More stories

  • in

    Trump lawyers reject US government’s arguments against special master – as it happened

    Lawyers for former president Donald Trump have submitted their counterargument to the justice department’s attempt to halt a federal judge’s order preventing them from reviewing documents taken from Mar-a-Lago.The filing is the latest in the squabble over the special master Trump wants appointed to sift through the documents, which the government has objected to because it stops them from reading the materials seized from the former president’s south Florida estate.You can read the filing here. The legal battle over documents seized by the government from Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort continued, with the former president’s lawyers rejecting the justice department’s efforts to convince a federal judge to let them continue reviewing the materials. The filing avoided questions of whether what was taken was indeed protected – despite Trump’s assertions that he had declassified everything that was found before leaving office.Here’s a rundown of what else happened today:
    Trump also rejected the justice department’s nominees for special master, though declined to say why publicly.
    Republicans are considering investigating the security failures that led up to the January 6 attack if they win control of the House.
    Democratic candidates are polling strongly in some swing states – but an analysis from The New York Times warns it could be an illusion.
    A new poll indicates sizable minorities of Americans would be ok with unelected leaders, and many would also be ok with the government overruling minority ethnicities and religions.
    Democrats have spent almost $19 million across eight states in controversial efforts to promote rightwing Republican candidates, believing them to be weaker in the November midterm elections.
    Meanwhile in Congress, lawmakers may be back in Washington but not much has happened – yet.The Senate will soon confirm president Joe Biden’s 80th judicial nominee, CNN reports, as Democrats look to make their mark on the federal judiciary:After Salvador Mendoza is confirmed today to the Ninth Circuit, he will be the 80th Biden judicial nominee confirmed — something Schumer just said amounts to more than Trump, Obama, George W. Bush at similar points in their presidencies— Manu Raju (@mkraju) September 12, 2022
    The chamber’s Democratic leader Chuck Schumer has also confirmed that work is ongoing on a new government funding bill, and on finding 10 GOP senators willing to sign on to a bill codifying same-sex marriage rights, according to Politico:Schumer updates: Senate on verge of confirming 80th judge of Biden presidencyBipartisan group still working on same-sex marriage bill, trying to get GOP votesWork ongoing on bill to fund government past Sept. 30— Burgess Everett (@burgessev) September 12, 2022
    “If you thought Fulton was a good county to bring your crime to, to bring your violence to, you are wrong.” So declares Fani Willis, the district attorney in Georgia’s Fulton County, in the opening lines of a profile published in The New York Times. While the statement was made in the context of a gang racketeering case, the piece makes clear it could also be said about Donald Trump and the people from Georgia and elsewhere who helped in his attempt to meddle with the state’s 2020 election result. Willis has convened the special grand jury that is investigating that campaign, which has subpoenaed Trump allies including attorney Rudy Giuliani, Republican senator Lindsey Graham and others. The piece doesn’t contain much new details about what the grand jurors have learned, but it makes clear the scope of the ongoing investigation, which some analysts have warned is a source of legal peril for the former president.Here’s more from the profile:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}In recent weeks, Ms. Willis has called dozens of witnesses to testify before a special grand jury investigating efforts to undo Mr. Trump’s defeat, including a number of prominent pro-Trump figures who traveled, against their will, from other states. It was long arm of the law stuff, and it emphasized how her investigation, though playing out more than 600 miles from Washington, D.C., is no sideshow.
    Rather, the Georgia inquiry has emerged as one of the most consequential legal threats to the former president, and it is already being shaped by Ms. Willis’s distinct and forceful personality and her conception of how a local prosecutor should do her job. Her comfort in the public eye stands in marked contrast to the low-key approach of another Trump legal pursuer, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland.
    Ms. Willis, 50, a Democrat, is the first Black woman to lead Georgia’s largest district attorney’s office. In her 19 years as a prosecutor, she has led more than 100 jury trials and handled hundreds of murder cases. Since she became chief prosecutor, her office’s conviction rate has stood at close to 90 percent, according to a spokesperson.
    Her experience is the source of her confidence, which appears unshaken by the scrutiny — and criticism — the Trump case has brought.There’s been a new development in the ongoing legal wrangling over the FBI’s search of Mar-a-Lago and the documents found there. As The Guardian’s Hugo Lowell reports, Trump’s attorneys have objected to the candidates for special master proposed by the justice department:New: Trump objects to proposed Special Master candidates proposed by DOJ — says it would offer rationale to judge privately https://t.co/1zfTaUzUt6— Hugo Lowell (@hugolowell) September 12, 2022
    Trump objects even to former US district court judge Barbara Jones, who was the special master in the Michael Cohen case in 2018 and Rudy Giuliani in 2021— Hugo Lowell (@hugolowell) September 12, 2022
