Trump, Donald J

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares79 Views

      in Elections

      What is FISA, and What Does It Mean for U.S. Surveillance and Spying?

      by

      Under Section 702, the government is empowered to collect, without a warrant, the messages of Americans communicating with targeted foreigners abroad.The House on Friday passed a two-year reauthorization of an expiring warrantless surveillance law known as Section 702, reversing course after the bill collapsed days earlier when former President Donald J. Trump urged his allies to “kill” it.But disappointing privacy advocates, the House narrowly rejected a longstanding proposal to require warrants to search for Americans’ messages swept up by the program.Here is a closer look.What is Section 702?It is a law that allows the government to collect — on domestic soil and without a warrant — the communications of targeted foreigners abroad, including when those people are interacting with Americans.Under that law, the National Security Agency can order email services like Google to turn over copies of all messages in the accounts of any foreign user and network operators like AT&T to intercept and furnish copies of any phone calls, texts and internet communications to or from a foreign target.Section 702 collection plays a major role in the gathering of foreign intelligence and counterterrorism information, according to national security officials.Why was Section 702 established?After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President George W. Bush secretly ordered a warrantless wiretapping program code-named Stellarwind. It violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, or FISA, which generally required a judge’s permission for national security surveillance activities on domestic soil.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares84 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Co-Defendants Argue for Dismissal of Charges in Documents Case

      by

      The judge did not rule on motions by lawyers for Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, who are accused of helping the former president obstruct government efforts to recover classified material.Lawyers for co-defendants of former President Donald J. Trump argued in federal court in Florida on Friday to dismiss charges of aiding in the obstruction of efforts to recover classified documents.It was a rare hearing of the documents case in which Mr. Trump did not take center stage. His co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, are loyal Trump employees, accused of conspiring with the former president to hide boxes containing classified government materials after Mr. Trump left office.Prosecutors also accused them of plotting to destroy security camera footage of the boxes being moved.Judge Aileen M. Cannon considered the defense lawyers’ arguments in her Fort Pierce, Fla., courtroom but ended the two-hour hearing Friday without making a decision on whether the charges against the two men should be dismissed. She also did not announce a date for the trial to begin, despite holding a hearing more than a month ago on the matter.Mr. Nauta and Mr. De Oliveira often take a back seat in the case against Mr. Trump. But each faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted of the most serious offenses.Mr. Nauta, 41, is Mr. Trump’s personal aide and served as his military valet when Mr. Trump was in the White House. He spent 20 years in the Navy, taking an honorable discharge in September 2021, according to his service records.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 175 Shares74 Views

      in Elections

      Trump, Who Tried to Repeal Obamacare, Says He Is ‘Not Running to Terminate’ It

      by

      Former President Donald J. Trump said in a video posted to his social media site on Thursday that he was “not running to terminate” the Affordable Care Act, his latest effort to push back on attacks from the Biden campaign and other Democrats over his calls to replace the legislation known as Obamacare.In a statement similar to one he posted in March, Mr. Trump said the health care law was “much too expensive” and “not very good,” and added, without providing specifics, that he would improve it if re-elected. Those statements came after he drew criticism for having again suggested, in the last few months, that he would repeal the law, which has become more popular since its enactment 14 years ago.“We’re going to make the A.C.A. much better than it is right now and much less expensive for you,” Mr. Trump said in the video.On Tuesday in Washington, President Biden accused Republicans of aiming to “terminate the Affordable Care Act” at an event for caregivers, where he promoted expanding paid medical leave, child care subsidies and early education.Also this week, Mr. Trump shifted his stance on abortion. For months, he gave mixed signals on his position, before saying in a statement on Monday that abortion policies should be left to the states.The former president’s pledge to repeal the health care legislation dates to his first presidential campaign in 2016, when many Republicans were issuing calls to “repeal and replace” the law. But Mr. Trump did not offer a substantive proposal to replace it, and efforts backed by his administration to repeal parts of the law were rejected by Congress and the Supreme Court.For months, the Biden campaign has attacked Mr. Trump on the issue, after he described the Affordable Care Act last November as “out of control” and said he was “seriously looking at alternatives” to it. The Biden campaign quickly amplified those remarks, and Mr. Biden offered his own criticism last November, saying, “My predecessor once again called for cuts that could rip away health insurance for tens of millions of Americans.”Mr. Trump’s response on Thursday echoed a post he made on social media in March, in which he claimed, in all caps and with a misspelling of Mr. Biden’s name, that “crooked Joe Buden disinformates and misinformates all the time.” That post came days after the Biden campaign released a digital ad in battleground states that featured audio of Mr. Trump criticizing the Affordable Care Act and claiming that Mr. Trump “tried to rip away our health care” as president.More than 45 million people are enrolled in Affordable Care Act-related coverage, according to a recent report from the Department of Health and Human Services. A record number of people — more than 20 million — have signed up for plans on the act’s marketplaces this year, according to the Biden administration. Mr. Biden proclaimed that the figure proved that the legislation “is more popular than ever.” More

