US elections 2020

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Appeals court skeptical of Meadows’ bid to move Georgia election case

      by

      A federal appeals court on Friday appeared skeptical of former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows’ attempt to transfer his 2020 election interference case in Georgia to federal court, expressing doubt that he was acting as a federal official in trying to reverse Donald Trump’s defeat.The court also questioned, in a particularly ominous development for Meadows, whether he was even entitled to remove his case from state to federal court given he was no longer a federal official.Meadows was charged with violating the state racketeering statute alongside Trump and other co-defendants by the Fulton county district attorney, Fani Willis, over their efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in Georgia.The indictment also included a charge against Meadows for his role in setting up Trump’s infamous recorded phone call on 2 January 2021 asking the Georgia secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, to “find” 11,780 votes so he could win the battleground state.Meadows filed to transfer his case to federal court – a move that would allow him to seek dismissal of the charges on federal immunity grounds – but had the motion rejected by the US district judge Steve Jones. Meadows then appealed to the US court of appeals for the 11th circuit.The issue for Meadows has long been whether his involvement in the call or his involvement in the so-called fake electors scheme were within the scope of his official duties as a White House chief of staff, as he argued, or whether he was engaged in campaign activity, as prosecutors have argued.At a roughly 50-minute hearing before circuit judges William Pryor, Robin Rosenbaum and Nancy Abudu – George W Bush, Obama and Biden appointees, respectively – the court expressed deep skepticism that Meadows could declare all of his actions as White House chief of staff were related to his official duties.“That just cannot be right,” Rosenbaum said at one stage, saying “electioneering on behalf of a specific political candidate” or becoming involved in “an alleged effort to unlawfully change the outcome of the election” might be examples of actions not covered by a federal official’s job.The skepticism of Meadows’ sweeping position that there were no limits to the scope of his duties was joined by Abudu, who noted that other federal laws like the Hatch Act prohibits government officials from engaging in political activity as part of their federal duties.Meadows’ lawyer George Terwilliger responded that Meadows only needed, under the federal officer removal statute, to “establish a nexus” to the duties of his federal job. It would make “no sense”, Terwilliger said, to have a state judge decide at trial matters relating to federal laws.The hearing took a negative turn for Meadows when Pryor, the chief judge known to be a staunch conservative, suggested he did not think Meadows was entitled to have his case moved to federal court at all because Meadows was no longer a federal official.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionPryor suggested it might be reasonable to infer that Congress intended the removal statute to apply only to current federal officials to make sure that state charges did not interfere with “ongoing operations of the federal government”.Still, the three-judge panel also expressed concern to Donald Wakeford, a prosecutor in the Fulton county district attorney’s office, about the “chilling effect” on federal officials to enact policy if they felt they could be indicted by state authorities once they left the government.That opening was seized upon by Terwilliger, who claimed he would have done his job differently when he was deputy attorney general in the George HW Bush administration.Wakeford responded that it might be a good thing if some federal officials felt chilled from engaging in certain conduct – a reference to an opinion in a recent ruling by the US district judge Tanya Chutkan rejecting Trump’s attempt to dismiss his federal election interference case in Washington. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s election-interference case may get boost from US supreme court

