List of All Articles with Tag 'america'

Rachel Morin shared a post on Facebook that hinted at her possible affinity for thrill months before she was found dead along a forest trail in Maryland. The mother-of-five was last seen around 6pm on Saturday when she allegedly went out for a run on the Ma and Pa Trail in Bel Air. The 37-year-old failed to return home that night and her boyfriend reported her missing, according to Harford County sheriff Jeffrey Gahler. Morin’s vehicle was found in the parking lot at the entrance to the popular walking route on Sunday morning and hours later, at around 1pm, a member of the public discovered a woman’s body close to the trail. Morin shared a post in February that read: "Risk can be dangerous, but routine can be deadly. Comfort has killed more dreams than daring ever did." Authorities on Sunday night said they have opened a homicide investigation as they awaited formal identification and cause of death from the medical examiner’s office. Rebekah Morin, the victim’s devastated sister, claimed on a GoFundme page that her sister's death was "not accidental" and she did not go "willingly". Morin's 27-year-old boyfriend, Richard Tobin, broke his silence on Sunday night, saying he would “never do anything to her”. “Yes I have a past but I also have 15 months clean and have changed as a person. Please,” Mr Tobin wrote on Facebook. Court records showed Mr Tobin has two arrests for second-degree assault, and separate arrests for violating restraining orders, malicious destruction of property and drug possession dating back to 2014. Mr Tobin has also faced charges of being a fugitive from justice, resisting arrest and disorderly intoxication, according to Maryland judiciary case search records. He is, however, not been named as a suspect, or accused of any wrongdoing in connection with the homicide inquiry. “Right now detectives continue to work the case as aggressively as they possibly can and we will leave no stone unturned,” Sheriff Gahler told reporters. “I hope that changes in the coming hours, but at this point in time, there is not a suspect.” Read More Rachel Morin – update: Boyfriend of missing mother-of-five speaks out as homicide probe launched Rachel Morin was found dead on a popular Maryland hiking trail. Her sister says she ‘did not go willingly’ Homicide investigation launched as body found after mother-of-five vanished on Maryland hiking trail

