Category Archives: Donald Trump

Like most prickly would-be tyrants, neither Donald Trump nor Vladimir Putin likes to be mocked publiclyand a lot of that was directed at them this week. In Germany, Western leaders at the annual G-7 summit joked about Putins penchant for highly contrived macho photo ops as they debated whether to keep their suit jackets on in remarks caught on tape. Shall we take our clothes off? British Prime Minister Boris Johnson asked. We all have to show them were tougher than Putin. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau chimed in with a barb aimed at Putins bare-chested horseback ride, a famous image of the Russian leader, released in 2009. Putin eventually responded that it would have been a disgusting sight had the Western leaders in fact taken off their shirts.

In Washington, Trump came in for withering ridicule after the testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson, a former top aide to Trumps White House chief of staff, about his toddler-like rages and repeated smashing of the White House crockery. In one instance that she detailed, during her gripping appearance before the House Select Committee investigating Trump and the January 6th attack on the Capitol, Trump was so angry with then Attorney General Bill Barr for telling an interviewer that there was no substantial election fraud that he threw his lunch, leaving ketchup dripping down the wall, Hutchinson said.

Was this the only instance that you were aware of where the President threw dishes? the committees vice-chair, Liz Cheney, asked.

Its not, Hutchinson replied. Endless jokes followed, as did the inevitable Trump statement that he hardly know[s] Hutchinson. Both Trump and Putin have made it easy to skewer their vain pretensions and squalid rages.

Joe Biden, in Europe for a pair of summits largely consumed by the problems Putin has unleashed with his invasion of Ukraine, did not join in the jokes. (At least not publicly.) But the past few months have made clear that, whatever his hopes at the start of his tenure, Biden has two main enemies. One is Trump and the coup-plotting former Presidents supporters, given the very real prospect that these radical election deniers will soon return to power in Congress and even, in 2024, to the White House. The other is Putin, whose decision to invade Ukraine, in February, has led to the biggest conflict in Europe since the Second World War. Facing down the threats that the two men pose to democracy has become the defining challenge of Bidens Presidency. Its by no means clear, however, that hes winning.

In the past year, Biden has been hit with a host of problems that might have shaped an entire four-year term for some other President, including a Republican-dominated activist Supreme Court that has now overturned Roe v. Wade and a worst-in-four-decades bout of inflation. On Thursday, Biden called for Congress to make a limited exception to the filibuster in order to codify Roe into federal law, a move that faces long odds of succeeding. More generally, its hard to see how Biden, lurching from mess to intertwined mess, can do much to fix anything in time to rescue his sinking political fortunes ahead of this falls midterm elections. A poll this week found that eighty-five per cent of Americans now believe the country is on the wrong track.

As the events of 2022 have shown, Trump and Putin are enduring, existential threats of a nature and scale that have not simultaneously confronted any American leader at any time in the modern era. The internal U.S. catastrophe of Trump and the Trump-controlled G.O.P. is mirrored and magnified by the international disaster of Putin and Putinism. Both are rogue powers, determined to disrupt and destroy existing orders, and both are hostile to the basic tenets of democracy. Putin now compares himself openly to Peter the Great, waging a war of imperial conquest on his neighbors. Trump, as Hutchinsons testimony and earlier revelations from the January 6th committee have shown, came far closer than many understand to succeeding in his effort to remain in power after losing the 2020 election.

In some ways, Biden has been clearer, sharper, and stronger in taking on Putin since the war in Ukraine started than in figuring out how to deal with Trump. A NATO summit in Madrid this week was a reminder of this, a display of the remarkable transformation in the alliance which Putins warand Bidens pushback to ithave wrought. During Trumps Presidency, NATO itself was at risk. Trump not only declared it obsolete but came close to withdrawing the U.S. from it entirely, at a contentious 2018 summit days before his infamous Helsinki meeting with Putin. He spent years attacking NATO allies while praising adversaries such as the Russian leader.

By any measure, the Madrid summit marked an astonishing reversal, as the alliance announced plans for major new American military deployments to Europe; an eightfold increase in its rapid-reaction force, from forty thousand to three hundred thousand troops; more weapons for Ukraine; and approval of Finland and Swedens membership. The two Nordic countries had remained neutral through the long years of the Cold War, until the war in Ukraineand private diplomatic cajoling by Bidenjolted them into joining. NATOs new strategic concept, its first since 2010, speaks of Russia as the most significant and direct threat to the alliance, abandoning even the pretense of coperation that NATO leaders maintained for far longer than Putins actions justified.

Were stepping up, Biden said, on Wednesday, after hed sat for a long-withheld one-on-one meeting with Turkeys Recep Tayyip Erdoan, who had dropped his objections to Finland and Swedens joining the alliance. Were proving that NATO is more needed now than it ever has been.

Blunt reality still dictates that, for all of NATOs stepping-up, it is Ukraine and not the United States or its European allies that is fighting Russia. For President Volodymyr Zelensky, this has been a never-ending source of frustration with Biden and the others: he is securing the flank of an alliance that refuses to allow him to join and paying for it with Ukrainian blood. We are deterring Russia from destroying us and destroying you, he lectured the NATO summit, via video. Zelensky is right. There is more that can and should be done: more successful efforts to stop the flow of Russian oil and gas, which is funding Putins war; more sophisticated weaponry to be sent to Ukraine; a concerted effort by the United States and others to break a Russian naval blockade thats keeping Ukrainian grain from reaching the world market.

Another blunt reality is that, for all of the billions of dollars that Biden and a so-far-united U.S. Congress have sent in aid to Ukraine, Russias ability to fight on likely means the conflict will be measured in years and not months. The much touted financial sanctions imposed by Biden at the start of the war have not broken Putin or his regime. And the longer the war goes on, Putin seems to be reckoning, the better it looks for him.

And yet the changes in Europe prompted by Russias aggressionand propelled by Bidens active diplomacyare real, structural, and unlikely to be reversed. They are driven by a much more clear-eyed assessment of the brutal nature of the Russian regime than the wishful thinking that for twenty years often drove the Wests accommodation of Putin. The blood of Ukrainian innocents has done that much.

In the United States, however, its hard to see that Biden has had similar success shoring up allies against the very real prospect of Trumps return to power. Democrats have talkedand talked and talkedabout the need to safeguard elections, protect voting rights, and revamp the outdated federal law governing the Electoral College. They have not done any of these. They have also talked about accountability for Trump and those who carried out the attack on the U.S. Capitol. But, as compelling as the January 6th committee hearings have been, the panel is not set up to provide accountability; its role is to document, to gather evidence, and to tell the public a story that it urgently needs to hear. The Department of Justice might yet force Trump and his circle to face real consequences for their actionsit does appear to be actively investigating their role. But it remains hard to imagine that Biden and his Attorney General, Merrick Garland, will choose to indict a former President for the first time in history.

