Donald Trump

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Suit yourself: Trump offers scraps of his indictment outfit for $4,699.53 a pop

      by

      Despite his claims, Donald Trump’s business career has had many more failures than successes.His record of catastrophic investments has never held Trump back, however, and now the one-term, twice-impeached, 91-time felony-charged former president has embarked on a new hustle: selling little cut-out pieces of a suit he wore during one of his arrests.“It was a great suit, believe me, a really good suit. It’s all cut up, and you’re gonna get a piece of it,” Trump said in a video announcing the sale.Trump wore a blue suit when he was arrested and had his mugshot taken at an Atlanta jail in August. The former Apprentice host has already monetized the mugshot: on his campaign website, people can buy coffee mugs, T-shirts and Christmas stockings bearing the image.The move into fabric sales is a new one, however.To buy a piece of the suit, people first have to buy 47 “digital trading cards”, each featuring an illustration of Trump, through the Collect Trump Cards website. Buyers will then receive a bit of the suit, or tie, that Trump wore when he was arrested – on charges related to his attempts to overturn the election – at Fulton county jail in August 2023.The suit, according to the website description, is “the most historically significant artifact in United States history”.The suit is described as “priceless”. People can buy a piece of it for $4,699.53.Trump, a former TV host, touted his business career as a reason why he should be elected during the 2016 presidential campaign.His efforts have included Trump Vodka, Trump Mortgage and Trump Shuttle, a short-lived airline. All failed.GoTrump, a travel site, didn’t last, nor did Trump Steaks. A Trump board game was discontinued after two years, a Trump magazine folded, and Trump University was forced to settle fraud lawsuits for $25m after being accused of “swindling thousands of Americans out of millions of dollars”.Trump has also filed for corporate bankruptcy six times.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIndeed, in 2021, Forbes found that Trump, 77, would be far richer had he simply invested the inheritance he got from his father, who ran a successful, if problematic, real estate company.It is the third series of cards Trump has sold. A batch of 45,000 cards sold out in December 2022 for a total of nearly $4.4m. Trump only netted between $100,000 and $1m from the sales, Forbes reported.The cards include Trump sitting in the chair occupied by Abraham Lincoln at the Lincoln Memorial, and an image of Trump wearing a white cowboy hat, superimposed over an illustration of some running horses.Others show Trump as a kind of half robot, and there is one of him dressed as a Captain America-type character. One card shows Trump, who was medically exempted from the military during the Vietnam war due to a questionable diagnosis of bone spurs, dressed in army garb.It is unclear how many pieces of the suit are available. In 2018 a medical exam, conducted by a doctor-turned-Republican congressman, Trump was 6ft 3in and weighs 239lb, although when Trump claimed to weigh 215lb when he was arrested in Georgia. The former president is known to favor billowy suits with shoulder pads, but the measurements of his chest, waist and inseam are not publicly available.In any case, buyers seeking a piece of suit should beware. Business Insider found that the fine print on Collect Trump Cards includes a disclaimer that if delivery of the bit of suit “cannot be fulfilled due to an issue in the manufacturing, production, or delivery”, purchasers will have to settle for a “limited edition Trump NFT” instead. More

    • 200 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Jack Smith just made a gutsy, momentous decision in his prosecution of Trump | Margaret Sullivan

