List of All Articles with Tag 'us politics'

A federal grand jury reconvened on Tuesday for the first time since handing up an indictment last week against former President Donald Trump related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

Extreme heat is far deadlier than other natural disasters, but it's not one that's eligible for assistance from FEMA.

President Joe Biden on Tuesday is set to designate the fifth national monument of his presidency and unveil new climate resilience funding for national parks during a visit to lands surrounding one of the seven natural wonders of the world, the Grand Canyon.

The Donald Trump-appointed judge overseeing the criminal case into his handling of classified documents has sided with the former president once again – dealing mutliple blows to special counsel Jack Smith. Judge Aileen Cannon, who was appointed to the bench during Mr Trump’s final days in office, on Monday struck down two of Mr Smith’s court filings and gave him a dressing down over his use of grand juries in the case. In the ruled filed in south Florida, the judge rejected the Justice Department’s request for sealed filings in order to preserve the “grand jury secrecy” in the case where Mr Trump is currently facing 40 charges. “The Special Counsel states in conclusory terms that the supplement should be sealed from public view ‘to comport with grand jury secrecy,’ but the motion for leave and the supplement plainly fail to satisfy the burden of establishing a sufficient legal or factual basis to warrant sealing the motion and supplement,” she wrote in the brief. Judge Cannon ordered that two such sealed filings be struck from the record altogether. These filings related to a motion brought by Mr Smith’s office arguing that Stanley Woodward – the attorney for Mr Trump’s aide and codefendant Walt Nauta – has potential conflicts of interest as he represents other individuals who could be called to give testimony in the case. In Monday’s brief, Judge Cannon also questioned what she described as the “legal propriety” of Mr Smith’s office using an out-of-state grand jury to investigate the case. Prosecutors were ordered to file a response which “shall address the legal propriety of using an out-of-district grand jury proceeding to continue to investigate and/or to seek post-indictment hearings on matters pertinent to the instant indicted matter in this district”. Most of the classified documents case is being handled out of Judge Cannon’s district in South Florida – where Mr Trump’s Mar-a-Lago sits. However, some grand jury work in the case was also carried out in Washington DC. Judge Cannon took issue with this and questioned why a grand jury heard evidence in DC after Mr Trump had already been indicted by a grand jury in Florida. She has demanded that Mr Smith’s office respond to the court filing by 22 August with an explanation. Her latest briefs have raised fresh questions about the judge’s handling of the case – given she was appointed by Mr Trump and has repeatedly handed him favourable, and questionable, rulings. Former US attorney Andrew Weissmann described the judge’s filing as “off base”. “Judge Cannon clearly shows her ignorance (bias? both?); the obstruction crimes that were investigated are charges that could have been brought in [Florida] or in DC and thus could be investigated in either district,” he wrote on Twitter. “And there was conduct that is alleged to have occurred outside [Florida].” Last year, Judge Cannon, who was randomly assigned to preside over the case following Mr Trump’s indictment in June, previously sided with Mr Trump’s request to appoint an independent special master to review the documents in the classified papers case before they could be handed to the DOJ. The decision was branded “deeply flawed” by Mr Trump’s own former attorney general Bill Barr and was later thrown out by an appeals court. Mr Trump was initially indicted on 37 federal charges in early June over his alleged mishandling of classified documents, becoming the first current or former US president ever charged with a federal crime. He pleaded not guilty to the charges at his arraignment in a Miami federal courthouse. His longtime aide Mr Nauta was also charged in the case as his co-defendant. In a superseding indictment filed in late July, Mr Trump was hit with three new charges and a third defendant – Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos De Oliveira – was added to the federal criminal case. Prosecutors now allege that Mr Trump even went as far as to plot with two employees to delete security footage from Mar-a-Lago in his quest to hide the classified documents – and what exactly he was doing with them. Now, with the additional charges, Mr Trump has a total of 40 federal counts over his handling of classified documents. Last week, he was also charged in a separate federal case over his role in the January 6 Capitol riot and his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. This comes after he was hit with state charges in New York in April over hush money payments to cover up affairs in the lead-up to the 2016 election. Read More Trump judge demands court hearing as Jack Smith and ex-president spar over protective order – latest Former Republican official in Georgia subpoenaed over Trump efforts to change election result Special counsel accuses Trump of wanting to try Jan 6 case in media after bid to use evidence during 2024 run Justice Department stands with Ukraine in war crimes investigations, Attorney General Garland says Mitch McConnell heckled with chants of ‘retire’ after freezing episode Trucking giant Yellow Corp. declares bankruptcy after years of financial struggles

