Donald Trump

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Jury finds Donald Trump sexually abused columnist E Jean Carroll

      by

      A New York jury found on Tuesday that Donald Trump sexually abused the advice columnist E Jean Carroll in a New York department store changing room 27 years ago.The verdict for the first time legally brands a former US president as a sexual predator. But as it is the result of a civil not criminal case, the only legal sanction Trump will face is financial.In explaining a finding of sexual abuse to the jury, the judge said it had two elements. That Trump subjected Carroll to sexual contact without consent by use of force, and that it was for the purpose of sexual gratification.The jury deliberated for less than three hours. It did not find Trump raped Carroll, but did find him liable for sexual abuse.It awarded about $5m in compensatory and punitive damages: about $2m on the sexual abuse count and close to $3m for defamation, for branding her a liar.Before the verdict in the highly charged case, the judge, Lewis A Kaplan, warned the courtroom: “No shouting. No jumping up and down. No race for the door.”After the verdict, as she was escorted to a car, Carroll said: “We’re very happy.”George Conway, a conservative lawyer and Trump critic who encouraged Carroll to sue, said on Twitter: “God bless E Jean Carroll and congratulations to Roberta Kaplan [Carroll’s attorney] and her team for a job well done.”Trump used his Truth Social platform to say: “I have absolutely no idea who this woman is. The verdict is a disgrace – a continuation of the greatest witch hunt of all time.”In his deposition, released to the public last week, Trump mistook a picture of Carroll in his company for a picture of his second wife, Marla Maples.On Tuesday, lawyers for Trump issued a statement deriding the case as “bogus” and saying they would appeal “and … ultimately win”.Politically, Trump has capitalised on his legal woes, leading by wide margins in polling regarding the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. Nonetheless, he faces mounting legal danger.In New York last month, Trump pleaded not guilty to 34 criminal charges of falsifying business records over a hush-money payment to the porn star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 election.Trump looks likely to face criminal charges over attempts to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia, and is also the target of a federal investigation into his actions around the election, including his incitement of the US Capitol attack.A federal special counsel is also investigating the stashing of secret documents at his Florida estate. In New York, Trump faces a civil suit over his business and tax affairs.In the Carroll case, a jury of three women and six men was persuaded by Carroll’s testimony over three days, describing events in a New York department store changing room in 1996.Trump’s lawyer, Joe Tacopina, said he would use Carroll’s own words to disprove her allegation, showing the former Elle magazine columnist conspired with friends to falsely accuse the former president because they “hated” Trump and his politics.But in seven days of testimony, he failed to do either.Carroll testified that the attack left her unable to have a romantic relationship. She said Trump “shattered my reputation” by denying the attack when she went public in 2019, after which Elle sacked her in months. Trump repeatedly called Carroll a liar, including after her first day of testimony when he claimed a “made up SCAM”.Carroll told the trial she ran into Trump as she was leaving the Bergdorf Goodman department store one evening in spring 1996.“He said, ‘I need to buy a gift, come help me,’” she said. “I was delighted.”Carroll said she suggested a handbag or a hat but he wasn’t interested.“He said, ‘I know, lingerie,’” she said. “He led the way to the escalator.”Carroll described herself as “absolutely enchanted” and “delighted” to go to the lingerie department. She told the court Trump “snatched up” a bodysuit and told her to try it on.“I had no intention of putting it on. I said, ‘You put it on, it’s your colour’,” she said.Carroll said Trump suggested they both try it on, and motioned toward the dressing room. She said she thought it was all a joke. The mood changed rapidly.“He immediately shut the door and shoved me up against the wall. He shoved me so hard my head banged. I was extremely confused,” she said.Carroll said the situation “turned absolutely dark”.“He leaned down and pulled down my tights,” she said. “I was pushing him back. It was quite clear I didn’t want anything else to happen.”Speaking quietly and slowly, she said Trump raped her.Carroll said she will always regret going into the dressing room with Trump. She shed tears as she explained that since the rape she found it impossible to even smile at a man she was attracted to, and that it marked the end of her sex life.Two of Carroll’s friends told the trial she confided in them immediately after the attack but swore them to secrecy.Tacopina challenged Carroll during nearly two days of cross-examination. The lawyer focused on her actions during and immediately after the attack, questioning why she didn’t scream or call the police, and why she waited more than 20 years to publicly accuse Trump.But the questioning backfired as Carroll gave confident and credible explanations, saying her inability to give a single cause for not screaming was not evidence she was lying.“One of the reasons women don’t come forward is because they’re always asked, ‘Why didn’t you scream?’ Some women scream. Some women don’t. It keeps women silent,” she said.Carroll said she was too “ashamed” to go to the police, even if that was the advice she gave in her Elle column.“I was born in 1943. I’m a member of the silent generation. Women like me were taught to keep our chins up and to not complain. I would never call the police about something I am ashamed of.”“I was never going to talk about what Donald Trump did,” she said.But she was motivated to speak as the #MeToo movement took off and women across the US related experiences of sexual assault and harassment.Carroll also sued Trump for defamation, having expected him to say they had a consensual encounter, not deny it altogether.“It hit me and it laid me low because I lost my reputation. Nobody looked at me the same. It was gone. Even people who knew me looked at me with pity in their eyes, and the people who had no opinion now thought I was a liar and hated me,” she said.Carroll said she considers Trump “evil” and a “terrible” president but denied bringing the lawsuit because of her political views.“I’m not settling a political score. I’m settling a personal score,” she said.Asked if she regretted accusing Trump, given the consequences, her voice broke.“I regretted this about 100 times but, in the end, being able to get my day in court finally is everything,” she said, through tears. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Key moments in Donald Trump trial that gripped America