      by

      Timing isn’t everything. But it certainly matters, and seldom more so than in special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Donald Trump.The former US president intends to use timing – delay, delay, delay – to avoid punishment for trying to overturn the 2020 election, which he lost to Joe Biden, and for fomenting a violent coup.Nope, said Smith this week. A tough guy who has prosecuted war crimes in the Hague, Smith clearly recognizes that putting off the case until after next fall’s presidential election could let Trump off the hook.So the prosecutor made a bold legal maneuver. Smith moved to bypass the court of appeals, whose involvement could slow things down considerably, and to go directly to the US supreme court for a decision on a foundational issue.He wants the US’s highest court to rule – immediately – on whether Trump, as he claims, is immune from criminal prosecution.“Jack Smith wants to cut straight to the chase,” writes former US attorney Joyce Vance, noting that the supreme court has never decided this issue before.Should the court rule in Trump’s favor on immunity, the case goes away. That looks like a gamble, but the case is headed to the supreme court anyway.The key question is rather simple.Is Trump above the law? Or, like every other US citizen, must he abide by it?Smith’s maneuver was heralded by several prominent legal experts.“A huge and possibly brilliant move, a game changer one way or the other,” Harry Litman, a former justice department official who teaches constitutional law, wrote on Twitter/X.So far, the signs are encouraging. The court granted Smith’s request to speed up the question of whether to hear the case, asking for a quick response from Team Trump.In other words, the court quickly agreed to decide whether to decide the case, an important first step.Of course, this supreme court doesn’t exactly inspire confidence, given its terrible rulings on voting rights and abortion rights and the appalling ethical malfeasance of some of its members.But even this tainted court probably doesn’t want to be associated for all time with the notion that a US president is above the law.Watching Jack Smith’s aggressive efforts throughout this prosecution, I can’t help but think of two earlier high-level legal situations involving presidents.One was decades ago, during the Watergate scandal, when the supreme court ruled that President Nixon’s tape recordings were fair game; Nixon had appointed some of those justices but the ruling was unanimous nonetheless.That ruling was among the many contributing factors in holding Nixon accountable, to some extent, for the crimes he encouraged while in office. Ultimately, of course, he resigned and was pardoned by his successor, Gerald Ford.The other, much more recent, was the way special counsel Robert Mueller handled the investigation into whether Trump and his allies played ball with Russian operatives in order to sway the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.Unlike Smith, Mueller was particularly rules-bound and reserved. He never wanted to rock the procedural boat. His extremely low-key approach hampered the outcome of his important investigation.With the help of attorney general Bill Barr’s dishonest work in interpreting it favorably on Trump’s behalf, Mueller’s report dwindled into something that ultimately didn’t matter much – though it should have. Trump ran around claiming he was entirely cleared and that it was all a hoax, though that was far from true.Smith is a different cat. Thinking strategically at all times, he knows he needs to stay on track for a March trial date in order to hold Trump accountable.If that doesn’t happen, the strategy of delaying the trial until after the November election could – if Trump is elected – allow him to install an unpatriotic loyalist as attorney general and wriggle out of the mess that he created.That makes what happens next so consequential. (Smith wisely is hedging his bet by asking the court of appeals to rule immediately, too, should the supreme court decide not to take on the matter after all.)“It may be the most important democracy decision of our lifetimes,” Norm Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, has argued.Could be – for two reasons.One is that some members of the voting public, the non-cult members at least, might be affected by a guilty verdict. Given Trump’s obvious authoritarian plans for a second term, his election could be a death knell for US democracy.The other is that no president, or former president, should be above the law.Let’s hope that the supreme court – whatever its shortcomings – does its duty, takes on this question, and rules in accordance with our nation’s founding principles.
      Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Special counsel deals deft blow to Trump’s bid to delay federal trial