    Last week, a federal judge granted Trump’s request for a special master to review documents taken by the FBI from Mar-a-Lago to screen for privileged material. The decision stopped the government’s ability to review the seized documents, and the justice department is appealing it.Twenty-one years after 9/11, CBS News reports that five of the defendants held at Guantanamo Bay for alleged involvement in the attacks are negotiating plea deals with the government.The defendants have been incarcerated for years due to disputes over what evidence can be used in the court and, more recently, the Covid-19 pandemic. Plea deals would resolve several of their cases and likely result in lengthy jail sentences, but CBS reports some relatives of those killed in the attack oppose such agreements. “The families are outraged,” said Debra Burlingame, whose brother was among those killed when hijackers steered his plane into the Pentagon.Here’s more from CBS:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}The chief defendant is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-described architect of 9/11. The other four defendants are Ramzi Binalshibh, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, Walid bin Attash and Ammar al-Baluchi.
    The possibility of a plea deal has angered the families of some 9/11 victims, including Debra Burlingame, whose brother, pilot Charles “Chic” Burlingame, was killed when al Qaeda terrorists took over his plane, American Airlines Flight 77, and crashed it into the Pentagon.
    “We didn’t have remains for weeks,” his sister Debra Burlingame told CBS News. “We were constantly saying to each other, ‘What would Chic want? What would Chic do?’”
    Burlingame said she has been in touch with other 9/11 families.
    “The families are outraged,” she said of the possibility of plea deals. “They don’t want closure, they want justice.”
    Another group, 9/11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, has said that a guilty plea and agreement not to appeal the sentence “would be partly in recognition of the torture each of the defendants experienced” and bring “some measure of judicial finality.”
    “All five defendants and the government are all engaged in good faith negotiations, with the idea of bringing this trial which has become a forever trial to an end,” said James Connell, a defense attorney for al-Baluchi.
    “Mr. al-Baluchi’s number one priority is obtaining medical care for his torture,” Connell continued. “In order to get that medical care, he is willing to plead guilty to a substantial sentence at Guantanamo in exchange for a guarantee of medical care and dropping the death penalty.The Democratic candidate for Senate in Pennsylvania has put abortion at the center of his pitch to voters, in the latest sign the party is banking on the supreme court’s overturning of Roe v Wade to drum up support in the midterms. Richard Luscombe reports:John Fetterman has placed abortion rights at the top of his agenda to capture Pennsylvania’s Senate seat in November, telling supporters at a raucous rally on Sunday: “Women are the reason we can win. Don’t piss off women.”The Democrat was targeting comments made by his Republican opponent Mehmet Oz in May that abortion at any stage of pregnancy was “murder”.Oz, in keeping with a recent trend among Republican candidates, has attempted to soften his extremist position as the fall’s midterm elections draw closer, insisting that he now believes in exceptions for rape, incest and the health of the woman.But Oz’s rival was uncompromising in his criticism during Sunday’s rally at a community college in rural Pennsylvania attended by several thousand supporters, including a large number of women in pink “Fetterwoman” T-shirts.‘Women are the reason we can win,’ John Fetterman says at Pennsylvania rallyRead moreThe justice department has brought charges against a Texas woman who left threatening voice messages on the phone of a judge involved in disputes around documents taken by the FBI from Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort, Reuters reports.“Donald Trump has been disqualified long ago, and he’s marked for assassination. You’re helping him, ma’am,” said one of the voicemails, which was allegedly left by Tiffani Shea Gish of the Houston area for Aileen Cannon, a US district judge in Fort Pierce, Florida. Cannon, who was appointed to the bench by Trump, last week granted his request for a special master to review documents taken from Mar-a-Lago as part of the government’s investigation into whether the former president unlawfully retained government secrets.Here’s more from Reuters’ report:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Gish faces two criminal charges – influencing a federal official by threat and interstate communications with a threat to kidnap or injure.
    Cannon, who was appointed to the bench in 2020 by Trump, ruled last week that she was granting the former president’s request over the Justice Department’s objections to install a “special master” to review the seized records to weed out possibly privileged materials.
    The complaint said that on Sept. 3, Cannon forwarded three separate voicemails from Gish, who referred to herself in some of them as “Evelyn Salt,” to the U.S. Marshals Service.
    “Donald Trump has been disqualified long ago, and he’s marked for assassination. You’re helping him, ma’am,” one of the voicemails said, according to the complaint.
    “He’s marked for assassination and so are you,” the caller also said, while including an expletive.
    After FBI agents identified a cellphone number associated with the voicemails, they interviewed Gish at her home, the complaint stated. The FBI said she admitted to leaving the voicemails and confirmed that the number belonged to her and no one else had access to the cellphone.One of the most controversial electoral tactics Democrats have deployed recently is spending money to elevate rightwing candidates in Republican primaries, the logic being that more extreme nominees will hurt the GOP in the November midterm elections.The Washington Post has tallied the money spent on these candidates in an analysis released today, and found it adds up to almost $19 million across eight states, but could go up to $53 million if spending in Illinois is factored in. In that state, Democrats spent massively to help a Republican who said party leaders in the state should not have told Donald Trump to leave the White House when his term was up.The tactic is controversial because it could backfire and result in Republicans who hold extreme views – such as that the 2020 election was stolen – elected to major offices in the November midterms.Here’s more from the Post’s story:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}The approach often involves TV ads suggesting that a far-right GOP candidate is too conservative for a state or district and drawing attention to the candidate’s hard line views on abortion, guns and former president Donald Trump — messages that resonate with conservative primary voters. In other cases, Democrats have run ads attacking GOP candidates seen as tougher to defeat in general elections in ways that could erode support for them in Republican primaries.
