More stories

  • in

    Will this latest Trump indictment embolden the Maga base? – podcast

    On Tuesday, Donald Trump pleaded not guilty to all 37 counts related to his alleged mishandling of classified documents, becoming the first former US president to face federal criminal charges.
    This week, Jonathan Freedland speaks to a former Department of Justice prosecutor, Ankush Khardori, about the potential for further political violence in the run-up to the 2024 presidential election as Trump spouts baseless claims against Joe Biden

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

  • in

    White House pushes for renewal of electronic surveillance law provision

    The White House is stepping up pressure on lawmakers to renew a section of electronic surveillance law which permits the government to conduct targeted surveillance of foreign persons located outside the US.The provision, known as section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (Fisa), is set to expire at the end of the year. But its renewal is facing pushback from privacy advocates and lawmakers, some citing examples in which law enforcement search requests were misused to conduct illegal surveillance on US citizens.On Monday, Joe Biden’s administration circulated examples showing the US had used electronic surveillance under section 702 to catch fentanyl smugglers as well as the ransomware hackers who temporarily shut down the Colonial Pipeline Company in a 2021 cyber-attack that led to gas shortages along the eastern seaboard.The public campaign to build support for the provision comes as a poll released last week showed that the public is growing more skeptical of the need to sacrifice civil liberties for security.The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll released last week found that 28% of adults support the government listening to phone calls and emails made outside the US without a warrant while 44% oppose the practice.More broadly, 48% of Americans said they believe it is necessary to sacrifice their rights and freedoms to prevent terrorism, down from 54% in 2021 and nearly two-thirds in 2011, a decade after the 9/11 attacks.The decline in support for foreign surveillance was notably sharp among Republicans, with just 44% saying that it is sometimes necessary compared with 69% in 2011. Among Democrats, support remained relatively constant, dropping to 55% from 59% in 2011.Republican opposition to the renewal of section 702 in some cases has responded to the failure of the FBI to clearly identify the Steele dossier – also known as the Trump–Russia dossier – as a political opposition research report without merit.Ahead of a Senate hearing into the issue on Tuesday, South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham – the top Republican on the judiciary committee – said the FBI’s mistakes had damaged its reputation with Congress and the public. Nonetheless, Graham insisted that section 702 should be reauthorized.“What I’m trying to tell my constituents back home [is] the threats to the country are growing – they’re not lessening,” Graham said. “Bottom line is: let’s reauthorize this program and build in some safeguards.”Illinois’s Democratic US senator Dick Durbin, the panel’s chairman, said he’d need to “see more” of the FBI’s current reforms to support the provision’s renewal.But civil liberties groups have come out strongly against reauthorization, which is required every five years.“Although purportedly targeted at foreigners, section 702 has become a rich source of warrantless government access to Americans’ phone calls, texts, and emails,” the Brennan Center for Justice, one of 21 civil liberties groups, said in a letter on Monday opposing the renewal of section 702.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe groups said they opposed the reauthorization of the surveillance provisions the government “is using to gain warrantless access to Americans’ communications, without significant and wide-ranging surveillance reforms”.In 2022 alone, the groups said, “the FBI conducted more than 200,000 warrantless searches of section 702 communications to find Americans’ information” and that, in turn, had converted section 702 “into something Congress never intended: a domestic spying tool”.On Monday, Biden administration officials said they opposed proposals to require the FBI to get a warrant every time it searches for an American’s information.“We must not forget the lessons of 9/11,” said Matthew Olsen, the assistant attorney general for national security. “Unduly limiting the FBI’s ability to access lawfully collected information and imposing artificial barriers between foreign intelligence and criminal investigations will set us back decades. It will put our nation at grave risk.”In its effort to turn around opinion, the White House offered examples of when the provision had been used effectively, including learning of Beijing’s efforts to track and repatriate Chinese dissidents and to warn an American who was the target of foreign spies seeking information about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.The FBI said it has instituted better training and new rules that have sharply reduced the number of searches for American citizens after agents were found to have wrongly run queries for the names of a congressman on the House intelligence committee, people linked to the January 6 Capitol attack and participants in the 2020 protests after a Minneapolis police officer’s murder of George Floyd.The bureau said it would now immediately suspend any employee’s access to section 702 databases for any incident involving “negligence”. More

  • in

    What’s going to happen when Donald Trump shows up for his arraignment?

