Donald Trump trials

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Trump makes last effort to keep hidden January 6 case evidence before election

      by

      Donald Trump’s lawyers made a last-ditch effort on Tuesday to limit the amount of evidence that could become public that special counsel prosecutors collected during their criminal investigation into the former US president’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.The prosecutors last week filed under seal a brief, which may be as long as 180 pages, to presiding US district judge Tanya Chutkan that defends the viability of the charges against Trump even after the US supreme court’s presidential immunity ruling.Simultaneously, the prosecutors asked the judge to allow them to file a public version of the secret brief with quotations and references to grand jury testimony from some of Trump’s closest aides, such as his former chief of staff, and his former vice-president, Mike Pence.To protect the integrity of proceedings and to protect lesser-known witnesses, the prosecutors said they intended in their public filing to redact specific names and use job titles to give context to the information being referenced.The kinds of identifiers being proposed by prosecutors include, according to their filing: “Campaign Manager”, “Arizona’s Governor”, “Senior Campaign Advisor”, “executive assistant”, “the Defendant’s Chief of Staff”, “Georgia Attorney General” and “Chairwoman of the Republican National Committee”.View image in fullscreenOn Tuesday, Trump’s lawyers bitterly complained that the redactions were so specific that it would make public identification of the witnesses easy, accusing prosecutors of trying to damage Trump’s presidential campaign with fewer than five weeks until election day.“In numerous instances, the redactions and pseudonyms proposed by the Special Counsel’s Office fail to meaningfully mitigate the privacy and safety issues the Office references in the Motion and has previously discussed at length,” the Trump lawyers wrote.Trump’s lawyers also claimed that prosecutors were adopting a double standard over redactions: in the case they brought against Trump in Florida over his retention of classified documents, which has since been dismissed, prosecutors pushed for no identifying information whatsoever.“Use of functionally impotent redactions is flatly inconsistent with the Office’s approach to other filings here and in the Southern District of Florida, where they sought to anonymize even ‘Ancillary Names’ based on privacy concerns,” the Trump lawyers wrote.The situation reflects a role reversal for Trump and the special counsel. When it was more expedient for Trump to have witnesses identified in the documents case, so they could complain about the case in public, Trump pushed for looser redactions.But now that it is against Trump’s interests to have the identities of former officials who testified against him become public, Trump has sought for more restrictive redactions that would make public scrutiny of his plot to overturn the 2020 election harder.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe special counsel’s filing and Trump’s objections come in the aftermath of the supreme court conferring broad immunity from criminal prosecutions to former presidents for actions that related to their official duties in office.As part of the decision, the court’s conservative supermajority ordered Chutkan to sort through the indictment and decide which of the allegations against Trump should be tossed because of the immunity rules and which could remain and proceed to trial.The special counsel’s opening brief was the first round of that process that could take months to resolve and involve hearings to decide what allegations should be kept. Much of the evidence Smith uses to make his case come from sensitive sources, such as grand jury testimony, which are secret.Chutkan has the power to decide how much of the indictment should be kept as well as how much of the special counsel’s evidence can be unsealed to make her determination, although much of the evidence became public knowledge during the House January 6 committee’s hearings two years ago. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘The US lost its shame muscle’: why sex no longer scandalizes in politics

