Donald Trump

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Georgia judge reserves decision on Trump grand jury report

      by

      Georgia judge reserves decision on Trump grand jury reportFulton county district attorney Fani Willis said making public a grand jury’s investigation could prejudice a fair trial A highly anticipated hearing in Atlanta on Tuesday was largely inconclusive after a judge decided not to immediately rule on whether or not to make public an investigative report on Donald Trump’s attempt to to overturn the results of the 2020 election in Georgia.Fani Willis, Fulton county district attorney, strongly hinted she could prosecute a former president for the first time in US history at the hearing. But she said making public a grand jury’s investigation of Donald Trump’s attempt to could prejudice a fair trial for ‘multiple’ accused.Arizona’s new attorney general to use election fraud unit to boost voting rightsRead moreThe judge overseeing the hearing, Robert McBurney, reserved his decision on whether to release the special purpose grand jury’s report before any announcement about prosecutions in what he described as an “extraordinary” case, leaving Tuesday’s hearing without a final conclusion.Willis’s office is holding the only copy of the results of the grand jury’s investigation into a series of alleged crimes, including criminal solicitation to commit election fraud, intentional interference with the performance of election duties, conspiracy and racketeering. The Fulton county district attorney said she wanted to keep the grand jury’s recommendations on who to prosecute, and on what charges, under wraps until she has decided whether to pursue charges for crimes that potentially carry significant prison sentences.“We have to be mindful of protecting future defendants’ rights,” she said. “We want to make sure that everyone is treated fairly and we say for future defendants to be treated fairly it’s not appropriate at this time to have this report released.”Willis then added: “Decisions are imminent”.If Willis decides to press charges, she will be required to make her case to another grand jury which has the authority to issue indictments.The district attorney spoke about the prospect of “individuals, multiple” being prosecuted. At least 18 other people have been told they also potentially face charges including Trump’s close ally and lawyer, the former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani.Before the special purpose grand jury was dissolved two weeks ago after months of hearings, its members recommended releasing its findings.Lawyers for media organisations told Tuesday’s hearing that the grand jury’s wish should be respected because of overwhelming public interest and challenged the claim that the report’s release would prejudice any trial.At the conclusion of the hearing, McBurney reserved his decision on whether to make public the report.“This is not simple. I think the fact that we had to discuss this for 90 minutes shows that it is somewhat extraordinary,” he said. “Partly what’s extraordinary is what’s at issue here, the alleged interference with a presidential election.”McBurney said that if he does order that the report is made public, he will give prosecutors notice before it is released.“No one’s going to wake up with the court having disclosed the report on the front page of the newspaper,” he said.Legal scholars have said they believe Trump is “at substantial risk of prosecution” in Georgia over his attempts to strong-arm officials into fixing the election in his favour when it looked as if the state might decide the outcome of the presidential election. Trump’s lawyers did not participate in the hearing because, they said, Willis had not sought to interview the former president for the investigation.“Therefore, we can assume that the grand jury did their job and looked at the facts and the law, as we have, and concluded there were no violations of the law by President Trump,” the lawyers said in a statement.Willis launched her investigation into “a multi-state, coordinated plan by the Trump campaign to influence the results” just weeks after the former president left office. The probe initially focussed on a tape recording of Trump pressuring Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, to conjure nearly 12,000 votes out of thin air in order to overturn Joe Biden’s win.Willis expanded the investigation as more evidence emerged of Trump and his allies attempting to manipulate the results, including the appointment of a sham slate of 16 electors to replace the state’s legitimate members of the electoral college. The fake electors included the chair of the Georgia Republican Party, David Shafer, and Republican members of the state legislature who have been warned that they are at risk of prosecution.TopicsDonald TrumpThe fight for democracyGeorgiaRudy GiulianiRepublicansUS elections 2020US politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Classified documents discovered at Mike Pence’s home in Indiana

