Law

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Prosecutors seek to prevent Trump from sharing January 6 case evidence

      by

      Federal prosecutors asked a federal judge to reject Donald Trump’s request for fewer restrictions over how he can publicly share evidence in the case involving his efforts to subvert the 2020 election, arguing the former president was seeking to abuse the discovery process.“The defendant seeks to use the discovery material to litigate this case in the media,” prosecutors wrote in an eight-page brief on Monday. “But that is contrary to the purpose of criminal discovery, which is to afford defendants the ability to prepare for and mount a defense in court.”The court filings, submitted to US district court judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the case, highlighted comments made over the weekend by Trump lawyer John Lauro about former vice-president Mike Pence being a potential witness to stress the importance of strict restrictions.“This district’s rules prohibit defense counsel from doing precisely what he has stated he intends to do with discovery if permitted: publicize, outside of court, details of this case, including the testimony of anticipated witnesses,” prosecutors wrote.Trump has characterized the indictment, charging him with four felonies over his attempt to obstruct the congressional certification of Joe Biden’s election win on 6 January 2021 and overturn the results of the 2020 election, as a political witch-hunt and infringing on his first amendment rights.To that end, his lawyers filed a brief earlier on Monday asking the judge to issue a less restrictive protective order, a routine step in criminal cases to ensure evidence turned over to defendants in discovery is used to help construct a defense and not to chill witnesses.The 29-page document asked for various accommodations, such as giving Trump the ability to make public any transcripts of witness interviews that are not protected by grand jury secrecy rules, and to expand the circle of people who could gain access to the discovery material.But the prosecutors in the office of special counsel Jack Smith provided a line-by-line refutation of Trump’s requests, including that he be permitted to share evidence turned over to his legal team in discovery with people other than his own lawyers, such as volunteer attorneys.Allowing such broad language, prosecutors wrote, would render it boundless and allow Trump to share evidence, for instance, with any currently unindicted co-conspirators who are also attorneys and could benefit from otherwise confidential information.The procedural dispute between prosecutors and Trump’s legal team sets up an early test for Chutkan, who will now decide the matter. Chutkan ordered both sides to confer and jointly inform her by Tuesday 3pm of potential dates for a hearing to take place before 11 August.But a bitter fight this early in the process, over the protective order, which prosecutors say must be implemented before they start turning over evidence to Trump, suggests the case could be marked by contentious pre-trial motions from the former president with an eye on delay.As in the classified documents case, Trump’s overarching strategy in legal cases is to delay them. If a trial drags past the 2024 election and Trump were to win, he could try to pardon himself or direct his attorney general to drop the charges and jettison the case.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe current dispute started almost immediately after Trump was arraigned last week, when prosecutors took the routine step of asking for a protective order but specifically referenced a vaguely threatening post from Trump that read “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!”The prosecutors did not ask the judge to impose a gag order on Trump to prevent him from discussing the case, but made an inferential argument that there needed to be clear rules on how Trump could publicly use evidence turned over to him in discovery.Their main requests were to limit the people with access to the discovery materials to just people with an interest in the case, such as Trump’s lawyers, and to create a special category of “sensitive materials” that “must be maintained in the custody and control of defense counsel”.The sensitive materials would include things like “personally identifying information” of witnesses and information that emerged from the grand jury during the criminal investigation, which is kept secret under federal law.Under the proposed protective order, the government also allowed Trump’s lawyers to show him the sensitive materials. But he would not be permitted to keep copies or write down any personal information about the people in the materials, since that would circumvent the rule about copies.The Trump campaign responded hours later, saying in a statement that the post had not been directed at anyone involved in the case and suggesting that prosecutors were seeking to punish him for engaging in first amendment activity, or “the definition of political speech”. More

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Fulton county prosecutors prepare racketeering charges in Trump inquiry

      by

      The Fulton county district attorney investigating Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in the state of Georgia has developed sufficient evidence to charge a sprawling racketeering indictment next month, according to two people briefed on the matter.The racketeering statute in Georgia requires prosecutors to show the existence of an “enterprise” – and a pattern of racketeering activity that is predicated on at least two “qualifying” crimes.In the Trump investigation, the Fulton county district attorney, Fani Willis, has amassed enough evidence to pursue a racketeering indictment predicated on statutes related to influencing witnesses and computer trespass, the people said.Willis had previously said she was weighing racketeering charges in her criminal investigation, but the new details about the direction and scope of the case come as prosecutors are expected to seek indictments starting in the first two weeks of August.The racketeering statute in Georgia is more expansive than its federal counterpart, notably because any attempts to solicit or coerce the qualifying crimes can be included as predicate acts of racketeering activity, even when those crimes cannot be indicted separately.The specific evidence was not clear, though the charge regarding influencing witnesses could include Trump’s conversations with Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, in which he asked Raffensperger to “find” 11,780 votes, the people said – and thereby implicate Trump.For the computer trespass charge, where prosecutors would have to show that defendants used a computer or network without authority to interfere with a program or data, that would include the breach of voting machines in Coffee county, the two people said.The breach of voting machines involved a group of Trump operatives – paid by the then Trump lawyer Sidney Powell – accessing the voting machines at the county’s election office and copying sensitive voting system data.The copied data from the Dominion Voting System machines, which is used statewide in Georgia, was then uploaded to a password-protected site from where election deniers could download the materials as part of a misguided effort to prove the 2020 election had been rigged.Though Coffee county is outside the jurisdiction of the Fulton county district attorney’s office, folding a potential computer trespass charge into a wider racketeering case would allow prosecutors to also seek an indictment for what the Trump operatives did there, the people said.A spokesperson for Willis did not respond to requests for comment.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe district attorney’s office has spent more than two years investigating whether Trump and his allies interfered in the 2020 election in Georgia, while prosecutors at the federal level are scrutinizing Trump’s efforts to reverse his defeat that culminated in the January 6 Capitol attack.A special grand jury in Atlanta that heard evidence for roughly seven months recommended charges for more than a dozen people, including the former president himself, its forewoman strongly suggested in interviews, though Willis will have to seek indictments from a regular grand jury.The grand jury that could decide whether to return an indictment against Trump was seated on 11 July. The selection process was attended by Willis and two prosecutors known to be on the Trump investigation: her deputy district attorney, Will Wooten, and special prosecutor Nathan Wade.Charges stemming from the Trump investigation are expected to come between the final week of July and the first two weeks of August, the Guardian has previously reported, after Willis told her team to shift to remote work during that period because of security concerns.The district attorney originally suggested charging decisions were “imminent” in January, but the timetable has been repeatedly delayed after a number of Republicans who acted as fake electors accepted immunity deals as the investigation neared its end. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Key Democrat attacks US supreme court chief justice over ethics scandal