      by

      Earlier this year, at Donald Trump’s hush-money trial, adult film star Stormy Daniels told jurors how at age 27, she met a 60-year-old Trump, whose wife had only recently given birth to their son, for what she thought was dinner. She arrived to find him in satin pyjamas and, during an encounter that included very “brief” sex, the business magnate told Daniels that she reminded him of his daughter, Ivanka.I’m not dragging all this up again to put you off your dinner. I’m bringing it up to remind you that, while all these sordid details made headlines and generated jokes on late-night talkshows, they didn’t move the needle with Trump’s voters at all. His base, which includes evangelical Christians, simply didn’t care. Nor were they bothered about Trump’s association with Mark Robinson, the disgraced Republican candidate running to be North Carolina’s next governor who was allegedly once active on a porn forum called Nude Africa where he boasted about being a “perv”.The 2024 US elections may have provided a constant stream of revelations ranging from the mildly salacious to the downright disturbing. It’s not just Trump: there’s the recent reports of New York magazine star reporter Olivia Nuzzi having a personal relationship with Robert F Kennedy Jr during his presidential run and sitting representative Matt Gaetz being investigated for human trafficking and paying for sex with minors. Yet despite the many lurid and often unpleasant details, political sex scandals just don’t seem to have much bite anymore.“We have lost our shame muscle in the United States,” says Dr Alison Dagnes, professor of the political science department at Shippensburg University. She argues that because politicians aren’t shamed into retiring from public life, details of these scandals remain mostly rumors and fade from the public memory. “Certain politicians are realizing that if you don’t apologize for something, then nobody can use it against you again. For those who are shameless, that is a very effective way to get through life.”It hasn’t always been like this. Being embroiled in a sex scandal used to swing an election or destroy a candidate. In 1987, Gary Hart was the presumed Democratic presidential candidate – until reports of “womanizing” and being caught in an affair derailed his campaign. In 2008, North Carolina senator John Edwards, a star in the Democratic party, was on a path to the presidency until he was caught covering up an extramarital affair that resulted in a child. His career imploded and he vanished from public life.In 2014, the Washington Post analysed 38 sex scandals going back to 1974 and found that “just 39 percent of officeholders won reelection after coming under scrutiny for sexual harassment, affairs or prostitution, while the rest chose not to run, resigned or lost”. While Bill Clinton may have survived his affair (if you can call the most powerful man in the world preying on an intern an “affair”) with Monica Lewinsky in the 1990s, he seems to have made the US a little less tolerant of impropriety. “The survival rate [for sex scandals] has plummeted since Bill Clinton’s presidency. In 15 scandals since 2000, just three officeholders (or 20 percent) facing personal scandals have won reelection,” the Post noted. It added: “It’s unclear why personal scandals that were once shrugged off … are more consequential today.”Clearly, things have changed again since then. Partly this is due to the fact that America’s trust in media has fallen to historic lows in recent years – a phenomenon that is linked to growing polarization. Jay Van Bavel, a professor of neural science at New York University and an expert in “the partisan brain”, notes that “people don’t trust institutions and media sources that aren’t aligned with them ideologically”. Many of Trump’s supporters simply don’t believe his accusers, and don’t believe the media sources reporting on his actions.Even if people do believe allegations about a politician, says Van Bavel, “they’re willing to excuse bad behaviour and continue voting for a person or party member because they don’t want the other party to take power”. A 2020 study that he worked on, alongside 14 other prominent researchers, looked at survey data since the 1970s and found that, for the first time, contempt for the other political party is greater than affection for one’s own. Voting behaviour is now essentially driven by who you hate the most.Trump, of course, is well aware of this. In 2016, the former president joked that he could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and he still wouldn’t lose any voters.But Trump is a unique case. There may have been a loosening of America’s moral compass but there are still lines that most politicians can’t cross.Some of these lines are dictated by a cultural moment. See, for example, Democratic senator Al Franken, who resigned in 2017 because of sexual misconduct allegations. Were it not for the fact that it was the start of #MeToo and Franken was a Democrat, he could probably have weathered the accusations, suggests Jodi Dean, a professor in the political science department at Hobart and William Smith Colleges. But “it seems like a Democratic base want purity”. And “Franken had a sense of shame”, so he stepped down.Mixing sex and taxpayer money also makes a scandal more difficult to weather. “If it is an issue that’s a private matter, the American public is more likely to let it go,” Dagnes notes. “But if there’s some sort of official corruption involved, then they’re less likely to.” Dagnes references the recent case of Republican Anthony D’Esposito who, according to a New York Times investigation, put his fiancee’s daughter and a woman with whom he was having an affair on his payroll.“I would expect D’Esposito to really take a big polling hit,” says Dagnes. “This isn’t just: ‘My fiancee and I were going through a really difficult time’ – it’s a case of: ‘I feel so emboldened that I’m going to put my mistress and my fiancee’s daughter on my payroll,’ which is paid by the American taxpayer. That makes voters feel duped.”Gender also plays a part in how sex scandals are received, with women routinely being held to far higher standards than men. Dagnes notes, for example, that the right has been trying very hard to manufacture a scandal out of the fact that Kamala Harris, who was single at the time, had a relationship with San Francisco mayor Willie Brown, who was also single at the time, in the 1990s. Somehow they think this makes her “a slut”. There is, for example, a lot of merchandise for sale with the phrase “Joe and the Hoe Gotta Go”.This isn’t to say that women, particularly attractive young white women, are always held to higher standards than men. While Nuzzi has been put on leave by New York magazine following news of her previously undisclosed relationship with RFK Jr, she has also been cut a surprising amount of slack for what is clearly professional misconduct. “Reporters have all sorts of compromising relationships with sources,” shrugged Ben Smith from Semafor. “The most compromising of all, and the most common, is a reporter’s fealty to someone who gives them information. That’s the real coin of this realm. Sex barely rates.”That said, Nuzzi is certainly getting dragged through the mud for the affair more than RFK Jr, who is well-known for what he has called “wild impulses” and “lust demons”. Previous reports about Kennedy’s private life suggest he detailed extramarital encounters with 37 women in a 2001 diary. That didn’t stop him from trying to run for president, of course. But neither did allegations he once assaulted a babysitter – to which he responded by stating: “I am not a church boy.” Kennedy also hasn’t let brain worms or dead bears get in the way of his political ambitions.The fact that sex scandals no longer seem to register with voters seems to be linked to a wider acceptance of outrageous political behaviour. “Politicians can now go out and say that they’re in favor of nuking Gaza [as Senator Lindsey Graham and Representative Greg Murphy have hinted towards],” Dean observes. “Politicians are openly bloodthirsty and genocidal. That’s permissible speech right now. Ours is now a time where genocide is not a major scandal, where climate change is not a major scandal. We really might be over the age of where an individual’s act is going to gather the same amount of tension as it once did. We’re seeing a sense of right and wrong totally breaking down.” More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Special counsel can file oversized motion on Trump election interference case

