Nato

Subterms

    Latest story

    200 Shares129 Views

    Cameron: Aukus and Nato must be in ‘best possible shape’ before potential Trump win – video

    by

    The UK foreign secretary, David Cameron, has suggested the Aukus pact and Nato alliance must get into the best possible shape to increase their chances of surviving Donald Trump’s potential return to the White House. Speaking after high-level talks in Australia, Cameron was careful to avoid criticising the former US president and presumptive Republican nominee for 2024, saying it was ‘up to America who they choose as their president’. The comments were in response to a question about whether the election of Trump in November would affect the Aukus agreement that was sealed with the Biden administration in March last year More

    More stories

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Will Trump abandon Ukraine if he wins in November? – podcast

      by

      Two years ago this weekend, Russia invaded Ukraine. Two weeks ago, Donald Trump admitted that he would encourage Russia to ‘do whatever the hell they want’ to the US’s Nato allies, if they did not meet Trump’s demand to ‘pay their fair share’ of Nato funding. He also compared himself to the Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny when discussing one of his many legal woes. All the while, the military aid package passed by the Senate last week, which includes $60bn for Ukraine, has stalled in the House of Representatives.
      So how worried should the US’s allies be about a second Trump presidency? What happens if the Republican party’s isolationist streak becomes the policy of the entire US? And in the meantime, how can Biden protect Ukraine when Congress refuses to act?
      Jonathan Freedland discusses these questions with Susan Glasser of The New Yorker

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

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Joe Biden calls Trump’s Nato remarks ‘dumb’, ‘shameful’ and ‘dangerous’

      by

      Joe Biden has attacked Donald Trump’s comments on the US pulling out of the Nato military alliance as “dumb”, “shameful” and “dangerous” in a blistering speech attacking Republican opposition to legislation partly aimed at providing support for Ukraine in its stand against a Russian invasion.Trump’s remarks about encouraging Russia to attack Nato allies who did not contribute what Trump called their fair share of Nato funding have set off alarm bells across Europe among leaders who eye the prospect of a second Trump presidency with growing disquiet.In a speech after the foreign aid bill – which also includes aid to Israel and Taiwan – passed the Senate, Biden urged reluctant Republicans to pass the legislation in the Republican-controlled House.“Supporting this bill is standing up to Putin,” Biden said. “Opposing it is playing into Putin’s hands.”Biden then attacked Trump for his encouraging of Republicans in the House to refuse to support the bill and for his comments about Russia and Nato.“Can you imagine a former president of the United States saying that? The whole world heard it,” he said. “The worst thing is, he means it. No other president in our history has ever bowed down to a Russian dictator. Let me say this as clearly as I can: I never will.“For God’s sake it’s dumb, it’s shameful, it’s dangerous. It’s un-American. When America gives its word it means something, so when we make a commitment, we keep it. And Nato is a sacred commitment.”The passage of the bill through the House, however, looks far from assured despite the president’s urging and its hard-won success in the Senate. Mike Johnson, the hard-right Republican House speaker, in effect rejected the aid package because it lacked border enforcement provisions.“The mandate of national security supplemental legislation was to secure America’s own border before sending additional foreign aid around the world,” he said, adding: “In the absence of having received any single border policy change from the Senate, the House will have to continue to work its own will on these important matters. America deserves better than the Senate’s status quo.”Many see such sentiments as richly ironic given it was Johnson and his House Republicans who – under pressure from Trump and his allies – tanked an earlier version of the aid legislation which included a bipartisan immigration deal intended to tackle the US-Mexico border crisis.Conservatives had insisted recently that the foreign aid package must be tied to border security measures but with immigration poised to play a critical role in the November elections and Trump increasingly certain to be the Republican nominee, the party was suddenly scared of handing Biden a domestic policy victory by trying to solve the issue.But the crises being tackled by the legislation are not just limited to the border, Ukraine and Russia – or just Republicans.Biden also stressed the part of the package passed by the Senate that he said “provides Israel with what it needs to protect his people against the terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and others, and it will provide life-saving humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people desperately need food, water and shelter. They need help.”That was a message to Biden’s own party: three senators (two Democrats and the Democratic-aligned Bernie Sanders) also voted no on the bill, citing Biden’s staunch support for Israel’s military strikes in the Palestinian territories. More

