US Politics

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      US judge delays Trump’s federal 2020 election subversion trial

      by

      A US judge has formally postponed Donald Trump’s trial on federal charges that the former president sought to overturn the 2020 election results.The trial was due to start on 4 March in Washington before the delay ordered from the federal judge Tanya Chutkan.Trial delays in general are not unusual in court cases. The delay in Trump’s trial in particular stems from an appeal by the ex-president that claims he is immune to prosecution for actions taken while he was in the Oval Office.Chutkan had indicated in January that Trump’s original trial date – chosen last summer – would not hold because the case had been frozen by the former president’s appeal.The judge has prohibited prosecutors from filing motions while the appeal is pending and made clear that Trump’s legal team would get a full seven-month period to prepare for the trial. Any time between December and the end of the appeals process would not count against that preparation period, Chutkan has also said.Trump has been grappling with more than 90 criminal charges in various jurisdictions for subversion of the 2020 election, illegal retention of government secrets after he left the Oval Office, and hush-money payments to an adult film actor who has alleged extramarital sex with him.Separately, he has also been ordered to pay about $88m in damages to the former Elle columnist E Jean Carroll after having been found liable of sexually abusing her in a department store dressing room in the mid-1990s as well as defaming her.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionReuters contributed reporting More

    • 188 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      US launches airstrikes on dozens of sites in Iraq and Syria, say officials – live

      by

      US Central Command has said its forces conducted airstrikes in Iraq and Syria against Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Quds Force and affiliated militia groups.The airstrikes were carried out at 4pm eastern time on Friday, it said.It said US military forces struck more than 85 targets including “command and control operations, centers, intelligence centers, rockets, and missiles, and unmanned aired vehicle storages, and logistics and munition supply chain facilities” belonging to militia groups and their IRGC sponsors.The US had warned it will carry out a series of reprisal strikes launched over more than one day in response to the drone strike over the weekend.The US defense secretary, Lloyd Austin, did not specify the timing or precise location of strikes during Pentagon press conference on Thursday, but said:
      We will have a multi-tier response and we have the ability to respond a number of times depending on the situation … We look to hold the people responsible for this accountable and we also seek to take away capability as we go forward.
      Austin insisted that a lot of thought in Washington had gone into ensuring that the US response did not trigger a major escalation.The secretary of defense stressed the US was not at war with Iran and Washington did not know if Tehran was aware of the specific drone strikes on Sunday mounted by what he described as the axis of resistance.Three rounds of airstrikes targeted Iranian militia positions in parts of Deir ez-Zor in eastern Syria, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.There have been casualties as a result, NBC reported that the organisation said.The US launched an air assault on dozens of sites in Iraq and Syria used by Iranian-backed militias, in an opening salvo of retaliation for the drone strike that killed three US service members in Jordan last weekend, officials have told Associated Press.The initial strikes by manned and unmanned aircraft were hitting command and control headquarters, ammunition storage and other facilities, according to AP.US officials have told Reuters that the strikes targeted facilities linked to Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and the militias it backs.The US has begun a wave of retaliatory airstrikes targeting militants in Iraq and Syria, according to reports, in response to a drone attack in northern Jordan which killed three American service personnel and wounded dozens more.The strikes, reported by Associated Press and Reuters, come as Joe Biden joined grieving families at Dover air force base in Delaware on Friday as they honored the three US military personnel killed in the drone attack in Jordan last weekend.The attack on Tower 22 was the first deadly strike against US troops since the Israel-Hamas war erupted in October.Responsibility was claimed by the Iranian-backed umbrella group Islamic Resistance, and the US has made no attempt to disguise its belief that Iran was ultimately responsible. Tehran has insisted it had nothing to do with the attack.Biden told reporters earlier this week that he held Iran responsible “in the sense that they’re supplying the weapons” to Kataib Hezbollah, the most powerful member of the Islamic Resistance group. However, the president added:
      I don’t think we need a wider war in the Middle East. That’s not what I’m looking for. More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      E Jean Carroll lawyer says Trump used coded version of C-word against her