      by

      Classified documents discovered at Mike Pence’s home in IndianaTop adviser to former vice-president says in letter that papers were inadvertently stored and Pence was unaware they were there Close aides to Mike Pence discovered about a dozen classified-marked documents stored in boxes at his home in Indiana last week and turned over the materials to the US justice department, according to a top adviser to the former vice-president.The documents were inadvertently taken to Pence’s home at the end of the Donald Trump administration and Pence was unaware of their presence, his representative to the National Archives and former counsel Greg Jacob said in a letter.The presence of sensitive papers in Pence’s home, weeks after similar discoveries at Biden’s properties and after the FBI seized hundreds of classified-marked documents from Donald Trump, also raises more questions about the management of sensitive government records.Special counsels have been appointed to investigate Biden and Trump over the retention of such documents.Jacob said in the letter, dated 18 January and first reported by CNN, that Pence hired an outside lawyer to search his home out of an abundance of caution after the discovery of classified-marked documents at Biden’s residence and a private office in Washington.The letter added that the lawyer could not specify anything more about the documents – including the content, dates and classification level, which remain unclear – because he stopped looking as soon he saw the classified markings.“On Monday, 16 January, Vice-President Pence engaged outside counsel, with experience in handling classified documents, to review records stored in his personal home,” Jacob wrote. “Counsel identified a small number of documents that could potentially contain sensitive or classified information.”Jacob notified the National Archives and the agency immediately alerted the justice department’s national security division, which took possession of the documents and is understood to have launched a review into the matter.The discovery of classified-marked documents is an embarrassing development for Pence after he confidently told ABC News last year that he had not improperly removed any materials from the White House. “I did not,” Pence said in November last year.Trump – Pence’s former boss – has been under federal investigation for more than a year over whether he wilfully retained national security documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort after the end of his presidency, and whether he obstructed efforts by the justice department to secure their return starting in May last year.Compared to Biden and now Pence, who moved quickly to return documents to the government, Trump’s resistance to handing over materials at his Florida property led to the justice department turning his case into a criminal investigation.The department has typically pursued cases of mishandled classified documents criminally when they involve aggravating factors: wilful mishandling of classified information, vast quantities of materials to suggest misconduct, disloyalty to the United States and obstruction.The investigation into Trump touches on at least two of those elements – obstruction, where a person conceals documents with an intent to impede a government agency, and the volume of classified materials at Mar-a-Lago.The obstruction applies particularly to Trump because of his repeated refusal to fully surrender classified documents, including when he only partially complied with a grand jury subpoena issued in May demanding any classified materials.For months, Trump also resisted conducting a search for any classified documents that the justice department suspected were still in his possession even after the FBI searched Mar-a-Lago, only for an eventual search in December to turn up two additional documents.TopicsMike PenceUS politicsDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Biden urges Congress to reinstate assault weapons ban after latest shooting – live