    • 175 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Republicans say Trump call for Russia to attack Nato allies was just fine, actually

      by

      A leading Republican senator said Donald Trump was “simply ringing the warning bell” when he caused global alarm by declaring he would encourage Russia to attack Nato allies who did not pay enough to maintain the alliance, as Trump’s party closed ranks behind its presumptive presidential nominee.“Nato countries that don’t spend enough on defense, like Germany, are already encouraging Russian aggression and President Trump is simply ringing the warning bell,” Tom Cotton of Arkansas, a former soldier, told the New York Times.“Strength, not weakness, deters aggression. Russia invaded Ukraine twice under Barack Obama and Joe Biden, but not under Donald Trump.”Cotton was referring to the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the invasion of Ukraine in 2022.As president between 2017 and 2021, Trump was widely held to have shown alarming favour, and arguably subservience, to Vladimir Putin.Trump made the controversial remarks at a rally in South Carolina on Saturday.View image in fullscreenIn remarks the Times said were not part of Trump’s planned speech but which did repeat a story he has often told, the former president said: “One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, ‘Well, sir, if we don’t pay and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?’“I said, ‘You didn’t pay, you’re delinquent?’ He said, ‘Yes, let’s say that happened.’ No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them [Russia] to do whatever the hell they want. You’ve got to pay. You’ve got to pay your bills. And the money came flowing in.”Amid fierce controversy over remarks the Biden White House called “appalling and unhinged”, another Republican hawk in the Senate, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, told the Times: “Give me a break – I mean, it’s Trump.”Graham, who has vacillated from warning that Trump will “destroy” the Republican party to full-throated support, added: “All I can say is while Trump was president nobody invaded anybody. I think the point here is to, in his way, to get people to pay.”Last year, Marco Rubio co-sponsored a law preventing presidents unilaterally withdrawing from Nato. On Sunday the Florida senator, whom Trump ridiculed and defeated in the 2016 primary, also dismissed Trump’s remarks about Russia.“Donald Trump is not a member of the Council on Foreign Relations,” Rubio told CNN, referring to a Washington thinktank. “He doesn’t talk like a traditional politician, and we’ve already been through this. You would think people would’ve figured it out by now.”Among other Senate Republicans there was some rather muted pushback. Thom Tillis of North Carolina reportedly blamed Trump’s aides for failing to explain to him how Nato works, while Rand Paul of Kentucky was quoted by Politico as saying Trump’s remarks represented “a stupid thing to say”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTrump’s last rival for the presidential nomination, which he is all but certain to secure, is Nikki Haley, who served as United Nations ambassador under Trump. Asked about his remarks, Haley told CBS: “Nato has been a success story for the last 75 years. But what bothers me about this is, don’t take the side of a thug [Vladimir Putin], who kills his opponents. Don’t take the side of someone who has gone in and invaded a country [Ukraine] and half a million people have died or been wounded because of Putin.“Now, we do want Nato allies to pull their weight. But there are ways you can do that without sitting there and telling Russia, have your way with these countries. That’s not what we want.”A former candidate for the nomination, the former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, told NBC the Nato remark was “absolutely inappropriate” and “consistent with his love for dictators”.Among former Trump aides, John Bolton, Trump’s third national security adviser, told MSNBC: “When he says he wants to get out of Nato, I think it’s a very real threat, and it will have dramatically negative implications for the United States, not just in the North Atlantic but worldwide.”HR McMaster, Bolton’s predecessor, who was a serving army general when Trump picked him, said Trump’s Nato comment was “irresponsible”.Another former general and former Trump adviser, Keith Kellogg, told the Times he thought Trump was “on to something” with his remarks, which Kellogg said were meant to prompt member nations to bolster their own defences.“I don’t think it’s encouragement at all,” Kellogg said of Trump’s apparent message to Russia. “We know what he means when he says it.”But Liz Cheney, the former Republican Wyoming congresswoman who became a Trump opponent after the January 6 attack on Congress, called Nato “the most successful military alliance in history … essential to deterring war and defending American security”. She added: “No sane American president would encourage Putin to attack our Nato allies. No honorable American leaders would excuse or endorse this.” More

