Elections

Donald Trump’s criminal prosecution over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election is expected to be delayed by another month after special counsel prosecutors said they had not finished assessing how the US supreme court’s immunity decision would narrow their case.On Thursday, the prosecutors on special counsel Jack Smith’s team told Tanya Chutkan, the US district judge presiding over the case, that they needed her to delay until 30 August a deadline to submit a possible schedule for how to proceed with a complicated fact-finding mission ordered by the court.“The Government continues to assess the new precedent set forth last month in the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v United States, including through consultation with other Department of Justice components,” prosecutors wrote in a two-page court filing.“The Government has not finalized its position on the most appropriate schedule for the parties to brief issues related to the decision. The Government therefore respectfully requests additional time to provide the Court with an informed proposal.”The supreme court ruled last month that former presidents are entitled to some degree of immunity from criminal prosecution, marking a victory for Trump.Precisely what prosecutors are now stuck on remains unclear, although the ruling struck some of the charges against Trump and is expected to see Chutkan needing to pare back the indictment further.Trump is accused of overseeing a sprawling effort to subvert the results of the 2020 presidential election, including two counts of conspiring to obstruct the certification of the election results, conspiring to defraud the government, and conspiring to disenfranchise voters.The alleged illegal conduct includes Trump pressing justice department officials to open sham investigations, Trump obstructing Congress from certifying the election, including by trying to co-opt his vice-president, Trump helping prompt the Capitol attack, and Trump’s plot to recruit fake electors.View image in fullscreenThe supreme court decided that criminal accountability for presidents has three categories: core presidential functions that carry absolute immunity, official acts of the presidency that carry presumptive immunity, and unofficial acts that carry no immunity.The ruling meant that the charges related to core executive functions will be thrown out, and for Chutkan to determine through a fact-finding exercise if any other charges that might come under official acts must be expunged.Whether Chutkan will do the fact-finding on legal arguments or legal briefs, or will consider evidence perhaps given by witnesses, was supposed to become clearer after Trump and the special counsel jointly submitted the now-delayed scheduling brief.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTrump’s lawyers are expected to ask for few or no witnesses, the Guardian has previously reported. And in a statement on Truth Social, Trump called anew for the case to be tossed: “It is clear that the supreme court’s historic decision on immunity demands and requires a complete and total dismissal.”The deadline for the scheduling brief was the first activity in the case since December, when it was frozen after Trump asked the US court of appeals for the DC circuit and then the supreme court to consider his argument that he had absolute immunity from criminal prosecution.The supreme court issued its immunity ruling on 1 July, but the case only returned to Chutkan’s jurisdiction last week because of the court’s 25-day waiting period for any rehearing requests, and an additional week for the judgment to be formally sent down to the trial judge.Trump has already been enormously successful in delaying his criminal cases, a strategy he adopted in the hope that winning the 2024 election would enable him to appoint a loyalist as attorney general who he could direct to drop the charges.It is all but impossible now for the special counsel to bring the case to trial before election day, given Trump can make interim appeals for any decisions that Chutkan makes about the impact of the immunity decision. More

David Muir y Linsey Davis son los presentadores de ABC que moderarán el primer cara a cara de los candidatos desde que Kamala Harris entró en la campaña.[Estamos en WhatsApp. Empieza a seguirnos ahora]Habrá debate.La vicepresidenta Kamala Harris y el expresidente Donald Trump se enfrentarán en un debate televisado en horario de máxima audiencia el 10 de septiembre, según anunció ABC News el jueves, preparando el último momento crucial de una contienda presidencial de por sí impredecible.Se espera que el debate de 90 minutos se celebre en Filadelfia, según dos personas con conocimiento de los planes. Los presentadores de ABC David Muir y Linsey Davis serán los moderadores. Es probable que el debate se realice sin público en directo, pero el formato exacto y las reglas básicas aún están por determinarse, dijeron las personas.En cierto sentido, el anuncio mantiene el statu quo: hace meses, Trump acordó debatir con el presidente Joe Biden en ABC en esa misma fecha. Pero el candidato republicano titubeó sobre ese compromiso después de que Biden se retiró de la campaña y argumentó que no había acordado esos términos con Harris.El debate previo, en junio de este año, fue quizá el más importante en los 64 años de historia de los enfrentamientos televisados entre aspirantes presidenciales. La titubeante y mermada actuación de Biden desató el pánico entre los demócratas y provocó que el presidente cediera su puesto como líder de la candidatura de su partido.Más de 51 millones de estadounidenses vieron el debate en directo, el tipo de convocatoria masiva que cada vez es menos frecuente en una era de fragmentación de los medios de comunicación como la actual. La próxima emisión de ABC podría atraer a una audiencia aún mayor porque será la primera vez que Harris y Trump se vean cara a cara en el escenario de un debate.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