      by

      E Jean Carroll’s attorney says Donald Trump used a coded expression to call her the C-word during a deposition before she helped the magazine columnist win an $83.3m verdict in her defamation case against the former president.Roberta Kaplan shared the anecdote during an appearance on Friday on the George Conway Explains It All podcast, saying it happened while Trump was deposed at his Mar-a-Lago resort as part of an unrelated, since-dismissed case in which he faced accusations of collaborating with a fraudulent marketing company.As Kaplan told it, at the end of the questioning, Trump’s attorneys ensured the two sides were no longer on the record before he looked at her and remarked: “See you next Tuesday.”The phrase is well-known, thinly veiled code for perhaps the most offensive misogynistic insult that can be directed at a woman, combining words that sound like the first two letters of the word – “C” and “U” – along with words that start with the letters “N” and “T”.Kaplan told Conway that she initially didn’t understand the meaning of what Trump said because the opposing sides weren’t scheduled to meet that upcoming Tuesday. “I, thank God, had no idea what that meant, so I said to him, ‘What are you talking about? I’m coming back on Wednesday,’” Kaplan remarked. “Literally, it was an honest answer. I had no idea what he’s talking about.”Colleagues of Kaplan informed her what Trump had meant by saying “see you next Tuesday” once they were all in their car driving away from Trump’s property, she said.“That is a teenage boy-level joke,” the podcast co-host Sarah Longwell said.View image in fullscreenKaplan replied: “Had I known, I for sure would have gotten angry … I looked like I was being above it all, which I wasn’t. I just did not know.”Conway – a conservative attorney formerly married to Trump’s White House counsellor Kellyanne Conway – punctuated Kaplan’s recollections by saying: “So that’s just an amazing story.”According to Kaplan, Trump had also thrown a temper tantrum that day when his legal team offered to provide lunch to Kaplan and her associates.“There was a huge pile of documents, exhibits, sitting in front of him, and he took the pile and he just threw it across the table – and stormed out of the room,” Kaplan said.That claim in particular called to mind another anecdote produced by testimony to the congressional committee that investigated the Capitol attack staged by Trump supporters after he lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden. A former White House aide testified that Trump angrily threw a plate of food at a wall in the White House – smearing it with ketchup – after his attorney general at the time publicly denied that there had been voter fraud in the race won by Biden.Kaplan represented Carroll in a separate legal matter that saw the former Elle magazine writer sue Trump on accusations that he sexually abused her in a department store changing room in the mid-1990s. Carroll’s lawsuit asserted that Trump then defamed her as he attacked her credibility.On 26 January, a jury in federal court in New York awarded Carroll $18.3m in compensatory damages as well as $65m in punitive retribution over defamatory statements that Trump made against her. Those damages were in addition to an award of about $5m that the presumptive 2024 Republican White House nominee was ordered to pay in May after being found liable for abusing Carroll.Trump has said he intends to appeal the recent verdict awarded to Carroll, which came as he grapples with more than 90 criminal charges in various jurisdictions for subversion of the 2020 election, illegal retention of government secrets after he left the Oval Office, and hush-money payments to an adult film actor who has alleged extramarital sex with him.For her part, Kaplan appeared on ABC’s Good Morning America on Monday and expressed confidence that her team would be able to collect the judgment against Trump.“We might not get it right way,” she said. “But one way or the other, he owns a lot of real estate. It can be sold.” More

    • 250 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Fani Willis criticizes ‘wild and reckless’ speculation in conflict of interest claims by former Trump staffer – as it happened