    • 188 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Donald Trump says he would encourage Russia to attack Nato allies who pay too little

      by

      Seeking a second presidency as the Republicans’ presumptive 2024 White House nominee, Donald Trump has said he would “encourage” Russia to attack any of the US’s Nato allies whom he considers to have not met their financial obligations.The White House described the remarks as “appalling and unhinged”. Trump made the statement on Saturday during a campaign rally in Conway, South Carolina, ahead of the state’s Republican presidential preference primary on 24 February.The former president has voiced misgivings about aid to Ukraine as it defends itself from the invasion launched by Russia in February 2022 – as well as to the existence of Nato, the 31-nation alliance which the US has committed to defending when necessary.On Saturday, Trump claimed that during an unspecified Nato meeting he told a fellow head of state that the US under his leadership would not defend any countries who were “delinquent”.“One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, ‘Well, sir, if we don’t pay, and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?’” Trump said, adding “I said, ‘You didn’t pay, you’re delinquent?’”“No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You got to pay. You got to pay your bills.”White House spokesperson Andrew Bates, asked about Trump’s comments, said, “encouraging invasions of our closest allies by murderous regimes is appalling and unhinged – and it endangers American national security, global stability and our economy at home.”Nato countries agreed in 2014, after Russia annexed Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula, to halt the spending cuts they had made after the cold war and move toward spending 2% of their GDPs on defense by 2024.During his 2016 campaign, Trump alarmed western allies by warning that the United States, under his leadership, might abandon its Nato treaty commitments and only come to the defence of countries that meet the alliance’s 2% target.As of 2022, Nato reported that seven of what are now 31 Nato member countries were meeting that obligation – up from three in 2014. Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine has spurred additional military spending by some Nato members.Trump’s comments come as Ukraine remains mired in its efforts to stave off Russia’s 2022 invasion and as Republicans in Congress have become increasingly skeptical of providing additional aid to the country as it struggles with stalled counteroffensives and weapons shortfalls.Trump’s remarks on Saturday quickly raised alarm among many political pundits in the US.“Sounds as if Trump is kind of encouraging Russia to attack our Nato allies,” David Corn – an MSNBC analyst and the Washington DC bureau chief of Mother Jones – said on X.Meanwhile, conservative political commentator Alyssa Farah Griffin said Trump’s comments were “music” to the ears of Russian leader Vladimir PutinOn Saturday, the former president also celebrated the recent collapse of congressional legislation aiming to address the migration crisis on the US-Mexico border. The legislation was supported by Democratic incumbent Joe Biden, and Trump vowed that – if elected again – he would carry out “a massive deporation operation” on his first day back in the Oval Office.Trump has been performing strongly in public opinion polls against Biden, who defeated the ex-president in the 2020 election. Nonetheless, he is grappling with more than 90 criminal charges.The charges contained in four separate indictments across various jurisdictions allege that he tried to subvert the result of the election he lost, illegally retained government secrets after his presidency, and made illicit hush-money payments to a porn actor who claims to have had a sexual encounter with Trump.Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges.The Associated Press, Reuters and Agence France-Presse contributed to this report More

