Eliana Willis

More stories

  • 163 Shares159 Views

    in Elections

    Trump responds to interviews with grand jury foreperson: ‘This Georgia case is ridiculous’

    Trump responds to interviews with grand jury foreperson: ‘This Georgia case is ridiculous’Former president, under investigation for his election subversion attempts, criticizes jury foreperson for ‘doing a media tour’Donald Trump responded to interviews given by the foreperson of the Georgia grand jury which investigated his election subversion attempts by ridiculing the woman and claiming to be the victim of his political enemies.‘A big freaking deal’: the grand jury that investigated Trump election pressureRead more“This Georgia case is ridiculous,” the former president wrote on his Truth Social platform, claiming “a strictly political continuation of the greatest witch hunt of all time”.It has been widely reported that lawyers for possible Republican targets in the investigation are preparing to seek dismissal of the case based on the foreperson’s comments.Running for the Republican presidential nomination, Trump remains in wide-ranging legal jeopardy over election subversion including inciting the January 6 attack on Congress, his financial affairs including a hush money payment to a porn star, the retention of classified documents and an accusation of rape, which he denies.The district attorney of Fulton county, Fani Willis, requested the grand jury to investigate Trump’s attempts to overturn his 2020 defeat in Georgia by Joe Biden, the first Republican loss there in a presidential election since 1992.Portions of the grand jury report have been released but indictments have not yet followed.The jury foreperson, Emily Kohrs, was authorized to speak to the media but not to discuss deliberations.Many observers said she went too far, dropping broad hints about indictments and discussing interactions with witnesses.Speaking to CNN, she said it would be a “good assumption” that more than a dozen people would be indicted.Kohrs, 30, told the New York Times it was “not rocket science” to work out if Trump indictments were among those recommended.Speaking to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and told Trump had claimed “total exoneration” through the jury’s report, Kohrs “rolled her eyes” and “burst out laughing”.Trump wrote: “Now you have an extremely energetic young woman, the (get this!) ‘foreperson’ of the racist DA’s special grand jury, going around and doing a media tour revealing, incredibly, the grand jury’s inner workings and thoughts.”Willis, a Democrat, is African American. Claiming she was presiding over “an illegal kangaroo court”, Trump also claimed to have done nothing in Georgia but make “two perfect phone calls”.The grand jury investigated election subversion efforts including a call to the Georgia secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, in which Trump asked the Republican elections official to “find” enough votes for him to beat Biden. Alternate elector schemes and state-house machinations were also scutinised.On Wednesday, amid reports that lawyers were preparing to seek dismissal of the case because of Kohrs’ comments in the media, observers including the New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman pointed out that Kohrs led a fact-finding grand jury, meaning a separate panel would deal with any indictments.But Haberman also told CNN: “I’ve covered courts on and off for the last 20 years, more than that. I’ve never heard of a grand jury foreperson speaking this way … I’ve never seen anything like it.“If I’m the prosecutor, I’m not sure that I want this media tour taking place, because I’m confident that Donald Trump’s lawyers are going to use this, just based on what I [am] hearing … to try to argue that this is prejudicial in terms of what she is saying.”TopicsDonald TrumpGeorgiaUS Capitol attackUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

  • 150 Shares109 Views

    in Elections

    Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner subpoenaed in January 6 investigation – report

    Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner subpoenaed in January 6 investigation – reportSpecial counsel looking into Trump’s efforts to overturn 2020 election subpoenas former president’s daughter and son-in-law Former US president Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and daughter Ivanka Trump have been subpoenaed by the special counsel Jack Smith to testify before a federal grand jury regarding the January 6 attack on the Capitol, the New York Times reported on Wednesday, citing sources.Merrick Garland, the attorney general, appointed Smith in November last year to take over two investigations involving Trump, who is running for president in 2024.The first investigation involves Trump’s handling of highly sensitive classified documents he retained at his Florida resort after leaving the White House in January 2021.The second investigation is looking at efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election’s results, including a plot to submit phony slates of electors to block Congress from certifying Democrat Joe Biden’s victory.Earlier this month, media outlets reported that the former US vice-president Mike Pence, the former national security adviser Robert O’Brien and Trump’s former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, were subpoenaed by Smith in his investigations.Grand juries in Washington have been hearing testimony in recent months for both investigations from former top Trump administration officials.Smith’s office and Kushner did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Wednesday. Ivanka Trump could not immediately be reached for comment.TopicsDonald TrumpJared KushnerIvanka TrumpUS politicsUS Capitol attacknewsReuse this content More

