Law (US)

Subterms

    Latest story

    200 Shares17 Views

    With his threat of a $1bn lawsuit against BBC, Trump’s assault on the media goes global

    by

    Donald Trump has, for years, used legal threats and lawsuits to pressure news companies who put out coverage he does not like. After his return to power, a string of US broadcasters and tech firms have paid tens of millions of dollars to settle such cases.The president has now gone global with this campaign, crossing the pond to threaten the BBC with a $1bn lawsuit over an episode of the Panorama documentary program that aired more than a year ago.A lawyer representing Trump accused the BBC of “defamatory, disparaging, and inflammatory statements” in stitching together Trump’s comments from his January 6 speech in Washington DC to make it sound like he was encouraging his supporters to “fight like hell” at the US Capitol, hours before a deadly insurrection unfolded.Already, two top BBC executives have resigned over the controversy. A lawyer for Trump said the BBC’s broadcast has caused Trump “overwhelming financial and reputational harm” and suggested it violated Florida law – even though BBC iPlayer, the main streaming platform that carries Panorama, and BBC One, the main TV channel that broadcasts it, are not available in the US.The BBC has said it will review the correspondence from Trump’s legal team “and respond directly in due course”.The saga is only the latest chapter in a campaign meant to keep media institutions that cover Trump on their toes. Often, legal letters sent to media companies on his behalf have not actually led to lawsuits – though many journalists say they have contributed to a chilling effect on coverage.But Trump has also followed through on several lawsuits, and since his re-election one year ago, a series of media and tech companies have chosen to take the easy way out by agreeing to significant settlements. Several of those companies have business before his administration.In July, Paramount, parent company of CBS News, chose to settle a case that Trump had filed in the state of Texas arguing that the company had violated consumer protection laws by misleadingly editing a 60 Minutes interview of then vice-president Kamala Harris. Many legal experts viewed the case as easily winnable for Paramount, considering the unrelated statute he sued under – and that Trump could not credibly claim to have been harmed by the segment since he defeated Harris in the election.But company leadership viewed the lawsuit as an unnecessary distraction, particularly as it sought his government’s approval of a merger with Skydance Media. Paramount ultimately paid $16m.Trump also won a settlement last year from ABC, owned by Disney, which he had sued over comments made by anchor George Stephanopoulos. ABC agreed to pay $15m.When combining Trump’s settlements with ABC, CBS and cases against both Facebook parent company Meta and YouTube, which is owned by Google, he has racked up over $80m in agreements. Most of this money is slated to go toward the building of Trump’s presidential library, rather than to him personally.Now the BBC in his sights. Unlike CBS, owned by Paramount Skydance, and ABC, owned by Disney, the BBC is not part of a complicated corporate empire: it is independent, although its unique structure as a publicly funded organization invites intense scrutiny.Because of the timing of the Panorama broadcast, one week before the 5 November 2024 presidential election, a spokesperson for Trump’s legal team accused the BBC of so-called “election interference”, a similar charge to the CBS case. “President Trump will continue to hold accountable those who traffic in lies, deception, and fake news,” they told the Guardian.The legal letter cites the actual malice standard necessary to win defamation cases in the US. To meet that bar, Trump’s team would have to prove that someone with authority at the BBC knew that the edited package falsely portrayed Trump to have encouraged violence, and chose not to act on that knowledge.David A Logan, professor emeritus at the Roger Williams School of Law in Rhode Island, said Trump’s allegations against the BBC closely “track” those he made against CBS – though in that case, CBS had merely used two different parts of the same answer in separate broadcasts, rather than pulling together comments from opposite ends of the Harris interview.“I am reluctant to say which is worse journalism,” Logan said, but he noted that the resignations of BBC director general Tim Davie and chief executive of BBC News Deborah Turness “signals that the BBC thinks it’s plenty bad behavior”.Mark Stephens, an international media lawyer at the firm Howard Kennedy, said Trump’s team likely targeted the US to potentially file the case because the statute of limitations – one year from the date of the broadcast, which was 28 October 2024 – has passed in the UK.Still, he said that Trump’s team would face “jurisdictional hurdles” if it filed the lawsuit. Because the program was not easily viewable in Florida, Stephens said it could be challenging to prove that someone in the state had seen it. “The question I would ask myself early on is: How can someone in Florida think the worst of Donald Trump if they haven’t seen the publication?” (The legal letter noted the segment in question has been distributed “through various digital mediums”.)If Trump chooses to sue, Stephens said the case would bring renewed attention to Trump’s comments, and any role he might have played in fomenting the violence of January 6. (Trump claims he did no such thing.)“If he sues, he opens a Pandora’s box, and in that Pandora’s box is every damning quote he’s ever uttered about Jan 6,” said Stephens. “So this isn’t the hill to die on, in my view. It’s a legal cliff edge, and if he jumps, there’s a high chance he’ll fall.” More

    More stories

    • 163 Shares38 Views

      in US Politics

      US agriculture department tells states to ‘undo’ Snap benefits for families in need

      by

      The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is directing states to “immediately undo” any steps that have been taken to send out full food aid benefits to low-income Americans, following a supreme court order on Friday that temporarily halted a lower court order requiring those payments.The USDA’s directive, issued in a memo on Saturday, followed a supreme court order granting the Trump administration’s emergency request to pause an order for the USDA to provide full Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap) benefits during the ongoing federal government shutdown, which is now in its 40th day.That lower court ruling, issued on Thursday, ordered the Trump administration to fully fund the Snap program for November by Friday, rather than issuing only partial benefits. The ruling led to some of the roughly 42 million Americans enrolled in Snap – commonly known as food stamps – to begin receiving their full benefits on Friday from the states, which issue the payments of federal dollars.But on Friday night, the program was thrown into chaos again when the supreme courtagreed to temporarily pause the order to allow an appeals court to review the Trump administration’s appeal.In response to the supreme court’s decision, the USDA, which delivers the money to the states, issued its directive that any payments that had been made under the prior orders are considered “unauthorized”.“To the extent States sent full SNAP payment files for November 2025, this was unauthorized,” Patrick Penn, the deputy undersecretary of agriculture, wrote to state Snap directors. “Accordingly, States must immediately undo any steps taken to issue full SNAP benefits for November 2025.”The memo warned: “Failure to comply with this memorandum may results in USDA taking various actions, including cancellation of the Federal share of State administration costs and holding States liable for any overissuances that result from the noncompliance.”As the Associated Press reports, it remains unclear if the directive applies to states using their some of their own funds to sustain the program, or just to ones relying entirely on federal money. The USDA did not immediately respond to a request for clarification from the AP.Lisa Murkowski, a Republican senator for Alaska, said it would be “shocking” if the order applied to states using their own money to support the program.“It’s one thing if the federal government is going to continue its level of appeal through the courts to say, ‘No, this can’t be done,’” Murkowski told the AP. “But when you are telling the states that have said this is a significant enough issue in our state, we’re going to find resources, backfill or front load, whatever term you want, to help our people, those states should not be penalized.”On Sunday several state leaders criticized the memo.Wisconsin’s Democratic governor, Tony Evers, refused to abide by the directive.“No,” Evers said in a statement responding to the memo. “Pursuant to and consistent with an active court order, Wisconsin legally loaded benefits to cards, ensuring nearly 700,000 Wisconsinites, including nearly 270,000 kids, had access to basic food and groceries.”He added that the Trump administration had “assured Wisconsin and other states that they were actively working to implement full SNAP benefits for November and would ‘complete the processes necessary to make funds available”, adding that “they have failed to do so to date.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“Our administration is actively in court fighting against the Trump administration’s efforts to yank food assistance away from Wisconsin’s kids, families and seniors and we are eager for the court to resolve this issue by directing the Trump administration to comply with court orders and provide the certainty to the many Wisconsin families and businesses who rely on FoodShare,” Evers said.Maura Healey, the Democratic governor of Massachusetts, also condemned the directive in a statement on Sunday, saying: “If President Trump wants to penalize states for preventing Americans from going hungry, we will see him in court.”“Massachusetts residents with funds on their cards should continue to spend it on food” she said. “These funds were processed in accordance with guidance we received from the Trump Administration and a lower court order, and they were processed before the Supreme Court order on Friday night.”“President Trump should be focusing on reopening the government that he controls instead of repeatedly fighting to take away food from American families,” she added.Amy Klobuchar, a Democratic senator for Minnesota, also criticized the memo, saying that “cruelty is the point”, adding: “It is their choice to do this.”Associated Press and Reuters contributed reporting More