Unlikely, of course, does not mean impossible. Just ask Putin, who has long benefitted from the underestimation of those who thought he would never take the unlikely actions he has taken. An accurate threat assessment is the first step in any of this. Liz Cheney, the select committees vice-chair, offered one on Wednesday night: we are confronting a domestic threat we have never faced before... a former President who is attempting to unravel the foundations of our constitutional republic. Biden, for his part, is pretty clear-eyed these days when it comes to Putinhe dropped his name repeatedly in his summit-ending news conference with reporters, on Thursdaybut, as is now his habit, he did not mention either Trump or the weeks dramatic testimony. In fact, he rarely mentions Trump and the serious ongoing threat he poses at all.

Biden even got indignant when a reporter asked him whether American instability and political dysfunction has now become a pressing concern for its allies. America is better positioned to lead the world than we ever have been, he blustered. The only destabilizing factor, he insisted, was the Supreme Courts decision throwing out Roe. That is disingenuous at best.

Americas ongoing internal political crisis is the single most destabilizing factor in the world today. And Biden knows it. All the weapons shipments to Ukraine, all the tough talk about Putin and about America as the guarantor of international stabilitythese will mean nothing if American democracy falters. And falter it will if Trump returns to power.

So why wont Biden just come out and say it? Why bother pretending that, except for the Supreme Court, everything is just fine in the United States? The time is late, for words and actions.

Read more here:

Is Joe Biden Handling Vladimir Putin Better Than Hes Handling Donald Trump? - The New Yorker

Former President Donald Trump took a Newsmax reporter to task during an interview that aired Thursday on the right-wing network over his bosss refusal, like Fox News, to continue platforming lies about the 2020 election.

The ex-president was being interviewed by Rob Finnerty when he posited that news networks including Newsmax itself was afraid of getting sued if it platformed the long-debunked conspiracies about voter fraud, foreign interference and other falsehoods spread by the Trump campaign after the 2020 election.

Fox doesn't put it on and, by the way, you people don't put it on either. You're afraid of being sued or something. I don't know. Some day you'll have to explain that, he told Mr Finnerty.

He then challenged the reporter: Youll probably cut what Im saying out right now.

Of course not! an incredulous Mr Finnerty responded.

Mr Trump then urged him to publish the interview before Chris sees it, referring to his apparently former ally, Newsmax CEO Chris Ruddy.

The exchange comes as Mr Trump made some of his first remarks amid the recent revelations of the public January 6 committee hearings. On Tuesday the committee treated the public to a shocking look behind the scenes, courtesy of ex-Mark Meadows aide Cassidy Hutchinson, of the final days of the Trump administration and heard how the president and others knew that violence was likely to occur as a result of their attempts to overturn the election on Jan 6 itself.

Mr Trump has roundly denounced Ms Hutchinson as a leaker and claimed that much of her testimony was untrue. Mr Meadows, however, continues to evade the committees subpoena for his testimony and refuses to give his side of the story under oath. So have other Trump allies.

In its hearings, the committee has largely leaned on Ms Hutchinson and other former members of the Trump adminsitration and inner circle as they seek to elevate the voices of ex-Trump allies; this strategy has effectively countered persistent complaints from Republicans that the hearings are one-sided.

The ex-president continues to refuse to drop his numerous bogus claims about the 2020 election though they have all been uniformly refuted by state-led hand recounts as well as statements from top officials in the Trump Justice Department and other agencies directly rejecting claims that widespread fraud occurred.

Continue reading here:

Donald Trump begs Newsmax to not cut him off and broadcast his election lies - Yahoo News

When nine accused leaders of the Oath Keepers go on trial for seditious conspiracy in Washington, DC, this fall, jurors in the government's first big, Jan. 6 showcase trial will hear a defense argument that sounds little short of crazy.

They'll be told that the far-right extremists believed President Donald Trump would invoke the Insurrection Act as they gathered at the Capitol, 100 strong in their camo-colored tactical gear and turn them into his own, ultra-loyal federal militia.

Their fantasy mission? To "Stop the Steal," "Defend the President," and "Defeat the Deep State," according to since-deleted rhetoric from their website. A defiant Trump would officially be their commander in chief.

"Do NOT concede, and do NOT wait until January 20, 2021," Inauguration Day. "Strike now," Oath Keepers leader and founder Elmer Stewart Rhodes urged in an open letter to Trump on Dec. 14, 2020.

"You must call us up and command us."

James Lee Bright, a lawyer for Rhodes, jokes that most people will laugh to learn the Oath Keepers thought they'd ever be a federal militia. "They believe what?" Bright imagines them thinking. "These guys are fucking crazy."

But he says he plans nonetheless to convince jurors that the pro-Trump, anti-government group actually had two lawful and non-seditious reasons to be at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Reason one: They were an invited security force for rally planners and participants, including Roger Stone, Ali Alexander, Latinos for Trump and Virginia Women for Trump.

Reason two: They were awaiting Trump's orders.

When those orders failed to come, Rhodes' lawyers will argue, the Oath Keepers left the Capitol. They had dinner at Olive Garden, and then collected the weapons and provisions they'd stashed at the ready but never used in their rooms at a Comfort Inn in Arlington, VA. Then they went home.

"I just want to fight," federal prosecutors say Rhodes complained after failing to get Trump on the phone that night, like some extremist Pinocchio with a thwarted dream of becoming a real militiaman.

Prosecutors, will, of course, tell jurors a different tale.

The feds argue in court papers that the Oath Keepers' private chat messages show sedition was their real motive.

The chats are full of references to a Civil War against "the usurpers" Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and to using force to oppose the transfer of presidential power, which is the very definition of seditious conspiracy.

The feds also argue that Rhodes oversaw two military-style "stacks" or formations, of Oath Keepers who forcibly breached the Capitol and that the real reason the group left DC was that the FBI had begun making arrests.

"I don't necessarily understand the mindset of it," says Bright, whose private practice is based in Dallas.

"It's not my world view," says Bright, speaking to Insider this week about the Oath Keepers' strategy for a 5-to-6 week trial scheduled to begin Sept. 28.

"But the evidence does exist that these individuals believed in it," he said of the group's hope that Trump would use the Insurrection Act to summon them into federal service against an imagined Biden-Harris "coup."

"They believed that if it was invoked, it was legal," Bright said. "And it would have been legal, arguably."

Which leads to perhaps the most eyebrow-raising part of the Oath Keepers' planned defense.

The Insurrection Act is so broadly written leaving words like "insurrection," "militia" and "militias of the state" without clear definition that Trump actually could have federalized the Oath Keepers, Rhodes' lawyers will tell jurors.

"It's so farfetched, and yet it's legal," at least until a court stepped in and held otherwise, Bright believes.