      by

      A familiar cycle occurs after American mass shootings, and by all appearances, it’s happening again after the twin massacres in California.It goes something like this: multiple people are killed by a gunman, as happened in California’s Monterey Park on Saturday and Half Moon Bay on Monday. Joe Biden calls for new restrictions on gun ownership, arguing they could have prevented the killer from getting their hands on a weapon. He’s backed by most, if not all Democrats in Congress, but rejected by most, if not all, Republicans. The demand goes nowhere.The one exception to that came after last year’s shootings at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, and at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York, when Democrats managed to win enough Republican votes to get a package of modest gun control measures through Congress. But the legislation was not the ban on assault weapons Biden called on Congress pass, a demand he repeated in the months since, as mass shootings continued. With Republicans now controlling the House of Representatives, it seems even less likely such a measure will get approved.The Senate judiciary committee has begun a hearing on the live event ticketing industry, after Ticketmaster last year bungled sales of tickets to megastar Taylor Swfit’s latest tour.“The issues within America’s ticketing industry were made painfully obvious when Ticketmaster’s website failed hundreds of thousands of fans hoping to purchase tickets for Taylor Swift’s new tour, but these problems are not new,” Democratic senator Amy Klobuchar said in a statement last week announcing the hearing. “For too long, consumers have faced high fees, long waits, and website failures, and Ticketmaster’s dominant market position means the company faces inadequate pressure to innovate and improve.”“American consumers deserve the benefit of competition in every market, from grocery chains to concert venues,” her Republican counterpart senator Mike Lee said.When ticket’s for Swift’s first tour in five years went on sale in November, Ticketmaster’s website crashed, leaving customers for “presale” tickets stranded in line and forcing the cancellation of its public sale. The justice department is reportedly investigating the company in an inquiry that started before the problems with the Swift tour. Ticketmaster meanwhile spent nearly $1.3m on lobbying in 2021, targeting the justice department and Congress’s efforts to regulate its business.You can watch the hearing live here.Donald Trump’s foe today – and potentially for many months to come – is an Atlanta prosecutor with a history of taking on organized crime, the Guardian’s Carlisa N. Johnson reports:An Atlanta prosecutor appears ready to use the same Georgia statute to prosecute Donald Trump that she used last year to charge dozens of gang members and well-known rappers who allegedly conspired to commit violent crime.Fani Willis was elected Fulton county district attorney just days before the conclusion of the 2020 presidential election. But as she celebrated her promotion, Trump and his allies set in motion a flurry of unfounded claims of voter fraud in Georgia, the state long hailed as a Republican stronghold for local and national elections.Willis assumed office on 1 January 2021, becoming the first Black woman in the position. The next day, according to reports, Trump called rad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state, urging him to “find” the nearly 12,000 votes he needed to secure a victory and overturn the election results.The following month, Willis launched an investigation into Trump’s interference in the state’s general election. Now, in a hearing on Tuesday, the special purpose grand jury and the presiding judge will decide whether to release to the public the final report and findings of the grand jury that was seated to investigate Trump and his allies.Could Trump be charged for racketeering? A Georgia prosecutor thinks soRead moreToday may be a big day for Donald Trump, and not in a good way, the Guardian’s Chris McGreal reports:A judge in Atlanta will hear legal arguments today to determine if he should make public a Georgia grand jury’s report into whether former president Donald Trump committed criminal offences when he tried to overturn the results of the 2020 election in the state.Before the special purpose grand jury was dissolved two weeks ago after months of hearings, its members recommended releasing its findings while the Fulton county district attorney who launched the investigation, Fani Willis, decides whether to press charges against Trump.Legal scholars have said they believe Trump is “at substantial risk of prosecution” in Georgia over his attempts to strong-arm officials into fixing the election in his favour when it looked as if the state might decide the outcome of the presidential election. At least 18 other people have been told they also potentially face prosecution, including Trump’s close ally and lawyer, the former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani.The Fulton county superior court judge who oversaw the grand jury, Robert McBurney, will hear from Willis but not lawyers for Trump, who said on Monday that they will not participate in the hearing. They said that Willis had not sought to interview the former president for the investigation.“Therefore, we can assume that the grand jury did their job and looked at the facts and the law, as we have, and concluded there were no violations of the law by President Trump,” the lawyers said in a statement.Trump and allies face legal jeopardy in Georgia over 2020 election interferenceRead moreWhile mass shootings such as those that occurred over the past days in California may generate headlines and calls for action, the Guardian’s Oliver Holmes reports gun violence is distressingly common in the United States:Two horrific killings separated by just a few days have shaken California, but such nightmarish mass shootings cannot be considered abnormal in the US. With a week still left in January, this year there have already been 39 mass shootings across the country, five of them in California.Reports from the Gun Violence Archive, a not-for-profit research group, show the predictability of American mass shootings. Nearly 70 people have been shot dead in them so far in 2023, according to their data – which classifies a mass shooting as any armed attack in which at least four people are injured or killed, not including the perpetrator.Broadened out to include all deaths from gun violence, not including suicides, 1,214 people have been killed before the end of the first month of this year, including 120 children. That is likely to increase to tens of thousands by the end of 2023 – the figure for 2022 is 20,200.In comparison, the latest data from the UK showed that in the course of an entire year ending in March 2022, 31 people were killed by firearms. The UK’s population is 67 million to the US’s 333 million.‘Tragedy upon tragedy’: why 39 US mass shootings already this year is just the startRead moreA familiar cycle occurs after American mass shootings, and by all appearances, it’s happening again after the twin massacres in California.It goes something like this: multiple people are killed by a gunman, as happened in California’s Monterey Park on Saturday and Half Moon Bay on Monday. Joe Biden calls for new restrictions on gun ownership, arguing they could have prevented the killer from getting their hands on a weapon. He’s backed by most, if not all Democrats in Congress, but rejected by most, if not all, Republicans. The demand goes nowhere.The one exception to that came after last year’s shootings at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, and at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York, when Democrats managed to win enough Republican votes to get a package of modest gun control measures through Congress. But the legislation was not the ban on assault weapons Biden called on Congress pass, a demand he repeated in the months since, as mass shootings continued. With Republicans now controlling the House of Representatives, it seems even less likely such a measure will get approved.Good morning, US politics blog readers. Joe Biden has called for Congress to again pass a ban on assault weapons, after seven people were killed in a mass shooting on Monday on the outskirts of the California town of Half Moon Bay. That was just days after a separate shooter killed 11 people in Monterey Park, a suburb of Los Angeles. Congress passed an assault weapons ban in 1994 that expired 10 years later, and Biden has repeatedly called for renewing it, including after the massacre at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas last year. But many Republicans in Congress oppose such a measure, and just as in the aftermath of previous mass shootings, it seems unlikely to pass.Here’s what we can expect to happen today:
      A judge in Atlanta will at 12 pm eastern time convene a hearing to determine whether a special grand jury’s report into Donald Trump’s campaign to meddle in Georgia’s 2020 election outcome will be made public, upping the legal stakes for the former president.
      Biden will hold a White House meeting with Democratic congressional leaders at 3 pm, and a reception for new lawmakers at 5:20 pm.
      White House press secretary Karine Jean Pierre will brief reporters at 1:30 pm, who will likely ask her questions abut the Biden classified document scandal that she will not answer. More

