Law (US)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      The Alito flag scandal and the supreme court’s ethics problem – podcast

      by

      Reports surfaced a few weeks ago that the supreme court justice Samuel Alito had flown an upside-down US flag outside his home days after insurrectionists flew similar flags when they stormed the Capitol on 6 January 2021. Alito has blamed his wife, saying he wanted her to take down the flag down after a dispute with neighbours.
      Democrats want Alito to recuse himself from any supreme court case involving 6 January, but he has refused to do so. Jonathan Freedland speaks to Amanda Marcotte of Salon about whether this latest scandal is proof that the supreme court is incapable of being unbiased

      How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know More

    • 250 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Steve Bannon vows to appeal jail sentence and says order about ‘shutting down the Maga movement’ – as it happened

      by

      Speaking outside the courthouse, Steve Bannon vowed to appeal his jail sentence to the supreme court, and accused the justice department of pursuing him as a way to retaliate against Donald Trump.“They’re not going to shut up Trump, they’re not going to shut up Navarro, they’re not going to shut up Bannon, and they’re certainly not going to shut up Maga,” said Bannon. He was referring to Peter Navarro, a former Trump White House trade adviser, who is serving a similar prison sentence on contempt of Congress charges.Bannon went on to predict an overwhelming victory in the November presidential election:
      All of this is about one thing. This is about shutting down the Maga movement, shutting down grassroots conservatives, shutting down President Trump. Not only are we winning, we are going to prevail, and every number and every poll shows that. There’s nothing that can shut me up and nothing that will shut me up … There’s not a prison built, or a jail built that will ever shut me up.
      All victory to Maga. We’re going to win this, we’re going to win at the supreme court, and more importantly, we’re going to win on November 5 an amazing landslide, with the Senate, the House and also Donald J Trump back as president United States.
      Almost two years after he was first found guilty of contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena from the January 6 committee, a federal judge today ordered Steve Bannon, an influential figure in Donald Trump’s Maga movement, to begin serving his four-month sentence by 1 July. In a defiant speech outside the courthouse, he accused the justice department of using his case to retaliate against Trump, and predicted a big win for Republicans in the November presidential election. Speaking of Trump, the former president gave an interview to Fox News last night, where he argued he “would have every right to go after” political adversaries like Joe Biden, if he is returned to the White House. In response, the Biden campaign said Trump was “visibly rattled” by his conviction last week on felony business fraud charges.Here’s what else happened today:
      The supreme court released a new batch of opinions, which did not include much-awaited decisions on Trump’s petition for immunity from federal prosecution over his 2020 election meddling, and two cases dealing with abortion access.
      The American Civil Liberties Union is suing Milwaukee over restrictions on protesters ahead of the Republican National Convention.
      Trump called for the supreme court to overturn his conviction on felony charges connected to falsifying documents related to hush-money payments made ahead of the 2016 election.
      Hunter Biden’s federal gun charges trial continues in Delaware, with testimony from the widow of his late brother, Beau Biden.
      The NAACP civil rights group asked Biden to halt all shipments of weapons to Israel.
      Joe Biden does not do too many sitdown interviews with reporters, but took questions from ABC News during his visit to France for the D-day anniversary.He was asked about his recent decision to allow Ukraine to use US-supplied weaponry to strike inside Russia. Here’s what he had to say:Here’s more on the president’s decision, which comes as Russia steps up attacks aimed at the city of Kharkiv:The American Civil Liberties Union said this morning it has filed a lawsuit against the city of Milwaukee over restrictions on protesters at the Republican National Convention that it says violate the first amendment.The convention, beginning on 15 July, will see thousands of delegates converge on the city’s Fiserv Forum and culminate in Donald Trump formally accepting the party’s nomination. Various groups have already announced plans to protest the event, and the ACLU claims the city’s restrictions on where they can do that are not in line with the constitution.Here’s more:You’re not hearing too much about Joe Biden on this blog today, because the US president is in France to mark the anniversary of D-day, and call for support for Ukraine. The Guardian’s Leonie Chao-Fong has the scoop:Joe Biden has marked the 80th anniversary of the D-day landings in Normandy with an impassioned call to western allies to continue supporting Ukraine in the face of the “unending struggle between dictatorship and freedom”.Speaking on Thursday at a ceremony at the Normandy American cemetery attended by his French counterpart, Emmanuel Macron, and dozens of surviving veterans from the second world war, Biden drew parallels between the Allied troops who fought to free Europe and the alliance of nations that came together to defend Ukraine against Russian aggression.The president warned that democracy was under great threat than at any time since the end of second world war. Describing Vladimir Putin as a “tyrant bent on domination”, Biden said the Russian leader and “the autocrats of the world are watching closely to see what happens in Ukraine, to see if we let this illegal aggression go unchecked.“To surrender to bullies, to bow to dictators, is simply unthinkable,” Biden said. “If we do, Ukraine will be subjugated and it will not end there, Ukraine’s neighbours will be threatened, all of Europe will be threatened.”Joe Biden criticized the international criminal court last month, after its chief prosecutor, Karim Kham, requested arrest warrants for two of Israel’s top leaders over their actions during the war in Gaza.That did not sit well with actor George Clooney, whose wife, Amal Clooney, worked on the case. He called up the White House to make his displeasure known, the Washington Post reports:
      Clooney called Steve Ricchetti, counselor to the president, to express concern about Biden’s denunciation of arrest warrants sought by ICC prosecutors for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, especially his use of the word “outrageous.” The prosecutors also sought warrants for top Hamas leaders.
