Eliana Willis

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

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

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

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

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

Rudy Giuliani arrived slightly late to the Washington DC federal courtroom where a defamation lawsuit seeking to force him to pay tens of millions of dollars in damages to two election workers after making inflammatory false statements about them in the aftermath of the 2020 election.Ruby Freedman and her daughter Shaye Moss, the two Black election workers from Fulton county who said they faced death threats because of Giuliani’s claims, were also in the courtroom on Monday.Giuliani has already conceded he made the defamatory statements and the US district judge Beryl Howell, who is overseeing the case, has already found him liable for defamation, so the week-long jury trial will focus on what penalty he should have to pay. Freeman and Moss are seeking between $15m and $43.5m in damages. Jury selection and opening statements are expected on Monday.The case is significant because it is one of the most aggressive and advanced efforts to get accountability from Donald Trump allies who spread lies about the election as part of the ex-president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. It is one of several cases testing whether defamation law can be used as a new tool to combat misinformation. And perhaps more than any other episode in the chaotic aftermath of the 2020 election, it crystallizes the human toll of election denialism. Giuliani also faces criminal charges in Georgia as part of the wide-ranging case there over Trump’s efforts to turn the election.After the 2020 election, Giuliani had amplified and circulated misleading security footage he claimed showed Freeman and Moss counting ballots after tallying had ended on election night. Even after Georgia election officials quickly debunked the claim, Giuliani continued to spread the false claims.Freeman and Moss say their lives were upended as they became the subject of vicious attacks. They faced death threats, and strangers came to Freeman’s home to try to execute a “citizen’s arrest”.Freeman told the US House committee that investigated the January 6 attack that she was afraid to give her name in public. On election night in 2020, she was wearing a shirt that proudly proclaimed her name, but she now refuses to wear it in public.“I won’t even introduce myself by my name any more. I get nervous when I bump into someone I know in the grocery store who says my name. I’m worried about people listening. I get nervous when I have to give my name for food orders. I’m always concerned of who’s around me,” she told the committee.“There is nowhere I feel safe. Nowhere. Do you know how it feels to have the president of the United States target you?”Moss told Reuters in 2021 that she suffered anxiety and depression, and her son, who used a cellphone with a phone number once registered to her, started receiving death threats and began failing in school.Both women have not spoken much publicly since the 2020 election, but are expected to take the witness stand this week.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionGiuliani has already conceded he made false statements about Freeman and Moss. But he argues that he is not responsible for the harm they suffered as a result of his false statements. “Giuliani will argue that Plaintiffs cannot show more than a de minimis relationship between their alleged harm and Giuliani’s conduct,” his lawyers wrote in a court filing in November.Giuliani has also already been sanctioned more than $200,000 for refusing to turn over documents as part of the lawsuit. Howell, the judge, also berated Giuliani’s attorney last week after Giuliani failed to show up for a hearing.He is also expected to testify during the trial, and his lawyer indicated last week that the former New York City mayor does not plan to invoke his fifth amendment rights during the proceeding.The original lawsuit, filed in December 2021, sought damages from both Giuliani and One America News, the far-right channel that spread countless pieces of misinformation after the 2020 election. Freeman and Moss settled with OAN in 2022. While the terms of the agreement haven’t been publicly disclosed, the network acknowledged on air shortly after that there was no widespread voter fraud in Georgia in 2020. More

Of the 15-odd Republican candidates vying to replace George Santos in Congress, one stands out so far – not just because he has now been convicted for trying to obstruct the very body he wants to join, but because he claimed to have “no idea” Congress met at the Capitol building he stormed on January 6.Philip Grillo, a candidate in the special election for Santos’s vacant Long Island seat, was convicted this week of charges relating to the January 6 attack, when he entered and exited the building multiple times, at least once through a broken window.At one point during the protest Grillo, 49, was interviewed on camera about why he was there.“I’m here to stop the steal,” he said, according to the justice department. “It’s our fucking House!”He then made his way further into the Capitol. He also recorded videos of himself in the Capitol. “We fucking did it, you understand? We stormed the Capitol,” Grillo said in one. “We shut it down! We did it! We shut the mother..!”On his third entrance to the building, the justice department said, he could be seen in multiple instances pushing up against police officers and, in another recording, from his cell phone, smoking marijuana inside the building and high-fiving other rioters.Recently, during his trial, he testified that he had “no idea” Congress convened inside the Capitol.Grillo was found guilty this week of the felony charge of obstruction of an official proceeding, along with a series of misdemeanors, including entering restricted grounds and disorderly conduct in a Capitol building.At trial, his attorney’s argued that their client had “was acting under actual or believed public authority at the time of the alleged offenses” and said “he was and believed he was authorized to engage in the conduct set forth in the indictment”.Grillo is one of the more than 1,230 people who have been charged with crimes related to the effort on January 6 to block certification of the 2020 election.In May, 10 days before Santos was indicted in New York on multiple charges of fraud, money laundering, theft of public funds and making false statements, Grillo registered as a candidate for New York’s third congressional district seat – the seat Santos, a Republican, held until his expulsion last week.A special election to replace Santos will be held on 13 February, the New York governor Kathy Hochul announced this week. Under electoral rules there is no primary, so Democrats and Republicans will each pick a candidate to go head-to-head.The candidates have not been announced, but Republicans are reported to be edging toward Jack Martins, a former state senator, and Democrats toward Tom Suozzi, who represented the third congressional district before it was redrawn.However, the Republican selection committee has said it is conducting a formal interview process. Committee chairman Joseph Cairo Jr has said the committee has “15 bona fide candidates” to review, including Grillo.The party will be hoping that mud from the Santos affair does not stick to their candidate, and Republicans in the state of New York have in recent years been more successful in leveraging wider turnout margins and courting independent voters than Democrats.For Democrats, the election will be a test of the party’s ability to flip districts in New York City’s suburbs and exurbs that turned red last year in a blow to the party’s majority in Congress.Veteran strategist Hank Sheinkopf told City & State that Santos’s expulsion would likely benefit Republicans because it made them “look like the defenders of the institution, of ethics, and of the courage to oust one of their own”.“Democrats might just for a moment pause and stop gloating. A gone Santos does not a Democrat replacement necessarily create,” Sheinkopf said.Since his disgrace and ouster, Santos has reportedly been making the equivalent of $174,000 a year by charging $400 for brief personalized video messages on the Cameo service.His profile on Cameo describes him as a “former congressional ‘Icon’!” along with a painted fingernail emoji and as “the expelled member of Congress from New York City”.The Cameo founder and chief executive, Steven Galanis, told CBS MoneyWatch this week that Santos has already booked enough Cameo videos to earn more than his congressional salary.“Assuming he can get through the videos, he will exceed what he made in Congress last year,” Galanis told the outlet. More

