Most Liked News Blogs (3,096)

In response to:

Donald Trump could be charged with multiple crimes over his attempts to overturn his loss in the state of Georgia, report says

Alia Shoaib and John L. Dorman

Donald Trump could be charged with crimes over Georgia election interference, a new report says.

The report says Trump and his allies pressured Georgia officials to overturn his loss in the state.

Trump is facing several probes in relation to his postelection conduct in Georgia.

Former President Donald Trump could be charged with multiple crimes over election interference in Georgia, a new analysis says.

The report by the Brookings Institution, a leading think tank in Washington, DC, analyzed publicly available evidence which showed that Trump and his allies attempted to pressure Georgia officials to "change the lawful outcome of the election."

A key piece of evidence is the now-infamous call made by Trump to Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger on January 3, where the former president told him to "find 11,780 votes" to overturn now-President Joe Biden's victory in the state.

"There's no way I lost Georgia," Trump repeatedly said throughout the call. "There's no way. We won by hundreds of thousands of votes."

Those assertions were false, as Biden won the state by nearly 12,000 votes, becoming the first Democratic presidential nominee to carry the longtime Republican stronghold since 1992.

The report added that Trump publicly pressured and personally contacted several other Republican officials in Georgia to ask for their help in overturning his electoral loss in the state, including Gov. Brian Kemp and Attorney General Chris Carr. Trump reportedly placed direct calls to the officials in December to urge them to go along with "his increasingly desperate plans to decertify his loss."

"We conclude that Trump's postelection conduct in Georgia leaves him at substantial risk of possible state charges predicated on multiple crimes," the report said. "These charges potentially include criminal solicitation to commit election fraud; intentional interference with performance of election duties; conspiracy to commit election fraud; criminal solicitation; and state RICO violations."

The report also added that criminal liability could extend to some Trump allies, including his former personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani.

Giuliani appeared before committees in the Georgia Capitol with the intent of convincing state lawmakers to "take extraordinary action to reverse Biden's win," the report notes.

In February, Raffensperger's office opened a probe into Trump's efforts to overturn his loss in the state.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis also launched a criminal investigation into Trump's conduct related to the election.

The Brookings Institution report analyzed these probes and suggests the crimes that Trump could be charged with, along with his legal defenses.

The report suggests that Trump would likely claim immunity, arguing that he cannot be prosecuted for actions taken while he was in office.

Former presidents enjoy a measure of immunity for actions taken that "fall within the scope of their lawful duties as a federal official," according to the report.

However, in this case, Trump's actions were "well outside the scope of his official duties," the report noted.

For months, Trump has continued to promote debunked claims that the 2020 election was fraudulent, speaking of ballots coming from ceilings and pushing for forensic vote audits in closely-contested states like Arizona and Wisconsin.

The former president is currently facing several criminal probes over his conduct while in office, as well as his personal finances.

In response to:


Trump campaign retreats from key claim in Pennsylvania suit

MARC LEVY

Mon, November 16, 2020, 12:18 AM EST

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — President Donald Trump’s campaign is withdrawing a central part of its lawsuit seeking to stop the certification of the election results in Pennsylvania, where Democrat Joe Biden beat Trump to capture the state and help win the White House.

Ahead of a Tuesday hearing in the case, Trump’s campaign dropped the allegation that hundreds of thousands of mail-in and absentee ballots — 682,479, to be precise — were illegally processed without its representatives watching.

The campaign's slimmed-down lawsuit, filed in federal court on Sunday, maintains the aim of blocking Pennsylvania from certifying a victory for Biden in the state, and it maintains its claim that Democratic voters were treated more favorably than Republican voters.

The Associated Press on Nov. 7 called the presidential contest for Biden after determining that the remaining ballots left to be counted in Pennsylvania would not allow Trump to catch up. Trump has refused to concede.

The remaining claim in the lawsuit centers on disqualifying ballots cast by voters who were given an opportunity to fix mail-in ballots that were going to be disqualified for a technicality.