    Total Democratic spending rises to roughly $53 million when a ninth state, Illinois, is added. There, the Democratic Governors Association and the campaign of Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) spent a combined $34.5 million successfully elevating a GOP candidate who has said it was “appalling” that party leaders in Illinois wanted Trump to concede the 2020 election.
    Some Democrats explain their actions by saying they are simply getting a jump on attacking Republican candidates for the general election, while others openly acknowledge trying to secure weaker competition in the fall. But there is little dispute about the effect of altering the Republican primaries in ways that could affect the November matchups.
    As primary season nears its Tuesday endpoint, Democrats are giving the strategy one more try in New Hampshire, in two congressional races. In the Republican Senate primary, Senate Majority PAC, a group aligned with Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), is spending $3.2 million on ads that effectively enhance the candidacy in the GOP primary of ret. Gen. Don Bolduc, by portraying his more moderate rival, state Senate President Chuck Morse, who has trailed in GOP primary polls to Bolduc, as beholden to the party establishment.Neck and neck in Ohio senateIt is only one poll but a recent survey in the Ohio senate race shows Democrat Tim Ryan basically level with right-wing Trump ally and famous author JD Vance. Ohio is a state has has been drifting more red and so the news fits in with a revival of Democrat fortunes over the past month.The Hill has more details: A USA TODAY Network Ohio/Suffolk University poll released Monday found 47 percent of Ohio general election voters said they would vote or lean toward Ryan if the Senate election were held today, while 46 percent said they could back Vance.Six percent of respondents in the poll said they were undecided, while 1 percent said they would support someone else. The slim margin between the two leading candidates falls within the poll’s margin of error of 4.4 percentage points.The legal battle over documents seized by the government from Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort continued, with the former president’s lawyers rejecting the justice department’s efforts to convince a federal judge to let them continue reviewing the materials. The filing avoided questions of whether what was taken was indeed protected – despite Trump’s assertions that he had declassified everything that was found before leaving office.Here’s a rundown of what else happened today:
    Republicans are considering investigating the security failures that led up to the January 6 attack if they win control of the House.
    Democratic candidates are polling strongly in some swing states – but an analysis from The New York Times warns it could be an illusion.
    A new poll indicates sizable minorities of Americans would be ok with unelected leaders, and many would also be ok with the government overruling minority ethnicities and religions.
    Ukraine is planning to ask Washington for more long-distance weapons to continue its offensive into Russian-held territory, including a missile system its ally had held off on providing for fears it could provoke Moscow, The Wall Street Journal reports.Citing a document shared with US lawmakers, the Journal reports Ukraine will ask for 29 types of weapons and ammunition systems, including anti-ship missiles, drones and tanks. It will also ask for the Army Tactical Missile System, a long-range weapon that Washington fears could be used to strike Russian territory and start a war with Ukraine’s western allies.Here’s more from the Journal’s report:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}The Biden administration, which has dispatched more than $15 billion worth of weapons and other security assistance to Ukraine, has declined to provide that system over concerns Ukraine could use it to strike Russian territory and spark a wider conflict with the West.
    Ukraine’s list of requirements for “offensive operations” includes 29 types of weapon systems and ammunition. Among them are tanks, drones, artillery systems; more Harpoon antiship missiles; and 2,000 missiles for the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, or Himars, which the United States began providing earlier this year.
    Ukraine’s requests come as its forces have routed Russian troops in northeastern Ukraine.
    It follows the recent publication of a strategy statement by Valeriy Zaluzhny, the commander in chief of Ukraine’s force, and Mykhailo Zabrodsky, a member of the Ukrainian parliament and a senior military officer who led the most significant Ukrainian counterattack in the 2014 war with Russia.
    They argued that Russia has long-range cruise missiles that greatly outdistance the systems in the Ukrainian inventory. A turning point could come if the Ukrainians also had longer-range systems, they argued, specifically mentioning the ATACMS.Trump may be in hot water, legally speaking, for allegedly taking government secrets with him when he left the White House, but as Ramon Antonio Vargas reports, a new book reveals he never wanted to leave in the first place:In the days after Joe Biden defeated him in the 2020 election, Donald Trump told an aide he was “just not going to leave” the White House, according to a new book on his presidency and its chaotic aftermath.“We’re never leaving,” he vowed to another aide, says the book from New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman titled Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America. “How can you leave when you won an election?”CNN, where Haberman also serves as a political analyst, said Monday it reviewed reporting for the book – set for a 4 October release – and published new details on Trump’s insistence that he intended to stay at the White House despite his electoral loss to Biden.Trump threatened not to leave White House after election loss, book saysRead more More

