Georgia

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Democrats Set to Vote on Overhauling Party’s Primary Calendar

      by

      The proposal would radically reshape the way the party picks its presidential nominees, putting more racially diverse states at the front of the line.PHILADELPHIA — Members of the Democratic National Committee are expected to vote on Saturday on a major overhaul of the Democratic primary process, a critical step in President Biden’s effort to transform the way the party picks its presidential nominees, and one that would upend decades of American political tradition.For years, Democratic nominating contests have begun with the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, a matter of immense pride in those states and a source of political identity for many highly engaged residents.But amid forceful calls for a calendar that better reflects the racial diversity of the Democratic Party and of the country — and after Iowa struggled in 2020 to deliver results — Democrats are widely expected to endorse a proposal that would start the 2024 Democratic presidential primary circuit in South Carolina, the state that resuscitated Mr. Biden’s once-flailing candidacy, on Feb. 3. It would be followed by New Hampshire and Nevada on Feb. 6, Georgia on Feb. 13 and then Michigan on Feb. 27.“This is a significant effort to make the presidential primary nominating process more reflective of the diversity of this country, and to have issues that will determine the outcome of the November election part of the early process,” said Representative Debbie Dingell, a Michigan Democrat who has vigorously pushed for moving up her state’s primary.President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. Many prominent Democrats have been adamant that the committee should defer to Mr. Biden’s preference on the primary calendar changes.Al Drago for The New York TimesIt’s a proposed calendar that in many ways rewards the racially diverse states that propelled Mr. Biden to the presidency in 2020.But logistical challenges to fully enacting it will remain even if the committee signs off on the plan, a move that was recommended by a key party panel in December. And resistance to the proposal has been especially fierce in New Hampshire, where officials have vowed to hold the first primary anyway, whatever the consequences.The Democrats’ Primary CalendarA plan spearheaded by President Biden could lead to a major overhaul of the party’s presidential primary process in 2024.Demoting Iowa: Democrats are moving to reorder the primaries by making South Carolina — instead of Iowa — the first nominating state, followed by Nevada and New Hampshire, Georgia and then Michigan.A New Chessboard: President Biden’s push to abandon Iowa for younger, racially diverse states is likely to reward candidates who connect with the party’s most loyal voters.Obstacles to the Plan: Reshuffling the early-state order could run into logistical issues, especially in Georgia and New Hampshire.An Existential Crisis: Iowa’s likely dethronement has inspired a rush of wistful memories and soul-searching among Democrats there.New Hampshire, a small state where voters are accustomed to cornering candidates in diners and intimate town hall settings, has long held the first primary as a matter of state law.New Hampshire Republicans, who control the governor’s mansion and state legislature, have stressed that they have no interest in changing that law, and many Democrats in the state have been just as forceful in saying that they cannot make changes unilaterally. Some have also warned that Mr. Biden could invite a primary challenge from someone camped out in the state, or stoke on-the-ground opposition to his expected re-election bid.Mr. Biden has had a rocky political history with the state — he placed fifth there in 2020 — but he also has longtime friends and allies in New Hampshire, some of whom have written a letter expressing concerns about the proposal.Attendees cheering after President Biden’s speech at the D.N.C.’s winter meeting. Georgia would move to Feb. 13 in the new primary calendar lineup.Al Drago for The New York TimesThe D.N.C.’s Rules and Bylaws Committee has given New Hampshire until early June to work toward meeting the requirements of the proposed calendar, but some Democrats in the state have made clear that their position is not changing.“They could say June, they could say next week, they could say in five years, but it’s not going to matter,” said former Gov. John Lynch, who signed the letter to Mr. Biden. “It’s like asking New York to move the Statue of Liberty from New York to Florida. I mean, that’s not going to happen. And it’s not going to happen that we’re going to change state law.”.css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.But many prominent Democrats have been adamant that the committee should defer to Mr. Biden’s preference, reflecting his standing as the head of the party.