      The actor was also upset about the administration’s initial openness to imposing sanctions on the ICC because his wife might be subject to the penalties, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss a private conversation.
      Clooney’s call came just weeks before he is set to appear at a fundraiser for Biden’s reelection campaign next Saturday in Los Angeles. His concerns spread throughout Biden’s orbit, leaving some officials to worry that the high-profile actor would withdraw from participating in the marquee fundraiser, which will also feature former president Barack Obama, late-night TV host Jimmy Kimmel and actress Julia Roberts.
      Biden has supported Israel’s response to the 7 October 2023 Hamas attack, despite a wave of protests from activists upset by the civilian toll caused the invasion of Gaza. Here’s more about why the president objected to the ICC chief prosecutor’s arrest warrant application:Johnson’s statement comes after a recent report from the Washington Post which revealed that Israeli fighter jets used US munitions to strike a UN school located in Gaza on Thursday.Two weapons experts verified the weapons’ type to the Post, using footage of debris from the attack.Here’s more from the Post’s Louisa Loveluck, Niha Masih, Hajar Harb, Kyle Melnick and Miriam Berger:
      Israeli fighter jets appear to have used US-made munitions in a strike that killed dozens of people inside a UN school in the central Gaza Strip on Thursday, according to two weapons experts who examined verified footage from the debris.
      The nose cones of two GBU-39 small diameter bombs were visible in footage taken by an eyewitness, Emad Abu Shawish, in the aftermath of the strike in the Nuseirat refugee camp. His images were verified by Storyful and independently geolocated by the Washington Post.
      An Israel Defense Forces spokesman said the strikes targeted a gathering of militants at the school. But the facility was also packed with thousands of civilians displaced by the war, according to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which aids Palestinian refugees.
      The Gaza Health Ministry said 40 people were killed, including 14 children and nine women, and 74 others were wounded. Khalil al-Degran, spokesman for the al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital in nearby Deir al-Balah, said that the bodies of children killed in the strike were brought to his facility.
      Read the full article here (paywall).Johnson’s demand for Biden came after Israel launched airstrikes against a refugee camp in Rafah during the Memorial Day weekend, an attack that killed dozens of people and was widely condemned by the international community.Here are Johnson’s full remarks, available here:
      The NAACP has, and continues to express our profound sympathy to civilians whose lives have been unjustly impacted in the crossfire of conflict. What happened on October 7 was a tragedy, and it is our hope that those with loved ones still in captivity are reunited as expeditiously as possible.
      As the nation’s leading civil rights organization, it is our responsibility to speak out in the face of injustice and work to hold our elected officials accountable for the promises they’ve made. Over the past months, we have been forced to bear witness to unspeakable violence, affecting innocent civilians, which is unacceptable. The most recent statement from the Biden administration is useful but does not go far enough. It is one thing to call for a ceasefire, it is another to take the measures necessary to work towards liberation for all. Decades of conflict reflect that factions inside Israel and Hamas actively work against resolution of the conflict. The latest proposal must clarify the consequences of continued violence. The United States and the international community must be willing to pull the levers of power when appropriate to advance liberation for all.
      The Middle East conflict will only be resolved when the US government and international community take action, including limiting access to weapons used against civilians. The NAACP calls on President Biden to draw the red line and indefinitely end the shipment of weapons and artillery to the state of Israel and other states that supply weapons to Hamas and other terrorist organizations. It is imperative that the violence that has claimed so many civilian lives, immediately stop. Hamas must return the hostages and stop all terrorist activity. Israel must commit to an offensive strategy that is aligned with international and humanitarian laws. Peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians can only align when the humanity and common needs of people within the region are respected. Centuries of conflict reflect that violence results in more violence. The spillover effect in the United States is more racism, antisemitism and Islamophobia.
      The president of the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) has asked Joe Biden to end the shipment of all weapons and artillery to Israel, in a new post to X.Derrick Johnson, who has led the civil rights organization since 2017, made the demand as more than 35,000 Palestinian people have been killed by Israel’s attacks against the territory.Johnson said:
      We’re calling on [Biden] to draw the red line and end the shipment of all weapons and artillery to Israel. It is imperative that the violence that has claimed so many civilian lives comes to an end immediately.
      Almost two years after he was first found guilty of contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena from the January 6 committee, a federal judge today ordered Steve Bannon, an influential figure in Donald Trump’s Maga movement, to begin serving his four-month sentence by 1 July. In a defiant speech outside the courthouse, he accused the justice department of using his case to retaliate against Trump, and predicted a big win for Republicans in the November presidential election. Speaking of Trump, the former president gave an interview to Fox News last night, where he argued he “would have every right to go after” political adversaries like Joe Biden, if he is returned to the White House. In response, the Biden campaign said Trump was “visibly rattled” by his conviction last week on felony business fraud charges.Here’s what else has happened today so far:
      The supreme court released a new batch of opinions, which did not include much-awaited decisions on Trump’s petition for immunity from federal prosecution over his 2020 election meddling, and two cases dealing with abortion access.
      Trump called for the supreme court to overturn his conviction on felony charges connected to falsifying documents related to hush-money payments made ahead of the 2016 election.
      Hunter Biden’s federal gun charges trial continues in Delaware, with testimony from the widow of his late brother, Beau Biden.