      by

      Special counsel Jack Smith can file an oversized, 180-page motion on presidential immunity in Donald Trump’s Washington DC federal court election interference case, a judge ruled Tuesday.Judge Tanya S Chutkan’s decision stems from prosecutors’ 21 September request to exceed the typical 45-page limit for opening motions and oppositions. Smith’s motion must be filed by Thursday and will include both legal arguments and evidence and could provide additional insight into Trump’s efforts to throw out election results, though it is unclear when the public might be able to see that material given that it’ll initially be filed under seal.Trump faces four felony counts over his effort to subvert the 2020 election, though a July US supreme court ruling on presidential immunity threw the case into near disarray.The supreme court held that Trump and other presidents enjoyed immunity for official acts, but not unofficial ones, undermining charges related to his alleged pressure campaign on Justice Department officials.The supreme court remanded the case back to Chutkan, who must decide which claims in Smith’s case are official acts, and which are not official. Smith filed a new indictment against Trump in August, which does not dramatically change this criminal case, but revamps some parts to stress that Trump was not acting in an official capacity in his attempt to overturn election results.Prosecutors proposed in a 5 September hearing that they should file a brief on the immunity issue with “a comprehensive discussion and description of both pled and unpled facts … so that all parties and the Court know the issues that the Court needs to consider in order to make its fact-bound determinations that the Supreme Court has required.”In green-lighting prosecutors’ request to file an unusually sizeable motion, Chutkan noted the supreme ourt’s direction that she need to engage in a “close” and “fact specific” examination of this indictment and related accusations.“The length and breadth of the Government’s proposed brief reflects the uniquely ‘challenging’ and factbound nature of those determinations,” the judge said in her ruling. “The briefs’ atypical sequence and size thus both serve the efficient resolution of immunity issues in this case ‘at the earliest possible stage.’”Trump’s legal team had fought prosecutors’ request to file a lengthier brief, complaining that it would “quadruple the standard page limits” in the district. They also unsuccessfully opposed Smith’s filing of this brief now, and argued that immunity arguments shouldn’t take place until Trump files a motion to dismiss the case.Prosecutors said in court filings that they are poised to file their briefing under seal, given the “substantial amount of sensitive material” and later, file a public version that has redactions. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Chief justice Roberts pushed for quick immunity ruling in Trump’s favor – report