      by

      Despite allegations that prosecutor the Nathan Wade was overpaid for his work on the Georgia election subversion case, his pay was in line with his experience and the complexity of work he did, the Fulton county district attorney, Fani Willis, writes in a court filing.And, contrary to any assertions otherwise, any pay Wade made in the case did not personally benefit Willis, she said. They don’t share any joint accounts or expenses. When they’ve traveled together, they’ve split costs “roughly evenly”.“Both are professionals with substantial income; neither is financially reliant on the other,” the filing says.Willis also says Wade’s employment complied with applicable state and local laws and payments received the proper approvals.The former Trump staffer Michael Roman’s filings alleging the personal relationship should disqualify Willis have engaged in “wild and reckless speculation” and attempts to subpoena a wide net of people connected to Willis and Wade for this purpose is an “extraordinary level of invasion of privacy”, Willis wrote.She wants the motions to disqualify her from the case to be denied by the court “without further spectacle”.Friday afternoon saw the public admission of a relationship between the Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis and the special prosecutor Nathan Wade, which will undoubtedly became a conservative rallying point to discredit the election subversion case against former president Donald Trump.Here’s what happened today:
      Willis and Wade confirmed for the first time on Friday that they had a romantic relationship, but denied any wrongdoing. Willis said she should not be disqualified from the case.
      The response comes after the former Trump staffer Michael Roman’s filings attempting to get Willis booted from the case based on what Willis called “wild and reckless speculation” and an “extraordinary level of invasion of privacy”.
      Trump responded on his social media platform, Truth Social, deflecting from the merits of the case against him: “THAT MEANS THAT THIS SCAM IS TOTALLY DISCREDITED & OVER!”
      Legal experts say the response from Willis and Wade, in which both say they did not share expenses and weren’t financially entangled, should go a long way toward staving off any removals from the case.
      But perceptions of conflicts of interest will play a role in how the case is viewed now, and conservatives will continue to bring up the relationship while the case continues.
      Separately, Willis has been subpoenaed by the chair of the House judiciary committee and Trump ally, Jim Jordan, to produce documents related to the use of federal grant money in prosecutions and the potential misuse of those funds.
      Outside the Willis/Wade/Trump issue, today’s news:
      A federal judge in DC postponed Donald Trump’s March trial on charges of plotting to overturn election as an appeal by Trump claiming immunity from prosecution for actions taken as president goes through the courts. No new date is set.
      The US jobs market defied fears of a downturn again in January with employers adding 353,000 new jobs over the month, the labor department announced on Friday.
      Joe Biden and his wife, Jill, honored the three US service members who were killed in a drone strike in northern Jordan.
      Stories to watch this weekend:
      The lead Democratic negotiator, Senator Chris Murphy, has confirmed that the text of the long-awaited border security bill will be released this weekend and voted on next week.
      The US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, will travel to the Middle East from Sunday to Thursday to work for the release of hostages still held by Hamas and to secure a humanitarian pause, the state department said, according to Reuters.
      Democrats will hold their first official primary contest in South Carolina on Saturday, expected to be an easy win for Biden.
      One last bit of news on Trump’s trials this afternoon:A federal judge in DC postponed Donald Trump’s March trial on charges of plotting to overturn election, the Associated Press reports. No new date is set.Joe Biden and the first lady, Jill Biden, joined grieving families at Dover Air Force Base on a gray, chilly Friday to honor the three American service members killed in a drone attack in Jordan, the Associated Press reports.The Bidens met privately with the families before the roughly 15-minute solemn ritual, called a dignified transfer, that has become relatively uncommon in recent years as the US has withdrawn from conflicts abroad.An air force chaplain offered a short prayer before white-gloved members of the army carry team transferred the flag-draped cases holding the soldiers’ remains from a C-5 Galaxy military transport aircraft to a waiting vehicle. The carry team after placing the last of three cases in the vehicle offered a final salute to the soldiers. The US president, with his right hand over his heart, looked on somberly.The ceremony came as the US military prepared a response to the deadly drone attack that American officials say was carried out by the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, an umbrella group of Iran-backed militias that includes the group Kataib Hezbollah. The White House has said the retaliation will not be a “one-off” strike.The service members killed Sunday were all from Georgia – Sgt William Jerome Rivers of Carrollton, Sgt Kennedy Sanders of Waycross and Sgt Breonna Moffett of Savannah. Sanders and Moffett were posthumously promoted to sergeant rank.Democrats will kick off their primary calendar officially tomorrow, 3 February, with the South Carolina contest.Republicans aren’t holding their presidential election in the state until later this month, but that didn’t stop Nikki Haley, the Republican from South Carolina, from taking aim at the Democrats.Haley is running a mobile billboard in Orangeburg focused on vice-president Kamala Harris. Harris is not running for president, but the billboard calls attention to her position as second in line for the role.“We’re going to have a woman president,” the billboard says. “It will either be Nikki Haley, or it will be Kamala Harris. Trump can’t beat Biden, and Biden won’t finish his term.”Haley campaign spokesperson Olivia Perez-Cubas said the billboard highlights the choice between the two women, saying “a vote for Donald Trump is a vote for Kamala Harris”.The US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, will travel to the Middle East from Sunday to Thursday to work for the release of hostages still held by Hamas and to secure a humanitarian pause, the state department said, according to Reuters.The trip will include stops in Israel, the West Bank, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Qatar, it said.Some legal experts say the affidavit from the special prosecutor Nathan Wade and filing from the Fulton county district attorney, Fani Willis, where both say they did not share expenses and weren’t financially entangled, should go a long way toward staving off any removals from the case.But, as the Guardian’s Sam Levine has reported, there’s still an issue of a perception of conflict. Trump and his allies are sure to continue this line of attack on Willis and use it to discredit the case overall, regardless of any dismissals.The former president Donald Trump, the main target of the Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis’s extensive election subversion case, has commented on Willis’s admission that she had a personal relationship with prosecutor Nathan Wade.On social media platform Truth Social, Trump repeated the allegations that Willis’s hiring of Wade enriched her personally, a claim Willis has denied.“By going after the most high level person, and the Republican Nominee, she was able to get her ‘lover’ much more money, almost a Million Dollars, than she would be able to get for the prosecution of any other person or individual. THAT MEANS THAT THIS SCAM IS TOTALLY DISCREDITED & OVER!”In an affidavit included in Fani Willis’s court filing about the alleged conflict of interest motion, the prosecutor Nathan Wade detailed how he came on board to help with the Georgia election subversion investigation and his personal relationship with Willis.Wade said the role of special prosecutor paid well below his typical hourly rate – $250 an hour, with a capped number of hours, compared to his normal $550 an hour for previous government legal work. He said he initially tried to help Willis find other lawyers willing to do the work, but many had “concerns related to violent rhetoric and potential safety issues for their families”.None of the money he’s earned working the case has benefitted Willis, he wrote in the affidavit. They don’t share expenses and have never lived together.“At times I have made and purchased travel for District Attorney Willis and myself from my personal funds. At other times District Attorney Willis has made and purchased travel for she and I from her personal funds,” he wrote.Despite allegations that prosecutor the Nathan Wade was overpaid for his work on the Georgia election subversion case, his pay was in line with his experience and the complexity of work he did, the Fulton county district attorney, Fani Willis, writes in a court filing.And, contrary to any assertions otherwise, any pay Wade made in the case did not personally benefit Willis, she said. They don’t share any joint accounts or expenses. When they’ve traveled together, they’ve split costs “roughly evenly”.