    • 213 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      With Donald Trump the Republican talisman again, should America’s allies plan for the worst? | Bruce Wolpe

      by

      The question from the Finnish journalist to President Biden at last month’s US-Nordic leaders’ summit in Helsinki was direct: “What actions will you take to assure Finland that the US will remain a reliable Nato partner for decades to come?”Biden replied: “I absolutely guarantee it. There is no question. There’s overwhelming support from the American people,” before adding the caveat: “You know, no one can guarantee the future, but this is the best bet anyone could make … As sure as anything can possibly be said about American foreign policy, we will stay connected to Nato – connected to Nato, beginning, middle and end.”In an interview a few weeks earlier, Richard Haass, who recently stepped down as president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said that the most serious threat to the security of the world right now was the United States. “It’s us,” he told Peter Baker of the New York Times. “I should have a nickel for every non-American, every foreign leader who said to me, ‘I don’t know what’s the norm and what’s the exception any more. Is the Biden administration a return to the America I took for granted and Trump will be a historical blip? Or is Biden the exception and Trump and Trumpism are the new America?’”These issues are beginning to hit home in Australia and with other US allies. Many are already seeing in 2024 a reprise of the successive shocks of 2016 – the Brexit vote in June as a precursor to the upheaval heralded by Trump’s election in November – and what ensued during Trump’s four years in office. We know from the litany of explosive books, from veteran journalist Bob Woodward to Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton and so many others in between, what Trump is capable of – and that he would approach a second term with vengeance uppermost in his mind against those who crossed him or stood in his way. Today, leaders of the world’s democracies at least have the benefit of over-the-horizon political radar of what may be coming, given the long lead time of Trump’s all-so-visible and unrelenting campaign to regain power.With respect to my country, Australia, the deep engagement with the US began on the western front in the first world war. Australia has supported American troops in numerous wars the US has waged since then. The Anzus treaty is in its 71st year and “a hundred years of mateship” has been richly celebrated. It is safe to say that Australia’s alliance with the US is the least troubled of any bilateral relationship the US has with other countries, including Israel, Canada and the UK. Australia is an integral part of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (the Quad) with India, Japan and the US. The Aukus agreement brings the US together with the UK and Australia in a strategic partnership to promote stability and security in the Asia Pacific region.But what happens to this web of ties if Trump returns to the presidency? Trumpism has four pillars that he wields as swords. America first, to ensure that US interests are always paramount in any foreign policy and military decision taken. Isolationism, where the default position is to end American commitments overseas and to bring US forces home. Protectionism, expressed through trade and tariff wars with the goal of securing trade surpluses for the US with all its trading partners, from China to Canada to Mexico to Europe and back across all of Asia. And nativism, to build walls on America’s southern border and close its doors to migrants seeking the American dream.In a second term, he will pursue these policies even harder. Trump learned immense lessons from his first four years about who, in the US and around the world, frustrated his policy objectives and how they could be crushed and punished to help him win more victories in his second term. What happens if Trump cripples, perhaps even works deliberately to destroy, Nato and the UN, begins a trade war with the EU, executes accommodations with Putin and Russia over Ukraine, surrenders Taiwan to China and withdraws troops and naval forces from the Asia Pacific region?At this granular level, each leader of a state around the globe allied with the US faces the daunting issue of how to manage all this incoming from Trump should he return to the Oval Office. How can you best deal with a hostile partner? How do those western countries allied with the US today realign their policies to ensure their security tomorrow?But these questions also reveal a deeper issue with respect to the ties that bind so many democracies around the world with the US. For example, can Australia – should Australia – continue its alliance with the US if the US in 2025 may no longer be the United States that has existed for nearly 250 years?Australia’s alliance is with a country that stands for freedom; democracy; liberty; human and civil rights; and the rule of law. What happens if the struggle for democracy and the soul of America fails in 2025? What if President Trump declares martial law, if the military is deployed to cities across the country to put down protests and restore law and order? What if Trump disobeys court orders, including from the supreme court, to cease and desist his executive actions? What if he ignores laws passed by Congress, orders the detention and imprisonment of his political enemies, has journalists arrested and jailed, and shuts down certain media outlets? What if he interferes with elections held in states across the country and for Congress?If Trump dismantles American democracy, America will no longer be populated by united states. It will be bitterly divided. There will be immense unrest. The country will no longer be the United States.Trump redux therefore poses an existential question: how could Australia remain allied with a country that has discarded the fundamental values of democracy that have bound these two nations together? How can Australia be allied with a country that is drifting towards autocracy?And it’s not just Australia. Every country strategically tied to the US will need to contemplate the consequences of Trump’s campaign for the presidency.It is time to face up to this question. It is better for America’s allies to be proactive in 2024 in planning for such a catastrophic upheaval in global politics than to be reactive in 2025.As long as Trump is within reach of the presidency, this question is a clear and present danger to every democratic country that today stands proudly with the US.
      Bruce Wolpe is a senior fellow at the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney. He is author of Trump’s Australia (Allen & Unwin, 2023) More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      John Bolton suggests US will leave Nato if ‘erratic’ Trump wins in 2024

