More stories

  • in

    Trump to appeal ruling barring him from Illinois primary ballot over January 6 role

    An Illinois state judge on Wednesday barred Donald Trump from appearing on the Illinois Republican presidential primary ballot because of his role in the attack at the US Capitol on January 6, but she delayed her ruling from taking effect in light of an expected appeal by the former US president.The Cook county circuit judge Tracie Porter sided with Illinois voters who argued that the former president should be disqualified from the state’s March 19 primary ballot and its 5 November general election ballot for violating the anti-insurrection clause of the US constitution’s 14th amendment.Illinois joins Colorado and Maine in attempts to disqualify Trump from running for president because of his role in the 6 January insurrection, in which Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol to try to stop Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election.Trump is currently appealing those decisions to the supreme court, which is seen as likely to reject the states’ attempts to remove the former president from their ballots.The Colorado and Maine decisions are on hold while Trump appeals. Porter said she was also staying her decision because she expected Trump’s appeal to Illinois’ appellate courts, and a potential ruling from the supreme court.The advocacy group Free Speech for People, which spearheaded the Illinois disqualification effort, praised the ruling as a “historic victory”.A campaign spokesperson for Trump, the national frontrunner for the 2024 Republican nomination, said in a statement that this “is an unconstitutional ruling that we will quickly appeal”.In oral arguments on 8 February, the US supreme court appeared skeptical of arguments for removing Trump from Colorado’s primary ballot, and analysts suggested the court was poised to allow Trump to remain on the ballot.The court’s chief justice, John Roberts, suggested that if the supreme court allowed Colorado to take Trump off the ballot, then the “big, plain consequences” of the decision would be a scenario in which states regularly disqualified candidates from parties they opposed.“I would expect that a goodly number of states will say whoever the Democratic candidate is, you’re off the ballot, and others, for the Republican candidate, you’re off the ballot. It will come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election. That’s a pretty daunting consequence,” Robert said.“What’s a state doing deciding who other citizens get to vote for for president?” the liberal justice Elena Kagan said.The justices focused more on the potential consequences of their decision than on whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection on 6 January and thus should be barred from holding office.Colorado and Maine earlier removed Trump from their state ballots after determining he is disqualified under section 3 of the 14th amendment to the constitution, which was created in the wake of the US civil war.Section 3 bars from public office anyone who took an oath to support the US constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof”.In her opinion, Porter wrote that she had considered Colorado’s ruling in her decision, and noted that the court “did not reach its conclusions lightly” and that it “realized the magnitude of this decision”.Reuters contributed to this report More

  • in

    Read the Illinois Judge’s Ruling

    Amendment, examining the meanings of the words “office,’ “officers,”27 “insurrection,”28

    ·“engaged”29 and “oath”³0 and, thereby, concludes that the plain language and plain meanings of Section 3, applies to the former president now seeking to hold office again as the President of the United States. See Anderson v. Griswold, 2023 CO at 79, ¶143; 84, ¶152; 87, ¶158.

    In U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the U.S. Constitution’s “provisions governing elections reveal the Framers’ understanding that powers over the election of federal officers had to be delegated to, rather than reserved by, the states.”.514 U.S. at 804. The U.S. Supreme Court recognized that federal elections is one of the few areas in which the constitution expressly requires actions by the states, with respect to federal elections. Id. As previously identified, qualifications of candidates for federal offices are conducted by the states, not Congress, based on the U.S. constitution, and application of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment should not be an exception.

    9926

    Based on the comparable rationale for interpreting Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment and finding that it applies to Respondent-Candidate, as made by the Colorado Supreme Court, this

    26 The Colorado Supreme Court found that the U.S. Constitution refers to the Presidency as an “office” twenty-five times. Anderson v. Griswold, 2023 CO at 72, ¶133; U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, 514 U.S. at 861 (“qualifications for the office of President” is stated twice by the High Court.

    27 See U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 803 (1995) (recognized that “Representatives and Senators are as much officers of the entire union as the President.”