    Donald Trump will make his first court appearance on Tuesday after being charged with 37 criminal counts related to his handling of classified documents after leaving the presidency. He is set to appear at 3pm at the federal courthouse in Miami.It will be Trump’s second arraignment this year. In April, he was arraigned in Manhattan on separate criminal charges related to his hush money payments to the adult film star Stormy Daniels.What is an arraignment and how is it different from an indictment?The document when someone is charged with a crime is called an indictment – the indictment involving Trump was unsealed on Friday. An arraignment is a defendant’s first appearance in front of a judge in a criminal case.The defendant is formally notified of the charges against them and enters a plea. The judge who oversees the arraignment considers whether to grant bail and allow the defendant to be released pending trial. The judge who oversees the arraignment may not be the same judge who oversees the rest of the case.What is going to happen when Trump shows up in court?Trump’s initial appearance is likely to be brief. He will be formally presented with the 37 criminal charges against him and informed of the penalties, and then he can enter a plea. Trump will almost certainly plead not guilty.Defendants can choose to have the indictment read to them in open court, but many choose to waive that in order to get the hearing over quickly, said Barbara McQuade, who served as the US attorney for the eastern district of Michigan from 2010 to 2017.The judge can also set bail and decide to detain a defendant in custody while trial is pending.“The judge will consider the bail issue, but I would be stunned if Trump were held pending trial. A more likely scenario is that Trump will be ordered to surrender his passport and promise to pay some sum of money if he fails to appear,” McQuade said in an email.“The court may consider as a condition of bond some sort of gag order prohibiting Trump from discussing the case, the prosecutor or the judge, but that can be tricky in light of first amendment concerns because Trump is running for president,” she added.Defendants in federal cases are often fingerprinted and have their mugshot taken, McQuade said. But when Trump was arraigned on state charges in New York earlier this year, authorities did not take a mugshot. McQuade said she expected Trump to be fingerprinted. But neither a mugshot nor handcuffs were likely, she said, because people already know what Trump looks like and the former president already has Secret Service protection.Who is the judge overseeing the hearing?Magistrate judge Jonathan Goodman is scheduled to be the judge on duty at the federal courthouse in Miami when Trump appears. He will reportedly oversee the initial appearance, the Miami Herald and NBC News reported on Monday. Magistrate judges handle initial appearances and assist federal judges with other matters.Goodman is a former newspaper reporter and civil litigator who has been a magistrate judge since 2010, according to the Miami Herald. He is well-respected and known for his dry humor, the paper reported.While Goodman will handle Trump’s initial appearance, the overall case will be overseen by US district judge Aileen Cannon, whom Trump appointed to the federal bench in 2020. At an earlier stage in the case, Cannon issued a series of rulings in favor of Trump and was later rebuked by an appeals court. Those rulings have prompted concerns that Cannon will favor Trump as she oversees the case.Will the appearance be televised?No. Federal courts do not allow cameras or recordings in the courtroom.Goodman