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

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

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

E Jean Carroll praised her legal team after a judge dismissed former President Donald Trump’s counter-lawsuit against writer E Jean Carroll. Federal Judge Lewis Kaplan wrote in an order made public on Monday that Mr Trump hadn’t proven that Ms Carroll’s statements on CNN the day after a civil trial jury found that the ex-president had sexually abused Ms Carroll and subsequently defamed her were false or “not at least substantially true”. Mr Trump sued Ms Carroll in June following her CNN appearance the previous month. Ms Carroll was asked about the verdict – the jury found that while Mr Trump sexually abused her, they didn’t state that Mr Trump had raped her under New York state law, to which Ms Carroll said, “Oh, yes he did”. Judge Kaplan wrote: “Indeed, the jury’s verdict in Carroll II establishes, as against Mr Trump, the fact that Mr Trump ‘raped her’, albeit digitally rather than with his penis. Thus, it establishes against him the substantial truth of Ms Carroll’s ‘rape’ accusations.” “In consequence, there is no merit to Mr Trump’s argument that the jury’s finding on Penal Law ‘rape’ question established that Ms Carroll’s statements were false even if her statements reasonably could be construed as referring to ‘rape’ in that specialized Penal Law sense, a subject on which this Court now expresses no view,” he added. Ms Carroll praised her attorney, writing on her Substack on Monday that “while the world was fixated on a certain bloke’s latest indictments, Robbie Kaplan was making moves”. “We rely upon the law to bring us justice. As I type these words my heart swells with gratitude for my attorneys,” she added. “I refer, of course, to that famous fly-fishing maven Robbie Kaplan,” Ms Carroll, 79, wrote on Monday. She went on to share her appreciation for “the unreasonably hot Shawn Crowley, the swashbucklingly smart Mike Ferrara, the omnipotently shrewd Joshua Matz, the ingeniously even-tempered Matt Craig” as well as “the consummately quick Trevor Morrison, the eternally elegant Helen Andrews, the affectionately ferocious Emmy DeCourcy, the deliciously crafty Donya Khadem, and the paralyzingly penetrating Kate Harris”. She concluded with “a special salute to Ms. Rachel Tuckman who is enjoying a hellaciously HOT mom summer!” Judge Kaplan had already rejected Mr Trump’s request for a new trial, CNN notes. Mr Trump is set to go on trial against Ms Carroll again in January on a separate defamation lawsuit filed by the writer in 2019 for statements Mr Trump made while occupying the White House. The case has been delayed by the legal battle that ensued. The lawsuit brought under the New York Adult Survivors Act, known as Carroll II, went to trial in May of this year, leading to the writer being awarded $5m. Mr Trump had appealed that verdict as well as other “adverse” rulings. Ms Carroll’s legal team have claimed that the only issue that the jury should settle in January is how much Mr Trump should pay the writer. The ex-president’s lawyers have said that there should be a limit to the amount of damages he can owe to avoid doubling up from the jury’s verdict in Carroll II. Ms Kaplan said in a statement: “We are pleased that the Court dismissed Donald Trump’s counterclaim. That means that the January 15th jury trial will be limited to a narrow set of issues and shouldn’t take very long to complete. Mr Trump is set to face his challengers in the Republican primary in the Iowa caucuses on the same day. Ms Kaplan added: “E. Jean Carroll looks forward to obtaining additional compensatory and punitive damages based on the original defamatory statements Donald Trump made in 2019.” Trump lawyer Alina Habba told CNN: “We strongly disagree with the flawed decision and will be filing an appeal shortly.” Read More How Donald Trump finally met his match in Jack Smith Bill Barr says ‘of course’ he’ll testfy against trump in Jan 6 case if asked Trump lawyer says Jack Smith is ‘afraid’ and playing ‘victim’ over protective order Judge tosses Trump's defamation suit against writer who won sexual abuse lawsuit against him Rudy Giuliani selling $6.5m NYC apartment as legal woes pile up Trump insists he isn’t a ‘scared puppy’ in defiant attack on Nancy Pelosi

Florida Gov Ron DeSantis admitted in an interview with NBC News that former president Donald Trump lost the 2020 presidential election, as he seeks to recalibrate his campaign. Mr DeSantis initially told NBC News’s Dasha Burns in an interview that will air on NBC Nightly News on Monday evening that whoever is inaugurated on 20 January is considered the winner, in a dodge answer. “Whoever puts their hand on the Bible on Jan 20 every four years is the winner,” he said. When pressed, Mr DeSantis said that President Biden defeated Mr Trump. “No, of course he lost,” he said of Mr Trump. “Joe Biden’s the president.” Meanwhile, Mr Trump had a meltdown on Sunday night where he attacked President Joe Biden, striker Megan Rapinoe and “wokeness” for the US’s unexpected early defeat in the Women’s World Cup. The former president took to Truth Social to bizarrely claim the loss was a sign of the influence “Crooked Joe Biden” has had on the nation. He also somehow blamed the “WOKE”-ness and cruelly trolled Rapinoe for missing a penalty. Read More Judge tosses Trump's defamation suit against writer who won sexual abuse lawsuit against him Rudy Giuliani selling $6.5m NYC apartment as legal woes pile up Judge dismisses Trump defamation lawsuit against E Jean Carroll for CNN statements Trump asks supporters heavily leading question about participating in GOP debate Ron DeSantis admits ‘of course’ Donald Trump lost the election

