Eliana Willis

More stories

  • 125 Shares129 Views

    in Elections

    Multimillion-dollar ruling against Giuliani shows cost of spreading election lies

    The judge had already decided Rudy Giuliani defamed the two former Georgia election workers, the question was just how much that cycle of lies and ensuing harassment should cost him.A jury declared on Friday that it was worth an eye-popping $148m, far beyond expectations and a major blow to the former New York mayor and key Donald Trump ally.The case was one of a handful of ways pro-democracy groups are seeking consequences for election subversion ahead of the next presidential election. The plaintiffs hope the high-dollar decision will show to Giuliani and others that there’s a financial and human cost to spreading lies. The stakes are high with the 2024 presidential election quickly approaching and Trump probably on the ballot once again.This week’s case was a test for accountability for purveyors of election lies from the everyday people who get caught in their web through no fault of their own. The test worked: Giuliani will have to pay up. Whether it matters to serial liars remains to be seen, but it serves as a strong deterrent to those considering spreading unfounded election conspiracies.Beyond the money, however, this was an avenue for Freeman and her daughter, Moss, to speak directly to one of the people responsible for tearing their lives apart. A public figure such as Giuliani expects and accepts a level of intrusion into their privacy. Everyday people working elections, as Freeman and Moss were, shouldn’t have to.They took the stand this week to detail the onslaught of threats and harassment that came after Giuliani, an attorney for Trump, and Trump’s team put them at the center of an election conspiracy.Imagine this happened to you, their testimony called to mind. Imagine you were working your regular job, one you loved and found important. Imagine, then, that strangers saw surveillance video of you doing your job and twisted it into a narrative, saying that you had passed a USB drive to alter vote-counts, when in reality you passed a piece of candy. That you packed suitcases with fake votes to steal an election.Imagine some of the most powerful people in the country, with the most ardent followers, sent those lies ping-ponging around the internet to the point that your name online is attached to them forever, bringing a wave of hateful, racist, threatening messages to your inbox.It would dismantle your life. It dismantled theirs, they told the jury.Trump and his allies needed someone to scapegoat to try to overturn Georgia’s results, and they found it in these two women, said Michael Gottlieb, Freeman and Moss’s attorney.When she testified, Freeman wore a shirt with her name on it when she worked the elections in December 2020. She was proud of who she was. That’s how she was identified, she said. She no longer wears her name proudly – she had to move homes, hiring a lawyer for her new place to ensure her name wasn’t connected to it. Moss watched her son struggle in school, believing the whole ordeal was her fault. She doesn’t leave her house any more. She feels ostracized, anxious, afraid.Their testimony drove home the human cost of election lies, a harrowing tale for Americans watching democracy falter over the past few years. It was a warning sign to voters: this is the state of our politics today, that two unwitting public servants have their lives upended for political games and gain.Giuliani did not testify in the case himself, despite expectations that he would, later saying he was concerned the judge would deem any missteps as contempt of court. His lack of testimony came after his lawyer declined to cross-examine Freeman. Joe Sibley, Giuliani’s attorney, said he did not take the stand or question Freeman because the women had been through enough.But Sibley also acknowledged in his closing remarks that Giuliani “hasn’t exactly helped himself with some of the things that have happened in the last few days”.The case shifted, with Giuliani’s team no longer attempting to defend his actions but instead deflect blame. Sibley pointed to another defamation case by Freeman and Moss against the rightwing media outlet Gateway Pundit, saying the outlet probably identified the women first and ignited the flood of harassment.The testimony – even the damages themselves – may not deter Giuliani and his associates. He plans to appeal and tie up any payouts as long as possible, and it’s unclear whether he has money to cover the damages. (That’s a limit of defamation law visible in the defamation verdicts against Alex Jones, the conspiracy theorist who owes Sandy Hook shooting families millions but largely has not yet paid them.)And after the verdict was announced, Giuliani sounded just as obstinate as ever. He called the number “absurd” and claimed it would be “reversed so quickly it will make your head spin”.The lack of reconciling with the effect of his actions tracks with the continued election denialism ever-present in Trumpworld, even as penalties slowly mount. As he tries to regain the White House, the former president himself hasn’t accepted he lost it fairly in the first place. Now, he and his team are working to sow election distrust at all levels still in 2024, despite the legal repercussions from 2020.But a verdict of this size will still resonate, if not for the loudest voices, then at least for those with lesser platforms. It sends the clear message the plaintiffs hoped for.“Today’s a good day. A jury stood witness to what Rudy Giuliani did to me and my daughter and held him accountable, and for that I’m thankful,” said Freeman, speaking at the court after the verdict. “Today is not the end of the road, we still have work to do. Rudy Giuliani was not the only one who spread lies about us, and others must be held accountable too. But that is tomorrow’s work. More

