Category Archives: Donald Trump

Donald Trump Jr., a prominent and vocal member of the MAGA crowd, has some concerns when it comes to Finland possibly joining NATO.

On Monday morning, Trump Jr. shared his thoughts on the possibility that the European country may become the newest member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). In his statement, posted to Twitter, Trump Jr. brought up Russia's invasion of Ukraine as a reason to reconsider the possible move.

"I get there's nothing going on at home that Congress could be worrying about, but after decades of not being in NATO and being just fine isn't the notion of eliminating this buffer zone a bit how the Ukraine invasion started?" he wrote.

The statement from the eldest son of former President Donald Trump came after the Nordic country and neighboring Sweden both indicated they wanted to join the international military alliance. The decision to apply for membership was influenced by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and Russian President Vladimir Putin has threatened retaliation if the countries' applications are accepted.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell recently stated that both of those countries would be "important additions" to NATO, according to the Associated Press. McConnell added that the congressional vote to ratify Finland's admission to the decades-old international alliance could take place "before the August recess," Newsmax reported.

The White House defended Finland and Sweden's application and asserted that their acceptance into the alliance would strengthen America's security. Russia is firmly opposed to the possible addition of the two countries.

On Monday, Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov voiced his objection to the NATO alliance possibly growing by two countries, stating, "[NATO] should not have any illusions that we will simply put up with thisin Brussels, Washington or other NATO capitals."

Ryabkov went on to say, "That is, the general level of military tension will increase, and there will be less predictability in this area."

This isn't the first time Trump Jr. has offered his opinions on America's handling of the Ukraine/Russia conflict. In March, he suggested sending his father to Europe to meet with NATO leaders to discuss Russia's invasion of Ukraine instead of President Joe Biden.

In a tweet, Trump Jr. posted that "sending Biden to Europe for 'High Stakes' NATO talks will only embolden our enemies further."

He went on to claim that "if you want to get something done right send Trump."

Newsweek reached out to a representative for Donald Trump Jr. and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland for comment.

See the article here:

Donald Trump Jr. Throws Cold Water on Finland Joining NATO - Newsweek

Tim James must be a big fella, right?

Auburn football records have him at 511 and 209 pounds during his playing career from 1981-82, a 22-game stretch in whichhe rushed for 26 yards in nine attempts and scored one garbage time touchdown against Bill Currys Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets that no one will ever, ever take away from him.

Takes an awful big man to put up those numbers.

Just like it takes a big and brave hombre to go after the real threats facing Alabama, like drivers license exams coming in languages other than English and, in his most recent obsession, Birminghams Magic City Acceptance Academy, a 6-12th grade charter school that caters to LGBTQ students. His ad last month one, which, in his words, decried the first transgender public school in the South was a new low for a candidate who excels onlyin the sad art of bigotry, shamefully distinguishing itself from the other transbaiting weve seen this campaign season as it used pictures of actual MCAA students.

Much like I dont care that James was used primarily as a blockingfullback, James doesnt care about those students; theyre not people to him, only soft political targets to foment rage in GOP primary voters. But, again, thats not much different than Katie Britt talking about full-term abortions in a locker room. It takes, though, a real coward like James to go after children.

Children.

(Lindy Blanchard also has an ad out focusing on the school Im not sure whether its more or less shameful to be a bandwagoning bully.)

The school decided prudently to increase security after the ad, which drew hecklers to campus and one woman who tried to film students, and MCAAs increased profile and status as a target has made at least one student, as she told the New York Times, scared to come to school. There is a reasonable line to draw from Jamess ad to those weirdos and wackadoos, a causal relationship born from callousness and hate.

But what if that behavior escalates? What if someone vandalizes the school or does something even more unthinkable, acting against the very people James has so clearly and reprehensibly made a target? What then would be Son of Fobs legal responsibility for what happens? If we assume (for arguments sake) that his commercial represents a call to illegal action, his accountability and constitutional protections would be analyzed under the Supreme Courts incitement standard, a line of cases that began in earnest during World War I and encompassed the nebulous clear and present danger test before settling into something more workable.

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, a 1969 case in which the Supreme Court overturned the criminal conviction of a Klu Klux Klan leader arrested for promising revengance for perceived slights during a televised rally, the Court established a four-part test for the criminalization of speech calling for violence. First, the government must seek to punish a speaker trying to move others to break the law, meaning that incitement cant cover otherwise lawful activity. Second, that speaker must intend for their speech to motivate the audience. Third, the lawlessness should be imminient, so the violence cannot be either far off in time or at some indefinite point. Finally, there must be a likelihood of violence in that the audience should be willing, ready and able to respond to the speakers call to lawbreaking.

The Brandenburg test is a good one that balances two important interests: allowing for the widest possible universe of speech while also attempting to keep people and property safe. Under Brandenburg, for example, theres nothing wrong with standing in front of a crowd and calling for a large-scale communist revolution that would by definition require violently seizing the means of production because (unfortunately for you, comrade) that revolution isnt coming tomorrow. Its abstract and philosophical, the sort of speech that should be tolerated at least by the government in a democratic society.

And the First Amendment protections extended by Brandenburgcan be surprising in practice. Donald Trumps speech on Jan. 6 looks like incitement, especially if we follow the intellectually seductive desire to blame one man for the storming of the Capitol, yet if we actually apply the case law, it likely falls short of whats criminally actionable incitement. Ransacking Congress and preventing the electoral vote count is clearly illegal, which satisfies the first prong. Likewise, the proposed violence directly followed the speech, which was given in front of the presidents angriest and most ardent supporters ones who were ready and willing to do the things they did.