    • 175 Shares24 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Godfather of the Trump presidency’: the direct through-line from Dick Cheney to Donald Trump

      by

      He spent the twilight of his career denouncing Donald Trump as a threat to the republic he loved. But Dick Cheney arguably laid the foundations of Trump’s authoritarian takeover of the United States.The former vice-president died on Monday aged 84. The White House lowered flags to half-mast in remembrance of him but without the usual announcement or proclamation praising the deceased.Cheney, who served under George W Bush for eight years, was one of the most influential and polarising vice-presidents in US history. Some critics said they would never forgive him for pushing the US to invade Iraq on a false pretext but suggested that his opposition to Trump offered a measure of redemption.Perhaps Cheney’s defining legacy, however, was the expansion of powers for a position that he never held himself: the presidency. Cheney used the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks as a pretext to assert a muscular executive authority that Trump now amplifies and exploits to challenge the system of checks and balances.Some commentators perceive a direct through-line from the Bush-Cheney administration’s policies – such as pre-emptive war, warrantless spying and the creation of novel legal categories like “enemy combatant” – to the Trump administration’s actions against immigrants, narco-traffickers and domestic political opponents.“Dick Cheney is the godfather of the Trump presidency,” said Larry Jacobs, director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota. “Trump is unchained because Dick Cheney had been at war for half a century against the restraints put in place after Vietnam and Watergate. He believed that action was more important than following constitutional rules.”The debate over the balance of power between the White House, Congress and courts did not start with Cheney. In 1973, the historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr published The Imperial Presidency, arguing that the executive branch had begun to resemble a monarch that often acted without the consent of Congress.However, by the time of the Ronald Reagan administration, young conservatives felt the presidency had become hamstrung. This sentiment culminated in a 1989 American Enterprise Institute volume titled The Fettered Presidency, articulating a doctrine to regain what they saw as constitutionally appropriate powers.As a young chief of staff in the Gerald Ford administration, Cheney experienced the fallout of the Watergate scandal. He concluded that a sceptical Congress, reacting to the abuses of Richard Nixon, had gone too far, leaving the presidency dangerously weakened.Jacobs said: “Dick Cheney took it as his mission to tear all that down. He saw the efforts to return accountability in the 70s after Watergate and Vietnam as profoundly and dangerously limiting presidential power. He talked openly about Congress self-aggrandising and warned that the country would face ruin.”Cheney believed that new constraints such as the War Powers Act, a 1973 law that limited the president’s power to commit US forces to conflict without congressional approval, had hobbled the executive, making it nearly impossible for a president to govern effectively, particularly in national security.In a 2005 interview, he said: “I do have the view that over the years there had been an erosion of presidential power and authority, that it’s reflected in a number of developments – the War Powers Act … I am one of those who believe that was an infringement upon the authority of the president.“A lot of the things around Watergate and Vietnam, both, in the 70s served to erode the authority, I think, the president needs to be effective especially in a national security area.”Cheney’s ideas were formalised as the “unitary executive theory”, which asserts that the president should possess total and personal control over the entire executive branch. This effectively eliminates the independence of a vast array of government institutions and places millions of federal employees under the president’s authority to hire and fire at will.As Bush’s No 2, Cheney was dubbed “Darth Vader”. When America was attacked on 9/11 with nearly 3,000 people killed, the trauma created a political climate in which extraordinary measures were deemed necessary. Cheney turned a crisis into an opportunity to broaden executive power in the name of national security.He was the most prominent booster of the Patriot Act, the law enacted nearly unanimously after 9/11 that granted the government sweeping surveillance powers. He championed a National Security Agency warrantless wiretapping programme aimed at intercepting international communications of suspected terrorists in the US, despite concerns over its legality.The Bush administration also authorised the US military to attack enemy combatants acting on behalf of terrorist organisations, prompting questions about the legality of killing or detaining people without prosecution at sites such as Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.This doctrine is now being used by the Trump administration to justify deadly strikes on alleged drug-running boats in Latin America. It claims the US is engaged in “armed conflict” with drug cartels and has declared them unlawful combatants.Last month the Pentagon chief, Pete Hegseth, wrote on social media: “These narco-terrorists have killed more Americans than al-Qaida, and they will be treated the same. We will track them, we will network them, and then, we will hunt and kill them.”In 2002 a set of legal memorandums known as the “torture memos” were drafted by John Yoo, deputy assistant attorney general, advising that the use of enhanced interrogation techniques might be legally permissible under an expansive interpretation of presidential authority during the “war on terror”.Jeremy Varon, author of Our Grief Is Not a Cry for War: The Movement to Stop the War on Terror, said: “That championed the unitary executive theory and then said as an explicit argument anything ordered by the commander in chief is by definition legal because the president is the sovereign.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“In its own day it was considered a dubious if not a highly contestable legal theory, but the Trump administration is almost pretending that it’s settled law and then using expansive ‘war on terror’ powers to create a war on immigrants, a war on narco traffickers and even potentially a war on dissenting Americans as they protest in the streets.”Varon, a history professor at the New School for Social Research in New York, added: “The great irony is that Trump represents, on the one hand, the repudiation of the neoliberal neocon globalists like Cheney and Bush that entangled America in forever wars. But now America First is being weaponised, making use of ‘war on terror’ powers to capture, brutalise, dehumanise and kill people without any sense of legal constraint.”As an architect of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, Cheney pushed spy agencies to find evidence to justify military action. He asserted that then Iraqi president Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction and had ties to the al-Qaida terrorist network. Officials used that to sell the war to members of Congress and the media, though that claim was later debunked.The government’s arguments for war fuelled a distrust among many Americans that resonates today with some in the current Republican party. But it did not lead to a significant pushback from Congress aimed at preventing future presidents making a similar mistake.The trend for executive power has been fuelled by an increasingly polarised and paralysed Congress, creating a vacuum that successive administrations, including those of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, have filled with executive action, unwilling to cede powers once gained.The ultimate battle for the unitary executive theory is now being waged within the chambers of the supreme court. Recent rulings from the court’s conservative majority signal a shift away from longstanding precedents that have, for nearly a century, placed limits on presidential authority.Since taking office in January, Trump has unleashed a barrage of unilateral presidential actions. He has waged a campaign to remove thousands of career government workers from their posts and shut down entire federal agencies. His deployment of national guard troops to major US cities and attacks on law firms, media organisations and universities have earned comparison with autocrats around the world.Cheney himself did not approve. He became a severe and outspoken critic of Trump, arguing that the president’s actions went “well beyond their due bounds”, particularly regarding the integrity of the US electoral system. His daughter, Liz Cheney, became one of the most prominent opponents of Trump within the Republican party but eventually lost her seat in the House.Ken Adelman, a former US diplomat who knew Cheney since working with him the 1970s, was not surprised that he took a stand. He said: “Trump stood for everything Dick did not stand for and that was foreign policy, you support your friends and you oppose the totalitarians, strong alliances, strong defence and free trade.“He was very uncomfortable and then finally turned and absolutely opposed Donald Trump with every fibre of his bone, which shows that conservatives can oppose Trump and should oppose Trump because he’s not conservative and he’s not decent and he’s not honourable.”Some commentators contend that while Cheney operated to enhance the power of the institution of the presidency for policy and national security reasons, Trump has leveraged that power for self-aggrandisement, pushing beyond boundaries that Cheney himself recognised.Robert Schmuhl, a professor emeritus of American studies at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, said: “Clearly in his time as vice-president, he pushed that envelope almost as far as anyone could. But the distinction is that Cheney was trying to enhance the power of the presidency for policy and security reasons, while Donald Trump seems to be pushing for greater power in the presidency that also has a personal dimension for him.”Others agree that, along with the rhymes between Cheney and Trump, there are significant differences. Jake Bernstein, co-author of Vice: Dick Cheney and the Hijacking of the American Presidency, said: “You can draw a line between Cheney and Trump. Trump has taken that to the max; as they say in Spın̈al Tap, he’s turned it to 11. It’s a qualitative difference.“Yes, Cheney believed that power had tilted too much towards Congress and had to go back to the executive and certainly believed that, particularly in issues of war-making, the executive should be completely unfettered. He also understood a lot of this balance between Congress and the executive was based on norms that were elastic and could be stretched in one direction or another.“But he was absolutely at heart an institutionalist and he didn’t want to break those norms. He didn’t want to destroy those institutions. He would have been appalled by the neutering of Congress that’s going on under this current Trump administration. Basically Trump is president and speaker of the House at the moment, and that would have offended Cheney.” More

