Donald Trump

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Inflammatory remarks could speed up 2020 election trial, judge warns Trump

      by

      The federal judge presiding over Donald Trump’s 2020 election subversion case on Friday warned inflammatory remarks from the former president would push her to schedule the trial sooner, saying she would take every step to safeguard the integrity of proceedings and to avoid tainting the potential jury pool.The admonition came as the US district court judge Tanya Chutkan ruled on Trump’s requests to have fewer restrictions in a protective order that will govern what evidence turned over to his lawyers in the discovery process the former president could share publicly.Broadly speaking, Chutkan ruled that Trump was free to share “non-sensitive materials” as designated by prosecutors, but narrowed the scope so closely that it could ultimately amount to only a pyrrhic victory. Chutkan also ended up rejecting the majority of Trump’s other requests.The judge repeatedly emphasized that she would not take into account Trump’s presidential campaign, telling Trump’s lead lawyer John Lauro that the former president’s free speech rights were not absolute and that they came second to the fact that he is now a criminal defendant.“What the effects of my order are on a political campaign are not going to influence my decision. This is a criminal trial,” Chutkan said. “The defendant’s desire to conduct a campaign, to respond to political opponents, has to yield.”Trump has characterized the indictment, charging him with four felonies over his attempt to obstruct the congressional certification of Joe Biden’s election win on 6 January 2021 and to overturn the results of the 2020 election, as a political witch-hunt and infringing on his first amendment rights.To that end, his lawyers had filed a 29-page brief before the hearing asking the judge to issue a less restrictive protective order, a routine step in criminal cases to ensure evidence turned over to defendants in discovery is used to help construct a defense but not chill witnesses.Trump’s legal team had asked for various accommodations, such as giving Trump the ability to make public any transcripts of witness interviews that are not protected by grand jury secrecy rules and to expand the circle of people who could gain access to the discovery material.Prosecutors in the office of special counsel Jack Smith had asked to impose a protective order almost immediately after Trump was arraigned last week, specifically referencing a vaguely threatening post from Trump that read: “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!”The prosecutors did not ask the judge to impose a gag order on Trump to prevent him from discussing the case, but made an inferential argument that there needed to be clear rules on how Trump could publicly use evidence turned over to him in discovery.The judge was skeptical of the government’s argument that even non-sensitive materials should be subject to the protective order, saying Trump was prohibited from intimidating witnesses as a condition of his pre-trial release, and agreed to limit the scope of the order.But Chutkan was unimpressed by the attempt of Trump’s lawyers to designate witness deposition transcripts and recordings as “non-sensitive” and rejected that request, which will dramatically reduce the volume of records that Trump could discuss publicly.The judge also refused to allow yet-unnamed volunteer attorneys or consultants working for Trump to view the discovery material, saying the request from Trump’s lawyers was so broad that it could “include just about anyone” including potential “unindicted co-conspirators”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“The definition you have currently is simply too broad,” Chutkan told Trump’s lawyers. “It allows just about anybody. You know, I live in Washington, anyone is a consultant.”Chutkan ruled that Trump would be allowed to review the discovery materials without needing his lawyers there with him every time, seemingly sympathetic to the plea from Trump’s lawyer John Lauro that “babysitting” his client while he read transcripts was not practical.The judge, however, imposed caveats after prosecutor Thomas Windom raised concerns that Trump might try to copy sensitive discovery materials if left alone with them. “He has shown a tendency to desire to hold on to material he knows he should not have,” Windom quipped.Chutkan’s final decision was to allow Trump to review the discovery materials alone so long as he did not carry electronic devices that could replicate the records. She also ruled that Trump could take notes, but that his lawyers needed to review them to ensure it did not include “sensitive” content.The judge also made clear that the moment Trump took a break from looking at the the discovery materials, his lawyers needed to regain custody of them from Trump. “Certainly he can’t carry them around with him,” Chutkan said.Trump was represented in court by Lauro, a former federal prosecutor, his law firm partner Gregory Singer, and Todd Blanche. Afterwards, Lauro declined to comment on the hearing. The government was represented in court by prosecutors Windom and Molly Gaston. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump allies face potential charges in Georgia over voting machine breaches