But unless the congressional committee investigating Jan. 6finds a smoking gun or two in the texts, emails and other missives leading up to Trumps speech, the president likely did not have the intent necessary under Brandenburg. Yes, we can parse his words and point to a line or two (like We fight like hell. And if you dont fight like hell, youre not going to have a country anymore, for example) but I defy anyone to watch the entire hour-plus long speech and conclude it was anything more than his usual collection of imagined nonsense and self-entitled gripes. At the very least, if we could imagine a speech in which Trump was to tell his legion to assault the Capitol in order to disrupt Congress, it would be more to the point and absolutely more explicit.

Applying Brandenburg to a hypothetical in which the worst happens to MCAA and its students, were left with the same intent problem with James. The commercial is offensively craven, but on its face, the gubernatorial candidate is dredging the primary swamps for votes; unless theres some secret email to an adviser that reads Id like a commercial that motivates folks to go down to that campus to tear it all to hell, James doesnt have the necessary intent under the law. Comparing his ad to Trumps speech, however, gives us a stark difference and an even bigger issue: Jamess commercial is broadcast to anyone who happens to be watching television, whereas Trumps diatribe was given only to his supporters theres not much likelihood of violence in the legal realm of incitement where your audience consists of passionate supporters, random channel flippers and anyone unfortunate enough to be stuck on a treadmill at Planet Fitness. Finally, theres no hint of imminence in the ad, meaning theres no sign that someone should act against the school now. All told, there would be no legal liability for James under a theory of incitement if the worst should happen.

Yet legal liability is not the end of the story. Trump was impeached for his role in Jan. 6 in a political process that only happened to have some legal window dressing. Likewise, Jamescould face some type of punishment from Alabamas voters, but that seems more aspirational than anything else.

The real answer here, as unsatisfying as it may be, is to hold James morally responsible for whatever happens. Because while it takes a big, strong man to maybe just maybe if things break right embarrass Gov. Kay Ivey by dragging her into a runoff, only a monster would attack high school students to do so.

His ads will fade. But that shame and the moral consequences for his brazen bigotry never will.

Read the original here:

Opinion | Tim James: Donald Trump and the limits of criminal accountability for speech - Alabama Political Reporter

Former President Donald Trump endorsed State Sen. Doug Mastriano in Pennsylvanias Republican primary for governor, announcing his support for the front-runner just days before Tuesdays election.

The endorsement could very well put Mastriano over the top and deal a crippling blow to eleventh-hour efforts by some establishment Republicans to stop Mastriano, a far-right, staunch Trump ally.

There is no one in Pennsylvania who has done more, or fought harder, for Election Integrity than State Senator Doug Mastriano, Trump said in a statement Saturday morning. He is a fighter like few others, and has been with me right from the beginning, and now I have an obligation to be with him.

The endorsement comes as Trumps chosen candidate in Pennsylvanias U.S. Senate race celebrity doctor Mehmet Oz is locked in a dead heat with two rivals.

Mastriano, by contrast, has been leading by double digits in recent polls of the nine-candidate race.

Im honored to receive the endorsement from President Trump today, Mastriano said in a statement. But the honor is not for me. Its for the millions of hard-working Pennsylvanians who want their individual liberties restored, power returned to the people, and for their elected leaders to fulfill the America First and Pennsylvania First agenda.

READ MORE: Doug Mastriano embodies a Christian nationalist movement as he runs for governor: We have the power of God

The endorsement amounts to a safe bet at a time when other Trump-backed candidates including Oz and David Perdue in Georgias gubernatorial race are at risk of losing. Trumps choice in Nebraska, Charles Herbster, lost in a gubernatorial primary this past week. Of course, plenty of Trumps picks have won like author J.D. Vance in Ohios GOP Senate race.

Trump made his pick in the Pennsylvania governors race days after some establishment Republicans launched a last-minute effort to stop Mastriano, who they think will lose badly in November to state Attorney General Josh Shapiro, the presumptive Democratic nominee.

Mastriano on Saturday mocked those efforts.

The swamp is slapping us around, Mastriano told supporters at a rally in Bucks County. These people are so stupid. Just dumb.

Mastriano said the effort was failing and drew sustained cheering when he noted Trump had endorsed him just hours earlier. He lumped the media in with his rivals, accusing them all of spreading disinformation and false claims about him.

A mention of President Joe Bidens 2020 victory prompted several in the audience to shout out that he did not win that election.

Mastriano used the occasion to repeat Trumps lies that the election was stolen in Pennsylvania, singling out the use of mail ballots in Philadelphia.

Mastriano was a leading figure in the effort to overturn Bidens victory in the state.

He took buses to Washington for the Jan. 6, 2021, Stop the Steal rally that led a pro-Trump mob to storm the Capitol, and has continued to spread baseless conspiracy theories about the election. He has said he left before things turned violent, and has been subpoenaed by the congressional committee investigating the attack.

Trump just endorsed one of the most extreme and dangerous GOP candidates in the country for Governor of PA, Shapiro said Saturday on Twitter. He wants to ban abortion and undermine elections. He attended the 1/6 insurrection and crossed police barricades.

Mastrianos top rivals in the race are former U.S. Rep. Lou Barletta, former Delaware County Councilman Dave White, and former U.S. Attorney Bill McSwain.