    • 225 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Forget diplomatic niceties: it’s beyond time Europe denounced Trump’s trashing of democracy in the US | Paul Taylor

      by

      What do you do when you discover your best friend is abusive to their partner at home? That question, or something similar, should be addressed to European leaders – and indeed to all of us in the European public space, who are watching, often speechless, as Donald Trump takes a cudgel to the institutions of American democracy.For the last nine months, European leaders have bitten their tongues, looked the other way and engaged in flattery, appeasement and wild promises to keep the US president sweet and engaged in European security. The overwhelming imperative for Trump to stand with Europe against Russia over its war on Ukraine – or at least not against us and alongside Vladimir Putin – has led them to swallow unrealistic defence spending targets and unbalanced trade terms. For what gain?No European leader has publicly contradicted Trump’s inflated claims to have ended eight wars in eight months, nor criticised his demolition of the multilateral rules-based free trade order, his assault on the United Nations, or his selective use of tariffs to pursue political vendettas around the world.The only time European leaders briefly found their voices was when JD Vance used the stage of the Munich security conference to launch a fierce attack on European democracy. Vance accused US allies of suppressing free speech and said he was more worried by “the threat from within … the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values” than by any threat from Russia or China to the continent’s freedom. To underline his support for freedom of anti-immigrant hate speech, he chose to meet the leader of the far-right German AfD Alice Weidel in Munich in the midst of an election campaign, and to snub Berlin’s then-chancellor, Olaf Scholz of the Social Democrats.With millions of Americans now taking to the streets to protest against Trump’s authoritarian drift at home, isn’t it time for European leaders to speak up and assert their moral autonomy by signalling Europe’s support for democracy in the US, and for those who are trying to defend it?This is not to suggest that an expression of European dismay would have any practical effect on the dismantling of checks and balances in the US political system, the abolition of the USAID foreign aid agency, the crackdowns on universities, law firms and science, the abuse of the justice system against political enemies, or the purging of the armed forces and, most alarmingly, the deployment of the military in American cities to combat the “enemy from within”.While the US can protect security in Europe and deserves our undying gratitude for having done so for the last 80 years, Europeans cannot protect democracy in the US. They can and must, however, protect liberal democracy in Europe, which risks becoming a collateral victim of Trump’s domestic and foreign policy agenda.What happens in America doesn’t stay in America. It is often a precursor for trends in Europe. Just as the #MeToo and “woke” movements spilled over from Hollywood studios and US campuses to European film sets and universities, so the tide of illiberalism and repression rising in Washington is already washing up on European shores in countries such as Hungary and Serbia. By speaking up about Trump’s assaults on the independence of the US civil service, judiciary, legal profession, media and armed forces, and his moves to criminalise dissent, European leaders would be asserting the values of the rule of law, the separation of powers and liberal democracy that they have a duty to preserve at home.If Elon Musk can use his social media platform and the world’s biggest fortune to intervene in German elections in favour of Weidel’s far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) – or in British politics in support of convicted anti-Islam extremist Tommy Robinson – then surely we, too, can make our voices heard in US politics. We can offer support and practical cooperation to states, cities and courts that share our values, and moral support to US freedom campaigners. Our governments and regions can build partnerships on climate action, civil rights and development assistance with like-minded US states and local authorities. We can offer jobs, visas and scholarships to US scientists and academics hit by Trump’s cuts to research funding. Europe stands only to gain from a self-inflicted American brain drain.The massive No Kings protests in towns and cities across the US were fortunately peaceful, despite Trump’s deployment of armed forces in Washington DC, Los Angeles, Memphis, Portland and other cities, and the attempted mobilisation of the National Guard across 19 states. But having branded his leftwing opponents “domestic terrorists”, the risk is growing that Trump will make good on his threat to invokethe 1807 Insurrection Act and claim sweeping powers to use the military against American protesters.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe last time the US military was used for domestic policing against demonstrations was under Richard Nixon in 1970, when the National Guard shot dead four students protesting, at Kent State University in Ohio, against the draft and the US military intervention in Cambodia. An earlier precedent for the deadly use of force against peaceful protesters was in Selma, Alabama in 1965, when state and local police violently broke up civil rights marches by black Americans demanding the unhindered right to vote. On both those historic occasions, European media criticised the use of force against peaceful demonstrators, but governments on this side of the Atlantic kept their mouths shut, motivated by the principle of non-interference in the affairs of an allied state.With the administration and its billionaire buddies intervening at will in support of hate speech and its proponents in Europe and against EU digital regulation, there is no longer any justification for staying silent. On the contrary, the defence of European liberal democracy starts by recognising when it is under threat in our closest ally.