      by

      The chair of the Senate judiciary committee has launched a new attack on the chief justice of the US supreme court, promising a vote on ethics reform legislation after a term beset by scandal over relationships between rightwing justices and wealthy donors and featuring a string of controversial rulings.“The highest court in the land should not have the lowest ethical standards,” Democrat Dick Durbin said.In a Thursday statement, Durbin added: “‘God save the United States and this honourable court!’ These are the words spoken by the marshal when she gavels the supreme court into session. But many questions remain at the end of the court’s latest term regarding its reputation, credibility, and ‘honourable’ status.”“I’m sorry to see Chief Justice [John] Roberts end the term without taking action on the ethical issues plaguing the court – all while the court handed down decisions that dismantled longstanding precedents and the progress our country has made over generations.”Roberts has refused to testify in Congress regarding reports of alleged ethics breaches concerning justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch.Thomas’s relationship with the conservative donor Harlan Crow, including gifts, luxury travel, real-estate purchases and school fee payments, has been reported by ProPublica.ProPublica also reported on Alito’s relationship with Paul Singer, a conservative billionaire.And Politico reported a property sale involving Gorsuch and the chief executive of a prominent law firm.All three justices failed to declare such gifts or transactions. All deny wrongdoing. The donors and the chief executive denied discussing politics with justices or seeking to influence business before the court.The scandals have fueled calls for reform or, particularly in the case of Thomas, more drastic measures that might also restore some form of ideological balance to a court that was tilted right, with a 6-3 conservative supermajority, under the presidency of Donald Trump.But Thomas’s removal, whether by resignation or impeachment, remains a political non-starter in Washington.Three momentous rulings late in the now-concluded term – those which Durbin said “dismantled longstanding precedents and … progress” – have helped turn up the political heat from Democrats and the left.Rightwing justices used their majority to strike down race-conscious affirmative action in higher education; rule that LGBTQ+ Americans could be discriminated against by some business owners on grounds of religious belief; and ruled Joe Biden’s student loan relief plan unconstitutional.Durbin said: “The highest court in the land should not have the lowest ethical standards.” He has pledged ethics reform legislation and said: “An announcement on the timing of this vote will be made early next week.”In May, Roberts turned down an invitation to testify to the committee regarding ethics reform and, although supreme court justices are notionally subject to the same ethics rules as other federal justices, in practice they govern themselves.The court’s public trust and approval ratings have reached historic lows.Durbin said on Thursday: “Since the chief justice has refused to act, the judiciary committee must.” More

    • 250 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      White House restates call for abortion to be enshrined in law as Biden signs contraception protection – as it happened