      by

      John Roberts Jr used his position as the US supreme court’s chief justice to urge his colleagues to rule quickly – and in favor – of Donald Trump ahead of the decision that granted him and other presidents immunity for official acts, according to a New York Times investigation published on Sunday.The new report provides details about what was happening behind the scenes in the country’s highest court during the three recent supreme court decisions centering on – and generally favoring – the Republican former president.Based on leaked memos, documentation of the proceedings, and interviews with court insiders, the Times report suggests that Roberts – who was appointed to the supreme court during Republican George W Bush’s presidency – took an unusually active role in the three cases in question. And he wrote the majority opinions on all three.In addition to the presidential immunity ruling, the decisions collectively barred states from removing any official – including Trump – from a federal ballot as well as declaring the government had overstepped with respect to obstruction of justice charges filed against participants of the 6 January 2021 attack that the former president’s supporters aimed at Congress.The Times reported that last February, Roberts sent a memo to his fellow supreme court justices regarding the criminal charges against Trump for attempting to overturn the result of the 2020 election that he lost to Joe Biden.In the leaked memo, the Times reported that he criticized a lower court decision that allowed the case to move forward – and he argued to the other justices that Trump was protected by presidential immunity. He reportedly said that the supreme court ought to hear the case and grant Trump greater protection from prosecution.“I think it likely that we will view the separation of powers analysis differently,” the Times said that Roberts wrote to the other supreme court justices in the private memo.According to the Times, some of the conservative justices wanted to delay the decision on the presidential immunity case until after Trump finished running for a second term in the White House in November. But Roberts advocated for an early hearing and decision – and ultimately wrote the majority opinion himself.Before the opinion and ruling went public, the Times reported that Justice Brett Kavanaugh had praised Roberts on the ruling, calling it “extraordinary”. Their fellow conservative justice Neil Gorsuch – who, like Kavanaugh, was appointed to the supreme court during Trump’s presidency – called it “remarkable”.The decision came out on 1 July and stated that former presidents are entitled to some degree of immunity from criminal prosecution. Both conservatives and liberals saw it as a huge win for Trump, who – among a spate of legal problems – is awaiting sentencing for a criminal conviction in May of falsifying business records to conceal hush-money payments to an adult film actor who alleged an extramarital sexual encounter with him.The supreme court then returned the case to district judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the federal case against Trump for allegedly participating in an illicit effort to reverse his defeat in the 2020 election. That left her tasked with having to figure out how to apply the US supreme court’s decision.The Times also reported that in the case about whether individual states could kick Trump off the ballot based on language in the US constitution which bars insurrections from holding office, Roberts told his colleagues that he wanted the decision to be unanimous and unsigned.All nine justices initially agreed that Trump should remain on state ballots. But then, the Times reports, four conservative justices suggested additions to the ruling, including proposing that Congress would have to approve enforcement of the insurrectionist ban in the constitution.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionFour justices – liberals Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson and conservative Trump appointee Amy Coney Barrett – reportedly disagreed. They said they thought that went too far and wrote concurrences in disagreement, according to the Times.Ultimately, Roberts sided with the four remaining justices – fellow conservatives Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr – in an opinion that he wrote and was issued unsigned.In the third case scrutinized by the Times, which involved the Capitol attack participants’ obstruction of justice charges, Roberts had originally assigned the writing of the majority opinion to Alito.But then in May, Roberts – in an unusual move – informed the court that he would write the opinion himself. The chief justice did that days after a scandal enveloped Alito in the wake of reports that his wife had flown an upside-down flag outside the couple’s home following the Capitol attack. Flying flags upside down, a universal sign of distress, has been associated with a movement that boosted Trump’s lies about the 2020 election being unduly stolen from him.The Times wrote that it was unclear whether there was a link between the flag scandal and Roberts’ decision to write the Capitol attack-related opinion, in which a 6-3 conservative majority found the federal government could not apply its obstruction of justice statute so broadly. The justices did not respond to the outlet’s request for comment. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Judge dismisses two criminal counts against Trump in Georgia election case