    • 138 Shares83 Views

      in Elections

      Kari Lake Backs Arizona Lawmakers in Push for 15-Week Abortion Ban

      by

      The Senate candidate and Donald Trump ally is supporting a handful of state Republicans who have backed away from a near-total ban that was upheld by the State Supreme Court this week.A handful of Arizona Republican legislators looking to overturn a 160-year-old state law that bans nearly all abortions have a new high-profile supporter: Kari Lake, a prominent Senate candidate and a close ally of Donald J. Trump.The state Supreme Court’s ruling on Tuesday that upheld the 1864 law, from before Arizona was a state, set off a political firestorm, with Democrats predicting it would cause women to turn out in droves in a key swing state to protect access to abortion rights.Now, some Republicans are looking for a way out of their political dilemma after their party blocked efforts to reverse the law. They see Ms. Lake, who is in a competitive race that could determine control of the Senate, as an important ally. Ms. Lake has called a handful of state legislators to offer her support in any effort to repeal the law and revert to the 15-week abortion ban that was in effect in Arizona, according to a person familiar with the outreach.The new stance is an abrupt about-face for many Arizona Republicans, who cheered when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022 and then pushed quickly for reinstating the near-total ban from 1864. Ms. Lake herself had praised the 160-year-old ban during her 2022 run for governor, calling it a “great law,” but on Tuesday condemned the court decision, saying it was “out of step with Arizonans.”Other Republicans followed suit.“It is time for my legislative colleagues to find common ground of common sense: the first step is to repeal the territorial law,” State Senator Shawnna Bolick posted on X. It was a departure for Ms. Bolick, who once signed onto a law that would require prosecutors to charge women who have abortions with homicide and voted for the 15-week ban in 2022, legislation that included a provision allowing the 1864 law to go into effect.The Republican backtracking reflects just how sharply public opinion has shifted on abortion since the Supreme Court’s consequential ruling, and how damaging the issue has been to their party. State laws on abortion enacted since Roe was overturned fueled strong showings by Democratic candidates in the 2022 midterms, and voters have turned out in force to protect abortion rights when they have been on the ballot, even in red states.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares88 Views

      in Elections

      Kennedy Campaign Fires Consultant Who Sought to Help Trump Win

      by

      The presidential campaign of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has fired a consultant, according to the campaign’s manager, after a video circulated of her urging an audience to support Mr. Kennedy on the ballot in New York because it would help former President Donald J. Trump defeat President Biden.The consultant, Rita Palma, had falsely identified herself as the New York state director of Mr. Kennedy’s campaign, Amaryllis Fox, Mr. Kennedy’s campaign manager and daughter-in-law, said late on Wednesday, adding that the campaign had fired Ms. Palma “immediately” after seeing the video “in which she gave an inaccurate job title and described a conversation that did not happen.”In that video, Ms. Palma — who Ms. Fox said had been hired as a ballot access consultant in the state — said that “the Kennedy voter and the Trump voter, our mutual enemy is Biden,” adding, “Whether you support Bobby or Trump, we all oppose Biden.”Encouraging the audience of Republicans to support Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Palma outlined a hypothetical scenario in which Mr. Kennedy would win enough electoral votes to prevent both Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden from winning 270 electoral votes, pushing the decision to Congress in what is known as a contingent election.“Right now, we have a majority of Republicans in Congress,” Ms. Palma said in the video, referring to the House of Representatives. “So who are they going to pick? If it’s a Republican Congress, they’ll pick Trump.” In such a scenario, the Senate — which the Democrats currently control — would also elect the vice president.CNN reported earlier this week that Ms. Palma had also promoted false claims that the 2020 election was stolen from Mr. Trump, whom she repeatedly called her “favorite president.”Before saying that Ms. Palma had been fired, Ms. Fox said in a statement earlier in the week that “the video circulating was not taken at a campaign event.”She added: “Palma was speaking as a private citizen and her statements in no way reflect campaign strategy, the sole aim of which is to win the White House.”Allies of Mr. Trump have been discussing ways to elevate third-party candidates such as Mr. Kennedy in battleground states to divert votes away from Mr. Biden.Mr. Kennedy has also recently aligned himself closer to Mr. Trump by sympathizing with those who have been convicted of crimes in connection to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack at the Capitol. Mr. Kennedy later retracted many of those comments, saying that his campaign made “unforced errors” when addressing the issue, but stood by his commitment to appoint a special counsel to “look at” the criminal cases of some of the rioters. More

