US justice system

Subterms

    More stories

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      E Jean Carroll says she sued for rape on advice of Trump adviser’s husband

      by

      The advice columnist E Jean Carroll sued Donald Trump for rape after she was encouraged to take legal action by George Conway, the husband of a top aide to the then president.On her third day on the witness stand, Carroll told the jury hearing her lawsuit for battery and defamation over the alleged sexual assault in a New York department store changing room in 1996 that she did not intend to sue Trump until he called her a liar when she went public with her accusations more than two decades later.Shortly afterwards she met Conway, a lawyer who was at the time married to Kellyanne Conway, one of the Trump White House’s most visible officials. George Conway was a vocal critic of the then president, to the embarrassment of his wife.Carroll said that they spoke at a party where Conway laid out the difference between criminal case and civil cases.“George said: you should seriously think about this,” she told the jury of six men and three women.Two days later, Carroll filed her first lawsuit against Trump, for defamation, after he called her a liar in denying the alleged rape at the luxury Bergdorf Goodman store.Trump’s lawyer, Joe Tacopina, sought to characterise the lawsuit as politically motivated, in part through the association with Conway who went on to recommend a lawyer to Carroll.Tacopina contrasted that move – and a second more recent civil lawsuit for rape after a change in the law allowed for it – with Carroll’s decision not to take legal action against the former head of CBS, Les Moonves, who she also accused of sexual assault in an elevator.Carroll said that Moonves had not called her a liar.“He simply denied it,” she said. “He didn’t call me names. He didn’t grind my face into the mud like Donald Trump did.”Carroll said Moonves was accused of sexual abuse by a dozen women and that his denial of her allegation was one among many.Under cross-examination, Carroll defended her decision not to call the police after the alleged rape, as the typical response of women of her generation who are “ashamed” to have been sexually assaulted.She acknowledged that she frequently advised people to go to the police in her Elle column, Ask E Jean.“I was born in 1943. I’m a member of the silent generation. Women like me were taught to keep our chins up and to not complain,” she said. “I would never call the police about something I am ashamed of.”Carroll acknowledged she did call the police on one occasion, when she saw “loutish behaviour by some kids”.Tacopina responded: “So your testimony is you’ll call the police if a mailbox is attacked but not if you are attacked?”Carroll said it was.“I will never, ever go to the police,” she said.Asked why, then, more than two decades after the alleged rape she decided to go public, Carroll said that times had changed.“I reached a point in my life at 76 where I was no longer going to stay silent,” she testified.Tacopina pressed Carroll about her continued shopping trips to Bergdorf Goodman where she spent thousands of dollars in the following years.“Bergdorf’s is not a place I’m afraid to enter,” she responded.Tacopina also highlighted Carroll’s complimentary comments about Trump’s television show The Apprentice. Carroll said she was praising the construct of the programme as “witty”.On Monday afternoon, in re-cross-examination, Tacopina asked Carroll if she was happy now and she responded that she was “with undertones of unhappiness”.Then after three days of intense testimony, Carroll’s stint on the witness stand ended.Later this week, Carroll’s legal team is expected to call her friend, Lisa Birnbach and another woman, Carol Martin, to testify that Carroll told them about the alleged assault shortly after it occurred. Both have since corroborated the account.Carroll testified that Birnbach told her the alleged attack was rape and to call the police. But Martin advised her to keep quiet because Trump was a powerful businessman who would “bury” her.Carroll kept her silence for more than two decades but changed her mind as other women came forward to recount their experiences of sexual assault and harassment as the #MeToo movement swept the US. She wrote a book, What Do We Need Men For? A Modest Proposal, detailing abuse of one kind or other by a number of men, including Trump. Excerpts were published in New York magazine in 2019.Trump called Carroll’s allegations “a complete con job” and said her book “should be sold in the fiction section”.“She completely made up a story that I met her at the doors of this crowded New York City department store and, within minutes, ‘swooned’ her. It is a hoax and a lie,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.Carroll’s legal team is also expected to call two other women. Natasha Stoynoff, a writer for People magazine, is expected to testify that in 2005 Trump led her into an empty room and forcibly kissed her until he was interrupted. Jessica Leeds accuses Trump of assaulting her on a plane in 1979 by grabbing her breasts and trying to put his hand up her skirt. More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘A truly incredible amount of money’: millions ride on one US judicial election