  • 150 Shares199 Views

    in Elections

    Alarms raised as McCarthy gives Tucker Carlson access to January 6 footage

    Alarms raised as McCarthy gives Tucker Carlson access to January 6 footageDemocrats condemn House speaker’s move and warn Capitol security could be endangered if Fox News host airs footageThousands of hours of surveillance footage from the January 6 attack on the US Capitol are being made available to the Fox News host Tucker Carlson, a stunning level of access granted by the House speaker, Kevin McCarthy, that Democrats condemned as a “grave” breach of security.‘A big freaking deal’: the grand jury that investigated Trump election pressureRead moreThe hard-right host said his team was spending the week at the Capitol, preparing to reveal their findings.Granting exclusive access to January 6 security footage to such a deeply partisan figure is a highly unusual move, seen by some critics as essentially outsourcing House oversight to a TV personality who has promoted conspiracy theories about the attack.“It’s a shocking development that brings in both political concerns but even more importantly, security concerns,” said Dan Goldman, a New York Democrat who was a chief counsel during Donald Trump’s first impeachment trial.Many critics warned that Capitol security could be endangered if Carlson aired security footage that details how rioters accessed the building and routes lawmakers used to flee to safety. A sharply partisan retelling of the Capitol attack could accelerate a dangerous rewriting of the history of January 6, when Trump encouraged supporters to attempt to overturn Joe Biden’s election.“It is not lost on anyone that the one person that the speaker decides to give hours and hours of sensitive secret surveillance footage is the person who peddled a bogus documentary trying to debunk responsibility for the January 6 riot from Donald Trump onto others,” Goldman said.“Kevin McCarthy has turned over the security of the Capitol to Tucker Carlson and that’s a scary thought.”McCarthy’s office declined to confirm the arrangement, first reported by Axios.Images and videos from the Capitol attack have been widely circulated by documentarians, news organizations and rioters themselves. But officials have held back much of the surveillance video that offers a detailed view of the grisly scene and brutal beatings of police.The House committee investigating the January 6 attack worked with US Capitol police to review and release segments of the footage as part of public hearings last year.The chief of Capitol police, Tom Manger, said only: “When congressional leadership or congressional oversight committees ask for things like this, we must give it to them.”House Democrats planned to convene on Wednesday for a private call to hear from Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, who chaired the January 6 committee, and others. The House Democratic leader, Hakeem Jeffries, called McCarthy’s decision an “egregious security breach”.“Unfortunately, the apparent disclosure of sensitive video material is yet another example of the grave threat to the security of the American people represented by the extreme Maga Republican majority,” the New Yorker told House colleagues.Zoe Lofgren of California, the former chair of the House administration committee and a member of the January 6 panel, said: “It’s really a road map to people who might want to attack the Capitol again. It would be of huge assistance to them.”Carlson, who produced a documentary suggesting the federal government used the Capitol attack as a pretext to persecute conservatives, confirmed that his team was reviewing the footage.“We believe we have secured the right to see whatever we want to see,” Carlson said on his show on Monday.It’s not clear what protocols Carlson and his team are using to view the material, but he said “access is unfettered”.The January 6 committee, which was disbanded once Republicans took the House, created a secure room for staff to examine more than 14,000 hours of footage. The process took months, according to a person familiar with the investigation.Any clip the committee wanted to use had to be approved by Capitol police. If police had an objection, the committee would engage in negotiations to redact any content that could potentially endanger the force or its protection of the Capitol.Capitol police reported an increase in threats to member safety over the last several years. The number of possible threats against members of Congress rose from about 4,000 in 2017 to more than 9,600 in 2021, then declined last year to 7,501.Republicans said McCarthy’s decision was part of his commitment to create a more transparent House and engage in oversight, as Republicans launch investigations touching many aspects of government.“I support Speaker McCarthy’s decision,” said Bryan Steil of Wisconsin, the House administration committee chair.Hard-right figures cheered. “For all of you that doubted we would release the tapes. Here you go!” tweeted Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, now close to McCarthy.Rodney Davis, a former Illinois Republican, said if the former House speaker Nancy Pelosi’s daughter, the film-maker Alexandra Pelosi, was able to film on January 6 and release her footage, McCarthy should be able to grant Carlson access.Others said the two situations are not comparable, as countless hours of footage have been released from many sources.“I think we should remember that the January 6 attack happened in broad daylight,” said Sandeep Prasanna, a former investigative counsel on the January 6 committee.“My concern is that I don’t see how releasing thousands of hours of footage to one handpicked controversial media figure could ever produce the same factual and careful analysis that the committee produced over that year and a half.”TopicsUS Capitol attackFox NewsKevin McCarthyHouse of RepresentativesUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