“If he had called me and said, ‘Jim Clyburn, I’ve decided that South Carolina should not be in the preprimary window,’ I would not have liked that at all, but I damn sure would not oppose,” said Representative James E. Clyburn, a South Carolina Democrat and close Biden ally. His state, under the new proposal, would zoom into the most influential position on the primary calendar, though Mr. Clyburn said he had personally been agnostic on the early-state order as long as South Carolina was part of the window.D.N.C. rules demand consequences for any state that operates outside the committee-approved early lineup, including cuts to the number of pledged delegates and alternates for the state in question. New Hampshire Democrats have urged the D.N.C. not to punish the state, and party officials there hope the matter of sanctions is still up for some degree of discussion.Candidates who campaign in such states could face repercussions as well, such as not receiving delegates from that particular state.Such consequences would be far more relevant in a contested primary. Much of the drama around the calendar may effectively be moot if Mr. Biden runs again, as he has said he intends to do, and if he does not face a serious primary challenge.Whether the president would campaign in New Hampshire if the state defied a D.N.C.-sanctioned calendar is an open question. Some Democrats have also questioned whether there will be an effort, if New Hampshire does not comply, to replace it with a different Northeastern state for regional representation.Georgia Democrats have also received an extension until June to work toward hosting a primary under the new calendar lineup, but they face their own logistical hurdles.Republicans have already agreed to an early primary calendar, keeping the order of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada, and Republican National Committee rules make clear that states that jump the order will lose delegates.Georgia’s primary date is determined by the secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, and officials from his office have stressed that they have no interest in holding two primaries or in risking losing delegates.A Democratic National Committee meeting on Thursday in Philadelphia. Under the new plan, the 2024 Democratic presidential primary calendar would start in South Carolina.Timothy A. Clary/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesAccording to a letter from the leaders of the Rules and Bylaws Committee, Nevada, South Carolina and Michigan have met the committee’s requirements for holding early primaries.Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan this week signed a bill moving up the state’s primary to Feb. 27. There are still questions regarding how quickly that could take effect, and how Republicans in the state may respond, but Democrats in the state have voiced confidence that the vote can be held according to the D.N.C.’s proposed calendar.There has also been some resistance to the idea of South Carolina — a Republican-tilted state that is not competitive in presidential general elections — serving as the leadoff state, while others have strongly defended the idea of elevating it.Regardless, the reshuffle may only be temporary: Mr. Biden has urged the Rules and Bylaws Committee to review the calendar every four years, and the committee has embraced steps to get that process underway. More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Atlanta shooting part of alarming US crackdown on environmental defenders

      by

      Atlanta shooting part of alarming US crackdown on environmental defenders Twenty states have enacted laws restricting rights to peaceful protest, as environmentalists are increasingly criminalized The shooting of Manuel Esteban Paez Terán, believed to be the first environmental defender killed in the US, is the culmination of a dangerous escalation in the criminalization and repression of those who seek to protect natural resources in America, campaigners have warned.The death of the 26-year-old, who was also known as “Tortuguita” or “Little Turtle,” in a forest on the fringes of Atlanta was the sort of deadly act “people who have been paying attention to this issue assumed would happen soon, with no sense of joy”, according to Marla Marcum, founder of the Climate Disobedience Center, which supports climate protesters.“The police and the state have a callousness towards the lives of those on the frontline of environmental causes and I hope this is a wake-up call to those who didn’t know that,” she said. “I hope people take the time to notice what’s going on, because if this trajectory of criminalization continues, no one is going to be safe.”Terán was shot and killed by police as officers from an assortment of forces swept through the small camp of a loose-knit activist group defending the urban forest on 18 January. Police say Terán shot and injured a Georgia state trooper with a handgun first, but the Georgia bureau of investigation has said the shooting was not recorded on body cameras, prompting calls for an independent investigation.Locator map of Atlanta, Georgia with South River forest colored in red.State and local authorities have reacted aggressively to protesters trying to stop 85 acres of the forest being torn down to build a sprawling, state-of-the-art, $90m police training complex – dubbed “Cop City” by opponents as it will feature a mock city for “tactical” exercises.Nineteen forest defenders have been charged with felonies under Georgia’s domestic terrorism laws since December. Authorities have detailed the alleged acts of so-called terror by nine of those facing charges, which include trespassing, constructing a campsite and sitting in the trees of the woodland, a 300-acre wedge of land that once contained a prison farm but is now one of the largest urban forests in the US.Brian Kemp, the Georgia governor who declared a state of emergency and mobilized 1,000 members of the national guard over the protests, has blamed “out-of-state rioters” and a “network of militant activists who have committed similar acts of domestic terrorism across the country” for the troubles.Georgia’s response to the protests follows an alarming pattern of environmental and land rights defenders across the US being threatened, arrested and charged with increasingly drastic crimes, including terrorism, for opposing oil and gas pipelines or the destruction of forests or waterways, advocates claim.