  • in

    NSA analyst jailed for life for selling US secrets to Soviets dies aged 80

    NSA analyst jailed for life for selling US secrets to Soviets dies aged 80Ronald Pelton, convicted of espionage in 1986, said he accepted money from America’s cold war enemy because he was desperate A former National Security Agency analyst who was arguably its most damaging traitor and became famous for aiding the Soviets during the cold war died last week, according to an obituary posted on the website of a Maryland funeral home.Ronald William Pelton was 80.Pelton was an NSA intelligence communications specialist who, in November 1985, was arrested for selling government secrets to the Soviet Union. He spent about three decades in prison before he completed serving his sentence in 2015.Pelton’s crimes included selling defense and communication secrets for upwards of $35,000. His most notable breach of trust was informing Soviet intelligence of “Operation Ivy Bells”, a plan put forward by the NSA and the US navy to tap the Soviets’ underwater communication cables.He worked for the NSA for 14 years and retired in 1979, after which he approached the Soviet embassy in Washington to sell government secrets. Pelton’s lawyer said he had betrayed the US because he had fallen on hard financial times and was desperate.At the time, Peloton was making $24,500 a year, which – accounting for inflation – is an estimated $100,000 today.A Soviet KGB agent who had defected reported Pelton to investigators, setting the stage for his prosecution.Despite asking for leniency, Pelton was given three life sentences, plus another 10 years to be served at the same time.“I could at least make the rest of my life count,” Pelton pleaded. His pleas were denied.He was freed from his sentence after stints at a halfway house and then under home confinement.A federal judge said Pelton committed “one of the most serious offenses in the US criminal code”.Pelton’s lawyer in the case, Fred Warren Bennett, called his client’s act of espionage “the biggest mistake of his life”.On his obituary page, Pelton’s daughter Pamela Wright commented: “When I was 19, he left and didn’t return until I was nearly 50. During that span of time there was almost no communication. I grew up. Had a family. Went to college and gained a professional career. Had grandchildren. I lived my life without him.“When he came back, he was quieter. More mellow. With many regrets.”TopicsNSAUS politicsRussianewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Trump lawyers urge judge to block DoJ’s bid to access Mar-a-Lago documents