      by

      A decision by the US supreme court to take a case linked to the January 6 attack on the Capitol could have consequences altering the trajectory of the criminal case against Donald Trump over his effort to overturn the 2020 election as well as for hundreds of other people prosecuted for the riot.The nation’s highest court has agreed to consider whether federal prosecutors can charge January 6 riot defendants with a statute that makes it a crime to obstruct an official proceeding of Congress – a charge also filed against Trump in his 2020 election-interference case.The decision by the conservative-dominated court to take up the matter complicates and could delay Trump’s trial in federal district court in Washington, which is currently scheduled for next March.The supreme court’s eventual ruling in Fischer v United States will indicate whether the obstruction charge under section 1512 of title 18 of the US criminal code can be used against Trump, and could undercut the other general conspiracy charges brought against the former president by the special counsel, Jack Smith.The court could also end up by extension invalidating many convictions against rioters involved in the January 6 Capitol attack. The obstruction statute has been the justice department’s primary weapon to hold accountable those involved in the violence of that day.The case involves Joseph Fischer, who was indicted in Washington on seven counts of obstructing the congressional certification of the 2020 election results when he assaulted police officers during the riot.Fischer sought to dismiss part of his indictment, arguing that the obstruction statute passed under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 in response to the Enron scandal, had to do with document or evidence tampering for white-collar financial crime.The US district judge Carl Nichols, who presided in the case, interpreted the statute as requiring prosecutors to show that the defendant took some action with respect to a document or record and did not apply to Fischer as he assaulted police officers at the Capitol.But a split three-judge panel at the US court of appeals for the DC circuit reversed the decision, deciding that obstruction applied more broadly and encompassed impeding any official proceeding. Fischer, and two other January 6 defendants, appealed to the supreme court to resolve the issue.The supreme court may not decide whether the obstruction statute can be applied to the Capitol attack until June, when the next term ends. In the meantime, the viability of that charge – and potentially that of other general conspiracy charges – against Trump remains uncertain.It could also give Trump an opening to seek to pause ongoing pre-trial proceedings in his 2020 election interference case pending the supreme court’s consideration of the issue, although he is unlikely to succeed and it may not be appealable should such an effort be denied.Similar criminal cases involving members of Congress or congressional aides, for instance, typically go to trial and are then tried again if a higher court finds that some of the charges were inapplicable.At issue for Trump is the definition of “corruptly” in the obstruction statute. The DC circuit has been unable to agree, with judge Justin Walker interpreting it as “unlawful benefit”, while judge Greg Katsas interpreted it as “an unlawful financial, professional, or exculpatory advantage”.The obstruction statute was never a natural fit for January 6 cases, and defense lawyers have repeatedly argued in trial and appeals courts in Washington that the justice department was using it in an overly broad fashion to target rioters because of the 20-year maximum sentence it carries.The problem for the justice department now is that the supreme court has previously chafed at the use of broad conspiracy arguments by federal prosecutors.In the case of Jeffrey Skilling in the Enron scandal, the court held in a unanimous decision that Skilling had been improperly charged with the “honest services” provision of the statute about a scheme to defraud, because it applied only to accepting bribes and kickbacks.“The court’s been very clear that over-aggressive theories under general criminal statutes don’t fly,” said the former House general counsel Stanley Brand, whose firm Brand Woodward has also represented January 6 defendants. “That’s the lesson of Skilling and all these other cases.”If the supreme court were to rule in favor of Fischer next year on the basis that the justice department was using charges that were too broad, Brand added, it could undercut the other general conspiracy statutes used in the indictment against Trump, as well. More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Judge puts Trump’s 2020 election interference case on hold