      by

      The trial over whether or not Donald Trump raped the author E Jean Carroll gripped America as it saw the former US president accused of sex crimes in a court of law.In the end a jury ruled that Trump sexually abused the New York writer, but did not convict him of rape.Here were the key moments:Carroll testifiesOn the first day of the trial, E Jean Carroll gave her account of the attack that she said left her unable to have a romantic relationship.“I’m here because Donald Trump raped me, and when I wrote about it, he said it didn’t happen. He lied and shattered my reputation. I’m here to try and get my life back,” she told the jury.Carroll described running into Trump as she was leaving the Bergdorf Goodman luxury department store. She said he asked for help in buying a gift for a woman and eventually led the way to the lingerie department.Carroll described Trump as very talkative, and herself as “absolutely enchanted”.Carroll said Trump “snatched up” a grey-blue bodysuit in the lingerie department and demanded she try it on. “I had no intention of putting it on. I said, ‘You put it on, it’s your colour,’” she told the court.Carroll said Trump suggested they both try it on, and motioned toward the dressing room. She said she did not take it seriously.But, she said, the mood changed rapidly after they stepped into the dressing room.“He immediately shut the door and shoved me up against the wall. He shoved me so hard my head banged. I was extremely confused,” she said.Carroll told the jury the situation “turned absolutely dark”. She said Trump pulled down her tights and sexually attacked her.Judge rebukes TrumpThe judge, Lewis Kaplan, warned Trump he may have crossed the line into jury-tampering after the former president posted an attack on his social media site, Truth Social, calling Carroll’s accusations a “made-up SCAM” and a “witch-hunt”. Kaplan called Trump’s post “entirely inappropriate” and warned they could become “a potential source of liability” for him.Trump fell silent for a few days but launched a fresh attack on Carroll during a visit to Ireland on Thursday, calling the advice columnist “a disgrace” and saying the judge was “extremely hostile”.George Conway advised CarrollCarroll told the trial she sued Trump after she was encouraged to take legal action by George Conway, the husband of one of the then president’s top aides, Kellyanne Conway. George Conway was an outspoken critic of Trump to the embarrassment of his wife who was working in the White House.Carroll said that after she went public with her accusation against Trump in 2019, and the then president accused her of lying about it, she met Conway at a party. She said he encouraged her to “seriously think” about suing the president for defamation. She filed the lawsuit a few days later.Tacopina sought to paint the encounter as evidence of Carroll’s political motivation for the action against Trump.Corroborating witnessesTwo close friends of Carroll told the trial that she told them about the incident shortly after the attack.Lisa Birnbach told the jury that Carroll called “breathless, hyperventilating, emotional” and advised her to go to the police.Birnbach said that Carroll refused.Another friend, Carol Martin, gave the opposite advice when Carroll came to her house and told her about the assault.“I just volunteered that she shouldn’t do anything because it was Donald Trump and he had a lot of attorneys and he would just bury her,” she said.“I have questioned myself more than once over the years why I told her that. I’m not proud.”Psychologist testifiesDr Leslie Lebowitz, a clinical psychologist, told the trial that Carroll was “doubled over with stomach pain” as she recalled her attack.Lebowitz said Carroll exhibits aspects of post-traumatic stress disorder, including physical pain, without fitting the full clinical diagnosis as a result of the alleged assault in 1996.The psychologist concluded Carroll has been harmed in three main ways. These include suffering from “painful intrusive memories” for many years and a “diminishment” in how she thinks and feels about herself. But Lebowitz said that perhaps the most prominent effect was Carroll “manifests avoidance syndromes” that have stopped her having a romantic life.“Following her encounter with Mr Trump she began to shut down in the presence of eligible men,” said Lebowitz. “She’s avoiding anything that reminds her of the threat.” More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Alarm after lawyer who aided Trump’s 2020 election lie attacks campus voting