denied a request evening from a coalition of news organizations that filed a request on Monday to allow for limited recording in the courtroom or the hallways leading to the courtroom. They also requested that the court release same-day audio of the proceedings. “Allowing photographs would undermine the massive security arrangements put in place,” Goodman wrote in an order on Monday evening. He said that he expected an expedited transcript of the proceedings to be available on Tuesday.Cecilia Altonga, the chief district judge for the southern district of Florida, also entered an order on Monday barring reporters from bringing any electronics into the courthouse building.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionWill Trump be placed in jail before or after the hearing?No. Trump does not pose the kind of flight risk that would require detaining him.Why is the case being heard in Miami?Because Trump kept the classified documents at issue at his home in Mar-a-Lago, the special counsel, Jack Smith, chose to file charges in the southern district of Florida, the federal jurisdiction where Mar-a-Lago is located. That decision was deliberate and is somewhat of a risk. Smith could have tried to file the charges in Washington DC, where a federal grand jury had been investigating the matter, but it would have probably prompted a legal battle over the proper venue for the case. By filing in Florida, Smith took that issue off the table.But filing the case in Florida also brings its own risks. Most notably, the case will be overseen by Cannon, who has issued rulings favorable to Trump in the past. A jury in Miami may also be more conservative and Trump-friendly than a jury in Washington.Who are Trump’s lawyers?It’s not entirely clear who will make up Trump’s legal team. Two of his attorneys abruptly resigned last week after he was indicted.Trump will appear on Tuesday with Todd Blanche, a defense lawyer also representing him in the Manhattan case, and Boris Epshteyn, another lawyer and controversial top aide who has drawn attention from federal prosecutors himself. He may also appear with Chris Kise, a former solicitor general of Florida who has represented Trump in the documents case. Trump was still interviewing local lawyers on Monday to help represent him.What is Trump charged with again?Trump is charged with 31 counts of unauthorized retention of national defense information, a violation of the Espionage Act. Each count carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison.Trump and Waltine Nauta, his valet, face additional charges of conspiracy to obstruct justice, tampering with grand jury evidence and concealing evidence in a federal investigation. Each of those charges is punishable by up to 20 years in prison.Trump and Nauta also face additional charges of making a false statement. Those carry a maximum sentence of up to five years in prison.What happens next?After the appearance, Cannon is likely to set a scheduling order laying out deadlines and a timeline for discovery, motions and a trial. Smith, the special counsel, requested that Trump get a speedy trial last week. But there are likely to be extensive disputes over discovery and classified materials that will drag the case out.“I think an initial trial date of next spring or summer is most likely, but with more adjournments before the trial actually starts if the motions get messy, which seems likely in light of Trump’s combative nature,” McQuade said. “I’m sure [the Department of Justice] will want to try the case before election day and Trump will want to stall. Judge Cannon gets to decide.”Hugo Lowell contributed reporting More