      by

      Donald Trump’s 2020 election interference case in Washington will be put on hold while the former president further pursues his claims that he is immune from prosecution, the judge overseeing the case ruled Wednesday.US district judge Tanya Chutkan agreed to pause any “further proceedings that would move this case towards trial or impose additional burdens of litigation on defendant”. But the judge said that if the case returns to her court, she will “consider at that time whether to retain or continue the dates of any still-future deadlines and proceedings, including the trial scheduled for March 4, 2024”.At issue is an appeal last week by Trump’s lawyers of an order from Chutkan denying their claims that the case must be dismissed on immunity grounds. Special counsel Jack Smith’s team has also asked the supreme court to take up the legally untested question.“The prosecution has one goal in this case: to unlawfully attempt to try, convict, and sentence President Trump before an election in which he is likely to defeat President Biden,” defense lawyers wrote Wednesday. “This represents a blatant attempt to interfere with the 2024 presidential election and to disenfranchise the tens of millions of voters who support President Trump’s candidacy.”The issue is of paramount significance to both sides given that a ruling in Trump’s favor would presumably derail the case and because a protracted appeal could delay a trial well beyond its currently scheduled start date of 4 March. Trump faces charges he plotted to overturn the 2020 election after he lost to Democrat Joe Biden, and he has denied doing anything wrong.Special counsel Jack Smith, whose team has brought two federal cases against Trump in Washington and in Florida, has sought to keep both on track while Trump has attempted to delay the proceedings – at one point even asking for the Washington prosecution to be pushed back until 2026.A separate potential hiccup for the prosecution developed Wednesday when the Supreme Court said that it would review a charge of obstruction of an official proceeding that the Justice Department has brought against more than 300 participants in the January 6, 2021 riot at the US Capitol. That’s among four counts brought against Trump by Smith, meaning that a high court ruling that benefits the defendants in the riotA postponement until after the election would clearly benefit Trump, especially since, if elected president, he would have the authority to try and order the justice department to dismiss the federal cases.In telling the Washington-based federal appeals court that there was no reason for it to fast-track the immunity question, Trump’s lawyers wrote that the “date of March 4, 2024, has no talismanic significance.“Aside from the prosecution’s unlawful partisan motives, there is no compelling reason that date must be maintained, especially at the expense of President Trump and the public’s overriding interest in ensuring these matters of extraordinary constitutional significance are decided appropriately, with full and thoughtful consideration to all relevant authorities and arguments,” they wrote.At issue is an appeal by the Trump team, filed last week, of a trial judge’s rejection of arguments that he was protected from prosecution for actions he took as president. Smith sought to short-circuit that process by asking the supreme court on Monday to take up the issue during its current term, a request he acknowledged was “extraordinary” but one he said he was essential to keep the case moving forward.Smith’s team simultaneously asked the US court of appeals for the DC circuit to expedite its consideration of Trump’s appeal, writing: “The public has a strong interest in this case proceeding to trial in a timely manner. The trial cannot proceed, however, before resolution of the defendant’s interlocutory appeal.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe Trump team made clear its opposition to that request, saying the case presents “novel, complex, and sensitive questions of profound importance.“Whether a president of the United States may be criminally prosecuted for his official acts as president goes to the core of our system of separated powers and will stand among the most consequential questions ever decided by this court,” they wrote. “The manifest public interest lies in the court’s careful and deliberate consideration of these momentous issues with the utmost care and diligence.”The supreme court has indicated that it would decide quickly whether to hear the case, ordering Trump’s lawyers to respond by 20 December. The court’s brief order did not signal what it ultimately would do.A supreme court case usually lasts several months, from the time the justices agree to hear it until a final decision. Smith is asking the court to move with unusual, but not unprecedented, speed.If the justices decline to step in at this point, Trump’s appeal would continue at the US court of appeals for the DC circuit. Smith said even a rapid appellate decision might not get to the supreme court in time for review and final word before the court’s traditional summer break. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Rudy Giuliani faces third day of trial for defaming Georgia election workers

      by

      The third day of a federal trial against Rudy Giuliani for defamation against two Georgia election workers begins on Wednesday after a day of harrowing testimony from Shaye Moss, whose life was upended after Giuliani spread election lies about her.Moss and Ruby Freeman are suing Giuliani for his claims, from which the former New York City mayor and Trump ally has not backed down this week. After the first day of trial, Giuliani doubled down on his claims, saying they were true, leading the judge to question Giuliani’s mental fitness.Just as they have been all week, Moss, Freeman and Giuliani are in the courtroom. Moss and Freeman are sitting next to each other at a table with their lawyers. Freeman’s back is to Giuliani, who is sitting at a table parallel to them with his lawyer.Freeman is expected to testify later today.Both women are seeking up to $43m in damages over Giuliani’s false claims that accused them of fraudulently counting mail-in ballots, a sum that Giuliani’s lawyer said would be like a “death penalty” for his client.Ashlee Humphreys, a professor at Northwestern who studies social media, is the first witness on Wednesday. She is expected to testify about how she calculated the damages Moss and Freeman are entitled to.The case is seen as a test for one avenue pro-democracy groups are using to try to hold election deniers accountable for the consequences of spreading conspiracy theories. More

    • 200 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Jack Smith just made a gutsy, momentous decision in his prosecution of Trump | Margaret Sullivan