      by

      From 5h agoSpecial counsel Jack Smith has offered limited immunity to at least two Republican fake electors in return for their testimonies to a grand jury over Donald Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election, according to a new CNN report.Sources familiar with the matter told CNN that in instances where prosecutors granted immunity to witnesses, “The special counsel’s office arrived at the courthouse in Washington ready to compel their testimony after the witnesses indicated they would decline to answer questions under the Fifth Amendment.”Within the last two weeks, at least one other witness spoke with federal investigators outside of the federal grand jury with an agreement that the witness be granted limited immunity from prosecution, CNN reports.The testimonies in recent days have largely surrounded fake electors’ schemes that were designed by attorneys affiliated with the Trump campaign three years ago.According to sources familiar with the matter who spoke to CNN, “The numbers, profile of the witnesses and prosecutor tactics suggest a probe picking up its pace.”It is slightly past 4pm in Washington DC. Here is a wrap up of the day’s key events:
      The supreme court has rejected Texas and Louisiana’s challenge to Biden deportation policy prioritizing groups of unauthorized immigrants, including suspected terrorists, convicts and those caught at the border for deportation. The states wanted the authority to fight the policy in court. The court holds that the states do not have legal standing to challenge the policy, another win for the Biden administration, especially since conservative justice Samuel Alito was the only dissent.
      Joe Biden signed an executive order Friday to protect access to contraception, one day before the anniversary of the supreme court decision that struck down the federal right to an abortion. In a statement, the president highlighted reproductive health as a top priority of his administration in the wake of the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling from the conservative-led court that reversed the Roe v Wade abortion protections in place for half a century.
      Two Russian intelligence officers who attempted to interfere in a local election as part of Moscow’s “global malign influence operations” were sanctioned Friday by the US government. Yegor Sergeyevich Popov and Aleksei Borisovich Sukhodolov, both members of Russia’s federal security service, worked to undermine democratic processes in the US and other countries through a network of co-conspirators, the treasury department said in a statement, reported by Reuters.
      Special counsel Jack Smith has offered limited immunity to at least two Republican fake electors in return for their testimonies to a grand jury over Donald Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election, according to a new CNN report. Sources familiar with the matter told CNN that in instances where prosecutors granted immunity to witnesses, “the special counsel’s office arrived at the courthouse in Washington ready to compel their testimony after the witnesses indicated they would decline to answer questions under the fifth amendment.”
      White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre reaffirmed the Biden-Harris administration’s support for reproductive healthcare rights. Speaking to reporters on Friday, Jean-Pierre said: “President Biden and Vice-President Harris stand with the majority of Americans who believe the right to choose is fundamental. As the president has made clear, the only way to ensure women in every state have access to abortion is for Congress to pass a law, restoring the protections of Roe.”
      Florida governor and presidential candidate Ron DeSantis has rolled out a list of 15 endorsements from South Carolina lawmakers on Thursday. According to the Associated Press which reviewed the list, the endorsement includes 11 state House members and four state senators.
      Several reproductive rights organizations have announced their endorsement of the Biden-Harris administration in the upcoming 2024 presidential election. The organizations include Planned Parenthood, NARAL (National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws) Pro-Choice America , and EMILYs List, a political action committee dedicated to electing Democratic pro-choice women into office.
      That’s it from me, Maya Yang, as we wrap up the blog for today. Thank you for following along.Florida governor and presidential candidate Ron DeSantis has rolled out a list of 15 endorsements from South Carolina lawmakers on Thursday.According to the Associated Press which reviewed the list, the endorsement includes 11 state House members and four state senators.
      “Governor DeSantis’ leadership has made Florida a refuge for those seeking freedom in a nation where it is under attack,” said state senator Josh Kimbrell, one of DeSantis’s endorsers, the Hill reports.
      “No Republican in the country has beaten the radical left more than governor DeSantis, and he is the only candidate in this race who can defeat Joe Biden, put energy back in the executive, and deliver on a bold conservative agenda that Republicans across South Carolina are looking for,” he added.
      On Thursday, DeSantis campaigned in North Augusta, South Carolina, drawing a crowd of supporters whom he told, “You run this process, you compete and you respect the outcome of the process… I think I’m going to be the nominee no matter what happens I’m going to work to beat Joe Biden, that’s what you have to do.”GOP presidential hopeful Chris Christie got booed on stage as he delivered his address at the Freedom and Faith Coalition in Washington DC.In his address, the former New Jersey governor criticized Donald Trump, saying:
      “I’m running because he has let us down. He has let us down because he’s unwilling to take any responsibility of the mistakes that were made, any of the faults that he has and any of the things he has done. And that is not leadership, everybody. That is a failure of leadership.”
      In response, the crowd quickly booed Christie.
      “You can boo all you want. But here’s the thing: Our faith teaches us that people have to take responsibility for what they do,” Christie continued.
      He addressed the boos in a later interview with CNN, saying:“I knew that’s what was going to happen when I accepted the invitation but I’m not changing my message and pandering to anybody. The truth matters and I’m telling the truth about Donald Trump…” Christie told host Dana Bash.This is the third executive order that Biden has passed to protect abortion access since the rollback of Roe v Wade last June.Read more on his first and second executive order here:Several reproductive rights organizations have announced their endorsement of the Biden-Harris administration in the upcoming 2024 presidential election.The organizations include Planned Parenthood, NARAL (National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws) Pro-Choice America , and EMILYs List, a political action committee dedicated to electing Democratic pro-choice women into office.
      “President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris have been committed to fighting back against the onslaught of attacks against our reproductive freedom. And we need them to continue this critical work.
      Abortion is health care… We need leaders who are committed to protecting our freedoms, not taking them away. That is why we must re-elect President Biden and Vice President Harris: people we can trust to keep rebuilding a path forward, because we know the journey to rebuilding our rights will be met with challenges,” said Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.
      NARAL-Pro Choice America echoed similar sentiments, with its president Mini Timmaraju saying:
      “President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris are the strongest advocates for reproductive freedom ever to occupy the White House, and NARAL Pro-Choice America proudly endorses their reelection. It’s as simple as this: Abortion matters to Americans. In elections since the Supreme Court took away our right to abortion, voters have mobilized in massive numbers to elect Democrats who will fight to restore it…”
      EMILYs List president Laphonza Butler released the following statement:
      “When the Dobbs decision ended a constitutional right for the first time in this country’s history, we were grateful to have leaders in the White House like President Biden and Vice President Harris, who have been vocal advocates for abortion rights across the government and across the country… For her work as a groundbreaker, tireless advocate for reproductive freedom, and inspiring change-maker, EMILYs List is thrilled to endorse Vice President Kamala Harris for reelection.”
      White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre pushed back against claims that president Joe Biden’s latest executive action on expanding contraception access is “largely symbolic”, saying:
      “It builds on the progress that we believe that we have made already and expanding contraception access for women. If you think about the Affordable Care Act, it helped millions of women save billions of dollars on birth control that they need and want. And so we understand that there are gaps still as it relates to that snd so that’s what this executive order does today.
      It does a couple of things. It’s strengthening access to affordable high quality contraception and family planning services, and increased contraception options. It lowers out-of-pocket costs. It maximizes contraception access through the following ways: insurance coverage for those covered under the Affordable Care Act … Medicaid, Medicare, federal funded healthcare programs, including community health centers …
      So we don’t believe this is symbolic. We believe that this is another step to really deal with this gap that we’re seeing across the country and to do everything that we can to continue to fight for fundamental rights.”
      In response to a question from a reporter on whether president Joe Biden calling China’s president Xi Jinping a “dictator” is the “official position” of the White House, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said:
      “The president spoke for himself. I’m just not going to go beyond what he said… The president is going to speak candidly. That will never change.”
      White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre reaffirmed the Biden-Harris administration’s support for reproductive healthcare rights.Speaking to reporters on Friday, Jean-Pierre said:
      “President Biden and vice president Harris stand with the majority of Americans who believe the right to choose is fundamental. As the president has made clear, the only way to ensure women in every state have access to abortion is for Congress to pass a law, restoring the protections of Roe.”
      Jean-Pierre also spoke of Biden’s new executive order on furthering contraception access, saying:“Access to contraception has become more important than ever following the Supreme court’s decision and ensuing crisis for women’s health. And today’s action helps ensure that women can make decisions about their own health lives and also their families.”Attorney general Merrick Garland has responded to concerns from Republicans over the justice department’s integrity, saying, “Nothing could be further from the truth.” In a press briefing on Friday, a reporter asked Garland:
      “Republicans in Congress have flirted with the idea with holding the FBI director in contempt, it’s become a talking point on the campaign trail, the alleged corruption in the FBI and federal law enforcement agencies. Do the American people have cause to be concerned about the integrity of components of this justice department and…how they’re acting?”
      In response, Garland said:
      “I certainly understand that some have chose to attack the integrity of the justice department as components and its employees by claiming that we do not treat like cases alike. This constitutes an attack on an institution that is essential to American democracy… Nothing could be further from the truth…
      We make our cases based on the facts and the law. These are not just words. These are what we live by…”
      Mike Pence pledged to end gender-affirming services amongst minors during his Faith and Freedom Coalition address today in Washington DC.
      “When I am President, American families will have a champion in the White House!
      We will give every parent the right to choose where their child goes to school, we will end the gender ideology that is running rampant in our schools and we will ban chemical and surgical gender transition treatment for kids under the age of 18!” he said.
      Pence’s comments come amid multiple Republicans’ pledges to end ‘wokeism,’ should they become president, including presidential candidate and Florida governor Ron DeSantis.Special counsel Jack Smith has offered limited immunity to at least two Republican fake electors in return for their testimonies to a grand jury over Donald Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election, according to a new CNN report.Sources familiar with the matter told CNN that in instances where prosecutors granted immunity to witnesses, “The special counsel’s office arrived at the courthouse in Washington ready to compel their testimony after the witnesses indicated they would decline to answer questions under the Fifth Amendment.”Within the last two weeks, at least one other witness spoke with federal investigators outside of the federal grand jury with an agreement that the witness be granted limited immunity from prosecution, CNN reports.The testimonies in recent days have largely surrounded fake electors’ schemes that were designed by attorneys affiliated with the Trump campaign three years ago.According to sources familiar with the matter who spoke to CNN, “The numbers, profile of the witnesses and prosecutor tactics suggest a probe picking up its pace.”An Arizona Republican election official has filed a lawsuit against unsuccessful gubernatorial candidate and staunch Donald Trump supporter Kari Lake who claims that she lost the 2022 race due to fraud.In an op-ed published in the Arizona Republic, Maricopa county recorder Stephen Richer said that as a result of Lake’s false claims, he has faced “violent vitriol and other dire consequences.”
      “Rather than accept political defeat, rather than get a new job, she has sought to undermine confidence in our elections and has mobilized millions of her followers against me,” Richer wrote.
      “She has gone far outside of the bounds of protected free speech as guaranteed under the First Amendment and the Arizona Constitution.
      That’s why I’m suing Kari Lake, her campaign and her political action committee for engaging in a concerted campaign to defame, threaten and isolate me,” he added.
      The lawsuit, filed in Maricopa county, Arizona on Thursday, names Lake, her political campaign, as well as her fundraising roup as defendants.According to the lawsuit, Richer is seeking unspecified monetary damages, as well as the removal of all false claims from Lake’s social media.The American Civil Liberties Union has issued a statement in response to the supreme court’s rejection of Texas and Louisiana’s challenge to the Biden administration’s deportation policy.
      “This decision soundly rejects the misguided attempt by Texas and Louisiana to force the government to implement the most draconian immigration enforcement policy,” said Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project.
      In the case which ACLU filed an amicus brief, the supreme court ruled that the states lacked the standing to “order the Executive Branch to alter its arrest policy so as to make more arrests.”Republican presidential candidate Mike Pence appeared undeterred from his staunch anti-abortion stance, according to a new interview with Politico.The Guardian’s Martin Pengelly reports from Washington:Speaking one year since the US supreme court removed the federal right to abortion, Mike Pence said candidates for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination should stand firm on the electorally unpopular issue and take a hard line on bringing in national limits.
      “For me, for our campaign, we’re going to stand where we’ve always stood, and that is without apology for the right to life,” the former congressman, Indiana governor and vice-president to Donald Trump told Politico.
      Later, addressing the Faith & Freedom conference in Washington, Pence said every Republican candidate “should support a ban on abortions before 15 weeks, as a minimum nationwide standard”.Claiming this was a “reasonable and mainstream standard”, Pence said:
      “American abortion policy has more in common with China and North Korea than it does with the nations of Europe – and it is time for that to change.”
      For the full story, click here: More