      by

      Donald Trump had two counts tossed from his criminal case in Georgia over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, after the presiding judge decided on Thursday they fell under the supremacy clause in the US constitution that bars state prosecutors from charging federal crimes.“The Supremacy Clause declares that state law must yield to federal law when the two conflict,” the Fulton county superior court judge Scott McAfee wrote in his order.The judge decided that two charges against Trump and an additional count against several Trump allies, who were charged as co-defendants, should be struck. But he decided the remainder of the indictment – including the Rico racketeering charge – could remain.Trump now faces eight charges, down from 13 charges. Trump pleaded not guilty to the sprawling 2020 election interference case in Fulton county last year along with 18 other co-defendants. Four have since taken plea deals and agreed to testify against the other defendants.The charges that were dismissed against Trump – the filing of false documents and conspiring to file false documents – related to the Trump campaign’s gambit to submit fake elector certificates declaring Trump as the winner even though he had lost.The fake elector certificates were then sent to the National Archives ahead of the congressional certification of Joe Biden’s election win on 6 January 2021, which the Fulton county district attorney Fani Willis charged as criminal forgery counts.“President Trump and his legal team in Georgia have prevailed once again. The trial court has decided that counts 15 and 27 in the indictment must be quashed/dismissed,” Trump’s lead lawyer, Steve Sadow, said in a statement.The 22-page order issued by McAfee comes as the fate of the case hangs in the balance ahead of the Georgia appeals court deciding whether Willis can continue with the case, following her alleged relationship with her deputy, Nathan Wade.McAfee declined to remove Willis from the case as long as Wade resigned to resolve the conflict of interest allegation, a decision that Trump’s lawyers have appealed.Trump’s attorneys continue to argue that Willis has a conflict of interest, but also argued that she should have been disqualified for comments she made about the case at a speech at Big Bethel AME church in downtown Atlanta. In the wake of revelations about her relationship with Wade, Willis attributed the legal attack to racist motivations.Separately on Thursday, McAfee rejected a motion from the former Trump lawyer John Eastman and Trump fake elector Shawn Still to toss the entire indictment on grounds that it relied on an overly broad interpretation of the Georgia state racketeering statute. More

    • 250 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Dick Cheney confirms he will vote for Kamala Harris, saying no ‘greater threat’ to US than Donald Trump – live