      by

      Rightwing election lawyer Cleta Mitchell, a key ally of Donald Trump as he pushed bogus claims of fraud to overturn Joe Biden’s 2020 win, is facing intense fire from voting watchdogs and bipartisan criticism for urging curbs on college student voting, same day voter registration and absentee voting.The scrutiny of Mitchell, who runs the Election Integrity Network at the pro-Trump Conservative Partnership Institute to which a Trump Pac donated $1m dollars, was sparked by recent comments Mitchell made to Republican donors, and a watchdog report criticizing her advisory role with a federal election panel.Long known for advocating stricter voting rules that are often premised on unsupported allegations of sizable voting fraud, Mitchell last month promoted new voting curbs on students in a talk to a group of wealthy donors to the Republican National Committee, efforts that critics call partisan and undemocratic.Mitchell’s private RNC address to rich donors zeroed in on curbing college campus voting rules, automatic mailing of ballots to registered voters and same-day voter registration, as the Washington Post first reported.The talk by Mitchell, who has done legal work for Republican committees, members of Congress and conservative groups such as the National Rifle Association, focused on college campuses in key swing states including Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Virginia and Wisconsin, all of which have large college campuses.In an audio of her remarks obtained by liberal journalist Lauren Windsor, Mitchell slammed college voting procedures.“What are these college campus locations? What is this young people effort that they do? They basically put the polling place next to the student dorm so they just have to roll out of bed, vote, and go back to bed.”Further in one part of her presentation cited by the Post, Mitchell charged blithely that “the Left has manipulated the electoral systems to favor one side … theirs. Our constitutional republic’s survival is at stake.”It’s unclear if the RNC will back the latest proposals made by Mitchell, who the committee has worked with previously. But an RNC spokesperson offered effusive praise of Mitchell to the Post, saying: “As the RNC continues to strengthen our Election Integrity program, we are thankful for leaders like Cleta Mitchell who do important work for the Republican ecosystem.”But voting rights watchdogs voice alarm at Mitchell’s proposals to the RNC donor crowd.“Mitchell’s comments behind closed doors give up the game,” said Danielle Lang, the lead voting rights litigator with the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center. “The current wave of additional voter restrictions is about only one thing: punishing disfavored populations of voters.”Lang added: “Sadly, we should not be surprised that Mitchell, who was central to attempts to overturn the will of the people in 2020, speaks so blithely about attacking voters she dislikes.”Similarly, Republicans and Democrats alike deplore Mitchell’s comments to the RNC contributors.“It’s absurd for Cleta Mitchell or others to suggest our path to victory is by making it harder for young people to vote,” said ex-Republican congressman Charlie Dent. “Republicans should not fear how people vote. Good candidates with good messages should resonate with voters.”Key Democrats agree.“Mitchell seems to have a very difficult time separating her partisan agenda from the responsibility we all have to uphold a basic democratic respect for the right to vote,” Democrat House member Jamie Raskin told the Guardian.Mitchell didn’t respond to a Guardian request for comment about her RNC remarks.Besides the firestorm over Mitchell’s RNC remarks, she is facing more heat related to other recent efforts she has made to restrict voting rights.Mitchell has served for over a year on a bipartisan advisory board for the federal Election Assistance Commission, a post that she’s used to promote curbs on mail in voting, voter registration and student voting, according to an April report from the watchdog group American Oversight.American Oversight’s study, which came after it obtained Mitchell emails from 2020- 2022 using the Freedom of information Act, included some exchanges where Mitchell suggested legal challenges to absentee voting rules and attacked a voting rights group while serving on the EAC advisory board.“Cleta Mitchell played a central role in former President Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election,” said American Oversight executive director Heather Sawyer “So it isn’t surprising that she has used her role as an advisor to the Election Assistance Commission to push an explicitly anti-voting agenda.”“She has disparaged voting rights organizations, called for challenging absentee voting procedures, and is urging new rules that would make voting harder for students and working people. Mitchell’s partisan and ideological commitment to restricting ballot access has no place at an agency tasked with helping states administer free and fair elections.”The fears over Mitchell’s blunt advocacy for curbing student and other voting rights, comes after her role advising Trump as he tried to overturn Biden’s win in 2020 has received legal scrutiny in Georgia. It also comes amid criticism of aggressive poll watching drives she pushed for in 2022 through her Election Integrity Network.Mitchell was subpoenaed last year, along with several other key Trump lawyers and allies including Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman, by a special grand jury in Georgia in a wide ranging criminal probe by Fulton county district attorney Fani Willis into efforts by Trump and his allies to thwart Biden’s win in the state.A major focus of that inquiry is Trump’s hour-long conference call on 2 January 2021, which Mitchell participated in, pressuring Georgia’s Republican secretary of state Brad Raffensperger to just “find” him 11,780 votes to block Biden’s win there.Trump falsely claimed that “we won by hundreds of thousands of votes” and vaguely warned Raffensperger of a “criminal offense” to which the Georgia official replied “the data you have is wrong”.The Fulton county inquiry is widely expected to lead to several indictments including quite possibly Trump, and Willis has said she will make final decisions about who will be charged this summer.Just days after the 2021 call with Raffensperger, Mitchell abruptly left her long time law firm Foley & Lardner, and soon joined the Conservative Partnership Institute as senior legal fellow, where she has led its self styled Election Integrity Network and advocated for curb voting rights.CPI has flourished financially since Mitchell and Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows, CPI’s senior partner, joined in early 2021.CPI’s tax filings for 2021 showed grants and contributions of $45m up from $7.1m the prior year.In other conservative circles, Mitchell wields considerable influence as a board member of the right wing Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation and as chair of the Public Interest Legal Foundation’s board.Now though, Mitchell’s latest attacks on student voting rules are viewed by watchdog groups and some members of Congress as badly misguided, and emblematic of her partisan agenda.“We should applaud, not bemoan, equitable access to voting for students.Our young people will inherit our democracy but participate at some of the lowest rates,” Lang of the Campaign Legal Center said. “While that is improving, young people still face disproportionate burdens in voter registration and voter access.”In a similar vein, Raskin said: “Mitchell’s attacks on college student voting are directly reflective of the GOP’s increasing electoral losses among young people.”Mitchell and Republicans, he added, ought to focus on policies and candidates that “actually appeal to young voters, rather than a legislative program to stop them from voting.”. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Half of Trump’s ‘fake electors’ accept immunity in Georgia investigation