      Paul Taylor is a senior visiting fellow at the European Policy Centre More

    • 125 Shares140 Views

      in US Politics

      Portland judge rejects Trump request to allow national guard deployment

      by

      A federal judge in Portland, Oregon, on Friday rejected the Trump administration’s request to immediately lift her order blocking the deployment of federalized national guard troops to the city, saying that she would decide the matter by Monday.The hearing in Portland and one in Washington DC are the latest in a head-spinning array of lawsuits and overlapping rulings prompted by Trump’s push to send the military into Democratic-run cities despite fierce resistance from mayors and governors. Troop deployment remains blocked in the Chicago area, where all sides are waiting to see whether the US supreme court intervenes to allow it.The Portland district court judge, Karin Immergut, who is based in the city, had previously issued two temporary restraining orders blocking the deployment of national guards troops there, in response to a persistent but small protest outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office.Her first order, blocking the deployment of 200 troops from the Oregon national guard, said that Donald Trump had exceeded his authority by taking federal control of the troops based on his claim that the city was in a state of war-like rebellion. Trump’s assessment, Immergut ruled, was “simply untethered to the facts”.When Trump responded to that order by sending 200 troops from California’s national guard to Oregon, and threatened to send 400 more from Texas, Immergut determined it was an attempt to evade her order, and issued a second order barring the deployment of troops from anywhere in the country to Portland.Immergut’s first order was lifted on Monday by a three-judge panel of the ninth circuit court of appeals, over the strong dissent of the only judge on the panel who lives in Portland. But because the government never appealed Immergut’s second order, it remains in effect and the deployment of troops remains blocked until she decides whether or not to lift or modify it in response to the appeals court ruling.At a virtual hearing on Friday, Immergut cited two reasons for her to delay lifting the second injunction. The first was that the appeals court did not address a central fact in her second order: that she had issued it in part because the government responded to her first order by attempting to evade it. The second was that the ninth circuit appeals court is currently considering a call from one of its judges to rehear the appeal of her first order before a larger panel of 11 judges.At the end of the hearing, Immergut said that she would decide by Monday, if not earlier.The US district judge, Jia Cobb, an appointee of Joe Biden, was hearing arguments Friday on a request from Brian Schwalb, the District of Columbia attorney general, for an order that would remove more than 2,000 guard members from Washington streets.In August, Trump issued an executive order declaring a crime emergency in the district – though the Department of Justice itself says violent crime there is at a 30-year low.Within a month, more than 2,300 guard troops from eight states and the district were patrolling under the army secretary’s command. Trump also deployed hundreds of federal agents to assist them.It is unclear how long the deployments will last, but attorneys from Schwalb’s office said troops were likely to remain in Washington through at least next summer.“Our constitutional democracy will never be the same if these occupations are permitted to stand,” they wrote.Government lawyers said Congress empowered the president to control the DC national guard’s operation. They argued that Schwalb’s lawsuit is a frivolous “political stunt” threatening to undermine a successful campaign to reduce violent crime in Washington.Although the emergency period ended in September, more than 2,200 troops remain. Several states told the Associated Press they would bring their units home by 30 November, unless their deployment is extended.Among the states that sent troops to the district was West Virginia. A civic organization called the West Virginia Citizen Action Group says the governor, Patrick Morrisey, exceeded his authority by deploying 300 to 400 guard members to support Trump’s efforts there.Morrisey has said West Virginia “is proud to stand with President Trump”, and his office has said the deployment was authorized under federal law. The state attorney general’s office has asked Richard D Lindsay, a Kanawha county circuit court judge, to reject the case, saying the group has not been harmed and lacks standing to challenge Morrisey’s decision.Lindsay heard some arguments Friday before continuing the hearing to 3 November to give the state time to focus more on whether Morrisey had the authority to deploy the cuard members.“I want that issue addressed,” Lindsay said.April Perry, a district judge, on Wednesday blocked guard deployment to the Chicago area until a case in her court is decided or the US supreme court intervenes. Perry previously blocked the deployment for two weeks through a temporary restraining order.Attorneys representing the federal government said they would agree to extend the order, but would also continue pressing for an emergency order from the supreme court that would allow for the deployment.Lawyers representing Chicago and Illinois have asked the supreme court to continue to block the deployment, calling it a “dramatic step”. More

    • 138 Shares84 Views

      in US Politics

      Alabama executes man on death row by controversial nitrogen gas method

      by

      An Alabama man convicted of helping to burn a man alive was executed by nitrogen gas – a form of suffocation which defense lawyers have described as cruel and unusual punishment – on Thursday shortly after the US supreme court signed off on the seventh execution using the contested method.Anthony Boyd, 54, was sent to the death chamber at the William C Holman correctional facility on Thursday evening.“I didn’t kill anybody. I didn’t participate in killing anybody,” said Boyd in his final words, per the Associated Press. “There can be no justice until we change this system … Let’s get it.”He was strapped to a gurney and forced to breathe nitrogen through an industrial mask, fatally depriving his body of oxygen. He was pronounced dead at 6.33pm.On Thursday, the six conservative justices on the supreme court denied Boyd’s petition for a stay of execution over the fierce opposition of their three liberal peers. Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote an excoriating dissenting opinion in which she invited readers to use a stopwatch to time four minutes.“Now imagine for that entire time, you are suffocating … That is what awaits Anthony Boyd tonight,” Sotomayor said.Boyd’s execution was the eighth time the gas has been used to kill a man after its initial experimentation by Alabama on Kenny Smith in January 2024. In March, Louisiana became the second state to deploy nitrogen as a killing method, with the execution of Jessie Hoffman Jr.Advocates of the death penalty have embraced the nitrogen method, which they insist is an acceptable alternative to the prevalent execution method in the US, lethal injection. A boycott of medical drugs sold to corrections departments has made it increasingly difficult for states to procure the chemicals used in lethal injections, and as a result they have turned to other methods including nitrogen.But the track record for this new killing procedure has been deeply troubling. The first prisoner to die by the gas, Smith, was seen by witnesses writhing and convulsing on the gurney.At a recent hearing in federal court in which Boyd appealed against his execution by nitrogen, Smith’s widow, Deanna Smith, likened the process of watching her husband die to “watching somebody drown without water”.The second person killed by Alabama using nitrogen, Alan Miller, also visibly shook and trembled for about two minutes in September last year. In the Louisiana execution, Hoffman was recorded still breathing 16 minutes into the procedure.Boyd’s lawyers argued in federal district court that the method was a violation of the eighth amendment of the US constitution, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. They said that previous nitrogen executions had caused prisoners “extreme pain and terror of suffocation while still conscious, inflicting gratuitous suffering beyond what is constitutionally permitted”.Earlier this month the federal judge in the case, Emily Marks, declined to stop Boyd’s execution from going ahead. She said she had no doubt that a person deprived of oxygen “experiences discomfort, panic and emotional distress”, but ruled that the constitution does not guarantee a painless death.Boyd was sentenced to death for the murder of Gregory Huguley in 1995. Prosecutors said he was one of four men who kidnapped Huguley after he failed to pay $200 for cocaine, then doused him in petrol and set fire to him.Boyd has always protested his innocence. The prosecution case depended on the testimony of an eyewitness with no forensic evidence connecting Boyd to the crime.“I didn’t kill anybody. I didn’t participate in any killing,” Boyd said when he phoned in to a recent press conference held by his supporters.His death sentence was handed down by a jury vote of 10 to two. Alabama and Florida are the only states that allow people to be sent to death row on the basis of a non-unanimous jury verdict. More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Rogue president’: growing number of US judges push back against Trump