      Speaking outside the courthouse, Steve Bannon vowed to appeal his jail sentence to the supreme court, and accused the justice department of pursuing him as a way to retaliate against Donald Trump.“They’re not going to shut up Trump, they’re not going to shut up Navarro, they’re not going to shut up Bannon, and they’re certainly not going to shut up Maga,” said Bannon. He was referring to Peter Navarro, a former Trump White House trade adviser, who is serving a similar prison sentence on contempt of Congress charges.Bannon went on to predict an overwhelming victory in the November presidential election:
      All of this is about one thing. This is about shutting down the Maga movement, shutting down grassroots conservatives, shutting down President Trump. Not only are we winning, we are going to prevail, and every number and every poll shows that. There’s nothing that can shut me up and nothing that will shut me up … There’s not a prison built, or a jail built that will ever shut me up.
      All victory to Maga. We’re going to win this, we’re going to win at the supreme court, and more importantly, we’re going to win on November 5 an amazing landslide, with the Senate, the House and also Donald J Trump back as president United States.
      After a federal judge revoked Steve Bannon’s bail and ordered him to begin serving his prison term by 1 July, he held a brief press conference outside Washington DC’s federal courthouse.Before he began speaking, a protester holding up a sign reading “lock him up” shouted “Get out of my way” at Bannon’s security guards, who were keeping him away from the former Donald Trump White House adviser.A federal judge has ordered Steve Bannon, a far-right strategist and Donald Trump ally, to report to prison by 1 July to begin serving his sentence for contempt of Congress, Reuters reports.Bannon was convicted in 2022 for ignoring a summons from the bipartisan House committee that investigated the January 6 insurrection, and his four-month sentence was upheld by an appeals court last month. Here’s more on the long-running legal saga:This post has been corrected to note that Bannon must begin serving his sentence by 1 July, not on 1 July.Meanwhile, in Congress, Donald Trump has orchestrated the appointment of two allies to the House intelligence committee, which deals with some of the most sensitive information the US government possesses. Here’s more, from the Guardian’s Robert Tait:Two far-right Republicans have been appointed to the highly sensitive House of Representatives intelligence committee at the direction of Donald Trump, a move likely to antagonise the security establishment.Representatives Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and Ronny Jackson of Texas, known for their fierce loyalty to Trump and vocal support of his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election result, were installed by the House speaker, Mike Johnson, ahead of other qualified GOP members and apparently without consulting the body’s chair, Mike Turner.Turner has sought to restore the committee’s bipartisan character following years of bitter party infighting between Republicans and Democrats.The appointments of Perry and Jackson to a committee that helps to shape US foreign policy and oversees intelligence agencies such as the FBI and the CIA has caused consternation on Capitol Hill. It also signals Trump’s hostility to organisations that he has vowed to purge if he is re-elected.Adam Kinzinger, a former Republican congressman who served on the House select committee that investigated the 6 January 2021 attack on the US Capitol, called the move “insane” on a social media post.The pair were appointed to slots opened up by the resignations from Congress of Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin and Chris Stewart of Utah.Joe Biden is also dealing with some unwelcome legal attention. His son, Hunter Biden, is on trial in Delaware on federal gun charges, and the Associated Press reports that the widow of the president’s late son Beau Biden took the stand today:Testifying in Hunter Biden’s federal gun trial, Hallie Biden – the widow of Joe Biden’s oldest son, Beau – described panicking after finding a gun in his truck.“I panicked and I wanted to get rid of them,” she testified about finding a gun and ammunition in the console of Hunter Biden’s truck in October 2018.Prosecutor Leo Wise asked why she panicked, and Hallie responded: “Because I didn’t want him to hurt himself, and I didn’t want my kids to find it and hurt themselves.”Hallie said she considered hiding the gun but thought her kids might find it. She then decided to throw it away.“I was afraid to touch it. I didn’t know if it was loaded,” Hallie said.She put the gun in a leather pouch, stuffed it in a shopping bag, and tossed it in a trash can outside an upscale grocery market near her house.The prosecution played surveillance footage showing Hallie dumping the gun in the trash.While Donald Trump’s felony business fraud trial in New York concluded last week with a guilty verdict, other prosecutions of the former president have stalled. Yesterday, an appeals court in Georgia put his trial on election fraud charges on hold, likely until after the 2024 election, the Guardian’s George Chidi reports:The Georgia court of appeals has put a hold on the trial of Donald Trump and other defendants while it considers whether to disqualify the Fulton county district attorney, Fani Willis, the lead prosecutor in the case.Trump had appealed an order by the Fulton county superior court judge Scott McAfee that declined to disqualify Willis after bombshell revelations about a romantic relationship with her chosen special prosecutor. As part of their effort to dismiss the case, Trump and his co-defendants alleged Willis’s relationship meant she should be recused from the case.On Monday, the appeals court selected a three-judge panel to hear the appeal and docketed the case to be heard in October. Then on Wednesday, the court paused the case while this argument plays out.Both Trump’s attorney Steve Sadow and a spokesperson for Willis’s office declined to comment on the court’s order.The order staying the case in Fulton county essentially ensures that the former president will not be tried on charges of election interference and racketeering in Georgia before the November election.“The history books will look back on what the country lost by not having a televised trial before November 2024 and historians will wonder what Fani Wills was thinking. And they’ll just scratch their heads,” said Anthony Michael Kreis, a constitutional law professor in Georgia and a close observer of the case. “I don’t know how much Judge McAfee could have done between now and the appeal’s pendency anyway. But the real loss is McAfee’s ability to deal with the question of presidential immunity and the supremacy clause over the summer.” More