      by

      Half of the 16 so-called fake electors in Georgia who sought to falsely declare Donald Trump the winner of the 2020 election have accepted immunity deals in the local criminal investigation into the matter, their lawyer said in a court filing on Friday.The immunity deals to the eight came in April, according to the filing, after the Fulton county district attorney’s office called their lawyer and said prosecutors were willing to make the arrangement – about four months after the lawyer asked about the prospect of such deals.With half of the fake electors now apparently immune from prosecution, the scope of a potential conspiracy indictment ensnaring Trump and the electors – identified as targets in the case – may have narrowed, not least because the immunity deals did not compel any incriminating information in return.The filing also raised new questions about how prosecutors might handle the fake electors more broadly, after the lawyer for the eight, Kimberley Debrow, effectively accused the district attorney’s office of misrepresenting key facts in an earlier motion seeking to have her disqualified.The latest twist in the Georgia election criminal investigation comes as the Fulton county district attorney, Fani Willis, is expected to ask a grand jury starting in mid-July to return charges against Trump and dozens of people involved in efforts to reverse his defeat in the state of Georgia.Last month, the district attorney’s office sought to disqualify Debrow from the case entirely, citing her clients’ testimony that they were not told of immunity offers, and citing a conflict of interest after some of her clients implicated another one of her clients in a separate crime.In the 68-page brief filed on Friday, Debrow vehemently disputed the claims, saying that transcripts and recordings of interviews – submitted to the court for a confidential review – showed that none of her clients told prosecutors that immunity offers were not brought to them in 2022.The filing also revealed that although eight fake electors received immunity deals, two of the fake electors – whose identities were not disclosed and were until recently her clients – had not. One of them is understood to be Cathy Latham, a local Republican party leader.A spokesperson for the district attorney’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Debrow claimed in the filing that the transcripts of interviews with her clients showed one of the prosecutors, Nathan Wade, sought to intentionally confuse them by suggesting they were offered immunity last year, though no actual offers had been made before April 2023.In one instance, Debrow claimed, the prosecutor threatened to “tear up” the immunity deal that was already in force and binding if Debrow did not stop clarifying that the discussions about immunity prior to April were only potential offers.“Here’s the deal. Here’s the deal. Either [Elector E] is going to get this immunity, and he’s going to answer the questions – and wants to talk – or we’re going to leave. And if we leave, we’re ripping up his immunity agreement,” Wade is said to have told Debrow and her client.Debrow also claimed she could find no testimony in her clients’ interview transcripts showing them implicating another fake electors in a further crime, noting that the district attorney’s office had refused to say what the alleged crime was, or who had made the allegations.“All of the electors remain united in their collective innocence and defenses, and none testified or believe that they or any other elector committed any wrongdoing, much less ‘criminal acts’,” the filing said.Debrow added that even if it were true that some of clients incriminated another of her clients, it would not matter since they could not be prosecuted as a result of the immunity deals. More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Video of Trump confusing E Jean Carroll with ex-wife in deposition is released

      by