    • 138 Shares46 Views

      in Elections

      Election 2024: How Voters Describe the Trump-Biden Rematch in One Word

      by

      It’s no secret that many voters are not looking forward to the election in November.A New York Times/Siena College poll from February found that 19 percent of voters held an unfavorable view of both President Biden and former President Donald J. Trump. And 29 percent of Americans believe that neither candidate would be a good president, according to a March poll from Gallup.At the same time, the prospect of a new president is exciting for many, and nearly half of Republican primary voters are enthusiastic with Mr. Trump as their nominee, the Times/Siena poll found. About a quarter of Democratic primary voters said the same about Mr. Biden.Those findings are broad measures of an issue Americans have complex feelings on. To dig a little deeper, we asked respondents in that Times/Siena poll to summarize their feelings about the upcoming rematch in just one word. More

    • 125 Shares50 Views

      in Elections

      March’s Hot Inflation Report is a Political Blow to Biden

      by

      The unexpected re-acceleration in price growth across the economy is at least a temporary setback for President Biden, who has been banking on cooling inflation to lift his re-election prospects.Mr. Biden and his aides have publicly cheered the retreat of annual inflation rates over the last year, after watching the fastest price growth in 40 years dent the president’s approval ratings earlier in his tenure.They have been anxious for inflation to fall even further, in order give relief to consumers and to potentially spur the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates — a move that would help to drive down borrowing costs for mortgages, car loans and other consumer credit. Mr. Biden has been particularly focused on home buyers, including young voters who are key to his electoral coalition, and who are struggling to afford high housing prices as mortgage rates remain around 7 percent.Wall Street analysts saw Wednesday’s surprise pickup in the inflation rate as a sign that the Fed could leave rates on hold for months longer than expected. That could mean no cuts before the November election, a campaign where Mr. Biden’s Republican opponent, former President Donald J. Trump, has slammed Mr. Biden for both rapid price increases and high borrowing costs.The news comes as polls have begun to show Americans’ views of the economy slowly improving over recent months. Democratic pollsters have also pointed to recent surveys as a road map for how Mr. Biden should talk about inflation in the months to come: They suggest American voters blame corporate greed, more than government spending, for price increases. Mr. Biden has leaned into that message, including calling out companies in his State of the Union address for keeping prices high.He struck a similar tone on Wednesday in a statement that emphasized consumer frustration with inflation.“Prices are still too high for housing and groceries, even as prices for key household items, like milk and eggs, are lower than a year ago,” Mr. Biden said. “I have a plan to lower costs for housing — by building and renovating more than two million homes — and I’m calling on corporations, including grocery retailers, to use record profits to reduce prices.” More

    • 125 Shares54 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Blocks Trump’s Lawyers From Naming Witnesses in Documents Case

      by

      The special counsel had asked that the names of about two dozen government witnesses be redacted from a public version of a court filing to protect against potential threats or harassment.Granting a request by federal prosecutors, the judge overseeing former President Donald J. Trump’s classified documents case ordered his lawyers on Tuesday to redact the names of about two dozen government witnesses from a public version of one of their court filings to protect them against potential threats or harassment.In a 24-page ruling, the judge, Aileen M. Cannon, told Mr. Trump’s lawyers to refer to the witnesses in their filing with a pseudonym or a categorical description — say, John Smith or F.B.I. Agent 1 — rather than identifying them by name.The special counsel, Jack Smith, had expressed a deep concern over witness safety, an issue that has touched on several of Mr. Trump’s criminal cases. Among the people prosecutors were seeking to protect were “career civil servants and former close advisers” to Mr. Trump, including one who had told them that he was so concerned about potential threats from “Trump world” that he refused to permit investigators to record an interview with him.Judge Cannon’s decision, reversing her initial ruling on the matter, was noteworthy, if only for the way it hewed to standard practice. After making a series of unorthodox rulings and allowing the case to become bogged down by a logjam of unresolved legal issues, the judge has come under intense scrutiny. Each of her decisions has been studied closely by legal experts for any indication of how she plans to proceed with other matters.But as she has in other rulings where she found in favor of Mr. Smith, Judge Cannon used her decision on Tuesday to take a shot at the special counsel, with whom she has been feuding. Although she agreed with him, she pointed out that his request to protect “all potential government witnesses without differentiation” was “sweeping in nature” and that she was “unable to locate another high-profile case” in which a judge had issued a similar decision.The fight over the witnesses began in earnest in early February when Mr. Smith’s prosecutors asked Judge Cannon to reconsider a decision she had made allowing Mr. Trump to publicly name about 24 witnesses in court papers they had filed asking the government for additional discovery information.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More