hard deadline.”

    Read on: Biden says in Hiroshima press conference that Republicans must ‘move from their extreme positions’ on debt limit

    McCarthy said after his call with Biden that “I think we can solve some of these problems if he understands what we’re looking at.” The speaker added, “But I’ve been very clear to him from the very beginning. We have to spend less money than we spent last year.”

    McCarthy emerged from that conversation sounding upbeat and was careful not to criticize Biden’s trip, as he had before, suggesting the president had used his time overseas to insist on Democratic positions that made compromise harder. He did caution, “There’s no agreement on anything.”

    The speaker also gently praised the White House’s negotiating team, saying the sides may have “philosophical” disagreements, but could reach “common ground.”

    “We’re looking at how do we have a victory for this country. How do we solve problems,” McCarthy said. He said he did not think the final legislation would remake the federal budget and the country’s debt, but at least “put us on a path to change the behavior of this runaway spending.”

    The White House confirmed the Monday meeting and late Sunday talks but did not elaborate on the leaders’ call.

    Earlier, Biden used his concluding news conference in Hiroshima, Japan to warn House Republicans that they must move off their “extreme positions” over raising the debt limit and that there would be no agreement to avoid a catastrophic default only on their terms.

    Biden made clear that “it’s time for Republicans to accept that there is no deal to be made solely, solely, on their partisan terms.” He said he had done his part in attempting to raise the borrowing limit so the government can keep paying its bills, by agreeing to significant cuts in spending. “Now it’s time for the other side to move from their extreme position.”

    Biden had been scheduled to travel from Hiroshima to Papua New Guinea and Australia, but cut short his trip in light of the strained negotiations with Capitol Hill.

    Even with a new wave of tax revenue expected soon, perhaps giving both sides more time to negotiate, Yellen said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that “the odds of reaching June 15, while being able to pay all of our bills, is quite low.”

    GOP lawmakers are holding tight to demands for sharp spending cuts, rejecting the alternatives proposed by the White House for reducing deficits.

    Republicans want work requirements on the Medicaid health care program, though the Biden administration has countered that millions of people could lose coverage. The GOP additionally introduced new cuts to food aid by restricting states’ ability to waive work requirements in places with high joblessness. That idea, when floated under President Donald Trump, was estimated to cause 700,000 people to lose their food benefits.

    GOP lawmakers are also seeking cuts in IRS money and asking the White House to accept parts of their proposed immigration overhaul.

    The White House has countered by keeping defense and nondefense spending flat next year, which would save $90 billion in the 2024 budget year and $1 trillion over 10 years.

    “I think that we can reach an agreement,” Biden said, though he added this about Republicans: “I can’t guarantee that they wouldn’t force a default by doing something outrageous.”

    Republicans had also rejected White House proposals to raise revenues in order to further lower deficits. Among the proposals the GOP objects to are policies that would enable Medicare to pay less for prescription drugs and the closing of a dozen tax loopholes. Republicans have refused to roll back the Trump-era tax breaks on corporations and wealthy households as Biden’s own budget has proposed.

    Biden, nonetheless, insisted that “revenue is not off the table.”

    For months, Biden had refused to engage in talks over the debt limit, contending that Republicans in Congress were trying to use the borrowing limit vote as leverage to extract administration concessions on other policy priorities.

    But with the June 1 potential deadline looming and Republicans putting their own legislation on the table, the White House launched talks on a budget deal that could accompany an increase in the debt limit.

    Biden’s decision to set up a call with McCarthy came after another start-stop day with no outward signs of progress. Food was brought to the negotiating room at the Capitol on Saturday morning, only to be carted away hours later. Talks, though, could resume later Sunday after the Biden-McCarthy conversation.

    The president tried to assure leaders attending the meeting of the world’s most powerful democracies that the United States would not default. U.S. officials said leaders were concerned, but largely confident that Biden and American lawmakers would resolve the crisis.

    The president, though, said he was ruling out the possibility of taking action on his own to avoid a default. Any such steps, including suggestions to invoke the 14th Amendment as a solution, would become tied up in the courts.

    “That’s a question that I think is unresolved,” Biden said, adding he hopes to try to get the judiciary to weigh in on the notion for the future.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Charlotte FBI, Bank of America dragged into congressional dispute over Capitol riot

    Charlotte FBI, Bank of America dragged into congressional dispute over Capitol riot

    [ad_1]

    The Charlotte FBI suspended an analyst after his actions and comments about the Capitol riot raised questions about his “allegiance” to the country. Meanwhile, Bank of America is under fire by Republicans who claim the bank shared confidential data placing customer near the Capitol on Jan. 6.

    The Charlotte FBI suspended an analyst after his actions and comments about the Capitol riot raised questions about his “allegiance” to the country. Meanwhile, Bank of America is under fire by Republicans who claim the bank shared confidential data placing customer near the Capitol on Jan. 6.

    A suspended FBI employee from Charlotte who gave whistleblower testimony Thursday to a Republican-led congressional subcommittee had his security clearance revoked over his handling of a Jan. 6-related investigation, and amid questions from his superiors about his “allegiance to the United States.”

    Meanwhile, an interim subcommittee report released earlier in the day accuses Bank of America, headquartered in Charlotte, of targeting conservatives by turning over confidential consumer data from customers who used their credit cards in Washington, D.C., around the time of the Capitol attack.

    Marcus Allen, a staff operations specialist with the FBI Charlotte Field Office’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, was to testify before the House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government over how the FBI is allegedly “purging” agents and other employees with conservative political views.

    However, in a letter to the subcommittee’s chairman, Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan, FBI Assistant Director Christopher Dunham said Allen’s top-secret security clearance had been revoked by his Charlotte superiors this month after he had “expressed sympathy for persons or organizations that advocate, threaten or use force or violence,” the New York Times and other outlets reported.

    Allen’s actions, according to Dunham, raised security concerns in the Charlotte Field Office about his “allegiance to the United States.” Allen has been suspended without pay since February 2022.

    The subcommittee’s report claims that Allen and several other FBI employees scheduled to testify were punished for either doing their jobs or speaking out against “the politicization” of the bureau.

    In an email to The Charlotte Observer on Thursday, the FBI said the retaliation claims are not true.

    The FBI’s mission is to uphold the Constitution and protect the American people,” the bureau said. “The FBI has not and will not retaliate against individuals who make protected whistleblower disclosures.”

    The subcommittee’s report also alleges that Bank of America “voluntarily and without any legal process,” gave the Washington office of the FBI “a list of individuals who made transactions in the Washington, D.C., area using a BoA product” between Jan. 5-7, 2021.

    Customers in the D.C. area at the time who had used a BoA credit card to buy a gun in the past were “reportedly elevated to the top of the list,” according to a now retired FBI analyst who testified to the subcommittee in March, the report states.