      by

      More than $37m has already been spent in an election that will this month determine control of Wisconsin’s supreme court, easily making it the most expensive judicial contest in US history.Spending in the race easily shatters the $10m spent in the 2020 Wisconsin supreme court race, the previous record in the state. It also easily surpasses the previous national record, $15m spent on an Illinois supreme court race in 2004. The race has national implications – it will probably ultimately determine the legality of abortion in the state as well as play a key role in setting voting rules for the 2024 election in one of America’s most competitive states.“It’s just a truly incredible amount of money,” said Douglas Keith, a lawyer at the Brennan Center for Justice who closely follows state courts. “It’s a sign of what we should expect to see in the future in other state supreme court elections in other states provided that for some reason a particular seat is seen as important.”A once-in-a-generation set of circumstances have come together to make the state supreme court race between liberal Janet Protasiewicz and conservative Daniel Kelly – typically a little-noticed contest outside Wisconsin’s borders – the most important election this year.First, the ideological balance of the seven-member court is up for grabs. Second, the outcome of the race will probably directly determine whether abortion is legal in Wisconsin, as the court is expected to weigh in soon on the state’s 1849 abortion ban. Third, the court could strike down Wisconsin’s gerrymandered legislative maps, ending Republicans’ unshakable majority in the state. Lastly, the court is expected to weigh in on a range of disputes over election rules ahead of the 2024 presidential election in Wisconsin, a key battleground state.Protasiewicz and Kelly have taken different approaches to how that money has been raised. Protasiewicz’s campaign has raised $14.5m in total, a vast haul that dwarfs the $2.7m Kelly has raised. But Kelly has benefited from an influx of outside spending from third-party groups, most notably Fair Courts America, a Super Pac backed by the GOP mega-donors Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein, which has spent nearly $4.5m on advertising so far. Women Speak Out Pac, which is connected to the anti-abortion group Susan B Anthony Pro-Life America, has also pledged to spend $2m in support of Kelly and has spent nearly $1.3m on advertising so far.The Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC) – which focuses on state-level elections – has also spent about $200,000 in support of Kelly through its Judicial Fairness Initiative, according to an analysis by the Center for Political Accountability, a watchdog group. Some of the RSLC’s donors since the supreme court’s decision overturning Roe v Wade have been companies like Google, Comcast and Amazon that have pledged to support their employees if they want an abortion, according to the Center for Political Accountability.“You have so many major household name companies come out in support of their employees’ access to abortion rights. Offering to cover travel expenses, offering to cover medical expenses, that sort of thing,” said Jeanne Hanna, the Center for Political Accountability’s research director, “but then continuing to fund these groups that elect openly anti-abortion judges in battleground states where one judicial seat could make the difference of whether people in this state can access abortion care at all. They’re saying one thing and doing another with their political spending.”Kelly has openly touted his support from outside groups, telling supporters earlier this month not to worry because a “cavalry” of outside money was coming to support him.“What has been most surprising is that Dan Kelly has basically raised no money as a candidate … So all of his backing has been from outside groups,” said Barry Burden, the director of the Elections Research Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “It’s hard to understand. Legally, they’re not allowed to coordinate. So he’s essentially handed over messaging to groups that he cannot control.”Protasiewicz’s fundraising has been prolific. She has spent more than $10.5m on television advertisements alone, compared with Kelly’s $580,000, according to a Brennan Center tracker. And while she has benefited from considerable spending from liberal outside groups – A Better Wisconsin Together, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Everytown for Gun Safety among them – the bulk of the money she’s raised has come from the state Democratic party.The party’s $8.8m contribution to her campaign was made possible by a 2015 Republican rewrite of the state’s campaign finance rules. Those changes removed a cap on the amount of money candidates could receive from state parties. They also allowed individual donors to make unlimited contributions to the political parties.“When the Republicans rewrote the laws in 2015 … they did it with the expectation that it would advantage them. They felt that the sources of money they could rely on, both outside groups and big contributors, would mean they would always have financial advantages in races like this. Just the opposite has happened,” said Jay Heck, the executive director of the Wisconsin chapter of Common Cause, a watchdog group. “That is the reason why [Wisconsin Democratic party chair] Ben Wikler and the Democrats have been able to be such a powerhouse.”Protasiewicz has said she would recuse herself from cases involving the Wisconsin Democratic party. Kelly has declined to make a similar recusal pledge for cases involving his major donors.“Judges should not be able to hear cases involving major donors or supporters,” said Keith, the Brennan Center expert. “One of the issues that comes with all this money being as opaque as it is is that the public doesn’t actually know who the judge’s major supporters are often. And if the judges do know, then that’s even more troubling that the judge has information that the public doesn’t about what cases they may have a conflict in.” More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump not entitled to immunity from civil suits over Capitol attack, says DoJ