  • 200 Shares129 Views

    in Elections

    The moment US Congress passed bill allowing sale of Aukus nuclear submarines to Australia – video

    The 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which includes sweeping legislation covering a wide range of military priorities including Aukus passed the US House of Representatives, a day after it cleared the Senate. The acquisition of at least three such submarines from the US is an interim step before Australian-built nuclear-powered submarines start to enter into service in the 2040s More

  • 125 Shares119 Views

    in Elections

    Trump’s election-interference case may get boost from US supreme court

    A decision by the US supreme court to take a case linked to the January 6 attack on the Capitol could have consequences altering the trajectory of the criminal case against Donald Trump over his effort to overturn the 2020 election as well as for hundreds of other people prosecuted for the riot.The nation’s highest court has agreed to consider whether federal prosecutors can charge January 6 riot defendants with a statute that makes it a crime to obstruct an official proceeding of Congress – a charge also filed against Trump in his 2020 election-interference case.The decision by the conservative-dominated court to take up the matter complicates and could delay Trump’s trial in federal district court in Washington, which is currently scheduled for next March.The supreme court’s eventual ruling in Fischer v United States will indicate whether the obstruction charge under section 1512 of title 18 of the US criminal code can be used against Trump, and could undercut the other general conspiracy charges brought against the former president by the special counsel, Jack Smith.The court could also end up by extension invalidating many convictions against rioters involved in the January 6 Capitol attack. The obstruction statute has been the justice department’s primary weapon to hold accountable those involved in the violence of that day.The case involves Joseph Fischer, who was indicted in Washington on seven counts of obstructing the congressional certification of the 2020 election results when he assaulted police officers during the riot.Fischer sought to dismiss part of his indictment, arguing that the obstruction statute passed under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 in response to the Enron scandal, had to do with document or evidence tampering for white-collar financial crime.The US district judge Carl Nichols, who presided in the case, interpreted the statute as requiring prosecutors to show that the defendant took some action with respect to a document or record and did not apply to Fischer as he assaulted police officers at the Capitol.But a split three-judge panel at the US court of appeals for the DC circuit reversed the decision, deciding that obstruction applied more broadly and encompassed impeding any official proceeding. Fischer, and two other January 6 defendants, appealed to the supreme court to resolve the issue.The supreme court may not decide whether the obstruction statute can be applied to the Capitol attack until June, when the next term ends. In the meantime, the viability of that charge – and potentially that of other general conspiracy charges – against Trump remains uncertain.It could also give Trump an opening to seek to pause ongoing pre-trial proceedings in his 2020 election interference case pending the supreme court’s consideration of the issue, although he is unlikely to succeed and it may not be appealable should such an effort be denied.Similar criminal cases involving members of Congress or congressional aides, for instance, typically go to trial and are then tried again if a higher court finds that some of the charges were inapplicable.At issue for Trump is the definition of “corruptly” in the obstruction statute. The DC circuit has been unable to agree, with judge Justin Walker interpreting it as “unlawful benefit”, while judge Greg Katsas interpreted it as “an unlawful financial, professional, or exculpatory advantage”.The obstruction statute was never a natural fit for January 6 cases, and defense lawyers have repeatedly argued in trial and appeals courts in Washington that the justice department was using it in an overly broad fashion to target rioters because of the 20-year maximum sentence it carries.The problem for the justice department now is that the supreme court has previously chafed at the use of broad conspiracy arguments by federal prosecutors.In the case of Jeffrey Skilling in the Enron scandal, the court held in a unanimous decision that Skilling had been improperly charged with the “honest services” provision of the statute about a scheme to defraud, because it applied only to accepting bribes and kickbacks.“The court’s been very clear that over-aggressive theories under general criminal statutes don’t fly,” said the former House general counsel Stanley Brand, whose firm Brand Woodward has also represented January 6 defendants. “That’s the lesson of Skilling and all these other cases.”If the supreme court were to rule in favor of Fischer next year on the basis that the justice department was using charges that were too broad, Brand added, it could undercut the other general conspiracy statutes used in the indictment against Trump, as well. More