Barletta had benefited the most in recent days from GOP efforts to coalesce around a single alternative to Mastriano, as numerous current and former elected officials endorsed him. That included state Senate leader Jake Corman, who dropped out of the governors race and asked his supporters to back Barletta instead.

But it wasnt enough to sway Trump.

I will continue making the case to the people that I am the only candidate who can unite the party and bring victory in November, Barletta said in a statement Saturday after Trumps announcement. I look forward to having President Trumps endorsement Wednesday morning.

Without saying his name, Mastriano at the Saturday rally alluded to efforts to coalesce the party around Barletta as an attempt to anoint a golden child.

Mastriano cited Corman by title, drawing boos from the crowd. Mastriano also alluded to another rival, former U.S. Attorney Bill McSwain, without naming him but citing the millions in dark money spent by outside groups to support McSwain and, at times, attack Mastriano. He suggested that made McSwain bought and paid for by the establishment.

READ MORE: A last-ditch GOP effort to stop Doug Mastriano in the Pa. governors race appears to be too little, too late

And he took a shot at Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination for Senate, calling him a radical, left-wing communist. Still, Mastriano shared that Fetterman, who presides over the state Senate, complimented the strength of his support, evidenced by how many people signed his nomination petitions to get on the ballot.

Mastriano drew groans when citing Gov. Tom Wolf, a term-limited Democrat, and his efforts to try to stem the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic.

He criticized Shapiro mocking him as Little Josh, born with a silver spoon in his mouth for supporting Wolfs policies.

Mastriano also claimed during his 30-minute speech that he and his wife, Rebbie, have endured abuse and death threats for his campaign.

Rebbie Mastriano, speaking before her husband, cast the campaign in biblical terms and said candidates attacking her husband were deflecting from their shortcomings.

Its really insulting to you, she said.

Democrats have been trying to boost Mastrianos candidacy because they appear to see him as the weakest candidate against Shapiro.

Shapiros campaign this month started airing TV ads promoting Mastriano as one of Donald Trumps strongest supporters, and the state Democratic Party sent mailers to registered Republican voters linking Mastriano to Trump.

Trump was said to like multiple candidates in the field, meeting with several over the course of the race. Each, to varying degrees, has amplified or flirted with Trumps false claims of voter fraud. And each of the top contenders has pledged to repeal the states 2019 expansion of mail voting and proposed more stringent voter ID rules, among other policies.

Barletta was one of Trumps earliest supporters in his 2016 campaign, and the former president endorsed Barletta in his unsuccessful 2018 Senate race. Barletta, like other candidates in both the gubernatorial and Senate races, hired former Trump aides for his campaign, and he held a fund-raiser at Trumps Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.

White, a wealthy owner of an HVAC business who pitches himself as a blue-collar businessman, met with Trump in late April. At the meeting, Whites pollster John McLaughlin, who has also worked for Trump showed Trump an internal poll that had White in second place, trailing only Mastriano, according to people familiar with the meeting.

Corman tried to stay in the mix for a while, too. While he trailed in the polls, Corman appears to have struck up a rapport with Trump over golf. And the senator posted pictures of himself with his daughter at Mar-a-Lago this month, where they attended a screening of an election conspiracy film called 2000 Mules. Its a movie every American should see, Corman said on Twitter.

But it was McSwain, a former Trump-appointed U.S. attorney in Philadelphia, who fared the worst in the Trump sweepstakes. The former president condemned McSwain for not prosecuting voter fraud in 2020. Do not vote for Bill McSwain, Trump said last month, calling him a coward, who let our Country down.

View post:

Trump endorsed Doug Mastriano in the Pa. governors race, a late boost for the far-right front-runner - The Philadelphia Inquirer

The New York Times, citing two people whod been briefed on the matter, reported Thursday the convening of a federal grand jury that is investigating the handling of 15 boxes of classified White House documents that were squirreled away at Mar-a-Lago, Donald Trumps Florida home. Its easy to understand why this reporting didnt lead most newscasts that day given the more dramatic story of the decision by the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2001, attack on the U.S. Capitol to subpoena five sitting members of Congress. But that story shouldnt distract us from the big news that a grand jury has reportedly been impaneled to find out how and why national secrets were packed up in Washington and parked in Palm Beach.

While some pundits have asserted that convening the grand jury is part of a routine damage assessment, thats a misleading explanation.

To borrow a concept from the world of classified information access, heres what you need to know to process this development. First, a grand jury means the Justice Department believes a crime may have been committed. While some pundits have asserted that convening the grand jury is part of a routine damage assessment to explore the national security aspects of what the intelligence community calls a spill of classified documents, thats a misleading explanation.

To be sure, every agency that has a piece of the intelligence reporting in the boxed documents will have to be notified, will have to conduct analyses of the threat that could be posed if their reporting gets into the wrong hands and will have to determine what steps can be taken to prevent a recurrence. But that kind of routine cleanup of a spill doesnt require a grand jury. A grand jury investigates potential crimes.

When The Washington Post reported Feb. 10 that classified documents, including some marked "top secret," had been discovered at Trumps Florida residence, Trump spokesperson Taylor Budowich, in a written statement to the newspaper, said: It is clear that a normal and routine process is being weaponized by anonymous, politically motivated government sources to peddle Fake News. The only entity with the ability to credibly dispute this false reporting, the National Archives, is providing no comment.