      by

      Ex-national security adviser John Bolton issued harsh remarks against his former boss and the leading 2024 Republican presidential candidate, saying that the US will likely withdraw from Nato if Donald Trump wins the election.In an interview with the Hill on Thursday, Bolton criticized the former president’s foreign policy after an op-ed he wrote earlier this week called Trump’s behavior “erratic, irrational and unconstrained”.“Donald Trump doesn’t really have a philosophy, as we understand it in political terms,” Bolton said. “He doesn’t think in policy directions when he makes decisions, certainly in the national security space.”Bolton, who was Trump’s national security adviser from April 2018 to September 2019, also lambasted Trump for his foreign policy legacy with regard to the alliance, saying in the interview: “He threatened the existence of Nato, and I think in a second Trump term, we’d almost certainly withdraw from Nato.”He also criticized Republicans who have praised Trump for his foreign policy positions. He said: “Those who make these claims about what Trump did in his first term don’t really understand how we got to the places we did. Because many of the things they now give Trump credit for, he wanted to go in the opposite direction.”In Bolton’s op-ed published on Tuesday, he said Trump “disdains knowledge” and accused him of “seeing relations between the United States and foreign lands, especially our adversaries, predominantly as matters of personality”.“Foreign leaders, friend or foe, are far more likely see him as ignorant, inexperienced, braggadocious, longing to be one of the big boys and eminently susceptible to flattery,” Bolton wrote. “These characteristics were a constant source of risk in Trump’s first term, and would be again in a second term.”Bolton condemned Trump for his decision-making, saying: “Beyond acting on inadequate information, reflection or discussion, Trump is also feckless even after making decisions. When things go wrong, or when he simply changes his mind subsequently (a common occurrence), he invariably tries to distance himself from his own decision, fearing negative media coverage or political criticism.”Following his firing in 2019, Bolton published a book, The Room Where It Happened, in which he strongly criticized Trump’s leadership. Earlier this year, Bolton called Trump’s 2024 presidential bid “poison” to the Republican party.Since March, Trump has been criminally charged in connection with hush money payments to adult film actor Stormy Daniels, with his hoarding of classified documents at his Florida resort, and with allegedly having a hand in illegal efforts to overturn his defeat to Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential race.Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges filed against him. More

    • 225 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Trump documents trial judge sets first hearing; Georgia grand jury set to weigh 2020 election charges – live