Israel advised people to stock up on food and water in fortified safe rooms, while Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told soldiers that Israel is “prepared for defense, as well as offense.”Israel is girding for widely anticipated retaliatory attacks by Iran and Hezbollah, telling its people this week to stock up on food and water in fortified safe rooms, while hospitals prepare to move patients to underground wards and search-and-rescue teams position themselves in major cities.The Israeli government’s security cabinet convened on Thursday night as speculation continued over how the country’s enemies might respond to the killing of a Hezbollah leader in Lebanon, and of Hamas’s top official while he was visiting Iran. Diplomats across the Middle East and elsewhere have tried to tamp down the tensions amid fears that the Israel-Hamas war raging in the Gaza Strip could broaden into a much bigger conflict across the region.Intelligence has been sparse and changes frequently. But two Israeli officials and a senior Western intelligence official said that based on the latest information, Hezbollah, the Lebanese armed group closely allied with Iran, will likely strike first in a separate attack before Iran conducts its own retaliation. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly, and did not provide further details about the potential attacks.The latest crisis follows the assassinations last week of Fuad Shukr, a top Hezbollah military commander, and Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas’s political leader. Israel has said it killed Mr. Shukr in retaliation for a rocket attack from Lebanon that killed 12 children and teenagers, while refusing to comment on the blast that killed Mr. Haniyeh in Tehran, which has been widely attributed to Israel.Iran has vowed revenge for the killing of Mr. Haniyeh on its soil, calling it an egregious violation of Iranian sovereignty. Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s leader, said in an address this week that the group’s response to the killing of Mr. Shukr would be severe.“Let the enemy, and those who stand behind them, await our inevitable response,” said Mr. Nasrallah. “We are looking for a true response, not a superficial one,” he added.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

Thirty models of Samsung stoves were part of the recall over fires started by accidental contact.A recall has been issued for more than one million Samsung stoves after hundreds of reports of them being turned on accidentally, leading to fires that injured dozens and killed at least seven pets, the Consumer Product Safety Commission said in a statement on Thursday.Customers who own one of the 30 recalled models of Samsung electric ranges that the company has been selling since 2013 will be able to get a free set of knob locks or covers to minimize the risk of ignition by accidental contact with humans or pets, the company said in a statement announcing its voluntary recall on Thursday.More than 1.1 million electric ranges were included in the recall. The ranges were involved in about 250 fires, which led to about 40 injuries. Eight of the injuries needed medical attention, and there were 18 instances of “extensive property damage,” the commission’s statement said.When asked exactly how many pets died, and why it took 11 years since the company started selling the flawed ranges before the recall was issued, a spokeswoman for the commission declined to comment, referring to Samsung and the commission’s website for questions.Christopher Langlois, a spokesman for Samsung, said consumers should be mindful of the risks of accidental contact with range knobs for any stove. They should keep their stove tops clean and clear, keep children and pets away, and make sure that stoves are turned off after cooking, the company said in a statement.Samsung is asking people who have aone of its ranges to contact the company to see if they are eligible for the free, self-install knob locks or covers that reduce the possibility of accidental ignition.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

The case put the legal group on the spot for taking positions on free speech and workers’ rights that seemed at odds with its mission.The American Civil Liberties Union lost a case about offensive speech and workers’ rights — over its own workplace.A judge ruled on Wednesday that the A.C.L.U. had illegally fired an employee, Kate Oh, from her job as senior policy counsel. The group had accused her of using language that was racist and that singled out people of color in the office.Michael A. Rosas, an administrative law judge, said that the A.C.L.U.’s accusation that she had targeted people of color “is not borne out by the facts.” He noted that her complaints were not about colleagues but superiors within the organization, and that she had also complained about white managers.Ms. Oh never uttered a racial slur or invoked race, court filings showed. She said that she considered herself a whistle-blower and advocate for other women in the office, drawing attention to an environment she said was rife with sexism and fear. Her frequent, sometimes intemperate, complaints irritated her bosses, she argued, so they retaliated by firing her.The case placed one of the nation’s leading defenders of workers’ rights under scrutiny for violating the very workplace protections it typically seeks to enforce.The judge ordered the A.C.L.U. to reinstate Ms. Oh, who was fired in May 2022, and to give her back pay.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