A former Republican lieutenant governor of Georgia has received subpoenas to speak before a grand jury in Fulton County this month, according to a new report. Geoff Duncan – a sharp critic of Donald Trump’s efforts to upend Georgia’s election results – was subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury, according to sources familiar with the investigation into the 2020 election interference in Georgia that were cited by CNN. In a recent interview with CNN, Mr Duncan had committed to testifying in front of the grand jury, saying he’ll “be there to answer the facts as I know them and to continue this process of trying to discover what actually happened during that post-election period of time”. “We can never repeat that in this country. Certainly, I never want to see that happen in my home state of Georgia, a lot of good peoples’ lives were uprooted, and a lot of people’s reputations have been soiled,” he said. The former Republican official said he would be “willing to testify and tell the truth in as many settings as I possibly can”, when asked whether he would be willing to testify in any other related trials. Last week, Mr Duncan likened picking Donald Trump to be the 2024 GOP nominee to “peeing in your pants”. The former Republican official attacked the ex-president in an appearance on CNN. “Nominating Donald Trump for the Republican Party is a lot like peeing in your pants, right?” Mr Duncan said. “It’s gonna feel good for a couple of seconds, but then you wake up and realise the realities of what you just did.” “We’re gonna get beat in the general [election] because we picked the wrong candidate. We couldn’t get out of our own way,” he continued. Meanwhile, Mr Duncan chose not to discuss when he might appear before the grand jury. “I don’t want to infringe on any details of the investigation, so I’ll leave that offline and off of this commentary here. But I’m committed to telling the truth – I know a number of people are around this process.” Read More Republicans are talking up the possibility of impeaching Biden. Is it what voters want to hear? Trump posts another attack on judge ahead of first court deadline Jack Smith accuses Trump of aiming to try election case in media after he opposed protective order - latest Trump and Biden tied in hypothetical 2024 rematch: poll Mississippi candidates for statewide offices square off in party primaries Jack Smith accuses Trump of wanting to try Jan 6 case in media in fight over evidence

A whirl of developments in a quartet of cases in four separate cities encapsulate the vast legal quagmire swamping Donald Trump and threatening to overwhelm the entire 2024 presidential campaign.

Ohio concludes a hastily called and highly charged special election Tuesday, a contest that could determine the fate of abortion rights in the state and fuel political playbooks nationally heading into 2024. On the ballot is Issue 1, a proposal to raise the threshold for passing future changes to the state's constitution from a simple majority to 60%. But more passionately in the sights of the proposal's backers — including Republican officeholders — is a proposed constitutional amendment on the November ballot that calls for enshrining access to reproductive care in the state's foundational document. The measure was clearly resonating with voters, who turned out in huge numbers during the early voting period, which ended Sunday. The number of advance ballots cast — a combination of mail and early in-person ballots — hit nearly 700,000, more than double the early vote during the state's two previous midterm primary elections in 2022 and 2018. Ohio's August elections have historically focused on local issues and been plagued with chronically low turnout. The Republican lawmakers who backed Issue 1 maintained that the measure was not about thwarting the fall abortion amendment, despite reinstating an August special election just like the ones they had only recently voted to eliminate. Raising the bar for passing citizen-led constitutional amendments could make it difficult, if not impossible, for the fall proposal to succeed, based on polling figures. Voters in several states, even deeply conservative ones, have affirmed abortion rights since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year, though usually with less than 60% of the vote. AP VoteCast polling last year found that 59% of Ohio voters say abortion should generally be legal. Out-of-state money has poured into both sides of the contest over the 60% threshold, even as both supporters and opponents say one of their main goals is to keep special interests from having more influence over state policy than average Ohioans. The campaign in favor of Issue 1, Protect Our Constitution, has told voters that raising the threshold will keep deep-pocketed interest groups from pushing redistricting, gun control and minimum wage policies on Ohio. One Person One Vote, the opposition campaign, argues that raising the threshold for passing future amendments would prioritize the interests of Ohio's increasingly conservative GOP supermajority at the statehouse over those of everyday voters. But abortion rights are at the epicenter of the fight, as Ohio and other states have been given control of their own abortion policies following the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade last summer. Ohio's ban on most abortions had been placed on hold under Roe and then allowed to take effect briefly after the court overturned it. Since then, it has been frozen again while a challenge alleging it violates the state constitution plays out. The abortion amendment would give individuals the right to make their own reproductive health care decisions, including on contraception, fertility treatment, abortion and miscarriage care, until a fetus is viable outside the womb. At the same time, a broad bipartisan coalition opposes Issue 1 for other reasons. Former Ohio governors and attorneys general of both parties have come out against the constitutional change, calling it poor public policy. If passed it would reverse 111 years of direct democracy that has the potential to affect future citizen-led ballot efforts. Protect Women Ohio, the campaign against the fall abortion question, has spent millions on the August election — airing ads suggesting the measure not only codifies abortion, but could pressure children into receiving gender-affirming care and undercut parental rights. Several legal experts have said there is no language in the amendment supporting the ads' claims, but it follows a pattern through this election cycle of misinformation and fear-mongering being used to sway voters. Issue 1 opponents have aired ads and mobilized a large coalition, including voting rights, labor, faith and community groups, as well as the state Democratic Party. It was because of chronically low turnout that lawmakers voted just last year to scrap summer elections, prompting an unsuccessful lawsuit alleging this year's August special election violated the new law and calling further into question if it was brought back solely to thwart abortion rights for Ohioans. ___ The Associated Press receives support from several private foundations to enhance its explanatory coverage of elections and democracy. See more about AP’s democracy initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content. ___ Samantha Hendrickson is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Read More Ukraine war’s heaviest fight rages in east - follow live Charity boss speaks out over ‘traumatic’ encounter with royal aide Attacks at US medical centers show why health care is one of the nation's most violent fields Ohio election that revolves around abortion rights fueled by national groups, money Taylor Swift bracelet-trading trend makes way to Women’s World Cup in Australia

The ballot initiative Ohio voters will decide Tuesday is likely to demonstrate again the continuing public resistance to last year's Supreme Court decision ending the nationwide constitutional right to abortion -- while also offering an early indication about how broadly that backlash may benefit Democrats in the 2024 election.