      Video of Donald Trump’s deposition in his civil rape trial in New York City was released to the public on Friday.The footage, from last October, included a previously reported but never publicly seen exchange in which the former president mistook a picture of his accuser, the writer E Jean Carroll, for a picture of his second wife, Marla Maples.“That’s Marla, yeah,” Trump said. “That’s my wife.”His questioner said: “The person you’ve just pointed to is E Jean Carroll.”Carroll says Trump raped her in a department store in New York in the mid-1990s. She is suing for battery and for defamation, over comments he made while denying the claim, which she made in a book in 2019.In one such comment, repeated in his deposition, Trump said Carroll was not his “type”.On Friday, Renato Mariotti – a former federal prosecutor now a columnist for Politico – pointed to the impact the footage could have in deciding the case.“Trump claims E Jean Carroll isn’t his type,” Mariotti said, “but he mistook a picture of her for a picture of his ex-wife. You don’t need to be a lawyer to understand why his testimony could [affect] the jury’s verdict.”In the clip, Trump called Carroll’s claim “the most ridiculous, disgusting story” which he said was “just made up”. An exchange followed about when Trump became aware of a picture showing him with his first wife, Ivana Trump, Carroll and Carroll’s then husband, John Johnson, at a public event in New York.Shown the picture, Trump said: “I don’t even know who the woman – let’s see, I don’t know who, it’s Marla.”His questioner asked: “You say Marla’s in this photo?”Trump said: “That’s Marla, yeah. That’s my wife.”Asked “which woman are you pointing to”, Trump said: “Here.”His questioner said: “The person you’ve just pointed to is E Jean Carroll.”“Oh I see,” Trump said, adding: “Is that Carroll? Because it’s very blurry”.Trump’s affair with Maples was a tabloid staple in the 1980s, one indelible headline, engineered by Trump, seeing Maples proclaim him the provider of the “Best Sex I’ve Ever Had”.In his deposition, he was asked if he had seen other women while married to his first wife. He answered: “I don’t know.”Trump was also shown repeating, “with as much respect as I can”, his contention that Carroll “is not my type. Not my type in any way, shape or form.”In rally footage shown at his deposition, Trump described Jessica Leeds, who accuses him of sexual assault on a plane in the late 1970s, as “not my first choice, that I can tell you … that would not be my first choice”. This week, Leeds testified for Carroll.Trump told Carroll’s lawyer she “wouldn’t be a choice of mine either, to be honest with you, I hope you’re not insulted, I would not in any circumstances have any interest in you”. He also called the lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, a “political operative” and a “disgrace”.Other footage showed Trump discussing the Access Hollywood, hot-mic footage which surfaced in 2016, briefly threatening to derail Trump’s election campaign.In that tape, Trump said: “I just start kissing them, it’s like a magnet, just kiss, I don’t even wait and when you’re a star they just let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.”In his deposition, he said: “Well historically, that’s true with stars.”He was asked: “It’s true you can grab them by the pussy?”He said: “Well, if you look over the last million years, I guess that’s been largely true. Not always, but largely true. Unfortunately or fortunately.”“You consider yourself a star?”“I think you can say that, yeah.”The jury saw the footage this week. Lawyers for Carroll rested on Thursday. For Trump, the lawyer Joe Tacopina said no witnesses would be called and Trump would not testify himself. Trump nonetheless has until 5pm on Sunday to change his mind.Trump faces other forms of legal jeopardy, including investigations of his election subversion, retention of classified records and business and tax affairs.In another New York case, he has pleaded not guilty to 34 criminal counts related to a hush money payment to the porn star Stormy Daniels, who claims an affair Trump denies.Politically, Trump has capitalised on his predicament, alleging persecution by Democrats, enjoying a flood of donations and surging to commanding leads in Republican primary polling. More