  • in

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

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

  • in

    ‘I’ll never leave’: Trump vows to stay in 2024 presidential race even if convicted

    Donald Trump has pledged to continue his 2024 presidential campaign even if he is convicted of a felony, saying he would campaign from prison if necessary.“I’ll never leave,” the former US president told Politico in an interview carried out on his plane between two campaign events. He also dismissed the possibility of pardoning himself, telling the outlet: “I didn’t do anything wrong.”US law does not bar Trump from running while under indictment, nor would it block him if he was convicted.“These are thugs and degenerates who are after me,” he said, continuing his use of inflammatory language to describe his opponents and extensive legal troubles.The defiant comments from Trump came two days after the US Department of Justice charged him with 37 criminal counts related to his mishandling of classified documents and obstructing the department’s investigation into the matter.Trump, who is the leading contender in the Republican field aiming to snag the party nomination to fight Joe Biden for the White House, is the first former US president to face federal charges – an extraordinary moment in American history.Trump has already started seizing on the charges to try an appeal to Republicans for support, holding them up as yet another example of the way that political rivals are trying to persecute him.“The ridiculous and baseless indictment by the Biden administration’s weaponized department of injustice will go down as among the most horrific abuses of power in the history of our country,” he said during a speech at the Georgia Republican party’s convention.He received an enthusiastic welcome at the event from supporters, the Associated Press reported.About 48% of Americans believe Trump should have been indicted over his handling of classified documents, according to a new ABC/Ipsos study, while 35% believe he should not have been. There is a significant partisan split in responses reflecting the US’s deep divides: 86% of self-identified Democrats say he should have been indicted, while 67% of self-identified Republicans say he should not have.Trump leads a wide Republican presidential field fairly easily and most of his rivals have not used the indictment to attack him, a signal of the sway the former president still has over the Republican party.“The weaponization of federal law enforcement represents a mortal threat to a free society. We have for years witnessed an uneven application of the law depending upon political affiliation. Why so zealous in pursuing Trump yet so passive about Hillary or Hunter?” Florida’s rightwing governor, Ron DeSantis, tweeted on Thursday.A day later, in a speech in North Carolina, DeSantis, who is seen as Trump’s most serious rival, seemed a bit more willing to needle Trump, saying he would have been “court-martialed in a New York minute” if he had mishandled classified documents when he was a navy lawyer.DeSantis, who sits a distant second in the polls to Trump, was also endorsed by Oklahoma’s governor, Kevin Stitt, this week – his first gubernatorial endorsement in the race.Mike Pence, Trump’s former vice-president and another 2024 rival, said Attorney General Merrick Garland should have to publicly explain the charges.“Stop hiding behind the special counsel and stand before the American people and explain why this indictment went forward,” he said in a North Carolina speech on Saturday. Garland appointed a special counsel, Jack Smith, to oversee the case in November to ensure independence due to the political sensitivity of the matter.“I had hoped the Department of Justice would see its way clear to resolve these issues with the former president without moving forward with charges, and I’m deeply troubled to see this indictment move forward,” Pence said on Friday.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionOther 2024 candidates echoed those sentiments.Trump’s former US ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, also suggested the prosecution was political. “The American people are exhausted by the prosecutorial overreach, double standards, and vendetta politics,” she tweeted. “It’s time to move beyond the endless drama and distractions.”Tim Scott, the South Carolina senator, said the “scales are weighted” in the US justice system and pledged to “purge all of the injustices and impurities in our system”.But Chris Christie, the former New Jersey governor who is running for president and has willingly criticized Trump, called the indictment “devastating” and “evidence filled” on CNN on Friday.“The bigger issue for our country is: is this the type of conduct that we want from someone who wants to be president of the United States?” he said.Former Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson, also a sometimes vocal Trump critic running for president, called on Trump to drop out.“What we see in the facts thus far is that he treated [the documents] like entertainment tools,” he said. “Staying in the race does a disservice to the office of presidency and to the country and to the important decision that we have to make.”Trump is expected to appear on Tuesday at 3pm at the federal courthouse in Miami for an arraignment. The Secret Service is reportedly determining a plan for transporting Trump to the courthouse for the appearance, which is likely to be a spectacle. The case will at least initially be overseen by Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee who was rebuked by an appeals court for rulings favorable to the ex-president at an earlier point in the case.Trump already faces separate criminal charges in Manhattan over hush-money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels. More criminal charges could come this year from both the justice department and prosecutors in Atlanta related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.Even Trump, who survived two impeachments while president and has avoided accountability nearly his entire career, seemed to acknowledge his mounting legal woes.“Nobody wants to be indicted,” he told Politico. “I don’t care that my poll numbers went up by a lot. I don’t want to be indicted. I’ve never been indicted. I went through my whole life, now I get indicted every two months. It’s been political.” More