      by

      Donald Trump’s attempt to delay his impending federal trial on charges over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results may have been dealt a deft blow by special counsel prosecutors, after they directly asked the US supreme court to resolve whether the former president can be criminally prosecuted.Earlier this month, Trump asked the US court of appeals for the DC circuit to reverse a decision by the trial judge rejecting his motion to dismiss the case on presidential immunity grounds. On Monday, the special counsel Jack Smith sought to bypass the DC circuit by asking the supreme court to resolve the issue.While the supreme court has increasingly agreed to hear cases before an appeals court judgment, especially for constitutional questions related to presidential power, the petition from the special counsel puts Trump in a fraught situation regardless of whether it takes up the matter.Later on Monday, the court indicated it would decide quickly on whether to hear the case, ordering Trump to file his reply to the filing from the special counsel Jack Smith within nine days – by 20 December – a deadline widely considered to be particularly expeditious.The problem for Trump is that his hands are tied. The former president would prefer the court to take up the case after the DC circuit rules because he’s eager to delay his impending trial as much as possible. But he can’t oppose the prosecutors’ request now and then make the same request in several months’ time.If Trump had his way, according to people close to his legal team, he would have wanted the DC circuit to go through the likely months-long appeals process before going to the supreme court. That process would have included setting a briefing schedule, oral arguments and then issuing a ruling.The federal 2020 election interference trial is currently set for trial on 4 March, the day before Super Tuesday, when 15 states are scheduled to hold Republican primaries or caucuses. Trump, the frontrunner for the GOP nomination, has been adamant that he did not want to be stuck in a courtroom.Trump has also made no secret that his overarching legal strategy, for all of his criminal cases, is to pursue procedural delays. If the cases do not go to trial before next year’s election and he wins a second term, then he could direct his handpicked attorney general to drop all of the charges.And even if the case did go to trial before November, the people said, Trump’s preference would have been for the trial to take place as close as possible to the election because it would have given his 2024 campaign ammunition to miscast the criminal case against him as political in nature.Yet with the special counsel moving to circumvent the DC circuit, Trump and his legal team have effectively been forced to grapple with the supreme court plank of his delay strategy far earlier than they had expected.The eventual outcome could still be good for Trump: the justices could, for now, deny the request to review the lower court’s decision – a process known as certiorari – and instruct the special counsel to resubmit his request after the DC circuit issues a decision. Alternatively, the justices could grant certiorari and a majority rule in Trump’s favor.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBut even with a conservative-leaning supreme court, those are the more unlikely options, according to the supreme court expert Steve Vladeck. The more likely outcome is that the court grants certiorari and rules against Trump – thereby eliminating the additional months of delay he had anticipated.The probability that the supreme court rules against Trump on his presidential immunity claim, if it hears the case, is seen as a more likely scenario in large part because Trump’s interpretation is so far-reaching and without precedent in criminal caselaw.The motions to dismiss submitted by Trump’s lawyers contended that all of his attempts to reverse his 2020 election defeat in the indictment – including trying to obstruct the January 6 congressional certification – were in his capacity as president and therefore protected.And at the heart of the Trump legal team’s filing was the extraordinary contention that Trump both was entitled to absolute presidential immunity and that the immunity applied whether or not Trump intended to engage in the conduct described in the indictment.The issue is considered ripe for the supreme court because while it has previously ruled that presidents have expansive immunity in civil lawsuits, it has never explicitly ruled on whether presidents can face criminal charges for crimes they are alleged to have committed while in office. More

    • 138 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Special counsel to disclose Trump’s phone data at election interference trial