    Under questioning by the subcommittee, however, the retired analyst, George Hill, acknowledged that he merely had seen a record about the bank’s activities in the FBI’s case-management system but did not open it, CNN reported.

    The FBI Office in Charlotte says it suspended an analyst last year after his actions concerning the investigation of the Capitol riot raised questions about “his allegiance to the United States.”
    The FBI Office in Charlotte says it suspended an analyst last year after his actions concerning the investigation of the Capitol riot raised questions about “his allegiance to the United States.” Charlotte Observer file image Charlotte Observer file image

    Based on court files tied to its Jan. 6 investigation, the FBI frequently received court approval to acquire banking and communications records to pinpoint the locations of suspects or to search for evidence of crimes.

    The subcommittee’s report, however, described Bank of America’s actions in more critical terms — as “an invasion of the privacy of American citizens (that is) decidedly concerning.”

    In response to the subcommittee’s allegations, a spokeswoman for Bank of America told the Observer on Thursday that the bank “follows all applicable laws and regulatory requirements to receive, evaluate, process, safeguard, and narrowly respond to law enforcement requests.”

    The weaponization subcommittee was formed by the House Republican majority to investigate purported corruption and bias in the federal government — from the so-called “Deep State” probes of former President Donald Trump to alleged improper business activity by Hunter Biden as well as the FBI’s supposed “anti-parent” investigations into angry school protests over books, curriculum and pandemic response.

    Its FBI whistleblower report involving Jan. 6 comes the same week as the release of the findings of a Trump administration-appointed special prosecutor that criticizes the FBI’s probe of possible links between Russia and Trump’s 2016 campaign.

    The four-year investigation by John Durham cost taxpayers $6.5 million but led to only one criminal conviction — not to the purported widespread FBI conspiracy, which Republicans contend, improperly targeted Trump.

    Nonetheless, Russell Dye, a spokesman for Jordan, dismissed Dunham’s letter as a “last-minute Hail Mary” by the FBI “to salvage their reputation after John Durham illuminated their election interference and before brave whistleblowers testify about the agency’s politicized behavior and retaliation against anyone who dares speak out.”

    The report and subcommittee hearing spotlights the roles of Charlotte and other FBI field offices in the massive federal investigation of Jan. 6., when thousands of Trump supporters violently stormed the Capitol to block congressional certification of President Joe Biden’s election win.

    More than 1,000 arrests have been made to date. At least 28 have come from North Carolina. Ten N.C. residents have already been sentenced to prison.

    ‘Excercise extreme caution‘

    Allen, according to Dunham’s letter, sent an email from his bureau account to co-workers several months after the Capitol attack, urging them to “exercise extreme caution and discretion in pursuit of any investigative inquiries or leads pertaining to the events” of Jan. 6.

    He also sent an email linking to a website stating that “federal law enforcement had some degree of infiltration among the crowds gathered at the Capitol,” which Allen said raised “serious concerns” about the U.S. government’s participation in the riot, according to The Times.

    In addition, when Allen was asked to conduct “open source searches on a Jan. 6 subject” from North Carolina, he reported that he found nothing to show that the suspect “engaged in criminal activity nor did he find a nexus to terrorism.”

    As a result of Allen’s summary, the case was closed. It was reopened when another FBI employee provided “readily available” information that the subject in question had assaulted a Capitol police officer on Jan. 6 — “information … that should have been obtained by Mr. Allen when he conducted his search,” according to Dunham.

    At least seven N.C. defendants have been convicted or accused of assaulting police on Jan. 6. Overall, 140 officers were injured defending the Capitol from the mob.

    When asked by the Observer for the identity of the target of Allen’s investigation and whether that person has been charged, the FBI did not respond.

    In a federal lawsuit filed in South Carolina, Allen said his suspension letter on Jan. 10, 2022 — which he says he received in the parking lot of a Cracker Barrel restaurant off Carowinds Boulevard — accused him of espousing “conspiratorial views” and promoting “unreliable information which indicates support for the events of January 6th.”

    Allen, who lives in Lancaster, S.C., denies the allegations.

    He joined the FBI in 2015 after previous serving as a Marine intelligence specialist in Operation Iraqi Freedom. He received the “Employee of the Year Award” from the Charlotte Field Office in 2019.

    In his complaint against Christopher Wray, he accuses the FBI director of multiple First Amendment violations, including “content- and viewpoint-based discrimination,” as well as retaliation.

    Allen also wants his security clearance restored and to be returned to his job.

    This story was originally published May 18, 2023, 5:18 PM.

    Michael Gordon has been the Observer’s legal affairs writer since 2013. He has been an editor and reporter at the paper since 1992, occasionally writing about schools, religion, politics and sports. He spent two summers as “Bikin Mike,” filing stories as he pedaled across the Carolinas.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Entirely Unrepentant

    Entirely Unrepentant

    [ad_1]

    “Our country is being destroyed by stupid people,” former President Donald Trump declared during a CNN town hall tonight, shortly after he endorsed defaulting on the national debt.

    Trump remains without shame. Neither impeachment nor indictment nor arraignment nor a barely day-old verdict against him in a civil suit can change the fact that he’s still leading the field of Republican presidential candidates—comfortably.

    During tonight’s hour-plus live broadcast from New Hampshire, Trump steamrolled over the moderator, Kaitlan Collins, at one point calling her a “nasty” person—an echo of his 2016 campaign against Hillary Clinton. Collins did her best to fact-check the former president, but her efforts consistently fell short. Trump’s ability to disgorge words is unparalleled. She tried to cut him off, but he battled through it.

    Tonight, Trump rattled off myriad conspiracy theories about voter fraud and claimed, as he had at CPAC, that he could end the war in Ukraine in a quick 24 hours. He painted the January 6 insurrectionist Ashli Babbitt as a martyr and called the Capitol Police officer who shot her a “thug.” He referred to former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi as a “crazy woman.” He repeatedly denigrated the writer E. Jean Carroll, who was just awarded $5 million in damages after a jury found that he defamed and sexually assaulted her. Trump repeated his earlier claims not to know her, calling her a “whack job.”

    But will it matter? Has it ever mattered before?

    Trump is currently leading both the incumbent, President Joe Biden, and the top Republican alternative, Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida, in the polls. Though the 2024 election is still a long way off, the campaign is officially under way—such was the network’s justification for tonight’s town hall. Many observers on social media objected to the fact that it happened at all.

    On set in New Hampshire, Trump was speaking not just to the country, but to a roomful of undecided voters. Most of them seemed eager to applaud and giggle along with the former president, whom nearly everyone addressed as “Mr. President.” He’s still the star, the draw, the showman. When he theatrically pulled papers out of his breast pocket, the crowd hooted. He teased a few 2024 talking points: The economy? Stinks. Inflation? A disaster. Afghanistan? “The single most embarrassing moment in the history of this country.”