  • in

    Months of distrust inside Trump legal team led to top lawyer’s departure

    Donald Trump’s legal team for months has weathered deep distrust and interpersonal conflict that could undermine its defense of the former president as the criminal investigation into his handling of classified documents and obstruction of justice at Mar-a-Lago nears its conclusion.The turmoil inside the legal team only exploded into public view when one of the top lawyers, Tim Parlatore, abruptly resigned two weeks’ ago from the representation citing irreconcilable differences with Trump’s senior adviser and in-house counsel Boris Epshteyn.But the departure of Parlatore was the culmination of months of simmering tensions that continue to threaten the effectiveness of the legal team at a crucial time – as federal prosecutors weigh criminal charges – in part because the interpersonal conflicts remain largely unresolved.It also comes as multiple Trump lawyers are embroiled in numerous criminal investigations targeting the former president: Epshteyn was recently interviewed by the special counsel, while Parlatore and Trump lawyer Evan Corcoran testified to the grand jury in the classified documents inquiry.The turmoil has revolved around hostility among the lawyers on the legal team who have come to distrust each other as well as their hostility directed at Epshteyn, over what they regard as his oversight of the legal work and gatekeeping direct access to the former president.In one instance, the clashes became so acute that some of the lawyers agreed to a so-called “murder-suicide” pact where if one got fired, others would resign in solidarity. And as some of the lawyers tried to exclude Epshteyn, they withheld information from co-counsel who they suspected might brief him.The infighting eventually reached the point at which some of the lawyers started to believe the biggest impediment to defending Trump might just be the distrust and interpersonal conflict, rather than someone like Parlatore deciding to cooperate with prosecutors.In fact, the legal team is said to be confident that Parlatore will not flip on Trump after he told the grand jury hearing evidence in the case last year that Trump gave him free rein to search for any remaining documents at his properties last year, according to a transcript of his testimony.But an eventual attempt to remove Epshteyn from the case ended in failure, and Epshteyn remains a trusted member of Trump’s inner circle. The months of worsening relations that led to that moment were described to the Guardian by six people familiar with the situation.In a statement, a Trump spokesperson said: “This is completely false and is rooted in pure fantasy. The real story is the illegal weaponization of the Justice Department and their witch-hunts targeted to influence an election in order to try and prevent President Trump from returning to the White House.”The lawyers named in this story either declined to comment or did not respond to calls for comment.West Palm Beach dinner foreshadows divisivenessThe animosity inside the Trump legal team started almost immediately after the FBI seized 101 classified documents from Mar-a-Lago last August, when Trump’s lawyers asked a federal judge to appoint a special master to review the materials for any privilege protections.The legal team, at the time, was composed of former federal prosecutors Jim Trusty and Evan Corcoran – whose search for classified documents in response to a subpoena later proved incomplete – former Florida solicitor general Chris Kise and lawyer Lindsey Halligan.The lawyers presented a united front as they argued to US district court judge Aileen Cannon that she should grant a special master, which she did – a strategic win for Trump that enabled him to delay the criminal investigation and prosecutors’ ability to review the documents.But Trusty, who played a leading role in the special master litigation, was already frustrated with how things were going.Trusty’s private frame of mind emerged over dinner with Halligan and Corcoran at the five-star Breakers hotel in West Palm Beach, Florida, hours after the special master court hearing. The conversation was overheard by this Guardian reporter who happened to be sitting at the table next to them.Trusty’s main irritation with Epshteyn, as he recounted, was having to run his legal decisions by him even though he did not consider him a trial lawyer and objected to how, in his eyes, he gave more priority to Trump’s perceived PR problems than to genuine legal problems.He criticised Epshteyn for trying to “troubleshoot” those problems before they could reach Trump, instead of allowing him to straightforwardly brief the former president himself. The entire situation meant the lawyers were having to play “a game of thrones nonsense” that he found distracting.Trusty then discussed legal strategy, suggesting Kise was “too apologetic” in opening remarks to the judge and questioned the validity of the FBI warrant for Mar-a-Lago. He also said he had no interest in talking to reporters from the publication Lawfare or the New York Times on account of their coverage.Lawyers split over further searchesTrusty’s annoyance with Epshteyn for inserting himself into legal deliberations came to be shared by Parlatore several weeks later, when the justice department told the Trump legal team in October that it believed the former president still possessed classified documents.