      by

      From 1h agoThe first hearing before US District Judge Aileen Cannon in the federal criminal case against Donald Trump will be on 18 July, according to a court order.As California considers implementing large-scale reparations for Black residents affected by the legacy of slavery, the state has also become the focus of the nation’s divisive reparations conversation, drawing the backlash of conservatives criticizing the priorities of a “liberal” state.“Reparations for Slavery? California’s Bad Idea Catches On,” commentator Jason L Riley wrote in the Wall Street Journal, as New York approved a commission to study the idea. In the Washington Post, conservative columnist George F Will said the state’s debate around reparations adds to a “plague of solemn silliness”.Roughly two-thirds of Americans oppose the idea of reparations, according to 2021 polling from the University of Massachusetts Amherst and 2022 polling from the Pew Research Center. Both found that more than 80% Black respondents support some kind of compensation for the descendants of slaves, while a similar majority of white respondents opposed. Pew found that roughly two-thirds of Hispanics and Asian Americans opposed, as well.But in California, there’s greater support. Both the state’s Reparations Task Force – which released its 1,100-page final report and recommendations to the public on 29 June – and a University of California, Los Angeles study found that roughly two-thirds of Californians are in favor of some form of reparations, though residents are divided on what they should be.When delving into the reasons why people resist, Tatishe Nteta, who directed the UMass poll, expected feasibility or the challenges of implementing large programs to top the list, but this wasn’t the case.“When we ask people why they oppose, it’s not about the cost. It’s not about logistics. It’s not about the impossibility to place a monetary value on the impact of slavery,” said Nteta, provost professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
      It is consistently this notion that the descendants of slaves do not deserve these types of reparations.
      Read the full story here.More than 1,5000 amendments were filed to the FY2024 defense authorization bill, which is projected to hit the House floor this week. At issue is whether the House will take up the hard-right amendments, with the weight falling once again on Speaker Kevin McCarthy.Some of the most closely watched amendments relate to abortion, diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) funding, and transgender troops, according to Politico’s Playbook.McCarthy will need to navigate between the demands of his most conservative members – three of whom serve on the House rules committee – and the need for Democratic votes in order to get a bill ultimately signed into law, Playbook writes. It continues:
      In the past, House leaders typically have told the hard right to pound sand, knowing they weren’t going to vote for the final bill anyway. But after pissing off conservatives during the debt limit standoff, McCarthy looks poised to make a different calculation this time.
      Facing heavy criticism from the House Freedom Caucus and other conservatives, McCarthy is under pressure to give on a number of high-profile issues touching defense policy, Punchbowl News writes. It says:
      Every ‘culture war’ provision from the Freedom Caucus that’s added to the base legislation will cost Democratic votes. It will also make GOP moderates unhappy.
      The House rules committee is scheduled to mark up the FY2024 defense authorization bill, the annual bill setting Pentagon priorities and policies, today.The bill, which is expected to hit the floor later this week, has been signed into law 60 years straight. But this year, Speaker Kevin McCarthy and GOP leaders are confronting a legislative landmine as the far-right House Freedom Caucus push for dozens of proposed changes to the legislation.Adam Smith, the head Democrat on the House armed services committee, said he was worried about a flurry of “extreme right-wing amendments” attached to the bill and that he wasn’t “remotely” confident the bill will pass this week.Smith told the Washington Post he was concerned about GOP measures on “abortion, guns, the border, and social policy and equity issues”. Without the controversial amendments, Smith predicted that well over 300 House members would vote for the bill. With them, “you lose most, if not all, Democrats,” he told Politico’s Playbook.Iowa’s state legislature is holding a special session on Tuesday as it plans to vote on a bill that would ban most abortions at around six weeks of pregnancy, when most people don’t yet know they are pregnant.The state is the latest in the country to vote on legislation restricting reproductive rights after the overturning of Roe v Wade last year, which ended the nationwide constitutional right to abortion.Iowa’s Republican governor, Kim Reynolds, called for the special session last week, vowing to “continue to fight against the inhumanity of abortion” and calling the “pro-life” movement against reproductive rights “the most important human rights cause of our time”.Lawmakers in the GOP-controlled legislature will debate House Study Bill 255, which was released on Friday and seeks to prohibit abortions at the first sign of cardiac activity except in certain cases such as rape or incest.Iowa’s house, senate and governor’s office are all Republican-controlled, and the bill faces few hurdles from being passed.Read the full story here.The first hearing before US District Judge Aileen Cannon in the federal criminal case against Donald Trump will be on 18 July, according to a court order.Trump was charged with retention of national defense information, including US nuclear secrets and plans for US retaliation in the event of an attack, which means his case will be tried under the rules laid out in the Classified Information Procedures Act, or Cipa.Cipa provides a mechanism for the government to charge cases involving classified documents without risking the “graymail” problem, where the defense threatens to reveal classified information at trial, but the steps that have to be followed mean it takes longer to get to trial.The process includes the government turning over all of the classified information they want to use to the defense in discovery, like any other criminal case, in addition to the non-classified discovery that is done in a separate process.Trump’s lawyers argued the amount of discovery – the government is making the material available in batches because there is so much evidence and it has not finished processing everything that came from search warrants – meant that they could not know how long the process would take.Trump’s lawyers wrote:
      From a practical manner, the volume of discovery and the Cipa logistics alone make plain that the government’s requested schedule is unrealistic.
      Donald Trump asked the federal judge overseeing the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case to indefinitely postpone setting a trial date in court filings on Monday and suggested, at a minimum, that any scheduled trial should not take place until after the 2024 presidential election.The papers submitted by Trump’s lawyers in response to the US justice department’s motion to hold the trial this December made clear the former president’s aim to delay proceedings as their guiding strategy – the case may be dropped if Trump wins the election.The filing said:
      The court should, respectfully, before establishing any trial date, allow time for development of further clarity as to the full nature and scope of the motions that will be filed.
      Fulton county district attorney Fani Willis launched the investigation in early 2021, after Donald Trump tried to overturn his election defeat in Georgia by calling Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s secretary of state, and suggesting the state’s top elections official could help him “find 11,780 votes”, just enough needed to beat Joe Biden.The investigation expanded to include an examination of a slate of Republican fake electors, phone calls by Trump and others to Georgia officials in the weeks after the 2020 election and unfounded allegations of widespread election fraud made to state lawmakers, according to AP.About a year into her investigation, Willis asked for a special grand jury. At the time, she said she needed the panel’s subpoena power to compel testimony from witnesses who had refused to cooperate without a subpoena. In a January 2022 letter to Fulton county superior court chief judge, Christopher Brasher, Willis wrote that Raffensperger, who she called an “essential witness”, had “indicated that he will not participate in an interview or otherwise offer evidence until he is presented with a subpoena by my office”.That special grand jury was seated in May 2022, and released in January after completing its work. The panel issued subpoenas and heard testimony from 75 witnesses, ranging from some of Trump’s most prominent allies to local election workers, before drafting a final report with recommendations for Willis.Portions of that report that were released in February said jurors believed that “one or more witnesses” committed perjury and urged local prosecutors to bring charges. The panel’s foreperson said in media interviews later that they recommended indicting numerous people, but she declined to name names.Here’s a bit more on the grand jury being seated today in Atlanta, Georgia, that will probably consider charges against Donald Trump and his Republican allies for their efforts to overturn the 2020 election.The new grand jury term begins today in Fulton county, and two panels will be selected at the downtown Atlanta courthouse, each made up of 16 to 23 people and up to three alternates. One of these panels is expected to handle the Trump investigation.Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney will preside over today’s court proceedings, CNN reported. McBurney oversaw the special grand jury that previously collected evidence in the Trump investigation, and he is also expected to oversee the grand jury tasked with making charging decisions in the case.Good morning, US politics blog readers. A grand jury being seated today in Atlanta is expected to consider charges against former President Donald Trump and his Republican allies for their efforts to overturn the 2020 election.Fulton county district attorney Fani Willis launched the investigation in early 2021, shortly after Trump tried to overturn his loss by calling Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, and suggested the state’s top elections official could help him “find 11,780 votes”.A special grand jury previously issued subpoenas and heard testimony from about 75 witnesses, which included Trump advisers, his former attorneys, White House aides, and Georgia officials. That panel drafted a final report with recommendations for Willis.The new grand jury term begins today in Fulton county, which includes most of Atlanta and some suburbs. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney will swear-in two grand juries, one of which is expected to hear evidence in the Georgia elections case.Willis, an elected Democrat, is expected to present her case before one of two new grand juries being seated. The panel won’t be deciding guilt, only if Willis has enough evidence to move her case forward and who should face indictment. Willis has previously indicated that final decisions could come next month.Here’s what else we’re watching today:
      Joe Biden is meeting with other Nato leaders in Vilnius, Lithuania, where Russia’s war in Ukraine will top the agenda.
      The House rules committee is scheduled to mark up the FY2024 defense authorization bill today. The legislation is set to hit the floor later this week, with final passage currently envisioned for Friday.
      The House will meet at noon and at 2pm will take up multiple bills, with last votes expected at 6.30pm
      The Senate will meet at 10am and vote on several nominations throughout the day. There will be classified all-senators briefing with defense and intelligence officials on how AI is used for national security purposes. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Documents seemingly leaked from Pentagon draw denials from US allies