  • 150 Shares189 Views

    in Elections

    ‘A big freaking deal’: the grand jury that investigated Trump election pressure

    ‘A big freaking deal’: the grand jury that investigated Trump election pressureForeperson Emily Kohrs gives insight into process usually cloaked in secrecy, after portions of grand jury report released last weekAsked if the grand jury she led recommended indicting Donald Trump over his election subversion in Georgia, the foreperson of the jury said: “You’re not going to be shocked. It’s not rocket science.”Ron DeSantis gives Donald Trump kid-glove treatment in new bookRead moreShe also said sitting on the jury was “a big freaking deal”.Emily Kohrs, 30, spoke to the New York Times and outlets including the Associated Press and NBC News on Tuesday. She was authorised to speak but not to discuss details of the grand jury report, most of which remains secret after a judge disclosed portions last week.Those portions showed jurors saw possible evidence of perjury by “one or more witnesses”. Trump did not testify. His personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, who advanced Trump’s lie about voter fraud in his 2020 defeat by Joe Biden, was among those who did.The grand jury was requested by Fani Willis, the Fulton county district attorney. Speaking to the AP, Kohrs described how, last May, jurors were led into a garage beneath an Atlanta courthouse, where officers with guns waited. Ushered into vans with heavily tinted windows, jurors were driven to their cars under police escort.“That was the first indication that this was a big freaking deal,” Kohrs said.Kohrs found herself at the center of one of the most significant legal proceedings in US history. She would become foreperson of the panel investigating whether the then president and associates illegally meddled in Georgia election results.The case is one of Trump’s most glaring legal vulnerabilities as he mounts a third presidential run, in part because he was recorded asking officials to “find 11,780 votes” and overturn Biden’s win.Jurors heard from 75 witnesses, from prominent Trump allies to local election workers. A judge, Robert McBurney, advised jurors on what they could and could not share publicly. Kohrs provided insight into a process typically cloaked in secrecy.She told the Times Giuliani, who was mayor of New York at the time of the 9/11 attacks, when she was 11, was “almost like a myth figure in my head”, leaving her “intimidated” in his presence.She told NBC the list of recommended indictments was “not short”, involving more than a dozen people, and that Trump “might” be among them.She told the Times the report would not offer “some giant plot twist. You probably have a fair idea of what may be in there. I’m trying very hard to say that delicately”.Her remarks met with criticism in some quarters.Elie Honig, a federal prosecutor turned CNN analyst, said: “This is a very serious prospect. Indicting any person, you’re talking about potentially taking away that person’s liberty. We’re talking about potentially [indicting] a former president for the first time … she does not seem to be taking that very seriously.”Trump’s lawyers might seek to dismiss any indictment based on grand jury impropriety, Honig said.Trump was the first Republican to lose Georgia since George HW Bush lost to Bill Clinton in 1992. Attempts to overturn Trump’s defeat included the famous call to Brad Raffensperger, the secretary of state, in which he asked his fellow Republican to “find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have” to get to win.Kohrs told the Times the jury “definitely started with the first phone call, the call to Secretary Raffensperger that was so publicised”.She told the AP Raffensperger was “a really geeky kind of funny”. She said the South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham, who fought not to testify, joked with jurors while Brian Kemp, the Republican governor of Georgia, seemed unhappy to be there.Looking to other parts of Trump’s attempt to overturn his defeat, she said the jury “definitely talked about the alternate electors a fair amount” and “talked a lot about December and things that happened in the Georgia legislature”.What does the release of Georgia’s grand jury report mean for Trump?Read moreKohrs told the AP she was fascinated by an explainer by a former Dominion Voting Systems executive. She said the jury studied the “concept of vote fraud in Georgia”, finding “unanimously that there was no evidence of vote fraud in Fulton county in the 2020 election”, which they “wanted to make sure we put in” the final report, “because somehow that’s still a question”.Trump and his supporters still claim the 2020 election was stolen.Kohrs sketched witnesses. When jurors’ notes were taken for shredding, she managed to salvage two sketches, of Graham and Marc Short, who was chief of staff to former vice-president Mike Pence, because there were no notes on those pages.Kohrs said she enjoyed learning about the White House from Cassidy Hutchinson, who was much more forthcoming than the former chief of staff Mark Meadows.Several witnesses have immunity deals. Trump’s attorneys have said he was not asked to testify. Kohrs said the jury didn’t think he would offer meaningful testimony.“Trump was not a battle we picked to fight,” she said.Kohrs told the AP she didn’t vote in 2020 and at the time did not know the specifics of Trump’s allegations of widespread election fraud or efforts to reverse his loss. She said she did not identify with any political party, and did not feel political pressure.“I fully stand by our report as our decision and our conclusion,” she said.
    Associated Press contributed reporting
    TopicsUS elections 2020Donald TrumpUS politicsGeorgianewsReuse this content More