You could say that Tim Walz became the Democratic vice-presidential nominee with one weird trick — that is, by using that word to describe Donald Trump and JD Vance, a categorization that went viral. In his maiden campaign speech he upgraded it a bit further to “creepy and weird as hell.” (If you think that’s over the top, have you seen Trump’s bizarre rant speculating about whether Joe Biden is going to seize back his party’s presidential nomination?)But Walz is more than a meme-maker. He has also been an activist governor of Minnesota with a strong progressive agenda. And I’d like to focus on one key element of that agenda: requiring that public and charter schools provide free breakfasts and lunches to all students.Perhaps not incidentally, child care has long been a signature issue for Kamala Harris, and Walz’s policies may have played a role in his selection as her running mate.In any case, free school meals are a big deal in pure policy terms. They have also met fierce Republican opposition. And the partisan divide over feeding students tells you a lot about the difference between the parties, and why you really, really shouldn’t describe the MAGA movement as “populist.”Now, even many conservatives generally support, or at least claim to support, the idea of cheap or free lunches for poor schoolchildren. The National School Lunch Program goes all the way back to 1946, when it passed with bipartisan support and President Harry Truman signed it into law.Why should the government help feed kids? Part of the answer is social justice: Children don’t choose to be born into families that can’t or won’t feed them adequately, and it seems unfair that they should suffer. Part of the answer is pragmatic: Children who don’t receive adequate nutrition will grow up to be less healthy and less productive adults than those who do, hurting society as a whole. So spending on child nutrition is arguably as much an investment in the future as building roads and bridges.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

When protesters first interrupted Vice President Kamala Harris at a rally in Detroit on Wednesday evening, she smiled, with a gentle corrective. “I am speaking now.”But as the disruption continued, her patience ran thin. “You know what?” Ms. Harris said, with the sudden force and resolve of a parent in the driver’s seat who has had it. “If you want Donald Trump to win, then say that. Otherwise, I’m speaking.”As the crowd roared, Ms. Harris stayed silent, jaw set, eyes fixed.The Detroit stare-down was the latest reminder of how Ms. Harris has been able, with an almost theatrical flair, to turn efforts to undermine and rattle her into her own political weapons.She also takes particular umbrage at being interrupted.Viewers might have recalled her 2020 debate with then-Vice President Mike Pence, when she objected to his repeated attempts to cut into her responses. Her left hand went up, palm facing Mr. Pence across the stage. “Mr. Vice President, I am speaking. I am speaking,” she said. When it happened again, she smiled at him: “Mr. Vice President, I am speaking.”Her reaction also suggested a new approach to dealing with the protests that in recent months had tripped up President Biden.In January, protesters calling for a cease-fire in Gaza interrupted President Biden’s speech at a church in Charleston, S.C. “That’s all right, that’s all right,” the president said, as they were escorted out. “Look, folks, I understand their passion.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

The former president’s economic agenda has made some notable reversals from the policies he pushed while in the White House.At his convention speech last month, former President Donald J. Trump declared that his new economic agenda would be built around a plan to eliminate taxes on tips, claiming that the idea would uplift the middle class and provide relief to hospitality workers around the country.“Everybody loves it,” Mr. Trump said to cheers. “Waitresses and caddies and drivers.”While the cost and feasibility of the idea has been questioned by economists and tax analysts, labor experts have noted another irony: As president, Mr. Trump tried to take tips away from workers and give the money to their employers.The reversal is one of many that Mr. Trump has made in his bid to return to the presidency and underscores his malleability in election-year policymaking. From TikTok to cryptocurrencies, the former president has been reinventing his platform on the fly as he aims to attract different swaths of voters. At times, Mr. Trump appears to be staking out new positions to differentiate himself from Ms. Harris or, perhaps, just to please crowds.To close observers of the machinations of Mr. Trump’s first term, the shift on tips, a policy that has become a regular part of his stump speech, has been particularly striking.“Trump is posing as a champion of tipped restaurant workers with his no-tax-on-tips proposal, but his actual record has been to slash protections for tipped workers at a time when they were struggling with a high cost of living,” said Paul Sonn, the director of National Employment Law Project Action, which promotes workers’ rights.In 2017, Mr. Trump’s Labor Department proposed changing federal regulations to allow employers to collect tips that their workers receive and use them for essentially any purpose as long as the workers were paid at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. In theory, the flexibility would make it possible for restaurant owners to ensure that cooks and dishwashers received part of a pool of tip money, but in practice employers could pocket the tips and spend them at their discretion.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More