    • 150 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Trump and allies face legal jeopardy in Georgia over 2020 election interference

      by

      Trump and allies face legal jeopardy in Georgia over 2020 election interferenceJudge considers releasing grand jury report as DA weighs pressing charges against former president and his ally Rudolph Giuliani A judge in Atlanta will hear legal arguments today to determine if he should make public a Georgia grand jury’s report into whether former president Donald Trump committed criminal offences when he tried to overturn the results of the 2020 election in the state.Before the special purpose grand jury was dissolved two weeks ago after months of hearings, its members recommended releasing its findings while the Fulton county district attorney who launched the investigation, Fani Willis, decides whether to press charges against Trump.Arizona’s new attorney general to use election fraud unit to boost voting rightsRead moreLegal scholars have said they believe Trump is “at substantial risk of prosecution” in Georgia over his attempts to strong-arm officials into fixing the election in his favour when it looked as if the state might decide the outcome of the presidential election. At least 18 other people have been told they also potentially face prosecution, including Trump’s close ally and lawyer, the former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani.The Fulton county superior court judge who oversaw the grand jury, Robert McBurney, will hear from Willis but not lawyers for Trump, who said on Monday that they will not participate in the hearing. They said that Willis had not sought to interview the former president for the investigation.“Therefore, we can assume that the grand jury did their job and looked at the facts and the law, as we have, and concluded there were no violations of the law by President Trump,” the lawyers said in a statement.Willis’s office has not said what its position will be at the hearing, but the prosecutor may see an advantage in releasing at least part of the report if she intends to press ahead with charges.The rarely used special purpose grand jury cannot issue indictments; if it recommends prosecutions, Willis would be required to ask a regular grand jury to formalise the charges.McBurney is not expected to immediately rule on whether the report should be released.TopicsUS newsThe fight for democracyDonald TrumpRudy GiulianiGeorgiaRepublicansUS elections 2020US politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Could Trump be charged for racketeering? A Georgia prosecutor thinks so