Chris Christie presented Ukraine’s president with a uniquely New Jersey-themed gift when he arrived last week on a surprise visit that aimed to draw a line between the candidate and other Republicans in his party who have resisted calls to aid Ukraine’s military. Mr Christie presented Volodymyr Zelensky with handwritten lyrics to It’s My Life from Jon Bon Jovi, the song’s author. The gift was a gesture in recognition and admiration of a now-viral group of videos shot by residents of Odessa, Ukraine depicting civilians assisting with preparation for a Russian attack while a band plays the song for them nearby. An official with Ukraine’s foreign ministry first tweeted a video of siege preparation in March, urging supporters of Ukraine to tag Bon Jovi in the hopes that the bandleader would see. The videos were viewed millions of times and were soon celebrated by the band itself: “[The song] served as an inspiration for a lot of the citizens in Odessa, as they were preparing for the invasion by the Russians,” Mr Christie said during a CNN interview. “Jon wrote it out in his own hand, got it framed, and I brought it to President Zelensky,” he continued, adding that he told the Ukrainian leader that the song was also “representative of many of the American people and what they feel about the cause that’s being fought for in Ukraine.” Jon Bon Jovi’s personal political leanings are thought to be more towards the left — he has campaigned with a handful of Democratic politicians throughout the years, including Joe Biden in 2020. But his band is known to have given Mr Christie, formerly the governor of New Jersey, approval to use the Jerey-borne group’s music on the campaign trail. Mr Christie’s visit comes as Republican opposition to further military aid to Ukraine continues to bubble, particularly among the far-right. The ex-governor and others who find themselves aligned with the GOP and Washington foreign policy establishments have resisted those inclinations with public shows of support for Ukraine and Mr Zelensky. One of Mr Christie’s rivals for the GOP nomination, Mike Pence, visited Ukraine and met with Mr Zelensky in late June as Kyiv has become a sort of de facto campaign stop in the 2024 US presidential race. Read More Pence and Trump lawyer share opposite stories of what Trump said ahead of January 6 Chris Christie meets Volodymyr Zelensky in surprise Ukraine visit GOP presidential hopeful Chris Christie says 'inhumanity' of war is palpable during visit to Ukraine

Rudy Giuliani, the ex-mayor of New York City and one-time lawyer for former President Donald Trump, has listed his Upper East Side apartment for $6.5m amid legal challenges. Property records and court documents confirm his address is the same listed by Sotheby’s Realty. While the listing says the building “is distinctive for its magnificent gothic-inspired terra cotta and brick façade” the three-bedroom, three-bathroom apartment is also distinctive for being raided by the FBI in April 2021 over Mr Giuliani’s alleged dealings with Ukraine. The apartment was put up for sale just days after Mr Giuliani’s ex-client and ally, Mr Trump, was indicted for the third time. Mr Giuliani himself is facing a number of legal woes. A lawyer for the 79-year-old last week acknowledged to the New York Times that his client appeared to be the person identified as “Co-Conspirator 1” in the federal indictment accusing Mr Trump of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election in his favour. Robert Costello, Mr Giuliani’s attorney, said the indictment “eviscerates the First Amendment,” and denounced the filing as “election interference.” In his own words, Mr Giuliani said Special Counsel Jack Smith, who handed down the indictment, should be indicted. “The people lying are the people bringing this… They should be indicted for conspiracy against rights,” the former mayor said on Newsmax. His former assistant, Noelle Dunphy, filed a lawsuit in May against him for sexual assault, harassment, wage theft, and other claims. In the lawsuit, Ms Dunphy claimed that her former boss “made clear that satisfying his sexual demands – which came virtually anytime, anywhere – was an absolute requirement of her employment.” Bombshell tapes and transcripts of their conversations have been revealed in recent weeks. In one such tape, the man once called “America’s Mayor” allegedly said, “Come here, big t*ts. Your t*ts belong to me. Give them to me. I want to claim my t*ts.” Mr Giuliani also faces a defamation lawsuit in Georgia, in which he seemed to admit that he made statements that “carry meaning that is defamatory per se” about two of the state’s election workers after the 2020 election. A judge has asked him to clarify “precisely” what he meant, as the former mayor made “seemingly incongruous and certainly puzzling caveats.” Additionally, Dominion sued Mr Giuliani for defamation in January 2021, claiming he had made “defamatory falsehoods” in order to “promote a false preconceived narrative about the 2020 election.” The company is seeking $1.3bn in damages. The Independent has reached out to a lawyer for Mr Giuliani. Read More Federal judge wants Giuliani to clarify ‘incongruous’ and ‘puzzling’ court filing in Georgia defamation case Rudy Giuliani says Eminem should leave US and ‘take a knee someplace else’ after Super Bowl show Rudy Giuliani goes on unhinged rant claiming Mike Pence’s wife leads him around on a leash