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Mar-a-Lago employee aids investigation into whether Trump hid documents

      by

      Federal prosecutors have gained the cooperation of a person who worked at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort, the New York Times reported, as they seek a more complete picture of whether the former US president took steps to remove classified documents from a storage room in response to a subpoena for their return.The identity of the cooperating witness and the extent of the information divulged remains unknown, but the person was reported as having turned over a picture of the storage room where the vast majority of the classified documents at the property had been located.The development comes as the special counsel Jack Smith has renewed efforts to focus on whether the failure by Trump to fully comply with a subpoena last year demanding the return of any classified documents was a deliberate act of obstruction, multiple people familiar with the matter said.Last June, the Trump lawyer Evan Corcoran helped draft a sworn statement attesting to a “diligent search” for any classified documents. Corcoran returned some papers to the justice department, but his search was proved to be incomplete when the FBI later seized 101 classified documents.To understand whether Trump decided to hide classified documents after receiving the subpoena, investigators have been examining Trump’s handling of any classified documents, how and where they were stored, why the subpoena was not fully complied with, and gaps in surveillance footage.The special counsel recently issued more subpoenas to Mar-a-Lago employees – including the chefs in the kitchen and a housekeeper who has been called in at least twice – to the point that nearly everyone who works at the property has been quizzed, the people said.To resolve the issue about the gaps in the surveillance footage, the special counsel last week subpoenaed Matthew Calamari Sr, the Trump Organization’s security chief who became its chief operating officer, and his son Matthew Calamari Jr, the director of corporate security.Both Calamaris testified to the federal grand jury in Washington on Thursday, and were questioned in part on a text message that Trump’s valet, Walt Nauta, had sent them around the time that the justice department last year asked for the surveillance footage, one of the people said.The text message is understood to involve Nauta asking Matthew Calamari Sr to call him back about the justice department’s request, one of the people said – initially a point of confusion for the justice department, which appears to have thought the text was to Calamari Jr.But Nauta has emerged as a central player in the incomplete subpoena response, after he was seen on the surveillance footage going in and out of the storage room to collect and return boxes both before and after the subpoena was issued to Trump in May of last year.The scrutiny around Nauta has long been focused on whether Trump enlisted his help to remove classified documents from the storage room and take them to his office or elsewhere before Trump’s lawyers searched the room when they completed their incomplete subpoena response.Nauta himself has turned into a dead-end for investigators when, last fall, the justice department threatened to charge him with obstruction or making false statements to the FBI after he gave differing accounts to investigators in an effort to scare him into cooperation.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBut the move backfired. Nauta’s lawyer informed the justice department that his client would never again talk to investigators unless he was charged or unless he was offered an immunity deal like what was offered to Trump adviser Kash Patel, according to multiple people familiar with the matter.In a statement, a Trump spokesman said of the investigation: “This is nothing more than a targeted, politically motivated witch-hunt against President Trump that is concocted to meddle in an election and prevent the American people from returning him to the White House.”The special counsel had not made a decision either way as of Friday, one of the people said, and the threat of charges was the last interaction that Nauta has had with investigators. Likewise, Patel’s last interaction was when he testified to the grand jury pursuant to his immunity deal.Some people inside the justice department believe that threatening Nauta with prosecution so early on in the investigation was a mistake, and that they could have taken a lighter approach that could have led to answers for issues that have since cropped up, one of the people said.After losing Nauta, investigators have turned to other witnesses who could shed light on his role. In recent interviews, they have asked whether Nauta removed boxes containing classified documents when he was in the storage room at the time of the subpoena, and where he went with them. More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Proud Boys: four found guilty of seditious conspiracy over Capitol attack