In a letter dated Feb. 18 to Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., chair of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, David S. Ferriero, the archivist of the United States, said the National Archives and Records Administration has identified items marked as classified national security information within the boxes and identified certain social media records that were not captured and preserved by the Trump Administration and that it has learned that some White House staff conducted official business using nonofficial electronic messaging accounts that were not copied or forwarded into their official electronic messaging accounts.

Also in that letter, Ferriero wrote, Because NARA [National Archives and Records] identified classified information in the boxes, NARA staff has been in communication with the Department of Justice.

When The New York Times asked Budowich for comment for its story that a grand jury was being convened, he said: President Trump consistently handled all documents in accordance with applicable law and regulations. Belated attempts to second-guess that clear fact are politically motivated and misguided.

I think this case, as prosecutors say, has legs. Meaning it can go places we may not even envision.

While mishandling classified material is often addressed with administrative sanctions, including reprimands, suspensions without pay, removal or terminations of security clearances, mishandling classified information can be a federal violation with criminal penalties. As a primer from the Brennan Center for Justice explains, federal law imposes penalties for knowingly removing classified material without authority and with the intent to keep it in an unauthorized location.

This charge is available only for knowing and intentional mishandling, such as occurred in the cases of former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger and former CIA Director John Deutch, it says.

Second, I think this case, as prosecutors say, has legs. Meaning it can go places we may not even envision, because it's unlikely the Justice Department would convene a grand jury if officials there didn't think they had some evidence that could overcome Trumps likeliest defenses.

Trump may assert that as president he had the authority to classify and declassify information as he saw fit, which, with certain caveats, is correct. Or he could claim he didnt know the content of the boxes and that some low-level staffer mistakenly included the documents which purportedly contained some "top secret"-level data in Trumps move from the White House. Those defenses are difficult to disprove. So why would the Justice Department go to the trouble of opening a criminal case and convening a grand jury unless prosecutors believed they could effectively counter them?

A sentence in The New York Times story may shed some light on what the Justice Department may have: The documents in question are believed to have been kept in the residence of the White House before they were boxed up and sent to Mar-a-Lago. Fifteen boxes of classified documents sitting in the residential wing of the White House doesnt sound like a mistake to me. That sounds deliberate and less like an error that could be attributed to staff. Virtually every day during my 25 years with the FBI, I handled classified information. It was my experience that staffers, whose job is to know and comply with the rules and regulations for handling such data, dont deliberately break those rules unless someone at a high level makes them break those rules. Thats why I dont believe this grand jury is targeting low-level staffers.

Third, perhaps this is bigger than just a mishandling case. As Justice Department investigators examine the documents, theyll be able to see whether the contents held some value to Trump or those around him and possibly determine whether Trump could benefit from whatevers in those documents. We mustnt forget that during Trumps term, his family members parlayed their relationship with him into personal profit and that while he was president, Trumps own businesses reportedly raked in $2.4 billion.

The first step to solving the Mar-a-Lago mystery is to get those documents into the hands of federal prosecutors and agents. The convening of a grand jury suggests that may have already happened. Now, we wait for the mystery to be solved.

Frank Figliuzzi is an MSNBC columnist anda national security contributor for NBC News and MSNBC. He was the assistant director for counterintelligence at the FBI, where he served 25 years as a special agent and directed all espionage investigations across the government. He is the author of "The FBI Way: Inside the Bureau's Code of Excellence."

See more here:

An investigation into Trump's handling of classified documents is huge - MSNBC

Workers took Donald Trumps name off his hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC on Wednesday, after the completion of the $375m sale of the lease to investors from Florida.

House Democrats estimate the former president, under legal and financial pressure on multiple fronts, will reportedly gain $100m from the sale, once a loan for the renovations is paid off.

One ethics group called the hotel a sinkhole of corruption. During Trumps four years in the White House, the hotel became a magnet for aides, supporters and foreign businesses seeking favour.

Critics and ethics groups were particularly concerned about the situation as Trump did not formally divest himself from the Trump Organization. The presidential historian Michael Beschloss predicted that even after the sale political ghosts will linger.

The hotel lost more than $70m in the four years of Trumps presidency, including losses each year before pandemic shutdowns in 2020. Many hotel brokers, owners and consultants did not expect the 263-room hotel, located close to the White House, to fetch such a high price.

The price of the lease, equivalent to more than $1.4m a room, has drawn scrutiny from Democrats in Congress. The New York Times reported that JLL, a real estate firm, put the average sales price for hotels in Washington in 2020 at $354,000 per room.

CGI Merchant Group, the buyer, reportedly plans to turn the hotel into a branch of the Waldorf Astoria hotel chain. Earlier this month, the House oversight committee requested documents from CGI, listing all investors, which reportedly include the former New York Yankees slugger and confessed drugs cheat Alex Rodriguez.

The sale marks the end of a controversial chapter in Trumps rise. The real estate magnate opened the Trump International Hotel in the Old Post Office building in 2016, during his run for the presidency.

In a statement on Wednesday, Eric Trump, Trumps second son, said: We took a dilapidated and underutilised building and transformed it into one of the most iconic hotels in the world.

The hotel had long attracted criticism for perceived conflicts of interest. Recently, the Trump Organization and Trumps 2017 presidential inaugural committee agreed to pay $750,000 to settle a suit brought by the District of Columbia attorney general that claimed the hotel received excessive payments from the committee.

On news of the settlement, Carolyn Maloney, the Democratic chair of the House oversight committee, said her concerns about the sale of the lease had only increased.

The building is still owned by the federal government, which approved the sale of the lease in March.