“Both are professionals with substantial income; neither is financially reliant on the other,” the filing says.Willis also says Wade’s employment complied with applicable state and local laws and payments received the proper approvals.The former Trump staffer Michael Roman’s filings alleging the personal relationship should disqualify Willis have engaged in “wild and reckless speculation” and attempts to subpoena a wide net of people connected to Willis and Wade for this purpose is an “extraordinary level of invasion of privacy”, Willis wrote.She wants the motions to disqualify her from the case to be denied by the court “without further spectacle”.We’re reading through the court filing from Fani Willis, the Georgia prosecutor, now. The full document posted today can be found online here.Some interesting context:In the filing, Willis points out two interpersonal relationships between defense attorneys working for those charged in the sprawling Trump election case.The attorney for the defendant Ray Smith and the attorney for the defendant Kenneth Chesebro are “publicly known to be in a personal relationship”, the filing says. And the two counsels for Jenna Ellis are “married law partners”.The state didn’t try to make these relationships a conflict-of-interest issue in the case because these kinds of relationships don’t constitute a legal conflict. Until Michael Roman filed a motion alleging the relationship between Willis and Wade was worthy of disqualification, “the private lives of the attorney participants in this trial was not a topic of discussion”, the filing says.The Fulton county district attorney, Fani Willis, and Nathan Wade, a special prosecutor working on the case against Donald Trump and 14 other defendants, confirmed for the first time on Friday that they had a romantic relationship, but denied any wrongdoing and Willis said she should not be disqualified from the case.“In 2022, District Attorney Willis and I developed a personal relationship in addition to our professional association and friendship,” Wade wrote in an affidavit attached to a motion Willis filed in court on Friday. He was hired to work on the Trump case in 2021.Willis wrote in a filing she had no personal or financial conflict of interest that “constitutes a legal basis for disqualification”. She urged Judge Scott McAfee, who is overseeing the case, to dismiss a request to disqualify her without a hearing, which is scheduled for 15 February. She wrote:
      While the allegations raised in the various motions are salacious and garnered the media attention they were designed to obtain, none provide this Court with any basis upon which to order the relief they seek.
      Michael Roman, a seasoned Republican operative and one of the defendants in the wide ranging racketeering case against Trump and associates for trying to overturn the election, is seeking Willis’s disqualification. He alleges that Roman used money he earned from his work in Willis’s office on the case to pay for vacations for the two of them.The Biden-Harris campaign has said the strong job figures released today should be a reminder to Americans what the economy looked liked under his predecessor.Donald Trump “oversaw the worst jobs record since the Great Depression and his only economic ‘accomplishment’ was giving billionaires and corporations tax handouts at the expense of middle-class families”, the campaign’s rapid response director, Ammar Moussa, said in a statement.The statement continues:
      Now, [Trump is] rooting for the economy to crash because he thinks it’ll help him politically – but that’s exactly what will happen if he’s able to regain power. We know because that’s what happened last time.
      Joe Biden and his wife, Jill, have arrived at Dover air force base to honor the three US service members who were killed in a drone strike in northern Jordan.The Bidens arrived at the base to witness the transfer of the remains of the troops killed in Sunday’s assault. They have been named by the Pentagon as Sgt William Jerome Rivers, 46, Specialist Kennedy Sanders, 24, and Specialist Breonna Alexsondria Moffett, 23.Defense secretary Lloyd Austin and Gen CQ Brown, chair of the joint chiefs of staff, joined the president and first lady for the transfer in Dover.All three of the troops who died were army reservists from 926th Engineer Brigade, based in the US state of Georgia: Rivers was from Carrollton, Sanders from Waycross and Moffett from Savannah.The deaths marked the first time American military personnel have been killed by hostile fire in the Middle East since the start of the Israel-Hamas war on 7 October.Only a quarter of Americans say they feel the economy is starting to recover from the problems of the past few years, according to a new poll released as new figures show the US job market added 353,000 new jobs in January, defying fears of a downturn.The CNN poll released today shows 26% of Americans say they feel the economy is beginning to recover, up from 20% last summer and 17% in December 2022.But nearly half, 48%, say they believe the US economy is still in a downturn, citing inflation and the cost of living, as well as expenses such as food and housing.Overall, more than half, 55%, of Americans say they feel Joe Biden’s policies have worsened the country’s economic conditions. The poll found split views along partisan lines: of those who say the economy is recovering, nearly three-quarters say Biden policies have helped. Out of those who say things are getting worse, 83% blame the president’s policies.The lead Democratic negotiator, Senator Chris Murphy, has confirmed that the text of the long-awaited border security bill will be released this weekend and voted on next week.The Democratic congressman Dan Goldman has said he is “disgusted” by the news that the House judiciary committee has subpoenaed Fani Willis.A statement from the New York congressman reads:
      I am utterly disgusted but sadly not surprised by Chairman Jordan’s latest attempt to subvert our country’s rule of law by weaponizing Congress’s authority to interfere in an ongoing criminal prosecution for nakedly political purposes.
      In his blatant attempt to save Donald Trump, his party’s indicted criminal defendant presidential nominee, from legal peril, Chairman Jordan has yet again abused the authority of the Judiciary Committee to attempt to undermine a state prosecution.
      Make no mistake, this is the true ‘weaponization of the federal government,’ unlike Chairman Jordan’s Select Subcommittee of the same name in which he has wasted countless hours peddling baseless conspiracy theories to no avail.
      The back and forth between Jim Jordan and Fani Willis began last year with correspondence Jordan sent on 24 August, the day Donald Trump stood for a mugshot at the Fulton county jail.Jordan’s letter suggested Willis had subjected Trump to “politically motivated state investigations and prosecutions due to the policies they advanced as president”, and that any coordination her office had with federal prosecutors may have been an improperly partisan use of federal money.Willis’s scorching response in subsequent replies said the inquiry offends principles of state sovereignty and the separation of powers, that it interferes with a criminal investigation, that Trump is not immune to prosecution simply because he is a candidate for public office and that Jordan himself was “ignorant of the US constitution”.The Republican-led committee opened a formal investigation into the Fulton county prosecutor’s office in December.Willis has been under fire over the last month after allegations of an improper relationship with the special prosecutor Nathan Wade, whom she hired to work on the Trump case in Fulton county.Jordan sent a letter to Nathan Wade on 12 January, asking for his cooperation in his committee’s inquiry into “politically motivated investigations and prosecutions and the potential misuse of federal funds”. The letter notes Wade’s billings for meetings with the federal January 6 Committee, which the letter characterizes as partisan. The letter states:
      There are open questions about whether federal funds were used by [Fulton county] to finance your prosecution.
      Willis responded on Wade’s behalf twelve days later.“Your letter is simply a restatement of demands that you have made in past correspondence for access to evidence in a pending Georgia criminal prosecution,” she said in the reply.
      As I said previously, your requests implicate significant, well-recognized confidentiality interests related to an ongoing criminal matter. Your requests violate principles of separation of powers and federalism, as well as respect for the legal protections provided to attorney work product in ongoing litigation.
      The US House judiciary committee subpoenaed Fani Willis, the Fulton county district attorney, for records related to the use of federal grant money in prosecutions and the potential misuse of those funds.The subpoena escalates conflict between Jim Jordan, the Ohio Republican representative, judiciary committee chairman and an ardent defender of Donald Trump, and Willis, whose office charged the former president and 18 others with 41 counts for interfering with a Georgia election and illegally attempting to undo Biden’s victory in Georgia.Willis responded to the subpoena on Friday:
      These false allegations are included in baseless litigation filed by a holdover employee from the prior administration who was terminated for cause. The courts that have ruled found no merit in these claims. We expect the same result in any pending litigation.
      She then went on to tout the office grant programs and said they are in compliance with Department of Justice requirements. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Fani Willis confirms relationship with prosecutor on 2020 Trump election case