      by

      Four members of the Proud Boys extremist group, including its former leader Enrique Tarrio, were on Thursday convicted of seditious conspiracy for their roles in planning and leading the January 6 Capitol attack, in a desperate effort to keep Donald Trump in power after his 2020 election defeat.The verdicts handed down in federal court in Washington marked a major victory for the US justice department in the last of its seditious conspiracy cases related to the January 6 attack. Prosecutors previously secured convictions against members of the Oath Keepers, another far-right group.Seditious conspiracy is rarely used but became the central charge against the Proud Boys defendants after the FBI identified them as playing crucial roles in helping storm the Capitol in an effort to interrupt and stop the congressional certification of electoral results.“Evidence presented at trial detailed the extent of the violence at the Capitol on January 6 and the central role these defendants played setting into motion the unlawful events of that day,” attorney general Merrick Garland later said at a news conference at justice department headquarters.“We have secured the convictions of leaders of both the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers for seditious conspiracy, specifically conspiring to oppose by force the lawful transfer of presidential power. Our work will continue,” Garland said.Those convicted now await sentencing. The verdicts were partial, and hours after the initial four were found guilty of seditious conspiracy, the jury found another Proud Boys member Dominic Pezzola, who smashed a window to gain entry to the Capitol, not guilty of seditious conspiracy.Tarrio, who was not in Washington for the Capitol attack, as well as Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs and Zachary Rehl were also convicted of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. All five were convicted of obstructing an official proceeding.The trial, which lasted more than three months and tested the scope of the sedition law, was particularly fraught for the defense, the prosecution and the presiding US district court judge, Timothy Kelly. Clashes in court and motions for mistrial were frequent.Trump played an outsized role in the trial, given the reverence the Proud Boys accorded the former president. In closing arguments, the prosecution said they acted as “Donald Trump’s army” to “keep their preferred leader in power” after rejecting Joe Biden’s victory.The former president has long been considered the lynchpin for the involvement of the Proud Boys and others in the Capitol attack when he called for a “wild” protest on 6 January 2021 in an infamous December 2020 tweet and told supporters to “fight like hell” for his cause.More than a thousand arrests have been made in connection to the Capitol attack and hundreds of convictions secured. Trump was impeached a second time for inciting an insurrection but acquitted by Senate Republicans. He still faces state and federal investigations of his attempted election subversion.In court, prosecutors said Tarrio and his top lieutenants used Trump’s December tweet as a call to arms and started putting together a cadre that they called the “Ministry of Self-Defense” to travel to Washington for the protest, according to private group chats and recordings of discussions the FBI obtained.Around 20 December 2020, Tarrio created a chat called “MOSD Leaders Group” – described by Tarrio as a “national rally planning committee” – that included Nordean, Biggs and Rehl. The chat was used to plan a “DC trip” where all would dress in dark tones, to remain incognito.The prosecution argued that Tarrio’s text messages about “Seventeen seventy six”, in reference to the year of American independence from Britain, suggested the leadership of the Proud Boys saw their January 6 operation as a revolutionary force.Lacking evidence in the hundreds of thousands of texts about an explicit plan to storm or occupy the Capitol, the prosecution used two cooperating witnesses from the Proud Boys to make the case that the defendants worked together in a conspiracy to stop the peaceful transfer of power.The first witness, Jeremy Bertino, told the jury the Proud Boys had a penchant for violence and there was a tacit understanding that they needed to engage in an “all-out revolution” to stop Biden taking office, testimony meant to directly support a sedition charge.The second witness, Matthew Greene, told the jury he did not initially understand why the Proud Boys marched from the Washington monument to the Capitol to be among the first people at the barricades surrounding Congress, instead of going to Trump’s speech near the White House.Once the Proud Boys led the charge from the barricades to the west front of the Capitol, Pezzola using a police riot shield to smash a window, Greene said he realized there may have been a deliberate effort to lead the January 6 riot.The prosecution persuaded the judge to allow them to use a novel legal strategy: that though the Proud Boys leaders did not really engage in violence themselves – Tarrio was not even in Washington – they got other rioters to do so, using them as “tools” of their insurrection conspiracy.The defense protested the ruling allowing prosecutors to show the jury videos of other low-level Proud Boys and random rioters committing violence at the Capitol, saying that it amounted to making the five defendants guilty by association.Notwithstanding the other evidence, the defense’s complaint was that if the jury had to assess whether the defendants’ limited use of violence alone met the threshold to “destroy by force the government of the United States”, the outcome might have been affected. More