When Trump was in power, claims or lawsuits under the emoluments clause of the constitution, which covers gifts and payments to office holders, could not stick.

In 2019, Kathleen Clark, Washington University Law professor, told the Guardian: For over a hundred years, the justice department has strictly interpreted the constitutions anti-corruption emoluments clause to prohibit federal officials from accepting anything of value from foreign governments, absent congressional consent.

In 2017, the department reversed course, adopting arguments nearly identical to those put forward by Trumps private sector lawyers. Instead of defending the republic against foreign influence, the department defend[ed] Trumps ability to receive money from foreign governments.

On Wednesday, the advocacy group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or Crew, said: The Trump Hotel in DC is no more. Good riddance to a sinkhole of corruption.

But it also said: We still have some questions namely, whether a premium sale price for a hotel that has been losing money is justified and what are the outstanding security risks to the hotel.

Mark S Zaid, an attorney in Washington who specialises in cases involving the federal government, added: I still count this as vindication for our legal efforts to remove Trump from this majestic building. We started an effort that contributed. It took longer than it should have.

Original post:

Sinkhole of corruption: Trump Organization sells Washington hotel - The Guardian US

Editor's Note: this article is a part ofGoverning's Inside Politics newsletter.Sign up here.

Trumps Still a Campaign Issue: The former presidents track record in terms of GOP primary endorsements this year continues to be impressive. His favored candidates have now won 39 out of 40 races. Granted, most of his picks have faced token opposition at most, but other than Charles Herbsters loss in Nebraskas gubernatorial primary, Trump is undefeated, including a big win in a West Virginia congressional contest Tuesday.

That doesnt mean the old-guard GOP establishment is totally defenseless, however. Herbster lost to Jim Pillen, who was backed by term-limited Gov. Pete Ricketts. Last week, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine who Trump called a terrible, terrible guy at a pre-election rally won nomination to a second term. Next Tuesday, Idaho Gov. Brad Little looks like a reasonably safe bet at this point against Trump endorsee Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin. Later in the month, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp a particular target of Trumps wrath for his role in certifying President Bidens 2020 Georgia win is looking strong in his primary against former Sen. David Perdue.

Democrats are hoping that Republicans will nominate candidates who are too extreme to win in November. In some gubernatorial races, including Pennsylvanias primary next week, Democrats are doing their best to guide Republican voters toward the candidates they think least likely to win general elections. GOP primaries are now a race to the right where the more extreme the candidate, the likelier they are to win, says Christina Polizzi, press secretary for the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee.

She points to an example from Michigan last week, where Democrat Carol Granville beat Robert Regan in a solidly Republican state House district. Polizzi suggests candidates such as Regan give Democrats a chance, even in tough districts. Maybe. He may have been a special case, however, notorious for calling Jews the real virus and suggesting to his daughters, If rape is inevitable, you should just lie back and enjoy it. Some Michigan Republicans disavowed him, which clearly will not be the dynamic in most races.

A lot of these candidates bill themselves as anti-RINO the derisive acronym for Republicans in name only and one of them went around with RINO hunter tee-shirts, says Ed Feigenbaum, editor of the newsletter Indiana Legislative Insight. At the legislative level, this Liberty Defense group was really pushing candidates who were probably pro-Trump, but I didnt hear Trumps name mentioned in any of those races.

Instead, the candidates campaigned on no-nuance approaches to three issues constitutional carry legislation for firearms, full parental control over schools and medical freedom, also known as opposition to mandatory masks, vaccinations and other health measures. Because compromise ends up being part of nearly every legislative action, such candidates cause headaches for chamber leaders.

Thats why Indiana House Republicans targeted two such sitting members, one with a half-million-dollar campaign treasury, the other by deliberately placing him in a district with another incumbent through redistricting. The House Republicans decided to oppose some of their own, really for the first time, in the primaries, Feigenbaum says.

Souls in Disarray: Ive been doing this kind of work long enough that I can remember writing a cover story for Congressional Quarterly about primary contests that we billed as a battle for the soul of the GOP a quarter-century ago. That descriptor still gets used all the time. Just in recent weeks, The New Republic, The New York Times, the Detroit Free Press and Bloomberg have all framed primary fights as soul struggles for the GOP.

The state of the Democratic soul doesnt receive the same kind of journalistic attention. Instead, fights among Democrats are often used as evidence that the party is in disarray, for instance by The Atlantic, Newsday and the Miami Herald. New York magazine even has a landing page helpfully displaying all articles tagged: Democrats In Disarray.

Copy and Paste: By now, its well-established practice for legislators not only to borrow ideas from their peers in other states, but to copy their homework. If an idea gets traction in one state, its likely that an identical or nearly identical bill will crop up elsewhere, often promoted by groups such as the American Legislative Exchange Council that spread model bills around like legislative Johnny Appleseeds.

It's something that opponents of these bills like to point out, insinuating out-of-state interest groups are hijacking the process. But is it a good idea in terms of achieving policy outcomes? A new study from Oklahoma State University suggests it is not.

Robert M. Dorrell Jr. and Joshua M. Jansa looked at policy plagiarism on three issues with measurable outcomes: organ donations, vaping bans for minors and school bullying. They found that the borrowed bills hampered policy achievements on the first two and were probably negative in terms of the third. The reason is pretty simple: One size really does not fit all. Homegrown bills are more likely to be custom-tailored to fit the individual state in question, while incorporating feedback and gaining support from stakeholders within it.