      by

      The Fulton county district attorney, Fani Willis, and Nathan Wade, a special prosecutor working on the case against Donald Trump and 14 other defendants, confirmed for the first time on Friday they had a romantic relationship. But they denied any wrongdoing and Willis said she should not be disqualified from the case.“In 2022, District Attorney Willis and I developed a personal relationship in addition to our professional association and friendship,” Wade wrote in an affidavit attached to a 176-page motion Willis filed in court on Friday. Notably, Wade said the relationship developed after he was hired to work on the Trump case in 2021.Willis wrote in the filing she had no personal or financial conflict of interest that “constitutes a legal basis for disqualification”. She urged Judge Scott McAfee, who is overseeing the case, to dismiss a request to disqualify her without a hearing, currently set for 15 February.“While the allegations raised in the various motions are salacious and garnered the media attention they were designed to obtain, none provide this court with any basis upon which to order the relief they seek,” she wrote.Michael Roman, a seasoned Republican operative and one of the defendants in the wide-ranging racketeering case against Trump and associates for trying to overturn the election, is seeking Willis’s disqualification. He alleges that Wade used money he earned from his work in Willis’s office on the case to pay for vacations for the two of them. Trump and Robert Cheeley, another defendant, have also joined Roman’s request to dismiss the case.Legal experts are largely dubious of Roman’s request to disqualify Willis.“The filing effectively ended any question I had about what Judge McAfee should and will do. The motion to dismiss and disqualify will be roundly and easily rejected. My only question now is whether other defendants will slowly back away from the Roman motion given how effectively the DA dispatched with the allegations of serious wrongdoing,” said Anthony Michael Kreis, a law professor at Georgia State University.But the confirmation of a relationship with Wade could still do serious harm to Willis in terms of the politics of the case, undermining the credibility of her judgment in the public’s view. The fact that Willis did not disclose the relationship publicly before Roman’s filing, and did not respond to the allegation for weeks, could also leave the impression she was trying to conceal it from public view. Trump, who has already taunted Willis over the relationship, is also likely to dig in.Meanwhile, even though he may not have done anything wrong legally, some experts have called for Wade to step aside in order to protect the public perception of the case.There is no evidence that the relationship resulted in any financial gain for Willis, the district attorney wrote in her filing. She noted they had no joint bank accounts or shared expenses and were not financially dependent on each other. While Wade has purchased travel for Willis with his personal funds, she also noted that she had done the same for him.“Financial responsibility for personal travel taken is divided roughly evenly between the two, with neither being primarily responsible for expenses of the other, and all expenses paid for with individual personal funds,” Willis wrote in the filing.A personal relationship between two lawyers also is not enough to disqualify a prosecutor, Willis wrote. She noted that some of the lawyers for various defendants in the case were either married or in a personal relationship. She noted Roman had offered no evidence their relationship affected prosecuting the case in any way.“The existence of a relationship between members of a prosecution team, in and of itself, is simply not a status that entitles a criminal defendant any remedy,” she wrote.Willis also rebuffed an additional argument by Trump’s attorneys that she should be disqualified because of comments she made at a Black church saying attacks on her were racist. Trump had used those comments to suggest the prosecution against him was racially motivated.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“The motion makes no serious legal argument, establishes no violation of any ethical rule, and makes no real effort to link the public statements to the legal standard for disqualification,” she wrote. “Instead, much like the motion advanced by … Defendant Roman, Defendant Trump’s motion appears designed to generate media attention rather than accomplish some form of legitimate legal practice. It should be dismissed out of hand.”Steve Sadow, Trump’s lead attorney in Fulton county, dismissed Willis’s filing.“While the DA admits to an intimate relationship with her employee Special Asst DA Wade, she fails to provide full transparency and necessary financial details. Indeed, she says absolutely nothing about the so-called ‘coincidence’ of Wade filing for divorce the day after the DA hired him!” he said in a statement.“Most significantly, and disingenuously, the DA attempts to explain and downplay her ‘church speech’, by preposterously claiming that her racially charged extra-judicial comments were somehow not about the case or the defendants, and that her intentional injection of racial animus in violation of her ethical responsibilities as a prosecutor should simply be ignored,” he added.“Apparently, the DA believes she can make public out-of-court statements about race, this case, and the defendants whenever she wants, and the court is powerless to punish her by disqualification.”Shortly after the filing, Trump distorted what Willis had said into falsehoods and used it to attack her. In a post on Truth Social, his social media platform, he said: “By going after the most high level person, and the Republican Nominee, she was able to get her ‘lover’ much more money, almost a Million Dollars, than she would be able to get for the prosecution of any other person or individual. THAT MEANS THAT THIS SCAM IS TOTALLY DISCREDITED & OVER!”Willis’s filing on Friday details how Wade stepped away from lucrative other legal work to handle the case and took on a reduced governmental rate to work on the case. More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Fani Willis: what does relationship with Trump prosecutor mean for Georgia case?