Experts in the Insurrection Act, on the other hand, say no. It's just farfetched.

"While I understand where they got the idea from, what they're saying is mostly nonsense," says Joseph Nunn, counsel for the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School.

Yes, Nunn concedes, there is a separate, archaic federal statute, 10 USC 246 drafted in 1792, the same year as the original Insurrection Act which still includes as part of a larger definition of militia, "all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age ... and under 45 years of age."

It's a statute Rhodes cites in his writings, though the 57-year-old believes that military vets such as himself would somehow be eligible until age 65.

"That definition plausibly includes the Oath Keepers," says Nunn. "It also includes me. It also includes seniors in high school." It also includes the Crips street gang and the Brigham Young University men's choir.

"So it would be technically possible," Nunn says, "for the president to invoke the Insurrection Act and call on some group of civilians to act as a militia, and help the president enforce the law or suppress a rebellion."

But "it's just not plausible," he says, not the least reason being that there's no framework for it. Would a federalized Oath Keepers militia be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice? Could they be court-martialed?

And ultimately, as desperate as he was to stay in power, Trump didn't go there, probably, as Nunn puts it, because "there were some people in his ear, explaining to him that he couldn't do things."

"There's no world in which it's remotely likely where the president of the United States would invoke the Insurrection Act" says Nunn, "and call on what is fundamentally just a social club of guys who have firearms."

Or is there? The House Jan. 6 hearings are producing evidence and witnesses that suggest that Trump repeatedly seized upon moves his legal advisers told him were illegal as he clung to power.

There are a few other complications that Rhodes didn't think of, says Michel Paradis, a professor of military and constitutional law at Columbia Law School.

For one, in the centuries since 1792, virtually every state has expressly banned private paramilitary militias from acting as law enforcement in their jurisdictions.

Also, Paradis notes, there's a 1956 revision to the Insurrection Act that requires a president to first ask nicely that the insurrectionists disperse and go home before invoking the act.

How would that even work? The Oath Keepers believed that the real insurrectionists were Biden, Harris, "Communists from China" and a shadowy "deep state." Would Trump ask them to disperse, or would he ask the pro-Trump mob that breached the Capitol?

"There's simply no example throughout all of Constitutional history of the president ever, essentially, creating his own draft under the Insurrection Act," and calling up civillians, Paradis says.

"It's always been done by drawing upon the militia resources of the states, what we now call the National Guard."

Both Paradis and Nunn agree the Insurrection Act is in dire need of a Congressional overhaul that would clarify these points, and better define what a president can and can't do.

"It leaves totally to the president's discretion what constitutes an insurrection," says Nunn, who has written extensively on the topic for the Brennan Center.

"And it's largely up to the president to decide, do I need to activate a few hundred guys from the Maryland National Guard? Or do I send in the 1st Armored Division?'

The Oath Keepers' two-pronged sedition defense that they were at the Capitol as invited rally security, and that they were awaiting the president's orders is not a convenient, after-thought excuse, Bright notes.

"These guys were not planning this in the shadows," he says. "It all predates January 6. The government has recordings of the Oath Keepers discussing not bringing weapons into the district" until Trump gave the OK, he says.

And as president, Trump had flirted aloud with the idea of invoking the act, including against migrants at the southern border in 2019, and against violent George Floyd protesters in the summer of 2020, although always in the context of calling up the military or National Guard.

But did Trump or anyone from Trumpworld give any indication to the Oath Keepers that he would federalize them, or invoke the Insurrection Act to stay in office?

"To date, we are unaware of any direct communications that ever took place between the Oath Keepers and Trump, or anyone in his inner circle," Bright says.

Here's another problem with the defense.

What if the government tells jurors sure, go ahead and assume the Oath Keepers did believe Trump would federalize them, even absent any encouragement of that belief from Trumpworld.

Wouldn't anything the Oath Keepers did, or planned to do as an armed, Trump-led militia obeying their Commander-in-Chief's orders as he continued to cling to power still amount to sedition?

"I understand that," says Bright. "And that is an area of law we are really deeply looking at. We're looking into that. We anticipate that argument being made.

"It's all quite complicated," he adds. "And legally, it's fascinating."

Follow this link:

Oath Keepers to tell jury they thought Trump would federalize them on Jan. 6 - Business Insider

Infowars host Alex Jones claimed on Wednesday that a source close to former President Donald Trump told him that Trump is planning to declare his candidacy for a 2024 White House bid on Monday, July 4th.

"Donald Trump is set to announce his run for 2024 on Monday, which is a very special day. We're shooting this right now during a break during my live show on June 29th, Wednesday edition. That means in five days, on July 4th, President Trump is gonna announce he's running for his second term," Jones said. "Imagine the explosive political, cultural, economic, medical, financial implications of that."

Jones noted that Trump's "confidant" and veteran Republican operative Roger Stone, whom Trump pardoned last December after he was convicted on multiple counts of making false statements, obstruction of justice, and witness tampering, "confirmed that the first six months of last year, Trump wasn't gonna run. They messed with him so bad, they ran America into the ground so bad, he said, 'okay, I'm gonna run.' And the question became, when will he run? It became, when will he make that decision? Right now, he is planning to announce this is exclusive this next Monday, July 4th, that he's running for president again. Unbelievable."

Watch below via Ron Filipkowski:

See more here:

"Infowars" host Alex Jones says Trump will announce 2024 presidency run on July 4th - Salon

Although all three downstate Illinois Republicans endorsed by former President Donald Trump won their primary races Tuesday, outspoken Trump supporters seeking nomination for statewide or federal seats saw mixed results in the suburbs.

Such candidates were defeated in the 6th, 8th and 14th congressional districts' GOP primaries, as well as in the U.S. Senate race. But they won nominations in the 5th and 11th districts.

Trump didn't endorse any suburban candidates in Tuesday's primary. Lake County Republican leader Mark Shaw said he doubts a Trump-approved stamp would have helped. Voters in northern Illinois are less conservative than those in the central or southern parts of the state, Shaw noted -- and their opinions of the former president aren't as positive.

"The president doesn't do as well in northern Illinois," Shaw said.

Trump endorsed Darren Bailey of Xenia in the gubernatorial primary, U.S. Rep. Mary Miller of Oakland in the 15th Congressional District race and U.S. Rep. Darin LaHood of Dunlap in the 16th. There was no shortage of Trump supporters on suburban ballots, however.

Some aligned themselves with the former president merely by criticizing the 2020 election results or understating the severity of last year's incursion at the U.S. Capitol.

Others visited Trump's Mar-a-Lago Club in Florida during the campaign. They included Bailey; 11th Congressional District hopeful Mark Carroll of North Aurora, who placed third out of six candidates Tuesday; and 14th District candidate James Marter of Oswego, who finished second in his race.

