List of All Articles with Tag 'us politics'

About a hundred Iowa National Guard troops will be sent to the U.S.-Mexico border for the month of August in a federally funded operation, Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds announced Wednesday. The move reflects a broader trend across the country of Republican governors joining forces with Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to counter President Joe Biden's immigration policies, which they say have created a crisis at the border. “Since the administration refuses to invest in securing the border and protecting its citizens, Texas has asked other states to help, and Iowa is ready and willing to assist," Reynolds said in a statement. The Biden administration sent 1,500 active-duty troops for a 90-day deployment in May, amid concerns that the end of asylum restrictions linked to the pandemic would lead to an increase in illegal border crossings. Even when the restrictions were in place, a record number of people were crossing the border. Instead, numbers have fallen, and 1,100 troops will conclude their 90-day mission by Aug. 8, a defense official said on the condition of anonymity in order to discuss details ahead of an announcement. The remaining 400 will be extended through August 31. An additional 2,300 National Guard troops remain at the border under federal orders. This is the third time since 2020 that Reynolds is sending troops to the country’s southern border. Officers with the state’s Department of Public Safety will follow National Guard troops at the end of August for the month of September. The governor’s office indicated in May, when the deployment was first announced, that about 30 public safety officers would be sent. Iowa's neighbor, Nebraska, will also dispatch about 60 troops to the southern border in August, Republican Gov. Jim Pillen announced Monday. Governors in Florida, Virginia and South Carolina, among other states, have made similar deployments for Operation Lone Star, a multibillion dollar operation that is distinct from federal efforts, and whose lack of transparency and metrics have drawn questions. ___ Associated Press writers Tara Copp and Rebecca Santana contributed to this story from Washington. Read More Ukraine war’s heaviest fight rages in east - follow live Charity boss speaks out over ‘traumatic’ encounter with royal aide

Donald Trump’s latest federal indictment is not the lengthiest of the charging documents that has come his way so far, but it may well be the most profound. That was the reaction of legal analysts and journalists this week after Jack Smith delivered the Department of Justice’s initial charges against Mr Trump for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, with much of his conduct in the weeks leading up to and during the January 6 attack going unaddressed in the indictment. All in all, the twice-impeached ex-president is charged with four crimes related to the election-meddling efforts, including conspiracy to deprive Americans of their rights — a law passed as part of anti-Ku Klux Klan legislation. What was absent from the document was a charge that many expected to see after the conclusion of the House of Representatives’ select committee investigation into the attack: A count of giving aid or comfort to an insurrection. There was no mention of that charge, or the related accusation of seditious conspiracy, which has been leveled against members of the Oathkeepers and Proud Boys. There was also no mention of charges for Mr Trump’s long list of allies, some of whom spread conspiracy theories about the election, and other enablers who either knowingly or unknowingly pushed complete and utter falsehoods on a wide range of issues for months after their boss lost the presidential election. Notably, a number (like ex-legal counsel Rudy Giuliani) are referred to as co-conspirators, and specifically not described as “unindicted”. But the initial document charged Mr Trump and Mr Trump alone, with the entirety of its focus being on the actions of the man at the head of the table. A former deputy assistant attorney general and federal prosecutor who analysed the indictment in an interview with The Independent said that decision was likely deliberate, to ensure that the focus of the case remained on Mr Trump’s efforts and potentially to streamline the path to trial. “Each new defendant brings a possible doubling, if not more, of potential causes for delays,” Harry Litman explained. “It's a very considered, strategic decision to bring an indictment only against Trump. And you and I know, those people are by no means out of the woods.” Bringing an indictment against the former president, he added, was the DoJ’s way of cutting as much of the potential delays away as possible in the hopes of getting the ex-president to trial before the 2024 election has concluded. “It maximises the possibility of it happening quickly,” said Mr Litman. “Whereas before yesterday, it seemed doubtful, at least very tenuous, that there would be a federal trial before the election. But I think it now seems likely.” The exclusion of (arguably) more serious charges like seditious conspiracy and giving comfort to a rebellion, he posited , was a decision made for a similar reason. By focusing on Mr Trump’s efforts to change the results and not his words themselves, Mr Litman explained, Mr Smith’s team was “attack[ing] around” any First Amendment-related defences the former president’s legal team would raise against those charges. Mr Trump has denied guilt in all the instances where he is accused of taking illegal measures to remain in the White House, and continues to insist to this day that he is the rightful winner of the 2020 election. Vast swaths of his loyal fanbase believe the same. The former president continues to await a decision by prosecutors in Georgia related to his efforts to change the election results in that state as well; Fulton County officials have said that a decision on that matter is coming later this month. Read More Trump lawyer hints at a First Amendment defense in the Jan. 6 case. Some legal experts are dubious When is Donald Trump’s arraignment? Watch view of Capitol Hill after police say no active shooter found at Senate office after lockdown GOP senators who condemned Trump on Jan 6 but voted against impeachment remain silent on indictment Prosecutors may be aiming for quick Trump trial by not naming alleged conspirators, experts say Rudy Giuliani’s accuser reveals tapes detailing alleged sexually vulgar remarks