    • 250 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Modi White House visit: Joe Biden says both US and India ‘cherish freedom’ and human rights – as it happened

      by

      From 3h agoBiden also mentioned press freedom in his opening statement, saying that both countries “cherish freedom and celebrate the democratic values of universal human rights which face challenges around the world and in each of our countries.” “Press freedom, religious freedom, tolerance, diversity…India now is the most populous country in the world… The backbone of our people…and talents and traditions make us strong as nations,” said Biden.“The friendship between our nations is only going to grow as we face a future together,” he added.It is 4pm in Washington DC. Here is a wrap-up of the day’s key events:
      India’s prime minister Narendra Modi was at the White House for his bilateral meeting today with Joe Biden. Modi was met with a series of performances and ceremonies on the White House lawn and the two leaders proceeded to discuss press freedom, trade, technological advancements, as well as the Russia-Ukraine war.
      Former US president Barack Obama has addressed Modi’s visit to the United States in a new interview with CNN, saying, “The protection of Muslim minorities in a majority Hindu India, that’s something worth mentioning.” “I do think it is appropriate for the president of the United States…to challenge, whether behind closed doors or in public, trends that are troubling…” he said.
      New York representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez announced in a statement late Wednesday that she will “boycott” a joint address to Congress from Modi. “I will be boycotting Prime Minister Modi’s address to Congress tomorrow, and encourage my colleagues who stand for pluralism, tolerance, and freedom of the press to join me in doing the same,” said Ocasio-Cortez’s statement, shared to Twitter.
      Bernie Sanders has also joined several Democratic lawmakers in their condemnation of Indian prime minister Narendra Modi over his human rights abuse allegations. “Prime Minister Modi’s government has cracked down on the press and civil society, jailed political opponents, and pushed an aggressive Hindu nationalism that leaves little space for India’s religious minorities,” Sanders wrote in a tweet.
      During a press conference with Modi, a reporter asked Biden about comments he made calling China president Xi Jinping a “dictator” and if such remarks complicate progress that the Biden administration has made on maintaining a relationship with China. “The answer to your first question is no,” said Biden.
      Human rights group Amnesty International has publicly criticized Modi’s visit to the White House, calling on the Biden administration to address “grave human rights issues” in the US and India. Amnesty International called out increasing violence against religion minorities in India during Modi’s tenure, as well as “criminalization of dissent”.
      The two individuals who guaranteed bail for New York’s Republican congressman George Santos has ben identified as his father and aunt. The Guardian’s Martin Pengelly reports: “The revelation that Gercino dos Santos Jr and Elma Preven were the people behind Santos’ bail solves a running mystery that had fascinated Washington-watchers and also a wider American public obsessed with the travails of a politician famous for playing fast and loose with the truth.”
      Georgia’s far-right representative Marjorie Taylor Greene has explained why she called Colorado’s equally far-right representative Lauren Boebert “a little b****” yesterday in Congress. “It’s purely for fundraising… It’s throwing out red meat so that people will donate to her campaign because she’s coming up on the end of the month, and she’s trying to produce good fundraising numbers,” Greene told Semafor.
      That’s it from me, Maya Yang, as we wrap up the blog for today. Thank you for following along.You can read our latest full report here:For a quick refresher on all the 16 candidates currently vying for the presidential office, here is our latest guide to all contenders, ranging from Ron DeSantis to Cornel West:Currently, 12 candidates are running for the GOP nomination while 2 Democrats – Robert F Kennedy Jr and Marianne Williamson, are looking to unseat Joe Biden.Meanwhile, progressive activist Cornel West has announced that he is running for office as a member of the People’s party, a third party.Georgia’s far-right representative Marjorie Taylor Greene has explained why she called Colorado’s equally far-right representative Lauren Boebert “a little b****” yesterday in Congress.Speaking to Semafor, Greene explained the verbal altercation between the two lawmakers yesterday which erupted over both their efforts to impeach the president.“I was sitting down, and so I stood up and I said, ‘I’m happy to clarify my public statements to your face… I told her exactly what I think about her,” Greene said, referring to public comments she made yesterday about Boebert whom she said “basically copied my articles” in her own separate privileged resolution (which would bypass House Republican leadership and instead head straight to the floor for voting).
      “It’s purely for fundraising… It’s throwing out red meat so that people will donate to her campaign because she’s coming up on the end of the month, and she’s trying to produce good fundraising numbers,” Greene added.
      Donald Trump’s efforts at obtaining a new trial in the civil case involving writer E. Jean Carroll is “magical thinking,” Carroll’s lawyers said on Thursday.Reuters reports:Trump, the frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presential nomination, on June 8 asked for a new trial after the jury awarded Carroll $5 million, saying the damages were excessive because the jury did not find she was raped and because the alleged conduct did not cause her a diagnosed mental injury.In court papers filed Thursday in opposition to Trump’s request, Carroll’s lawyers maintained that the attack has harmed her ability to have romantic and sexual relationships, and she has suffered intrusive memories.They pointed to a psychologist’s testimony at trial that Carroll had some symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.“Trump’s motion is nothing more than his latest effort to obfuscate the import of the jury’s verdict by engaging in his own particular Trump-branded form of magical thinking,” her lawyers wrote.Trump’s lawyers did not immediately respond to a request for comment.For the full story, click here:Several progressive lawmakers have released a joint statement to announce they will boycott Modi’s joint address to Congress.Missouri representative Cori Bush; Michigan representative Rashida Tlaib; Minnesota represetatiev Ilhan Omar; and New York representative Jamaal Bowman shared the statement on Thursday.They will be joining other legislators, including New York representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who are not attending Modi’s address in light of human right abuses in India.Read the joint statement below:
      When it comes to standing up for human rights, actions speak louder than words. By bestowing Prime Minister Modi with the rare honor of a joint address, Congress undermines its ability to be a credible advocate for the rights of religious minorities and journalists around the world.
      Modi has a notorious and extensive record of human rights abuses. He was complicit in the 2002 Gujarat riots that killed over 1,000 people, leading to the revocation of his U.S. visa. His government has openly targeted Muslims and other religious minorities, enabled Hindu nationalist violence, undermined democracy, targeted journalists and dissidents, and suppressed criticism using authoritarian tactics like Internet shutdowns and censorship.
      It is shameful to honor these abuses by allowing Modi to address a joint session of Congress. We refuse to participate in it and will be boycotting the joint address. We stand in solidarity with the communities that have been harmed by Modi and his policies. We must never sacrifice human rights at the altar of political expediency and we urge all Members of Congress who profess to stand for freedom and democracy to join us in boycotting this embarrassing spectacle.
      The two individuals who guaranteed bail for New York’s Republican congressman George Santos has ben identified as his father and aunt.The Guardian’s Martin Pengelly reports:The revelation that Gercino dos Santos Jr and Elma Preven were the people behind Santos’ bail solves a running mystery that had fascinated Washington-watchers and also a wider American public obsessed with the travails of a politician famous for playing fast and loose with the truth.Santos had tried to stop the legal process of them being named, arguing disclosure could threaten the guarantors’ safety amid a “media frenzy” and “hateful attacks”.Santos’s lawyer had also said that his client would rather go to jail himself than have his guarantors unmasked. But Santos seemed to have backed off that wish by not asking to change the conditions of his bail after a federal judge in New York dismissed his appeal to keep the names sealed.Media organisations and the House ethics committee had asked that the names be revealed.Santos, 34, won election in New York last year, in a district covering parts of Long Island and Queens. He has been dogged by controversy and calls to resign. His résumé has been shown to be largely made-up and past behavior – sometimes allegedly criminal, other times bizarrely picaresque – widely reported.Santos has admitted to embellishing his résumé but denies wrongdoing. In court in May, he pleaded not guilty to all charges.For the full story, click here:Biden and Modi have wrapped up their joint press conference, where they discussed a range of issues including climate change and democracy.Here is an update from Mary Yang for the Guardian with updates on what the two world leaders discussed.Another reporter asked Biden about criticisms that the US is not implementing solutions to climate change or transferring technologies to developing nations that would address warming.Both countries have agreed to work on tackling climate change as apart of the G20 forum.Here is an explainer on progress made during the last summit in November 2022.A reporter asked Biden about comments he made calling China president Xi Jinping a “dictator” and if such remarks complicate progress that the Biden administration has made on maintaining a relationship with China.“The answer to your first question is no,” said Biden, adding that he expects to be meeting with Jinping soon and that State Secretary Antony Blinken had a productive trip to the country recently.Biden was also asked about criticisms he faces about overlooking human rights violations in India, including the targeting of religious minorities and dissent.Biden added: “The prime minister and I had a good discussion about democratic values. That’s the nature of our relationship, we’re straight forward with each other and we respect each other.”Biden noted that both India and US are democracies, compared to China.Biden also mentioned press freedom in his opening statement, saying that both countries “cherish freedom and celebrate the democratic values of universal human rights which face challenges around the world and in each of our countries.” “Press freedom, religious freedom, tolerance, diversity…India now is the most populous country in the world… The backbone of our people…and talents and traditions make us strong as nations,” said Biden.“The friendship between our nations is only going to grow as we face a future together,” he added.In Joe Biden’s opening statement, the president talked about a series of topics discussed with his Indian counterpart Narendra Modi, including technological advancements such as semi-conductor supply chains, telecommunication networks, and growing major defense partnerships with further joint exercises.Biden also talked about the expansion of educational opportunities for Indian students and to build “on the record of 125,000 student visas for Indians to study in the United States.”The Ukraine-Russia was was also discussed, with Biden saying, “We talked about our shared efforts to mitigate humanitarian tragedies unleashed by Russia’s brutal war in Ukraine and to defend core principles of the UN charter.”Joe Biden and Narendra Modi have started their press conference.Former US president Barack Obama has addressed Modi’s visit to the United States in a new interview with CNN, saying, “The protection of Muslim minorities in a majority Hindu India, that’s something worth mentioning.”Speaking to CNN host Christiane Amanpour, Obama said:“I do think it is appropriate for the president of the United States…to challenge, whether behind closed doors or in public, trends that are troubling…If the president meets with prime minister Modi, then the protection of Muslim minorities in a majority Hindu India, that’s something worth mentioning… If I had a conversation with prime minister Modi…part of my argument would be if you don’t protect the rights of ethnic minorities in India, there’s a strong possibility India starts pulling apart.”As we wait for the press conference with Biden and Modi, here is the Committee to Protect Journalists’ statement urging India to stop its media crackdowns and to release detained journalists.
      “Press freedom is under attack in India,” said CPJ, adding, “India is the world’s largest democracy, yet it is one of the world’s most dangerous countries for the media…
      Leaders around the world who value democracy must urger those in power in India to stop the threats against journalists there. Democracy depends on a free press.”
      CPJ’s president Jodie Ginsberg also issued a statement, saying, “Since Modi assumed power in 2014, there has been an increasing crackdown on India’s media…
      India is the world’s largest democracy and it needs to live up to that by ensuring a free and independent media – and we expect the United States to make this a core element of discussions.”
      US president Joe Biden and Indian prime minister Narendra Modi are scheduled to host a press conference soon.We will be bringing you the latest updates. More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      The supreme court made a surprising ruling for Native American rights | Nick Estes