    And then there’s the topic of January 6. The laughably big question going into the next election is whether a president who incited a violent mob and tried to stage a coup in lieu of orchestrating a peaceful transfer of power can once again be president. Has Trump taken the past two years to reflect on his actions? Has he been humbled? Chastened? Of course not.

    Tonight, Trump doubled down on his claim that former Vice President Mike Pence should have overturned the results of the 2020 election. He said he was inclined to pardon “many” of the January 6 rioters, bemoaning that “they’re living in hell right now.” He referred to these insurrectionists as “great people,” a subtle callback to his comments in the aftermath of the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in which he claimed there were “very fine people” on both sides.

    Next month marks eight years since Trump descended the golden escalator in Trump Tower and announced his candidacy for president. Hardly anyone in the media seemed to know how to properly cover him then. CNN was among the networks that used to carry his campaign rallies live. Tonight’s town hall, despite Collins’s admirable attempts at pushback, felt like a regression to that earlier era. Even some of Trump’s lines felt ominously familiar. “If I don’t win, this country is going to be in big trouble,” he said. Are we really about to do this all over again?

    [ad_2]

    John Hendrickson

    Source link

  • Foreign businesses in China fear they’re being targeted in a ‘campaign’ of government crackdowns. It’s probably not that simple.

    Foreign businesses in China fear they’re being targeted in a ‘campaign’ of government crackdowns. It’s probably not that simple.

    [ad_1]

    Foreign investors and businesspeople with exposure to China are becoming increasingly unnerved. And for good reason.

    In March, Chinese authorities detained an employee of Japanese drug manufacturer Astellas Pharma JP:4503 ALPMY for alleged espionage violations. The Chinese seem confident in their case. Beijing’s ambassador to Japan said there was ample evidence of wrongdoing, and, despite the uproar, the Astellas employee remains detained.

    That…

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fox News Viewers React To Tucker Carlson’s Exit

    Fox News Viewers React To Tucker Carlson’s Exit

    [ad_1]

    “This is a HUGE victory for American PATRIOTS…somehow. Because now Tucker can FINALLY SAY WHAT HE WANTS, which I guess he wasn’t doing before? Honestly, it seemed like he pretty much did and said whatever he wanted and it worked out pretty well, but now the DEEP STATE can’t MUZZLE TUCKER anymore, although frankly that didn’t seem to be the case previously? I mean, any honest reading of the situation would have to reckon with the reality that Tucker’s prominence at the network basically emboldened him to make whatever claims he wanted, although maybe the financial repercussions in this case finally worked against him. So that’s pretty much a matter of the market, rather than any issue with free speech. Which is why I am not totally sure why this is a GLORIOUS DAY for FREE SPEECH and REAL AMERICANS, but it definitely, totally, somehow is.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • As Biden says he’s ‘planning on running,’ here are the potential 2024 Republican candidates

    As Biden says he’s ‘planning on running,’ here are the potential 2024 Republican candidates

    [ad_1]

    The contest to become the Republican Party’s 2024 presidential nominee is heating up, with Nikki Haley, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and longshot candidate Vivek Ramaswamy each announcing runs since the beginning of the year, and former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson joining the fray in a Sunday-show appearance on April 2.

    Another notable move has been the rollout of a campaign-style book by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, in which he argues that his approach to managing his state can provide a model for the rest of the country.

    And former President Donald Trump appears to be getting a political lift from a Manhattan district attorney’s case against him, though some analysts don’t see the boost lasting.

    Related: Trump’s presidential campaign raises $7 million after his indictment

    So who are all the GOP politicians in the mix for 2024?

    Below is MarketWatch’s list of the potential Republican presidential contenders and the status of their candidacies.

    Meanwhile, President Joe Biden appears poised to announce this spring that he’ll seek re-election in 2024. Democrats seem to be closing ranks behind Biden, although author and activist Marianne Williamson said she’s seeking the party’s nomination again and vigorously defended her decision to challenge Biden in an extensive question-and-answer session with MarketWatch. Anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. also is mounting a longshot challenge to Biden, as he filed a statement of candidacy in early April.

    Biden gave a fresh hint on Monday about his re-election bid at the annual White House Easter Egg Roll, saying in an interview with Al Roker of NBC’s “Today” show that he aims to take part in “at least three or four more Easter egg rolls. Maybe five. Maybe six.”

    “I’m planning on running, Al, but we’re not prepared to announce it yet,” the president said.

    Related: Biden criticizes DeSantis over his Medicaid stance while in Florida

    And see: 5 things to know about Nikki Haley, the Republican candidate challenging Trump in 2024

    Plus: Ron DeSantis skips CPAC, says Republicans act like ‘potted plants’ when facing ‘woke ideology’

    Name

    Title

    Reports or statements on candidacy

    Greg Abbott

    Texas governor

    Abbott strategist said governor “will take a look at the situation” after state’s legislative session ends in late May

    John Bolton

    Former national-security adviser, former ambassador to United Nations

    He has said he may run for president in 2024

    Liz Cheney

    Former Wyo. congresswoman

    She has said she hasn’t made a decision about a 2024 run

    Chris Christie

    Former N.J. governor

    He said in late March that he’ll make decision on run in next 60 days

    Ted Cruz

    U.S. senator from Texas

    He said he won’t seek the GOP presidential nomination, instead aiming for re-election in Senate

    Aaron Day

    Known in part for running against former N.H. GOP Sen. Kelly Ayotte

    He announced his candidacy in February

    Ron DeSantis

    Florida governor

    He hasn’t made a formal announcement, but his team has rolled out a book and talked to prospective campaign staff

    Nikki Haley

    Former ambassador to United Nations, former S.C. governor

    She announced her run in February

    Larry Hogan

    Former Md. governor

    He said he won’t run

    Asa Hutchinson

    Former Ark. governor

    Having promised a decision in April, he said on April 2 that he’s running

    Perry Johnson

    Businessman and former Mich. gubernatorial candidate

    He announced his candidacy in early March

    Brian Kemp

    Ga. governor

    He hasn’t ruled out running, but has said he’s “not focused on 2024

    Steve Laffey

    Former Cranston, R.I., mayor

    He announced his candidacy in February

    Kristi Noem

    S.D. governor

    She has said she hasn’t ruled out a presidential run

    Mike Pence

    Former vice president

    He has beefed up his staff but said he doesn’t feel any rush to make an announcement

    Mike Pompeo

    Former CIA director and secretary of state

    Announced on April 14 on Twitter that he has decided against a run

    Vivek Ramaswamy

    Entrepreneur and author known for criticizing ESG investing as “wokeism”

    He announced his candidacy in February

    Kim Reynolds

    Iowa governor

    A former RNC chair has said she should be considered for 2024

    Mike Rogers

    Former Mich. congressman

    He suggested an announcement on a run may come in “late spring, early summer

    Tim Scott

    U.S. senator for S.C.