Both Marter and fellow 14th District candidate Jack Lombardi of Manhattan alleged fraud in the 2020 presidential race despite no evidence of widespread chicanery. Lombardi finished fourth Tuesday.

The GOP nominee in the 14th, Oswego's Scott Gryder, avoided that pro-Trump conspiracy. He'll face two-term Democratic incumbent Lauren Underwood of Naperville in November.

In the 8th District GOP primary, Chad Koppie of Gilberts and Karen Kolodziej of Itasca finished far behind nominee Chris Dargis of Palatine. Dargis will face Democratic U.S. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi of Schaumburg in the general.

And then there's 6th Congressional District hopeful Scott Kaspar, who secured the backing of Trump allies Rudy Giuliani and Bernard Kerik.

Kaspar, a lawyer from Orland Park, frequently dropped by Mar-a-Lago Club and other Trump properties for political gatherings, too.

But those maneuvers didn't pay off. Kaspar placed fifth out of six candidates.

The winner in the 6th District GOP primary was Orland Park Mayor Keith Pekau, who didn't support election conspiracy theories and criticized the Capitol rioters. Pekau will face Democratic U.S. Rep. Sean Casten of Downers Grove in November.

The 6th includes much of the West and Southwest suburbs in Cook and DuPage counties, as well as some Chicago precincts. Considering Trump lost suburban Cook County and DuPage County in both 2016 and 2020 by wide margins, being so pro-Trump likely wouldn't have helped Kaspar in a general election showdown, campaign expert Kent Redfield said.

"If you are running as a Republican in a suburban congressional district, you have to appeal to moderate and swing voters in the general election to win," said Redfield, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Illinois Springfield.

Catalina Lauf, the GOP nominee in the 11th District, briefly worked at the U.S. Commerce Department during the Trump administration and has touted her connection to the former president on social media.

Lauf's conservative views include opposing gun control and abortion. She will face Democratic U.S. Rep. Bill Foster of Naperville for the 11th District seat, which serves parts of Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, Will, DeKalb and Boone counties.

Lauf's Trump ties and views could work against her in November, Redfield said.

"In general, being too closely tied to former President Trump, Stop the Steal or hard-right, socially conservative positions ... will hurt a Republican running in the general election in a suburban congressional district," he said.

Shaw had a similar opinion.

"I think Trump can be a positive for some candidates and not so positive for others," he said. "It depends where they're running."

Lauf wasn't the only Trump-aligned winner Tuesday.

So was the 5th District's Tommy Hanson. A Chicago real estate broker, he questioned the 2020 election results and alleged police at the U.S. Capitol during last year's riot "were coached" to make it look like the mob was assaulting the building.

No evidence of that exists.

Hanson will face veteran Democratic U.S. Rep. Mike Quigley of Chicago in the general. Quigley beat Hanson in 2018 and 2020 to continue serving the 5th, which includes parts of Cook and Lake counties.

Bailey was the only statewide candidate Trump backed.

The Bailey ticket did very well in the suburbs, winning each of the collar counties by wide margins. Bailey will face incumbent Democrat J.B. Pritzker in November.

As for the Senate race, three election deniers were among the nominees: Bobby Piton of Geneva, who went as far as to say Joe Biden isn't actually president and called the Capitol riot a "false flag event"; Peggy Hubbard of Belleville, who reportedly was at the Capitol on Jan. 6; and Jimmy Lee Tillman II of Chicago.

But Trump didn't endorse anyone. The nomination went to Mundelein's Kathy Salvi, who crushed the field in the collar counties. She will face Democratic U.S. Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Hoffman Estates in November.

Continue reading here:

How candidates aligned with Donald Trump did in the suburbs - Daily Herald

Seth Keshel speaks at a New Hampshire election security seminar presented by the New Hampshire Voter Integrity Group in Manchester, N.H., on Nov. 19, 2021. Seth Keshel, a retired U.S. Army captain, has worked to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election. Brian Snyder/Reuters hide caption

Seth Keshel speaks at a New Hampshire election security seminar presented by the New Hampshire Voter Integrity Group in Manchester, N.H., on Nov. 19, 2021. Seth Keshel, a retired U.S. Army captain, has worked to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election.

On a quiet Tuesday night in Howard County, Md., dozens of people gather in a community center and listen to Seth Keshel's 10-point plan.

"Captain K," as he's known in election fraud circles, is a former U.S. Army intelligence officer, and he is walking through his go-to presentation: comparisons of vote totals from the past few election cycles, which he falsely claims prove President Biden's win in 2020 was illegitimate. His 10-point plan to "true election integrity" includes banning all early voting and requiring all American voters to re-register.

The next night, more than a thousand miles away in Minneapolis, in a small building across from a popular garden shop, roughly 60 people wait for David Clements to take the stage.

Clements, professorial in a tan blazer with a graying beard and unruly curly hair, begins his presentation with a prayer. Then he goes to the slideshow.

The audience, which appears to be all white and mostly middle-aged, occasionally gasps as he shows charts and graphs, which he claims contain evidence of widespread election fraud.

Clements ends his talk with a request to the people in the audience: Go to the offices of your local officials.

"They respond to fear," he says. "You need to hold these institutions with the contempt they deserve."

An NPR investigation found that since Jan. 6, 2021, the election denial movement has moved from Donald Trump's tweets to hundreds of community events like these in restaurants, car dealerships and churches led by a core group of election conspiracy influencers like Keshel and Clements.

These local gatherings may reach fewer people than viral internet posts, but they seem to effectively spur action by regular people, who are motivated by their almost evangelical intimacy.

"It's this constellation of election conspiracy theorists," said Chris Krebs, a former Department of Homeland Security official who oversaw the federal government's election security efforts in 2020. "You can see the complexion of local politics shifting as a result. They have decentralized post-January 6th and are really trying to effect change at the lowest-possible level."

NPR monitored the election-denial influencers through events advertised on their public social media accounts, the websites and social media accounts of local organizations, events NPR attended, video footage and news reports over the past 18 months. Four prominent purveyors of voting misinformation stood out, crisscrossing the country to appear at at least 308 events in 45 states and the District of Columbia.

NPR tracked Keshel and Clements, as well as Douglas Frank, who misleadingly claims to have discovered a secret algorithm that swings vote totals across the U.S. (his methodology has been widely debunked by voting experts), and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell.

The scale of their movements paints a portrait of an election denial movement that has evolved into a nationwide force, beyond just swing states and despite the Jan. 6 Committee's investigation and efforts by voting officials at every level to combat disinformation. NPR's investigation is the first such effort to document the scope of these influencers.

"It's an existential threat to American democracy," said Franita Tolson, an elections expert at the University of Southern California. "If the numbers get big enough, it's unclear whether we will survive it."

Carly Koppes, who runs elections in Weld County, Colo., says she noticed a tone shift in her county after Douglas Frank came to town.