Fulton county prosecutors have signaled they want prison sentences in the Georgia criminal case against Donald Trump and his top allies for allegedly violating the racketeering statute as part of efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, according to exchanges in private emails.“We have a long road ahead,” the Fulton county district attorney, Fani Willis, wrote in one email. “Long after these folks are in jail, we will still be practicing law.”The previously unreported emails, between Willis and defense lawyers, open a window on to the endgame envisioned by prosecutors on her team – which could inform legal strategies ahead of a potential trial next year, such as approaches toward plea deal negotiations.Prosecutors are not presently expected to offer plea agreements to Trump, his former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and his former election lawyer Rudy Giuliani, but left open the possibility of talks with other co-defendants, the Guardian previously reported.The emails also underscore the increasing breakdown in trust with a growing number of defense lawyers who have regarded prosecutors’ tactics – including Willis assuming she will win – as inappropriately aggressive and presumptuous given the case remains months from a potential verdict.The district attorney raised the prospect of defendants in prison in a 29 November exchange, which started with Trump’s lawyer Steve Sadow complaining about an incomplete Giuliani transcript the defense received in discovery, according to two people with direct knowledge of the emails.Willis responded that the defense lawyers would receive the full transcript in the next production of discovery and, in increasingly tense exchanges, took offense that she was not being referred to by her formal title as well as the implicit accusation that they were withholding evidence.“No one placed me here and I have earned this title,” Willis said, apparently taking umbrage that she was not referred to specifically as the district attorney, but as a prosecutor. “I’ve never practiced law by hiding the ball, I’ve enjoyed beating folks by making sure they have the entire file.”The email took a turn when Willis added that they should remain professional because their legal careers would continue even after the election case co-defendants went to jail. Willis signed off: “yours in service”.Trump and 18 co-defendants in August originally pleaded not guilty to charges that they violated Georgia’s state racketeering statute as they sought to overturn the 2020 election. In the following weeks, four of the 18 negotiated plea deals and extricated themselves from the case.The remark about jail caused consternation with some of the defense lawyers, who have been aghast that the district attorney’s office would throw around what they took as a prison threat in a cavalier manner, according to multiple people familiar with the situation.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionA spokesperson for Willis declined to comment.Relations between prosecutors and defense lawyers have been particularly strained in recent weeks, people close to the case have said, mainly since several media outlets published videotaped “proffer” statements that the former Trump lawyers Jenna Ellis, Sidney Powell and Kenneth Chesebro gave as part of plea deals.The district attorney’s office had privately believed Trump’s team leaked the videos, only to be surprised when the lawyer for the former Coffee county elections official Misty Hampton acknowledged at a court hearing that he had disseminated videos to a certain news outlet.The leak of the proffer statements prompted prosecutors to seek an emergency protective order on discovery materials and to refuse to provide copies of any future proffer videos to defense lawyers, who would instead have to view them in the district attorney’s offices in Atlanta.In the separate federal 2020 election subversion case brought against Trump in Washington, the discovery materials were subject to a protective order almost as soon as Trump was charged. But special counsel prosecutors have not forced Trump’s lawyers to only view the discovery in person.The Fulton county superior judge Scott McAfee, who is presiding in the case, ultimately agreed to impose a protective order governing the release of discovery materials marked as “sensitive”, though the threat to only have proffer videos available in the district attorney’s offices was dropped. More