      by

      Trump not entitled to immunity from civil suits over Capitol attack, says DoJJustice department said ex-president could be held liable for physical and psychological harm suffered during January 6 Donald Trump does not have absolute immunity from civil suits seeking damages over his alleged incitement of the January 6 Capitol attack, the US justice department said in a court filing that could have profound implications for complaints against the former president.In an amicus brief in a case brought by two US Capitol police officers and joined by 11 House Democrats, the justice department said Trump could be held liable for physical and psychological harm suffered during the attack despite his attempts to seek blanket protections.Pence declines to support Trump if he’s 2024 nominee: ‘I’m confident we’ll have better choices’Read more“Speaking to the public on matters of public concern is a traditional function of the presidency,” read the 32-page brief to the US court of appeals for the DC circuit. “But that traditional function is one of public communication. It does not include incitement of imminent private violence.”The justice department stressed that it was not weighing in on whether the lawsuit had made a plausible argument that Trump’s speech immediately before the January 6 attack incited thousands of his supporters to storm the Capitol in an effort to stop certification of Joe Biden’s election win.But the department said that because actual incitement of imminent private violence – the key legal standard – would not be protected by presidential immunity, the appeals court should reject his contention that he had absolute immunity from civil litigation.“No part of a president’s official responsibilities includes the incitement of imminent private violence,” the brief said. “By definition, such conduct plainly falls outside the president’s constitutional and statutory duties.”The justice department opinion comes after the appeals court asked the government to offer its position while it considered whether Trump was acting within the confines of the office of the presidency when he urged his supporters to “fight like hell” and march on the Capitol.The sensitivity of the case – the potential impact on other civil suits against Trump that could have implications for presidential immunity – meant the department took several months and made two requests for a month’s extension before finalising its response.In siding against Trump’s position that he enjoyed “categorical immunity”, the justice department said it agreed with a lower-court ruling that the first amendment to the constitution did not allow Trump to evade liability in the January 6 suit.The lawsuit was filed under a statute, enacted after the civil war in response to Ku Klux Klan insurrections across the south to stop Black people voting, which allows for damages when force or intimidation are used to prevent government officials carrying out their duties.The amicus brief comes as the justice department controversially continues to defend Trump’s claim of absolute immunity in a defamation case brought by the writer E Jean Carroll, who accuses Trump of raping her in New York in the mid-1990s. Trump has said “it never happened” and said Carroll is not his “type”.Responding to that case, the department argued that while Trump’s comments were not appropriate, they came when he was president. Responding to a reporter’s question about the allegation, the department said part of a president’s responsibility was “to be responsive to the media and public”.TopicsUS newsDonald TrumpUS justice systemLaw (US)US Capitol attackUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Stakes are monstrous’: Wisconsin judicial race is 2023’s key election