  • 113 Shares179 Views

    in Elections

    Judge puts Trump’s 2020 election interference case on hold

    Donald Trump’s 2020 election interference case in Washington will be put on hold while the former president further pursues his claims that he is immune from prosecution, the judge overseeing the case ruled Wednesday.US district judge Tanya Chutkan agreed to pause any “further proceedings that would move this case towards trial or impose additional burdens of litigation on defendant”. But the judge said that if the case returns to her court, she will “consider at that time whether to retain or continue the dates of any still-future deadlines and proceedings, including the trial scheduled for March 4, 2024”.At issue is an appeal last week by Trump’s lawyers of an order from Chutkan denying their claims that the case must be dismissed on immunity grounds. Special counsel Jack Smith’s team has also asked the supreme court to take up the legally untested question.“The prosecution has one goal in this case: to unlawfully attempt to try, convict, and sentence President Trump before an election in which he is likely to defeat President Biden,” defense lawyers wrote Wednesday. “This represents a blatant attempt to interfere with the 2024 presidential election and to disenfranchise the tens of millions of voters who support President Trump’s candidacy.”The issue is of paramount significance to both sides given that a ruling in Trump’s favor would presumably derail the case and because a protracted appeal could delay a trial well beyond its currently scheduled start date of 4 March. Trump faces charges he plotted to overturn the 2020 election after he lost to Democrat Joe Biden, and he has denied doing anything wrong.Special counsel Jack Smith, whose team has brought two federal cases against Trump in Washington and in Florida, has sought to keep both on track while Trump has attempted to delay the proceedings – at one point even asking for the Washington prosecution to be pushed back until 2026.A separate potential hiccup for the prosecution developed Wednesday when the Supreme Court said that it would review a charge of obstruction of an official proceeding that the Justice Department has brought against more than 300 participants in the January 6, 2021 riot at the US Capitol. That’s among four counts brought against Trump by Smith, meaning that a high court ruling that benefits the defendants in the riotA postponement until after the election would clearly benefit Trump, especially since, if elected president, he would have the authority to try and order the justice department to dismiss the federal cases.In telling the Washington-based federal appeals court that there was no reason for it to fast-track the immunity question, Trump’s lawyers wrote that the “date of March 4, 2024, has no talismanic significance.“Aside from the prosecution’s unlawful partisan motives, there is no compelling reason that date must be maintained, especially at the expense of President Trump and the public’s overriding interest in ensuring these matters of extraordinary constitutional significance are decided appropriately, with full and thoughtful consideration to all relevant authorities and arguments,” they wrote.At issue is an appeal by the Trump team, filed last week, of a trial judge’s rejection of arguments that he was protected from prosecution for actions he took as president. Smith sought to short-circuit that process by asking the supreme court on Monday to take up the issue during its current term, a request he acknowledged was “extraordinary” but one he said he was essential to keep the case moving forward.Smith’s team simultaneously asked the US court of appeals for the DC circuit to expedite its consideration of Trump’s appeal, writing: “The public has a strong interest in this case proceeding to trial in a timely manner. The trial cannot proceed, however, before resolution of the defendant’s interlocutory appeal.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe Trump team made clear its opposition to that request, saying the case presents “novel, complex, and sensitive questions of profound importance.“Whether a president of the United States may be criminally prosecuted for his official acts as president goes to the core of our system of separated powers and will stand among the most consequential questions ever decided by this court,” they wrote. “The manifest public interest lies in the court’s careful and deliberate consideration of these momentous issues with the utmost care and diligence.”The supreme court has indicated that it would decide quickly whether to hear the case, ordering Trump’s lawyers to respond by 20 December. The court’s brief order did not signal what it ultimately would do.A supreme court case usually lasts several months, from the time the justices agree to hear it until a final decision. Smith is asking the court to move with unusual, but not unprecedented, speed.If the justices decline to step in at this point, Trump’s appeal would continue at the US court of appeals for the DC circuit. Smith said even a rapid appellate decision might not get to the supreme court in time for review and final word before the court’s traditional summer break. More