      by

      Special counsel prosecutors indicated on Monday they will call three expert witnesses at Donald Trump’s trial over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election who could potentially show how January 6 rioters moved on the Capitol in response to the former president’s tweets.The witnesses, according to a three-page filing, involve two experts on geolocation data to show the crowd’s movement during and after Trump’s speech at the Ellipse, and an expert on cellular phone data to testify about when and how Trump’s phone was being used, including over the same time period.Expert 3 will testify that they extracted data from official government phones belonging to Trump and one unnamed individual, how the phones were used in the post 2020 election period, including the websites visited, and when Trump’s phone accessed Twitter during January 6.The fact that the special counsel, Jack Smith, had obtained warrants for Trump’s phone and Trump’s Twitter/X account was disclosed in unsealed court filings. But the description of the anticipated testimony suggested they gathered more granular information than previously known.The notice of expert testimony in Trump’s federal 2020 election interference case – he is also facing a 2020 interference case in Fulton county, Georgia – also reveals how prosecutors intend to deploy the evidence they amassed during the criminal investigation at trial.In recent weeks, prosecutors have made it increasingly clear that they want to make the case that Trump sought to obstruct the January 6 congressional certification of the election results with the rioters by tying him to Capitol attack, as well as through political means.The notice about the subject of the expert witness testimony suggests prosecutors also intend to make the case that Trump – through his action and inaction – simultaneously advanced the physical obstruction of Congress as the Capitol attack progressed.Testimony from the first two geolocation experts will help to “aid the jury in understanding the movements of individuals toward the Capitol area during and after the defendant’s speech at the Ellipse”, the filing said.Still, the filing stopped short of claiming that the experts could definitely say who used the phones at any given moment, likely because Trump often used other people’s phones and had aide Dan Scavino compose tweets for him – something Trump’s defense lawyers are almost certain to focus on.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionProsecutors previously said in the 45-page indictment that they had evidence Trump knew of the significance of impeding the vote certification when he pressured his vice-president, Mike Pence, to interfere, saying he otherwise could not remain president.Trump took steps to obstruct the certification through political means by imploring Pence to accept fake slates of Trump electors to delay proceedings or reject the Biden slates, and asked senators to keep delaying the certification after it was interrupted by the riot. More

    • 138 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Stefanik criticized for support of Trump after push against campus antisemitism

      by

      Congresswoman Elise Stefanik celebrated the resignation of the president of the University of Pennsylvania in a storm over campus antisemitism, but faced criticism regarding her support for Donald Trump, who associates with antisemites himself.Referring to Liz Magill, who quit after a stormy congressional hearing last week, and the presidents of Harvard and MIT, who by Monday had not stepped down, Stefanik – the House Republican caucus chairperson – tweeted: “One down. Two to go.”In response, the Maryland Democrat Jamie Raskin asked on MSNBC: “Where does Elise Stefanik get off lecturing anybody about antisemitism when she’s the hugest supporter of Donald Trump, who traffics in antisemitism all the time?“She didn’t utter a peep of protest when he had Kanye West and Nick Fuentes over for dinner,” said Raskin, who is Jewish, about a controversial event at the former US president’s Mar-a-Lago property last November.“Nick Fuentes, who doubts whether 7 October [the Hamas attacks which killed about 1,200 people in Israel] even took place because he thinks it was some kind of suspicious propaganda move by the Israelis.“The Republican party is filled with people who are entangled with antisemitism like that and yet somehow [Stefanik] gets on [her] high horse and lectures a Jewish college president from MIT.”The hearing concerned official responses to claims of rising campus antisemitism, surrounding protests against Israeli tactics in response to 7 October and student calls for a ceasefire in the Israel-Gaza war. During the war, more than 18,000 Palestinians have reportedly been killed by airstrikes in Gaza.Sally Kornbluth, president of MIT, and Claudine Gay, president of Harvard, were also grilled. MIT expressed support for Kornbluth. Gay apologised for her testimony, saying: “Words matter”, as nearly 600 professors backed her in a public petition.Magill resigned as president of Penn on Saturday. Stefanik, who led Republicans’ questioning, then tweeted: “One down. Two to go.“This is only the very beginning of addressing the pervasive rot of antisemitism that has destroyed the most ‘prestigious’ higher education institutions in America. This forced resignation of the president of Penn is the bare minimum of what is required.”Promising a “robust and comprehensive congressional investigation of all facets of their institutions[’] negligent perpetration of antisemitism including administrative, faculty, funding, and overall leadership and governance”, Stefanik called on Harvard and MIT to “do the right thing”.Stefanik, a Harvard graduate, began her congressional career widely seen as a moderate New York Republican. But she adopted increasingly extreme Trumpist rhetoric as she rose to become House Republican caucus chair.Raskin is a prominent Democrat who led impeachment efforts against Trump over the January 6 attacks, then sat on the committee that investigated the attack his supporters aimed at Congress. He told MSNBC he was “thinking about” the issue of campus antisemitism “as a father, as a parent”, concerned for students’ safety.Raskin said: “I want to know that if somebody is actually calling for the genocide of the Jews or anybody else on campus, that we’ve got a college president who will say: ‘Quickly get campus police over there, that person could be a danger to other people around them.’“Especially in the age of the AR-15 [assault rifle], when we’ve had, you know, genocidal-style language being used but also massacres taking place like at the Tree of Life synagogue, in Pittsburgh [in 2018], or at the Buffalo supermarket [in 2022].skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“Those are rightwing antisemites who talk about the great replacement theory. We [also] had a guy at Cornell who was making death threats towards Jews, and we had three Palestinian college kids who were shot in Burlington, Vermont, of all places.”The great replacement theory holds that Democrats encourage immigration and multiculturalism in order to bolster their political chances.Last year, after a white gunman killed 10 people in an attack on a supermarket in a predominantly Black area of Buffalo, New York, Stefanik came under scrutiny for campaign ads which, in the words of the New York Times, “play[ed] on themes of the white supremacist ‘great replacement’ theory”.Liz Cheney, the former Wyoming congresswoman turned anti-Trump Republican, said then that Stefanik and other Republicans had “enabled white nationalism, white supremacy and antisemitism”.Last week, after the campus antisemitism hearing, the Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin praised Stefanik’s questioning of the college presidents – but also noted her use of great replacement theory.Stefanik’s “ability … to sustain a rational argument about antisemitism at elite universities makes her [Make America great again] rhetoric that much worse”, Rubin wrote.“She knows better.” More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Special counsel asks US supreme court to rule on Trump’s claim of immunity