      by

      Dick Cheney has confirmed that he will be voting for the Democratic ticket in the US presidential election. The statement from the Republican former vice-president came hours after his daughter Liz Cheney, the former Republican representative for Wyoming, told a crowd that her father would be supporting Harris.His pronouncement comes days after Liz told a North Carolina crowd that she would also be voting for Harris.The Georgia bureau of investigations (GBI) has announced that threats directed at other Georgia schools in the wake of Wednesday’s mass shooting have been deemed non-credible.In a press release on its website, the GBI says that an increase in threats and subsequent tips from concerned people are common after these types of shootings, and that those who make these threats will be “investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law”.The White House has condemned Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News host, over his interview with Darryl Cooper, a Holocaust revisionist and podcast host who, during an interview released on Monday, argued that the Holocaust was the result of Germany not knowing what to do with prisoners of war.The interview drew the ire of Jewish leaders, and in a statement to the New York Times, White House spokesperson Andrew Bates said:
      Giving a microphone to a Holocaust denier who spreads Nazi propaganda is a disgusting and sadistic insult to all Americans, to the memory of the over six million Jews who were genocidally murdered by Adolf Hitler, to the service of the millions of Americans who fought to defeat Nazism and to every subsequent victim of antisemitism.
      In a now-deleted tweet, Elon Musk described the interview between Carlson and Cooper as: “Very interesting. Worth watching.”A 15-year-old student has been shot and injured at Joppatowne high school in Maryland, about 24 miles north of Baltimore. The shooting appears to have stemmed from a fight on campus, and a 16-year old student has been arrested, ABC News reports.The injured student was airlifted to a local trauma unit and is in serious condition, authorities say. Deputies responded within two minutes and at least 100 other officers showed up to the scene.“It showed our response – as if it was one – is ready. I pray we never have to test that system,” Jeff Gahler, sheriff of Harford county, said during a press conference.The shooting on Friday comes days after two students and two adults were killed and nine others were injured during a mass shooting at Apalachee high school in Georgia.Here is video of the moment Liz Cheney revealed that her father, Dick Cheney, will be voting for Kamala Harris:
      Think about the moment that we’re in and you think about how serious this moment is … My dad believes … there’s never been an individual in our country who is as grave a threat to our democracy as Donald Trump is and that’s the moment that we’re facing and so I think recognizing that, Dick Cheney will be voting for Kamala Harris,” Cheney said.
      Dick Cheney will vote for Kamala Harris in November, the former vice-president’s daughter Liz Cheney said on Friday.In an interview on Friday at the Texas Tribune Festival, Liz Cheney said: “Dick Cheney will be voting for Kamala Harris,” NBC reports.Earlier this week, Liz Cheney addressed an audience at Duke University, where she said: “Because of the danger that Donald Trump poses, not only am I not voting for Donald Trump, but I will be voting for Kamala Harris.”During her interview on Friday, Liz Cheney also said that she will support the senatorial bid of Colin Allred, Texas’s Democratic representative.Speaking of Allred, who is challenging Ted Cruz, the Republican incumbent, Cheney called him a “tremendous, serious candidate”, adding: “We need people who are going to serve in good faith … We need people who are honorable public servants, and in this race, that is Colin Allred, so I’ll be working on his behalf.”Tim Walz has responded to JD Vance’s comment following Georgia’s deadly school shooting in which he said school shootings are “just a fact of life”.Walz, who has previously voiced support for an assault weapons ban, said in response to Vance’s comment:
      This is pathetic. We can’t quit on our kids – they deserve better.
      Republicans have repeatedly criticised and rejected calls for gun safety reforms including increased background checks and red flag policies, and have instead pointed to mental health issues as a chief reason for mass shootings across the country.Before Donald Trump’s trip to North Carolina today, the Fraternal Order of Police issued the following statement of endorsement of him:
      In every election cycle, the FOP pays close attention to which presidential campaign highlights the issues most vital to the men and women of the FOP, including the challenges faced by the rank-and-file law enforcement officers, the real issues in public safety, and the problems in our criminal justice system …
      The National FOP endorsed Donald Trump in 2016 and 2020. He led our nation through some very tough times. He provided our nation with strong, effective leadership during his first term, and now that he is seeking election to a second term, we intend to help him win it.
      In his decision, Judge Juan Merchan wrote that the “court is a fair, impartial and apolitical institution”.He went on to add that delaying Trump’s sentencing should “dispel any suggestion” that he tried “to give an advantage to, or to create a disadvantage for, any political party and for any candidate for any office”.Hello, US politics blog readers. It’s a very busy news day even though the election campaign trail itself is rather quiet.Kamala Harris is in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, behind closed doors preparing for her historic debate next Tuesday with her opponent for the White House in November, Donald Trump. But she has been given good news in the form of her latest fundraising and polling results.Trump, meanwhile, has been dealing with legal troubles in New York. First, he appeared in civil court at a hearing in which he is appealing a civil judgment against him that he sexually abused the writer E Jean Carroll, before holding a press conference uptown and then getting a vital judicial decision in his New York criminal case.Here’s where things stand:

      The judge in the New York criminal case in which Donald Trump was convicted earlier this year of election-related fraud over hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels and a cover-up has delayed sentencing of the former president until after the election.