She's reading over an email that just came in from one of her voters.

"Traitors will be exposed. These guys are going down and you have no chance..." She trails off as she scans. "You deserve everything coming your direction."

The Republican county clerk takes a long sigh.

Last summer, a group of suspicious citizens here knocked on thousands of doors looking to uncover evidence of election fraud.

"It started because of Dr. Frank and his really bad data analysis," Koppes said. "Him and his people, unfortunately, just don't know how to read election records correctly."

Douglas Frank, a former high school math and science teacher from Ohio, gives a presentation to about 100 people in the Missouri Capitol rotunda on his theories about election fraud, on Jan. 6, in Jefferson City, Mo. Frank, whose ideas have been debunked, claims to have discovered secret algorithms that were used to rig the 2020 election in favor of President Biden. David Carson/St. Louis Post-Dispatch via AP hide caption

Douglas Frank, a former high school math and science teacher from Ohio, gives a presentation to about 100 people in the Missouri Capitol rotunda on his theories about election fraud, on Jan. 6, in Jefferson City, Mo. Frank, whose ideas have been debunked, claims to have discovered secret algorithms that were used to rig the 2020 election in favor of President Biden.

In his former life, Frank was a high school math and science teacher in Ohio. He's moved now into touring the country spreading election fraud conspiracies full time.

He, and the other three men whose movements NPR documented, either did not respond to requests for comment or declined to comment for this story.

In the visit Koppes mentioned, on April 24, 2021, Frank held court in a DoubleTree hotel conference room near Denver. Dozens of people cheered as Frank pointed at graphs that he claimed showed how the 2020 election was marred by fraud (something that's been debunked many times by hand counts, audits and investigative reports across the country).

"Go knock on some doors!" Frank implored.

And many people in this Colorado community listened.

A group popped up there, dedicated to this sort of fraud-motivated canvassing, and they devoted their organizing playbook to Frank.

Jim Gilchrist, a doctor of holistic medicine in Colorado, saw an online posting of Frank's talk and volunteered to canvass with the group. He estimates he spent more than 20 hours last summer knocking on doors.

"I just kind of wished there was some mechanism for there to be a more transparent kind of way of making sure the vote was counted correctly," Gilchrist said in an interview with NPR. "Douglas Frank kind of offered a solution that we could do as citizens."

The election denialists also frequently bump elbows with people in power.

NPR found that over the past year and a half, the men met or appeared with at least 78 elected officials at the federal, state and local levels many of whom will have a role in how future elections are run and certified.

At least two secretaries of state, two U.S. senators, 10 U.S. representatives, two state attorneys general and two lieutenant governors met or appeared with the figures NPR tracked. More than three dozen members of state legislatures, many of whom have introduced legislation in their states that would affect how Americans cast ballots, have also appeared at events with them.

"Our voices have gotten bigger and bigger every single day since last year and you cannot stop that," said Mike Lindell, at a rally in January of 2022 attended by three members of Arizona's congressional delegation, Debbie Lesko, Andy Biggs, and Paul Gosar, all of whom voted not to certify Arizona's election results at the U.S. Capitol a year earlier. "We will get our country back."

Mike Lindell, political activist and CEO of MyPillow, speaks during a rally hosted by former President Donald Trump at the Delaware County Fairgrounds on April 23 in Delaware, Ohio. Drew Angerer/Getty Images hide caption

Mike Lindell, political activist and CEO of MyPillow, speaks during a rally hosted by former President Donald Trump at the Delaware County Fairgrounds on April 23 in Delaware, Ohio.

In some cases, the election denial influencers worked to persuade skeptical officials to embrace their claims.

In May 2021, Frank met with staff from the Ohio secretary of state's office for more than two hours.

NPR acquired audio of the meeting, which was first reported by The Washington Post, through a public records request.

The staffers in the meeting pushed back on Frank's many fraud accusations, and at one point he responded by threatening to send unauthorized people, or "plants" as he put it, into local voting offices.

"We have plants everywhere that go into buildings when your machines are on and capture your IP addresses. We have those, not necessarily in Ohio but we can arrange for that," Frank said, his voice rising. "So all I'm trying to point out to you is that this is coming. Be ready. And I'm not trying to fight you do you see that I'm trying to help you?"

The staffers in that meeting didn't budge. But shortly after that meeting, someone did attempt to breach an elections network in Lake County, Ohio, though a state official told NPR that no sensitive data was ultimately accessed.

The four election denialists also appeared with well over 100 candidates for local, state and federal office in the 2022 primaries. Some, including U.S. Rep. Mary Miller of Illinois and state Sen. Doug Mastriano, who is running to be governor of Pennsylvania, have already won their party's nomination for the general election.

The highest profile of the group that NPR tracked is MyPillow CEO Lindell, a prominent and longtime Trump supporter.

Lindell says he has spent millions of dollars on his crusade, which started almost as soon as ballots were cast on Nov. 3, 2020. Sometime around March of 2021, he brought Frank into the fold and Frank's popularity skyrocketed.

"I went from being completely mum to suddenly 10 million people knowing me in about a week," he told a group in Utah last July.

David Clements talks to audience members after speaking to the Surry County board of commissioners during a presentation by several individuals that aimed to cast doubt on election integrity, urging the commission to replace existing voting machines with purely paper ballots in Dobson, N.C., on May 16. Jonathan Drake/Reuters hide caption

David Clements talks to audience members after speaking to the Surry County board of commissioners during a presentation by several individuals that aimed to cast doubt on election integrity, urging the commission to replace existing voting machines with purely paper ballots in Dobson, N.C., on May 16.

Frank often speaks at events with Keshel and Clements. Clements is a lawyer and former professor at the New Mexico State University business school who was fired for not complying with the school's COVID-19 policies. Keshel is a retired Army captain and veteran of Afghanistan.

While those in the group often repeat talking points and appear together, they don't necessarily coordinate appearances or strategy. And other than Lindell, they were mostly unknown before 2020. Now they're influencers in the movement with online followings of hundreds of thousands of people. They even promote merchandise like T-shirts, books and body lotions, along with their election misinformation.

Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, says they're using election fraud as a vehicle to advance themselves.

"There's no shortage of ability to access the truth about our election system, yet there seems to be a proliferation of people willing to lie about it," Benson said. "I think it's logical to conclude that they know better. And that they're knowingly spreading misinformation ... to win elections, to raise money, to gain attention and celebrity."

Benson says her office has seen a direct correlation between election denier events in Michigan and a rise in harassment toward voting officials.

"Whenever there is an appearance in which the former president or Lindell or others come out attacking our system we know to expect an uptick in threats and add additional security as a result," she said.

But she, and the thousands of other Americans in charge of elections nationwide, have yet to figure out a truly effective way to fight back and break through to the two-thirds of Republican voters who believe voter fraud helped Joe Biden win the 2020 election.