‘Assassinated in cold blood’: activist killed protesting Georgia’s ‘Cop City’Read more“This was meant as a chilling deterrent, to show that the state can kill and jail environmental defenders with impunity. It reflects a trend towards escalation and violence to distract from the real issue of advancing corporate interests over lands,” said Nick Estes, author of Our History Is the Future: Standing Rock Versus the Dakota Access Pipeline, and the Long Tradition of Indigenous Resistance.The current crackdown on environmental and land rights defenders can be traced back to the aftermath of 9/11 and the expansion of the definition of terrorism which sparked a wave of arrests known as the “green scare” targeting so-called eco- terrorists.This then spurred the subsequent proliferation of state legislation criminalizing – or at least attempting to criminalize – all kinds of civil disobedience including Black Lives Matter protests and opposition to fossil fuel projects like gas pipelines, defined as critical infrastructure, essentially to protect business interests over environmental and Indigenous sovereignty concerns.“The criminalization of land and water protectors and Indigenous nations using critical infrastructure security laws can be traced back to the Patriot Act. This has contributed to the current escalation as it allows the definition of terrorism to be more vague and expansive, which is intended to have a chilling effect on peaceful protesters,” said Kai Bosworth, author of Pipeline Populism and assistant professor of geography at Virginia Commonwealth University.The 2016-17 uprising against the Dakota Access oil pipeline (DAPL), which cut through the Standing Rock reservation in North and South Dakota and threatened tribal lands, burial sites and water sources, sparked a brutal response by authorities that can be seen as a before and after in how environmental defenders are policed.Law enforcement used automatic rifles, sound cannons, concussion grenades and police dogs against protesters, leading to hundreds of injuries as personnel and equipment poured in from over 75 agencies across the country. Indigenous leaders and journalists were among hundreds of arrests – including 142 on a single day in October 2016 – with scores facing felony charges and hefty fines.Cartogram of the US, with the 20 states that have enacted laws restricting the right to protest peacefully highlighted in red.Since then, a total of 20 states have enacted laws that impose harsh penalties for impeding “critical infrastructure”, such as making trespass a felony offense, or have brought in vaguely defined domestic terrorism laws that have been used to target environmentalists and Indigenous communities. Overall, 45 states have considered legislation restricting peaceful protests, and seven currently have laws pending.These laws have “been successful in really tamping down dissent and sowing fear among people”, said Marcum. Much of this fear has been fueled by the labeling of protestors as “terrorists” by senior elected figures such as Kemp, according to Elly Page, senior legal advisor at the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law, which has tracked the anti-protest bills.“We see autocrats around the world use rhetoric like that to clamp down on dissent,” Page said. “The widespread demonization of protestors we’ve seen from politicians who call them terrorists or a mob is incredibly harmful. I think that creates an environment where violence against protestors is not unlikely and that more of these tragedies will take place.”This lawyer should be world-famous for his battle with Chevron – but he’s in jail | Erin BrockovichRead moreMany of the states’ legislation shares language drafted by the American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec), a rightwing group backed by fossil fuel companies.In Florida, South Dakota and Oklahoma, for example, a “riot” is considered to be any unauthorized action by three or more people, while in Florida, Oklahoma and Iowa drivers who injure protestors blocking traffic, a common tactic used by environmental activists, are given legal immunity.In Arkansas, an “act of terrorism” is considered to be anything that causes “substantial damage” to a public “monument”, which could include graffiti. Across 17 Republican-controlled states, protesters face up to 10 years in prison and million-dollar fines for offences.The broad application of these laws, as well as accompanying legislation that criminalize people and organizations that support allegedly dangerous protestors, “chill activism and make it riskier for people to be involved in their right to protest”, said Page.“Many of the laws have language so broad it makes constitutionally-protected speech illegal,” she said. “It gives authorities discretion to apply the law to an activity they don’t like … We know fossil fuel interests are promoting these sorts of laws.”As the criminalization of peaceful protesters has spread, so has the rollout of new fossil fuel projects projects under both Democrat and Republican administrations – despite the escalation of costly and destructive extreme weather events caused by the climate breakdown.