  • 188 Shares189 Views

    in Elections

    Carlson and Hannity among Fox hosts who didn’t believe election fraud claims – court filings

    Carlson and Hannity among Fox hosts who didn’t believe election fraud claims – court filingsNumber of conservative political commentators expressed doubts about claims being aired on their network Hosts at Fox News did not believe the allegations of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election that were being aired on their programmes by supporters of former president Donald Trump, according to court filings in a $1.6bn (£1.34bn) defamation lawsuit against the network.“Sidney Powell is lying” about having evidence for election fraud, Tucker Carlson wrote in a message on 16 November 2020, according to an excerpt from an exhibit that remains under seal.The internal communication was included in a redacted summary judgment brief filed on Thursday by attorneys for Dominion Voting Systems.Is Dominion’s $1.6bn defamation lawsuit a death blow for Murdoch and Fox News?Read moreCarlson also referred to Powell in a text as an “unguided missile” and “dangerous as hell”. Fellow host Laura Ingraham told Carlson that Powell was “a complete nut. No one will work with her. Ditto with Rudy”, referring to the former New York mayor and Trump supporter Rudy Giuliani.Sean Hannity, meanwhile, said in a deposition “that whole narrative that Sidney was pushing, I did not believe it for one second”, according to Dominion’s filing.Dominion, which sells electronic voting hardware and software, is suing Fox News and parent company Fox Corporation. Dominion says some Fox News employees deliberately amplified false claims that Dominion had changed votes in the 2020 election, and that Fox provided a platform for guests to make false and defamatory statements.Attorneys for the cable news station argued in a counterclaim that the lawsuit was an assault on the first amendment. They said Dominion had advanced “novel defamation theories” and was seeking a “staggering” damage figure aimed at generating headlines, chilling protected speech and enriching Dominion’s private equity owner, Staple Street Capital Partners.“Dominion brought this lawsuit to punish FNN for reporting on one of the biggest stories of the day – allegations by the sitting president of the United States and his surrogates that the 2020 election was affected by fraud,” the counterclaim states. “The very fact of those allegations was newsworthy.”Fox attorneys also said Carlson repeatedly questioned Powell’s claims in his broadcasts. “When we kept pressing, she got angry and told us to stop contacting her,” Carlson told viewers on 19 November 2020.Fox attorneys say Dominion’s own public relations firm expressed scepticism in December 2020 as to whether the network’s coverage was defamatory. They also point to an email from just days before the election, in which Dominion’s director of product strategy and security complained that the company’s products were “just riddled with bugs”.In their counterclaim, Fox attorneys wrote that when voting technology companies denied the allegations being made by Trump and his surrogates, Fox News aired those denials, while some Fox News hosts offered protected opinion commentary about Trump’s allegations.Fox’s counterclaim is based on New York’s “anti-Slaap” law. Such laws are aimed at protecting people trying to exercise their first amendment rights from being intimidated by “strategic lawsuits against public participation”, or Slapps.“According to Dominion, FNN had a duty not to truthfully report the president’s allegations but to suppress them or denounce them as false,” Fox attorneys wrote. “Dominion is fundamentally mistaken. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press would be illusory if the prevailing side in a public controversy could sue the press for giving a forum to the losing side.”Fox attorneys warn that threatening the company with a $1.6bn judgment would cause other media outlets to think twice about what they report. They also say documents produced in the lawsuit show Dominion has not suffered any economic harm and do not indicate that it lost any customers as the result of Fox’s election coverage.A trial is set to begin in mid-April.TopicsFox NewsSean HannityFoxUS elections 2020Donald TrumpUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