      by

      The Fulton county district attorney investigating Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia has evidence to charge multiple allies of the former president involved in breaching voting machines in the state, according to two people briefed on the matter.The potential charges at issue are computer trespass felonies, the people said, though the final list of defendants and whether they will be brought as part of a racketeering case when prosecutors are expected to present evidence to the grand jury next week remain unclear.To bring a racketeering case under Georgia state law, prosecutors need to show the existence of an “enterprise” predicated on at least two “qualifying” crimes, of which computer trespass is one. The Guardian has reported that prosecutors believe they have sufficient evidence for a racketeering case.The statute itself prohibits the intentional use of a computer or computer network without authorization in order to remove data, either temporarily or permanently. It also prohibits interrupting or interfering with the use of a computer, as well as altering or damaging a computer.Prosecutors have taken a special interest in the breach of voting machines in Coffee county, Georgia, by Trump allies because of the brazen nature of the operation and the possibility that Trump was aware that his allies intended to covertly gain access to the machines.In a series of particularly notable incidents, forensics experts hired by Trump allies copied data from virtually every part of the voting system, which is used statewide in Georgia, before uploading them to a password-protected website that could be accessed by 2020 election deniers.The story about how a group of Trump allies gained unauthorized access to voting machines – informed by deposition transcripts, surveillance tapes and other records – can be traced back to 2020, when the top elections supervisor for Coffee county came across the “adjudication” system for mail ballots within the machines.A spokesperson for the Fulton county district attorney’s office did not respond to a request for comment.In Georgia, mail ballots are marked by hand. If a ballot cannot be read by the machine, because of stray marks or other errors, it goes through an adjudication process whereby a bipartisan panel reviews the ballot and agrees on the voter’s intention before telling the machine how to count it.The adjudication process became a point of controversy in local Republican party circles after the elections supervisor, Misty Hampton, said in a viral November 2020 video that the person entering the information could theoretically tell it to falsely count a ballot intended for one candidate for another.Swapping a vote through the adjudication process would be straightforwardly illegal, and there is no evidence that such conduct took place during the 2020 presidential election. If it had, it would have been detected during the subsequent statewide hand count, experts have said.On 5 January 2021, Georgia held runoff elections for the state’s two US Senate seats. That day, amid a fraught atmosphere, the Coffee county GOP chair, Cathy Latham, was the Republican member on the bipartisan adjudication panel.As Latham later recounted in depositions in a long-running lawsuit brought by the Coalition for Good Governance, the ballot scanner in Coffee county repeatedly jammed as it tried to read mail-in ballots. And in Latham’s retelling, it appeared to jam more often for ballots marked for Republican candidates.When Latham complained, the on-site Dominion Voting System technician advised her to wipe the ballot scanner with a cloth. Latham said in her statement that the wiping did not work, and it was only after the technician held his phone near the scanner that the problems were resolved.According to Latham’s account, the suspicion was that the technician had downloaded something to the ballot scanner through his phone.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThere remains no such evidence to date and the Georgia secretary of state’s office has affirmed the scanners have no wireless capability. But that bizarre episode appears to have been the trigger for a number of Trump allies to see if someone could have manipulated the election.The day after the Capitol attack in Washington, on 7 January 2021, surveillance video picked up Eric Chaney, a member of the Coffee county elections board, arriving at the county’s elections office around 11am. Latham also arrived at the office around an hour later.The tapes then show Latham greeting data experts from SullivanStrickler, a firm that specializes in “imaging”, or making exact copies, of electronic devices, and Scott Hall, a bail bond business owner with ties to the local Republican party hunting for evidence of election fraud.What happened inside the elections office is only partially captured on surveillance video, but records show the SullivanStrickler team imaged almost every component of the election systems, including ballot scanners, the server used to count votes, thumb drives and flash memory cards.The company believed it had authorization to collect the data, SullivanStrickler’s director of data risk Dean Felicetti later said in a deposition, and suggested that Hampton and Latham had given their approval.Most of the imaging work apparently took place off camera, though tapes from the lobby of the Coffee county elections office show Latham, Hampton and Chaney with the SullivanStrickler experts as they bend over to look at computer screens and walk around elections equipment.Lawyers for Latham and Hampton did not respond to requests for comment. But Latham’s previous lawyer has told the Washington Post that she did not authorize the copying and had “not acted improperly or illegally”. Hall and Chaney also did not respond to requests for comment.The next day, according to text messages, Trump lawyer Sidney Powell – who helped organize the clandestine operation and paid for it through her non-profit – was informed that SullivanStrickler would post the data it had gathered on to a password-protected site from where it could be downloaded.Breaches of the Coffee county voting machines appear to have happened at least two additional times. On 18 January 2021, they were accessed on a second occasion when Hampton arrived with Doug Logan, the CEO of elections security firm CyberNinjas, and a retired federal employee named Jeffrey Lenberg.The pair spent at least four hours that afternoon inside the elections office, and then returned the following day for another nine hours. Lenberg then again gained access to the elections office every day for four days starting on 25 January 2021.What Lenberg did inside remains uncertain. But in a subsequent podcast interview, Lenberg said he and Logan went to Coffee county after hearing about the Senate runoffs incident because they wanted to see if they could replicate the error but “didn’t touch” the machines themselves. More