Donald Trump supporters and right-wing media outlets are incorrectly claiming that the federal government is seeking the death penalty as part of its four-count indictment against the former president for allegedly seeking to overturn the 2020 election. After the charges were announced on Tuesday, the claims quickly spread across conservative corners of the Internet. Mr Trump’s Truth Social platform sent users an alert that read “New charges against Trump carry DEATH PENALTY,” while conservative influencer Dinesh D’Souza claimed on X the alleged death sentence “proves how scared they are of Trump!” One MAGA Internet personality wrote on social media, “This is how you start a war.” A spokesperson for the special counsel’s office told The Independent these claims are “not accurate.” “The indictment does not contain the special findings required,” the DoJ official said. The misinterpretation stems from one of the federal statutes that prosecutors are accusing Mr Trump of violating, Section 241 of Title 18 of US Code. As The Independent has reported, the law is part of a landmark set of provisions passed in the brutal aftermath of the Civil War to prosecute those who sought to deprive the civil rights of newly enfranchised Black Americans. The punishment for violating this section, according to the Department of Justice, is a felony and up to 10 years in prison. That penalty can be extended to life in prison or death if the government “proves an aggravating factor (such as that the offense involved kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse, or resulted in death)”, per the DoJ. Five people, a mix of police officers and rioters, did die during the January 6 insurrection, but, as The Washington Post noted, nowhere in the lengthy indictment against Mr Trump are prosecutors arguing the former president is responsible for any such aggravating circumstances. (Police officer Michael Byrd, who shot January 6 rioter Ashli Babbitt, was cleared of wrongdoing by the DoJ and the Capitol police in April of 2021, and two of the men who attacked Brian Sicknick, a Washington police officer who died during the insurrection, have been sentenced to prison.) Rather, the DoJ is alleging that Mr Trump and his associates knew he lost the election, but launched a multi-part conspiracy to hold onto power anyway, a scheme that included spreading false claims, attempting to send false slates of electors to Washington, and pressuring officials to meddle with the election certification process. The scheme was largely focused on a handful of counties in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Wisconsin, all of which have large communities of Black and Latino voters, who tend to vote for Democrats. “The attack on our nation’s capitol on January 6, 2021, was an unprecedented assault on the seat of American democracy,” special counsel Jack Smith said Tuesday in a press conference describing the indictment. “As described in the indictment, it was fueled by lies. Lies by the defendant targeted at obstructing a bedrock function of the US government – the nation’s process of collecting, counting and certifying the results of the presidential election.” As Sean Morales-Doyle, director of the voting rights and elections programme at the Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law, told The Independent, the civil rights statute in question has been used to prosecute officials for attempting to alter election results in the past. He pointed to the example of the 1915 case US v Mosley, where Oklahoma officials were punished for trying to exclude votes from a final tally. “If you read that case, you’d never be able to tell that it’s about race. And there’s not a word about race mentioned, but that’s really the story underlying it,” Mr Morales-Doyle told The Independent. “And that’s really, throughout our nation’s history, the battle over our democracy. The battle over the right to vote has not always but pretty consistently also been a fight that has race at its heart,” he added. “And that’s true now still, and I think it is an overlooked thread underlying much of the story about Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election.” Prosecutors may not be arguing Mr Trump caused conduct worthy of the death penalty, but the former president’s sentencing still will be a delicate issue. "Possible jail time for Donald Trump if he’s convicted of one, some, or all the criminal cases is a fascinating but speculative business," former federal prosecutor Michael McAuliffe told Newsweek. "As for the federal cases charging Trump with crimes, the sentencing guidelines – which assign numerical values to various factors to create a range for a presumptive sentence – will prove inadequate." In regards to Mr Trump, both "the crimes and the defendant are singular.” Alex Woodward contributed reporting to this story. Read More Trump’s election fraud claims were always bogus. Will his history of lies finally catch up to him? Why Trump is charged under a civil rights law used to prosecute KKK terror Donald Trump due in court charged with ‘conspiracy to defraud United States’ Federal funds will pay to send Iowa troops to the US-Mexico border, governor says Prosecutors may be aiming for quick Trump trial by not naming alleged conspirators, experts say Watch view of Capitol Hill after police say no active shooter found