“There have been no effective federal efforts to help protesters or defend against criminalization,” said Charmaine Chua, assistant professor of global studies at the University of California. “If you’ve been paying attention at the way cops indiscriminately kill people and the virulent antipathy towards protest movements trying to solve climate change, it’s hard to be surprised at Manuel’s death but still it does feel unprecedented.”Indigenous tribes tried to block a car battery mine. But the courts stood in the wayRead moreSabine von Mering, one of around 900 protestors who were arrested for opposing the Line 3 pipeline that moves oil through Minnesota, said she was “deeply shocked” to hear of Terán’s killing but that she hoped it will galvanize more people to get involved in climate activism. “Any criminalization of protest is an attack on our democracy,” said von Mering, an academic at Brandeis University.“At Line 3 there were several cases of police being extremely aggressive and violent, it was traumatizing to witness it and I’m an old white lady – I didn’t experience the worst of it. The charges were used to intimidate and quell protest.”To critics of the fossil fuel industry, the Line 3 protests are a prime example of its ability to shape the law enforcement that is increasingly cracking down on its opponents. In 2021 it emerged that Enbridge, the Canadian company behind the pipeline, reimbursed US police $2.4m for arresting and surveilling hundreds of Line 3 demonstrators. The payments covered officer training, police surveillance, wages, overtime, meals, hotels and equipment.Steven Donziger, an attorney who was embroiled in a long-running legal battle with Chevron on behalf of Indigenous people in Ecuador, said the payments are part of a “dangerous trend” of fossil fuel influence over the functions of government and the law.“As we get closer to tipping point of no return on climate change, the effort to silence advocacy to have clean energy transition is intensifying,” Donziger said. “To attack young people who are trying to preserve a forest with a military-style assault is totally inappropriate but is unfortunately a sad reflection of where the country has gone.“For weeks these people were called terrorists, which is a complete misuse of the word. The police have been conditioned to believe these people are terrorists and what do you do with terrorists? In the US you kill them. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.”TopicsEnvironmental activismUS policingAtlantaGeorgiaUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 188 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Judge concludes hearing on Trump grand jury report without a decision – as it happened

      by

      At the conclusion of a 90-minute hearing, an Atlanta judge did not rule on whether to release a special grand jury’s report into the campaign from Donald Trump and his allies to overturn Joe Biden’s election win in Georgia.“This is not simple. I think the fact that we had to discuss this for 90 minutes shows that it is somewhat extraordinary,” Fulton county superior court judge Robert McBurney said. “Partly what’s extraordinary is what’s at issue here, the alleged interference with a presidential election.”“My proposal is that I think about this a little bit and then contact both groups, the district attorney’s office and the intervenors, if I’ve got specific questions for which I’d like more input,” McBurney said, adding that if he does decide to make the report public, he will give notice before doing so. “No one’s going to wake up with the court having disclosed the report on the front page of the newspaper.”Several media organizations had asked McBurney to release the document, which could lay out whether the jurors believe Trump and his allies committed crimes when they unsuccessfully pressured officials in Georgia to prevent Biden from winning the state’s electoral votes in the 2020 election.Fani Willis, the Fulton county district attorney who began the investigation, argued against the report’s release, saying, “We want to make sure that everyone is treated fairly, and we think for future defendants to be treated fairly, it is not appropriate at this time to have this report released.”She also added that “decision are imminent” on the report’s findings.A judge in Atlanta heard arguments over whether to release a special grand jury’s report into Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn Joe Biden’s election win in the state three years ago, but made no decision. In Washington, lawmakers are digesting news that classified documents turned up at former vice president Mike Pence’s residence in Indiana, as they have at properties linked to Biden and Trump. Will attorney general Merrick Garland appoint yet another special counsel to investigate the matter? Will documents be discovered in the hands of even more former White House occupants? It’s too soon to say, but one thing’s for sure: this story won’t be going away anytime soon.Here’s what else happened today:
      The United States is considering providing tanks to Ukraine, in a bid both to help its defense against Russia and to convince Germany to send its own armor.