    • 175 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      The fake elector defense: what Trump allies are saying to justify the 2020 scheme

      by

      Three allies of Donald Trump were charged in Wisconsin Tuesday for their roles in advancing the fake electors plan, but the 10 fake electors themselves have not yet been criminally charged.That might be because the Wisconsin fake electors, like other fake electors across the US, have said in media interviews they were misled to believe their documents could only be used if court challenges went for the former president. Others have said they were following lawyers’ advice when they signed on.Wisconsin attorney general Josh Kaul’s office has said it is still investigating and hasn’t ruled out charges against the individual electors, who have faced a civil suit they settled by agreeing not to serve as electors for Trump again.In April, 18 people were charged in Arizona in that state’s inquiry into the fake elector scheme. Defense attorneys representing some of those charged in Arizona have used similar justifications, saying they were following lawyers’ advice when they signed on.One told the Arizona Republic that his client, Jim Lamon, was relying on “lawyers from back east” who said the slates would only be used if the state’s results changed. Another told the paper that there wouldn’t be any evidence of their client’s intent to commit fraud or forgery because they got legal advice from Trump’s lawyers that led them to believe they weren’t doing anything wrong.These claims pop up frequently by fake electors and those involved in the scheme to overthrow the 2020 election results, as do other defenses relying on historical precedent and changing election law. Defenders of the fake electors cite a 1960 election in Hawaii and changes to congressional procedure to count electoral votes among their justifications..Some of the defenses have shown up in legal motions in Georgia, which is further along in its case against some fake electors there. But the justifications are largely happening online as the cases move more slowly than the internet, with rightwing influencers saying the scheme had a historical precedent and wasn’t illegal.Edward Foley, an election law expert at Ohio State University, has started to see the false electors in two tiers: those who were clearly in “cahoots with Trump” and intended to subvert the election’s outcome, and others who were duped. Andy Craig, director of election policy at the Joseph H Rainey Center, has come around to this idea as well, saying it depends heavily on the facts in each fake elector’s case, but some of them did seem misled.“I do think, to my mind, it’s fair to say that some of these fake electors are the victims of Trump’s fraud and [Rudy] Giuliani’s fraud,” Foley said. “They were relatively low-level political operatives who were trying to do something for the team and were doing it because the leader of their team was asking them to. That doesn’t justify what they did, but I’m not sure I would think criminal punishment would be appropriate for them because again, I think they’re the victims of the crime, not the perpetrators.”In Georgia, prosecutors granted many of the fake electors, nearly all of them little-known party loyalists, immunity from prosecution. Only three of the 16 have been charged criminally, all of whom appear to have a more hands-on role in the scheme.And in Pennsylvania and New Mexico, for example, the fake electoral certificates contained a caveat that they would only be considered valid if courts eventually ruled in Trump’s favor and deemed him the legitimate winner. Fake electors in those states have not faced prosecution in large part because of that language.As a reminder, the US doesn’t elect presidents via a popular vote. Instead, voters in each state turn out at the polls, which dictates a slate of electoral votes that get sent to Congress, called the electoral college. Whichever candidate wins the electoral vote wins the presidency, and this is sometimes different from who wins the popular vote. At issue in the fake electors scheme is that Trump supporters signed falsely that Trump had won their states’ votes, when in reality Biden had won.Other defensesLegal experts say the fake electors’ other defenses hold less water – the 2020 scheme is much different than the 1960 Hawaii election, and any changes in the Electoral Count Reform Act don’t affect the illegality of what the false electors did.The 1960 Hawaii election, which involved two slates of electors, is a long-running justification on the right for the fake electors. In 1960, Nixon narrowly led Kennedy initially in Hawaii, though the margin was so small it kicked off a recount. Before the recount could be completed, the state had to send its electoral votes to Congress for counting, so electors for both Kennedy and Nixon signed separate documents saying they were the state’s electors and sent them off.After the recount, the results showed Kennedy actually won the state, and so Kennedy’s electors met again to sign that he won. Nixon, who was presiding over the electoral count in Congress as vice-president, accepted this final submission. No one got in trouble for the previous slates, though it was also possibly illegal for the Democrats to have met and signed as though Kennedy won before the recount concluded. Hawaii’s votes didn’t affect who won the presidency, as Kennedy had already clinched the win.“Hawaii is a very odd situation because it ultimately ended with then vice-president Nixon, who was one of the candidates, being willing to accept the Kennedy slate, which didn’t matter one way or the other, wasn’t going to affect the outcome of the electoral college majority” Foley said. “It was sort of like a politician trying to be magnanimous.”Influencers like Charlie Kirk, the leader of rightwing youth organization Turning Point USA, brought up Hawaii after the Arizona charges. In a post on X, Kirk cited the “precedent created by Democrats” in Hawaii in 1960.“The Arizona Trump electors were doing what they thought was a legally necessary step as part of a wider political and electoral dispute,” Kirk wrote. “They acted in the belief that Donald Trump was the true winner of Arizona in the 2020 election.”The major difference: there was a legitimate, ongoing, good faith debate over who won in Hawaii, and a razor-thin margin of less than 200 votes that led to a full recount. By contrast, the margins in the seven states involved in the 2020 plan were much higher, and legal avenues to overturn results had largely run out.“All of these states were won by bigger margins, far beyond what any kind of recount or litigation was ever realistically going to overturn,” Craig said. “And so there was no good basis to believe that the results would legitimately flip in these states.”Another line of defense, used less frequently, revolves around changes to the electoral count process after the fake electors scheme in 2020.Rightwing commentator Mike Cernovich said after the Arizona changes that “multiple electors were LEGAL until the law was recently amended”, presumably a reference to the changes to the Electoral Count Act.The original Electoral Count Act stemmed from the contentious mess of the 1876 election, where there were multiple competing slates of electors and no consensus over who had won the election. It spelled out the process and deadlines for how states would send electoral votes and how Congress would count them.“What the Electoral Count Act did and still continues to do is to furnish Congress with a procedure to evaluate competing claims by competing slates of electors,” said Jim Gardner, an election law expert at the University at Buffalo School of Law. “And that’s all it does. So it is a piece of congressional self-regulation. It does not in any way regulate the behavior of other parties outside Congress.”The 2022 reform act makes clear that the vice-president, when presiding over the count, can’t use their role to get involved in disputes over electors – stemming from the effort to pressure then vice-president Mike Pence to throw out the Biden electors in key states.It also says that governors must certify the electors and send them to Congress. None of the Trump fake electors were certified by their states’ governments, a required part of the process for Congress to accept a slate.These changes, though, aren’t evidence that fake electors were allowed under the act before it was amended, legal experts say. Additionally, the charges these electors face in some states are violations of state-level laws against forging documents or committing fraud – not violations of a federal law to count electoral votes.“I don’t think it’s correct to say that somehow it’s an acknowledgement that any fake submission before this was not criminal,” Foley said.Sam Levine contributed reporting More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump-appointed judges strike down fund for Black female entrepreneurs