  • 163 Shares169 Views

    in Elections

    US supreme court to hear January 6 appeal that could affect Trump trial

    The supreme court on Wednesday said it will hear an appeal that could upend hundreds of charges stemming from the Capitol riot, including against the former president Donald Trump.The justices will review an appellate ruling that revived a charge against three defendants accused of obstruction of an official proceeding. The charge refers to the disruption of Congress’s certification of Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential election victory over Trump.That is among four counts brought against Trump in the special counsel Jack Smith’s case that accuses the 2024 Republican presidential primary frontrunner of conspiring to overturn the results of his election loss. Trump is also charged with conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding.The court’s decision to weigh in on the obstruction charge could threaten the start of Trump’s trial, currently scheduled for 4 March. The justices separately are considering whether to rule quickly on Trump’s claim that he cannot be prosecuted for actions taken within his role as president. A federal judge has already rejected that argument.The supreme court will hear arguments in March or April, with a decision expected by early summer.The obstruction charge, which carries up to 20 years behind bars, has been brought against more than 300 defendants and is among the most widely used felony charges brought in the huge federal prosecution following the deadly insurrection on 6 January 2021, when a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol in an attempt to keep Biden, a Democrat, from taking the White House.At least 152 people have been convicted at trial or pleaded guilty to obstructing an official proceeding, and at least 108 of them have been sentenced, according to an Associated Press review of court records.A lower-court judge had dismissed the charge against Joseph Fischer, a former Boston police officer, and two other defendants, ruling it did not cover their conduct. The justices agreed to hear the appeal filed by lawyers for Fischer, who is facing a seven-count indictment for his actions on January 6, including the obstruction charge.The other defendants are Edward Jacob Lang, of New York’s Hudson valley, and Garret Miller, who has since pleaded guilty to other charges and was sentenced to 38 months in prison. Miller, who is from the Dallas area, could still face prosecution on the obstruction charge.Judge Carl Nichols of the US district court found that prosecutors stretched the law beyond its scope to inappropriately apply it in these cases. Nichols ruled that a defendant must have taken “some action with respect to a document, record or other object” to obstruct an official proceeding under the law.The justice department challenged that ruling, and the appeals court in Washington DC agreed with prosecutors in April that Nichols’s interpretation of the law was too limited.Other defendants, including Trump, are separately challenging the use of the charge.More than 1,200 people have been charged with federal crimes stemming from the riot, and more than 700 defendants have pleaded guilty. More

  • 150 Shares169 Views

    in Elections

    Rudy Giuliani faces third day of trial for defaming Georgia election workers

    The third day of a federal trial against Rudy Giuliani for defamation against two Georgia election workers begins on Wednesday after a day of harrowing testimony from Shaye Moss, whose life was upended after Giuliani spread election lies about her.Moss and Ruby Freeman are suing Giuliani for his claims, from which the former New York City mayor and Trump ally has not backed down this week. After the first day of trial, Giuliani doubled down on his claims, saying they were true, leading the judge to question Giuliani’s mental fitness.Just as they have been all week, Moss, Freeman and Giuliani are in the courtroom. Moss and Freeman are sitting next to each other at a table with their lawyers. Freeman’s back is to Giuliani, who is sitting at a table parallel to them with his lawyer.Freeman is expected to testify later today.Both women are seeking up to $43m in damages over Giuliani’s false claims that accused them of fraudulently counting mail-in ballots, a sum that Giuliani’s lawyer said would be like a “death penalty” for his client.Ashlee Humphreys, a professor at Northwestern who studies social media, is the first witness on Wednesday. She is expected to testify about how she calculated the damages Moss and Freeman are entitled to.The case is seen as a test for one avenue pro-democracy groups are using to try to hold election deniers accountable for the consequences of spreading conspiracy theories. More