      by

      US district and appeals courts are increasingly rebuking Donald Trump’s radical moves on tackling crime, illegal immigration and other actions where administration lawyers or Trump have made sweeping claims of emergencies that judges have bluntly rejected as erroneous and undermining the rule of law in America.Legal scholars and ex-judges note that strong court pushback has come from judges appointed by Republicans, including Trump himself, and Democrats, and signify that the administration’s factual claims and expanding executive powers face stiff challenges that have slowed some extreme policies.Among the toughest rulings were ones this month by Judge Karin Immergut in Oregon and Judge April Perry in Chicago. Both district judges sharply challenged Trump’s plans to deploy national guard troops to deal with minimal violence that Trump had portrayed as akin to “war” zones, spurring the judges to impose temporary restraining orders.Immergut, whom Trump nominated for the court in his first term, rejected Trump’s depiction of Portland as “war-ravaged”, and in need of saving from “Antifa and other domestic terrorists” concluding that the “president’s determination was simply untethered to the facts”. But a court of appeals ruled on 20 October that Trump could send national guard troops to the city.Elsewhere, district judge William Young in Boston issued a scathing 161-page ruling last month calling some of Trump’s deportation policies illegal efforts to deport non-citizen activists at colleges in violation of their first amendment rights “under the cover of an unconstitutionally broad definition of antisemitism”. Young was nominated by Ronald Reagan.Some former appeals court judges say that the district courts and courts of appeals are responding appropriately to a pattern of unlawful conduct by Trump and his top deputies.“The president and attorney general are openly contemptuous of the constitution and laws of the United States and of the federal courts, and the arguments they make to the courts mirror that personal contempt,” said retired court of appeals judge J Michael Luttig. “The federal district courts and the courts of appeals well understand that and they are going to have none of it.”View image in fullscreenRecent court rulings reveal a pattern of strong judicial rebukes to the Trump administration from district and appeals courts on multiple issues since Trump took office again, which the legal news and analysis site Just Security has documented.A Just Security study, which was spearheaded by New York University law professor Ryan Goodman, revealed that courts’ distrust of government information and representations hit over 40 cases as of 15 October versus 35 cases in mid-September. Similarly, it noted that courts’ findings of “arbitrary and capricious” administrative action totaled 58 cases on 15 October versus 52 in mid-September. The study showed courts’ concerns over noncompliance with judicial orders totaled over 20 cases as of 15 October up from 15 cases a month before.But despite the growing number of strong lower court rulings against the administration, some may well get reversed by the supreme court given its 6-3 conservative majority, and its rulings that have markedly expanded presidential powers.Nonetheless, legal scholars and ex-federal judges stress that recent district court rulings against Trump’s radical policies are grounded in fact and reveal profound scepticism about a number of the administration’s sweeping legal claims.“US district judges have the responsibility to determine the relevant facts before applying the law. Accordingly, the credibility of a party and its counsel are immensely important,” said former federal judge John Jones, who is now president of Dickinson College.“Simply put, the president’s reputation for hyperbole that lapses into outright lies precedes him in these cases, and judges are increasingly refusing to take the administration’s rationale for its actions at face value.”For example, Perry called the Department of Homeland Security’s depiction of events in Chicago “simply unreliable” with a “lack of credibility”. She noted that state and local law enforcement contradicted the case for deploying the national guard and Trump’s assertion that it was a “war zone”, and warned that using the guard could fuel “civil unrest”.Days later, the seventh circuit court of appeals upheld Perry’s ruling that denied a White House request to deploy national guard troops on Chicago streets in response to a lawsuit brought by the city of Chicago and Illinois.But on Friday the Trump administration asked the supreme court to pause those rulings and permit Trump to deploy troops in Illinois, boosting efforts to send the national guard into the Chicago area.Elsewhere, on Monday a three-judge appeals court panel ruled 2-1 that the Trump administration can send the national guard to Portland, lifting Immergut’s ruling and allowing some 200 federalized guard troops to be sent to the city to protect federal buildings.Responding to the ruling, Oregon’s attorney general said if the decision is allowed to stand Trump would have “unilateral power to put Oregon soldiers on our streets with almost no justification”.More broadly, scholars and other experts voice strong criticism of the administration’s legal claims.“Trump is abusing the laws that authorize domestic military deployment in a crisis, and the courts are starting to push back,” said Liza Goitein, the Brennan Center’s senior director of liberty and national security.“In the United States, federal armed forces cannot be used to execute the law except when civilian authorities have been completely overwhelmed. As judges in Oregon and Illinois have recognized, the facts on the ground simply don’t justify deployment of the military.“A court could reach the opposite conclusion only by extending a dangerous level of deference to the president, effectively giving him free rein to use the military as a domestic police force. That would be contrary to American principles and traditions, and it would pose a grave threat to democracy and individual liberty.”Not surprisingly, some recent rulings by district judges have outraged Maga world and top Trump officials, who have decried them in incendiary terms. The White House deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, called Immergut’s ruling “legal insurrection”, which some analysts worry could incite violence.Trump, too, fired back at Immergut’s ruling. “I wasn’t served well by the people who pick judges,” Trump told reporters soon after the ruling, seemingly forgetting he had nominated her, and then misidentifying her sex. “Portland is burning to the ground … That judge ought to be ashamed of himself.”Trump’s attacks on Immergut and earlier dust-ups with judges who ruled against the administration were advanced this month by El Salvador’s authoritarian leader Nayib Bukele, who urged the Trump administration to emulate his policies and impeach “corrupt judges”.“If you don’t impeach the corrupt judges, you CANNOT fix the country,” Bukele tweeted, sparking multi-billionaire and Maga ally Elon Musk to retweet it as “essential”.But legal experts say the ruling by Immergut and other district judges who have pushed back hard against administration policies are fully warranted and reasonable, given extreme moves by Trump on immigration, crime and other fronts they deem unjustified or illegal.“I think the strong district court response in these contexts is striking,” said Columbia law professor Gillian Metzger. “It’s occurring in other Trump contexts as well – for example, the administration’s efforts to deny appropriated funding or target law firms – but immigration enforcement and calling out the national guard are traditional executive areas where you’d expect the president to get deference.”Metzger said: “Judges are perceiving an administration that is asserting power in novel ways and at odds with basic norms and longstanding practices – eg, employing the national guard in a partisan fashion over the objections of state and local leaders, deploying Ice officers in aggressive ways, etc – and at times violating governing statutes.”Other legal scholars go further.“The problem is not rogue judges, but a rogue president. The problem is not what judges are doing but what the president is doing,” said former Massachusetts judge Nancy Gertner, who now teaches law at Harvard.Gertner pointed in particular to Young’s ruling in a deportation case involving efforts by the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security to deport pro-Palestinian non-citizen students and professors who protested against Israel’s actions in Gaza.In his ruling, Young wrote that Trump’s conduct violated his oath to “preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States” and the actions of his administration represented a “full-throated assault on the first amendment”.Gertner noted that the “case involved sending people to countries without due process. We gave due process to people involved with the September 11 attacks. Sending people to countries where they had no relatives, NO TIES, was a flagrant violation of law.“What the Trump administration has been doing is so unprecedented and so far from normal and so illegal it makes sense that judges have issued injunctions stopping them.”Luttig stressed: “The judges of the United States will not be threatened and intimidated by this president and this attorney general. They will continue to honor their oaths to the constitution, which means the president and attorney general can expect loss after loss after loss, at least before the nation’s lower federal courts.” More