      by

      Special counsel prosecutors on Monday asked the US supreme court to make an expedited decision on whether Donald Trump can be criminally prosecuted on federal charges over his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.The move amounts to an attempt by prosecutors to bypass Trump’s recent appeal to the DC circuit after the federal judge overseeing his case rejected the notion that he had immunity for acts he committed during his presidency.The petition to the supreme court shows prosecutors were concerned that going through the appeals process – submitting briefs, scheduling oral arguments and waiting for a decision while the case remained frozen – could delay the March 2024 trial date.Trump has made no secret of the fact that delaying the trial as long as he can remains his overarching legal strategy. If it was postponed until after next year’s presidential election and Trump won, he could direct his attorney general to drop the charges.“This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former president is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted,” the petition said.The request that the supreme court grant what is known as certiorari before the appeals court issues judgment is unusual. It is typically used in cases of national crises, like when Richard Nixon refused to hand over White House tapes to a special prosecutor.By citing US v Nixon and asking for expedited treatment in their petition, prosecutors essentially contended to the supreme court that they consider the Trump case of equal magnitude and constitutional consequence.“The United States recognizes that this is an extraordinary request,” the filing said. “This is an extraordinary case.”The supreme court has previously ruled that presidents have expansive immunity in civil lawsuits but has never explicitly ruled whether presidents can face criminal charges for crimes they are alleged to have committed while in office.Whether the court will take up the case remains uncertain, but it has increasingly granted certiorari before an appeals court judgement in recent years, and especially for presidential power cases, according to research by supreme court experts Steve Vladeck and David Merlinsky.The prosecutors on the filing included the special counsel Jack Smith himself, two of his deputies JP Cooley and James Pearce, as well as veteran supreme court litigator Michael Dreeben, who was also formerly a top appellate litigator for special counsel Robert Mueller in the Russia investigation.Having the case go to trial in Washington after the election would also mean voters would not know the full extent of the evidence of Trump’s attempts to reverse his 2020 defeat before deciding whether to give him a second term in the White House.“It is of imperative public importance that respondent’s claims of immunity be resolved by this court and that respondent’s trial proceed as promptly as possible if his claim of immunity is rejected,” the petition said. “Only this court can definitively resolve them.”Last week, the presiding US district judge Tanya Chutkan rejected Trump’s claims that he enjoyed absolute immunity through a sweeping interpretation of executive power, arguing the former president could not be held accountable for actions undertaken in office.“Defendant’s four-year service as commander in chief did not bestow on him the divine right of kings to evade criminal accountability that governs his fellow citizens,” Chutkan wrote in her 48-page opinion.Trump swiftly challenged the denial of his motion to dismiss to the US court of appeals for the DC circuit. Notably, the ex-president also asked Chutkan to freeze all aspects of the 2020 election subversion case until the question was resolved.The motions to dismiss submitted by Trump’s lawyers contended that all of his attempts to reverse his 2020 election defeat in the indictment were in his capacity as president and therefore protected. Those actions ranged from pressuring his vice-president, Mike Pence, to stop the congressional certification to organizing fake slates of electors.At the heart of the Trump legal team’s filing was the extraordinary contention that Trump both was entitled to absolute presidential immunity and that the immunity applied whether or not Trump intended to engage in the conduct described in the indictment. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump expands ‘commanding’ lead in Iowa a month before caucus, poll shows