That's because election denialism has grown from a political movement into something almost religious, said Koppes, the Republican county clerk in Colorado.

Supporters of former President Donald Trump cheer as he speaks at a Save America Rally in Florence, Ariz., on Jan. 15. Mike Lindell and three Arizona lawmakers Debbie Lesko, Andy Biggs and Paul Gosar also attended the event. Ross D. Franklin/AP hide caption

Supporters of former President Donald Trump cheer as he speaks at a Save America Rally in Florence, Ariz., on Jan. 15. Mike Lindell and three Arizona lawmakers Debbie Lesko, Andy Biggs and Paul Gosar also attended the event.

"There's just so much that is incorrect that they just keep repeating and repeating and repeating," Koppes said. "And then as soon as I have absolutely blocked off that path with actual correct information, then they just move that goal post. And they keep just moving the goal posts. And moving the goal posts."

Between conversations with voters and research on all the separate false claims that have popped up over the past two years, she estimates she's spent thousands of hours dealing with the fallout of Donald Trump's misinformation campaign.

At this point, she says she's had to stop engaging with voters who are unwilling to listen to her.

"Some of these people really, truly believe they're doing the Lord's work," Koppes said. "But I think at the end of the day, they so desperately want to believe what they're being fed, that they're using all means to justify what they're doing."

Monika Evstatieva, Barbara Van Woerkom, Barrie Hardymon and Meg Anderson of NPR's Investigations team contributed reporting to this story. NPR's Nick Underwood contributed to the data visualizations.

Read the original post:

Hundreds of grassroots events have fueled the lie that Trump won the election - NPR

Although the Jan. 6 committee has not yet handed down a recommendation on whether the Department of Justice should file criminal charges against former President Donald Trump in relation to the Capitol riots, it is possible that he and those who were within his inner circle at the time could be indicted.

The only way out would be a get-out-of-jail-free card, otherwise known as a presidential pardon.

The question remains whether Trump issued secret presidential pardons to people within his administration for crimes related to Jan. 6 before he left office.

WATCH: TRUMP SAYS HUTCHINSON IS LIVING IN FANTASY LAND

The Washington Examiner spoke with several experts in constitutional law about whether or not Trump could have issued secret pardons during his term and whether they would be considered viable in a court of law.

A number of people with increasing closeness to Trump himself are becoming the subject of various investigations by Congress and others, said Frank O. Bowman, a law professor at the University of Missouri.

Its possible some specific set of people got such pardons that theyve been sort of holding in private.

At one of the recent Jan. 6 hearings, it was affirmed that, at least at one point, Trump was keeping a list of people he planned to pardon for acts related to his campaign to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.

The committee revealed that in an email to Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, a lawyer who played a significant role in Trumps efforts to overturn the election results, said: Ive decided that I should be on the pardon list, if that is still in the works.

Additionally, Cassidy Hutchinson, an aide to former chief of staff Mark Meadows, testified to the committee in the most recent hearing that Giuliani and Meadows both requested pardons from the former president.

When asked by Vice Chairwoman Liz Cheney (R-WY) whether Giuliani suggested he was interested in receiving a presidential pardon related to Jan. 6, Hutchinson said, He did.

When asked the same question about Meadows, Hutchinson said, Mr. Meadows did seek that pardon.

Hutchinson also stated that several other members of Congress inquired about receiving pardons from the president in relation to Jan. 6.

According to the Supreme Court case Burdick v. United States, in order to receive a pardon, there must be an admission of guilt or conviction in a federal court of law on the side of the transgressor. The opinion in Burdick v. United States also says that a person cannot be issued a presidential pardon prior to committing an illegal act. However, they can be issued a pardon prior to being charged or sentenced, as long as the act has already been committed.

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON DID NOT DO HER JOB

Therefore, Trump was able to issue pardons to anyone within his administration before he left office, as long as he knew them to have committed an illegal act prior to his issuing of the pardon. And he didnt have to tell anyone other than the recipients about the pardons, either.

According to the experts who spoke with the Washington Examiner, there is no legal requirement that the president discloses it to the public when he issues a pardon. The practice of publicly announcing pardons is simply a matter of precedent. As long as it can be proven that the pardon was delivered to and accepted by the recipient, it doesnt matter how that is done.

Samuel Morison, the appellate defense attorney in the U.S. Department of Defense Office of the Chief Defense Counsel, said: I think he could write a pardon on the back of a napkin. You know, it doesnt have to be on a fancy piece of paper with the SEAL of the Justice Department.

He added: I admit that there would be potentially at least an evidentiary problem. How do you prove that this is the real thing? But I dont think theres any reason why it couldnt be done and not publicized.

It is also important to note that pardons can only be issued while the president is still serving his term. Bowman was skeptical that Trump would have had the time or appropriate legal counsel to issue accurately written pardons after Jan. 6 because his last day in office was Jan. 20. However, he said there was a better chance that Trump could have issued pardons to those closest to him in the months after he lost the election.

Might there be, again, some other pardons or pardons lurking around for his kids? That seems more probable because there was a lot of time to think about that, he said.

Clarifying the reach of the presidents pardon power, former U.S. Pardon Attorney Margaret Love said: If the president before he left office signed a pardon warrant addressed to a specific individual but not specifying the crime, and gave it to the individual to use just in case you ever get in trouble that would not be sufficient for two reasons. First of all, the president cant pardon conduct that hasnt taken place yet. Second, to be valid, a pardon must state with particularity the crime being pardoned, so there is no confusion about what the president intended.

However, presidents can issue blanket pardons to grant clemency for any and all actions that fall under a certain type of crime, which they have done several times in the past. After President Richard Nixon resigned, President Gerald Ford granted him a blanket pardon for any and all crimes he may have committed. After the Civil War, President Andrew Johnson issued a blanket pardon to anyone who had been involved in aiding or abetting the rebellion. When a pardon is issued to a large group of people, it is called amnesty.

After Jan. 6, some called for Trump to grant amnesty to all of the people who participated in the riots. Although Hutchinson revealed in the latest Jan. 6 committee hearing that Trump did consider granting pardons to the rioters, he ultimately did not. Hundreds have been charged and sentenced.

However, the former president recently said that he would consider offering pardons to those who participated in the Capitol riots if he is reelected.

At the recent Faith and Freedom Conference in Nashville, Tennessee, Trump said: Most people should not be treated the way theyre being treated. If I become president someday, if I decide to do it, I will be looking at them very, very seriously for pardons.

Despite the fact that Trumps offer to hand out pardons has opened him up to allegations of witness tampering, the former U.S. pardon attorney said that it doesnt matter in terms of the validity of the pardon.

Love said, Even if a pardon is corruptly given, it is still valid. So, for example, if the president took money or something else of value in exchange for a pardon, he might be subject to prosecution for the crime of bribery, but the validity of the pardon would not be subject to challenge.