    • 250 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘We are on a dangerous path’: Oregon attorney general slams decision allowing Trump to send troops to Portland – live

      by

      The Oregon attorney general, Dan Rayfield, has issued a statement following the ruling from the ninth circuit court of appeals, which lifted the temporary restraining order blocking the deployment of the state’s national guard.He said that if the ruling is allowed to stand, it would give Donald Trump “unilateral power to put Oregon soldiers on our streets with almost no justification”.“We are on a dangerous path in America,” he added.The three-judge panel was split in their decision, with Clinton-appointee Susan Graber dissenting from her colleagues. Rayfield added:
      Oregon joins Judge Graber in urging the full Ninth Circuit to ‘act swiftly’ en banc ‘to vacate the majority’s order before the illegal deployment of troops under false pretenses can occur.’ And, like her, we ‘ask those who are watching this case unfold to retain faith in our judicial system for just a little while longer’.
      In a court-ordered disclosure filed on Monday, the US interior department revealed that it plans “to abolish 2,050 positions”, including sweeping cuts to the Bureau of Land Management, and smaller numbers at the Fish and Wildlife Service, US Geological Survey and other agencies. Among the positions slated for elimination are Bureau of Reclamation workers who provide maintenance for the Hoover Dam.The declaration, with a detailed appendix of positions to be cut from Rachel Borra, the interior department’s chief human capital officer, was submitted to comply with an order issued by the US district court for the northern district of California in a lawsuit brought by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and four other national unions that represent federal workers at risk of losing their jobs.The planned layoffs are paused for now by a temporary restraining order that US District court judge Susan Illston expanded during an emergency hearing on Friday.As our colleague Anna Betts reports, construction crews started demolishing part of the East Wing of the White House to make way for Donald Trump’s planned ballroom on Monday.The Washington Post on obtained and published a photo of the demolition activity, showing construction in progress and parts of the exterior ripped down.A Daily Mail reporter shared video of the demolition on social media.Read the full story here:Hakeem Jeffries, the leader of the House Democratic minority, just called on Republicans to negotiate an end to the government shutdown by citing Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Maga Republican from Georgia.“The Republican health care crisis, as Marjorie Taylor Greene has repeatedly indicated, is real,” Jeffries told reporters. “And it’s having devastating impacts that are becoming increasingly apparent to the American people. In Idaho, 100,000 Americans are at risk of losing their health care if the Affordable Care Act tax credits expire, because it will become unaffordable for them.”He went on to cite examples in other states where some people are “finding out that their health insurance premiums are about to increase by more than $2,000 per month.”A growing share of Americans believe religion is gaining influence and society – and view its expanding role positively, a new report by the PEW research center has found. It comes as the Trump administration has sought to fuse conservative Christian values and governance, especially in the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk. In just one year, the share of US adults who believe religion is gaining influence in American society has increased sharply. While still a minority view, 31% say religion is on the rise — up from just 18% a year earlier, in February 2024 – the highest figure recorded in 15 years.Meanwhile, the percentage who say religion is losing influence dropped from 80% to 68%.According to the PEW survey, these changing perceptions of religion suggest a broader shift in a country that was rapidly secularizing. Nearly 6 in 10 Americans (59%) now express a positive view of religion’s influence in public life, either because they see its rising power as a good thing, or view its decline as a bad thing. Only 20% express negative views, while the rest remain neutral or uncertain.Notably, the shift is not confined to one party or demographic. Both Republicans and Democrats, as well as nearly all major religious groups and age brackets, have become more likely to say religion is gaining ground — and more likely to feel their religious beliefs conflict with mainstream American culture. That sense of cultural conflict is now a majority view, with 58% of US adults reporting at least some tension between their beliefs and broader society.Finally, while views on religious truth vary, nearly half of Americans (48%) say many religions may be true — more than double the share (26%) who say only one religion is true.Pew’s findings suggest a significant cultural shift unfolding under an administration that has explicitly championed Christian conservatism as a governing ethos.It is perhaps significant that Susan Graber, the lone dissenting voice on the three-judge federal appeals court panel that just permitted Donald Trump to deploy federal troops to Portland, Oregon, in the only one of the three to be based in Portland.Graber, a former law school classmate of Bill and Hillary Clinton who was nominated to the federal bench by Clinton while serving on the Oregon supreme court, wrote a scathing dissent to the majority ruling, which lifts a lower-court order that had temporarily blocked Trump from sending in troops to what he falsely claims is a “war-ravaged” city.The other two judges on the panel, both nominated by Trump during his first term, are based in Arizona and Idaho.Graber said in an interview in 2012, that “it was kind of love at first sight with Portland” for her when she first moved to the city to work as a law clerk.In her dissent, she urged the full appeals court to reverse the decision by the panel, writing that there was “no legal or factual justification supported the order to federalize and deploy the Oregon National Guard”.She continued: “Given Portland protesters’ well-known penchant for wearing chicken suits, inflatable frog costumes, or nothing at all when expressing their disagreement with the methods employed by ICE, observers may be tempted to view the majority’s ruling, which accepts the government’s characterization of Portland as a war zone, as merely absurd. But today’s decision is not merely absurd. It erodes core constitutional principles, including sovereign States’ control over their States’ militias and the people’s First Amendment rights to assemble and to object to the government’s policies and actions.”The judge added: “The majority’s order abdicates our judicial responsibility, permitting the President to invoke emergency authority in a situation far divorced from an enumerated emergency.”Graber concluded:“We have come to expect a dose of political theater in the political branches, drama designed to rally the base or to rile or intimidate political opponents. We also may expect there a measure of bending – sometimes breaking – the truth. By design of the Founders, the judicial branch stands apart. We rule on facts, not on supposition or conjecture, and certainly not on fabrication or propaganda. I urge my colleagues on this court to act swiftly to vacate the majority’s order before the illegal deployment of troops under false pretenses can occur. Above all, I ask those who are watching this case unfold to retain faith in our judicial system for just a little longer.”The Oregon attorney general, Dan Rayfield, has issued a statement following the ruling from the ninth circuit court of appeals, which lifted the temporary restraining order blocking the deployment of the state’s national guard.He said that if the ruling is allowed to stand, it would give Donald Trump “unilateral power to put Oregon soldiers on our streets with almost no justification”.“We are on a dangerous path in America,” he added.The three-judge panel was split in their decision, with Clinton-appointee Susan Graber dissenting from her colleagues. Rayfield added:
      Oregon joins Judge Graber in urging the full Ninth Circuit to ‘act swiftly’ en banc ‘to vacate the majority’s order before the illegal deployment of troops under false pretenses can occur.’ And, like her, we ‘ask those who are watching this case unfold to retain faith in our judicial system for just a little while longer’.