    Trump lawyers urge judge to block DoJ’s bid to access Mar-a-Lago documentsEx-president’s team reiterates request for special master to review seized materials and asks judge to uphold earlier order Lawyers for Donald Trump asked a federal judge on Monday to deny the justice department’s request to regain access to some documents the FBI seized from the former president’s Mar-a-Lago resort and restart the criminal investigation into his unauthorized retention of government documents.The response from the Trump legal team reiterated that it wanted a so-called special master to review all of the seized materials, asking the judge to uphold her earlier order barring prosecutors from using the documents in a criminal investigation until the process was complete.But in the 21-page filing, Trump’s lawyers interpreted the Presidential Records Act in sometimes unusual ways, and accused the justice department of criminalizing what they considered a dispute between Trump and the National Archives about how documents should be handled.“In what at its core is a document storage dispute that has spiraled out of control,” the response from the Trump legal team said, “the government wrongfully seeks to criminalize the possession by the 45th president of his own presidential and personal records.”The fight over the documents Trump took to his Florida resort has become a protracted and increasingly tangled fight. But at its heart is the treatment of secret government files, some of which have been reported to be highly sensitive, even involving nuclear secrets.Democrats and others have argued that Trump has behaved outrageously in relation to the documents and that the case should end with a prosecution. Trump and his defenders have played down the affair, characterizing it as either politically motivated or blown out of proportion.Trump’s lawyers appeared to principally advance the argument that the justice department’s request last week to US district judge Aileen Cannon to regain access to about 100 documents marked classified should not be granted, because Trump may have secretly declassified those documents.The justice department had asked in its request that prosecutors be allowed to resume working with the 100 documents as documents marked classified could never be personal or presidential records, and Trump therefore had no “possessory interest” – the key legal standard – in the materials.It also complained that the documents marked classified needed to be reviewed by the FBI, a division of the justice department, in the risk assessment being conducted by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which has been halted because officials were unsure about the scope of Cannon’s order.The FBI seized from Mar-a-Lago about 11,000 documents and 48 empty folders marked classified. The risk assessment into the empty folders, for instance, was to be completed by the FBI – but Cannon’s order threw that review into limbo, the justice department said.But in the new filing, Trump’s lawyers – without explicitly stating so – suggested that the special master needed to examine those 100 documents for potential privilege protections before prosecutors or the FBI could look at them, because Trump may have declassified them.The question about whether the documents seized from Mar-a-Lago marked classified – even after Trump’s lawyers represented to the government it had complied with a subpoena demanding any documents marked classified – were actually declassified has become a central issue in the case.For weeks, Trump and his allies have claimed the documents marked classified stored at Mar-a-Lago were declassified subject to a “standing declassification order” – though his lawyers have never actually said this in court filings, which require statements to be wholly truthful.The latest filing from the Trump legal team, as with previous court submissions, once more danced around whether Trump actually declassified the materials without cutting either way, and left unclear whether he had actually designated some of the seized materials personal records.Trump’s lawyers in essence appeared to be making the sort of arguments criminal defense attorneys might make in a motion to suppress after a client has been indicted, rather than in a typical fourth amendment claim pre-indictment, former US attorney suggested.The Trump legal team in the filing offered a particularly unusual reading of the Presidential Records Act, on which the entire legal argument is based, claiming the provision that says the National Archives “shall” become the custodian of presidential records, did not mean that it “must”.TopicsUS newsDonald TrumpUS politicsFBInewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Trump threatened not to leave White House after election loss, book says