For the past four years, President Joe Biden and the first lady took cues from their son Hunter on how to discuss the 4-year-old girl in Arkansas a paternity test had determined was their granddaughter.

The US State Department on Wednesday ordered the evacuation of non-emergency personnel and family members from Niger following last week's military takeover.

As security measures ramp up for his arraignment, Mr Trump decries "corruption, scandal, & failure".

A US congressman who previously served as White House doctor under Donald Trump was apparently handcuffed and placed on the ground by police officers at a rodeo in his home state of Texas as he attempted to provide medical assistance to a teenager. The Texas Tribune reported the incident, which was confirmed by Rep Ronny Jackson’s office. It took place over the weekend at a rodeo in White Deer, Texas, in a district that neighbours Mr Jackson’s own. “While assessing the patient in a very loud and chaotic environment, confusion developed with law enforcement on the scene and Dr Jackson was briefly detained and was actually prevented from further assisting the patient,” a spokesperson for his office told news outlets. According to a relative of the 15-year-old girl who was apparently experiencing a seizure at the time, Mr Jackson was slammed to the ground by police officers who responded too aggressively to a confusing scene. “We were just waiting for EMS to get there. The police came up, the deputies, highway patrol, and everyone was just screaming, ‘Get back, get back, get back,’” Linda Dianne Shouse told CNN. “[Jackson] was trying to tell them that he was a doctor and probably trying to tell him who he was, to be honest. And they were screaming that they did not effing care who he was,” she continued. “And the next thing I knew, they had him on the ground, grabbed him by the shirt, threw him on the ground, face first into the concrete and had him in cuffs.” According to Ms Shouse, the deputies later apologised for their conduct upon realising that Mr Jackson was both a trained medical professional — and a member of Congress. The Texas Tribune further noted that Mr Jackson’s office asserted that the congressman had been seated in the stands and had not imbibed any alcoholic beverages before attempting to assist the girl. It was a notable claim given that Mr Jackson has, in the past, been accused of drinking and taking Ambien while on the job serving as White House physician. He has denied the various allegations, but they nonetheless derailed his nomination to the Department of Veterans Affairs under Mr Trump. Mr Jackson has stoked controversy throughout his time in Congress with his comments about Joe Biden and other Democrats; in one instance, he referred to Mr Biden as “a cancer” during a TV interview, and he also floated nonsense conspiracies in 2022 about the Omicron Covid variant supposedly being a ginned-up fear tactic by Democrats to justify election fraud. Read More Donald Trump due in court charged with ‘conspiracy to defraud United States’ Biden delays plans to restock nation’s emergency oil reserve Democrats would prefer Kamala Harris over Joe Biden as 2024 nominee, new poll shows