      by

      The case brought against Donald Trump in Georgia is a powerful, sprawling indictment that charges the former US president and his top allies with violating the state’s racketeering statute over their efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.In January, the case was roiled by an explosive complaint filed by Trump’s co-defendant Michael Roman, who alleged that a secret personal relationship between the Fulton county district attorney, Fani Willis, and her deputy Nathan Wade, amounted to a conflict of interest that warranted their disqualification.The latest twist in the weeks-long saga came on Friday, when Willis acknowledged in a court filing that she had a relationship with Wade, but that it began after he had been retained to work on the Trump case.Here’s what you need to know.What has just happened?Willis and Wade, a special prosecutor working on the case against Trump and 14 other defendants, confirmed for the first time on Friday they had a romantic relationship. Previously, evidence had emerged in Wade’s divorce proceedings that he had used some of the more than $650,000 he earned from his work for her to pay for vacations for the two of them. Bank records showed Wade had paid for tickets for the pair to go to California in 2023 and Miami in 2022.What do the Trump team argue?Trump’s allies and lawyers allege that the relationship between the district attorney and one of her top prosecutors on the team is an improper one that affects the investigation. That is important as the Georgia case was seen as a powerful blow to the former US president, with a strong chance of finding him guilty for his actions in 2020. Because the case is in Georgia state court, it is also immune from Trump’s interference should he win the 2024 election.What could that mean for the case?There is little doubt that Trump’s lawyers will now seek to exploit this situation and use it to undermine the credibility of the case and delay the proceedings. But experts have generally been skeptical the relationship will result in disqualification or getting the case removed.Even if nothing were to happen legally because of the scandal, it offers huge political ammunition to Trump to argue that the case is flawed and motivated by politics and personal ambition. In an election year, that could be crucial.What does Willis say?Willis wrote in the Friday filing that she had no personal or financial conflict of interest that “constitutes a legal basis for disqualification” and urged McAfee to dismiss the request to disqualify her without a hearing.She noted that Roman had failed to offer any evidence that the relationship affected any decisions of the case. The mere existence of a relationship, she wrote, was not grounds for disqualification. She noted that some of the defense lawyers in the case were married or had personal relationships.She also noted that neither she nor Wade benefited financially from the prosecution. The two do not have a joint bank account or other shared expenses. And when they travel together for personal reasons, they split the costs and bear their own expenses, her office wrote.“While the allegations raised in the various motions are salacious and garnered the media attention they were designed to obtain, none provide this Court with any basis upon which to order the relief they seek,” she wrote.What happens next?A hearing has been set for 15 February by the Fulton county superior court judge Scott McAfee, who is overseeing the case. McAfee is expected to decide based on the evidence presented then whether Willis should be disqualified, either because he finds there is an actual conflict of interest, or because he finds an appearance of impropriety, a lower standard that has been previously used in some cases.If McAfee decides to reject Roman’s motion to disqualify Willis, Roman could challenge his ruling at the Georgia state court of appeals, a move that would almost certainly delay the case by weeks or months, setting back the start of a potential trial. A trial date has not been set for Trump and his co-defendants.If McAfee decides to grant Roman’s motion and relieves Willis and her office from prosecuting the case, it would be handed to the Prosecuting Attorneys Council of Georgia, which would then appoint a replacement prosecutor. More