We are left with one clear takeaway, Jansa writes. States experience greater policy success when they adopt more original, less plagiarized legislation.

Originally posted here:

Donald Trump Is Still a Campaign Issue - Governing

The effort to install local election officials who promote Donald Trumps lie that the 2020 election was stolen has seen particular success in the crucial swing state of Georgia, where at least eight county election officials are promoters of the falsehood, a Guardian investigation has found.

The officials span the state, from suburban counties outside Atlanta to rural counties near the Tennessee and Alabama borders. All have substantial power over the administration of local, state and national elections in their counties, often with little oversight beyond scantly attended public meetings and small-town newspapers.

They include:

one election official who has posted in support of a discredited election conspiracist who believes the alleged presence of bamboo in paper ballots is proof they came from Asia, and thus show interference from China;

two officials who tried, on the basis of bogus fraud allegations, to decertify the results of the January 2021 runoff that resulted in the election of the states first Black senator;

one official who insisted that Georgias election laws needed to change if Republicans were going to have a shot at winning future elections.

All continue to serve in their appointed positions as county election board officials in Floyd, Forsyth, Gwinnett, Hall, Jackson, Lumpkin and Spalding counties. None responded to requests for comment from the Guardian.

The investigation looked at seven counties out of 159, meaning the number of election officials who support election conspiracy theories could be much higher.

These disturbing facts bring to light what weve known for a while: support for the big lie is growing the result of powerful political actors stoking a dangerous fire, the voting rights group New Georgia Project said in a statement.

There is absolutely no place on our boards of elections, or in any of our elected offices, for leaders who refuse to accept the results of fair and certified elections.

Election boards have access to voter rolls, and make rules about polling places, ballots and voter registration. They also make determinations on ballots in which the voters intention is unclear.

The boards seat between four and five members, usually split evenly between the two main parties with a tie-breaking, non-partisan member often chosen by the county commission or a local judge.

With 159 counties, Georgia therefore has hundreds of county election board officials, creating and changing election policy on a weekly basis with little other than local activists and press to track them.

Among them is Dottie Krull, a 79-year-old Republican on the Lumpkin county election board, located a little over an hour north of Atlanta. Shortly after the 2020 election, Krull began posting about the big lie on her personal Facebook page.

I guess we all know why Biden stayed in his basement and didnt campaign, Krull quoted a friend as saying. He knew he didnt need to.

In Forsyth county, elections board member Joel Natt was present on a conference call with Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and other election officials when he blamed unspecified election irregularities as a reason why Georgians of both parties were becoming less and less trusting of Raffenspergers office.

In Floyd county, Pam Peters was described by an election conspiracy theorist who spoke to the Washington Post as an investigative partner. Days before election day, Peters volunteered for Trump in Rome, Georgia.

In Hall county, elections board member Tom Smiley said he took issue with claims that the 2020 election saw no fraud, saying he would amend it to NO FRAUD DISCOVERED.

Perhaps no elections board official has been the subject of as much controversy as Alice OLenick, chair of the Gwinnett county board of registration.

OLenick has been a vocal supporter of restrictions to poll access and voting rights, her critics say. In 2016, OLenick opposed the use of Spanish-language ballots. (The county was eventually forced to include them by the US Census Bureau under the Voting Rights Act.)

She has also supported the abolition of so-called no excuse absentee voting, advocating that only the elderly or infirm would be allowed to fill out an absentee ballot; opposed the use of drop boxes, alleging spurious claims of ballot harvesting; served on a task force that recommended sweeping changes to voting rights so Republicans could at least have a shot at winning elections; and alleged without providing direct evidence that Gwinnett county saw an uptick in attempted voting by undocumented immigrants.

In Spalding county, election board chair Ben Johnson continues to post prolifically about a wide variety of far-right conspiracy theories, including those involving alleged ballot harvesting and Dominion voting machines. In late April, Johnson shared a photo from a Canadian news outlet that had been altered to proclaim that conspiracy theorists keep getting things right.

In Jackson county, Republican election board officials Larry Ewing and Jeff Hughes, after a campaign by the national conservative group True the Vote, forced an investigation into 211 people who had voted after recently changing their address, in the unsubstantiated belief that up to 2,000 Jackson county residents who had recently changed their addresses could have voted illegally.

The pair also refused to certify the runoff election of Raphael Warnock, the states first Black senator, until the 211 names were passed on to the secretary of state for further investigation. The results were eventually certified with their dissent.

I cant stress enough how widespread the election fraud lies have taken hold in the area, said Pete Fuller, chair of the Jackson county Democratic party. Its very disconcerting how effective the misinformation has been.

Read more here:

Revealed: election conspiracy theorists work as election officials across Georgia - The Guardian US

Federal prosecutors have begun a grand jury investigation into whether classified White House documents that ended up at former President Donald J. Trumps Florida home were mishandled, according to two people briefed on the matter.

The intensifying inquiry suggests that the Justice Department is examining the role of Mr. Trump and other officials in his White House in their handling of sensitive materials during the final stages of his administration.

In recent days, the Justice Department has taken a series of steps showing that its investigation has progressed beyond the preliminary stages. Prosecutors issued a subpoena to the National Archives and Records Administration to obtain the boxes of classified documents, according to the two people familiar with the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation.

The authorities have also made interview requests to people who worked in the White House in the final days of Mr. Trumps presidency, according to one of the people.