      A Senate committee questioned Ticketmaster executives in a hearing announced after the sale of Taylor Swift tickets turned into a fiasco.
      Biden called for an assault weapons ban following another mass shooting in California.
      Top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer said he backs an effort to look at overhauling the government’s rules around classified material.
      With not one, but three former White House occupants in hot water for having stashes of classified documents that they should not have, some in Washington think it’s time to take a look at how the government manages its secrets.That includes the Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer, who said he supports a review of the government’s classification system. Here are his brief comments, from CNN:Schumer says he backs Sen. Peters’ look at bipartisan legislation to overhaul federal record-keeping laws. Adds that oversight will be done by special counsels — even as the House is trying to probe Biden’s handling of classified records pic.twitter.com/ykufsTmq1M— Manu Raju (@mkraju) January 24, 2023
      There has been much reacting on Capitol Hill to news that Mike Pence had classified documents at his home. Republican lawmakers have generally defended Pence, saying they doubt he did anything wrong. Senator Lindsey Graham is among that group, but he also seemed to indicate that he believed Joe Biden made the same mistake with the secret materials found at his properties:Here’s the video: pic.twitter.com/6QJI5N05aV— Ahtra Elnashar (@AhtraElnashar) January 24, 2023
      Meanwhile, the Senate intelligence committee is planning to meet on Wednesday with director of national intelligence Avril Haines, and Republican senator Marco Rubio said the classified document scandal is sure to come up:Sen. Marco Rubio, the top Republican on Senate Intel, told us that his committee had already planned to meet Wednesday with Avril Haines, the director of national intelligence, and they plan to press her about the handling of classified documents.“No way it doesn’t come up”— Manu Raju (@mkraju) January 24, 2023
      Separately, attorney general Merrick Garland was asked about the affair, including whether he would name a special counsel to investigate the documents at Pence’s house, as he did for those found at Biden and Donald Trump’s properties.His answer was no surprise:AG Merrick Garland says he is “unable to comment” when asked about classified documents found at former VP Mike Pence’s home, if a special counsel will be named, and if a policy change is needed after Biden, Trump, and Pence all had classified materials at their homes. pic.twitter.com/qjHjGAfKc1— The Recount (@therecount) January 24, 2023
      As chair of the House oversight committee, James Comer is a leader of the Republican investigation campaign against the Biden administration – including the president’s possession of classified documents.He has sent demands to multiple government agencies for more details about the documents found in the president’s residence and former office, and who may have had access to them. But when news broke that Republican former vice president Mike Pence also had classified material in his home, Comer released a statement displaying a softer touch. Here’s what he had to say:.css-cumn2r{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Former Vice President Mike Pence reached out today about classified documents found at his home in Indiana. He has agreed to fully cooperate with congressional oversight and any questions we have about the matter. Former Vice President Pence’s transparency stands in stark contrast to Biden White House staff who continue to withhold information from Congress and the American people.A judge in Atlanta heard arguments over whether to release a special grand jury’s report into Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn Joe Biden’s election win in the state three years ago, but made no decision. In Washington, lawmakers are digesting news that classified documents turned up at former vice president Mike Pence’s residence in Indiana, as they have at properties linked to Biden and Trump. Will attorney general Merrick Garland appoint yet another special counsel to investigate the matter? Will documents be discovered in the hands of even more former White House occupants? It’s too soon to say, but one thing’s for sure: this story won’t be going away anytime soon.Here’s what else has been going on today:
      The United States is considering providing tanks to Ukraine, in a bid both to help its defense against Russia and to convince Germany to send its own armor.