      by

      A US federal court of appeals panel has suspended Fearless Fund, an Atlanta-based, Black woman-owned venture capitalist firm, from continuing the firm’s Fearless Strivers Grant Contest, a grant program for Black female business owners.In the 2-1 ruling, the panel of three judges, two appointed by Donald Trump and one appointed by Barack Obama, ruled that the grant program “is substantially likely to violate” section 1981 of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1866, which prohibits the use of race in making contracts. The act aimed to fully integrate formerly enslaved Black Americans as citizens, give them the full rights of American citizenship and to make it illegal to deprive any Americans of rights “on the basis of race, color, or prior condition of slavery or involuntary servitude”.American Alliance for Equal Rights, founded by Edward Blum, the conservative activist who led the supreme court case that ended affirmative action in college admissions, brought the case against Fearless Fund last August. The fund is one of several firms, organizations and government institutions that have been targeted by conservative, rightwing groups working to make it illegal for public and private entities to pursue diversity initiatives.Less than than 1% of venture capital funding goes to Black and Hispanic women-owned businesses, according to Digitalundivided, a non-profit advocacy organization. The group found that firms started by Black women received only .0006% of VC funding raised by startups between 2009 and 2017. And in 2019, a report found that “Black entrepreneur’s loan requests are three times less likely to be approved than white entrepreneurs”.Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was referenced in the ruling, guarantees citizens the right “to make and enforce contracts … and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens”.The panel of judges ruled that Fearless Fund is unlikely to enjoy first amendment protection and that its program “inflicts irreparable injury”.The Fearless Fund CEO and founder Arian Simone expressed disappointment at the ruling.“I am shattered for every girl of color who has a dream but will grow up in a nation determined not to give her a shot to live it,” she said in a statement. “On their behalf, we will turn the pain into purpose and fight with all our might.”The ruling is a victory for conservative groups that continue to target diversity initiatives, but it may not be a cut and dry harbinger of what’s to come. Last week, a federal judge in Ohio dismissed a lawsuit against the insurance company Progressive and the fintech platform Hello Alice, which jointly offer a grant program that helps Black-owned small businesses purchase commercial vehicles.In a statement, Simone vowed that the ruling against Fearless Fund was “the beginning of a renewed fight.“We are committed more than ever to advocating for equity, pushing forward with resilience, and ensuring that women of color receive the opportunities they rightfully deserve,” the statement reads. Fearless Fund and the organization’s legal representatives have indicated that they are evaluating all options to fight the lawsuit. More