      by

      Timing isn’t everything. But it certainly matters, and seldom more so than in special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Donald Trump.The former US president intends to use timing – delay, delay, delay – to avoid punishment for trying to overturn the 2020 election, which he lost to Joe Biden, and for fomenting a violent coup.Nope, said Smith this week. A tough guy who has prosecuted war crimes in the Hague, Smith clearly recognizes that putting off the case until after next fall’s presidential election could let Trump off the hook.So the prosecutor made a bold legal maneuver. Smith moved to bypass the court of appeals, whose involvement could slow things down considerably, and to go directly to the US supreme court for a decision on a foundational issue.He wants the US’s highest court to rule – immediately – on whether Trump, as he claims, is immune from criminal prosecution.“Jack Smith wants to cut straight to the chase,” writes former US attorney Joyce Vance, noting that the supreme court has never decided this issue before.Should the court rule in Trump’s favor on immunity, the case goes away. That looks like a gamble, but the case is headed to the supreme court anyway.The key question is rather simple.Is Trump above the law? Or, like every other US citizen, must he abide by it?Smith’s maneuver was heralded by several prominent legal experts.“A huge and possibly brilliant move, a game changer one way or the other,” Harry Litman, a former justice department official who teaches constitutional law, wrote on Twitter/X.So far, the signs are encouraging. The court granted Smith’s request to speed up the question of whether to hear the case, asking for a quick response from Team Trump.In other words, the court quickly agreed to decide whether to decide the case, an important first step.Of course, this supreme court doesn’t exactly inspire confidence, given its terrible rulings on voting rights and abortion rights and the appalling ethical malfeasance of some of its members.But even this tainted court probably doesn’t want to be associated for all time with the notion that a US president is above the law.Watching Jack Smith’s aggressive efforts throughout this prosecution, I can’t help but think of two earlier high-level legal situations involving presidents.One was decades ago, during the Watergate scandal, when the supreme court ruled that President Nixon’s tape recordings were fair game; Nixon had appointed some of those justices but the ruling was unanimous nonetheless.That ruling was among the many contributing factors in holding Nixon accountable, to some extent, for the crimes he encouraged while in office. Ultimately, of course, he resigned and was pardoned by his successor, Gerald Ford.The other, much more recent, was the way special counsel Robert Mueller handled the investigation into whether Trump and his allies played ball with Russian operatives in order to sway the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.Unlike Smith, Mueller was particularly rules-bound and reserved. He never wanted to rock the procedural boat. His extremely low-key approach hampered the outcome of his important investigation.With the help of attorney general Bill Barr’s dishonest work in interpreting it favorably on Trump’s behalf, Mueller’s report dwindled into something that ultimately didn’t matter much – though it should have. Trump ran around claiming he was entirely cleared and that it was all a hoax, though that was far from true.Smith is a different cat. Thinking strategically at all times, he knows he needs to stay on track for a March trial date in order to hold Trump accountable.If that doesn’t happen, the strategy of delaying the trial until after the November election could – if Trump is elected – allow him to install an unpatriotic loyalist as attorney general and wriggle out of the mess that he created.That makes what happens next so consequential. (Smith wisely is hedging his bet by asking the court of appeals to rule immediately, too, should the supreme court decide not to take on the matter after all.)“It may be the most important democracy decision of our lifetimes,” Norm Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, has argued.Could be – for two reasons.One is that some members of the voting public, the non-cult members at least, might be affected by a guilty verdict. Given Trump’s obvious authoritarian plans for a second term, his election could be a death knell for US democracy.The other is that no president, or former president, should be above the law.Let’s hope that the supreme court – whatever its shortcomings – does its duty, takes on this question, and rules in accordance with our nation’s founding principles.
      Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Special counsel deals deft blow to Trump’s bid to delay federal trial