The lawsuit charges that “Democratic-heavy counties” violated the law by identifying mail-in ballots before Election Day that had defects — such as lacking an inner “secrecy envelope” or lacking a voter’s signature on the outside envelope — so that the voter could fix it and ensure that the vote would count, called “curing.”

Republican-heavy counties “followed the law and did not provide a notice and cure process, disenfranchising many,” the lawsuit said.

Cliff Levine, a lawyer representing the Democratic National Committee, which is seeking to intervene, said it's unclear how many voters were given the chance to fix their ballot.

But, he said, it is minimal and certainly fewer than the margin — almost 70,000 — that separates Biden and Trump.

“The numbers aren't even close to the margin between the two candidates, not even close,” Levine said.

In any case, there is no provision in state law preventing counties from helping voters to fix a ballot that contains a technical deficiency. Levine said the lawsuit does not contain any allegation that somebody voted illegally.

In response to:

Antony John Blinken (born April 16, 1962) is an American government official who served as United States Deputy Secretary of State from 2015 to 2017 and Deputy National Security Advisor from 2013 to 2015 under President Barack Obama. He previously served as a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Democratic Staff Director of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (2002–2008), and a member of the Obama–Biden presidential transition, active from November 2008 to January 2009, among other positions.

From 2009 to 2013, Blinken served as Deputy Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor to the Vice President. From 2002 to 2008 he served as the Democratic Staff Director for the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee. From 2001 to 2002 Blinken was a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. During the Clinton Administration, Blinken served in the State Department and in senior positions on the National Security Council Staff.

On November 7, 2014, President Obama announced that he would nominate Blinken for the Deputy Secretary post, replacing the retiring William Joseph Burns. On December 16, 2014 Blinken was confirmed as Deputy Secretary of State by the Senate by a vote of 55 to 38. He is now a Global Affairs Analyst for CNN. Blinken is reported to be President-elect Joe Biden's choice for Secretary of State.

In response to:

BREAKING NEWS

A federal judge dismissed President Trump’s last major legal bid to delay Pennsylvania’s vote certification, saying it was “unsupported by evidence.”

Saturday, November 21, 2020 8:00 PM EST

In a scathing order, Judge Matthew W. Brann wrote that President Trump’s campaign, which had asked him to effectively disenfranchise nearly seven million voters, should have come to court “armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption” in its efforts to essentially nullify the results of Pennsylvania’s election.

But instead, Judge Brann complained, the Trump campaign provided only “strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations” that were “unsupported by evidence.”

In response to:

Trump Ordered Officials to Give Jared Kushner a Security Clearance

Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, received a top-secret security clearance despite concerns from intelligence officials
Image

By Maggie Haberman, Michael S. Schmidt, Adam Goldman and Annie Karni

Feb. 28, 2019

WASHINGTON — President Trump ordered his chief of staff to grant his son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, a top-secret security clearance last year, overruling concerns flagged by intelligence officials and the White House’s top lawyer, four people briefed on the matter said.

Mr. Trump’s decision in May so troubled senior administration officials that at least one, the White House chief of staff at the time, John F. Kelly, wrote a contemporaneous internal memo about how he had been “ordered” to give Mr. Kushner the top-secret clearance.

The White House counsel at the time, Donald F. McGahn II, also wrote an internal memo outlining the concerns that had been raised about Mr. Kushner — including by the C.I.A. — and how Mr. McGahn had recommended that he not be given a top-secret clearance.

The disclosure of the memos contradicts statements made by the president, who told The New York Times in January in an Oval Office interview that he had no role in his son-in-law receiving his clearance.

In an interview with The Times in January, President Trump said he “was never involved” with the security clearance of his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, which was reinstated last year despite concerns from intelligence officials.

Mr. Kushner’s lawyer, Abbe D. Lowell, also said that at the time the clearance was granted last year that his client went through a standard process. Ivanka Trump, the president’s eldest daughter and Mr. Kushner’s wife, said the same thing three weeks ago.