      A Senate committee questioned Ticketmaster executives in a hearing announced after the sale of Taylor Swift tickets turned into a fiasco.
      Biden called for an assault weapons ban following another mass shooting in California.
      At the conclusion of a 90-minute hearing, an Atlanta judge did not rule on whether to release a special grand jury’s report into the campaign from Donald Trump and his allies to overturn Joe Biden’s election win in Georgia.“This is not simple. I think the fact that we had to discuss this for 90 minutes shows that it is somewhat extraordinary,” Fulton county superior court judge Robert McBurney said. “Partly what’s extraordinary is what’s at issue here, the alleged interference with a presidential election.”“My proposal is that I think about this a little bit and then contact both groups, the district attorney’s office and the intervenors, if I’ve got specific questions for which I’d like more input,” McBurney said, adding that if he does decide to make the report public, he will give notice before doing so. “No one’s going to wake up with the court having disclosed the report on the front page of the newspaper.”Several media organizations had asked McBurney to release the document, which could lay out whether the jurors believe Trump and his allies committed crimes when they unsuccessfully pressured officials in Georgia to prevent Biden from winning the state’s electoral votes in the 2020 election.Fani Willis, the Fulton county district attorney who began the investigation, argued against the report’s release, saying, “We want to make sure that everyone is treated fairly, and we think for future defendants to be treated fairly, it is not appropriate at this time to have this report released.”She also added that “decision are imminent” on the report’s findings.Just two weeks ago, Mike Pence told CBS news he was “confident” no classified materials were taken when he left the White House in January 2021:As documents found in an office used by Pres. Biden are in the spotlight, fmr. VP Mike Pence tells CBS News’ @costareports he remains “confident” his staff ensured no classified materials were taken from his time in the White House and remain in his possession. pic.twitter.com/KntHXWNXTC— CBS News (@CBSNews) January 11, 2023
      CBS News reports Mike Pence discovered he had classified documents after an aide found the materials “in recent weeks”:SCOOP: Lawyer and longtime Pence aide Matt Morgan, based in Indiana, found the docs after reviewing them at Pence’s direction in recent weeks, per 2 people familiar @CBSNews— Robert Costa (@costareports) January 24, 2023
      Politico has obtained more details of the classified documents discovered at Mike Pence’s residence in Indiana.According to a letter from Pence’s attorney Greg Jacobs to the National Archives, the FBI sent agents to the former vice president’s home on the night of 19 January to collect classified documents found in his safe. Pence wasn’t in town at that time – he was in Washington DC for the anti-abortion March for Life. Jacobs also said he would turn over four boxes containing “copies of Administration papers” to the Archives on 23 January for them to review for secret material:NEWS: DOJ sent FBI agents to retrieve a “small number” of classified documents from Mike Pence’s Indiana residence last week, while Pence was in DC at the March for Life.Read the Jan. 18 + 22 letters from PENCE to NARA here: https://t.co/I1zCvXdn05https://t.co/VK2YCMYPuf pic.twitter.com/hVbxLrwGUu— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) January 24, 2023
      Back in Georgia, Fulton county district attorney Fani Willis told the court she does not want the special grand jury’s report released.“We want to make sure that everyone is treated fairly and we think for future defendants to be treated fairly, it is not appropriate at this time to have this report released,” Willis said in arguments before judge Robert McBurney.Willis is expected to use the report to decide whether to bring charges against Donald Trump’s allies or perhaps the former president himself over the attempts to overturn Joe Biden’s election win in Georgia. She told McBurney that “decisions are imminent.”A lawyer for former vice-president Mike Pence found classified documents at his residence in Indiana, CNN reports.The discovery at Pence’s Carmel, Indiana, home comes as the justice department investigates government secrets found at Joe Biden’s former office in Washington DC and residence in Delaware, as well as Donald Trump’s possession of similar material at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. Attorney general Merrick Garland has appointed special counsels to handle both men’s cases.Citing multiple sources, CNN reports that the attorney for Pence, who served as Trump’s vice-president from 2017 to 2021, gave the documents found at his residence to the FBI.Judge Robert McBurney