    28 Justice Boatright, dissenting, drew the conclusion that a conviction was necessary for an insurrection, but this Court notes that there no such language in Section 3. Anderson v. Griswold, 2023 CO at 11 (dissent). 29 Respondent-Candidate cites to an “overt, voluntary act’ being required. 12 Op. Att’y Gen. 141, 164 (1867). He then provides a dictionary meaning of “to be involved, or have contact, with someone or something.” (EB Record, C-6691 V12). He does not refuted that he gave a speech on January 6 at the Ellipse Rally, that he sent out tweets entitled, “Stop the Steal”, Storm or Invade or Take the Capital, and to disburse or be peaceful (but only after violence had occurred almost 3 hours prior). These facts alone created by a preponderance of the evidence using the Respondent-Candidate’s own definition that by his conduct he engaged with the crowd, deemed to be engaging in insurrection. (EB Record C-6691 V12, C-6694 V12); Colorado Trial Exhibit Nos. 49, 68 and 148.

    30 Oath of the President of the United States effectively is language that can be interpreted as supporting the U.S. Constitution and the peaceful transfer of power. Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 8 (“preserve, protect and defend”)

    30 More

  • in

    Jennifer Crumbley’s Conviction Offers New Legal Tactic in Mass Shooting Cases

    The guilty verdict in Michigan against the mother of a school shooter will reverberate in prosecutors’ offices around the country. But don’t expect a flood of similar cases, experts say.The guilty verdict on Tuesday against the mother of a Michigan teenager who murdered four students in 2021 in the state’s deadliest school shooting is likely to ripple across the country’s legal landscape as prosecutors find themselves weighing a new way to seek justice in mass shootings.But, legal experts say, don’t expect a rush of similar cases.“I have heard many people say they think a guilty verdict in this case will open the floodgates to these kinds of prosecutions going forward,” said Eve Brensike Primus, a law professor at the University of Michigan. “To be honest, I’m not convinced that’s true.”That’s because prosecutors in Michigan had notably compelling evidence against the mother, Jennifer Crumbley — including text messages and the accounts of a meeting with school officials just hours before the shooting at Oxford High School on Nov. 30, 2021 — that jurors felt proved she should have known the mental state of her son, Ethan Crumbley, who was 15 at the time.Ethan pleaded guilty in 2022 and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Ms. Crumbley was convicted on four counts of involuntary manslaughter, one for each student her son killed. She faces a maximum penalty of 15 years in prison, and sentencing is scheduled for April 9.Ms. Crumbley’s husband, James Crumbley, 47, will be tried separately in March.“Could more prosecutors file charges emboldened by this kind of ruling and the verdict?” Professor Primus said. “Sure. Do I think they will be successful around the country getting charges to stick if they don’t have the requisite facts that can demonstrate real knowledge? No.”Still, Professor Primus and other legal experts who have followed the case say the successful prosecution of Ms. Crumbley, 45, provides a template for prosecutors around the country to pursue similar cases.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Illinois board votes unanimously to keep Trump on primary ballot

    The Illinois board of elections has voted unanimously to keep Donald Trump on its primary ballot, rejecting objections brought by voters who challenged Trump’s eligibility on grounds that he had aided in insurrection on January 6.The decision was made on narrow procedural grounds, and is almost certain to be appealed. It is just the latest in a mixed series of official rulings on whether Trump can appear on the ballot amid a wave of challenges to his candidacy in multiple states.Officials in Colorado and Maine have ruled that Trump cannot appear on their ballots, though those decisions are facing further legal challenges, while Illinois becomes the latest state where officials have rejected attempts to boot Trump from the ballot.The US supreme court has scheduled oral arguments on this question for next week, and will likely have the final say on whether Trump is constitutionally ineligible to run for president because of his actions leading up to the January 6 attack at the US Capitol.At issue in this particular case was the question of whether or not the board of elections has the authority and jurisdiction to interpret constitutional questions. Matthew Piers, an attorney representing the objectors, argued the board “not only has the authority to determine an objection based on the United States constitution, but indeed you have the clear mandatory duty to do so”.Adam Merrill, Trump’s counsel, flatly denied Trump had participated in insurrection and argued the elections board could not make a determination on the question anyway.One Republican member of the bipartisan board made it clear that her decision was based on the question of whether the state board had the authority to weigh in on this question, not on whether Trump should be disqualified.“I want it to be clear that this Republican believes there was an insurrection on January 6,” declared GOP board member Catherine McCrory. “There’s no doubt in my mind that he manipulated, instigated, aided and abetted an insurrection on January 6. However, having said that, it is not my place to rule on that today.”The Illinois petitioners calling for Trump to be excluded from the Illinois ballot argued he is disqualified from office given article 3 of the 14th amendment, which states that any public official who has taken an oath of allegiance to the constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or given “aid or comfort” to its enemies must be disqualified from running for office again.In their 87-page petition, the Illinois voters said the January 6 attack was insurrectionary – and that “the effort to overthrow the results of the 2020 election by unlawful means” amounted to rebellion.On 28 January, Clark Erickson, a hearing officer for the board of elections tasked with evaluating the ballot challenge, said he agreed that Trump had committed insurrection and should be disqualified from appearing on the ballot – but that the matter should be left to a higher court.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe attorney representing the challengers seeking to remove Trump from the ballot indicated immediately after the decision that the petitioners would appeal it in court.Petitioners in more than a dozen states have invoked the 14th amendment to attempt to bar Trump from the ballot in 2024 on grounds that his involvement with the January 6 insurrection disqualifies him from office. Ratified in the wake of the civil war, the 14th amendment also establishes birthright citizenship and guarantees everyone in the US “equal protection” under the law.Trump’s lawyers have asked the US supreme court to put a “swift and decisive end to these ballot-disqualification efforts”, which, they argued, “threaten to disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans”.The Trump campaign has similarly argued the push to disqualify him from ballots across the US amounts to an unfair and anti-democratic campaign by his detractors. More