    • 213 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Prosecutors ask for 2 January start date for Trump 2020 election interference case – as it happened

      by

      From 3h agoFederal prosecutors asked a judge to set a 2 January trial date for former president Donald Trump in the case related to his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.In court documents, prosecutors with special counsel Jack Smith’s team said they want the case before US district judge Tanya Chutkan to move to trial swiftly in Washington’s federal court. Prosecutors estimate that it will take four to six weeks to present their case.
      This trial date, and the proposed schedule outlined below, would give the defendant time to review the discovery in this case and prepare a defense, and would allow the Court and parties to fully litigate any pre-trial legal issues.
      The team added:
      Most importantly, a January 2 trial date would vindicate the public’s strong interest in a speedy trial—an interest guaranteed by the Constitution and federal law in all cases, but of particular significance here, where the defendant, a former president, is charged with conspiring to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election, obstruct the certification of the election results, and discount citizens’ legitimate votes.
      Hello again, US politics live blog readers, it’s been a lively day in political news, which we do our best to bring you as it happens. There will be more live coverage on Friday but, for now, this blog is closing.Here’s where things stand:
      Donald Trump has lodged an appeal against the dismissal of his defamation lawsuit against the New York writer E Jean Carroll.
      The US supreme court has agreed to hear a challenge by Joe Biden’s administration to the legality of OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy settlement that would shield its owners, the Sackler family, from lawsuits.
      The Biden administration asked Congress for $13bn in emergency defense aid to Ukraine and an additional $8bn for humanitarian support, plus money to replenish the US federal disaster funds and fortify the US-Mexico border, in a package worth $40bn.
      The House oversight committee intends to subpoena Joe Biden and Hunter Biden amid its ongoing investigation into the Biden family’s business dealings.
      Federal prosecutors asked a judge to set a 2 January trial date for former president Donald Trump in the case related to his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
      Joe Manchin, West Virginia’s Democratic US Senator, said he’s “thinking seriously” about becoming an independent.
      Donald Trump’s valet, Walt Nauta, pleaded not guilty in Florida court to conspiring with the former president to obstruct the investigation into his possession of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate.
      Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas received ‘unprecedented’ number of gifts from billionaire friends, according to a new report detailing even more largesse than previously revealed that has been showered upon the bench’s most conservative member.
      Donald Trump has lodged an appeal against the dismissal of his defamation lawsuit against the New York writer E Jean Carroll, Reuters reports.The development comes just three days after the former US president lost his counterclaim for defamation against E Jean Carroll, the writer against whom he was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation, and fined $5m.Carroll also continues to pursue a separate defamation case against him.The US supreme court has agreed to hear a challenge by Joe Biden’s administration to the legality of OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy settlement that would shield its owners from the Sackler family from lawsuits over their role in the country’s opioid epidemic, Reuters reports.The court also paused bankruptcy proceedings concerning Purdue and its affiliates and said in a brief order that it would hold oral arguments in December in the administration’s appeal of a lower court’s ruling upholding the settlement. The court’s new term begins in October.Purdue’s owners under the settlement would receive immunity in exchange for paying up to $6bn to settle thousands of lawsuits filed by states, hospitals, people who had become addicted and others who have sued the Stamford, Connecticut-based company over its misleading marketing of OxyContin.At issue is whether US bankruptcy law allows Purdue’s restructuring to include legal protections for the Sackler family, who have not filed for personal bankruptcy.Purdue filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection from creditors in 2019 to address its debts, nearly all of which stemmed from thousands of lawsuits alleging that OxyContin helped kickstart an opioid epidemic that has caused more than 500,000 US overdose deaths over two decades.The Biden administration on Thursday asked Congress to provide more than $13bn in emergency defense aid to Ukraine and an additional $8bn for humanitarian support through the end of the year, another massive infusion of cash as the Russian invasion wears on and Ukraine pushes a counteroffensive against the Kremlin’s deeply entrenched forces, the Associated Press writes.The package includes $12bn to replenish the US federal disaster funds at home after a deadly climate season of heat and storms and funds to bolster the enforcement at the southern border with Mexico, including money to curb the flow of deadly fentanyl. All told, it’s a $40bn package.While the last such request from the White House for Ukraine funding was easily approved in 2022, there’s a different dynamic this time.A political divide on the issue has grown, with the Republican-led House facing enormous pressure to demonstrate support for the party’s leader, Donald Trump, who has been very skeptical of the war. Meanwhile, American support for the effort has been slowly softening.White House budget director Shalanda Young, in a letter to House speaker Kevin McCarthy, urged swift action to follow through on the US “commitment to the Ukrainian peoples’ defense of their homeland and to democracy around the world” as well as other needs.The request was crafted with an eye to picking up support from Republicans, as well as Democrats, particularly with increased domestic funding around border issues – a top priority for the GOP, which has been highly critical of the Biden administration’s approach to halting the flow of migrants crossing from Mexico.Still, the price tag of $40bn may be too much for Republicans who are fighting to slash, not raise, federal outlays.Senate majority leader and New York Senator Chuck Schumer said:
      The latest request from the Biden administration shows America’s continued commitment to helping Americans here at home and our friends abroad. We hope to join with our Republican colleagues this fall to avert an unnecessary government shutdown and fund this critical emergency supplemental request.”
      Continuing on the issue of Jack Smith requesting a 2 January 2024 trial date for Donald Trump over the former president’s efforts to subvert the 2020 election while he was still in office:On Thursday in a court filing, the government also noted that Trump’s legal team had known about the facts of the case for at least a year after prosecutors first contacted them in June 2022 and one of the lawyers involved in that initial outreach, presumably Evan Corcoran, was at Trump’s arraignment.It also argued that Trump’s lawyers were wrong to characterize the Speedy Trial Act, which broadly mandates criminal cases to go to trial promptly, as existing for the benefit of the defendant and therefore allowing Trump to seek delays if he chooses.The speedy trial rules in fact exist to protect the rights of the public as well as the defendant, prosecutors wrote, citing an opinion from United States v Gambino that found: “The public is the loser when a criminal trial is not prosecuted expeditiously, as suggested by the aphorism, ‘justice delayed is justice denied’.”But the draft schedule proposed by the government, that would see evidence turned over to Trump through discovery completed by the end of August and jury selection at the start of December, is almost certain to be delayed because of complicating factors.The prosecution unexpectedly disclosed in a footnote that they intended to use classified information at trial, which means his case will be tried according to the time-consuming steps laid out in the Classified Information Procedures Act, or Cipa.Cipa essentially requires the defense to disclose what classified information they want to use at trial in advance, so the courts can decide whether to add restrictions. If the government feels the restrictions aren’t enough, they can decide whether they still want to continue with the case.While Cipa established a mechanism through which the government can safely charge cases involving classified documents, the series of steps that have to be followed means it takes longer to get to trial compared with regular criminal cases without national security implications.In asking the judge overseeing the criminal case against Donald Trump over his efforts to subvert the 2020 election to schedule the trial for the start of January 2024, the written filing from prosecutors in the office of special counsel Jack Smith set an aggressive timeline.Trump’s lawyers are expected to seek substantial delay, according to a person close to the former president.“A January 2 trial date would vindicate the public’s strong interest in a speedy trial,” prosecutors wrote. “It is difficult to imagine a public interest stronger than the one in this case in which the defendant – the former President of the United States – is charged with three criminal conspiracies.”The eight-page filing submitted to US district court judge Tanya Chutkan, who will hear arguments from both sides about the scope of the protective order in the case on Friday, argued it gave sufficient time to Trump to prepare a defense.Last week, Trump pleaded not guilty to charges filed in federal district court in Washington that he conspired to defraud the United States, conspired to obstruct an official proceeding, obstructed an official proceeding, and engaged in a conspiracy against rights.Among other things, the government said Trump’s legal team already appeared to know what arguments they intended to make at trial and what pre-trial motions they intended to file and therefore were in a position to quickly go to trial.The prosecutors, for instance, sought to use the television appearances from Trump lawyer John Lauro – where he discussed potential legal defenses and the possibility of filing a motion to change the trial venue to West Virginia – against him.“It appears that defense counsel is already planning which motions the defendant will file,” prosecutors said in one footnote. “On CBS’s Face the Nation on August 6, 2023, Mr Lauro stated, ‘We’re going to be identifying and litigating a number of motions that we’re going to file.’”More of this report in the next post.James Comer, the Republican chair of the House oversight committee, said his committee will eventually move to subpoena Joe Biden and Hunter Biden amid its ongoing investigation into the Biden family’s business dealings.Comer, speaking on Fox Business on Thursday, said:
      This is always going to end with the Bidens coming in front of the committee. We are going to subpoena the family.
      He added:
      We know that this is going to end up in court when we subpoena the Bidens. So we’re putting together a case and I think we’ve done that very well.
      His comments came a day after the House oversight committee issued a memo laying out their intention to accuse Joe Biden of corruption even without direct evidence that he financially benefited from foreign business dealings by his son. The memo outlined millions of dollars in foreign funds paid to Hunter Biden and his former associates while his father was vice-president, but it did not show a direct payment to Joe Biden.National security council spokesperson Adrienne Watson confirmed that the five Americans detained by Iran had been moved to house arrest, and said negotiations for their release were continuing.Watson described the transfer as “an encouraging step” – but adding that they should never have been detained in the first place. She said:
      We will not rest until they are all back home in the United States. Until that time, negotiations for their eventual release remain ongoing and are delicate. We will, therefore, have little in the way of details to provide about the state of their house arrest or about our efforts to secure their freedom.
      The Iranian Americans include businessmen Siamak Namazi, 51, and Emad Shargi, 58, as well as environmentalist Morad Tahbaz, 67, who also has British nationality, said Jared Genser, a lawyer who represents Namazi. The identity of the other two US citizens has not been made public.Freeing the five would remove a major irritant between the US and Iran, though the nations remain at odds on issues from the Iranian nuclear program to Tehran’s support for Shia militias in nations such as Iraq and Lebanon.Namazi, who in 2016 was convicted of espionage-related charges the United States has rejected as baseless, has been detained by Iran for more than seven years. His father, Baquer, was allowed to leave Iran in October for medical treatment after being detained on similar charges also rejected by Washington.Tahbaz was arrested in 2018 and sentenced to 10 years in prison for “assembly and collusion against Iran’s national security” and working for the United States as a spy. Shargi was convicted of espionage in 2020 and also sentenced to 10 years.Iranian Americans, whose US citizenship is not recognized by Tehran, are often pawns between the two nations, which are at odds over issues including Iran’s expanding nuclear program.In February, NBC News reported Washington and Tehran were holding indirect talks exploring a prisoner exchange and the transfer of billions of dollars of Iranian funds in South Korean banks currently blocked by US sanctions. If transferred, those funds could only be spent for humanitarian purposes.Any transfer could draw Republican criticism that Joe Biden had effectively paid a ransom for the US citizens and that Iran using that money for humanitarian purposes could free up funds for its nuclear program or to support militias in nations such as Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen.Donald Trump is likely to oppose the schedule proposed by special counsel Jack Smith in the latest court filing.The former president’s lawyers have already suggested they will try to slow things down, citing the complexity of the case and Trump’s crowded legal and political schedule.Trump’s legal team is due to respond by next Thursday. US district judge Tanya Chutkan has indicated she will make a decision on the trial date at a 28 August hearing.Federal prosecutors asked a judge to set a 2 January trial date for former president Donald Trump in the case related to his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.In court documents, prosecutors with special counsel Jack Smith’s team said they want the case before US district judge Tanya Chutkan to move to trial swiftly in Washington’s federal court. Prosecutors estimate that it will take four to six weeks to present their case.
      This trial date, and the proposed schedule outlined below, would give the defendant time to review the discovery in this case and prepare a defense, and would allow the Court and parties to fully litigate any pre-trial legal issues.
      The team added:
      Most importantly, a January 2 trial date would vindicate the public’s strong interest in a speedy trial—an interest guaranteed by the Constitution and federal law in all cases, but of particular significance here, where the defendant, a former president, is charged with conspiring to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election, obstruct the certification of the election results, and discount citizens’ legitimate votes.
      West Virginia senator Joe Manchin, who has yet to decide whether to run for reelection next year or wage a long-shot third party bid for president, said he’s “thinking seriously” about becoming an independent.“I’m thinking seriously,” Manchin told West Virginia radio host Hoppy Kercheval on Thursday. He added:
      I have to have peace of mind, basically. The brand has become so bad. The D brand and R brand … You’ve heard me say a million times, I am not a Washington Democrat.
      Asked how seriously he was about becoming an independent, Manchin said he has “been thinking about that for quite some time” and that he wanted to “make sure that my voice is truly an independent voice”.Manchin, who earlier this year described himself as an independent Democrat, has been dropping hints for months that he might switch to become an independent. On Thursday, he said he was not yet ready to make an announcement about his future with the Democratic party immediately. “When I get ready to make a decision, I’ll come see you,” he told Kercheval.The US and Iran have reached an agreement to win the freedom of five imprisoned Americans in exchange for several jailed Iranians and about $6bn in Iranian government assets blocked under US sanctions, according to reports.Five Iranian-Americans were transferred from prison to house arrest, according to a lawyer for one of the prisoners. Jared Genser, counsel to Siamak Namazi, told CNN the move was an “important development”, adding:
      While I hope this will be the first step to their ultimate release, this is at best the beginning of the end and nothing more.
      In addition to Namazi, Emad Sharghi, Morad Tahbaz, and two others whose names have not been made public, were moved from Tehran’s notorious Evin Prison, and are anticipated to be held at a hotel under guard by Iranian officials, until they are allowed to board a plane.The Biden administration has been engaged in negotiations to try to secure the release of the Americans from Iran, a country with which it does not have diplomatic relations. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Special counsel proposes January 2024 trial date in Trump election case