    Trump threatened not to leave White House after election loss, book saysDefeated president told aide ‘we’re never leaving’ despite Biden’s win, according to new book Confidence Man In the days after Joe Biden defeated him in the 2020 election, Donald Trump told an aide he was “just not going to leave” the White House, according to a new book on his presidency and its chaotic aftermath.“We’re never leaving,” he vowed to another aide, says the book from New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman titled Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America. “How can you leave when you won an election?”CNN, where Haberman also serves as a political analyst, said Monday it reviewed reporting for the book – set for a 4 October release – and published new details on Trump’s insistence that he intended to stay at the White House despite his electoral loss to Biden.The book reports Trump being overheard whining and asking Republican National Committee chairperson Ronna McDaniel: “Why should I leave if they stole it from me?”None of Trump’s predecessors had ever threatened to remain at the White House after the end of their presidencies. The only remotely close parallel was the former first lady Mary Todd Lincoln, who remained at the White House for a few weeks after the assassination of her husband, Abraham Lincoln, in April 1865, Haberman’s book adds.Trump’s private bluster about refusing to move out of the White House contradicted public statements he made to reporters less than a month after the election that he would “certainly” leave if Biden’s victory over him was certified.“I will, and you know that,” Trump said, though he insisted electoral fraudsters had robbed him of beating Biden.Additionally, Haberman’s book portrays Trump as picking the brains of virtually everyone in his orbit for their thoughts on his camp’s ideas on how to keep him in the Oval Office despite Biden’s win. Among those consulted was the valet who would ferry Diet Cokes to Trump whenever he pressed a red button on the presidential desk in the Oval Office, according to the book.Trump, of course, eventually relented and moved out on the same day as Biden’s inauguration, sparing authorities from having to forcibly escort him out of the White House at the behest of the new president.Trump supporters who bought his lies that he’d been defrauded of victory in the 2020 race staged the deadly US Capitol attack on January 6 the following year. A bipartisan Senate committee report linked seven deaths to the violence that day, which was aimed at preventing the congressional certification of Biden’s victory.Federal prosecutors later filed criminal charges against more than 800 participants, many of whom have already been convicted and sentenced to prison.A bipartisan House committee earlier this year held a series of public hearings making the case that – among other things – Trump apparently violated federal law when he ignored pleas to take action that would halt his supporters’ assault on the Capitol.Later on Monday, the New York Times reported that the justice department has issued about 40 subpoenas over the past week seeking information about the actions of Trump and his associates related to the January 6 attack. Two of Trump’s advisers have had their phones seized, the Times reported, citing sources.The FBI in August also searched Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida after agents say they found evidence that the ousted president was retaining government secrets there without authorization. From Mar-a-Lago, the FBI seized about 11,000 documents and 48 empty folders emblazoned with classified markings.Trump had not been charged with any crimes as Confidence Man’s release date neared.TopicsUS politicsDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Pan-Arabism Returns to the Middle East