The investigation is focused on the discovery by the National Archives in January that at the end of Mr. Trumps term he had taken to his home at the Mar-a-Lago resort 15 boxes from the White House that contained government documents, mementos, gifts and letters.

After the boxes were returned to the National Archives, its archivists found documents containing items marked as classified national security information, the agency told Congress in February. In April, it was reported that federal authorities were in the preliminary stages of investigating the handling of the classified documents.

The subpoena that was sent to the National Archives in recent days for the classified documents is one of a series of requests that the Justice Department has made to the agency for records from the Trump administration in recent months, according to the two people.

A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment. The public affairs office at the National Archives did not return an email message seeking comment. A spokesman for Mr. Trump, Taylor Budowich, said: President Trump consistently handled all documents in accordance with applicable law and regulations. Belated attempts to second-guess that clear fact are politically motivated and misguided.

Charges are rarely brought in investigations into the handling of classified documents. But the Justice Department typically conducts them to determine whether any highly sensitive information may have been exposed so the intelligence community can take measures to protect sources and methods.

The documents in question are believed to have been kept in the residence of the White House before they were boxed up and sent to Mar-a-Lago. The investigation is focused on how the documents made their way to the residence, who boxed them up, whether anyone knew that classified materials were being improperly taken out of the White House and how they were ultimately stored in Mar-a-Lago, according to a person with knowledge of the matter, who also spoke on condition of anonymity.

An investigation in 2016 into Hillary Clinton over a similar issue involving her personal email account ended without her being charged. And in the case of Mr. Trump, legal experts said, presidents have the ability while in office to essentially declassify whatever information they want, further complicating any possible prosecution.

The classified documents in question are considered presidential records under federal law. Because of that distinction, Mr. Trumps lawyers were notified of the Justice Departments request, giving them the opportunity to block their release by going to court to quash the subpoena. It is unclear if the lawyers have responded.

Last year, Mr. Trumps lawyer unsuccessfully went to court to stop the National Archives from handing over a range of presidential records to the special congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the Capitol.

The question of how Mr. Trump has handled sensitive material and documents he received as president loomed throughout his time in the White House, and beyond it. He was known to rip up pieces of official paper that he was handed, forcing officials to tape them back together because it is illegal to destroy presidential records. And an upcoming book by a New York Times reporter reveals that residence staff would find clumps of torn-up paper clogging a toilet, and believed he had thrown them in. They did not know the subjects or contents of the documents.

The investigation of the classified documents adds to an array of legal problems Mr. Trump still faces 15 months after he left office. A local prosecutor in Atlanta is investigating whether he and his allies illegally interfered with Georgias 2020 election results, and the New York State attorney general is investigating the finances of Mr. Trumps company.

Numerous inquiries. Since Donald J. Trumpleft office, the former president has been facingcivil and criminal investigationsacross the countryinto his business dealings and political activities. Here is a look at the notable inquiries:

Westchester County criminal investigation. The district attorneys office in Westchester County, N.Y., appears to be focused at least in part on whether the Trump Organization misled local officials about the value of a golf course, Trump National Golf Club Westchester, to reduce its taxes.

Despite Mr. Trumps role in helping incite the mob that stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 and his other efforts to disrupt the counting and certification of the election, there has been no indication to date that the Justice Department has begun examining any criminal culpability he might have in those matters.

But the prosecutors moves in the documents case show that the Justice Department under Attorney General Merrick B. Garland is at least willing to examine a matter that may ultimately touch directly on the presidents conduct.

Democrats, anti-Trump Republicans and even President Biden have been frustrated with Mr. Garland over his apparent reticence to investigate Mr. Trump for his role in trying to overturn the 2020 election.

Now, the decision to move forward with an investigation into the classified documents could draw the department even deeper into the countrys political tensions. Such investigations typically take at least a year, putting Mr. Garland on a path of potentially having to conclude it at the same time Mr. Trump is running for president again.

During the 2016 campaign, Mr. Trump made attacking Mrs. Clinton for her handling of classified information a central part of his rallies and remarks to the media, helping to undermine her credibility with voters.

The Justice Department and F.B.I. had opened an investigation into whether she had mishandled classified information when she relied on a personal email account as secretary of state shortly after she began running for president in 2015.

That investigation, which ended with the F.B.I. director at the time, James B. Comey, holding a news conference shortly before both parties held their nominating conventions in the summer of 2016, found that Mrs. Clinton had highly classified information in her emails, but no charges were brought against her or anyone else.

For prosecutors to prove a felony in the mishandling of classified materials, the authorities would likely need evidence showing that the person in question knowingly and intentionally broke the law. In this case that would mean proving that the person had been told that taking the information outside of secure channels would violate the law.

Adam Goldman contributed reporting.

Here is the original post:

Prosecutors Pursue Inquiry Into Trumps Handling of Classified Material - The New York Times

This story was originally published on 04/10/2022 and updated on 05/15/2022 to reflect the latest updates on Ivanka Trumps testimony for the Jan. 6Committeeand what her father, Donald Trump Jr.has commented relating to this.

Ivanka Trump who served as senior White House advisor during her fathers presidency reportedly testified remotely via video link for around eight hours on April 5th to the US House of Representatives committee investigating the January 6th 2021 siege on the US Capitol. The 40-year-old mom-of-threes testimony came just five days after husband Jared Kushner, (who was a fellow former presidential adviser), also answered questions from the committee for over six hours, as more members of Donald Trumps family are being investigated in relation to the riots. The former president,75, sat down for a discussion with The Washington Postsoon after about his daughters recent interview with the Jan. 6 committee and dubbed it a shame and harassment.