      by

      A white couple in Texas felt racially discriminated against when facing barriers to adopting a Navajo child. Backed by powerful corporate interests and other non-Native families, the Brackeens brought their grievance to the US supreme court and attempted to overturn the Indian Child Welfare Act, or ICWA. The “rights” of individuals thereby stood against the collective rights of entire nations of people who were here first in a legal system not of their own making. The Brackeens argued that the law privileges Indians as a race over others, including white families, and is, therefore, unconstitutional. The argument reeked of “reverse racism”, a bogus notion that measures taken to protect marginalized people end up harming white people.The ICWA, however, was designed to reverse a sordid history of Native family separation that benefited white families seeking to adopt Native children. More importantly, the law guarantees that federally recognized tribes have a say in their children’s futures by keeping them with Native families. Those determinations are not based on race but on the political status of tribes and the rights of their members.Indian country blew a huge sigh of relief on Thursday when the rightwing-majority court ruled against the Brackeens and upheld the ICWA. A decision otherwise would have had dire consequences for tribes. Beyond removing protections for their children, it could have changed tribes’ status, which precedes the existence of the United States and its constitution, to that of racial minorities whose remaining lands, histories and identities would, without thought, be absorbed into the American melting pot.The 7-2 decision should be celebrated as a clear sign that not only is tribal sovereignty a constitutional reality, but it is also here to stay. Sadly, the supreme court, throughout its history, has more often done harm to Native sovereignty than protected it. “Often, Native American tribes have come to his court seeking justice only to leave with bowed heads and empty hands,” admitted Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, in his concurring majority opinion. His opinion offers a rich history of Indian child removal, examining the transition from federal Indian boarding schools to state welfare systems and adoption agencies that engaged in Native family separation.Gorsuch also writes of a 19th-century court that created the foundations of federal Indian law, upon which today’s justices draw. The court made those decisions during a time of great horror for Native people – often providing legal justification for Indigenous genocide and land seizures. In the 1823 case Johnson v M’Intosh, Chief Justice John Marshall argued that the United States inherited its right to Native lands from previous European powers. “Conquest gives a title which the courts of the conqueror cannot deny,” he wrote. The right to take lands from non-Christians and non-Europeans derived from 15th-century papal bulls known as the “doctrine of discovery”.That principle of racial and civilizational superiority hasn’t gone away and today infects the minds of jurists of all stripes. As recently as 2005, the supreme court invoked the doctrine in a ruling against a land claim by the Oneida Indian Nation. Writing against tribal sovereignty, the liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg warned against “rekindling embers of (tribal) sovereignty that long ago grew cold”.Last March, after the tireless advocacy of Indigenous peoples, the Vatican “repudiat(ed) those concepts that fail to recognize the inherent human rights of indigenous peoples, including what has become known as the legal and political ‘doctrine of discovery’”. That rejection, however, didn’t undo the centuries of terror against Indigenous peoples and their children taken from them to be “civilized” according to Christian principles. It didn’t return the land or property the Catholic church stole from Indigenous peoples. And it didn’t overturn the fundamental premise upon which federal Indian law still rests – European conquest.In his concurring opinion in Haaland v Brackeen, Gorsuch makes a strong case defending tribal sovereignty against the overbroad powers of Congress to curtail tribal sovereignty and the overreach of states in his concurring opinion. Liberal justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor joined Gorsuch in his opinion. But they didn’t concur with his assertion that the principle that Congress has “plenary power” to divest tribes of their sovereignty conflicts with the original understanding of the constitution. Gorsuch argues that the constitution doesn’t grant the authority to limit tribal sovereignty. Yet Congress has used its powers to terminate federally recognized tribes and divest tribes of criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians.Gorsuch’s concurring opinion shows he is the most serious about engaging federal Indian law and history. How far his call for aligning Indian law with original understandings of the constitution will go is anyone’s guess. His sympathies with tribal sovereignty also show that getting good legal outcomes for tribal nations is like rolling the dice with unelected judges who hold so much sway over the survival and existence of tribal nations.But the victory in keeping ICWA and upholding tribal sovereignty doesn’t lie with Gorsuch. Leading up to this decision, tribes and activists led an effective political campaign to teach the public. Since ICWA’s passage in 1978, 14 states passed their own state versions of the law. In anticipation of ICWA being overturned, several states (including several Republican-majority state governments) recently passed protections to uphold it.The popular sentiment is on the side of tribal sovereignty. It’s now a question of what actions must be taken to ensure the collective rights of tribes are guarded against the individual and corporate desires to lay claim to Native lands, identities and children.
      Nick Estes is a member of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe and an assistant professer of American Indian Studies at the University of Minnesota. He is a journalist, historian and the host of the Red Nation Podcast. He is the author of Our History Is the Future: Standing Rock Versus the Dakota Access Pipeline, and the Long Tradition of Indigenous Resistance More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Nusrat Jahan Choudhury confirmed as first Muslim woman to be federal judge