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe deliberations over how to respond to the department’s accusations split the legal team. Epshteyn and Kise were not in favor of doing voluntary searches of the Trump properties, while Parlatore and Trusty suggested a more proactive approach that involved new searches.Epshteyn and Kise for weeks were unconvinced. But Parlatore and Trusty reasoned that if they did find more classified documents but immediately returned them to the justice department, it would make it harder for prosecutors to say that Trump wilfully retained classified material.New searches of Trump’s properties did take place, though in Parlatore’s retelling of the deliberations to CNN last week, Epshteyn was reluctant to allow a search of Trump’s Bedminster golf club. Later, Trump lawyer Alina Habba was booked on CNN to dispute Parlatore’s account.But the episode also precipitated new distrust among the lawyers themselves, not just with Epshteyn. When the news about the justice department’s suspicions were reported, Parlatore and Trusty were surprised to see Kise portrayed as having always sought a cooperative approach with prosecutors.To Parlatore and Trusty, while Kise ultimately supported further searches, he was hardly the leading voice. And when Kise pulled out of arguing before the US court of appeals for the 11th circuit to keep the special master with 24 hours’ notice, they had him exiled to the civil litigation team.Lawyers stage Mar-a-Lago interventionWith Kise gone from the team defending Trump in special counsel matters, Parlatore and Trusty’s interpersonal conflicts with Epshteyn reached new levels as they grew increasingly annoyed at what they considered their inability to directly consult Trump without having to go through Epshteyn.The pair chafed that when they spoke to Trump on the phone, Epshteyn was typically also on the line. At other times, they sniped that Epshteyn would give overly rosy outlooks to Trump and, in March, travelled to Mar-a-Lago to seek Trump’s permission to exclude him from future deliberations.It was not clear whether the issue was actually resolved. Parlatore came away from the meeting content that he no longer needed to speak to Epshteyn. However, Epshteyn remained Trump’s in-house counsel and the legal team’s liaison with the Trump 2024 campaign.Around that time, Parlatore and Trusty also started withholding information from Corcoran because they worried that Corcoran was too close to Epshteyn and was briefing him behind their backs.That meant that as the special counsel intensified the documents investigation, after prosecutors convinced a US appeals court to force Corcoran to turn over his notes to a grand jury, at least two members of the legal team had little to no visibility into what the other two lawyers were doing unless they found out another way.Personal conflicts explode publiclyAround that time, Trump advisers and lawyers started to hear murmurs about whether Parlatore and Trusty should continue in their roles. When the pair heard about his inquiries, they resolved that if one of them actually got fired, the other should also resign.The animosity had also been increasing as the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, prepared to charge Trump in the hush money case and Parlatore insisted to Epshteyn that celebrity lawyer Joe Tacopina – whom he detested related to a prior case – should not be on the team defending the former president.Epshteyn suggested it was not in his control because Tacopina was recommended by others in Trump’s orbit, including Kimberly Guilfoyle – which Parlatore interpreted as a snub.Parlatore also had a misstep when he and Trusty last month urged Congress in a letter to tell the justice department to “stand down” its criminal investigation in the documents matter, laying out a detailed defence that claimed in part that responsibility lay with aides instead of Trump himself.The 10-page letter was sent to Trump and they believed it had the former president’s approval. But Trump was furious days later when he saw that the language in the letter cast doubt on his previous public statements about how White House and classified documents ended up at Mar-a-Lago.Parlatore had also decided against giving Epshteyn advance warning about the letter, which some on the Trump campaign used as an example of why the legal team needed his supervision.But the proximate cause of Parlatore’s departure was a row over discussing the letter on CNN. Parlatore had made a point of appearing on the network because he figured the attorney general, Merrick Garland, was more likely to watch CNN than a conservative network like Newsmax.Exactly who ordered Parlatore’s appearance to be cancelled remains unclear, though the Trump 2024 campaign later told the lawyers it was because he criticized Tacopina the last time he was on CNN. As the special counsel investigation neared its end, Parlatore told Trump he had enough and quit. More