    The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media. More

  • in

    With Queen Elizabeth gone, a New Elizabeth Takes Center Stage

    The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media. More

  • in

    US trio jailed by Iran and accused of espionage sue former captors

    US trio jailed by Iran and accused of espionage sue former captorsSarah Shourd, Shane Bauer and Josh Fattal held for more than a year after being stopped while hiking along Iraqi border in 2009 Three Americans who were jailed by Iran for more than a year and accused of being spies while hiking along the border with Iraq are suing their former captors, hoping to persuade a judge to award them damages for the torture they say they endured.The lawsuit being pursued by Sarah Shourd, her ex-husband and fellow journalist Shane Bauer, and their friend Josh Fattal is being overseen by federal judge Richard Leon in Washington, who in 2019 ordered Iran to pay Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian $180m for imprisoning him for more than a year on false espionage charges.Any damages that Shourd, Bauer, Fattal and their families might receive through their lawsuit would come out of Iranian government assets that the US has seized through sanctions as part of the congressional Justice for Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund.Adding to the intrigue of a saga that began back in 2009 is that Shourd and Bauer had publicly presented themselves as opponents of US sanctions against Iran after they were freed. In 2016, he had called such penalties “totally irresponsible” and she had said they hit “the poorest of Iranians the hardest”.Attorneys for the former couple and Fattal did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment, and neither did the Pakistani embassy in Washington DC, which represents Iran’s interests in the US.The lawsuit recounts how Shourd and Bauer moved to Yemen and then Syria in 2008 while dating because they wanted to continue practicing their Arabic language skills while Shourd engaged in anti-war activism and Bauer supported himself through freelance journalism.Fettel visited them in July of the following year and accompanied them on a hike to a waterfall in Iraqi Kurdistan that was popular with tourists. During that hike, they apparently crossed into Iran without realizing it, and a group of soldiers whom they mistook for Iraqis stopped them to rummage through their hiking gear, cameras, wallets and passports, the lawsuit said.The soldiers forced the hikers into a sport-utility vehicle and drove them around for three days while the Americans feared they would be executed at any moment. They were eventually brought blindfolded into the infamous Evin prison in the capital, Tehran, and held in small, sparse cells.The prisoners were interrogated in a manner that seemed aimed at trying to get them they were US spies, the lawsuits contend. Bauer was asked if he was an employee of the US mercenary firm Blackwater or whether he could use his training as a journalist to write newspaper articles for the guards. Shourd faced questions about whether she’d ever visited the Pentagon – she had not – and if she was on a US government mission.At one point, a guard told Bauer that he knew the American wasn’t a spy. “But … it was up to the US government and the Iranian government to negotiate his release,” the guard added, according to the lawsuit.The plaintiffs’ lawsuit recounts how they often heard the screams of other prisoners who were being tortured, making them fear that they would be next.Bauer, Fattal and Shourd were all held in isolation, where they described barely clinging on to their sanity. Eventually, Bauer and Fattal were put together in one cell, the lawsuit said – but Shourd remained alone, denied treatment for a breast lump, precancerous cervical cells and other health problems.The Iranian regime let Shourd free in September 2010, holding up her release as an act of clemency honoring the end of Ramadan after the intervention of the country’s president at the time, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.Bauer and Fattal were released a year later, apparently as a gesture meant to curry favor for Ahmadinejad as he prepared to fly to New York to attend a United Nations general assembly meeting. At the time, the Obama White House issued a statement saying: “All Americans join their families and friends in celebrating their long-awaited return home.”The three described experiencing symptoms of post-traumatic stress after returning to the US, making it difficult for them to readjust to their lives there. Shourd and Bauer – whose work has appeared in publications such as the New York Times and Mother Jones – married near the ocean in California in 2012. They divorced seven years later.Family members of theirs also reported suffering high levels of distress not knowing whether their efforts to bring Shourd, Bauer and Fattal back to them alive would work.Alongside her mother, Shourd sued the Iranian government in May, arguing that the daughter was held as nothing more than a political hostage while demanding compensation for the ordeal that they subsequently weathered. Fattal, his parents, and his brother followed suit in July. And Bauer, his parents, and his sisters did the same in August.The Iranian regime had not responded to their complaints in court and no trial date had been set as of Friday.Iran’s government never replied to the lawsuit Rezaian filed against it in October 2016. But Leon heard the case in Iran’s absence before awarding him $30m in compensatory damages and $150m in punitive damages meant to discourage the regime from ever again behaving similarly, according to the Wilmer Hale law firm, which represented Rezaian.TopicsUS newsIranUS politicsMiddle East and north AfricanewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Trump backed failed campaign coup against Kushner, Navarro book says