      by

      Could Trump be charged for racketeering? A Georgia prosecutor thinks soFani Willis, the Fulton county district attorney, appears poised to use the states’s Rico law to convict the ex-president An Atlanta prosecutor appears ready to use the same Georgia statute to prosecute Donald Trump that she used last year to charge dozens of gang members and well-known rappers who allegedly conspired to commit violent crime.What is Georgia’s Trump election inquiry and will it lead to charges?Read moreFani Willis was elected Fulton county district attorney just days before the conclusion of the 2020 presidential election. But as she celebrated her promotion, Trump and his allies set in motion a flurry of unfounded claims of voter fraud in Georgia, the state long hailed as a Republican stronghold for local and national elections.Willis assumed office on 1 January 2021, becoming the first Black woman in the position. The next day, according to reports, Trump called rad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state, urging him to “find” the nearly 12,000 votes he needed to secure a victory and overturn the election results.The following month, Willis launched an investigation into Trump’s interference in the state’s general election. Now, in a hearing on Tuesday, the special purpose grand jury and the presiding judge will decide whether to release to the public the final report and findings of the grand jury that was seated to investigate Trump and his allies.Willis, who has not shied away from high-profile cases, has made headlines for her aggressive style of prosecution. Willis was a lead prosecutor in the 2013 prosecution of educators in Atlanta accused of inflating students’ scores on standardized tests. More recently, Willis brought a case against a supposed Georgia gang known as YSL, including charges against rappers Yung Thug and Gunna.Though the cases of teachers forging test scores and the alleged crimes of a local gang may, on their face, seem to have nothing to do with the alleged election interference of a former president, Willis is alleging that all of these cases illustrate a pattern of organized crime.The first two cases fall under Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or Rico Act. Though no official charges have been brought in the Trump investigation, experts believe that Rico charges are a very real possibility for the former president.“Among the things that are considered racketeering activity in the state of Georgia is knowingly and willfully making a false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of state government,” said Clark D Cunningham, a professor of law at Georgia State University. “If you do that, you’ve committed a racketeering activity. If you attempt to do that, if you solicit someone else to do it or you coerce someone else to do it – it’s all considered racketeering under Georgia law.”Georgia’s Rico Act, which dates back to 1980, can be used more broadly than the more strict federal Rico statute, Cunningham said. Prosecutors can bring charges under many different state and federal laws to allege a pattern of misconduct, and convictions carry a penalty of up to 20 years in prison.In a recent interview with the Washington Post, Willis praised the utility of Georgia’s law.“I have right now more Rico indictments in the last 18 months, 20 months, than were probably done in the last 10 years out of this office,” she said.Willis’ office declined the Guardian’s request for an interview, saying she would not speak to the media in the days before the 24 January hearing. While the tools she would use if she chose to prosecute Trump are still unknown, she has reportedly said she is considering using the state’s Rico law.In 2021, she hired Rico expert ​​John Floyd to serve as a special assistant district attorney to work with lawyers in her office on any cases involving racketeering.According to Cunningham, Willis’ use of the Rico Act to prosecute Trump would be a “stroke of genius”. She is not only well-versed in what it takes to get results through the state’s vast Rico Act, but as a prosecutor and now district attorney, Willis “cut her teeth” on major, politically divisive cases using the statute.“She’s received criticism that she’s prosecuting cases that are too ambitious or that there’s too much of a conspiracy alleged, but she’s shown in these cases that she’s able to use Rico to prosecute all the way to the top,” Cunningham said.As he explains, Rico was initially established as a way to prosecute gang and organized crime activity when leaders at the top of organizations typically did not directly commit crimes themselves but instead had others of “lower ranking” do it.“There appear to be clear criminal activities, and [no matter] whether or not the person at the top, in this case, Trump, was directly involved in each activity or not, if he participated in what is shown to be a racketeering organization, which “Stop the Steal” might be, and conspired with others, participated directly or indirectly, he can be shown to have violated the Rico law,” he said.A key element of prosecution under Georgia’s Rico Act is the need to illustrate a pattern. According to an analysis from the Brookings Institution, Trump’s repeated calls to election officials, targeted written correspondence, false allegations and supposed coordinated attempts to provide fraudulent electoral certificates constitute a pattern of misconduct.“The statute recognizes that if violations of individual criminal statutes by a single person are bad, an enterprise that repeatedly violates the law is worse and should be subject to additional sanction,” the analysis states.Members of the special grand jury were able to issue public subpoenas of pivotal players in the alleged conspiracy, the only public element of the investigation so far. Some of those subpoenaed would otherwise likely be uncooperative and offer limited insight. Those subpoenaed include Trump’s former attorney Rudy Giuliani, South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham, and Georgia governor Brian Kemp.Most of those subpoenaed in the case have provided significant pushback. They have cited partisan political motivation as a driving force of the case, rather than an unbiased application of the law.Though Kemp vehemently denies widespread election fraud during the 2020 election and went toe to toe with Trump to confirm the state’s election results, he has not been cooperative in the inquiry. In one of Kemp’s attorney’s filings in response to his subpoena, he accused Willis’ probe of being politically motivated, hinting at a partisan bias. “Unfortunately, what began as an investigation into election interference has itself devolved into its own mechanism of election interference,” he said.While the special grand jury proceedings are confidential, there is speculation as to how Willis will proceed following Tuesday’s hearing, Cunningham said. But given her history of using the Rico Act, he said it’s likely she will string together “all kinds of different events over the span of a number of months, which by themselves might seem innocent or not seem worthy of prosecution”, to create a “convincing narrative that this was a conspiracy to ultimately undermine American democracy”.TopicsGeorgiaAtlantaDonald TrumpUS elections 2020US politicsfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Kevin McCarthy reportedly ‘will never leave’ Marjorie Taylor Greene