    He’s making trips to Iowa and New Hampshire, key primary states

    Francis Suarez

    Mayor of Miami, Fla.

    He has said he’s considering a run

    Chris Sununu

    N.H. governor

    He has said he’s considering a run

    Donald Trump

    Former president

    He announced in November that he’s running

    Glenn Youngkin

    Va. governor

    He hasn’t ruled out running, but said he’s focused on Virginia

    Read on: Tucker Carlson questionnaire reveals a fault line among Republicans: U.S. support for Ukraine’s defense against Russian invasion

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Court Rules Stormy Daniels Must Pay Trump $122,000 In Trump Legal Bills

    Court Rules Stormy Daniels Must Pay Trump $122,000 In Trump Legal Bills

    [ad_1]

    LOS ANGELES (AP) — Stormy Daniels must pay nearly $122,000 of Donald Trump’s legal fees that were racked up in connection with the porn actor’s failed defamation lawsuit, an appeals court ruled Tuesday.

    The decision in California came at about the same time that that Trump became the only ex-president to be charged with a crime. Trump pleaded not guilty in a New York City courtroom to a 34-count felony indictment accusing him falsifying business records in a scheme to hush up allegations of extramarital affairs with Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal that broke during his first White House run.

    She sued him for defamation after he dismissed her claims of being threatened to keep quiet about the tryst as a “total con job.” A judge threw out the case in 2018.

    On Tuesday, a commissioner for the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Trump’s attorneys “reasonably spent” more than 183 hours on an appeal of the case but denied a request for another $5,150 in other fees because it wasn’t itemized.

    In all, Daniels has been ordered to pay more than $600,000 in Trump’s legal fees, tweeted Harmeet Dillon, one of his attorneys in the case.

    After a federal appeals court upheld that award last year, Daniels stated: “I will go to jail before I pay a penny.”

    Messages seeking comment from her attorney, Oklahoma lawyer Clark Brewster, weren’t immediately returned after hours Tuesday.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Progressive Brandon Johnson wins tight Chicago mayoral race over moderate Democrat Paul Vallas

    Progressive Brandon Johnson wins tight Chicago mayoral race over moderate Democrat Paul Vallas

    [ad_1]

    CHICAGO — Brandon Johnson, a union organizer and former teacher, was elected as Chicago’s next mayor Tuesday in a major victory for the Democratic Party’s progressive wing as the heavily blue-leaning city grapples with high crime and financial challenges.

    Johnson, a Cook County commissioner endorsed by the Chicago Teachers Union, won a close race over former Chicago schools CEO Paul Vallas, who was backed by the police union. Johnson, 47, will succeed Lori Lightfoot, the first Black woman and first openly gay person to be the city’s mayor.

    Lightfoot became the first Chicago mayor in 40 years to lose her reelection bid when she finished third in a crowded February contest.

    Johnson’s victory in the nation’s third-largest city topped a remarkable trajectory for a candidate who was little known when he entered the race last year. He climbed to the top of the field with organizing and financial help from the politically influential Chicago Teachers Union and high-profile endorsements from progressive Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Sanders appeared at a rally for Johnson in the final days of the race.

    Taking the stage Tuesday night for his victory speech, a jubilant Johnson thanked his supporters. He recalled growing up in a poor family, teaching at a school in Cabrini Green, a notorious former public housing complex, and shielding his kids from gunfire in their west side neighborhood.

    “Chicago, tonight is just the beginning,” Johnson told the crowd. “With our voices and our votes, we have ushered in a new chapter in the history of our city.”

    He promised that under his administration, the city would look out for everyone, regardless of how much money they have, whom they love or where they come from.

    “Tonight is the beginning of a Chicago that truly invests in all of its people,” Johnson said.

    It was a momentous win for progressive organizations such as the teachers union, with Johnson winning the highest office of any active teachers union member in recent history, leaders say. It comes as groups such as Our Revolution, a powerful progressive advocacy organization, push to win more offices in local and state office, including in upcoming mayoral elections in Philadelphia and elsewhere.

    Speaking to supporters Tuesday night, Vallas said that he had called Johnson and that he expected him to be the next mayor. Some in the crowd seemed to jeer the news, but Vallas urged them to put aside differences and support the next mayor in “the daunting work ahead.”

    “This campaign that I ran to bring the city together would not be a campaign that fulfills my ambitions if this election is going to divide us,” Vallas said.

    He added that he had offered Johnson his full support in the transition.

    The contest surfaced longstanding tensions among Democrats, with Johnson and his supporters blasting Vallas — who was endorsed by Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the chamber’s second-ranking Democrat — as too conservative and a Republican in disguise.

    Johnson and Vallas were the top two vote-getters in the all-Democrat but officially nonpartisan February race, which moved to the runoff because no candidate received over 50%. Both candidates have deep roots in the Democratic Party, though with vastly different backgrounds and views.

    Johnson, who is Black, grew up poor and is now raising his children in one of Chicago’s most violent neighborhoods. After teaching middle and high school, he helped mobilize teachers, including during a historic 2012 strike through which the Chicago Teachers Union increased its organizing muscle and influence in city politics.

    Vallas, who finished first in the February contest, was the only white candidate in that nine-person field. A former Chicago budget director, he later led schools in Chicago, New Orleans, Philadelphia and Bridgeport, Connecticut. He has run unsuccessfully for office multiple times, including a 2019 bid for Chicago mayor.

    Among the biggest disputes between Johnson and Vallas was how to address crime. Like many U.S. cities, Chicago saw violent crime increase during the COVID-19 pandemic, hitting a 25-year high of 797 homicides in 2021, though the number decreased last year and the city has a lower murder rate than others in the Midwest, such as St. Louis.

    Vallas, 69, said he would hire hundreds more police officers, while Johnson said he didn’t plan to cut the number of officers, but that the current system of policing isn’t working. Johnson was forced to defend past statements expressing support for “defunding” police — something he insisted he would not do as mayor.

    But Johnson argued that instead of investing more in policing and incarceration, the city should focus on mental health treatment, affordable housing for all and jobs for youth. He has proposed a plan he says will raise $800 million by taxing “ultrarich” individuals and businesses, including a per-employee “head tax” on employers and an additional tax on hotel room stays. Vallas says that so-called “tax-the-rich” plan would be a disaster for the city’s recovering economy.

    Resident Chema Fernandez, 25, voted for Johnson as an opportunity to move on from what he described as “the politics of old.” He said he saw Vallas as being in line with previous mayors such as Rahm Emanuel, Lightfoot and Richard M. Daley, who haven’t worked out great for places like his neighborhood on the southwest side, which has seen decades of disinvestment.