Sen Feinstein (D-CA), the oldest senator currently serving, is facing fresh calls to resign amid news that she handed power of attorney over to her daughter. The San Francisco Chronicle first reported last month that the senior senator had handed over power of attorney. The longtime senator from California’s only daughter Katherine Feinstein is engaged in a feud with the three children of Ms Feinstein’s late husband Richard Blum, who died last year, The New York Times reported. In one lawsuit, they two are debating Ms Feinstein’s desire to sell a beach house in a neighbourhood in San Francisco, and in another, they are arguing about money from Mr Blum’s life insurance. A number of commentators renewed calls for Ms Feinstein to step down after the latest revelation. Earlier this year, Ms Feinstein was sidelined from Senate activities as she recovered from shingles. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, it put a halt to Democrats’ attempts to confirm some of President Joe Biden’s judicial nominees who lacked Republican support. When she returned to the Senate, she seemed to not recall her absence, according to a conversation with Slate. She has at times not understood basic questions from reporters. During a vote in the Senate Appropriations Committee last week, Sen Pattty Murray (D-WA) told her to “Just say aye” when she supported a bill. Katherine Feinstein, who has power of attorney, filed the two lawsuits on her mother’s behalf, arguing the beach house is in a disheveled state and accused Mr Blum’s children of limiting the senator’s ability to sell off parts of her trust. The second lawsuit says that the senator “incurred significant medical expenses” and despite her late husband’s “intent to support his spouse after his death, the purported trustees have refused to make distributions to reimburse Senator Feinstein’s medical expenses.” The suit challenges whether trustees to Mr Blum’s estate were properly appointed. The attorneys for Mr Blum’s private equity firm disputed the claims, saying it never denied payment for medical expenses. Similarly, a statement said that Katherine Feinstein had not provided documentation that she had been appointed power of attorney. “Nor has Katherine made it clear, either in this filing or directly to my clients, why a sitting United States senator would require someone to have power of attorney over her,” they said. This article was amended on 7 August 2023 to attribute the reporting of the latest line to the San Francisco Chronicle, and not the New York Times as was originally the case. Read More Nikki Haley urges McConnell and Feinstein to ‘walk away’ after recent health concerns Mitch McConnell’s health history reveals previous issues as he freezes during briefing Senator Dianne Feinstein appears confused at meeting Bill Barr says ‘of course’ he’ll testify against Trump in Jan 6 case if asked Trump and Biden tied in hypothetical 2024 rematch: poll