      by

      Kevin McCarthy reportedly ‘will never leave’ Marjorie Taylor GreeneThe far-right Republican congresswoman was a fierce advocate of the House speaker during the 15-vote marathon for the office Kevin McCarthy reportedly said he would “never leave” Marjorie Taylor Greene, the far-right, conspiracy theorist Republican congresswoman from Georgia, after she backed him through a rightwing rebellion and 15 rounds of voting for the position of US House speaker.Far-right Republicans Greene and Gosar restored to House committeesRead more“I will never leave that woman,” McCarthy told a friend, according to the New York Times. “I will always take care of her.”Elected to Congress in 2020, Greene quickly became a figurehead for the pro-Trump far right, particularly after Democrats then in control of the House ejected her from committees, citing her racist statements and encouragement of violence against political opponents. Eleven Republicans supported the move.Greene also voiced support for QAnon, the conspiracy theory which holds that Democratic leaders are pederastic cannibals; spoke at a white supremacist rally; criticised and contravened Covid-19 public health measures; and, among countless other controversies, suggested Jewish-controlled “space solar generators” were responsible for destructive wildfires.Recently, Greene said that if she had been in charge of Trump supporters who attacked Congress on 6 January 2021 – an attempt to overturn Joe Biden’s election win now linked to nine deaths and more than 900 charges – “we would have won”.In comments she later claimed were made in jest, Greene also said the protesters “would’ve been armed”.In a detailed examination of the emerging bond between McCarthy and Greene, the Times said the speaker’s remarks about the congresswoman’s support were made to a friend who wished to stay anonymous.But both politicians spoke to the paper of record.“If you’re going to be in a fight, you want Marjorie in your foxhole,” McCarthy said. “When she picks a fight, she’s going to fight until the fight’s over. She reminds me of my friends from high school, that we’re going to stick together all the way through.”Greene said that by sticking to his agenda as speaker, McCarthy would “easily vindicate me and prove I moved the conference to the right during my first two years when I served in the minority with no committees”.Greene told the paper McCarthy’s defense of her when Democrats removed her from her committee assignments in February 2021 “had a big impact on me”.Almost two years later, she and McCarthy were shown in regular and close contact during the 15-vote speakership marathon, a process covered by C-Span cameras and watched by a national audience.Last week, McCarthy assigned Greene to the homeland security and oversight committees, both set to be key engines of Republican attacks on the Biden administration over the next two years.Greene told the Times: “People need to understand that it isn’t just me that deserves credit. It is the will and the voice of our base that was heard, and Kevin listened to them. I was just a vehicle much of the time.”TopicsKevin McCarthyHouse of RepresentativesUS politicsRepublicansUS CongressDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      What is Georgia’s Trump election inquiry and will it lead to charges?