      by

      ‘Stakes are monstrous’: Wisconsin judicial race is 2023’s key electionControl of state supreme court could flip from conservative to liberal with big consequences for most gerrymandered US state Voting is under way in an under-the-radar race that could wind up being the most important election in America this year.At stake is control of the Wisconsin supreme court. Because control of state government in Wisconsin is split between Democrats and Republicans, the seven-member body has increasingly become the forum to get a final decision on some of the most consequential issues in the state – from voting rights to abortion.Wisconsin Republican who bragged about low turnout faces calls to resignRead moreSince Wisconsin is one of the most politically competitive states and a critical presidential battleground, these decisions have national resonance. Millions of dollars have already begun to pour into the race, which is widely expected to become the most expensive supreme court election in state history. The state primary is on 21 February and the top two finishers will advance to a general election in April.Conservatives currently have a 4-3 majority on the court. One of the conservative justices, Patience Roggensack, is retiring, giving liberals a chance to flip the court. The outcome of that race in April will determine control of the court through the 2024 presidential elections.“The stakes are monstrous,” said Barry Burden, the director of the Elections Research Center at the University of Wisconsin – Madison. “There’s a confluence of factors that have come together, intentionally or not to make this a terribly important race for the future of the state.”Pivotal stateFew state supreme courts across the country have played as powerful a role in shaping high-profile laws in recent years as the Wisconsin supreme court has. The court has frequently decided election disputes in the state, where contests are regularly decided by razor-thin margins. In 2020, it narrowly rejected a request from Donald Trump’s campaign to consider throwing out enough mail-in votes to overturn the election results.“Wisconsin’s been the tipping point state in the last two presidential elections,” said Ben Wikler, the chairman of the Wisconsin Democratic party. He pointed out that Wisconsin “is the only state where four of the last six presidential elections came down to less than one percentage point. Which means that small shifts in the rules around voting can have a decisive effect in presidential elections.“Wisconsin’s supreme court race on April 4 is the most important election in the country before November 2024,” he added.The state supreme court has also picked maps that allowed Republicans to maintain control over the state legislature and outlawed ballot drop boxes, making it harder for voters to return their mail-in ballots.More critical decisions are on the horizon. The court is expected to rule in the near future on whether Wisconsin’s 1849 abortion ban will remain on the books. The ban went into effect after the US supreme court’s decision last year striking down Roe v Wade. Wisconsin’s attorney general, Josh Kaul, is challenging the ban in court, arguing that subsequent laws passed in the state have nullified it.The court has also issued important decisions limiting the appointment powers of Governor Tony Evers, a Democrat, and struck down the statewide mask mandate during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic.How can the court change?Four candidates are currently in the race – two liberals and two conservatives. On the liberal side, Janet Protasiewicz, a Milwaukee county circuit court judge, and Everett Mitchell, a Dane county judge. Dan Kelly, a former supreme court justice who lost his seat in 2020 and Jennifer Dorow, a judge who oversaw a high-profile trial of a man convicted of killing six people at a Waukesha Christmas parade, are running.“If in fact a justice who is more in the progressive left tradition succeeds here, then the nature of the court will change, we’ll see different decisions than we’ve tended to see in the recent past. If a justice who is more sort of conservative originalist is elected then we won’t see a change,” said Richard Esenberg, who has argued before the court as the president and general counsel of the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty. “That can affect some very significant issues.”Supreme court justices are elected to 10-year terms in Wisconsin in what are technically non-partisan contests. But the races have taken a hard partisan edge as the court’s influence has grown, with some candidates signaling their views on hot-button issues without saying directly how they would vote.