    “I think we need to give the opportunity for policies that may actually change some of our conditions,” Fernandez said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Liberals regain Wisconsin Supreme Court majority ahead of abortion-ban ruling

    Liberals regain Wisconsin Supreme Court majority ahead of abortion-ban ruling

    [ad_1]

    MADISON, Wis. — A Democratic-backed Milwaukee judge won the high stakes Wisconsin Supreme Court race Tuesday, ensuring liberals will take over majority control of the court for the first time in 15 years with the fate of the state’s abortion ban on the line.

    Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Janet Protasiewicz, 60, defeated former Justice Dan Kelly, who previously worked for Republicans and had support from the state’s leading anti-abortion groups.

    The victory speaks to the importance of abortion as an issue for Democrats in a key swing state, with turnout on pace to be the highest ever for a Wisconsin Supreme Court race that didn’t share the ballot with a presidential primary.

    In a jubilant scene at her victory party, the other three liberal justices on the court joined Protasiewicz on the stage and raised their arms in celebration.

    Protasiewicz tried to downplay the importance of abortion as an issue in her victory, even though she and her allies, including an array of abortion rights groups including Planned Parenthood, made it the focus of much of her advertising and messaging to voters.

    “It was really about saving our democracy, getting away from extremism and having a fair and impartial court where everybody gets a fair shot in the courtroom,” Protasiewicz told The Associated Press after her win. “That’s what it was all about.”

    The new court controlled 4-3 by liberals is expected to decide a pending lawsuit challenging the state’s 1849 law banning abortion enacted a year after statehood. Protasiewicz said during the campaign that she supports abortion rights but stopped short of saying how she would rule on the lawsuit. She had called Kelly an “extreme partisan” who would vote to uphold the ban.

    In addition to abortion, Protasiewicz’s win is likely to impact the future of Republican-drawn legislative maps, voting rights and years of other GOP policies. It will also ensure that liberals will have the majority leading up to the 2024 presidential election and immediately after.

    Four of the past six presidential elections in Wisconsin have been decided by less than a percentage point and Trump turned to the courts in 2020 in his unsuccessful push to overturn his roughly 21,000-vote loss in the state. The current court, under a 4-3 conservative majority, came within one vote of overturning President Joe Biden’s win in the state in 2020, and both major parties are preparing for another close race in 2024.

    Kelly is a former justice who has also performed work for Republicans and advised them on a plan to have fake GOP electors cast their ballots for Trump following the 2020 election even though Trump had lost.

    Ahead of the vote, Protasiewicz called Kelly “a true threat to our democracy” because of his advising on the fake elector scheme.

    Kelly had expressed opposition to abortion in the past, including in a 2012 blog post in which he said the Democratic Party and the National Organization for Women were committed to normalizing the taking of human life. He also had done legal work for Wisconsin Right to Life.

    Kelly was endorsed by the state’s top three anti-abortion groups, while Protasiewicz was backed by abortion rights advocates.

    Kelly was appointed to the state Supreme Court by then-Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican, in 2016. He served four years before being defeated in 2020 on the same ballot as the Democratic presidential primary. Kelly was endorsed by Trump that year.

    Trump did not endorse this year. Protasiewicz’s endorsements included Hillary Clinton.

    Kelly tried to distance himself from his work for Republicans, saying it was “irrelevant” to how he would work as a justice. He tried to make the campaign about Protasiewicz’s record as a judge, arguing that she was soft on crime and accusing her of being “bought and paid for” by Democrats.

    The Wisconsin Democratic Party gave Protasiewicz’s campaign more than $8 million, leading her to promise to recuse herself from any case brought by the party.

    Protasiewicz said that while she anticipates many of the issues raised in the campaign will come before the court in the coming years, she pledged to be impartial and not beholden to Democrats and her liberal backers who poured an unprecedented amount of money into the race.

    “I’ve told everybody on the entire time that I was running, despite the fact that I was sharing my personal values, every single decision that I will render will be rooted in the law,” she said. “And that is the bottom line. They’re independent and rooted in the law.”

    Kelly, in a statement after his loss, said Protasiewicz “made her campaign about cynical appeals to political passions, serial lies, and a blatant disregard for judicial ethics and the integrity of the court.”

    “I wish Wisconsin the best of luck,” he said. “I think it will need it.”

    Protasiewicz was outspoken on Wisconsin’s gerrymandered legislative maps, calling them “rigged.” Kelly accused her of prejudging that case, abortion and others that could come before the court.

    The state Supreme Court upheld Republican-drawn maps in 2022. Those maps, widely regarded as among the most gerrymandered in the country, have helped Republicans increase their hold on the state Legislature to near supermajority levels, even as Democrats have won statewide elections, including Tony Evers as governor in both 2018 and 2022 and Biden in 2020.

    Protasiewicz will serve a 10-year term starting in August replacing retiring conservative Justice Pat Roggensack.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump’s Team Is Reportedly Sick Of His ‘Loudmouth’ Lawyer

    Trump’s Team Is Reportedly Sick Of His ‘Loudmouth’ Lawyer

    [ad_1]

    According to a new Rolling Stone report, some of Donald Trump’s lawyers have raised concerns about Joe Tacopina, the attorney co-leading the former president’s defense in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office case.

    Trump was indicted last week by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg over his role in a 2016 payment to Stormy Daniels in exchange for the porn star’s silence on an alleged affair. In the lead-up to the indictment, Trump indicated he was aware charges were looming, and Tacopina made a spate of sometimes contentious media appearances to discuss the case.

    Citing a source familiar with the matter and another person close to Trump, Rolling Stone reported that Trump’s other current lawyers had privately described Tacopina as “dumb” and a “loudmouth.” Trump’s attorneys and advisers have warned the former president to be wary of Tacopina and that he can’t trust his loyalty, the sources said. Another source familiar with the matter called him “such a frickin’ idiot,” Rolling Stone reported.

    In a statement, Tacopina told the magazine: “When anonymous sources make comments criticizing others, it reveals jealousy and cowardice. Anyone who takes a look at my track record of trial success and the results I have achieved for my clients couldn’t seriously criticize my work or my intelligence.”

    Tacopina has a record of representing cops and high-profile clients, including rapper Meek Mill and baseball player Alex Rodriguez. He’s also spent more than a decade as a top executive across several Italian soccer clubs and worked as a pundit in American media.

    During appearances on CNN in 2018 as a legal commentator, Tacopina made comments about Trump and the Daniels hush money payment that conflict with the defense he’s presented since taking on Trump as a client.

    In those appearances, he suggested he believed that Trump did have an affair with Daniels and that the payment “could be looked as an in-kind contribution at the time of the election,” which could be “a real problem.”