    • 175 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Wisconsin attorney general charges three former Trump associates in plot to overturn 2020 election

      by

      Wisconsin’s attorney general, Josh Kaul, filed felony charges on Tuesday against three men who played a key role in the effort to appoint fake electors in the state as part of Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn the election.Kenneth Chesebro, Jim Troupis and Michael Roman were each charged with one felony count of forgery, according to court documents. The crime is a class H felony punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 and up to six years in prison.Chesebro was the architect of the fake elector plan. Five days after the election, he emailed Troupis, a retired judge who was leading the Trump campaign’s legal efforts in Wisconsin, to muse about the possibility of throwing out Joe Biden’s win in Wisconsin and appointing a Trump slate of electors. The two developed the scheme over the next few months. Chesebro would later work with Roman to coordinate the efforts across states and to get the slates of fake electors to Washington.Chesebro pleaded guilty to conspiracy to filing false documents for his role in the scheme in a separate case in Georgia earlier this year. Roman faces charges in Georgia and is also a defendant in an Arizona case.This is the first time Troupis, who sits on a judicial ethics panel in Wisconsin, has been charged.Wisconsin governor Tony Evers, a Democrat, released a one-word statement praising the charges. “Good,” he said.The Wisconsin complaint lays out how Chesebro, Troupis and Roman – a Trump campaign aide – coordinated to draft false electoral certificates to be signed by swing state Republicans for Trump and the former vice-president, Mike Pence. The men debated the language to be used on the false elector certificates, considering adding language to qualify that the unofficial slate of electors were contingents in the event that somehow the election results in those key swing states changed before the election was certified.In Wisconsin, the complaint notes, the false elector documents contained “no qualifying language” and presented the Trump-Pence electors as duly elected.On 14 December, the day that the Wisconsin false electors convened, Chesebro celebrated in messages to Troupis and Roman: “WI meeting of the *real* electors is a go!!!”Even as Wisconsin’s slate of false Trump electors submitted their electoral certificates, their chances of reversing the results of the 2020 election appeared increasingly slim. By a narrow 4-3 ruling, the Wisconsin supreme court on 14 December tossed Trump’s lawsuit attempting to overturn the election, accusing the campaign of “challenging the rulebook adopted before the season began”.Chesebro and Troupis were not ready to give up.In the days after the Wisconsin Trump electors met to submit their unofficial certificates, the two men flew to Washington DC to meet with Trump.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionOn 17 December, Chesebro acknowleged in a message to Roman that the scheme was looking “less plausible”. Still, he argued, the Electoral Count Act could be “weaponized” to deliver Trump the election.The charges in Wisconsin come after prosecutors in four other swing states – Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and Michigan – have filed criminal charges against those involved in the fake elector plot.Unlike his counterpart in the other states, Kaul did not file charges against the fake electors themselves. Earlier this year, Wisconsin’s 10 fake electors reached a settlement in a civil suit in which they agreed to never serve as presidential electors again in an election involving Trump. They also acknowledged Biden’s win.The indictments come as Trump has successfully maneuvered to delay the two criminal cases he faces for subverting the 2020 election until after November. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump calls on supreme court to annul his guilty verdict in hush-money case