“It is a break from the past that it’s more open and explicit,” Burden said. “It’s really the politicization of the court and its growing prominence in policymaking that’s made everyone more comfortable.”Republicans have already seized on Protasiewicz’s blunt comments about the maps – she called them “rigged” at a forum last month – and abortion, and filed a judicial complaint against her, accusing her of weighing in on an issue that could come before the court. Protasiewicz said she had no regrets.“People in our state deserve to know our candidate’s values,” she said. “I said the maps are rigged. I think the truth is an absolute defense. I don’t think anybody can say that those maps are accurate and that they reflect the people of the state of Wisconsin. No, I absolutely stand by those comments.”Protasiewicz said in an interview she decided to run for the race to focus on “saving democracy” after seeing the state supreme court choose state legislative maps that benefited Republicans. The maps are so distorted that Republican control of the state legislature is essentially guaranteed for another decade, regardless of what voters want.If a liberal wins the race, Democrats have pledged to swiftly bring a new lawsuit challenging the maps.“You look at the legislature, which is potentially on the verge of a supermajority, you look at that makeup of 65 to 75% red and you know it doesn’t represent the people here,” Protasiewicz said. “You look at it and you know something’s wrong.”How much it costsState supreme court races, especially in years where there aren’t any federal races on the ballot, are usually low-turnout affairs. But Protasiewicz said she had encountered crowded events as she campaigns and that voters were “very tuned in”.Mitchell said he had not seen the same engagement, but had been reminding voters of how courts could affect their daily lives. “A majority of people, it’s just not on their radar,” he said. “For some people this was like number 13 on their priority list. Because they’re [dealing with] inflation, and children, and healthcare, and public health.”The biggest sign of the race’s importance may be the flood of money that’s already coming in. The contest is expected to be the most expensive supreme court in state history, and maybe the most expensive ever in the US.In 2020, candidates and outside groups spent about $10m on a race for the state supreme court that year, setting a new record. This year’s race could shatter that. Candidates and outside groups have already spent more than $5m in ads, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, which is tracking the election.“It’s escalating rapidly,” Burden said. “If $15m, $20m, $25m is spent on this race, it’s more than you see in governor’s races in some states.”Protasiewicz has already reported raising just under $1m and is on the air with ads touting her support for abortion. Fair Courts America, a Super Pac linked to the GOP megadonor Richard Uihlein, has said it is willing to spend millions in support of Kelly.“It’s really expensive to get your message out right. It’s really expensive. It would be nice if we could just all fundraise our money. But you know Citizens United has pretty much taken that away from people,” Protasiewicz said in an interview.“It makes it hard for us to ever think that these races can be non-partisan if so much money can be thrown into these races,” Mitchell said.For years, Democrats faced criticism for not taking down-ballot races, like state supreme court contests, seriously enough. In 2019, when Democrats lost a key state supreme court race, Eric Holder, the former US attorney general, publicly sounded the alarm that Democrats were not paying attention. “This should be a wake-up call for us. I felt a little lonely out there in Wisconsin,” he told Mother Jones after the Democratic candidate lost.Democrats started to reverse that trend in 2020, winning a state supreme court race. This year is a chance to continue that, Wikler said.“For a long time Democrats didn’t take judicial races seriously enough and Republicans threw down in these contests,” he said. “This is the moment for Democrats across the country to demonstrate that they’ve learned the lesson of these last few years and take these races just as seriously as they take Senate and governor’s races. It really feels like it’s picking up now.”TopicsWisconsinThe fight for democracyUS justice systemUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Confidential files found with Biden’s Corvette – Politics Weekly America podcast