Bill Barr is open to testifying in Donald Trump’s upcoming criminal trial should he be asked, the former attorney general revealed on Sunday. Mr Barr was speaking with CBS’s Margaret Brennan on Face the Nation when he was asked the same question that Mike Pence was asked on NBC — would he testify in Mr Trump’s January 6 trial when it goes to court? And while the former vice president hemmed and hawed before indicating that he wouldn’t try and dodge a subpoena for his testimony, Mr Barr got straight to the point. “Of course,” he responded. He also reinforced during the same interview that he had told the president multiple times before the attack on the Capitol that the claims of widespread election fraud being pushed by his campaign were false. The federal government is planning to argue that Mr Trump ignored the reality of the situation and pushed forward with a plan to interfere in the election’s certification despite having been advised his efforts were unconstitutional and not backed up by the facts surrounding the election. Mr Barr is one of a number of ex-Trump administration officials who have come forward and said that government agencies never saw any convincing evidence to support the Trump campaign’s claims of a stolen election; he, in particular, has referred to the conspiracies spread by Rudy Giuliani et al as “bulls***”. But the Trump circle continues to insist that long-debunked claims of phantom ballots and votes from dead people are legitimate, while also making the bizarre insistence that the Trump-controlled federal government’s warnings to social media companies about potential Russian disinformation efforts led to the unfair suppression of stories in conservative media about Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s adult son. Republicans have argued that emails sent by the younger Biden indicate an influence-trading scheme involving foreign interests and now-President Joe Biden, though this remains wholly unproven. Former President Trump is now facing 78 criminal charges spread across state and federal jurisdictions, including four relating to his campaign to overturn the lawful and valid results of the 2020 election. The federal government argues that Mr Trump’s efforts to block Mr Biden from being certified as the winner of the election on January 6 after his failure to prove fraud in the courts constituted an effort to deprive millions of Americans of their right to a duly-elected leader. He has denied wrongdoing in all of his criminal matters. The ex-president is expected to face more charges, according to his own legal team, in Georgia’s ongoing grand jury investigation into Mr Trump’s efforts to change the election results in that state. A decision on that matter is expected this month. Read More DeSantis won’t rule out national abortion ban but suggests there’s no ‘mileage’ left in Congress Trump has meltdown attacking Biden, Megan Rapinoe and ‘wokeness’ for US Women’s World Cup loss – latest news DeSantis finally acknowledges the truth about Trump's 2020 election lies: 'Of course he lost'

An attorney and spokesperson for former president Donald Trump on Monday claimed the Department of Justice is seeking a protective order to prevent the ex-president from publicising discovery materials because he’s “afraid” and accused the prosecutor overseeing the case of playing “victim” over the dispute. Alina Habba, a civil attorney who currently serves as a spokesperson for Mr Trump through his political action committee, said during an appearance on Fox and Friends that the dispute between Mr Trump’s defence team and Special Counsel Jack Smith over a proposed protective order is different from other cases and said the ex-president’s team hasn’t objected to other protective orders in the different court cases against him. “We have two protective orders that we don't object to which say that there will be protections for the witnesses and protections for the evidence that come out, especially when they're classified,” she said. On Friday, prosecutors asked Judge Tanya Chutkan to enter an order barring the former president from disclosing discovery materials “directly or indirectly to any person or entity other than persons employed to assist in the defense, persons who are interviewed as potential witnesses, counsel for potential witnesses, and other persons to whom the Court may authorize disclosure”. They cited Mr Trump’s penchant for “public statements on social media regarding witnesses, judges, attorneys, and others associated with legal matters pending against him,” including one recent social media post in which he appeared to threaten to “come after” anyone he believes to have been “after” him. In a more recent post on Monday, the ex-president also claimed in another post that he “shouldn’t have a protective order placed on [him] because it would impinge upon [his] right to FREE SPEECH”. The protective order sought by the prosecution would bar the ex-president from disclosing non-public information that the government must turn over to him as part of the pre-trial discovery process. Such orders are standard in criminal as well as civil cases, but Ms Habba claimed the one sought by the government is “different because this is Jack Smith trying to be a bit of a victim here”. “It's more him being afraid if you look at it closely. The protective order is in terms of witness testimony, exhibits. Those aren't necessarily things we've ever disagreed to in President Trump's never violated that if you look historically. So I just want to be clear that that doesn't seem to be an issue for my client. What seems to be an issue is that Jack Smith isn't liking the discomfort of the attention from what he brought,” she said. Mr Trump’s defence team has until 5.00 pm to formally respond to the government’s request and propose their own version of a protective order. Read More Trump has meltdown attacking Biden, Megan Rapinoe and ‘wokeness’ for US Women’s World Cup loss – latest news Trump’s rabid attack on the World Cup team is as transparent as it is absurd Trump posts another attack on judge ahead of first court deadline