  • in

    Schumer decries Republican senator’s ‘revolting’ remarks on white nationalists

    The Democratic US Senate leader, Chuck Schumer, condemned as “utterly revolting” remarks in which the Alabama Republican Tommy Tuberville appeared to defend white nationalists in the US military.In an interview with the Alabama station WBHM, published on Monday, Tuberville was asked: “Do you believe they should allow white nationalists in the military?”He answered: “Well, they call them that. I call them Americans.”The Senate armed forces committee member added: “We are losing in the military so fast. And why? I can tell you why. Because the Democrats are attacking our military, saying we need to get out the white extremists, the white nationalists, people that don’t believe in our agenda, as Joe Biden’s agenda.”Tuberville is currently attempting to impose his own agenda on the US military, by blocking promotions and appointments in protest of Pentagon rules about abortion access.On Thursday, Schumer said: “Does Senator Tuberville honestly believe that our military is stronger with white nationalists in its ranks? I cannot believe this needs to be said, but white nationalism has no place in our armed forces and no place in any corner of American society, period, full stop, end of story.”Previously, Sherrilyn Ifill, a former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) legal defense fund, said: “I hope we are not getting so numb that we refrain from demanding that Mr Tuberville’s colleagues in the Senate condemn his remarks.”Schumer added: “I urge Senator Tuberville to think about the destructive spectacle he is creating in the Senate. His actions are dangerous.”On Wednesday, a spokesperson for Tuberville said he was “being skeptical of the notion that there are white nationalists in the military, not that he believes they should be in the military”.A Tuberville spokesperson told the Washington Post the senator “resents the implication that the people in our military are anything but patriots and heroes”.The same spokesperson told NBC Tuberville “has kind of a sarcastic sense of humor” and “was expressing doubt about this being a problem in the military”.Reports have shown the US military has a problem with white nationalism and white supremacy, despite the Pentagon having prohibited “active participation” in extremist groups since 1996.In October 2020, a Pentagon report warning of a problem with white supremacists in the military was sent to Congress. It was released in 2021.In February 2022, the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors extremism, co-published documents showing one in five applicants to one white supremacist group claimed ties to the US military.On Thursday, Adam Hodge, spokesperson for the White House national security council, said it was “abhorrent that Senator Tuberville would argue that white nationalists should be allowed to serve in the military, while he also threatens our national security by holding all pending DoD military and civilian nominations.“Extremist behavior has no place in our military. None.”Fact-checking Tuberville, WBHM, an NPR station, noted Pentagon efforts “to keep extremists, particularly fascists, out of the military”.The station also fact-checked a remark about “what [Joe Biden’s] done to our military with the woke ideas, with the [critical race theory] that we’re teaching in our military”.Critical race theory is an academic discipline that examines the ways in which racism operates in US laws and society. Republicans have turned it into an electoral wedge issue.WBHM said: “The US military is not requiring that CRT be taught and there is little evidence that it’s being discussed much at all in the ranks. According to Military Times, the one instance in which it is being used in an educational setting is at the US Military Academy at West Point.” More