      Donald Trump launched an angry tirade against E Jean Carroll, the Biden administration, Kamala Harris, news networks including ABC and CNN, and Iran and China in a long and aggressive press conference filled top to bottom with outlandish claims and personal attacks.

      More than 90 business leaders, including the heads of Yelp and Chobani, endorsed Kamala Harris’s presidential bid, in a new letter. It was also signed by current and former top executives including the former CEOs of PepsiCo, Ford Motor, Yahoo! and 21st Century Fox, and said: “Harris has a strong record of advancing actions to spur business investment in the United States and ensure American businesses can compete and win.”

      Trump’s lawyers argued at an appeal hearing in civil court in New York that the trial spurred by a lawsuit brought forth by the writer E Jean Carroll, where a jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse, consisted of improper evidence.

      Kamala Harris’s election campaign brought in $361m in contributions the last month, nearly tripling the $130m raised by Trump’s campaign during the same period. The campaign of Harris and Tim Walz, her running mate and the governor of Minnesota, called it the biggest grassroots fundraiser in presidential campaign history.

      Joe Biden is due to arrive in Ann Arbor, Michigan, soon, where he will speak about his administration’s economic agenda.

      JD Vance sparked a political row after calling school shootings an unwelcome “fact of life” and saying schools need stronger security, while Democrats, led by Biden and Harris, want stronger gun control, especially a ban on assault-style rifles, including the semi-automatic gun that was used in the school shooting in Georgia earlier this week.
      Donald Trump and his legal team had asked Justice Juan Merchan to push back the former president’s criminal sentencing date until after the presidential vote on 5 November.Merchan moments ago announced the sentencing would be pushed back from 18 September to 26 November (a Tuesday, two days before Thanksgiving).Here’s a fuller quote from Merchan’s response to both sides’ legal teams, picked out from the official decision by Reuters:
      This matter is one that stands alone in a unique place in this Nation’s history. Unfortunately, we are now at a place in time that is fraught with complexities rendering the requirements of a sentencing hearing, should one be necessary, difficult to execute,.
      Trump’s lawyers earlier this month had argued there would not be enough time before the original sentencing date for the defense to potentially appeal Merchan’s forthcoming ruling on Trump’s request to overturn the conviction due to the supreme court’s landmark decision on presidential immunity. Merchan had been scheduled to rule on that motion on 16 September.He wrote today that he now plans to rule on that motion on 12 November.The supreme court’s 6-3 ruling, which related to a separate criminal case Trump faces – the federal election meddling case – found that presidents cannot be criminally prosecuted for their official acts, and that evidence of presidents’ official actions cannot be used to help prove criminal cases involving unofficial actions. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Trump pleads not guilty to revised 2020 election interference charges

      by

      Donald Trump pleaded not guilty on Thursday, via his legal team, to the revised charges in his federal criminal election interference investigation, in the first hearing in the Washington DC case since the US supreme court gave its immunity ruling.The former US president and current Republican nominee for the White House in this November’s election was not present in federal court in the capital.The US district judge, Tanya Chutkan, said she would not set a schedule in the case at this status conference for the prosecution and defense teams, but hopes to do so later on Thursday.The case relates to Trump’s conduct surrounding events after he lost his re-election bid in November 2020 to his Democratic rival Joe Biden, culminating in the insurrection at the US Capitol on 6 January 2021, by thousands of extreme Trump supporters intent on overturning the election result.Chutkan is hearing arguments about the potential next steps in the election subversion prosecution of Trump for the first time since the supreme court narrowed the case by ruling that former presidents are entitled to broad immunity from criminal charges.As the hearing opened, the judge noted that it has been almost a year since she had seen the lawyers in her courtroom. The case has been frozen since last December as Trump pursued his appeal.The defense lawyer John Lauro joked to the judge: “Life was almost meaningless without seeing you.”Chutkan replied: “Enjoy it while it lasts.”A not guilty plea was entered on Trump’s behalf for a revised indictment that the special counsel Jack Smith’s team filed last week to strip out certain allegations and comply with the supreme court’s ruling in July. Prosecutors have said they can be ready at any time to file a legal brief laying out its position on how to apply the justices’ immunity opinion to the case.Defense lawyers are challenging the legitimacy of the case and said they intend to file multiple motions to dismiss the case, including one that piggybacks off a Florida judge’s ruling that Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional.Neither side envisions a trial happening before the November election. The case is one of two federal prosecutions against Trump, in a host of legal cases. The other, charging him with illegally hoarding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, was dismissed in July by the US district judge Aileen Cannon, who said Smith’s appointment as special counsel was unlawful.Smith’s team has appealed that ruling. Trump’s lawyers say they intend to ask Chutkan to dismiss the election case on the same grounds.Reuters and the Associated Press contributed reporting. More