    • 275 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      A message to Starmer from the US: ditching your £28bn climate plan isn’t just cowardly – it’s bad politics | Kate Aronoff

      by

      It’s hard, from the US, to feel all that confident about the state of our climate policies. The Inflation Reduction Act – the Biden White House’s trademark legislative achievement, which revolved around green investments – was a major accomplishment. Still, the US is breaking new records for its production and export of fossil fuels, last year extracting more oil and gas than ever before. Even more worrying is just how tenuous the country’s modest progress on the climate feels in advance of November’s presidential election: Donald Trump continues to lead Joe Biden in just about every poll.However, at the very least, the Biden administration has set a bar for the scale of green investment that centre-left parties should undertake. The same can’t be said of the Labour party, which has reportedly now scrapped its laudable £28bn green spending pledge in favour of some bizarre fealty to its leadership’s own strange idea of fiscal responsibility. So what can Labour learn from the Democratic president’s approach?To his great credit, Biden took seriously the need to win over progressive supporters of his main opponent in the Democratic primary in 2020. Bernie Sanders was an early adopter of the climate movement’s calls for a “green new deal”, laying out an expansive $16tn plan to tackle global heating and inequality. Biden’s $3.5tn Build Back Better agenda, produced with Sanders and his supporters in consultative roles, was decidedly not a green new deal. It did, however, reflect that platform’s most valuable components, positing climate action as a job creator and driver of 21st-century economic dynamism. Inherent in that was a willingness to spend lots of money, fast, on the things that matter.Almost as soon as Biden took office, however, climate advocates in the US watched the White House’s already too modest jobs and climate agenda get whittled down to what eventually became the Inflation Reduction Act’s roughly $400bn in new spending on climate and environmental priorities. It’s a shamefully slender programme, given how wealthy the US is, and its outsized historical responsibility for the climate crisis. But it’s also the best we might have hoped for, given the political influence of a fossil fuel industry that’s captured the Republican party virtually wholesale, along with key Democrats such as the West Virginia senator, Joe Manchin.Without the idiosyncrasies that weakened US climate policy, why do some members of the Labour party seem so keen to negotiate against themselves? The party’s £28bn a year green prosperity plan has now been dropped, thanks to the political cowardice of people such as the shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves, who was already distancing herself from the policy in an interview with LBC earlier this week. The Labour veteran and podcast host Ed Balls suggested the problem with the plan was the number attached to it – urging Starmer and Reeves to “U-turn” away from it, so as to project fiscal responsibility and deflect repeated attacks from the right that Starmer would raise taxes to fund it. The party establishment is clearly spooked by the spectre of rightwing attacks, as Labour’s latest move so clearly shows.If the US can offer any lessons about how to deal with a right wing yammering on about how green policies allegedly hurt “ordinary people” while preaching painful austerity, it’s that it won’t give you a lick of credit for giving in to its ideas. Neither, moreover, will voters. The planet is even less forgiving. The costs of the climate crisis far outweigh the costs of acting on it. Under present policies, the climate crisis could cost the UK 3.3% of GDP a year by 2050. By 2100, that jumps to 7.4% of GDP a year; in today’s terms, that would be about £168bn.Labour needn’t look to the future, though, to make a straightforward case for going big on green spending. The Conservatives’ long-running war on good climate policy has already made life more expensive for working-class Britons. David Cameron’s bid to cut the “green crap” entailed doing away with a successful home insulation programme in 2013. And the average household could be paying gas bills of up to £400 lower if the Tories hadn’t axed the energy price guarantee scheme.While Labour’s green prosperity plan was designed with the Inflation Reduction Act in mind, there was an opportunity for Starmer to improve on it by emphasising the short-term benefits, such as the money households could save from national home insulation projects. Though it’s a hot topic among wonkish types in the US, UK and other parts of Europe, very few people here could tell you what the Inflation Reduction Act actually is. As of last August – a year on from the act’s passage – 71% of US residents said they knew “little or nothing” about it. Why is the White House’s high-profile accomplishment so far from most Americans’ minds? For one, the consultancy McKinsey has found that $216bn of the act’s $394bn in climate and energy-related tax credits will flow to corporations. Meanwhile, many benefits, such as incentives for pricey items such as electric vehicles and solar panels, are completely inaccessible to lower-income people and renters, who account for about 36% of US households.Driving investment in low-carbon energy and technologies makes a lot of sense: green industries grew four times faster than the rest of the British economy in 2020-21. But courting private-sector investment in green industries above all else – a sadly salient critique of the Inflation Reduction Act – threatens to leave voters in the dark about the benefits of climate action to their pockets. An active green industrial strategy should go hand in hand with an expansion of the public goods, services and planning capacities it will need to succeed. Upgrading public transit infrastructure and ensuring an abundant, affordable supply of low-carbon energy will be key to the success of the emerging green industries. More important, though, is that these can be the foundation on which Labour – should it ever choose to – builds both a broadly shared green prosperity and its electoral mandate for ever-stronger climate policies.The last few years of climate policymaking in the US point to at least one clear conclusion: Reeves and those who pushed to kill Labour’s green spending pledge are dead wrong. Labour should be sparing no expense on reducing emissions and improving livelihoods; if anything, £28bn a year is much too little. If party top brass can summon even an ounce of political courage they’ll make another U-turn away from disastrous, outdated economic orthodoxy and revive their more ambitious climate plans. Should that happen, the party can make voters acutely aware of the choice before them – to live a good, green life under Labour, or to let another Tory government take away more of their hard-earned money. Otherwise, the differences between Tory and Labour rule will keep getting harder and harder to spot.
      Kate Aronoff is a staff writer at the New Republic, a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute and the author of Overheated: How Capitalism Broke the Planet – And How We Fight Back More