  • in

    Donald Trump did not sign Illinois pledge not to overthrow government

    Joe Biden’s 2024 election campaign has lambasted former president and most likely Republican opponent Donald Trump for failing to sign a loyalty oath in the state of Illinois, in which candidates pledge against advocating an overthrow of the government.The Biden campaign was responding to an investigation by Illinois news outlets WBEZ and the Chicago Sun-Times, which reported that Trump sidestepped signing the McCarthy era voluntary pledge that is part of the midwestern state’s package of ballot-access paperwork submitted by 2024 electoral candidates last week.That omission came days before the third anniversary of the January 6 insurrection, for which Trump has been indicted for his alleged role in efforts to overturn Biden’s 2020 election victory. It’s a departure from 2016 and 2020, when Trump signed the voluntary oath.In a statement, Biden campaign spokesperson Michael Tyler, said: “For the entirety of our nation’s history, presidents have put their hand on the Bible and sworn to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States – and Donald Trump can’t bring himself to sign a piece of paper saying he won’t attempt a coup to overthrow our government … We know he’s deadly serious because three years ago today he tried and failed to do exactly that.”In response, Trump spokesman Steven Cheung did not clarify why the Republican candidate had not signed the oath, but said: “President Trump will once again take the oath of office on January 20th, 2025, and will swear ‘to faithfully execute the office of president of the United States and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”The WBEZ/Chicago Sun-Times analysis of state election records found that Biden and Republican Florida governor Ron DeSantis both signed the oath. But some of Trump’s Republican opponents also did not sign, including Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor, and Chris Christie, former New Jersey governor.Under Illinois law, presidential candidates wanting to be on the state’s 19 March primary ballot were required to submit nominating petitions to the state board of elections on Thursday or Friday.The so-called loyalty oath, which is part of the ballot-access process, is a remnant of the 1950s communist-bashing era of former US senator Joseph McCarthy. The tradition has been preserved by Illinois lawmakers despite being ruled unconstitutional by federal courts on free speech grounds.In the first part of the oath, candidates swear they are not communists nor affiliated with communist groups. Candidates also confirm that they “do not directly or indirectly teach or advocate the overthrow of the government of the United States or of this state or any unlawful change in the form of the governments thereof by force or any unlawful means”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIt’s not clear why Trump did not sign the oath this time round, given that his eligibility to run is already being challenged on the rounds that he is allegedly disqualified by the 14th amendment of the constitution – which bars insurrectionists from seeking public office.On Thursday – the same day Trump submitted his ballot paperwork – five Illinois voters filed a petition to remove him from the state’s Republican primary ballot, the Washington Post reported. More