      by

      A little over a month before the Iowa caucus kicks off the Republican presidential primary, Donald Trump has expanded his “commanding” lead in the first-to-vote state, a new Des Moines Register/NBC News poll found.The 77-year-old former president faces 91 criminal charges including 17 for attempting to overturn his 2020 election defeat, and civil suits including a defamation trial arising from a rape allegation a judge called “substantially true”. Warnings of the authoritarian threat he poses have been rising in volume.Nonetheless, he received 51% support in the Iowa poll.His closest challenger, the hard-right Florida governor Ron DeSantis, took 19%. The former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley took 16%, the entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy 5%, the former New Jersey governor Chris Christie 4% and Asa Hutchinson, formerly governor of Arkansas, 1%.That meant Trump’s lead was the largest ever recorded in the influential poll so close to a competitive caucus day.J Ann Selzer, the highly regarded Iowa pollster who conducted the survey, told NBC: “The field may have shrunk, but it may have made Donald Trump even stronger. I would call his lead commanding at this point.”Selzer also pointed out that caucus winners have come from behind, notably including Rick Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator, in 2012.Santorum was backed by white evangelicals, a powerful bloc in any Iowa vote. Last month, it was revealed that in 2016, Trump called evangelicals who backed a rival “so-called Christians” and “real pieces of shit”.Bob Vander Plaats, an influential Iowa evangelical leader, endorsed DeSantis and attacked Trump. Kim Reynolds, the Republican governor, also endorsed DeSantis.But despite such moves, and a general perception that Haley has performed well in debates Trump has skipped, the former president has only strengthened his position in Iowa.On Monday, the fivethirtyeight.com average for Iowa put Trump at 45.9%, ahead of DeSantis on 19.7% and Haley on 17.5%.Steve Kornacki, NBC’s national political correspondent, pointed to Trump’s momentum in the NBC/Register poll.“We last polled Iowa in October,” Kornacki said, “and look at this: Trump is up eight points since that last poll, DeSantis only three.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“You think about the month DeSantis has had in Iowa. He got the governor’s endorsement. He got a key evangelical endorsement and he was in the debate, he had the debate with Gavin Newsom [the governor of California, on Fox News], and it has not turned into measurable momentum.”Haley, Kornacki said, scored better with political independents and anti-Trump Republicans but that was nowhere near enough to significantly close the gap.Kornacki also pointed to what happened when voters were asked if their minds were made up.“Seven out of 10 Trump supporters say their mind’s made up, they’re locked in. [For DeSantis and Haley], their locked-in vote is not even half of what Trump’s is. Huge enthusiasm gap.”Despite his attempt to overturn the last election, including inciting the deadly January 6 attack on Congress, Trump also performs strongly in national and key-state polling when placed against the Democratic incumbent, Joe Biden.Also on Monday, a CNN/SSRS poll put Trump ahead in two battleground states: 10 points clear in Michigan and five points up in Georgia. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Rudy Giuliani faces damages claim in 2020 election defamation case – live