      A three-judge panel on the ninth circuit court of appeals has ruled that the Trump administration can deploy the national guard to Portland, Oregon. They lifted a lower court judge’s decision that blocked the president from federalizing and sending roughly 200 troops to the city to guard federal buildings, as largely small and peaceful protests took place in recent weeks outside an immigration facility in the city.

      Donald Trump welcomed Australian prime minister, Anthony Albanese to the White House, signing a rare earth minerals deal as trade tensions with China escalate. The pair just signed a rare earths agreement which opens up Australia’s vast mineral resources. Albanese added that the deal was an “eight and a half billion dollar pipeline” to supply critical rare earths to the US. Meanwhile, Trump doubled down on his threat of imposing a 157% tariff on Chinese imports if both nations can’t reach a trade deal. This, after Beijing announced they were tightening exports of rare earth minerals. “We have a tremendous power, and that’s the power of tariff, and I think that China will come to the table and make a very fair deal,” the president added.

      Donald Trump said he didn’t think Ukraine would win back land that was captured by Russia during the war. “They could still win it,” Trump remarked during his meeting with Australian Prime Minster Anthony Albanese. “I don’t think they will. They could still win it. I never said they would win it. Anything can happen. You know, war is a very strange thing.” Trump’s seeming skepticism of a Ukrainian victory came several days after a meeting with Volodymyr Zelenskyy, during which he appeared more keen on negotiating a peace agreement than supplying the nation with Tomahawk cruise missiles.

      The president has said that Hamas is “going to behave” or will face severe repercussions. While taking questions from reporters today, Trump said that Hamas are “going to be nice, and if they’re not, we’re going to go and we’re going to eradicate them”. This comes after Israel launched waves of deadly airstrikes on Sunday and cut off all aid into Gaza “until further notice” after a reported attack by Hamas, in escalations that marked the most serious threat so far to the fragile ceasefire in the devastated territory.

      The government shutdown entered its 20th day, with little end in sight. The House remains out of session, as lawmakers on both sides of the aisle blame the other party for the impasse on Capitol Hill. Earlier, White House economic adviser said that shutdown would “likely” end this week after the No Kings protests took place across the country. The Senate will vote, for the 11th time, on a House-passed funding bill to reopen the government at 5:30pm ET.
      A three-judge panel on the ninth circuit court of appeals has ruled that the Trump administration can deploy the national guard to Portland, Oregon.They lifted a lower court judge’s decision that blocked the president from federalizing and sending roughly 200 troops to the city to guard federal buildings, as largely small and peaceful protests took place in recent weeks outside an immigration facility in the city.Per that last post, it’s worth putting that in the context of Greene’s decision to buck the Republican party line in recent months.My colleagues David Smith and George Chidi, have been reporting on the Georgia’s congresswoman’s “streak of independence” on issues ranging from healthcare to Gaza to the Jeffrey Epstein files. They report that Greene has broken ranks with Republicans and won unlikely fans among Democrats, stirring speculation about her motives – and future ambitions.David and George write that the lawmaker, who was once “one of Donald Trump’s most loyal foot soldiers” has stopped short of directly criticising the president himself and has so far avoided incurring his wrath. “But her willingness to dissent is all the more remarkable under a president who notoriously prizes loyalty and punishes critics,” they note.You can read more of their reporting below.Marjorie Taylor Greene, a representative of Georgia, on Monday morning criticized Mike Johnson’s strategy to keep the House shuttered for weeks, calling on the lower chamber to return to session immediately.“The House should be in session working,” Greene wrote on X. “We should be finishing appropriations. Our committees should be working. We should be passing bills that make President Trump’s executive orders permanent. I have no respect for the decision to refuse to work.”The callout from Greene, who is aligned with the right flank of her party, is a noticeable crack in support for Johnson’s hardline approach from the GOP over an extended congressional recess. Since 19 September, when members last cast votes, the chamber has not been conducting legislative business, although members have staged press conferences.According to Politico, House speaker Mike Johnson spoke with the president earlier, and will be at the White House at 4pm as Donald Trump welcomes the Louisiana State University (LSU) baseball champions.Also present will be the athletes from LSU Shreveport, the city where Johnson was born and raised. Part of his congressional district also includes the city.in BogotáColombia has recalled its ambassador to Washington amid a furious war of words between the Colombian president, Gustavo Petro, and Donald Trump over deadly US strikes on boats in the Caribbean.The row took a sharp turn this weekend when Petro accused the US of “murdering” a Colombian fisher in an attack on a vessel in its territorial waters. Petro and his administration said the mid-September strike was a “direct threat to national sovereignty” and that the victim was a “lifelong fisherman” and a “humble human being”.In response, Trump, who has claimed such attacks are designed to stop drug-smuggling to the US, called Petro an “illegal drug dealer” and vowed to end aid payments to Colombia, one of the largest recipients of US counter-narcotics assistance. He also ordered Petro to “close up” drug cultivation sites, saying if not “the United States will close them up for him, and it won’t be done nicely”. Speaking onboard Air Force One, Trump added that he would announce new tariffs on Colombian goods.Colombia’s interior minister, Armando Benedetti, said the remarks were a “threat of invasion or military action against Colombia”. Petro said that Colombia’s five-decade conflict stemmed from “cocaine consumption in the United States” and claimed American contributions had been “meagre and null in recent years”.Texas Republican congressman Chip Roy suggested using the “nuclear option” to end the shutdown that would avoid Senate filibuster requirements which mandate a 60-vote majority to reopen the US government, The Hill reports.“We need to be taking a look at the 60-vote threshold. We really do,” Roy said on Monday.Top Republican senators used this tactic to avoid needing Democrats’ support to confirm a host of Trump nominees in September. South Dakota Republican Senator John Thune, the Senate majority leader, said he would not do this to achieve a continuing resolution that would reopen the government, per the Hill.“At a minimum, why don’t we take a look at it for [continuing resolutions]?” Roy reportedly said. “Why don’t we just say, look, I mean, we have a 50-vote threshold for the budget, we have a 50-vote threshold for reconciliation, why shouldn’t we have a 50-vote threshold to be able to fund the government?”Republicans have supported this 60-vote benchmark when Democrats hold the majority. Thune has said that maintaining the filibuster is among his leading priorities, the Hill reported.“I think Republicans ought to take a long, hard look at the 60-vote threshold, because I think we’re just being beholden to a broken system right now,” Roy also said.Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson has expressed concern about eliminating this threshold.”I would be deeply concerned if the Democrats had a bare majority in the Senate right now, Marxist ideology taking over the Democrat party,” Johnson reportedly said earlier this month. “Do I want them to have no safegaurds and no stumbling blocks or hurdles at all in the way of turning us into a communist country? I don’t think that’s a great idea.”While the US Senate is poised to vote – for the 11th time – on a House-approved bill that would reopen the government this afternoon, Americans could face still more shutdown-related travel delays if funding efforts fail.US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said on Monday that travelers might see more disruptions because air traffic controllers are not getting paid during the shutdown.Air traffic controllers are deemed “excepted” staffers, meaning they still work during shutdowns, but receive back pay when the government reopens and funding resumes, CBS News explains.“They got a partial paycheck a week ago Tuesday. Their next paycheck comes a week from Tuesday, and in that paycheck there will be no dollars. They don’t get paid,” Duffy said in a Fox and Friends interview.“I think what you might see is more disruptions in travel as more of them look to say, how do I bridge the gap between the check that’s not coming and putting food on my table?” CBS noted him saying. “And we have heard they are taking Uber jobs. They are doing DoorDash, they are figuring out ways to keep their families afloat … And, again, a lot of them are paycheck to paycheck.”Donald Trump on Monday doubled down on his threat of imposing a 157% tariff on Chinese imports if both nations can’t reach a trade deal.“We have a tremendous power, and that’s the power of tariff, and I think that China will come to the table and make a very fair deal, because if they don’t, they’re going to be paying us 157% in tariffs,” Trump told reporters during his sit-down with Australian Prime Minster Anthony Albanese.Trump, who claimed that “China has treated us with great respect” not afforded to prior administrations, said that if a deal weren’t brokered, “I’m putting on an additional 100%” on 1 November.Trump and China’s president, Xi Jinping, are expected to meet in several weeks to discuss trade.Trump’s reiteration of this tariff threat comes just several days after he admitted that a 157% tax is unfeasible.“It’s not sustainable, but that’s what the number is,” Trump said in an interview with Fox Business’s Maria Bartiromo. “It’s probably not, you know, it could stand. But they forced me to do that.”Donald Trump said he didn’t think Ukraine would win back land that was captured by Russia during the war.“They could still win it,” Trump remarked during his meeting with Australian Prime Minster Anthony Albanese. “I don’t think they will. They could still win it. I never said they would win it. Anything can happen. You know, war is a very strange thing.”Trump’s seeming skepticism of a Ukrainian victory came several days after a meeting with Volodymyr Zelenskyy, during which he appeared more keen on negotiating a peace agreement than supplying the nation with Tomahawk cruise missiles.Trump told Ukraine and Russia to “stop the war immediately”.The comments mark yet another shift in Trump’s position on Ukraine’s chances in the years-long conflict. Trump said in September that he believed Ukraine could regain all territory seized by Russia.During Trump’s presidential campaign in 2024, and early this year, Trump said that Ukraine would have to give up territories seized by Russia to stop the war, The Associated Press notes.The president has said that Hamas is “going to behave” or will face severe repercussions.“They’re going to be nice, and if they’re not, we’re going to go and we’re going to eradicate them,” Trump added.This comes after Israel launched waves of deadly airstrikes on Sunday and cut off all aid into Gaza “until further notice” after a reported attack by Hamas, in escalations that marked the most serious threat so far to the fragile ceasefire in the devastated territory.“Hamas has been very violent, but they don’t have the backing of Iran any more. They don’t have the backing of really anybody any more. They have to be good, and if they’re not good, they’ll be eradicated,” Trump said in the Cabinet Room at the White House. More