Thus far, there have only been charges brought against private citizens who participated in the riots. However, the DOJ could decide to bring charges against individuals who were directly involved in Trumps efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. In that case, if one of those individuals has a pardon from Trump, that pardon would be considered valid, even if it was granted in exchange for committing acts both parties knew to be illegal.

In an excerpt from her upcoming book, Kellyanne Conway, a top aide in the Trump administration, said that Trump also offered her a blanket pardon after he lost the 2020 presidential election. When she inquired as to why she would need one, the former president told her, Because they go after everyone, honey. It doesnt matter.

In response to a question about Conways claim, Bowman said, Could he have offered them to people who didnt turn them down or simply delivered them in secret? Possible. And would those be valid? Possible.

So the short answer to whether Trump could have issued secret pardons to his inner circle and family members: yes. The only way the public will ever know for sure if he did, is if someone who received one is charged and attempts to invoke the pardon in their defense.

Love said that as long as the pardon is written to cover all of the appropriate crimes the recipient could be charged for, theres no reason it couldnt hold up in court. However, an issue could arise if the recipient is charged for a crime not listed on their pardon.

A more interesting question would arise if the president believed he was pardoning certain conduct, but the person was later charged with something closely related to the pardoned conduct but arguably not the same conduct, she said.

There is only a one-sentence clause in the Constitution regarding pardons, meaning that the presidents power is broad and not subject to very many restrictions.

Experts who spoke to the Washington Examiner shared the sentiment that the only real check on the pardon power is the people.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The remedy for that is the political process. If you think President Trump improperly used the pardon power for his own personal gain or for partisan gain, the answer is vote him out of office, which is what happened, said Morison.

More:

Trump may have issued pardons for Jan. 6 experts break it down - Washington Examiner

Rotunda Rumblings

Jan. 6: A pair of Ohio politicians featured prominently at Tuesdays surprise hearing into the Jan. 6 incursion into the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters. As Richardson reports, former White House aide Max Miller, who is running for Congress in Rocky River, testified that then-President Donald Trump wanted to go to the Capitol following his speech to supporters that immediately preceded the overrunning of the Capitol. And Cassidy Hutchinson, an aide to former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, said Rep. Jim Jordan, a Champaign County Republican, called Meadows as the Trump supporters breached the halls of Congress chanting Hang Mike Pence.

Blast from the past: Ohio Auditor Keith Faber released a report Tuesday saying that the shuttered Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow owes the state more than $117 million, Seth Richardson reports. That includes more than $106 million to the Ohio Department of Education and another $10-plus million to the Attorney Generals office.

Toxic relationship: Cuyahoga County residents live near 141 facilities that release toxins into the land, water and air. Zachary Smith looked at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency records and found the steel industry comprises a large percentage of the toxins released. However, not all toxins have equal health harms. For instance, the zinc compounds released by steelmakers are less harmful than lower levels of chromium.

Power on: In addition to Columbia Gas of Ohio, which is seeking a rate increase on Ohio customers to raise $221 million more a year, other utilities AES Ohio, Duke Energy and Aqua Ohio -- have increase requests before the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, in all seeking an extra $400 million. This comes at a time when Ohio families have to pay more for goods and services because of inflation and after the U.S. Department of Justice twice subpoenaed PUCO records after the House Bill 6 scandal, Ohio Capital Journals Jake Zuckerman writes.

Sub way: In the Cincinnati area, the need for substitute teachers decreased in the spring, down from January, when the omicron variant resulted in teachers calling in sick, reports the Enquirers Madeline Mitchell. In March, the legislature passed a bill allowing people to obtain temporary substitute teaching licenses without having bachelors degrees.

Moving on: Although the site for the future Intel semiconductor plant outside Columbus has been described as barren, families who lived on that land are sad to leave. They described stressful negotiations with the company, which offered them sums above market value for their homes, the Associated Press Andrew Welsh-Huggins and Patrick Orsagos report.

Drug money: The OneOhio Recovery Foundation was set up as a private nonprofit to spend $440 million the state secured from lawsuits against opioid distributors. However, notices of board meetings are hard to find, and some of its working groups arent meeting in public, the Dispatchs Titus Wu reports. This has a leader at Harm Reduction Ohio, which works to reduce overdoses, concerned about whether the money will be actually spent to mitigate the effects of the opioid crisis.

Appalachian cash: Gov. Mike DeWine signed House Bill 377, which offers $500 million for 32 Ohio counties in Appalachia. Money will be spent on infrastructure, including downtown Main Street development, health care behavioral health, workforce development and job training.

Open your checkbook: Chinedum Ndukwe, a former Bengals player who is now a developer in Cincinnati, testified in court Tuesday that he felt preyed upon by local politicians who insisted on contributions before approving his real estate deals. Ndukwe is a prosecution witness in the trial against Cincinnati Councilman P.G. Sittenfeld, Kevin Grasha and Sharon Coolidge report for the Enquirer.

Lobbying Lineup

Five organizations lobbying on Senate Bill 227, which would establish a committee to study public assistance benefits cliffs, or points when workers get pay raises that make them ineligible for benefits even if the wage increases arent enough to be able to afford food, health care or other types of aid. The Democratic-sponsored bill has only received one hearing, last year.

1. Funders Collaborative on COVID Recovery, which is part of the Cleveland Foundation

2. Mount Carmel Health System

3. Ohio Chamber of Commerce

4. Philanthropy Ohio

5. Ohio Department of Medicaid

Birthdays

Maya Majikas, Ohio House Democrats deputy communications director

Straight From The Source

Today we saw a patient in Dayton who has cancer. Her doctors told her she would have to terminate before she received chemotherapy treatment. She will have to travel to Indiana. A mom brought her daughter in and doesnt own a car. She will have to rent one to get her daughter to her appointment in Indianapolis later this week.

-A representative of Womens Med Center in Dayton, who asked not to be named for her safety, talking to the Dayton Daily News amid a chaotic scene Monday as women who had scheduled abortions were not legally allowed to obtain them if they were beyond six weeks, or when fetal cardiac activity can be detected.

Capitol Letter is a daily briefing providing succinct, timely information for those who care deeply about the decisions made by state government. If you do not already subscribe, you can sign up here to get Capitol Letter in your email box each weekday for free.

View post:

Donald Trump wanted to head to the U.S. Capitol on Jan 6, Ohios Max Miller testifies: Capitol Letter - cleveland.com

It's the Summer of Trump for Letitia James and her band of Trump Organization investigators.

With statute of limitations deadlines looming, New York's attorney general has signaled that her office is wrapping up its massive, three-year inquiry into an alleged pattern of financial fraud at Donald Trump's multi-billion-dollar hotel and golf resort empire.