      by

      Donald Trump has called on the US supreme court to step in and annul his guilty verdict in a hush-money trial that left him with the unwanted distinction of being the first former US president to be a convicted felon.The 2024 presumptive Republican nominee made his plea in a typically florid post on his Truth Social site, highlighting that a sentencing hearing scheduled for 11 July falls just four days before the GOP’s national convention in Milwaukee, when his nomination is expected to become official.“The ‘Sentencing’ for not having done anything wrong will be, conveniently for the Fascists, 4 days before the Republican National Convention,” Trump wrote. “A Radical Left Soros backed D.A., who ran on a platform of ‘I will get Trump,’ reporting to an ‘Acting’ Local Judge, appointed by the Democrats, who is HIGHLY CONFLICTED, will make a decision which will determine the future of our Nation?”A jury in Manhattan found the ex-president guilty last Thursday on all 34 counts of falsifying documents to conceal a sexual liaison with an adult film actor, Stormy Daniels, in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election, which Trump won over Hillary Clinton.The verdict, which Trump has pledged to appeal, raised the atmosphere in this year’s presidential campaign to fever pitch more than five months before polling day, with Republicans circling the wagons while Democrats sought ways to exploit it.In a worrying sign for Trump, a new ABC/Ipsos poll showed 50% of voters thought the verdict was correct, nearly double the proportion, 27%, who believed it was wrong. Nearly half of those polled, 49%, thought he should end his campaign – a step he is highly unlikely to take.The figures were even starker among “double haters” – voters who equally dislike Trump and President Joe Biden – 65% of whom supported the verdict, with two-thirds saying the former president should end his campaign. Pollsters predict the cohort could be a critical component of the swing voter constituency they believe will determine the outcome in November.By appealing to the supreme court to intervene in a case he insists is nakedly political, Trump is reprising the legal strategy deployed in his defense against special counsel Jack Smith’s charges relating to the 6 January, 2021 mob attack on the US Capitol in a bid to overturn the 2020 presidential election result in his favor.The case is currently on hold while the nine justices consider claims by Trump’s lawyers that he had complete immunity from prosecution for decisions taken while he was president.But his invocation of the court – which has a six-to-three conservative majority after Trump’s judicial appointments while he was in the White House – also comes as questions over its political impartiality are at a peak following revelations that a US flag was flown upside down at the home of Justice Samuel Alito at the time of the January 6 riot. The gesture is identical to that used by many participants in the attack as a symbol of protest against Biden’s victory.In an interview with Fox, Trump affected to be unfazed by the possibility that he could be sentenced to jail by Judge Juan Merchan at his 11 July hearing, saying: “it could happen” and that he would be “OK” with a custodial sentence or home confinement.Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney who prosecuted Trump’s case, has reportedly yet to decide whether to request a prison term or leave the decision to Merchan’s discretion.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionLegal analysts have pointed out that his conviction is for a low-level felony and that Trump has no prior convictions, making probation a more likely sentence.But the ex-president may have sullied his prospects of remaining free with his relentless verbal assaults on both men.Previous attacks on Bragg, a Democrat, have included posting a picture of himself holding a baseball bat next to a photo of the prosecutor’s head.The first Republican attack ad aiming to exploit the verdict has been posted by the GOP Senate candidate Tim Sheehy in his campaign against a Democratic incumbent, Jon Tester, in which he links his opponent for a Montana seat to a prosecution that the ad calls “a state-sponsored political persecution led by JOE BIDEN and the radical left”.“They want to throw Trump in jail, trying to rob Americans of their choice in the election,” the 30-second broadcast says.It also accuses Tester of advocating political violence against Trump, displaying footage of the senator saying: “I think you need to go back and punch him in the face.” More

    • 238 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      The Observer view on Donald Trump: utterly unfit for office, he should quit the race for the White House

      by

      It was the moment America, or at least America’s politicians and media, had been waiting for. It was the day justice finally caught up with Donald Trump. The former president’s manipulation of the 2016 election, by hushing up a sex scandal that threatened his chances, and his attempts to discredit a criminal justice system intent on punishing him, was famously thwarted. It was an all-time presidential and judicial first, a historic result that transformed Teflon Don into Felon Don, thanks to a jury of 12 ordinary men and women and a brave prosecutor, Alvin Bragg.Looked at another way, however, last week’s much anticipated dramatic denouement of the criminal trial of the New York playboy, billionaire and presumptive 2024 Republican presidential candidate may turn out to be less pivotal than anticipated. According to the US networks, most Americans tuned out weeks ago, not least because cameras were barred from the Manhattan courtroom. One not untypical public survey found that 67% of respondents said a conviction would make no difference to how they voted this autumn. The 34 guilty verdicts were an overnight sensation. But they may not significantly shift the political dial.The consensus view, around which most Republican and Democrat politicians, pundits and commentators swiftly coalesced, is that Trump’s disgrace will dog him for the remainder of the 2024 campaign – but will not doom him. It may even galvanise support. Evidence of the latter phenomenon came quickly. His campaign said it had raised a record $53m (£41.6m) in 24 hours after the verdict. There was a time, not long ago, when a criminal conviction would have destroyed a candidate’s chances. That time has passed.How can this be? It is, objectively, an extraordinary state of affairs. One explanation may be that twice-impeached Trump, possibly the most scandal-prone US president in history, has exhausted Americans’ capacity to be shocked. So egregious has been his behaviour, on so many occasions over the years, that no one is really surprised any more. Or perhaps this apathy and passivity are less to do with Trump and more with a broader public disillusionment with politics and politicians. Whatever the cause, it appears, regrettably, that Trump will ride out this storm and keep his bid for a second presidential term on track.Another key moment looms in early July, when Judge Juan Merchan, the target of his repeated contemptuous taunts, will decide how heavy a sentence to impose. Trump may escape jail given his age, 77, and the absence of prior convictions, although he could receive up to four years. A fine and probation look more likely. In any case, Trump has already signalled his intention to appeal. That process will almost certainly extend beyond the 5 November election. The three other major criminal trials Trump faces – over the alleged theft of classified documents, his role in the 6 January 2021 coup attempt, and electoral interference in Georgia – have all been delayed past polling day. Bottom line: if he defeats Biden, Trump will probably evade punishment entirely.If this prospect seems strange, even scandalous, then consider another big anomaly exposed by this trial. No previous US president, serving or retired, has been found guilty of a crime. Yet the hallowed US constitution makes no objection to Trump running for, and holding, the country’s highest office, even from inside a prison. This is another reason, along with the antiquated electoral college system and the politicisation of a rogue supreme court, to pursue urgent constitutional reform.Positive outcomes were not entirely drowned out by Trump’s unhinged post-trial ravings about a “rigged” process and the supposed threat posed by “millions” of terrorists and mentally unwell migrants seeking to “take over our country”. Most important is the fact that, in the end, Trump was forced to face justice like any other citizen. He is not above the law. He could not hide behind bogus claims of presidential immunity. In this instance, impunity and unaccountability, the twin curses of modern governance, did not prevail.The noisy theatrics, whingeing claims of victimisation and mendacious hype that characterised Trump’s trial performance have paradoxically served to make Biden look more stable, more sensible and certainly more statesmanlike. On Memorial Day, the president delivered a dignified speech at Arlington National Cemetery, ahead of this week’s anniversary of the 1944 D-day landings. While he was paying solemn tribute to America’s war dead, Trump was viciously ranting about “human scum” trying to “destroy” the country.Does Trump have any idea how bad this crude conduct makes him look, how diminished, mean and twisted? It’s a stark contrast with Biden, 81, always dapper and upbeat, if somewhat shaky on his feet. It is hard to imagine a less appealing pitch to the young first-time voters, independents and minorities who, pollsters say, could make all the difference in November’s half-dozen crucial swing states.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe margin of victory is predicted to be wafer thin again this autumn. Trump holds a tiny national lead, and has the edge in most of the battlegrounds. There is evidently all to play for. And while Biden remains a problematic candidate, Trump, on the forensic evidence of recent days, has proved again that he is a truly terrible one – and an unrepentant criminal to boot. He is unfit for office. He should stand down.Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a letter of up to 250 words to be considered for publication, email it to us at observer.letters@observer.co.uk More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Kansas supreme court rules state constitution does not provide the right to vote