Asked on Thursday about the memos contradicting the president’s account, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, said, “We don’t comment on security clearances.”

Peter Mirijanian, a spokesman for Mr. Lowell, said on Thursday: “In 2018, White House and security clearance officials affirmed that Mr. Kushner’s security clearance was handled in the regular process with no pressure from anyone. That was conveyed to the media at the time, and new stories, if accurate, do not change what was affirmed at the time.”

The decision last year to grant Mr. Kushner a top-secret clearance upgraded him from earlier temporary and interim status. He never received a higher-level designation that would have given him access to need-to-know intelligence known as sensitive compartmented information.

It is not known precisely what factors led to the problems with Mr. Kushner’s security clearance. Officials had raised questions about his own and his family’s real estate business’s ties to foreign governments and investors, and about initially unreported contacts he had with foreigners. The issue also generated criticism of Mr. Trump for having two family members serve in official capacities in the West Wing.

Mr. Kushner has spent this week abroad working on a Middle East peace plan. Among his meetings was one with Mohammed bin Salman, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia.............

............. the clearance had been held up in part over questions from the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. about his foreign and business contacts, including those related to Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Russia, according to multiple people familiar with the events................

In response to:
The Mueller Report Is Coming. Here’s What to Expect.

A concise report will probably act as a “road map” to investigation for the Democratic House — and to further criminal investigation by other prosecutors.

By Neal K. Katyal

Mr. Katyal was an acting solicitor general under President Barack Obama.

Feb. 21, 2019

The special counsel Robert Mueller will apparently soon turn in a report to the new attorney general, William Barr. Sure, there is still a lot of activity, including subpoenas, flying around, but that shouldn’t stop Mr. Mueller.

The report is unlikely to be a dictionary-thick tome, which will disappoint some observers. But such brevity is not necessarily good news for the president. In fact, quite the opposite.

For months, the president’s lawyers have tried to discredit Mr. Mueller and this report, but their efforts may have backfired. A concise Mueller report might act as a “road map” to investigation for the Democratic House of Representatives — and it might also lead to further criminal investigation by other prosecutors. A short Mueller report would mark the end of the beginning, not the beginning of the end.

The report is unlikely to be lengthy by design: The special counsel regulations, which I had the privilege of drafting in 1999, envision a report that is concise, “a summary” of what he found. And Mr. Mueller’s mandate is limited: to look into criminal activity and counterintelligence matters surrounding Russia and the 2016 election, as well as any obstruction of justice relating to those investigations.

The regulations require the attorney general to give Congress a report, too. The regulations speak of the need for public confidence in the administration of justice and even have a provision for public release of the attorney general’s report. In a world where Mr. Mueller was the only investigator, the pressure for a comprehensive report to the public would be overwhelming.

This is where the “witch hunt” attacks on Mr. Mueller may have backfired. For 19 months, Mr. Trump and his team have had one target to shoot at, and that target has had limited jurisdiction. But now the investigation resembles the architecture of the internet, with many different nodes, and some of those nodes possess potentially unlimited jurisdiction. Their powers and scope go well beyond Mr. Mueller’s circumscribed mandate; they go to Mr. Trump’s judgment and whether he lied to the American people. They also include law enforcement investigations having nothing to do with Russia, such as whether the president directed the commission of serious campaign finance crimes, as federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York have already stated in filings. These are all critical matters, each with serious factual predicates already uncovered by prosecutors.

Had Mr. Trump and his coterie done nothing wrong, they would have had little to fear from the special counsel, and a report from Mr. Mueller that cleared him would be the gold seal of approval. But Mr. Trump’s behavior, including his dangling of pardons to witnesses in the investigation, makes total exoneration unlikely, even though it is enormously difficult to prosecute crimes with international dimensions and assertions of privilege. The investigation has been further clouded by the fact that people in Mr. Trump’s inner circle lied repeatedly when it came to Russia (that long list includes Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort and Roger Stone).