Donald Trump was indicted for a third time on Tuesday on four federal charges stemming from an investigation into his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election leading to the January 6 attack on the Capitol. The indictment marks the second set of federal charges the ex-president is facing and the third indictment overall, since January. This means Mr Trump will have to appear in federal court, again, to be formally charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, conspiracy against rights and obstruction of, and attempt to obstruct, an official proceeding. The ex-president is expected to turn himself in at the Elijah Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse in Washington DC on Thursday afternoon at 4pm ET. Magistrate Judge Moxila A Upadhyaya will be presiding over the arraignment during which she will explain Mr Trump’s rights and the charges he is facing. Mr Trump’s case has been randomly assigned to District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who was appointed by former president Barack Obama in 2014. Unlike his two previous arraignments, Mr Trump has the option to appear virtually via video feed on Thursday – though it is unclear if he will do so. Mr Trump’s attorney, John Lauro, told CNN that Judge Chutkan may make the final call on whether he must appear in person or can do so virtually. Should Mr Trump appear in-person he will likely be fingerprinted before heading into the courtroom. The ex-president will most likely not be handcuffed or receive a mugshot as he has not done either in his previous arraignments. When Mr Trump was arraigned in Manhattan earlier this year for 37 charges related to falsifying business records he did not receive a mugshot because he is a public figure. Ahead of his arraignment, Anthony Guglielmi, chief of communications for the Secret Service posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, indicating several law enforcement agencies were working together to prepare for Mr Trump’s arraignment safely. “We are working closely with the Metropolitan Police Department, US Marshals Service, US Park Police, Us Capitol Police and the Federal Protective Service to ensure the highest levels of safety and security for the former president, while minimizing disruptions to the normal court process,” Mr Guglielmi wrote. The four federal charges were brought forth after a grand jury in Washington DC voted in favour of indicting Mr Trump. The charges come from an investigation by Special Counsel Jack Smith into Mr Trump’s claims of election fraud in 2020 and his actions leading up to January 6. Mr Trump is expected to plead not guilty to the four federal charges. Read More Trump indictment - live: Trump cashes in on new charges as defence lawyers gear up for court Is Donald Trump going to prison? Who are Trump’s six alleged co-conspirators in the 2020 election probe case? What is an arraignment? Here’s what to expect following Trump’s indictment for 2020 election interference Trump valet charged in classified documents case set again for arraignment after earlier delays

Special counsel Jack Smith's criminal indictment appeared to be more than two and half years in the making, but the American public heard many of the key details of the case outlined in a series of hearings last year -- as a well as an 800-page report -- run by the House Select Committee that investigated the January 6 riot.

Six people accused of helping Mr Trump undermine the election have been described by prosecutors.

The Senate went into lockdown Wednesday afternoon as US Capitol Police investigated reports of an active shooter in the Russell office building, putting Capitol Hill on edge more than two years after the January 6, 2021, attack.

Watch live from outside the US Capitol after police said no active shooter was found on Wednesday 2 August. Officers were dispatched to canvass Senate office buildings in response to what they described as “a concerning 911 call”. In a post on X (the social media website formerly known as Twitter), the US Capitol Police department advised that people should stay away from the area as officers were investigating. “Our officers are searching in and around the Senate Office Buildings in response to a concerning 911 call. Please stay away from the area,” the post read. DC Fire and EMS subsequently told Fox News that the situation was likely to be related to mental health and not an active shooter. Read More FBI looks for more possible victims after woman escapes from cinderblock cage in Oregon Moment stepfather arrested by police for murder of 10-month-old stepson Italian police dog sniffs out €1 million in cash hidden in luggage