      by

      In a bizarre mixed ruling combining several challenges to a 2021 election law, Kansas’s supreme court has ruled that its residents have no right to vote enshrined in the state’s constitution.The opinion centering on a ballot signature-verification measure elicited fiery dissent from three of the court’s seven justices. But the majority held that the court failed to identify a “fundamental right to vote” within the state.The measure in question requires election officials to match the signatures on advance mail ballots to a person’s voter registration record. The state supreme court reversed a lower court’s dismissal of a lawsuit that challenged that. The majority of justices on the state supreme court then rejected arguments from voting rights groups that the measure violates state constitutional voting rights.In fact, writing for the majority, Justice Caleb Stegall said that the dissenting justices wrongly accused the majority of ignoring past precedent, holding that the “fundamental right to vote” within the state constitution “simply is not there”.That finding is contrary to the US constitution, which dedicates large portions of itself to the right to vote for citizens.Justice Eric Rosen, one of the three who dissented, wrote: “It staggers my imagination to conclude Kansas citizens have no fundamental right to vote under their state constitution.“I cannot and will not condone this betrayal of our constitutional duty to safeguard the foundational rights of Kansans.”Conversely, the high court unanimously sided with the challengers of a different provision that makes it a crime for someone to give the appearance of being an election official. Voting rights groups, including the Kansas League of Women Voters and the non-profit Loud Light, argued the measure suppresses free speech and their ability to register voters as some might wrongly assume volunteers are election workers, putting them at risk of criminal prosecution.A Shawnee county district court judge had earlier rejected the groups’ request for an emergency injunction, saying that impersonation of a public official is not protected speech.But the high court faulted the new law, noting that it doesn’t include any requirement that prosecutors show intent by a voter registration volunteer to misrepresent or deceive people into believing they’re an election official, and it thus “criminalizes honest speech” where “occasional misunderstandings” are bound to occur, Stegall wrote in the majority opinion.“As such, it sweeps up protected speech in its net,” Stegall said.Because the lawsuit over the false impersonation law’s constitutionality is likely to succeed, the state supreme court ordered the lower court to reconsider issuing an emergency injunction against it.“For three years now, Kansas League of Women Voters volunteers have been forced to severely limit their assistance of voters due to this ambiguous and threatening law,” said the state chapter’s president, Martha Pint. “The league’s critical voter assistance work is not a crime, and we are confident this provision will be quickly blocked when the case returns to the district court.”Loud Light’s executive director, Davis Hammet, said he hopes the lower court “will stop the irreparable harm caused daily by the law and allow us to resume voter registration before the general election”.Neither the Kansas secretary of state, Scott Schwab, nor the state’s attorney general, Kris Kobach, responded to requests for comment on that portion of the high court’s ruling.Instead, in a joint statement, Schwab and Kobach focus on the high court’s language bolstering the signature-verification law and its upholding of a provision that says individuals may collect no more than 10 advance ballots to submit to election officials.“This ruling allows us to preserve reasonable election security laws in Kansas,” Schwab said.Supporters have argued the ballot collection restriction combats “ballot harvesting” and limits voter fraud. The Republican-led legislature passed it over a veto by Kansas’s Democratic governor, Laura Kelly.Critics have said it’s a Republican reaction to baseless claims that the 2020 presidential election, in which Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump, was not valid, prompting a wave of misinformation and voter suppression laws across the country. More