      by

      ExplainerWhat is Georgia’s Trump election inquiry and will it lead to charges?The investigation looks at if Trump and his allies committed a crime in their efforts to overturn the 2020 election A court hearing on Tuesday will mark one of the most significant developments in a Georgia investigation examining whether Donald Trump and allies committed a crime in their efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Here’s all you need to know about that hearing and what to expect next.Trump’s political fate may have been decided – by a Georgia grand juryRead moreWhat exactly is happening on Tuesday?Since May of last year, a special purpose grand jury in Fulton county, Georgia has been investigating whether Donald Trump committed a crime under state law when he tried to overturn the 2020 election by pressuring state officials to try and overturn Joe Biden’s victory in the state.The grand jury concluded its work earlier this month. On Tuesday, there will be a hearing to determine whether the grand jury’s report should be made public. The special grand jury – which consisted of 23 jurors and three alternates – has recommended its report be made public.Why is this investigation such a big deal?Trump and allies have yet to face any criminal consequences for their efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The Fulton county probe could be the first time that charges are filed against Trump and allies for those efforts. The US House committee that investigated the January 6 attacks also made a criminal referral to the justice department, which is also investigating Trump’s actions after the 2020 election.What is a special purpose grand jury?A special purpose grand jury is seated to investigate one topic and has no time limit. It can subpoena witnesses, unlike a regular grand jury, but can’t indict someone. Instead, it makes a recommendation to prosecutors on whether to move forward with charges.A regular grand jury is seated for a set amount of time and hears a wide range of cases. It ultimately can issue an indictment.Will we know if Trump is going to be charged with a crime on Tuesday?Not necessarily. The special grand jury likely has made a recommendation on whether to bring charges to Fani Willis, a Democrat serving in her first term as the Fulton county district attorney. Willis can go to a regular grand jury and seek indictments. Tuesday’s hearing could provide a glimpse into Willis’ thinking about how to move forward.Why is this all taking place in Fulton county, Georgia?After the 2020 election, Donald Trump and allies made repeated efforts to get Georgia state officials to try and overturn the 2020 election. Many of those actions were in Atlanta, which is in Fulton county.Those efforts included Trump’s infamous call to Georgia secretary of state Brad Raffensperger asking him to overturn the election. “All I want to do is this: I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more that we have because we won the state,” Trump told Raffensperger, who rebuffed the request.In 2020, Trump campaign officials also appeared at a Georgia legislative hearing and put forth false allegations of fraud.Willis also has told Rudy Giuliani, who played a key role in spreading election misinformation in Georgia and elsewhere, that he is a target of her investigation. Other targets reportedly include those who participated in the attempt in Georgia to send fake presidential electors to Congress. Those targets include David Shafer, the chair of the Georgia GOP, and Burt Jones, a Republican state senator in 2020 who is now the state’s lieutenant governor.Willis’ investigation also reportedly includes a phone call from Senator Lindsey Graham to Raffensperger in which Graham asked if Raffensperger had the power to throw out absentee ballots. Willis is also investigating efforts to remove BJ Pak, the former US attorney with jurisdiction over Atlanta, who refused to go along with Trump’s efforts to overturn the election.Grand jury in Georgia’s Trump 2020 election investigation finishes workRead moreWhat criminal charges could Trump face?There are a menu of legal charges that could be available to prosecutors, legal experts have noted. Georgia law makes it illegal to intentionally ask, command, or get someone else to engage in election fraud. Another state statute makes it a crime to interfere with an election official as they try to carry out their official duties.Willis may also pursue RICO – Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations – charges against Trump and his allies. Relying on RICO, Willis could pursue charges against multiple defendants at once, showing that they were part of a broader conspiracy to interfere with the election. Willis has used the statute in the past and hired a lawyer who specializes in RICO cases to assist with the Trump investigation.Who has testified before the special grand jury?Top elected officials, both nationally and in Georgia, have appeared before the panel. It has heard testimony from Georgia Governor Brian Kemp and Raffensperger as well as Giuliani, Graham, and Mark Meadows, Trump’s former chief of staff. The latter three went to court to block them from having to appear. All three were unsuccessful.TopicsGeorgiaUS politicsDonald TrumpexplainersReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Proud Boys on defensive at sedition trial haunted by absent Trump