  • in

    The Last Honest Man: Frank Church and the fight to restrain US power

    Frank Forrester Church sat in the US Senate for 24 years. His tenure was consequential. A Democrat, he battled for civil rights and came to oppose the Vietnam war. He believed Americans were citizens, not subjects. Chairing the intelligence select committee was his most enduring accomplishment. James Risen, a Pulitzer-winning reporter now with the Intercept, sees him as a hero. The Last Honest Man is both paean and lament.“For decades … the CIA’s operations faced only glancing scrutiny from the White House, and virtually none from Congress,” Risen writes. “True oversight would have to wait until 1975, and the arrival on the national stage of a senator from Idaho, Frank Church.”For 16 months, Church and his committee scrutinized the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and their many abuses. Amid the cold war, in the aftermath of Vietnam and Watergate, Congress grappled with the balance between civil liberties and national security, executive prerogative and congressional authority.Political assassinations, covert operations and domestic surveillance finally received scrutiny and oversight. A plot to kill Fidel Castro, with an assist from organized crime, made headlines. So did the personal ties that bound John F Kennedy, mob boss Sam Giancana and their shared mistress, Judith Campbell Exner.Giancana was murdered before he testified. Before John Rosselli, another mobster, could make a third appearance, his decomposed body turned up in a steel fuel drum near Miami.One subheading in the Church committee’s interim report bears the title: “The Question of Whether the Assassination Operation Involving Underworld Figures Was Known About by Attorney General Kennedy or President Kennedy as Revealed by Investigations of Giancana and Rosselli”.Against this grizzly but intriguing backdrop, Risen’s book is aptly subtitled: The CIA, the FBI, the Mafia, and the Kennedys – And One Senator’s Fight to Save Democracy. The Last Honest Man is a gem, marbled with scoop, laden with interviews.In 2006, Risen won the Pulitzer prize for his coverage of George W Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program. Risen was also part of the New York Times team that snagged a Pulitzer in the aftermath of September 11. He endured a seven-year legal battle with the Bush and Obama justice departments, for refusing to name a source. Eric Holder, Barack Obama’s attorney general, backed off. But he earned Risen’s lasting ire.In 2015, Risen called the Obama administration “the greatest enemy of press freedom in a generation”. Holder, he said, “has done the bidding of the intelligence community and the White House to damage press freedom in the United States”.And then came Donald Trump.Risen now describes Dick Cheney’s efforts to block Church’s committee, as chief of staff to Gerald Ford. To Cheney’s consternation, the president “refused to engage in an all-out war”. So Cheney nursed a grudge and bided his time.In 1987, Cheney and congressional Republicans issued a dissent on Iran-Contra, blaming the Church committee for the concept of “all but unlimited congressional power”. Later, as vice-president to George W Bush, Cheney zestily embraced the theory of the unitary executive, the global “war on terror” and the invasion of Iraq.The Last Honest Man also doubles as a guide to high-stakes politics. Risen captures Gary Hart and the late Walter Mondale on the record. Both Democratic presidential hopefuls – Mondale the candidate in 1984, Hart the frontrunner, briefly, in the 1988 race – after sitting on Church’s committee. The three senators were competitors and colleagues. Paths and ambitions intersected.Church entered the 1976 Democratic presidential primary late – and lost to Jimmy Carter. Carter weighed picking Church as his running mate but opted for Mondale instead.“I think he had seen me on a Sunday news talk show, talking about the Church committee, and he liked how I looked and sounded,” Mondale told Risen.It was for the best. Church never cottoned to Carter, failing hide his disdain. Carter and his aides returned the favor. They “hated Church right back”. David Aaron, a Church aide and later deputy to Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter’s national security adviser, recalls: “I know that whenever Church’s name came up, Brzezinski would grimace.”In 1980, Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush beat Carter and Mondale in a landslide. The election also cost Church his seat and the Democrats control of the Senate. Four years later, Mondale bested Hart for the Democratic nomination, only to be shellacked by Reagan-Bush again.Daniel Ellsberg, the Pentagon Papers whistleblower, leaves his mark on Risen’s pages too. He played a “previously undisclosed role in the Church committee’s investigation of the assassinations of foreign leaders”, Risen reports in a lengthy footnote.In an interview, Ellsberg says he “met privately” with Church in 1975, as the committee investigated assassination plots. In Risen’s telling, Ellsberg cops to handing Church “a manilla envelope containing copies of a series of top-secret cables” between the US embassy in South Vietnam and “the Kennedy White House”.The messages purportedly pertained to the “US role in the planning of the 1963 coup against South Vietnamese president [Ngô Đình] Diệm that resulted in his assassination”. The Church committee interim report referred to cable traffic between the embassy in Saigon and the White House but contained no mention of Ellsberg.In other words, assassinations and coups carry a bipartisan legacy. It wasn’t just Eisenhower and Nixon, Iran and Chile.Risen hails Church as “an American Cicero” who “offered the United States a brief glimpse of what it would be like to turn away from its imperialistic ambitions … and return to its roots as a republic”.He overstates, but not by much. Iraq and its aftermath still reverberate. But for that debacle, it is unlikely Trumpism would have attained the purchase it still possesses. Our national divide would not be as deep – or intractable. Church died in April 1984, aged just 59.
    The Last Honest Man: The CIA, the FBI, the Mafia, and the Kennedys – And One Senator’s Fight to Save Democracy is published in the US by Hachette More