List of All Articles with Tag 'politics'

Former president Donald Trump was hit with his third criminal indictment on 1 August, this one charging him over his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and the subsequent January 6 attack on the US Capitol Building. Following an investigation by Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith, a grand jury in Washington, DC, has charged Mr Trump on four counts: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, conspiracy against rights and obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding. This is the second federal indictment filed against the Republican and the third he has received in total this year. The DC district judge assigned to oversee the case is Tanya Chutkan, a court docket revealed prior to Mr Trump’s arraignment on Thursday 3 August, at which he entered a not guilty plea to all charges. Judge Chutkan is an appointee of former president Barack Obama and was first appointed to the US District Court for the District of Columbia in June 2014. Here’s everything you need to know about the judge assigned to Mr Trump’s case. Who is Judge Tanya Chutkan? Born in Kingston, Jamaica, Judge Chutkan received her BA in Economics from George Washington University and her Juris Doctor (JD) from the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where she was an associate editor of its Law Review and a legal writing fellow, according to her DC District Court biography. After law school, Judge Chutkan worked in private practice for three years, before joining the District of Columbia Public Defender Service (PDS), where she worked as a trial attorney and supervisor. According to her biography, during Judge Chutkan’s time working at the PDS, she argued “several appellate cases and tried over 30 cases, including numerous serious felony matters”. Eleven years later, Judge Chutkan left the PDS and joined the private law firm Boies, Schiller, & Flexner LLP, where she worked for 12 years and specialised in white collar criminal defence. As a district judge, she has become known as one of the toughest judges in the prosecution of the Capitol rioters. One case thar caught everyone’s attention was that of an Ohio couple, Brandon and Stephanie Miller, who climbed through a broken window of the US Capitol and live-streamed a video of themselves inside the building. At the time, the prosecutor asked the Department of Justice (DoJ) to sentence them to home confinement as a part of a 36-month probationary period. Judge Chutkan disagreed with the prosecution’s request and instead sentenced Mr Miller to 20 days in jail and Ms Miller to 14 days in December 2021. At the time, Judge Chutkan said: “They didn’t just walk through a door. They climbed through a broken window… they knew full well of the violence that had preceded their entry. “The fact is that they were part of a mob… that was intent on stopping the lawful transfer of power.” In total, she has already sentenced at least 38 people convicted of Capitol riot-related crimes – and has handed down harsh punishments in these cases. Matt Mazzocco – a Texas mortgage broker who posed for a selfie in front of rioters breaching the building – was sentenced to 45 days in jail by Judge Chutkan with an additional 60 hours of community service in October 2021. Prosecutors had initially recommended three months under home confinement and probation but Judge Chutkan described the recommended sentence as too lenient. “If Mr Mazzocco walks away with probation and a slap on the wrist, that’s not going to deter anyone trying what he did again. It does not, in this court’s opinion, indicate the severity – the gravity of the offences that he committed on January 6,” she said. Judge Chutkan vs Trump Judge Chutkan has also had previous dealings with Mr Trump. In November 2021, Mr Trump filed a lawsuit in the hopes of blocking the National Archives from handing over documents related to the failed insurrection to the House select committee investigating the events of that day. Judge Chutkan rejected Mr Trump’s request and said: “While broad, these requests, and each of the other requests made by the committee, do not exceed the committee’s legislative powers.” She said that Mr Trump had not acknowledged “the deference owed to” President Joe Biden’s determination that the committee could access the materials. “[Mr Trump’s] position that he may override the express will of the executive branch appears to be premised on the notion that his executive power ‘exists in perpetuity,’” Judge Chutkan said. “But presidents are not kings, and the plaintiff is not president.” An Associated Press analysis of court records shows Judge Chutkan has sentenced at least 38 people convicted of Capitol riot-related crimes so far. She is one of two dozen judges in DC who have collectively sentenced almost 600 defendants so far for their roles in the assault on democracy. Additonal reporting from agencies. Read More Live updates: Trump pleads not guilty at arraignment in 2020 election case Trump moans criminal cases are keeping him from the campaign trail: ‘Must be Unconstitutional?’ Who is Jack Smith? The special prosecutor who just indicted Trump again Is Donald Trump going to prison? Judge in Trump election case gets extra protection after ex-president posts about her Trump judge demands hearing as Jack Smith and Trump spar over protective order – live Inside the courtroom, it was clear this indictment is different for Donald Trump

Ron DeSantis is traveling around the country letting everyone know that he's running for president right now. Every now and then he stops to interact with people and it's always an adventure. During one of this latest stops he was asked about his polling numbers, which one person said were "substantially behind" Donald Trump. Rather than take this one sitting down, DeSantis took control of the narrative, stretched out his face, said, "Not here!" and launched into an animated, maniacal laugh.

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

SINGAPORE (Reuters) -Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on Tuesday sought to reassure the public after a spate of political

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

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

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

By Asif Shahzad ISLAMABAD (Reuters) -Pakistan's jailed former Prime Minister Imran Khan appealed against his conviction and three-year sentence on

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

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

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

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