    But now, Tacopina has reversed course, characterizing the payment to Daniels as “extortion,” denying Trump had the affair and dismissing the possibility of campaign finance violations.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Bill Barr Says Trump Taking The Stand Is A Very Bad Idea: ‘Lacks All Self-Control’

    Bill Barr Says Trump Taking The Stand Is A Very Bad Idea: ‘Lacks All Self-Control’

    [ad_1]

    Former Attorney General William Barr said he would not advise Donald Trump to attempt to defend himself at trial because the former president “lacks all self-control.”

    “I’m not his lawyer. Generally, I think it’s a bad idea to go on the stand, and I think it’s a particularly bad idea for Trump because he lacks all self-control, and it would be very difficult to prepare him and keep him testifying in a prudent fashion,” Barr replied.

    Trump was indicted last week for his role in a 2016 hush money payment to Stormy Daniels, a porn star who claims she had an affair with him a decade earlier. Daniels was paid $130,000 in exchange for her silence about the affair in the days before the 2016 election.

    Barr was a longtime ally of Trump’s, but he became more publicly critical of the former president following the 2020 election, after which he has said Trump became “detached from reality.”

    However, in Sunday’s interview, Barr still characterized the Manhattan DA’s case against Trump as politically motivated, aligning with rhetoric from Trump and his backers.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump’s Republican Rivals Are Missing an Obvious Opportunity

    Trump’s Republican Rivals Are Missing an Obvious Opportunity

    [ad_1]

    After his historic indictment was announced Thursday night, former President Donald Trump reacted with his characteristic cool and precision: “These Thugs and Radical Left Monsters have just INDICATED the 45th President of the United States of America.” Presumably this was a typo, and he meant INDICTED. But the immediate joining of arms around the martyr was indeed a perfect indication of precisely who the Republicans are right now.

    “When Trump wins, THESE PEOPLE WILL PAY!!” Representative Ronny Jackson of Texas vowed.

    “If they can come for him, they can come for anyone,” added Representative Andy Biggs, Republican of Arizona—or at least come for anyone who has allegedly paid $130,000 in hush money to a former porn-star paramour (and particularly anyone who allegedly had unprotected sex with her shortly after his third wife had given birth).

    As usual, the Republicans’ latest rush to umbrage on behalf of Trump, before the indictment is even unsealed, was imbued with its own meaning—namely, about what the party has allowed itself to become in service to him. Trump is no longer just Republicans’ unmoveable leader; he is their everyman. His life is not some spectacularly corrupt and immoral web—but rather his victimization has become a proxy for their own imagined mistreatment.

    And soon enough, Trump has promised, he will be their “retribution.” He is their patron crybaby.

    The GOP’s ongoing willingness to fuse itself to Trump’s deranged and slippery character has been its most defining feature for years. The question is why it continues, after all these embarrassments and election defeats. And why Republicans, at long last, don’t use the former president’s mounting milestones of malfeasance as a means of setting themselves free from their orange albatross.

    The popular assumption among Republicans that Trump’s indictment strengthens him politically shows how cowed they all still are. Yes, Trump’s indictment is “unprecedented,” as his defenders keep reminding us. But this is not necessarily flattering to the former president. They perceive him to be invulnerable, and he behaves as such. In their continued awe, they see their only choice as continued capitulation.

    There is, of course, an alternate response: the exact opposite. “My fellow Americans, I am personally against paying hush money to porn stars. Maybe I am naive or even, forgive me, a bit conservative in how I choose to live my life. But it is my personal view that our leaders, especially those seeking our highest office, should not be serial liars, should not be subject to multiple state and federal investigations, and should not call for the termination of the Constitution in order to re-install themselves as president against the democratic will of the American people.

    In some long-ago Republican universe, there would in fact be a dash to condemn the former president’s words and conduct. This is not who we are, some might say, or try to claim. Sure, there could be some old-fashioned political opportunism involved here. (It wouldn’t be the first time!) But what politician wouldn’t seize such an opening to score points?

    Instead, the response from the GOP’s putative leaders was as predictable as the indictment news itself. Ron DeSantis, the Florida governor who supposedly represents the Republicans’ most promising possible break from Trump in 2024, seized the chance to pander his way back into the old tent. He vowed that Florida would “not assist in an extradition request” that might come from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, whose office is responsible for the indictment. DeSantis called the indictment “un-American” and dismissed Bragg as a “Soros-backed Manhattan District Attorney” (bonus points for Ron, getting Soros in there).

    DeSantis also cited the “political agenda” behind the indictment. Or “witch hunt,” as it was decried by distinguished elder statesmen and women such as Representatives Matt Gaetz, Lauren Boebert, and George Santos, among others. Gee, where do they learn such phrases?

    Former Vice President Mike Pence announced on CNN that he was “outraged” by the “unprecedented indictment of a former president.” (Pence, of course, expressed far more “outrage” over Trump’s predicament than he ever publicly did over his former boss leaving him to potentially be hanged at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.) Meanwhile, former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, one of Trump’s few official 2024 challengers, rejected Bragg’s move as “more about revenge than it is about justice.” Senator Tim Scott, another possible presidential rival, condemned Bragg as a “pro-criminal New York DA” who has “weaponized the law against political enemies.”

    No one knows yet how solid Bragg’s case against Trump is. But there are simple alternatives to this ritual circling of the withering wagons every time Trump lands himself in even deeper trouble. “We need to wait on the facts and for our American system of justice to work like it does for thousands of Americans every day,” Asa Hutchinson, the Republican former governor of Arkansas, said in a statement, offering one such alternative.

    Or, speaking to the matter at hand, “being indicted never helps anybody,” former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie said recently on ABC’s This Week. In a normal world, this would represent the ultimate duh statement. But among today’s Republicans, Christie was making himself an outlier.

    In the early stages of the 2024 Republican primary, Christie has been the rare figure to step into a “lane” that’s been left strangely wide open. Christie dropped into New Hampshire on Monday and continued to tease the notion that he might run for president again himself. He pummeled Trump while doing so—and sure, good for Christie, I guess. Better several years late than never.

    He makes for an imperfect messenger, this onetime Trump toady of Trenton. My elite political instincts lead me to suspect Christie will not go on to become our 46th president. But his feisty drop into Manchester was constructive nonetheless. “When you put yourself ahead of our democracy as president of the United States, it’s over,” Christie told a receptive crowd at Saint Anselm College, referring to Trump’s refusal to accept his defeat in 2020 and subsequent efforts to sabotage the transfer of power. I found myself nodding along to Christie’s words, and willing to overlook, for now at least, his past record of bootlicking. If nothing else, Christie knows Trump well and understands his tender spots.

    You don’t always get the pugilists you want. Especially when the likes of DeSantis, Pence, Haley, et al., have shown no appetite for the job. The leading contenders to beat Trump in the primary have offered, to this point, only the most flaccid critiques of the former president, who—perhaps not coincidentally—seems to be only expanding his lead in the (very) early polling.