      by

      Donald Trump’s attempt to delay his impending federal trial on charges over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results may have been dealt a deft blow by special counsel prosecutors, after they directly asked the US supreme court to resolve whether the former president can be criminally prosecuted.Earlier this month, Trump asked the US court of appeals for the DC circuit to reverse a decision by the trial judge rejecting his motion to dismiss the case on presidential immunity grounds. On Monday, the special counsel Jack Smith sought to bypass the DC circuit by asking the supreme court to resolve the issue.While the supreme court has increasingly agreed to hear cases before an appeals court judgment, especially for constitutional questions related to presidential power, the petition from the special counsel puts Trump in a fraught situation regardless of whether it takes up the matter.Later on Monday, the court indicated it would decide quickly on whether to hear the case, ordering Trump to file his reply to the filing from the special counsel Jack Smith within nine days – by 20 December – a deadline widely considered to be particularly expeditious.The problem for Trump is that his hands are tied. The former president would prefer the court to take up the case after the DC circuit rules because he’s eager to delay his impending trial as much as possible. But he can’t oppose the prosecutors’ request now and then make the same request in several months’ time.If Trump had his way, according to people close to his legal team, he would have wanted the DC circuit to go through the likely months-long appeals process before going to the supreme court. That process would have included setting a briefing schedule, oral arguments and then issuing a ruling.The federal 2020 election interference trial is currently set for trial on 4 March, the day before Super Tuesday, when 15 states are scheduled to hold Republican primaries or caucuses. Trump, the frontrunner for the GOP nomination, has been adamant that he did not want to be stuck in a courtroom.Trump has also made no secret that his overarching legal strategy, for all of his criminal cases, is to pursue procedural delays. If the cases do not go to trial before next year’s election and he wins a second term, then he could direct his handpicked attorney general to drop all of the charges.And even if the case did go to trial before November, the people said, Trump’s preference would have been for the trial to take place as close as possible to the election because it would have given his 2024 campaign ammunition to miscast the criminal case against him as political in nature.Yet with the special counsel moving to circumvent the DC circuit, Trump and his legal team have effectively been forced to grapple with the supreme court plank of his delay strategy far earlier than they had expected.The eventual outcome could still be good for Trump: the justices could, for now, deny the request to review the lower court’s decision – a process known as certiorari – and instruct the special counsel to resubmit his request after the DC circuit issues a decision. Alternatively, the justices could grant certiorari and a majority rule in Trump’s favor.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBut even with a conservative-leaning supreme court, those are the more unlikely options, according to the supreme court expert Steve Vladeck. The more likely outcome is that the court grants certiorari and rules against Trump – thereby eliminating the additional months of delay he had anticipated.The probability that the supreme court rules against Trump on his presidential immunity claim, if it hears the case, is seen as a more likely scenario in large part because Trump’s interpretation is so far-reaching and without precedent in criminal caselaw.The motions to dismiss submitted by Trump’s lawyers contended that all of his attempts to reverse his 2020 election defeat in the indictment – including trying to obstruct the January 6 congressional certification – were in his capacity as president and therefore protected.And at the heart of the Trump legal team’s filing was the extraordinary contention that Trump both was entitled to absolute presidential immunity and that the immunity applied whether or not Trump intended to engage in the conduct described in the indictment.The issue is considered ripe for the supreme court because while it has previously ruled that presidents have expansive immunity in civil lawsuits, it has never explicitly ruled on whether presidents can face criminal charges for crimes they are alleged to have committed while in office. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Rudy Giuliani faces damages claim in 2020 election defamation case – live

      by

      The latest polling also showed that potential voters have concerns with both leading nominees. The surveys found that the majority of potential voters in Michigan and Georgia believe that Biden lacks the “sharpness” and “stamina” needed for a president. Voters in both battleground states also believe that Trump did not have the right “temperament” to be president.From the Hill:
      The surveys also highlighted potential problem areas for each candidate, with 69 percent of Michigan voters and 66 percent of Georgia voters saying Biden does not have the sharpness and stamina they want to see in a president. Fifty-seven percent of Michigan voters and 58 percent of Georgia voters said Trump’s temperament is not what they are looking for in a president.
      Read the full article here.Donald Trump is leading Joe Biden in new polls surveying battleground states, the Hill reports.The latest polls by CNN found that Trump had a 10 point lead over Biden in Michigan, with 50% of responders saying they would vote for Trump in the 2024 election versus only 40% for Biden.In Georgia, 49% of responders said they would support Trump compared to only 44% for Biden.Both Biden and Trump are leading their party’s nomination for the general presidential election, with 2024 shaping up to be a rematch of the 2020 election.Rudy Giuliani has taken his seat in a federal courtroom in Washington where jury selection is about to begin in a weeklong trial to determine how much in damages he should have to pay two Atlanta election workers he defamed last year.The former New York City mayor could pay anywhere between $15 and $43m in damages to Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, a mother and daughter he spread false lies about them after the election.Included in the questions potential jurors will be asked is “Do you believe that Joseph R. Biden’s election as president of the United States in 2020 was illegitimate?” and “Have you ever used the phrase “Let’s Go Brandon” or the term or hashtag “WWG1WGA”?Opening statements in the trial are expected this afternoon. The trial is expected to wrap up by Friday.Giuliani has just arrived to his trial in federal court today, which will determine how much the ex-Trump lawyer will pay in damages after being found liable of defamation in August.Giuliani is expected to testify at some point during the week-long trial, though it isn’t clear if Giuliani will invoke his Fifth Amendment rights while testifying, CNN reports.Meanwhile, the legal team of Freeman and Moss will play videos of other Trump figures pleading the Fifth while refusing to answer questions on the stand.Giuliani is reportedly having trouble paying off mounting legal debts. He is currently selling his $6.5m New York apartment to help square away litigation costs.As of October, Giuliani owed more than $500,000 in unpaid taxes to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Forbes reported.Rudy Giuliani will be defending himself in federal court on Monday against a defamation lawsuit filed against him for false comments he made about two Georgia election workers after the 2020 election.The week-long trial starting Monday in Washington DC will be to determine how much Giuliani will pay in damages for inflammatory remarks he made against Ruby Freeman and her daughter Shaye Moss, two Black election workers in Fulton county.Giuliani is expected to testify in his defense.While serving as head of Trump’s legal team, Giuliani falsely claimed that Freeman and Moss counted 2020 election ballots after tallying had wrapped, sharing misleading security video that was later debunked by Georgia election officials.Freeman and Moss say they faced death threats following Giuliani’s comments, and strangers came to Freeman’s house to enact a “citizen’s arrest”.Giuliani has already been found liable of defamation in August. The latest trial is to determine how much Giuliani will pay in damages, with Freeman and Moss seeking between $15m and $43.5m in damages.Jury selection and opening statements for the damages trial are expected today.Here’s what else is happening:
      Biden is traveling to Philadelphia on Monday to announce a federal grant for the city’s fire department.
      Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelenskiy will arrive in the US for a last-ditch attempt to break a deadlock on Ukraine aid. More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Rudy Giuliani faces trial over defamation of 2020 election workers