The former first daughter voluntarily testified before the panel last month, and her father alsotold The Post that he offered privilege to both his daughter and son-in-law, but neither of them agreed to this. As a former president, Trump learned he cannot offer blanket executive privilege to shield testimony, as Insider writes. Trump also said toThe Post that he did not know what his daughter told the members of the committee when testifying, and didnt have knowledge as to what her husband said either.

One member of the panel reportedly described Kushners testimony as valuable and they managed to get some helpful information out of it; although it is not being released to the public just yet. There were some things revealed, but well just share that a little later, Representative Bennie Thompson, the panels Democratic chairman, said about Kushners testimony.

Win $275 worth of hair products!

Splash News

The committee reportedly interviewed over 800 witnesses in its attempts to compile the most accurate record of the attack. It's important to note that Ivanka never attempted to invoke her right to remain silent, and was reportedly "answering questions" throughout the testimony.

Ivanka was reportedly in the West Wing with her father at the time of the riots, and was said to be one of the people who tried to persuade him to call off the rioters. Thompson said of her testimony at the time, "She's answering questions. I mean, you know, not in a broad, chatty term, but she's answering questions." Thompson also said that Ivanka was cooperative throughout the process, adding, "She came in on her own, that has obviously significant value. We did not have to subpoena."

Read more:

We Cant Believe What Donald Trump Is Saying About Ivanka Trumps Jan. 6 Testimony: A Shame And Harassment - SheFinds

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

May 15th marks the two-year anniversary of President Donald Trump introducing Operation Warp Speed to the world by announcing that America would have millions of safe and effective vaccines delivered to its people before the end of 2020.

According to the Commonwealth Foundations most recent findings, delivering these vaccines in record time has already prevented over 2 million American deaths. Former members of the presidents Council of Economic Advisors estimated that these vaccines also prevented a loss of trillions of dollars of economic output and millions of jobs.

COVID SHOTS STILL WORK, BUT RESEARCHERS HUNT NEW IMPROVEMENTS

U.S. President Donald Trump signs an executive order on vaccine distribution during an Operation Warp Speed Vaccine Summit at the White House in Washington, U.S., December 8, 2020. REUTERS/Tom Brenner

As a small group of us gathered in the Rose Garden two years ago on that warm, humid spring day, we were appropriately confident of our potential success. We had a president who believed deeply in the innovative spirit and ingenuity of the U.S. private sector. We also had a secretary, Alex Azar, who had spent a decade in the pharmaceutical sector and knew more about its motivations and risk thresholds than any of his predecessors.

Add to this a four-star general, Gus Perna, whose Army Material Command had been honing its logistical expertise by supporting combat operations in the Middle East for twenty consecutive years. Lastly, we had just recruited two globally-recognized vaccine development and manufacturing experts, Moncef Slaoui and Carlo de Notaristefani, respectively. This was an all-star team.

Beyond the members of this small Warp Speed team, however, lurked serious professions of doubt. That very evening on May 15, 2020, for example, Brian Williams was interviewing Dr. Irwin Redlener, Director of Columbia Universitys National Center for Disaster Preparedness. When referencing President Trumps declaration earlier that day, he commented: "It is impossible to get that done by the end of the year." Some may have considered Dr. Redleners comments simple political rhetoric, but by historical standards his perspective was well-founded.

The previous best time in history for bringing a safe and effective vaccine to market was approximately four years in the 1960s. This during a time when we were not in the midst of a global pandemic constraining the availability of the very equipment, raw materials, and labor necessary to develop, manufacture, and distribute the vaccines.

What the Operation Warp Speed program accomplished under President Trumps and Secretary Azars leadership in the subsequent seven months was extraordinary and unprecedented.

Specifically, it:

How did we do all of this in such a short period of time? Simply stated, we turned to and mobilized Americas iconic private sector companies.

Of course, most Americans by now recognize the names of Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer, but add to these the absolutely heroic efforts of companies such as:

Yes, the federal government enabled the success of Operation Warp Speed, but Americas nimble private sector delivered the success to the American people.

The achievements of Operation Warp Speed are a tribute to both a federal government which "stayed in its lane" and a dexterous private sector which pivoted rapidly to develop, manufacture, distribute, and administer vaccines. The federal government assumed financial risks the pharmaceutical industry would not bear independently. It also established an unambiguous regulatory framework for granting emergency use authorizations early in the process, and utilized the Defense Production Act to rapidly re-prioritize the supply chain in favor of those producing the vaccines.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

Finally, it coordinated the roles of the private sector partners. The private sector used advanced technologies, capabilities it had been investing in for decades, and its ingenuity to innovate and deliver new products and services in record time. This is what a successful public-private partnership looks like.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

As we now reach the two-year anniversary of Operation Warp Speed, I hope the American people will reflect on the fact that no other country in the world developed, manufactured, distributed, and administered as many safe and effective vaccines as quickly or adroitly as we did. By April 2021, scarcely fifteen months after the DNA of the COVID-19 virus had first been characterized, any American desiring a vaccine had access to one.

In this season of political divisiveness, we hear constant criticism of both our federal government and our free enterprise system. Operation Warp Speed is an example of how, when properly structured and led, a partnership between these two can make possible what experts such as Dr. Redlener asserted would be impossible.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM PAUL MANGO

Here is the original post:

Trump's Operation Warp Speed made the 'impossible' possible - Fox News