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Federal judge rejects Trump’s request to intervene in hush-money criminal case

      by

      A federal judge on Tuesday rejected Donald Trump’s request to intervene in his New York hush-money criminal case, thwarting the former president’s latest bid to overturn his felony conviction and delay his sentencing.US district judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled that Trump had not satisfied the burden of proof required for a federal court to take control of the case from the state court where it was tried.Hellerstein’s ruling came hours after Manhattan prosecutors raised objections to Trump’s effort to delay post-trial decisions in the case while he sought to have the federal court step in.The Manhattan district attorney’s office argued in a letter to the judge presiding over the case in state court that he had no legal obligation to hold off on post-trial decisions and wait for Hellerstein to rule.Prosecutors urged the trial judge, Juan M Merchan, not to delay his rulings on two key defense requests: Trump’s call to delay sentencing until after the November election, and his bid to overturn the verdict and dismiss the case in the wake of the US supreme court’s presidential immunity ruling.Merchan has said he will rule 16 September on Trump’s motion to overturn the verdict. His decision on delaying sentencing has been expected in the coming days.Trump was convicted in May of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a $130,000 hush-money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels, whose affair allegations threatened to disrupt his 2016 presidential run. Trump has denied her claim and said he did nothing wrong.Falsifying business records is punishable by up to four years behind bars. Other potential sentences include probation or a fine.In a letter Tuesday, assistant district attorney Matthew Colangelo reiterated that prosecutors have not staked a position on whether to delay sentencing, deferring to Merchan on an “appropriate post-trial schedule”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTrump’s lawyers have argued that sentencing Trump as scheduled, just two days after Merchan’s expected immunity decision, would not give him enough time to weigh next steps – including a possible appeal – if Merchan rules to uphold the verdict.They also argued that sentencing Trump on 18 September, about seven weeks before election day, would be election interference, raising the specter that Trump could be sent to jail as early voting is getting under way.Colangelo said Tuesday that prosecutors were open to a schedule that allows “adequate time” to adjudicate Trump’s motion to set aside the verdict while also sentencing him “without unreasonable delay”.In a letter to Merchan last week, Trump’s lawyers said delaying the proceedings is the “only appropriate course” as they seek to have the federal court rectify a verdict they say was tainted by violations of the Republican presidential nominee’s constitutional rights and the supreme court’s ruling that gives ex-presidents broad protections from prosecution.If the case is moved to federal court, Trump’s lawyers said they will then seek to have the verdict overturned and the case dismissed on immunity grounds.The supreme court’s 1 July ruling reins in prosecutions of ex-presidents for official acts and restricts prosecutors in pointing to official acts as evidence that a president’s unofficial actions were illegal.Trump’s lawyers have argued that prosecutors rushed to trial instead of waiting for the supreme court’s presidential immunity decision, and that prosecutors erred by showing jurors evidence that should not have been allowed under the ruling, such as former White House staffers describing how Trump reacted to news coverage of the hush-money deal and tweets he sent while president in 2018.Trump’s lawyers had previously invoked presidential immunity in a failed bid last year to get the hush-money case moved from state court to federal court. More