    Trump backed failed campaign coup against Kushner, Navarro book saysEx-adviser says president in 2020 agreed that his son-in-law had to be replaced by Steve Bannon but did not dare try to fire him In June 2020, less than five months before polling day, Donald Trump agreed to a “coup d’état” to remove his son-in-law Jared Kushner from control of his presidential re-election campaign and replace him with the far-right provocateur Steve Bannon.‘You have to run’: Romney urged Biden to take down Trump, book saysRead moreThe coup had support from Donald Trump Jr but according to a new book by the former Trump aide Peter Navarro it did not work, after Trump refused to give Kushner the bad news himself.Fearing “family troubles if [he] himself had to deliver the bad news to … the father of his grandchildren”, Trump asked Bernie Marcus, the founder of Home Depot, a major Republican donor and a central player in the coup, “to be the messenger” to Kushner.In Navarro’s telling, Kushner first insulted Marcus by skipping a call, then told Trump’s emissary “things were fine with the campaign, there was no way he was stepping down and, in effect, Bernie Marcus and his big moneybags could go pound sand”.Navarro writes: “And that was that. And the rest is a catastrophic strategic failure history.”In November, Trump lost the White House to Joe Biden.With his wife, Ivanka Trump, Kushner was a senior adviser to Trump in the White House and on the campaign, essentially acting as a shadow chief of staff.Before entering the White House, Navarro, with a Harvard PhD in economics, wrote a number of books attacking China (and liberally quoting a source whose name was an anagram of his own).His new book, Taking Back Trump’s America: Why We Lost the White House and How We’ll Win It Back, will be published later this month. The Guardian obtained a copy.Navarro’s dim view of Kushner permeates his new book: one section is titled Both Nepotism and Excrement Roll Downhill.Navarro also took a central role in responding to the Covid-19 pandemic. He says planning for the campaign coup originated when Kushner told Fox News in April 2020 the pandemic would be over by the summer.“In being so wrong,” Navarro writes, “Jared ‘Pangloss’ Kushner woke up” big donors who until then thought “Kushner and the Trump campaign would, at some point, get its ship together”.Dr Pangloss is a character in Voltaire’s Candide, given to extreme optimism in the face of adversity.Navarro reprints a journal entry for 25 June 2020 which describes a meeting in New York between Bannon and donors who “want[ed] Kushner and Brad Parscale [the campaign manager] out the door”. He adds: “Don Jr [and his girlfriend] Kimberly Guilfoyle feel the same way. This could be really interesting. It could also be our last chance for victory.”According to Navarro, the plotters thought Bannon, who chaired Trump’s campaign in 2016, was the only operative who could steer him to re-election four years later.The plotters also knew that Kushner would never agree to the change – Navarro says Kushner told him he wanted to “crush Bannon like a bug” – and that Trump resented Bannon for taking “too much credit for the 2016 win”.Bannon was fired as White House strategist in August 2017, amid controversy over Trump’s supportive remarks about far-right protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia. Returning to Breitbart News, Bannon remained influential in Trump’s orbit.On the page, Navarro risks Trump’s ire by criticizing his actions as president, at one point devoting six pages to outlining “why a president who is supposed to be one of the greatest assessors of talent … would make such bad personnel choices across so many White House and cabinet-level positions”.He also writes that Trump could not have beaten Hillary Clinton in 2016 without Bannon, at the behest of another big donor, Robert Mercer, “coming in towards the end of the campaign and righting the Kushner ship”.In 2020, Navarro says, he conquered his “trepidations” about angering Trump and pressed ahead with the anti-Kushner plot. Navarro says he set up and attended a White House meeting between Trump and Marcus at which Trump “readily agreed with Bernie that Jared had to be replaced with Steve”.But there was another problem, again at odds with the ruthless image Trump constructed on The Apprentice, his NBC reality TV hit, in which his catchphrase was “You’re fired!”As has been extensively documented, Trump in fact does not like firing people.Peter Navarro: what Trump’s Covid-19 tsar lacks in expertise, he makes upRead more“Rather than being shot himself,” Navarro writes, Trump “asked Bernie to be the messenger” to Kushner.Marcus “accepted the mission, albeit grudgingly”. The mission failed. Parscale, the campaign manager under Kushner, was removed in July but the son-in-law stayed in control.Navarro played a central role in Trump’s attempts to overturn his election defeat, outlining a plan called the “Green Bay Sweep” which was meant to block certification of Biden’s win.In November, Navarro will stand trial. He is charged with contempt of Congress, for refusing to comply with the January 6 investigation. He faces up to two years in jail. The judge in the case refused a request to hold the trial next April, so Navarro could market his new book.TopicsBooksDonald TrumpJared KushnerSteve BannonTrump administrationUS elections 2020RepublicansnewsReuse this content More