      by

      The US Senate has confirmed the former American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorney Nusrat Jahan Choudhury as the first Muslim woman to serve as a federal judge on Thursday.Choudhury, 46, is also the first Bangladeshi American to serve in this lifetime position. She will serve as a judge on the US court for the eastern district of New York.All federal judges must be approved by the Senate, which confirmed her appointment in a narrow 50-49 decision.The conservative Democrat Joe Manchin voted against her confirmation because he said he believed some of her past comments made her biased against law enforcement.“As a staunch supporter of our men and women in uniform, I opposed Ms Choudhury’s nomination,” Manchin said in a statement.Manchin also opposed the confirmation of two other Biden-nominated federal judges: Dale Ho, a judge on the southern district of New York, and Nancy Abudu, a judge on the US court of appeals for the 11th circuit. They were confirmed without his support.Once the deputy director of ACLU’s Racial Justice Program, Choudhury has a track record for fighting racial profiling and unequal treatment of the poor.Her bio on the ACLU’s website says: “Nusrat helped secure the first federal court ruling striking down the US government’s no-fly list procedures for violating due process.“She filed litigation to challenge the NYPD’s unjustified and discriminatory profiling of Muslims for surveillance, which resulted in a court-ordered settlement agreement, and to secure public records about the FBI’s racial and ethnic mapping program.”In a virtual ACLU event in March 2021, Choudhury said: “As a Muslim young girl of color here in the Chicago area, race was a part of my reality. It led to police stops that shouldn’t have ever happened; it led to family members facing problems at airports; and led to what I saw around me, which was dramatic residential segregation and different opportunities for people of color than for white people in the city of Chicago.”The US’s first Muslim federal judge ever appointed was Zahid Quraishi in 2021. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump finds no new lawyers in time for Mar-a-Lago documents arraignment

      by

      Donald Trump is expected to be represented at his first court appearance to face federal criminal charges for retaining national security materials and obstruction of justice by two of his existing lawyers, after struggling to recruit a local Florida lawyer willing to join his legal defense team.The lawyers making an appearance with Trump on Tuesday will be the top former federal prosecutor Todd Blanche and the former Florida solicitor general Chris Kise, according to people familiar with the matter. Trump’s co-defendant, his valet Walt Nauta, will be represented by Stanley Woodward.Trump and his legal team spent the afternoon before his arraignment interviewing potential lawyers but the interviews did not result in any joining the team in time for Trump’s initial court appearance scheduled for 3pm ET on Tuesday after several attorneys declined to take him as a client.Trump has also seemingly been unable to find a specialist national security lawyer, eligible to possess a security clearance, to help him navigate the Espionage Act charges.The last-minute scramble to find a veteran trial lawyer was a familiar process for Trump, who has had difficulty hiring and keeping lawyers to defend him in the numerous federal and state criminal cases that have dogged him through his presidency and after he left the White House.After interviewing a slate of potential lawyers at his Trump Doral resort, the former president settled on having Kise appearing as the local counsel admitted to the southern district of Florida as a one-off, with Blanche being sponsored by him to appear pro hac vice, one of the people said.Blanche and Kise had dinner with Trump and other advisers on Monday at the BLT Prime restaurant at the Doral.Among the Florida lawyers who turned down Trump was Howard Srebnick, who had discussed defending the former president at trial as early as last week in part due to the high fees involved, but ultimately declined the representation after conferring with his law partners, the person said.The other prominent lawyer who declined to work with Trump was David Markus, who recently defended the Florida Democratic gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum against charges that he lied to the FBI and funnelled campaign contributions into his personal accounts, the person said.Trump and his team have interviewed the corruption attorney Benedict Kuehne, who was indicted in 2008 for money laundering before the charges were dropped, the person said. But he has his own baggage as he faces disbarment for contempt of court in a recent civil suit he lost.The other interviews are understood to have been with William Barzee, as well as Bruce Zimet, the former chief assistant US attorney in Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach.Part of the problem of recruiting new lawyers has been Trump’s reputation for being a notoriously difficult client who has a record of declining legal advice and seeking to have his lawyers act as attack dogs or political aides rather than attorneys bound by ethics rules, people close to the process said.The other concern for the top lawyers in Florida being contacted by Trump’s advisers has been the perceived reputational damage that could come from defending the former president, the people said, not just because of his politics but also because of the strength of the indictment.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBy using Trump’s own taped admissions about retaining national defense information and the witness accounts of his employees, the indictment gave compelling evidence of Trump’s efforts to hoard the country’s most sensitive secrets and obstruct the government’s attempts to get them back.Trump is said to still be searching for a lawyer in the mold of Roy Cohn, the ruthless New York fixer who defended and mentored him before he was later disbarred – and the fear of potentially being asked to take similar actions has been a persistent issue.That fear has loomed large for numerous lawyers Trump’s advisers have contacted, the people said, in particular after Trump might have made Evan Corcoran, another former lawyer who withdrew from his defense in the Mar-a-Lago documents investigation, into a witness against him.According to the indictment, after Trump was issued a subpoena last year seeking the return of any classified documents, Trump took steps to remove boxes of documents from a storage room that Corcoran intended to search through in order to find materials responsive to the subpoena.The steps Trump took to have those boxes removed from the storage room, an episode now at the heart of the obstruction charge, caused Corcoran to certify a false certification to the justice department confirming that no further documents were at the property, the indictment said.As Trump’s search for new lawyers in Florida continues, Blanche is expected to take the lead role in the Mar-a-Lago documents case in addition to leading the team defending Trump against state charges in New York for paying hush money to an adult film star in 2016.Though Kise is expected to appear alongside Blanche in federal district court in Miami, he has primarily handled civil litigation for Trump since he came off the documents case last October and is not expected to be on the trial team proper, a person familiar with the matter said.The scramble to find Florida lawyers came after Jim Trusty and John Rowley, the two remaining Trump lawyers after the earlier resignation of Tim Parlatore and the recusal of Corcoran, became the latest casualties of a legal team undermined by turmoil and infighting, the Guardian previously reported. More