      by

      More ways to listen

      Apple Podcasts

      Google Podcasts

      Spotify

      RSS Feed

      Download

      Share on Facebook

      Share on Twitter

      Share via Email

      Last week, the US attorney general, Merrick Garland, appointed a special counsel to investigate how several batches of classified documents were reportedly found at locations linked to President Biden.
      This week, Jonathan Freedland speaks to Ankush Khardori, who worked in the US Department of Justice from 2016 to 2020, about what the outcome to this investigation may be

      How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

      Archive: Fox News, NBC, CNN, CNBC, BBC Send your questions and feedback to podcasts@theguardian.com Help support the Guardian by going to theguardian.com/supportpodcasts More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Alex Jones lawyer’s license is suspended for releasing sensitive records

      by

      Alex Jones lawyer’s license is suspended for releasing sensitive recordsNorman Pattis cannot practice in Connecticut after releasing medical records of Sandy Hook families during Infowars host’s trial A judge has suspended the license of a lawyer who was representing Alex Jones when the attorney appeared to have accidentally released sensitive court records surrounding the defamation lawsuits after the Sandy Hook school killings that the notorious conspiracy theorist lost.Alex Jones owes $1.5bn and declared bankruptcy. So how is Infowars still running?Read moreIn a court order that she issued on Thursday, Connecticut judge Barbara Bellis suspended New Haven-based Norman Pattis from practicing law in the state for six months.Bellis, who decried Pattis’s actions as “inexcusable” and an “abject failure”, wrote: “We cannot expect our system of justice or our attorneys to be perfect, but we can expect fundamental fairness and decency.”Pattis had sent out medical records pertaining to some of the families of those killed during the Sandy Hook attack, along with other information that was considered confidential, Bellis’s ruling showed.Despite Pattis’s claim that the release of the records was an “inadvertent mistake”, Bellis “flatly rejects” the claim. In her court order, she wrote that “there was no fairness or decency” in how Pattis handled “sensitive and personal information” at the center of a lawsuit in which the families of Sandy Hook victims accused Jones of using the shooting that killed 26 at the school to build his audience and make millions of dollars through his false claims that the tragedy was a hoax aimed at forcing the US to accept gun reform.“At a basic level, attorneys must competently and appropriately handle the discovery of sensitive materials in civil cases. Otherwise, our civil system, in which discovery of sensitive information is customary and routine, would simply collapse,” Bellis continued.An assistant of another attorney for Jones, in a related case in Texas, mistakenly sent their legal adversaries’ Jones’s text messages that contradicted sworn statements from Jones claiming he had nothing on his phone related to the deadly school shooting.Rulings in the lawsuits against Jones in Texas, where he resides, and Connecticut, where the Sandy Hook attack occurred, have resulted in Jones being ordered to pay more than $1bn in damages after he was found to have unduly inflicted anguish on victims’ families, among other harm.In a statement to the Associated Press, Pattis said he plans to challenge the order with a higher court, writing: “We’re looking forward to appellate review.”Pattis is currently representing a member of the rightwing extremist group Proud Boys in Washington DC who has been criminally charged with seditious conspiracy surrounding the violent January 6 riots that took place at the US Capitol exactly two years ago Friday.TopicsNewtown shootingUS justice systemUS politicsLaw (US)Defamation lawnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden pardons Ohio woman, 80, who killed abusive husband decades ago

      by

      Biden pardons Ohio woman, 80, who killed abusive husband decades agoPresident issues six full pardons, mostly for minor drug offenses but including one for Beverly Ann Ibn-Tamas over 1977 death Joe Biden on Friday announced six full pardons, most for minor drug offenses but including a pardon for an 80-year-old woman from Columbus, Ohio, who killed her abusive husband when she was 33.In a statement, a White House official said the president was granting pardons to “individuals who have served their sentences and have demonstrated a commitment to improving their communities and the lives of those around them.“These include individuals who honorably served in the US military, volunteer in their communities, and survived domestic abuse.”As described by the White House, Beverly Ann Ibn-Tamas, now 80, was convicted in 1977 “of murder in the second degree while armed for killing her husband.“Ms Ibn-Tamas, 33 at the time of the incident, was pregnant and testified that before and during her pregnancy her husband beat her, verbally abused her and threatened her. According to her testimony, her husband had physically assaulted her and threatened her in the moments before she shot him.“During her trial, the court refused to allow expert testimony regarding battered woman syndrome, a psychological condition and pattern of behavior that develops in victims of domestic violence.”Ibn-Tamas was sentenced to one to five years in jail. Her appeal, the White House said, “marked one of the first significant steps toward judicial recognition of battered woman syndrome, and her case has been the subject of numerous academic studies”.Ibn-Tamas became director of nursing for an Ohio-based healthcare business, the White House said, and continues to work there as a case manager. The White House noted that as a single mother, Ibn-Tamas raised two children, one of whom, her daughter, is now an attorney.The other recipients of full pardons included Gary Parks Davis, 66 and from Yuma, Arizona, who was jailed over a cocaine deal when he was 22 then became a pillar of his local community, and Edward Lincoln De Coito III, from Dublin, California, now 50, a pilot and army veteran convicted of marijuana trafficking at 23.Vicente Ray Flores of Winters, California, now 37, was convicted at 19 for using ecstasy and alcohol while in the army. Charles Byrnes Jackson, 77 and from Swansea, South Carolina, was convicted when 18 of possession and sale of distilled spirits without tax stamps. John Dix Nock III, from St Augustine, Florida, now 72, pleaded guilty 20 years ago to renting out a place where marijuana was grown.The White House official said the pardons followed “the categorical pardon of thousands of individuals convicted of simple marijuana possession … announced earlier this year, as well as the pardons of three individuals in April”.Biden pardons thousands with federal convictions of simple marijuana possessionRead moreThe April pardons concerned two people convicted of drugs offences and a former Secret Service agent who was convicted of attempting to sell government information, a charge he denied.Advocacy groups welcomed the thousands of pardons announced in October, for marijuana possession. Kassandra Frederique, the executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, told the Guardian then her organisation was “thrilled”, though the move was “incredibly long overdue”.On Friday, the White House official said Biden “believes America is a nation of second chances, and that offering meaningful opportunities for redemption and rehabilitation empowers those who have been incarcerated to become productive, law-abiding members of society.“The president remains committed to providing second chances to individuals who have demonstrated their rehabilitation – something that elected officials on both sides of the aisle, faith leaders, civil rights advocates and law enforcement leaders agree our criminal justice system should offer.”TopicsUS newsUS politicsUS justice systemJoe BidennewsReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on the January 6 committee: Trump’s terrible, no-good year | Editorial