Ron DeSantis has not ruled out enacting a national abortion “ban” if elected president, after the Florida governor implemented state restrictions on abortion access at 15 weeks and six weeks of pregnancy within the last two years. But he suggested that there is no “consensus” in the US for members of Congress to implement a national ban, as abortion restrictions and the US Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v Wade remain overwhelmingly unpopular. Asked by NBC’s Dasha Burns whether he would “veto any sort of federal bill” that would institute a nationwide ban, Mr DeSantis replied: “We will be a pro-life president and we will support pro-life policies.” In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to revoke a constitutional right to abortion care last year, Republican officials have repeatedly stated that the ruling merely left it up to individual states to decide. But anti-abortion lawmakers at the state level and in Congress continue to push for national restrictions that would also strike down state laws that protect and expand abortion access. Congressional Republicans have already passed several anti-abortion measures with national implications and have signalled the GOP’s readiness to ban abortion at certain gestational limits. President Joe Biden has promised to veto any such legislation, if it made it through Congress. In media appearances throughout his campaign, the governor has not directly answered whether he would support or veto legislation that would enact national abortion restrictions, suggesting that the issue should come from the “bottom up” with individual states determining policy. His statements have drawn criticism from influential anti-abortion group Susan B Anthony Pro-Life America, which called the governor’s position “unacceptable” to anti-abortion voters. Meanwhile, his campaign’s top donor has threatened to stop funding the candidate over his “extreme” position on abortion. And Donald Trump, who has taken credit for the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, has suggested that his rival for the 2024 Republican nomination for president has gone too far with a state law that bans abortion at six weeks of pregnancy, signed into law just one year after a 15-week limit was put in place. “Dobbs returned it to the political branches. I think the reality is that that basically means the states are going to have primary control over it,” Mr DeSantis told NBC. “You know, I do think the federal government would have an interest in, say, preventing post-birth abortions or things that are really horrific, but I don’t think that there’s enough consensus in the country to see a lot of mileage in Congress,” he added. There is no such thing as a “post-birth” abortion; killing an infant after birth is illegal in all states, and pregnancies resulting in the death of the fetus in the third trimester are exceedingly rare, and largely involve fetal anomalies and life-threatening medical emergencies. The vast majority of abortions take place within the first trimester, while roughly 1 per cent occur after 21 weeks, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The governor also suggested that Democratic officials support “infanticide”, echoing his remarks in a recent CNN interview claiming that “liberal state” allow “post-birth” abortion. “I would not allow what a lot of the left wants to do, which is to override pro-life protections throughout the country all the way up really to the moment of birth in some instances, which I think is infanticide,” he told NBC News. Ms Burns interrupted Mr DeSantis: “That’s a misrepresentation of what’s happening.” The governor also said that he does not support penalties for people who seek abortions. “Not at all,” he told Ms Burns. “No, I don’t think this is an issue about the woman. I think a lot of these women, you know, are in very difficult circumstances. They don’t get any support from a lot of the fathers. And a lot of them, the number one reason why women choose to have an abortion is because they’re not getting support and they feel abandoned. Now, in Florida we’ve provided support and we’ve put our money where our mouth is, but at the end of the day, you know, I would not support any penalties on a woman.” Mr DeSantis also told NBC that he does not support limits on contraception access. “And I think it should be available over-the-counter, and I think people should be able to have access to it,” he added. Read More Texas judge sides with women after harrowing testimony over anti-abortion law Alabama health care providers sue over threat of prosecution for abortion help ‘Walmart Melania’, ‘America’s Karen’ or ‘Tacky Onassis’: Why Casey DeSantis matters to the 2024 race Senator who once worked at a Planned Parenthood warns that Republicans are planning a national abortion ban