There will be no summer slowdown as James races to file the result of that probe, an expected encyclopedic lawsuit quite possibly seeking to put the company out of business entirely.

Depositions from Donald Trump and his two eldest children, plus an ongoing, giant evidence dump from longtime Trump appraisers Cushman & Wakefield to include Cushman's entire archive of communications with Trump and Trump Org will make for a very busy July as the finish line nears.

James' investigators have by now recorded subpoena-mandated depositions from some 40 witnesses. Those include less-than-enlightening sessions with the Trump Organization's two top executives, former CFO Allen Weisselberg and Eric Trump, who has helmed the business as executive vice president since his father became president in 2017.

James has left the hottest depositions for smack in the middle of summer.

Donald Trump, Ivanka Trump, and Donald Trump, Jr. have all been court-ordered to sit for questioning some time between Friday, July 15, and Friday, July 22. Reps for Trump and the AG's office declined to say whether or when those have been scheduled.

The three Trumps could follow in Weisselberg's and Eric Trump's footsteps, and plead the fifth hundreds of times, but there would be a legal cost.

The depositions will be taped, and those tapes will become evidence for a jury should James' eventual lawsuit and any possible demand for fines, restitution or a dissolution of the business go to trial.

A jury would be told that they are allowed to draw a negative inference from the sight of any witness invoking the right to remain silent rather than risk self-incrimination.

Meanwhile, evidence is pouring in by the hundreds of thousands of pages from Cushman & Wakefield, in response to their loss two weeks ago of a last-ditch appeal at New York's highest court.

James's probers appear to care a lot about the Chicago-based Cushman, Trump's go-to appraisers for well over a decade.

They've alleged that Trump used "fraudulent or misleading" Cushman appraisals to win $165 million in tax breaks and bank loans. At least some of those questionable appraisals were made in what the AG has called "an atmosphere of pressure applied to them by the Trump Organization."

The real estate services giant is now scrambling to comply with the third of four subpoenas James has issued since June of 2019, according to a new court filing that gives a sense of how much new paperwork the AG's office is in the midst of processing.

Cushman has turned over 800,000 pages of documents to the AG's probe. Some 500,000 of those pages were turned over in the past week, lawyers for the appraisal firm say in the filing.

But two sets of documents, demanded in that third subpoena, issued in September, remain to be turned over.

And here is where lawyers for Cushman say they are struggling and need more time, ideally until July 15, after having blown past this week's deadline.

What are they still laboring to turn over? The third subpoena's first and second document requests:

"All documents and communications concerning any work performed for Donald J. Trump or the Trump Organization."

And:

"All documents and communications concerning any work performed concerning property or assets owned by Donald J. Trump or the Trump Organization."

Some of this material, including "emails, substantial hard copy documents, and other e-discovery materials," has already been turned over, the new Cushman filing says.

But the e-discovery firm that's helping collect and process Cushman's documents, Platinum Intelligent Data Solutions, is still scouring through 1.78 terabytes of emails "involving current and former employees," in an effort to parse out what else must be turned over, the filing says.

"This is estimated to include approximately 9 million e-mails with attachments consisting of approximately 72 million pages," the filing says, describing the huge database now being sifted for Trump-related communications.

The AG's office has yet to respond to Cushman's request for a two-week delay, which would also have to be approved by the Manhattan judge who is presiding over the AG's probe, NY Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron.

That's the judge who on Wednesday ruled that Donald Trump is no longer in contempt of court over an earlier failure to fully comply with James' subpoena for his business documents.

As for the 500,000 pages turned over by Cushman in the past week, those include some 1,000 valuations, stretching back to 2012, that were conducted by 5 Cushman-employee appraisers of Trump properties, the latest filing also says.

James has said she wants to compare how the 5 appraisers set values for Trump properties with how they set values for similar non-Trump properties.

The 5 appraisers worked on three properties James is looking closely at 40 Wall Street, the Seven Springs estate in Upstate New York, and the Trump National Golf Club near Los Angeles.

Any measurable favoritism toward Trump, which Cushman has steadfastly denied, could result in the AG naming the appraisal firm as a defendant in her lawsuit.

A Cushman spokesman did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

Read the original:

Tish James' Summer of Trump: depos and a big doc dump mark NY probe's 11th hour - Business Insider

An attorney who has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court said that former President Donald Trump is not only unfit to be president, but he's unfit "to be in this country."

Former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal told MSNBC's Deadline White House on Thursday that the fifth day of hearings by the House Select Committee investigating January 6, 2021, had painted a picture of Trump as a "third-rate dictator."

The committee heard from former acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and former acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue on Thursday, who alleged Trump had pressured the Department of Justice (DOJ) to declare the 2020 presidential election "corrupt."

MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace asked Katyal for his reaction to the testimony on the fifth day of hearings.

Katyal said that Donoghue's testimony was "the soul of the Justice Department. It's not political," and pointed out that he had personally worked for two attorneys general who pursued both Republicans and Democrats and "didn't protect their friends."

Katyal has a long association with the DOJ and was acting solicitor general from 2010 to 2011. He has also frequently argued before the Supreme Court, including as co-counsel for former Vice President Al Gore in the well-known 2000 election case Bush v. Gore.

"You asked about my emotional reaction," Katyal told Wallace. "Donald Trump is not fit, not only to be in this country - not only to be president of this country, but even to be in this country."

"The picture today was a third-rate dictator somewhere else," he went on. "That's the way justice departments and presidents in foreign countries behave, the way that Trump did, not the way our Justice Department did."

"Regardless of what you think about various presidents - Bush, Reagan, Clinton - nobody, nobody treated the Justice Department this way and nobody put anyone in the Justice Department like Jeffrey Clark, who would do that kind of bidding."

Katyal was referring to testimony at Thursday's hearing about a White House meeting in December 2020, at which Trump reportedly considered firing Rosen and installing DOJ environmental lawyer Jeffrey Clark as acting attorney general.

Clark was allegedly involved in a plan to send a letter to officials in the state of Georgia containing claims about election fraud and urging the legislature to convene to consider appointing a new slate of electors.

On Thursday, the select committee also showed some handwritten notes Donoghue had made during his conversations with Trump about the 2020 election.

Those notes indicate that when DOJ officials told Trump they could not alter the election results, Trump responded: "Don't expect you to do that, just say that the election was corrupt + leave the rest to me and the R. Congressmen."

Republican Representative Adam Kinzinger asked Donoghue to confirm that that comment was a direct quote from the former president.

"That's an exact quote from the president, yes," Donoghue said.

Former President Trump has previously denied that he urged the DOJ to call the 2020 election "corrupt."

Newsweek has asked former President Trump's office for comment.

Go here to see the original:

Donald Trump 'Not Fit To Be in This Country': U.S. Supreme Court Lawyer - Newsweek