      by

      Federal prosecutors asked the judge overseeing the criminal case against Donald Trump over his efforts to subvert the 2020 election to schedule the trial for the start of January 2024, saying there was a significant public interest in expediting the prosecution.The written filing from prosecutors in the office of the special counsel Jack Smith set an aggressive timetable that Trump’s lawyers are expected to seek to substantially delay, according to a person close to the former president.“A January 2 trial date would vindicate the public’s strong interest in a speedy trial,” prosecutors wrote. “It is difficult to imagine a public interest stronger than the one in this case in which the defendant – the former president of the United States – is charged with three criminal conspiracies.”The eight-page filing submitted to the US district court judge Tanya Chutkan, who will hear arguments from both sides about the scope of the protective order in the case on Friday, argued it gave sufficient time to Trump to prepare a defense.Last week, Trump pleaded not guilty to charges filed in federal district court in Washington that he conspired to defraud the United States, conspired to obstruct an official proceeding, obstructed an official proceeding and engaged in a conspiracy against rights.Among other things, the government said Trump’s legal team already appeared to know what arguments they intended to make at trial and what pre-trial motions they intended to file, and therefore were in a position to quickly go to trial.The prosecutors, for instance, sought to use the television appearances from Trump’s lawyer John Lauro – in which he discussed potential legal defenses and the possibility of filing a motion to change the trial venue to West Virginia – against him.“It appears that defense counsel is already planning which motions the defendant will file,” prosecutors said in one footnote. “On CBS’s Face the Nation on August 6, 2023, Mr Lauro stated, ‘We’re going to be identifying and litigating a number of motions that we’re going to file.’”The government also noted that Trump’s legal team had known about the facts of the case for at least a year after prosecutors first contacted them in June 2022, and one of the lawyers involved in that initial outreach, presumably Evan Corcoran, was at Trump’s arraignment.It also argued that Trump’s lawyers were wrong to characterize the Speedy Trial Act, which broadly mandates criminal cases to go to trial promptly, as existing for the benefit of the defendant and therefore allowing Trump to seek delays if he chooses.The speedy trial rules in fact exist to protect the rights of the public as well as the defendant, prosecutors wrote, citing an opinion from United States v Gambino that found: “The public is the loser when a criminal trial is not prosecuted expeditiously, as suggested by the aphorism, ‘justice delayed is justice denied’.”But the draft schedule proposed by the government, that would see evidence turned over to Trump through discovery completed by the end of August and jury selection at the start of December, is almost certain to be delayed because of complicating factors.The prosecution unexpectedly disclosed in a footnote that they intended to use classified information at trial, which means his case will be tried according to the time-consuming steps laid out in the Classified Information Procedures Act, or Cipa.Cipa essentially requires the defense to disclose what classified information they want to use at trial in advance, so the courts can decide whether to add restrictions. If the government feels the restrictions aren’t enough, they can decide whether they still want to continue with the case.While Cipa established a mechanism through which the government can safely charge cases involving classified documents, the series of steps that have to be followed means it takes longer to get to trial compared with regular criminal cases without national security implications. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump and valet plead not guilty to new charges in classified documents case

      by

      Donald Trump and his valet pleaded not guilty on Thursday to an expanded set of charges stemming from the former president’s alleged mishandling of classified documents, after special counsel Jack Smith filed a superseding indictment in the case last month.Trump’s two codefendants in the case appeared in court in Ft Pierce, Florida, although the former US president himself was not in attendance as his legal team submitted a plea of not guilty.Walt Nauta, Trump’s valet, did appear in person at the Thursday hearing to plead not guilty to the expanded set of charges he now faces. Carlos De Oliveira, the property manager of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, was expected to enter a plea as well but was unable to do so because he has still not retained a local attorney.His arraignment was rescheduled for next week.The hearing came two weeks after Smith filed his superseding indictment adding De Oliveira as a codefendant in the case and outlining further charges against Trump and Nauta.De Oliveira faces four federal criminal charges, including making false statements and conspiring to obstruct justice. Smith’s superseding indictment alleges that Trump engaged in a scheme with Nauta and De Oliveira to wipe a server containing Mar-a-Lago surveillance footage that was subpoenaed by prosecutors and showed boxes of classified documents being removed from the storage room.Trump had already indicated he would plead not guilty to the expanded set of charges after the former president’s legal team submitted a court filing waiving his right to appear at the arraignment in person.“I have received a copy of the Indictment and the plea is NOT GUILTY to the charged offense(s),” the filing read.At his initial arraignment in June, Trump pleaded not guilty to 37 federal counts, including 31 violations of the Espionage Act, over his alleged mishandling of classified documents after leaving the White House in 2021.According to Smith’s indictment, Trump intentionally withheld dozens of classified documents from federal officials even after a subpoena was issued to recover the materials from Mar-a-Lago. Some of those documents included information on the US’s nuclear programs, the military’s vulnerabilities and the White House’s plans for retaliation in the event of an attack.The former president appears to have been aware of the illegality of retaining the documents, as recordings obtained by the special counsel show Trump acknowledging he could no longer declassify information after leaving office.The judge overseeing the case, US district court judge Aileen Cannon, has set a trial date of May 2024.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionOn Wednesday, Trump’s lawyers filed a motion asking Cannon to approve the re-establishment of an ultra-secure facility at Mar-a-Lago to allow the former president to review classified documents produced to him in discovery. To justify the extraordinary request, Trump’s lawyers claimed his schedule and security requirements made it impossible for him to make regular trips to a sensitive compartmented information facility, often called a “Scif”, at a courthouse.As Cannon weighs that request, Trump’s other legal woes are mounting. Last week, Trump pleaded not guilty to four federal charges over his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.Trump may soon face more charges related to his election subversion efforts in Georgia, where Fulton county district attorney Fani Willis is expected to present her evidence to a grand jury next week. Trump has already pleaded not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying business records in an unrelated case concerning a hush-money scheme during the 2016 presidential election.With a fourth indictment on the horizon, Trump has continued to criticize the prosecutors leading the cases against him, which he has dismissed as “witch-hunts”. In an interview with Newsmax on Wednesday, Trump attacked Smith as a “deranged human being” and mocked Willis as “not a capable woman”.
      The Guardian’s Hugo Lowell contributed reporting More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      US special counsel obtained search warrant for Trump’s Twitter account