  • 163 Shares129 Views

    in Elections

    Biden: Putin ‘banking’ on the US failing to deliver for Ukraine – video

    Speaking after a White House meeting with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy, US president Joe Biden said the US will support Ukraine in its war with Russia ‘as long as we can’. ‘Putin is banking on the United States failing to deliver for Ukraine. We must, we must, we must prove him wrong,’ Biden said. The US president continued, highlighting praise for Republicans by a Russian TV host and said: ‘If you’re being celebrated by Russian propagandists, it might be time to rethink what you’re doing. History … will judge harshly’ More

  • 150 Shares169 Views

    in Elections

    Rudy Giuliani faces damages claim in 2020 election defamation case – live

    The latest polling also showed that potential voters have concerns with both leading nominees. The surveys found that the majority of potential voters in Michigan and Georgia believe that Biden lacks the “sharpness” and “stamina” needed for a president. Voters in both battleground states also believe that Trump did not have the right “temperament” to be president.From the Hill:
    The surveys also highlighted potential problem areas for each candidate, with 69 percent of Michigan voters and 66 percent of Georgia voters saying Biden does not have the sharpness and stamina they want to see in a president. Fifty-seven percent of Michigan voters and 58 percent of Georgia voters said Trump’s temperament is not what they are looking for in a president.
    Read the full article here.Donald Trump is leading Joe Biden in new polls surveying battleground states, the Hill reports.The latest polls by CNN found that Trump had a 10 point lead over Biden in Michigan, with 50% of responders saying they would vote for Trump in the 2024 election versus only 40% for Biden.In Georgia, 49% of responders said they would support Trump compared to only 44% for Biden.Both Biden and Trump are leading their party’s nomination for the general presidential election, with 2024 shaping up to be a rematch of the 2020 election.Rudy Giuliani has taken his seat in a federal courtroom in Washington where jury selection is about to begin in a weeklong trial to determine how much in damages he should have to pay two Atlanta election workers he defamed last year.The former New York City mayor could pay anywhere between $15 and $43m in damages to Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, a mother and daughter he spread false lies about them after the election.Included in the questions potential jurors will be asked is “Do you believe that Joseph R. Biden’s election as president of the United States in 2020 was illegitimate?” and “Have you ever used the phrase “Let’s Go Brandon” or the term or hashtag “WWG1WGA”?Opening statements in the trial are expected this afternoon. The trial is expected to wrap up by Friday.Giuliani has just arrived to his trial in federal court today, which will determine how much the ex-Trump lawyer will pay in damages after being found liable of defamation in August.Giuliani is expected to testify at some point during the week-long trial, though it isn’t clear if Giuliani will invoke his Fifth Amendment rights while testifying, CNN reports.Meanwhile, the legal team of Freeman and Moss will play videos of other Trump figures pleading the Fifth while refusing to answer questions on the stand.Giuliani is reportedly having trouble paying off mounting legal debts. He is currently selling his $6.5m New York apartment to help square away litigation costs.As of October, Giuliani owed more than $500,000 in unpaid taxes to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Forbes reported.Rudy Giuliani will be defending himself in federal court on Monday against a defamation lawsuit filed against him for false comments he made about two Georgia election workers after the 2020 election.The week-long trial starting Monday in Washington DC will be to determine how much Giuliani will pay in damages for inflammatory remarks he made against Ruby Freeman and her daughter Shaye Moss, two Black election workers in Fulton county.Giuliani is expected to testify in his defense.While serving as head of Trump’s legal team, Giuliani falsely claimed that Freeman and Moss counted 2020 election ballots after tallying had wrapped, sharing misleading security video that was later debunked by Georgia election officials.Freeman and Moss say they faced death threats following Giuliani’s comments, and strangers came to Freeman’s house to enact a “citizen’s arrest”.Giuliani has already been found liable of defamation in August. The latest trial is to determine how much Giuliani will pay in damages, with Freeman and Moss seeking between $15m and $43.5m in damages.Jury selection and opening statements for the damages trial are expected today.Here’s what else is happening:
    Biden is traveling to Philadelphia on Monday to announce a federal grant for the city’s fire department.
    Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelenskiy will arrive in the US for a last-ditch attempt to break a deadlock on Ukraine aid. More