  • in

    Illinois voters file petition to remove Trump from Republican primary ballot

    Voters in Illinois have filed a petition to remove Donald Trump from the state’s Republican primary ballot, echoing efforts in other states to bar the former president from returning to the White House over his role in the 6 January capitol attack.The petition, similar to those filed in more than a dozen other states, relies on the 14th amendment to the constitution.Known as the “insurrection clause”, the amendment prohibits anyone from holding office who previously took an oath to defend the constitution and then later “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the country or gave “aid or comfort” to its enemies.The 87-page document, signed by five people from around the state, lays out a case that Trump fanned the flames of hardcore supporters who attacked the Capitol on the day Congress certified the election results for his rival, Joe Biden.Officials in Colorado and Maine have already banned Trump’s name from primary election ballots.The Illinois state board of elections has yet to set the petition for hearing, spokesperson Matt Dietrich told the Associated Press. The board is set to hear 32 other objections to the proposed ballot later in January.Also on Thursday, a group of voters in Massachusetts launched an effortto remove Trump from that state’s primary ballot.Both efforts are affiliated with the advocacy group Free Speech for People, CNN reported.Trump has appealed the Maine ruling. He also has asked the US supreme court to overturn the Colorado supreme court’s ruling from December that stripped his name from the state’s ballot.In a filing on Wednesday, his lawyers wrote: “In our system of ‘government of the people, by the people, [and] for the people,’ Colorado’s ruling is not and cannot be correct.” They also argued that Trump’s conduct did not amount to an insurrection.A supreme court could rule to either pause or allow the Colorado supreme court’s decision in the coming weeks, though the exact timing is unclear. More