      by

      The US special counsel who is investigating Donald Trump obtained a search warrant for the former president’s Twitter account, and the social media platform delayed complying, a court filing on Wednesday showed.The delay in compliance prompted a federal judge to hold Twitter in contempt and fine it $350,000, the filing showed.The filing says the team of US special counsel Jack Smith obtained a search warrant in January directing Twitter, which recently rebranded to X, to produce “data and records” related to Trump’s Twitter account as well as a non-disclosure agreement prohibiting Twitter from disclosing the search warrant.The filing says prosecutors got the search warrant after a court “found probable cause to search the Twitter account for evidence of criminal offenses”. The court found that disclosing the warrant could risk that Trump would “would seriously jeopardize the ongoing investigation” by giving him “an opportunity to destroy evidence, change patterns of behavior”, according to the filing.It’s unclear what information Smith may have sought from Trump’s Twitter account. Possibilities include data about when and where the posts were written, their engagement and the identities of other accounts that reposted Trump’s content.Twitter objected to the non-disclosure agreement, saying four days after the compliance deadline that it would not produce any of the account information, according to the ruling. The judges wrote that Twitter “did not question the validity of the search warrant” but argued that the non-disclosure agreement was a violation of the first amendment and wanted the court to assess the legality of the agreement before it handed any information over.The warrant ordered Twitter to provide the records by 27 January. A judge found Twitter to be in contempt after a court hearing on 7 February, but gave the company an opportunity to hand over the documents by 5pm that evening. Twitter, however, only turned over some records that day. It didn’t fully comply with the order until 9 February, the ruling says. The delay in compliance prompted the court to Twitter in contempt, and on Wednesday, the federal court in Washington upheld that decision.Smith has charged Trump over his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election in an attempt to stay in power in a criminal indictment unsealed last week.Trump has pleaded not guilty to the charges, which include conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights.Trump says he is innocent and has portrayed the investigation as politically motivated. His legal team has indicated it will argue that Trump was relying on the advice of lawyers around him in 2020 and had the right to challenge an election he believed was rigged.Trump had been a prolific user of Twitter, both before and during his presidency. Amassing more than 88 million followers, he used the platform to attack opponents, promote racist ideology, encourage violence against journalists, and even threaten nuclear war.Trump was banned from the platform following the 6 January 2021 insurrection at the Capitol for inciting violence.Trump’s account was reinstated in November 2022, following Tesla billionaire Elon Musk’s takeover of the platform. The decision was condemned by online safety and civil rights advocates who say Trump’s online presence has created risks of real-world violence.Trump has yet to tweet after being allowed back on to Twitter, preferring his own platform, Truth Social. His campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but the former president posted to Truth Social on Wednesday that the Justice Department “secretly attacked” his Twitter account, and he characterized the investigation as an attempt to “infringe” on his bid to reclaim the White House in 2024.Twitter did not immediately respond to a request for comment.The Associated Press contributed to this report More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘No Republican party’ in US today, says anti-Trump conservative judge