      by

      A large cache of what appear to be classified Pentagon documents circulating on social media channels is becoming a growing source of anxiety for US intelligence agencies, as numerous allies have been forced into denials over the purported leaks.Half a dozen photographs of printed classified documents, mostly pertaining to the state of the Ukraine war as of the beginning of March, started to be shared on Russian Telegram channels in the middle of last week, even though research by open-source intelligence organisation Bellingcat suggests they made the rounds on niche gaming image boards several weeks earlier.On Friday, a further batch of more than 100 Pentagon documents was being shared on Twitter, seemingly revealing confidential information that US spy agencies had obtained, not just about Russia and its war of aggression against Kyiv, but also about supposed allies such as Israel and South Korea.While at least some of the images from the first leak appeared crudely doctored, the authenticity of the latest batch has not been immediately questioned. The New York Times described the leak as “a nightmare for the Five Eyes” – the intelligence alliance comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States.On Sunday, the office of Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, issued a statement in which it firmly rejected a claim made in one of the leaked documents: that the Israeli foreign intelligence agency had encouraged its staff and Israeli citizens to participate in March’s wave of anti-government protests across the country.“The Mossad and its serving senior personnel have not engaged in the issue of the demonstrations at all and are dedicated to the value of service to the state that has guided the Mossad since its founding,” the statement read.The leaked document, labelled top secret, said that in February, senior Mossad officials “advocated for Mossad officials and Israeli citizens to protest the new Israeli government’s proposed judicial reforms, including several explicit calls to action that decried the Israeli government, according to signals intelligence”.While the Mossad’s purpose is not defined by law, the spy agency is not meant to wade into domestic political matters.Government officials in South Korea, meanwhile, said on Sunday they were aware that another leaked document suggested that US intelligence had spied on its allies in Seoul, and were planning to “have necessary consultations with the US side” over issues raised by the leak.At least two of the leaked Pentagon documents, based at least in part on intercepted foreign intelligence communications, describe South Korean concern over US pressure to aid Ukraine in its defensive effort against Russia, with the former foreign minister Yi Mun-hui expressing concern that artillery shells requested by Washington for its own use could ultimately end up in Kyiv’s hands.South Korea’s longstanding official policy is to not provide lethal weapons to countries at war. The South Korean presidential official, speaking to reporters, declined to respond further to questions about US spying or to confirm any details from the leaked documents.While potentially embarrassing for the Pentagon, the leaked documents also paint a flattering portrait of the US’s ability to penetrate Russian military planning, including the internal plans of the notorious Wagner mercenary group.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe leaked documents show the mercenary outfit’s ambition to operate in African states as well as Haiti, and that it had hatched plans to source arms covertly from Nato member Turkey.In early February, Wagner personnel “met with Turkish contacts to purchase weapons and equipment from Turkey”, one of the reports states, suggesting that Mali could act as a proxy buyer. Wagner is known to have set up a sizeable operation in the west African state, and one of the leaked documents claims the mercenary group has 1,645 fighters in the country.On Saturday evening, France’s defence ministry denied that there were French soldiers in Ukraine, as allegedly revealed in one of the leaked documents that circulated on social media in the middle of last week.“There are no French forces engaged in operation in Ukraine,” said a spokesperson for the minister of the armed forces, Sébastien Lecornu. “The documents cited do not come from the French armies. We do not comment on documents whose source is uncertain.”The first batch of leaked Pentagon documents contained charts and details about anticipated weapons deliveries, battalion strengths and losses on the battlefield. One slide suggested that a small contingent of less than 100 special operations personnel from Nato members France, America, Britain and Latvia were active in Ukraine.Some of the circulated documents have been obviously digitally altered to understate US estimates of Russian troops killed and Russian vehicles and fighter jets destroyed. Kyiv has said the leaked files contain “fictitious information”.The US Department of Justice said it has opened an investigation into the apparent leaks, but declined to comment further. More