Former Vice President Mike Pence has reached the donor threshold to qualify for the first GOP presidential debate later this month in Milwaukee, an aide told CNN on Monday.

Security for the federal judge assigned to oversee the criminal case against former President Donald Trump over his attempts to overturn the 2020 election has been increased in the federal courthouse in Washington, DC.

Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office accused Donald Trump of trying to “litigate this case in the media,” after the former president objected on Monday to a proposal to limit public discussion of the discovery evidence against him for allegedly conspiring to overturn the 2020 election. "The defendant’s principal objection to it—as defense counsel stated publicly yesterday, and in conference with Government counsel—is that it would not permit the defendant or his counsel to publicly disseminate, and publicise in the media, various materials obtained from the Government in discovery," the the office wrote in a Monday night filing. “But there is no right to publicly release discovery material, because the discovery process is designed to ensure a fair process before the Court, not to provide the defendant an opportunity to improperly press his case in the court of public opinion." The filing came just hours after Mr Trump’s legal team asked the judge overseeing the criminal case for permission to use a large swath of discovery materials while he campaigns for the Republican nomination in next year’s presidential election. In a 13-page response to the government’s original motion for a protective order barring him from disclosing any of the materials that will be turned over by prosecutors as part of the pre-trial discovery process before he is tried on charges of conspiracy and obstruction of an official proceeding, Mr Trump’s defence team claimed that the standard protective order requested by prosecutors would mean Judge Tanya Chutkan would be a “censor” who would impose “content-based restrictions” on the ex-president’s “political speech”. Prosecutors, citing Mr Trump’s penchant for “public statements on social media regarding witnesses, judges, attorneys, and others associated with legal matters pending against him,” had asked Judge Chutkan to impose an order barring the former president from disclosing discovery materials “directly or indirectly to any person or entity other than persons employed to assist in the defense, persons who are interviewed as potential witnesses, counsel for potential witnesses, and other persons to whom the Court may authorize disclosure”. The government also cited social media posts made by the ex-president on his Truth Social platform, including one recent social media post in which he appeared to threaten to “come after” anyone he believes to have been “after” him. In a more recent post on Monday, the ex-president also claimed that he “shouldn’t have a protective order placed on [him] because it would impinge upon [his] right to FREE SPEECH”. Mr Trump’s attorneys largely echoed this claim in their court filing, and said the government had to demonstrate a “compelling reason” with “no narrower alternative” before the court could impose the restrictions requested by prosecutors. While the ex-president’s legal team did concede that the government does have some interest in “restricting some of the documents it must produce,” including secret grand jury materials and documents pertaining to the identities of witnesses, they said those needs did not require a “blanket gag order over all documents produced by the government”. They also complained that Special Counsel Jack Smith and his team did not explain why it would be insufficient to impose restrictions only on materials deemed “sensitive” by the government, and asked Judge Chutkan to impose an order which only restricts “sensitive” materials from use by Mr Trump in his political campaign. Additionally, the ex-president’s attorneys asked Judge Chutkan to impose an order which allows them to “bring on ... volunteer attorneys or others without paid employment arrangements” as Mr Trump prepares for trial, and argued that the government “cannot preclude the assistance” of such volunteers or require Mr Trump to ask permission before allowing them access to discovery materials. “Such a limitation or requirement would unduly burden President Trump and impede the efficient preparation of his defense. Indeed, the defense cannot predict its future needs for the case, especially for a case of this magnitude and complexity,” they said. They did add, however, that they would not object to an order restricting those volunteers from accessing materials deemed “sensitive”. Read More Trump and Biden tied in hypothetical 2024 rematch, poll finds Pelosi doubles down on ‘beautiful’ Trump indictments after attracting ex-president’s ire ‘HUGE WIN!!’: E Jean Carroll praises legal team as judge dismisses Trump defamation lawsuit against her Judge tosses Trump's defamation suit against writer who won sexual abuse lawsuit against him Trump insists he isn’t a ‘scared puppy’ in defiant attack on Nancy Pelosi Jeff Gunter, a dermatologist who was Trump's ambassador to Iceland, is running for Nevada Senate Judges halt a Biden rule offering student debt relief for those alleging colleges misled them Pelosi doubles down on ‘beautiful’ indictments after receiving Trump’s ire

Former Georgia Republican Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan received subpoenas to testify before a Fulton County grand jury this month, a source with direct knowledge of the 2020 election interference investigation in the state told CNN.