  • 150 Shares109 Views

    in Elections

    US officer fed details to far-right leader before Capitol attack, messages show

    US officer fed details to far-right leader before Capitol attack, messages showWashington court sees string of messages from Shane Lamond to Proud Boys’ Enrique Tarrio in weeks before deadly 2021 riot A police officer frequently provided Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio with internal information about law enforcement operations in the weeks before other members of the far-right group stormed the US Capitol, according to messages shown at the trial of Tarrio and four associates.January 6 rioter who used stun gun on officer Michael Fanone pleads guiltyRead moreIn court in Washington DC on Wednesday, a federal prosecutor showed jurors a string of messages that Shane Lamond, a Metropolitan police lieutenant, exchanged with Tarrio in the run-up to the attack on the Capitol on 6 January 2021. Lamond, an intelligence officer, was responsible for monitoring groups like the Proud Boys.On 6 January, supporters of Donald Trump stormed Congress in an attempt to block certification of Joe Biden’s election win. Nine deaths have been linked to the riot, including suicides among law enforcementLess than three weeks before the riot, Lamond warned Tarrio that the FBI and Secret Service were “all spun up” over talk on an Infowars internet show that the Proud Boys planned to dress as Biden supporters on inauguration day.A justice department prosecutor, Conor Mulroe, asked a government witness, the FBI special agent Peter Dubrowski, how common it was for law enforcement to disclose internal information in that fashion.“I’ve never heard of it,” Dubrowski said.Tarrio was arrested in Washington two days before the Capitol attack and charged with burning a Black Lives Matter banner taken from a historic Black church in December 2020. He was released and was not in Washington on 6 January.In a message to Tarrio on 25 December 2020, Lamond said Metropolitan police investigators had asked him to identify Tarrio from a photograph. He warned Tarrio that police might be seeking a warrant for his arrest.On the day of his arrest, Tarrio posted a message to other Proud Boys leaders that said: “The warrant was just signed.”Before trial, Tarrio’s attorneys said Lamond’s testimony would be crucial, supporting Tarrio’s claims he was looking to avoid violence.In court, Mulroe said Lamond asserted his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Tarrio’s attorneys have accused prosecutors of bullying Lamond into keeping quiet by warning the officer he could be charged with obstructing the investigation into Tarrio, a Miami resident who was the national chairman of the Proud Boys. Prosecutors deny that claim.Tarrio’s attorney Sabino Jauregui said other messages showed that Tarrio cooperated with police and provided useful information. Jauregui said prosecutors “dragged [Lamond’s] name through the mud” and falsely insinuated he is a “dirty cop” who had an inappropriate relationship with Tarrio.“That was their theme over and over again,” Jauregui told the presiding US district judge, Timothy Kelly.Lamond was placed on administrative leave in February 2022, according to Mark Schamel, an attorney who said Lamond aided in Tarrio’s arrest for burning the banner. On Wednesday, Schamel said Lamond’s job required him to communicate with protesting groups and his conduct “was appropriate and always focused on the protection of the citizens of Washington DC”.“At no time did Lt Lamond ever assist or support the hateful and divisive agenda of any of the various groups that came to DC to protest,” Schamel said. “More importantly, Lt Lamond is a decorated official who does not condone the hateful rhetoric or the illegal conduct on January 6 and was only communicating with these individuals because the mission required it.”Tarrio and four lieutenants are charged with seditious conspiracy for what prosecutors say was a plot to stop the peaceful transfer of power.Proud Boys members describe the group as a politically incorrect men’s club for “western chauvinists”. They often brawl with antifascist activists.In a message to Tarrio on 18 December 2020, Lamond said other investigators had asked if the Proud Boys were racist. The officer said he told them the group had Black and Latino members, “so [it was] not a racist thing”.“It’s not being investigated by the FBI, though. Just us,” Lamond added.“Awesome,” Tarrio replied.In another exchange, Lamond asked Tarrio if he called in a tip claiming responsibility for the banner burning.“I did more than that,” Tarrio said. “It’s on my social media.”In a message to Tarrio on 11 December 2020, Lamond told him about the whereabouts of antifascist activists. The officer asked Tarrio if he should share that information with uniformed officers or keep it to himself.Two days later, Tarrio asked Lamond what the police department’s “general consensus” was about the Proud Boys.“That’s too complicated for a text answer,” Lamond replied. “That’s an in-person conversation over a beer.”TopicsUS Capitol attackThe far rightUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