  • in

    Congressman Jonathan Jackson on Biden, Gaza and making his famous father proud

    Jonathan Jackson’s eyes brim with tears as he recalls the 1984 campaign of his father, Jesse, to become the United States’ first Black president. “To see my great-grandmother, who couldn’t read or write, vote,” the US congressman says, his voice faltering. “It let me see how meaningful it was to be able to vote.”Jackson is a lifelong political activist who has come to elected office late in the game. He was a spokesperson for the Rainbow Push Coalition, an international human and civil rights organisation founded by his father. In Chicago the younger Jackson fought against the closure of public schools and worked on false-confessions cases involving the police. More recently, he co-sponsored a House resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.Next month Jackson will turn 58 and mark his first year representing Illinois’s first congressional district in the House of Representatives. He stepped up after the Democratic congressman Bobby Rush, whom he calls “Uncle Bobby”, retired after three decades representing Chicago’s South Side.In an interview at his Washington office on Capitol Hill, Jackson – whose wife, Marilyn, leads the Muhammad Ali Center in Louisville, Kentucky – admits that it had been the last thing on his mind until he took part in a radio show and was urged to run. “My parents were 80. The family’s been through a lot. I want to make Mom and Dad proud and so I jumped in there and it was a good uplift for them,” he says.Jackson’s parents, Jesse and Jacqueline Jackson, are veterans of the civil rights movement. Jesse witnessed Martin Luther King’s assassination in 1968, twice ran for president in the 1980s and is now living with Parkinson’s disease. (Jackson’s brother Jesse Jackson Jr served time in prison after pleading guilty to spending $750,000 in campaign money on personal items.)Jackson continues: “I have to talk with Dad every day. He’s a junkie for this stuff. He’s in a wheelchair and not moving around as fast but his mind is super sharp as he has challenges from Parkinson’s. He knows the terrain better than anyone I can imagine.”He describes serving in Congress as a “tremendous honour” that often yields “awe and wonderment”. But some days, he chuckles, “it feels like a bad high school that you’ve transferred into” and on others “you feel like you’re walking a tightrope over a pool of sharks without a safety net”.Jackson is a believer in God’s grace. He and his father were arrested outside the South African embassy in DC in 1986 while protesting against racial apartheid, and then again some 35 years later outside the supreme court while protesting for voting rights.One of six siblings, Jackson recalls the family home in Chicago always buzzing with activity and engagement with social causes. He says: “Our phone at the house would ring like a switchboard and my mother and father were both activists, if you will.“I remember the last time we saw President Nelson Mandela of South Africa and he could barely walk any more. He heard my father was in the country and asked him to come to visit him. My father came in the room. The president was trying to stand up and he hollered out to my father: ‘Freedom fighter!’“I would like to think that I come from the background of freedom fighters, not politicians of who’s dividing the pie, who gets what, when, where and how?”When Jesse Jackson first ran for president in 1984, Jonathan was 18 and able to vote for the first time. He was also a campaign surrogate and witness to the backlash from a nation resistant to the idea of a Black major-party nominee. He says: “We started registering the record amount of death threats and it was just insane.“The headlines: what does he want, can he run? Like, the audacity of being able to run? I remember one time we were in a motorcade coming down through from Washington to Virginia and they still had chain gangs out here on the highway, and to see those men stop and wave with pride, you realised it was a bigger issue.”Jesse won four contests and 18% of the popular vote, finishing third behind Walter Mondale and Gary Hart. Four years later, when he tried again, Jonathan finished college early so he could travel the country with his father.“I would describe that experience as sitting in the cockpit of American history, that we saw all these things happening and we saw it on the news the next day. By 88, you realised this was 20 years after the Rev Martin Luther King’s assassination and how much pride my father had in trying to move King’s dream for political empowerment, justice, economic empowerment forward,” Jackson said.This time Jesse won 13 contests and 29% of the popular vote but still came in behind Michael Dukakis for the nomination. At the 1988 Democratic national convention, he shared a stage with Rosa Parks, whom he introduced as the “mother of the civil rights movement”. Jackson muses that he must find a photograph of that moment so he can put it up in his office.“It wasn’t a political campaign. It was a more of a moral crusade and, from that, we’re so grateful to see President Obama win and Mrs Harris become vice-president and [Raphael] Warnock become a US senator from Georgia and that tipped the balance of power to save the democracy again.”Jesse also channeled energy into social justice and freelance diplomacy, risking friction with US officials by inserting himself into fraught global hotspots. Jackson was at his father’s side during negotiations with Syrian president Hafez al-Assad for the release of the captured US navy lieutenant Robert Goodman, and with Fidel Castro for the release of 22 Americans held in Cuba.“When we went to visit Saddam Hussein and they were talking about the weapons of mass destruction and the human shields, we didn’t have the portfolio of the United States government. We didn’t have a ranking member or chairmanship or United States military, went over there with just a Bible and some imams and rabbis,” Jackson says.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“I believe in the faith community. I’ve seen it work and that’s been at the core. It’s not been politics. It’s been faith that had us travel around the world in some dangerous places with God’s grace.”This philosophy informs Jackson’s decision to sign on as an original co-sponsor of a House resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. A member of the House foreign affairs committee, he had visited Israel a month before the 7 October attack by Hamas. During a meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu, he posed a question about a reciprocal visa waiver programme but found the prime minister evasive.“I can see that he’s a blame shifter. He will not answer the question,” he says. “He took the time to answer all the other questions but not that. I’ve never seen him seek a two-state solution in all these many years … I’ve seen him court Hamas, not wanting the PLO [Palestine Liberation Organization] to have influence over the Gaza territories.“I know his involvement in this territory over the years and so my basic frame of reference on asking for a ceasefire is not to seek revenge. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth will leave you blind and snaggletoothed. You’ve got to break the cycle of pain.”The world was aligned in sympathy for Israel but Israel has squandered that opportunity, Jackson argues: “What happened to Israel was horrific and it was brutal. It was a massacre, disgraceful, and there was so much goodwill and I said, this man is going to mess this up. It’s just not in him. He’s a one-string guitar. The only tool he has is a hammer and he’s not a peacemaker.”The Hamas attack signified failures of both intelligence and diplomacy, Jackson argues, but going forward there are lessons to learn from countries such as South Africa and Rwanda in seeking reconciliation: “After 400 years, African Americans have never been told to pick up arms, to seek any sort of reparations or any sort of vengeance.“We’ve been taught reconciliation, so my position was clear morally from my cultural point of view: to seek reconciliation and that starts now. The spirit of Rev Martin Luther King that peace is not the absence of noise, peace is the presence of justice. The Scripture that stayed on my mind was: ‘Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.’ Peace is possible if you seek it and I have not seen Mr Netanyahu seek peace.”The elder Jackson served in the Senate from 1991 to 1997 as a shadow delegate for the District of Columbia but never quite lost his outsider status. It would be understandable if his son were still breaking in life in Congress like a pair of new shoes. But when asked about Joe Biden’s handling of the war – seen by many on the left as ostentatiously pro-Israel and lacking empathy for Palestinians – Jackson is deftly on-message.“President Biden is doing a tremendous job,” he says. “Like any of us in office, we have regrets. I don’t know what his will be at the end of the day, but I know he would like to see an alternative option.“These people are now almost defenceless, certainly the babies, so I want the humanitarian aid to flow. Intelligence is what is needed now more than bombs to find these people. If you … agree that the Palestinian people are being held hostage and you agree that Hamas is a terrorist organisation, you don’t kill the hostage by going after the hostage taker.”Jackson’s Illinois district includes an area known as Little Palestine. In October he attended the funeral of Wadea Al-Fayoume, a six-year-old Palestinian American boy stabbed 26 times by his family’s landlord because he was Muslim, according to police. For Jackson, such concerns are more pressing than whether Biden stands to lose Arab American votes in the 2024 presidential election.“I get a call almost every other day when one of these bombs goes on the pain that someone is suffering because of a family’s relative has died. I get a call once a week from someone that’s still in Gaza trying to get on a state department list, so I can’t think about November and who’s voting for calling the state department and other agencies to try and still get people out,” he says.Opinion polls show Biden struggling among African American voters after his efforts to pass racial justice and voting rights legislation stalled in Congress. Jackson comments simply: “Some parts of his record will rival that of LBJ [the former president Lyndon Baines Johnson]. I am proud of his work. Let me leave it with, there’s a lot has been done and there’s a lot more to do.”Then he bursts out laughing.What of his father, who was born in the Jim Crow era and lived to see Obama assume the mantle of first Black president – only to see a backward lurch to Trump and white nationalism?“We are eternally optimistic. There are so many stories of progress and hope. Although this is very dangerous, we’ve not been here: two speakers to turn over in one year; we went 20 days without one of our three branches functioning. We saw a violent insurrection happen here and all of the insurrectionists have not been prosecuted. So he’s very concerned about the fragility of our democracy. We’ve never been here before.” More