      by

      The latest polling also showed that potential voters have concerns with both leading nominees. The surveys found that the majority of potential voters in Michigan and Georgia believe that Biden lacks the “sharpness” and “stamina” needed for a president. Voters in both battleground states also believe that Trump did not have the right “temperament” to be president.From the Hill:
      The surveys also highlighted potential problem areas for each candidate, with 69 percent of Michigan voters and 66 percent of Georgia voters saying Biden does not have the sharpness and stamina they want to see in a president. Fifty-seven percent of Michigan voters and 58 percent of Georgia voters said Trump’s temperament is not what they are looking for in a president.
      Read the full article here.Donald Trump is leading Joe Biden in new polls surveying battleground states, the Hill reports.The latest polls by CNN found that Trump had a 10 point lead over Biden in Michigan, with 50% of responders saying they would vote for Trump in the 2024 election versus only 40% for Biden.In Georgia, 49% of responders said they would support Trump compared to only 44% for Biden.Both Biden and Trump are leading their party’s nomination for the general presidential election, with 2024 shaping up to be a rematch of the 2020 election.Rudy Giuliani has taken his seat in a federal courtroom in Washington where jury selection is about to begin in a weeklong trial to determine how much in damages he should have to pay two Atlanta election workers he defamed last year.The former New York City mayor could pay anywhere between $15 and $43m in damages to Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, a mother and daughter he spread false lies about them after the election.Included in the questions potential jurors will be asked is “Do you believe that Joseph R. Biden’s election as president of the United States in 2020 was illegitimate?” and “Have you ever used the phrase “Let’s Go Brandon” or the term or hashtag “WWG1WGA”?Opening statements in the trial are expected this afternoon. The trial is expected to wrap up by Friday.Giuliani has just arrived to his trial in federal court today, which will determine how much the ex-Trump lawyer will pay in damages after being found liable of defamation in August.Giuliani is expected to testify at some point during the week-long trial, though it isn’t clear if Giuliani will invoke his Fifth Amendment rights while testifying, CNN reports.Meanwhile, the legal team of Freeman and Moss will play videos of other Trump figures pleading the Fifth while refusing to answer questions on the stand.Giuliani is reportedly having trouble paying off mounting legal debts. He is currently selling his $6.5m New York apartment to help square away litigation costs.As of October, Giuliani owed more than $500,000 in unpaid taxes to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Forbes reported.Rudy Giuliani will be defending himself in federal court on Monday against a defamation lawsuit filed against him for false comments he made about two Georgia election workers after the 2020 election.The week-long trial starting Monday in Washington DC will be to determine how much Giuliani will pay in damages for inflammatory remarks he made against Ruby Freeman and her daughter Shaye Moss, two Black election workers in Fulton county.Giuliani is expected to testify in his defense.While serving as head of Trump’s legal team, Giuliani falsely claimed that Freeman and Moss counted 2020 election ballots after tallying had wrapped, sharing misleading security video that was later debunked by Georgia election officials.Freeman and Moss say they faced death threats following Giuliani’s comments, and strangers came to Freeman’s house to enact a “citizen’s arrest”.Giuliani has already been found liable of defamation in August. The latest trial is to determine how much Giuliani will pay in damages, with Freeman and Moss seeking between $15m and $43.5m in damages.Jury selection and opening statements for the damages trial are expected today.Here’s what else is happening:
      Biden is traveling to Philadelphia on Monday to announce a federal grant for the city’s fire department.
      Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelenskiy will arrive in the US for a last-ditch attempt to break a deadlock on Ukraine aid. More