  • 188 Shares179 Views

    in Elections

    Georgia officials to release grand jury report on Trump bid to overturn election – live

    “Hell, yes.” “100%.” Those were the replies of some Republican state legislators in Georgia to a last-ditch attempt by Donald Trump’s campaign to stop Joe Biden’s election win in the state, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports, citing newly released congressional records.The Trump campaign wanted the group to appoint presidential electors who would vote for Trump, not Joe Biden – even though he’d won the state’s 16 electoral votes, the first time a Democrat has done so since Bill Clinton in 1992.The publication contacted the approximately 30 lawmakers who said they would participate in the effort, which was ultimately unsuccessful. Seventeen couldn’t be reached, or didn’t respond to a request for comment. But others appeared to deny they’d ever signed on.“I do think there were some issues with the election. But that was not the way to go,” Republican state representative Kasey Carpenter told the Journal-Constitution.You can read the rest of the story here.Let’s say Fulton county district attorney Fani Willis does decide bring charges against Donald Trump based on the grand jury’s report. What would be the alleged crime? As the Guardian’s Carlisa N. Johnson reported last month, the answer could be racketeering:An Atlanta prosecutor appears ready to use the same Georgia statute to prosecute Donald Trump that she used last year to charge dozens of gang members and well-known rappers who allegedly conspired to commit violent crime.Fani Willis was elected Fulton county district attorney just days before the conclusion of the 2020 presidential election. But as she celebrated her promotion, Trump and his allies set in motion a flurry of unfounded claims of voter fraud in Georgia, the state long hailed as a Republican stronghold for local and national elections.Willis assumed office on 1 January 2021, becoming the first Black woman in the position. The next day, according to reports, Trump called rad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state, urging him to “find” the nearly 12,000 votes he needed to secure a victory and overturn the election results.The following month, Willis launched an investigation into Trump’s interference in the state’s general election. Now, in a hearing on Tuesday, the special purpose grand jury and the presiding judge will decide whether to release to the public the final report and findings of the grand jury that was seated to investigate Trump and his allies.Willis, who has not shied away from high-profile cases, has made headlines for her aggressive style of prosecution. Willis was a lead prosecutor in the 2013 prosecution of educators in Atlanta accused of inflating students’ scores on standardized tests. More recently, Willis brought a case against a supposed Georgia gang known as YSL, including charges against rappers Yung Thug and Gunna.Could Trump be charged for racketeering? A Georgia prosecutor thinks soRead moreGot questions about the special grand jury’s report in Georgia? The Guardian’s Sam Levine has answers in this piece published just before a hearing in which a judge ultimately opted to allow its partial release:A court hearing on Tuesday will mark one of the most significant developments in a Georgia investigation examining whether Donald Trump and allies committed a crime in their efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Here’s all you need to know about that hearing and what to expect next.What exactly is happening on Tuesday?Since May of last year, a special purpose grand jury in Fulton county, Georgia has been investigating whether Donald Trump committed a crime under state law when he tried to overturn the 2020 election by pressuring state officials