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Hungary’s far-right PM calls for Trump’s return: ‘Come back, Mr President’

      by

      The Hungarian leader Viktor Orbán has called for Donald Trump’s return to office, claiming their shared brand of hard-right populism is on the rise around the world, in a speech to US Republicans and their European allies in Budapest.Orbán was addressing the second annual meeting of the US Conservative Political Action Coalition (CPAC) in the Hungarian capital, aimed at cementing radical rightwing ties across the Atlantic. He said that conservatives have “occupied big European sanctuaries”, which he listed as Budapest, Warsaw, Rome and Jerusalem. He added that Vienna “is also not hopeless” .He noted that Washington and Brussels were still in the grip of liberalism, which he described as a “virus that will atomize and disintegrate our nations”.The Orbán government has made tentative approaches to open contacts with Ron DeSantis, with the Hungarian president, Katalin Novák, flying to meet the Florida governor in Tallahassee in March, but at Thursday’s CPAC conference it was overwhelmingly Trumpist, and Orbán threw his full-throated support behind the former US president.He said: “I’m sure if President Trump would be the president, there would be no war in Ukraine and Europe. Come back, Mr President. Make America great again and bring us peace.”The prime minister, who last year won his fourth consecutive term in office, portrayed Hungary’s self-described “illiberal Christian democracy” – widely criticised for its constraints on media and academic freedom, and for its anti-LGBTQ+ legislation – as a model for the world.“Hungary is an incubator where the conservative policies of the future are being tested,” Orbán said.The conference site, a modernist building called the Bálna, or whale, was festooned with messages echoing that theme. A gateway on the main path to the entrance declared it a “no-woke zone”. Inside, a huge map of Hungary was emblazoned with the words: “No country for woke men.”Some guests arrived in T-shirts that displayed Orbán and Trump together as “peacemakers” and “saviors of the world”. The event’s 2023 motto was “United we stand”.On its first day, the CPAC conference watched a 25-second video greeting from Tucker Carlson, a keen admirer of Orbán, which was clearly recorded before he was fired by Fox News last week.“I wish I was there in Budapest. If I ever get fired, have some time, and can leave, I’ll be there with you,” Carlson promised.Most independent journalists were refused accreditation for the event, in a country where the International Press Institute has said media freedom “remains suffocated”. During the Covid outbreak, Orbán’s government passed a law imposing prison sentences of up to five years for spreading disinformation. Hungarian journalists say the law was being used to deny them access to information, and on occasion to threaten them.The CPAC chair, Matt Schlapp, said Hungary was a model for dealing with journalists. He said that he told the event’s Hungarian organisers his team “would determine who a journalist is”, adding that was “quite revolutionary for the Americans, because in America a journalist tells them who is a journalist and we treat them like a journalist”.Schlapp said that in Hungary journalists had to follow certain rules about writing the truth and presenting “both sides” of a story.Orbán could point to a widening of the radical right coalition this year, with the presence of the Georgian prime minister, Irakli Garibashvili, who praised his Hungarian counterpart as “far-sighted” and stressed his party Georgian Dream’s commitment to prioritising “family values” over “LGBTQ propaganda”. More