    If Trump has demonstrated one thing in his political career—dating to his initial cannonball into the pool of the 2016 campaign—it is that he thrives in the absence of resistance. In his initial foray, none of Trump’s chief Republican rivals, including Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, bothered to take him on until he was well ensconced as the front-runner. Christie was himself a towering titan of timidity in that campaign. He dropped out after finishing sixth in the New Hampshire primary and immediately led the charge to Trump’s backside.

    This time around, DeSantis, viewed by many Trump-weary Republicans as the top contingency candidate, has barely said a critical word about the former president. Trump, in turn, has been pulverizing the Florida man for months, dismissing him as an “average governor.”

    Meanwhile, Pence has managed only to rebuke Trump at a private dinner of Washington journalists. Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin, a favorite of many Republican donors and consultants, recently told Politico that he prefers leaders who can “disagree with people without being disagreeable.” He then summarized what sets him apart from Trump. “We just have different styles,” Youngkin concluded. Ah yes, if only Trump had a more agreeable “style,” everything would be cool.

    Or maybe Republicans should consider a change in “style.” The delicate deference they continue to afford Trump—through two impeachments, repeatedly poor election showings, and (at least) one indictment—seems only to have solidified his hold over them.

    Campaigns are supposed to be “disagreeable” sometimes, right? Especially when the face of your party is about to become a mug shot.

    [ad_2]

    Mark Leibovich

    Source link

  • Trump’s Legal Problems Are Putting the GOP in a Vise

    Trump’s Legal Problems Are Putting the GOP in a Vise

    [ad_1]

    The dilemma for the Republican Party is that Donald Trump’s mounting legal troubles may be simultaneously strengthening him as a candidate for the GOP presidential nomination and weakening him as a potential general-election nominee.

    In the days leading up to the indictment of the former president, which Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg announced two days ago, a succession of polls showed that Trump has significantly increased his lead over Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, his closest competitor in the race for the Republican nomination.

    Yet recent surveys have also signaled that this criminal charge—and other potential indictments from ongoing investigations—could deepen the doubts about Trump among the suburban swing voters who decisively rejected him in the 2020 presidential race, and powered surprisingly strong performances by Democrats in the 2018 and 2022 midterms.

    “It is definitely a conundrum that this potentially helps him in the primary yet sinks the party’s chances to win the general,” says Mike DuHaime, a GOP strategist who advises former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, a potential candidate for the 2024 Republican nomination. “This better positions [in the primary] our worst candidate for the general election.”

    That conundrum will only intensify for Republicans, because it is highly likely that this is merely the beginning of Trump’s legal troubles. As the first indictment against a former president, the New York proceeding has thrust the U.S. into uncharted waters. But the country today is not nearly as far from shore as it may be in just a few months. Trump faces multiple additional potential indictments. Those include possible charges from Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis, who has been examining his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in that state, as well as the twin federal probes led by Special Counsel Jack Smith into Trump’s mishandling of classified documents and his efforts to block congressional certification of President Joe Biden’s victory.

    “I think I had a pretty good track record on my predictions and my strong belief is that there will be additional criminal charges coming in other places,” says Norm Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “I think you are going to see them in Georgia and possibly [at the] federal” level.

    The potential for such further criminal proceedings is why many political observers are cautious about drawing too many firm conclusions from polling around public reaction to this first indictment, which centers on Trump’s payment of hush money to the porn star Stormy Daniels late in the 2016 campaign.

    Read: The first electoral test of Trump’s indictment

    The multiple legal nets tightening around Trump create the possibility that he could be going through one or even multiple trials by the time of next year’s general election, and conceivably even when the GOP primaries begin in the winter of 2024. In other words, Trump might bounce back and forth between campaign rallies in Iowa or New Hampshire and court appearances in New York City, Atlanta, or Washington D.C.  And such jarring images could change the public perceptions that polls are recording now.

    “You are just looking at a snapshot of how people feel today,” Dave Wilson, a conservative strategist, told me.

    Yet even these initial reactions show how Trump’s legal troubles may place his party in a vise.

    Polls consistently show that Trump, over the past several weeks, has widened his lead over DeSantis and the rest of the potential 2024 field. That may be partly because Trump has intensified his attacks on DeSantis, and because the Florida governor has at times seemed unsteady in his debut on the national stage.

    But most Republicans think Trump is also benefiting from an impulse among GOP voters to lock arms around him as the Manhattan investigation has proceeded. In an NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist College poll released this week, four-fifths of Republicans described the various investigations targeting Trump as a “witch hunt,” echoing his own denunciation of them. “There’s going to be some level of emotional response to someone being quote-unquote attacked,” Wilson said. “That’s going to get some sympathy points that will probably bolster poll numbers.”

    Republican leaders, as so many times before, have tightened their own straitjacket by defending Trump on these allegations so unreservedly. House GOP leaders have launched unprecedented attempts to impede Bragg’s investigation by demanding documents and testimony, and even Trump’s potential 2024 rivals have condemned the indictment as a politically motivated hit job; DeSantis may have had the most extreme reaction by not only calling  the indictment “un-American” but even insisting he would not cooperate with extraditing Trump from Florida if it came to that (a pledge that is moot because Trump has indicated he plans to turn himself in on Tuesday.)

    As during the procession of outrages and controversies during Trump’s presidency, most Republicans skeptical of him have been unwilling to do anything more than remain silent. (Former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson, a long-shot potential 2024 candidate, has been the most conspicuous exception, issuing a statement that urged Americans “to wait on the facts” before judging the case.) The refusal of party leaders to confront Trump is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy: Because GOP voters hear no other arguments from voices they trust, they fall in line behind the assertion from Trump and the leading conservative media sources that the probes are groundless persecution. Republican elected officials then cite that dominant opinion as the justification for remaining silent.

    But while the investigations may be bolstering Trump’s position inside the GOP in the near-term, they also appear to be highlighting all the aspects of his political identity that have alienated so many swing voters, especially those with college degrees. In that same NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist survey, 56 percent of Americans rejected Trump’s “witch hunt” characterization and described the investigations as “fair”; 60 percent of college-educated white adults, the key constituency that abandoned the GOP in the Trump years, said the probes were fair. So did a slight majority of independent voters.

    In new national results released yesterday morning, the Navigator project, a Democratic polling initiative, similarly found that 57 percent of Americans, including 51 percent of independents, agreed that Trump should be indicted when they read a description of the hush-money allegations against him.

    Read: What Donald Trump’s indictment reveals

    The Manhattan indictment “may keep his people with him, it may fire them up, but he’s starting from well under 50 percent of the vote,” Mike DuHaime told me. “Somebody like that must figure out how to get new voters. And he is not gaining new voters with a controversial new indictment, whether he beats it or not.” Swing voters following the case in New York, DuHaime continued, “may not like it, they may think Democrats have gone too far, and that might be fair.” But it’s wishful thinking, he argues, to believe that voters previously resistant to Trump will conclude they need to give him another look because he’s facing criminal charges for paying off a porn star, even if they view the charges themselves as questionable.