to try and overturn Joe Biden’s victory in the state.The grand jury concluded its work earlier this month. On Tuesday, there will be a hearing to determine whether the grand jury’s report should be made public. The special grand jury – which consisted of 23 jurors and three alternates – has recommended its report be made public.Why is this investigation such a big deal?Trump and allies have yet to face any criminal consequences for their efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The Fulton county probe could be the first time that charges are filed against Trump and allies for those efforts. The US House committee that investigated the January 6 attacks also made a criminal referral to the justice department, which is also investigating Trump’s actions after the 2020 election.What is Georgia’s Trump election inquiry and will it lead to charges?Read moreShould Donald Trump face criminal charges?That’s the big question the report authored by a special grand jury in Georgia’s Fulton county might answer. We won’t be seeing all of it today, but what’s released could shed light on what the jurors came to believe after spending months hearing from former Trump officials, state lawmakers and others with knowledge of his attempt to stop Joe Biden from carrying the state’s electoral votes.The answer to that question could very well be no – at least in the eyes of the jurors. But they might recommend charges against other officials who appeared before them. Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani was, for instance, told that he was a target of the investigation, as was reportedly the state’s lieutenant governor Burt Jones and David Shafer, chair of the Georgia GOP.But even if the jurors want to bring the hammer down, it’s not their decision to make. That’s up to Fani Willis, the district attorney for the Atlanta-area county, who will have to decide whether to accept their recommendations and move forward with prosecutions.Good morning, US politics blog readers. Today, we may get a sense of which direction one of the many investigations into Donald Trump is heading, when parts of a special grand jury’s report into his attempt to undo Joe Biden’s 2020 election win in Georgia are made public. A judge earlier this week ordered the release of the document’s introduction, conclusion and a chapter on jurors’ concerns that some witnesses were lying, while withholding the rest, at least for now. Fani Willis, the district attorney in Georgia’s Atlanta-area Fulton county, is expected to use the report to determine whether to bring charges in the investigations – and against who. This blog will dig into the document as soon as it’s released.Here’s what else is going on:
    Joe Biden may as soon as today give a public address about the Chinese spy balloon and three UFOs shot down by American jets over North America, the Washington Post reports, in a response to pressure from lawmakers who want more transparency on the unusual events.
    Barbara Lee, a progressive House Democrat known for her anti-war bona fides, has filed the paperwork to compete in the California Senate race, according to Politico.
    Special counsel Jack Smith wants to hear from Mark Meadows, Trump’s chief of staff for his final days in the White House, CNN reports. More

  • 175 Shares169 Views

    in Elections

    Nikki Haley: who is the Republican taking on Trump in 2024? – video profile

    The child of Indian immigrants, Nikki Haley began her political career in South Carolina. She worked her way up to governor, before being appointed US ambassador to the UN by then president Donald Trump. She was known as a combative diplomat, who sometimes aggressively advocated for the US in the global forum. Here is a look at her career so far, as she announces her bid for the US presidency.  More