      by

      The Guardian view on the January 6 committee: Trump’s terrible, no-good yearEditorialThe referral of the former president to the justice department on four criminal charges is largely symbolic, but increases his woes In its closing months, 2022 is looking like an annus horribilis for Donald Trump – or to put it in the former president’s terms, a terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad year. The January 6 committee’s recommendation on Monday that criminal charges be brought against him over his attempt to subvert the 2020 election results and the deadly storming of the Capitol was unprecedented – the first time that Congress has referred a former president to the Department of Justice. Though largely symbolic, it has set down a marker. And it is the latest in a string of recent setbacks.His candidates triumphed in Republican primaries, but then tanked in the midterms. His announcement on his 2024 bid was lacklustre and bathetic. A New York jury found his business guilty of tax fraud. On Tuesday, a House committee was set to vote on whether to release six years of his tax returns to the public. And, of course, the list of civil actions and criminal investigations targeting him is growing.The congressional committee’s referral does not change the legal position, though some of the evidence it turned over to the justice department theoretically could. In its impact on public opinion, however, it may have an indirect effect on whether charges are brought. The evidence the committee amassed and its presentation of the facts are compelling. In televised hearings and presentations, in the executive summary published on Monday, and presumably in the full report to follow this week, it has shone an unflinching light on the brutality of that day and Mr Trump’s culpability.His own aides have testified that he was repeatedly told he had lost, and that they urged him to tell the crowd to be peaceful. Instead, he pressed Republican officials to overturn the results, then his vice-president to block Congress from approving Joe Biden’s victory. When those attempts failed, he summoned a crowd to Washington, urged it to the Capitol and for hours failed to call off supporters as they rampaged and hunted down elected politicians. Unlike Mr Trump himself, at least some participants have since admitted their responsibility. One described his involvement as “part of an attack on the rule of law”; another conceded that “I guess I was [acting] like a traitor”.The referral will, if anything, spur on Mr Trump’s fight for the Republican candidacy, further convincing him that power is the best form of protection. Charges, if laid, may reinforce rather than shift the minds of his diehard supporters. More than two-thirds of Republicans still believe that Mr Biden’s victory was illegitimate. Nonetheless, they are turning away from the former president in the polls. A large majority of Republican voters or independents who lean towards the party think someone else should be its candidate in 2024. Mr Trump wanted to clear the field, to run unchallenged. But those who trade on a strongman image cannot afford to look weak. Support for Ron DeSantis, the Florida governor, has surged. Mr Trump’s media cheerleaders, every bit as cynical as the ex-president, have turned on him. Ivanka Trump wants nothing to do with her father’s 2024 bid.It would be immensely foolish to write off the 45th president. For years he has defied the laws of political gravity, surviving scandals and offences that individually would have sunk any other candidate or office-holder. The Republican elite remain notably silent or mealy-mouthed about him. Even if he cannot recover, others are already using his playbook. Yet the prospect that he will rebound, or another like him take his place, is all the more reason to establish the full record of his actions – whether or not they ultimately lead to legal consequences.TopicsDonald TrumpOpinionJanuary 6 hearingsUS Capitol attackRon DeSantisJoe BidenUS elections 2024US justice systemeditorialsReuse this content More