    The NPR/PBS Newshour/Marist survey underlines DuHaime’s point about the limits of Trump’s existing support: In that survey, a 61 percent majority of Americans—including 64 percent of independents and 70 percent of college-educated white adults—said they did not want him to be president again. That result was similar to the latest Quinnipiac University national poll, which found that 60 percent of Americans do not consider themselves supporters of Trump’s “Make America great again” movement. The challenge for the GOP is that about four-fifths of Republicans said they did consider themselves part of that movement, and about three-fourths said they wanted him back in the White House.

    The open question for Trump is whether this level of support, even in the GOP, may be his high-water mark as the investigations proceed. Eisner and John Dean, the former White House counsel for Richard Nixon, both told me they believe that the New York case may be more threatening to Trump than many legal analysts have suggested. “I think that the New York case is much stronger than people perceive it to be,” Dean told me yesterday. “We really don’t know the contents of the indictment, and we really won’t know for a much longer time the evidence behind the indictment.”

    Whatever happens in New York, Trump still faces the prospect of indictments on the more consequential charges looming over him in Georgia and from the federal special prosecutor. Dean says that Bragg’s indictment, rather than discouraging other prosecutors to act “may have the opposite effect” of emboldening them. Trump “has escaped accountability literally his entire life and it finally appears to be catching up with him,” Dean says. Academic research, he adds, has suggested that defendants juggling multiple trials, either simultaneously or sequentially, find it “much harder to mount effective defenses.”

    Bryan Bennett, the senior director of polling and analytics at the Hub Project, the Democratic polling consortium that conducts the Navigator surveys, says the potential for multiple indictments presents Trump with a parallel political risk: The number of voters who believe he has committed at least one crime is very likely to rise if the criminal charges against him accumulate. “It’s hard to imagine any scenario where multiple indictments is useful” to him, Bennett told me.

    DuHaime and Wilson both believe that multiple indictments eventually could weigh down Trump even in the GOP primary. “The cumulative effect takes away some of the argument that it’s just political,” DuHaime said. Each additional indictment, he continued, “may add credibility” for the public to those that came before.

    Wilson believes that repeated indictments could reinforce the sense among Republican voters that Trump is being treated unfairly, and deepen their desire to turn the page from him. He likens the effect to someone living along a “Hurricane Alley,” who experiences not one destructive storm in a season but several. “The weight of a single hurricane blowing through is one thing,” Wilson told me. “But if you have several hurricanes of issues blowing through, you will get conservatives [saying], ‘I don’t know if I want to continue living in Hurricane Alley’ with Trump, and they are going to look at other candidates.”

    Given Trump’s hold on a big portion of the GOP coalition, no one should discount his capacity to win the party nomination next year, no matter how many criminal cases ensnare him. And given the persistent public dissatisfaction with the economy and lackluster job approval ratings for Biden, no one dismisses the capacity of whoever captures the Republican nomination to win the general election.

    The best-case scenario sketched by Trump supporters is that a succession of indictments will allow him to inspire even higher turnout among the predominantly non-college-educated and non-urban white voters who accept his argument that “liberal elites” and the “deep state” are targeting him to silence them. But even the heroic levels of turnout Trump inspired from those voters in 2020 wasn’t enough to win. For the GOP to bet that Trump could overcome swing-voter revulsion over his legal troubles and win a general election by mobilizing even more of his base voters, Bennett said, “seems to me the highest risk proposition that I can imagine.”

    [ad_2]

    Ronald Brownstein

    Source link

  • Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation case against Fox News should continue to trial, says Delaware judge

    Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation case against Fox News should continue to trial, says Delaware judge

    [ad_1]

    DOVER, Del. (AP) — A voting-machine company’s defamation case against Fox News over its airing of false allegations about the 2020 presidential election will go to trial after a Delaware judge on Friday ruled that a jury must decide whether the network aired the claims with actual malice, the standard for proving libel against public figures.

    Superior Court Judge Eric Davis ruled that neither Fox nor Dominion Voting Systems had presented a convincing argument to prevail on whether Fox acted with malice without the case going to trial. But he also ruled that the statements Dominion had challenged constitute defamation “per se” under New York law. That means Dominion did not have to prove damages to establish liability by Fox.

    ‘The evidence developed in this civil proceeding demonstrates that [it] is CRYSTAL clear that none of the statements relating to Dominion about the 2020 election are true.’


    — Superior Court Judge Eric Davis

    “The evidence developed in this civil proceeding demonstrates that [it] is CRYSTAL clear that none of the statements relating to Dominion about the 2020 election are true,” Davis wrote in his summary judgment ruling.

    The decision paves the way for a trial start in mid-April.

    Dominion is suing the network for $1.6 billion, claiming Fox defamed it by repeatedly airing false allegations by then-President Donald Trump and his allies in the weeks after the 2020 election claiming the company’s machines and its accompanying software had switched votes to Democrat Joe Biden. The network aired the claims even though internal communications show that many of its executives and hosts didn’t believe them.

    The company sued Fox News and its parent, Fox Corp.
    FOX,
    +1.36%

    FOXA,
    +1.13%
    ,
    which shares ownership with News Corp
    NWS,
    +1.99%

    NWSA,
    +1.77%
    ,
    parent company of MarketWatch publisher Dow Jones.

    Don’t miss: Top congressional Democrats Schumer and Jeffries seek on-air acknowledgements that Fox News personalities knew Trump lost and election wasn’t stolen

    See: 2020 election ‘was not stolen,’ Fox Chairman Rupert Murdoch said under oath, according to evidence in Dominion case

    Also: Pro-Trump on air, Tucker Carlson privately told his Fox News producer that he hates the former president with a passion

    Fox has said it was simply covering newsworthy allegations made by a sitting president claiming his re-election had been stolen from him. In his ruling, Davis said Fox could not escape potential liability by claiming privileges for neutral reporting or opinion.

    “FNN’s failure to reveal extensive contradicting evidence from the public sphere and Dominion itself indicates that its reporting was not disinterested.” the judge wrote.

    In a statement issued after the ruling, Dominion said it was gratified that the court had rejected Fox’s arguments and found “as a matter of law that their statements about Dominion are false. We look forward to going to trial.”

    Fox emphasized that the case is about the media’s First Amendment protections in covering the news. “Fox will continue to fiercely advocate for the rights of free speech and a free press as we move into the next phase of these proceedings,” the network said in a statement.

    See: ‘A complete nut’: Fox News hosts didn’t believe 2020 election fraud claims

    Also: Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity among potential witnesses at Fox News trial

    The coverage fed an ecosystem of misinformation surrounding Trump’s loss in 2020 that has persisted ever since.

    MarketWatch contributed.

    [ad_2]

    Source link