  • in

    Illinois governor ‘deeply concerned’ by Trump rhetoric reminiscent of Nazi era

    Donald Trump’s rhetoric on immigration, his plans for a second presidency if he wins next year’s election, and his description of political enemies as “vermin” reflect the language of 1930s Germany and the Nazis’ rise to power there, a senior Democrat warned on Sunday.JB Pritzker, the Illinois governor of Jewish descent who helped drive the construction of the state’s Holocaust Museum and Education Center in Chicago, added his voice to a wave of condemnation over the former president’s remarks.Joe Biden last week also likened Trump’s comments to the era when Nazi Germany orchestrated the murders of 6 million Jews during the Holocaust, saying “it isn’t even the first time” he had done so.Trump had deliberately chosen to use words “that are unfortunately reminiscent of the past”, Pritzker said during an appearance on MSNBC’s Inside with Jen Psaki.“The rhetoric that’s being used by Trump, by some of the Maga (Make America great again) extremists, is rhetoric that was used in the 1930s in Germany [and] I am very concerned about the direction of the country if we see policies like what Donald Trump is espousing come to light,” he said.“In Germany in the 1930s people that they didn’t want to have power, people that they wanted to separate and segregate, they began calling them immigrants, even people who had been in Germany for generations. This is a way to begin to segregate people and then eventually … dehumanize and kill people.“I don’t know where it’s going with Donald Trump. What I can tell you is that the things that he talks about are frightening to those of us who know the history of Europe in the 1930s and 40s. And I’m deeply concerned about his predilection for revenge and what that will mean for groups of people that didn’t support him in the 2024 election if he gets elected.”Highlighting Trump’s extremism has become a key part of messaging from the Joe Biden White House and Democratic party as the runaway leader in the race for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination moves further ahead of his challengers.“Employing words like ‘vermin’ to describe anyone who makes use of their basic right to criticize the government echoes dictators like [Adolf] Hitler and [Benito] Mussolini,” White House spokesperson Andrew Bates said during a press briefing last week.“Using terms like that about dissent would be unrecognizable to our founders, but horrifyingly recognisable to American veterans who put on their country’s uniform in the 1940s” and defeated the Axis Powers which included forces from Hitler’s Germany and Mussolini’s Italy during the second world war.Pritzker expanded on the theme Sunday in his interview with Psaki, Biden’s former White House press secretary.“I repeat it wherever I go, that Donald Trump is dangerous for our democracy. He’s dangerous for specific minority groups in the US. And I think that for those of us who have a platform to call it out it is a requirement,” he said.“I’m deeply concerned about the rise of hate. I worry about it on our college campuses. We’ve seen protests, and I think it’s everybody’s right to express themselves. What I don’t want is protests and counter-protests encountering each other and that turning into violence.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe governor also had words of comfort for Democrats concerned at recent polls placing Trump ahead of Biden in several key swing states.“I don’t think yet people have really put these two next to each other and evaluated what the philosophies and agendas are,” he said.“People don’t really focus until, let’s face it, after the conventions. It’s just in those final couple of months, July all the way through November, that this needs to be brought home to people.“When that happens, that crystallization will occur in people’s minds and people will see that the democracy that they believe in, the country that they owe their allegiance to, that the best thing for America is to put aside the authoritarian Donald Trump.”Trump was in Texas near the border with Mexico on Sunday to promote an escalation of hard-line immigration police that he adopted while in office.Those policies alarmed civil rights activists and drew court challenges. More