    • 263 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      When Mark Zuckerberg can face US senators and claim the moral high ground, we’re through the looking glass | Marina Hyde

      by

      Did you catch a clip of the tech CEOs in Washington this week? The Senate judiciary committee had summoned five CEOs to a hearing titled Big Tech and the Online Child Sexual Exploitation Crisis. There was Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, TikTok’s Shou Zi Chew, Snapchat’s Evan Spiegel, Discord’s Jason Citron and X’s Linda Yaccarino – and a predictable vibe of “Senator, I’m a parent myself …” Listen, these moguls simply want to provide the tools to help families and friends connect with each other. Why must human misery and untold, tax-avoidant billions attend them at every turn?If you did see footage from the hearing, it was probably one of two moments of deliberately clippable news content. Ranking committee member Lindsey Graham addressed Zuckerberg with the words: “I know you don’t mean it to be so, but you have blood on your hands.” Well, ditto, Senator. “You have a product that is killing people,” continued Graham, who strangely has yet to make the same point to the makers of whichever brand of AR-15 he proudly owns, or indeed to the makers of the assault rifles responsible for another record high of US school shootings last year. Firearms fatalities are the number one cause of death among US children and teenagers, a fact the tech CEOs at this hearing politely declined to mention, because no one likes a whatabouterist. And after all, the point of these things is to just get through the posturing of politicians infinitely less powerful than you, then scoot back to behaving precisely as you were before. Zuckerberg was out of there in time to report bumper results and announce Meta’s first ever dividend on Thursday. At time of writing, its shares were soaring.Anyhow, if it wasn’t that clip, maybe it was the one of Zuckerberg being goaded by sedition fist-pumper Josh Hawley into apologising to those in the committee room audience who had lost children to suicide following exploitation on his platform. Thanks to some stagey prodding by Senator Hawley, who famously encouraged the mob on 6 January 2020 (before later being filmed running away from them after they stormed the Capitol), Zuckerberg turned round, stood up, and faced his audience of the bereaved. “I’m sorry for everything you’ve all gone through,” he began. Helpfully, a transcribed version of this off-the-cuff moment found its way into a Meta press release minutes after the event.View image in fullscreenSo I guess that was the hearing. “Tense”, “heated”, “stunning” – listen, if adjectival cliches were legislation, this exercise would have been something more than pointless. And yet, they’re not and it wasn’t. There really ought to be a genre name for this kind of performative busywork – the theatre of failure, perhaps.Other outcomes were once available. Back in 1994, the CEOs of seven big tobacco firms took their oaths before a Senate committee, then spouted a communal line that nicotine wasn’t addictive. Within two years, all seven had quit the tobacco industry – a development not unrelated to the fact that all seven were under investigation by the justice department for perjury. Those were different times, and not just because we probably wouldn’t slap them with the “seven dwarfs” moniker now. These days, you can’t escape the sense that old guys were shouting at Zuckerberg at a hearing six years ago, while he offered 2018’s variation on his favourite blandishment: “We know we have more work to do”. And you suspect they’ll be shouting at him again in five years’ time, when he will still know they have more work to do. “If you’re waiting on these guys to solve the problem,” sniffed Graham of the tech CEOs, “we’re gonna die waiting.” Again, the senator speaks of what he knows. There is always talk of legislation, but there is never really much legislation.There’s a line near the start of the movie version of Ready Player One, the cult dystopian book about a VR world that weirdly feels like the lodestar for Zuckerberg’s pivot towards the metaverse: “I was born in 2027,” explains the teenage protagonist, “after the corn syrup droughts, after the bandwidth riots … after people stopped trying to fix problems, and just tried to outlive them.” It was hard to watch any amount of Wednesday’s hearing – it’s hard to watch a lot of news about the intersection of politics and mega-business these days, in fact – and not feel we are in a very similar place. Few of the politicians giving it the hero act could be said to have left the world in a better place than the one in which they found it when they took office. A necrotic form of politics has gripped the Republican party in particular, and this is the vacuum in which they have been downgraded by corporations they don’t even understand, let alone have the will, foresight, or political skill to control.“Companies over countries,” as Mark Zuckerberg said a long time ago. This once-unformed thought becomes more realised all the time, with the Meta boss last year explaining that, “Increasingly, the real world is a combination of the physical world we inhabit and the digital world we are building.” The added irony is that the more the Lindsey Grahams fail the real world, the more people retreat further into the unregulated embrace of the worlds that the Mark Zuckerbergs run. It’s going to take so much more than the theatre of failure to solve it – but bad actors currently dominate the bill.
      Marina Hyde is a Guardian columnist More