    • 125 Shares156 Views

      in US Politics

      Comey asks judge to dismiss criminal charges claiming selective prosecution

      by

      Former FBI director James Comey formally asked a federal judge to dismiss criminal charges against him, arguing he was the victim of a selective prosecution and that the US attorney who filed the charges was unlawfully appointed.“The record as it currently exists shows a clear causal link between President Trump’s animus and the prosecution of Mr Comey,” Comey’s lawyers wrote in their request to dismiss the case, calling a 20 September Truth Social post in which he disparaged Comey and called for his prosecution “smoking gun evidence”. “President Trump’s repeated public statements and action leave no doubt as to the government’s genuine animus toward Mr Comey.” Comey’s lawyers attached an exhibit to their filing on Monday, which contains dozens of public statements from Trump criticizing Comey.Comey was indicted on 25 September with one count of making a false statement and one count of obstructing a congressional proceeding. The charges are related to Comey’s 30 September 2020 testimony before Congress, and are connected to Comey’s assertion he had never authorized anyone at the FBI to leak information. The precise details of the offense have not been made public and Comey has pleaded not guilty and forcefully denied any wrongdoing.The charges were filed against Comey, though career prosecutors in the justice department determined charges were not warranted. Trump forced out Erik Siebert, the US attorney for the eastern district of Virginia, in September and installed Lindsey Halligan, a White House aide. The Comey charges were filed days later.“In the ordinary case, a prosecutor’s charging decision is presumptively lawful and rests within her broad discretion. This is no ordinary case,” Comey’s lawyers wrote. “Here, direct evidence establishes that the President harbors genuine animus toward Mr. Comey, including because of Mr. Comey’s protected speech, that he installed his personal attorney as a ‘stalking horse’ to carry out his bidding; and that she then prosecuted Mr. Comey—days before the statute of limitations expired, with a faulty indictment—to effectuate the President’s wishes.”Comey’s Monday filing says that the fact that career prosecutors did not believe there was enough evidence to bring a case bolsters his argument that he was selectively prosecuted. They also argue that the indictment mischaracterizes the question Comey was asked that prompted the answer prosecutors say was a lie and the basis of his criminal false statement.According to the indictment, Comey was asked by a US senator whether he “had not ‘authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports’ regarding an FBI investigation concerning PERSON 1”. (Comey’s lawyers wrote in their filing on Monday that Person 1 was Hillary Clinton.)The accusation relates to a question from Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. During the 2020 hearing, Cruz noted that in 2017 congressional testimony, Comey denied “ever authoriz[ing] someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton Administration”. Cruz went on to note that Andrew McCabe, the former deputy director of the FBI, had said Comey authorized him to leak information to the Wall Street Journal.In response, Comey said he stood by his prior testimony. Comey’s lawyers argued on Monday the indictment was defective because Cruz’s question had been focused on McCabe, but the government informed them that the person Comey is alleged to have authorized to leak to the media is Daniel Richman, a friend of Comey’s and professor at Columbia University.“The indictment omits Senator Cruz’s words that explicitly narrow the focus of his questions to Mr. McCabe and misleadingly implies that the questioning related to Mr. Richman. In fact, Mr. Comey’s September 2020 exchange with Senator Cruz made no reference whatsoever to Mr. Richman, who ultimately appears in the indictment,” they wrote. They also note that Cruz asked about the “Clinton administration” and not “Hillary Clinton”.Career prosecutors interviewed Richman as part of their investigation into Comey and found him not helpful to making a case, according to the New York Times. John Durham, a special counsel appointed to investigate the FBI’s inquiry into Russian meddling, also told investigators he did not uncover evidence to support charges against Comey.Comey’s lawyers also argued on Monday that the case should be dismissed because Halligan was not lawfully appointed.“The United States cannot charge, maintain, and prosecute a case through an official who has no entitlement to exercise governmental authority,” they wrote.US attorneys must be confirmed by the Senate and can only serve for 120 days on an interim basis unless their appointment is extended by the judges overseeing their district. Siebert, Halligan’s predecessor, served for the 120-day limit and Halligan does not appear to have met other exceptions that would allow her to continue to serve.“The period does not start anew once the 120-day period expires or if a substitute interim U.S. Attorney is appointed before the 120-day period expires,” Comey’s attorneys wrote.Halligan has also overseen criminal fraud charges against New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, in connection to allegations she lied on mortgage documents. James has said she is not guilty. Legal experts have said that case does not appear to be strong. More