      by

      Proud Boys on defensive at sedition trial haunted by absent TrumpFive leaders of the far-right group on trial for their role in the January 6 attack have tried to turn attention to the ex-president While federal prosecutors are casting the Capitol insurrection trial of five far-right Proud Boys leaders as an attempt to bring participants of an attack on US democracy to account, the members of the group are using the proceedings to ask one question even some of their opponents on the political left agree is valid.We Are Proud Boys review: chilling exposé illuminates Republicans’ fascist turnRead moreWhy have prosecutors so far only focused their energy on the supporters of Donald Trump who are accused of a coordinated invasion of the US Capitol on 6 January 2021 in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent the congressional certification of his defeat to Joe Biden in the previous year’s presidential election? Is it because they regard the former Republican president himself – who urged his supporters to “fight like hell” that deadly day – as too formidable and them as easier targets?Attorneys for the ex-Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio and four of his lieutenants have sought to ingrain that question in the minds of jurors chosen after a particularly turbulent selection process which began last month and gave way to opening arguments and witness testimony beginning 12 January.They do so even as the strategy has not proven effective in other cases where it has been suggested that it is really Trump who is culpable for the Capitol attack – not his less powerful sycophants and camp followers.Weeks after the seditious conspiracy convictions of two leaders of the Oath Keepers – another far-right group – in connection with the Capitol attack, prosecutors in the Proud Boys case have broadly asserted that Tarrio, Zachary Rehl, Ethan Nordean, Dominic Pezzola and Joseph Biggs mustered up a “fighting force” to halt Biden from ever assuming the presidency.Tarrio and his fellow self-described “western chauvinists” believed a Democratic Biden presidency would threaten the group’s very existence, therefore they engaged in seditious conspiracy, headed a mob that forced its way into the Capitol and tried to drive a stake through “the heart of our democracy”, prosecutor Jason McCullough contended.Tarrio and his four co-defendants have pleaded not guilty to their alleged roles in the attack, which has been linked to nine deaths, including the suicides of law enforcement officers who protected the Capitol and were left traumatized. An attorney for Rehl, Carmen Hernandez, has insisted that her client went to the nation’s capital on 6 January not to riot but to exercise his free speech rights in protest of Trump’s loss to Biden.Meanwhile, an attorney representing Tarrio, Sabino Jauregui, argued that his client and the others were simply on trial because “it’s too hard to blame Trump,” whose full-throated defense to any prosecution would be mounted by an “army of lawyers”.“It’s easier to blame … the Proud Boys,” Jauregui added, saying his client and his fellow co-defendants were mere “scapegoats”.Similar arguments have been made before by others among the nearly 950 people who have been criminally charged with having participated in the Capitol riot, including about 540 who have been convicted. Those hefty numbers notably do not include Trump, though the former president has been recommended for prosecution by a congressional committee which investigated the attack.Just days ago, a judge ruled that a woman who helped attack the Capitol was indeed merely following orders from Trump, who fired up his supporters with false claims that he had been robbed of victory over Biden by electoral fraudsters.But, presiding over a bench trial, the judge concluded that the woman was still responsible for her actions, convicted her of charges of violent entry and disorderly conduct in a Capitol building, and offered up a stark reminder of how flimsy the “Trump made me do it” defense is.Nonetheless, a recent article in Salon agreed with Jauregui that “it’s ridiculous that Trump’s not in prison” over the Capitol attack.The willingness of Jauregui and others in the Proud Boys case to so pointedly ask why low-ranking followers of Trump are having their fates tried by juries while he runs for the White House again could reflect “a growing sense of frustration in the larger public” over how the US attorney general, Merrick Garland, has handled what to do about the former president.It could be a couple of weeks more, if not longer, before jurors decide the outcome of the charges against Tarrio, Rehl, Nordean, Pezzola and Biggs, who each face up to 20 years in prison if convicted of seditious conspiracy.The most powerful evidence and witnesses against the accused Proud Boys almost certainly remains ahead after court wrapped up Friday, the seventh day since jurors in the case began hearing arguments and testimony.Prosecutors have said they intend to make their case with private communications between the defendants, their statements in public, their coordinated movements at the Capitol, and their celebrations of the attack before they then tried to make it seem like they were never involved.But the trial’s already had plenty of drama.Beginning before Christmas, jury selection was turbulent, in part because Rehl’s lawyer Hernandez moved to dismiss nearly every prospective juror who mentioned having any knowledge whatsoever of the well-publicized Proud Boys, CNN reported.Then, when prospective jurors claimed they had not heard of the Proud Boys, Tarrio’s lawyers Jauregui and Nayib Hassan objected, saying those people could be lying to get on the jury in hopes of convicting their client.Prosecutors also reportedly contributed to the spectacle by blaming their failure to provide evidence binders to the defense because their office had gone through their supply of dividers and had not gotten permission to buy new ones.Then, after being seated, jurors heard grueling recordings of radio transmissions among police officers who were trying to defend the Capitol during the attack.“Send all you have!” one officer said as Trump supporters stormed their way into the building. Another voice later lamented: “Our situation here is dire.”They later also heard from a British film-maker, Nick Quested, who explained that he began following the Proud Boys and recording video of them because he wanted to document worsening political divisions across the US. He ended up capturing footage of the Proud Boys among the January 6 mob, he testified, according to the left-leaning Daily Kos website.Quested filmed as mob members screamed “treason” and “honor your oath” at police in riot gear who were desperately trying to maintain order. But the odds were overwhelmingly against the officers.“There was maybe a dozen police officers at the first line,” Quested said on the witness stand, “and you can see there are a couple hundred people at least at this point and more coming.”The Associated Press contributed reportingTopicsThe far rightUS politicsUS Capitol attackDonald TrumpfeaturesReuse this content More