      by

      Rudy Giuliani arrived slightly late to the Washington DC federal courtroom where a defamation lawsuit seeking to force him to pay tens of millions of dollars in damages to two election workers after making inflammatory false statements about them in the aftermath of the 2020 election.Ruby Freedman and her daughter Shaye Moss, the two Black election workers from Fulton county who said they faced death threats because of Giuliani’s claims, were also in the courtroom on Monday.Giuliani has already conceded he made the defamatory statements and the US district judge Beryl Howell, who is overseeing the case, has already found him liable for defamation, so the week-long jury trial will focus on what penalty he should have to pay. Freeman and Moss are seeking between $15m and $43.5m in damages. Jury selection and opening statements are expected on Monday.The case is significant because it is one of the most aggressive and advanced efforts to get accountability from Donald Trump allies who spread lies about the election as part of the ex-president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. It is one of several cases testing whether defamation law can be used as a new tool to combat misinformation. And perhaps more than any other episode in the chaotic aftermath of the 2020 election, it crystallizes the human toll of election denialism. Giuliani also faces criminal charges in Georgia as part of the wide-ranging case there over Trump’s efforts to turn the election.After the 2020 election, Giuliani had amplified and circulated misleading security footage he claimed showed Freeman and Moss counting ballots after tallying had ended on election night. Even after Georgia election officials quickly debunked the claim, Giuliani continued to spread the false claims.Freeman and Moss say their lives were upended as they became the subject of vicious attacks. They faced death threats, and strangers came to Freeman’s home to try to execute a “citizen’s arrest”.Freeman told the US House committee that investigated the January 6 attack that she was afraid to give her name in public. On election night in 2020, she was wearing a shirt that proudly proclaimed her name, but she now refuses to wear it in public.“I won’t even introduce myself by my name any more. I get nervous when I bump into someone I know in the grocery store who says my name. I’m worried about people listening. I get nervous when I have to give my name for food orders. I’m always concerned of who’s around me,” she told the committee.“There is nowhere I feel safe. Nowhere. Do you know how it feels to have the president of the United States target you?”Moss told Reuters in 2021 that she suffered anxiety and depression, and her son, who used a cellphone with a phone number once registered to her, started receiving death threats and began failing in school.Both women have not spoken much publicly since the 2020 election, but are expected to take the witness stand this week.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionGiuliani has already conceded he made false statements about Freeman and Moss. But he argues that he is not responsible for the harm they suffered as a result of his false statements. “Giuliani will argue that Plaintiffs cannot show more than a de minimis relationship between their alleged harm and Giuliani’s conduct,” his lawyers wrote in a court filing in November.Giuliani has also already been sanctioned more than $200,000 for refusing to turn over documents as part of the lawsuit. Howell, the judge, also berated Giuliani’s attorney last week after Giuliani failed to show up for a hearing.He is also expected to testify during the trial, and his lawyer indicated last week that the former New York City mayor does not plan to invoke his fifth amendment rights during the proceeding.The original lawsuit, filed in December 2021, sought damages from both Giuliani and One America News, the far-right channel that spread countless pieces of misinformation after the 2020 election. Freeman and Moss settled with OAN in 2022. While the terms of the agreement haven’t been publicly disclosed, the network acknowledged on air shortly after that there was no widespread voter fraud in Georgia in 2020. More