      by

      A respected conservative judge who advised the former Republican vice-president Mike Pence not to attempt to overturn the 2020 election believes Donald Trump has destroyed the Republican party.“American democracy simply cannot function without two equally healthy and equally strong political parties,” J Michael Luttig told CNN on Wednesday. “So today, in my view, there is no Republican party to counter the Democratic party in the country.“And for that reason, American democracy is in grave peril.”American democracy has by most measures been in grave peril since 6 January 2021, the day Pence, as vice-president, took Luttig’s advice and refused to attempt to block congressional certification of Joe Biden’s election win.A mob Trump told to “fight like hell” attacked the Capitol, some chanting for Pence to be hanged. The effort failed but nine deaths have been linked to the riot, including law enforcement suicides. More than a thousand people have been charged and hundreds convicted, some with seditious conspiracy.Last week, the special counsel Jack Smith indicted Trump on four counts relating to election subversion. Trump, 77, pleaded not guilty, as he has to 74 other criminal counts, in New York over hush-money payments to a porn star and federally regarding his retention of classified information.Trump also faces cases concerning his business affairs and his treatment of women. In New York this week, regarding a civil suit in which Trump was found liable for defamation and sexual assault, a judge said it was not defamatory to call the former president a rapist.Trial dates are piling up, most during the Republican primary next year. Nonetheless, Trump leads Ron DeSantis of Florida, Pence and the rest of the field by more than 30 points, firmly on course to face Biden again. In Congress, his far-right supporters maintain a grip on the House as they seek to impeach Biden.Luttig told CNN: “A political party is a collection and assemblage of individuals who share a set of beliefs and principles and policy views about the United States of America. Today, there is no such shared set of beliefs and values and principles or even policy views as within the Republican party for America.”Trump, he said, was a danger “more so today” than last year, when Luttig testified to the House January 6 committee.A respected conservative judge who was considered for the supreme court under George W Bush, Luttig made a tremendous impact with his January 6 testimony.Speaking on primetime television, Luttig said: “I believe that had Vice-President Pence obeyed the orders from his president … and declared Donald Trump the next president of the United States … [he] would have plunged America into what I believe would have been tantamount to a revolution, within a constitutional crisis.”On Wednesday, Luttig also told CNN he did not think Trump could avoid conviction for election subversion.“The evidence is overwhelming that the former president knew full well that he had lost the election,” he said. More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Previously unseen memo details Trump plot to subvert election results – report

      by

      A previously unseen internal memo from the 2020 Trump campaign describes in detail the plot by Donald Trump and his lawyers to subvert election results in six states, according to a copy obtained by The New York Times.The memo describes a three-pronged plan to prevent Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s victory on 6 January 2020, that involved coordinating with Republican electors and campaign attorneys in six states, as well as Mike Pence.It also emphasized the importance of the participation by “all six states” and “messaging about this being a routine measure” as well as “logistics” regarding what is now known as the fake electors scheme.The letter was written by Kenneth Chesebro, an attorney associated with Trump who is believed to be one of six unnamed co-conspirators in the indictment against Trump over his attempt to subvert the results of the 2020 election. Much of Chesebro’s actions have been revealed through previous memos and through the January 6 investigation last year, but this memo brings further details to light about the fake electors scheme that he concocted.It was addressed to a Wisconsin lawyer, James R Troupis, the lead attorney for the Trump campaign in Wisconsin, who oversaw the fake electors scheme in his state. Troupis filed a lawsuit in December 2020 asking the Wisconsin supreme court to throw out hundreds of thousands of absentee ballots, saying they violated voting requirements. The court ultimately rejected the lawsuit.Chesebro wrote to Troupis that “it seems feasible” the Trump campaign could subvert Biden’s victory. His plan would “force the Members of Congress, the media, and the American people to focus on the substantive evidence of illegal election and counting activities in the six contested States, provided three things happen”.He then lays out those three steps, describing a plan in detail.According to Chesebro’s plan, Republican electors in all six states – Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin – would meet and cast votes for Trump on 14 December 2020, the deadline for electors to send their votes to Congress for certification in January.Attorneys in each of the six states would simultaneously file lawsuits that would lead to either a Trump victory or a Biden loss – which would be pending on 6 January, the certification date.Finally, on the day Congress meets to certify the electors’ votes, “Pence, presiding over the joint session, takes the position that it is his constitutional power and duty, alone, as president of the Senate, to both open and count the votes, and that anything in the Electoral Count Act to the contrary is unconstitutional,” according to language from the memo.Pence, who is running against Trump for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024, has lashed out against his former ticket-mate and his “gaggle of crackpot lawyers” for plotting to overturn the election.According to the indictment, Trump repeatedly “pressured” Pence to participate in the plan, to which the vice-president replied: “You know I don’t think I have the authority to change the outcome”.The indictment identified six co-conspirators, including one who is widely believed to be Chesebro. Co-Conspirator 5, thought to be Chesebro, “assisted in devising and attempting to implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding”.The indictment also described the previously unseen 6 December 2020 memo as a “sharp departure” from an earlier and previously reported memo that Chesebro sent to Troupis outlining a plan to use “alternate” electors to send votes for Trump to Congress for certification amid a recount – even though Biden won the state.“I recognize that what I suggest is a bold, controversial strategy, and that there are many reasons why it might not end up being executed on January 6,” Chesebro wrote in the 6 December 2020 memo. “But as long as it is one possible option, to preserve it as a possibility it is important that the Trump-Pence electors cast their electoral votes on December 14.”Trump pleaded not guilty on all counts in the 6 January case, which charged him with three counts of conspiracy and one count of obstruction of an official proceeding – certifying the electoral vote. More