has convened the Fulton county superior court hearing that will decide whether to release the report of the special grand jury that investigated Trump’s election meddling campaign in Georgia.Follow this blog for the latest, or you can watch the live feed embedded above.Republican senator Lindsey Graham was one of the witnesses called by the special grand jury investigating the election meddling effort in Georgia.Georgia’s top election official Brad Raffensperger said that shortly after the 2020 election, the South Carolina lawmaker called him to ask if it was possible to throw out absentee ballots. Graham waged an unsuccessful court battle to avoid testifying before the special grand jury, before finally appearing in November.CNN reports he does not have much to say about the potential release of the panel’s report:Asked Lindsey Graham — who testified in this case — about the possibility the judge could release report from special grand jury probing Trump effort to overturn election. “Whatever the judge does will be fine,” he said. https://t.co/EE9qOc2Hz7— Manu Raju (@mkraju) January 24, 2023 More

    • 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

    • 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 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Will Trump Face Criminal Charges in Georgia Election Inquiry?

      by

      The House Jan. 6 committee report offered fresh evidence that former President Donald J. Trump was at the center of efforts to overturn election results in Georgia.A few weeks after losing the 2020 election, President Donald J. Trump called Ronna McDaniel, the head of the Republican National Committee, with a plan for keeping himself in office. During the call, he asked John C. Eastman, an architect of the strategy, to lay it out: Trump supporters in states that the president had lost would act as if they were official Electoral College delegates, an audacious scheme to circumvent voters.After the plan was put in motion, Ms. McDaniel forwarded an “elector recap” report to Mr. Trump’s executive assistant, who replied soon after, “It’s in front of him!”Such details, from the report released in December by the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, offer fresh evidence that Mr. Trump was not on the periphery of the effort to overturn the election results in Georgia but at the center of it.For the last two years, prosecutors in Atlanta have been conducting a criminal investigation into whether the Trump team interfered in the presidential election in Georgia, which Mr. Trump narrowly lost to President Biden. With the wide-ranging inquiry now entering the indictment phase, the central question is whether Mr. Trump himself will face criminal charges.Legal analysts who have followed the case say there are two areas of considerable risk for Mr. Trump. The first are the calls that he made to state officials, including one to Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state, in which Mr. Trump said he needed to “find” 11,780 votes. But the recently released Jan. 6 committee transcripts shed new light on the other area of potential legal jeopardy for the former president: his direct involvement in recruiting a slate of bogus presidential electors in the weeks after the 2020 election.The Atlanta prosecutors have moved more quickly than the Department of Justice, where a special counsel, Jack Smith, was recently appointed to oversee Trump-related investigations. This month, the Fulton County Superior Court disbanded a special grand jury after it produced an investigative report on the case, concluding months of private testimony from dozens of Trump allies, state officials and other witnesses.Election personnel count absentee ballots in Atlanta in November 2020.Audra Melton for The New York TimesThe report remains secret, although a hearing is scheduled for Tuesday to determine if any or all of it will be made public. Nearly 20 people known to have been named targets of the investigation could face charges, including Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s former personal lawyer, and David Shafer, the head of the Georgia Republican Party.Fani T. Willis, the district attorney of Fulton County, which encompasses most of Atlanta, will need to make her case to a regular grand jury if she seeks indictments, which would likely come by May. That means the nation could be in for months more waiting and speculating, particularly if a judge decides after this week’s hearing not to make public the report’s recommendations.Mr. Trump’s lawyers said in a statement Monday that they would not be at Tuesday’s hearing, adding that Mr. Trump “was never subpoenaed nor asked to come in voluntarily by this grand jury or anyone in the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office.”Understand Georgia’s Investigation of Election InterferenceCard 1 of 5An immediate legal threat to Trump. More