Author: PolitCens

Former President Donald Trump’s legal woes keep mounting.

On Monday, prosecutors in the southern U.S. state of Georgia unveiled a new indictment, charging Trump and 18 others in connection with efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden.

This is the fourth indictment against Trump in less than five months — two at the state level and two at the federal level. The former president is now facing 91 criminal charges, ranging from falsifying business records in New York to seeking to subvert the 2020 presidential election.

Many of the charges carry hefty prison sentences of 10 to 20 years if convicted. Trump, who is 77, could spend the rest of his life in prison if found guilty of one or more of the charges and sentenced.

“At his age, any conviction of any count could be a terminal sentence,” Jonathan Turley, a Washington University law professor, said in a recent interview with VOA.

But a conviction is not a foregone conclusion. And even if he is, he could receive a presidential pardon or have his sentence commuted to some lesser form of punishment.

He has pleaded not guilty in the three earlier cases in New York, Florida, and Washington, D.C., and has until August 25 to surrender to authorities in Georgia.

Trump’s legal troubles have not dented his dominance as the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination. But with at least two criminal trials looming next year, the criminal cases will likely cast a long shadow over the presidential race, as well as the news headlines.

Here is a look at the four indictments against Trump.

Hush money payment

Announced in March, this case made Trump the first and only former American president to be charged with crimes.

On March 30, a Manhattan grand jury indicted him on 34 counts of falsifying business records in connection with paying off an adult film star in 2016.

In an unprecedented scene, Trump surrendered to authorities five days later and was arraigned in a Manhattan courthouse.

His lawyers sought to move the case from New York state court to federal court, arguing that his alleged conduct in the case was related to his official duties as president. But in July, a federal judge rejected the argument, setting the stage for a trial in a state court. It is scheduled for March 25, 2024.

Classified documents

Brought by special counsel Jack Smith, this case marked the first federal indictment of an American president, sitting or former.

The case grew out of Smith’s monthslong investigation of Trump’s handling of government secrets after he left the White House in January 2021.

On June 8, a grand jury in Miami indicted Trump on 37 felony counts, including 31 counts of illegally retaining national defense information, and one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice. Trump’s valet, Walt Nauta, was also charged. Trump was arraigned on June 13.

In late July, prosecutors unveiled three additional charges and added another co-defendant to the case — Mar-a-Lago maintenance worker Carlos De Oliveira. 

Among the new charges, Trump and his two aides are accused of asking another employee to “delete security camera footage at the Mar-a-Lago Club to prevent the footage from being provided to a federal grand jury.”

Trump has pleaded not guilty to the new charges.

The trial in the case is set to begin May 20, 2024, in Fort Pierce, Florida. 

The trial date, set by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, was a compromise between a request by prosecutors to schedule the trial for December and Trump’s request to put it off until after the presidential election.

2020 election

In what many see as historically the most significant case against Trump, this federal indictment is focused on the former president’s alleged efforts to subvert the results of the 2020 presidential election.

On August 1, Smith issued a four-count indictment charging Trump with three conspiracy counts and one obstruction count in connection with the scheme.

The indictment stemmed from the Justice Department’s massive investigation of the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol by a mob of Trump supporters.

On August 3, the former president appeared in Washington, D.C., before a federal magistrate judge, who gave prosecutors one week to propose a trial date. In a subsequent filing, prosecutors proposed January 2, 2024, as the start date of Trump’s trial.

Last week, the federal judge overseeing the case, Tanya Chutkan, issued a protective order forbidding Trump from publicly discussing “sensitive” materials turned over to the defense. She set a hearing for August 28 to set a trial date.

Trump has complained that he can’t get a fair trial in Washington, a Democratic-leaning city.

A judge would have to approve a change of venue request, and it remains unclear if it will be granted.

Georgia election interference

Announced on Monday, the charges in this case grew out of a yearslong investigation by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis into efforts by Trump and his allies to reverse Georgia’s 2020 election results.

The investigation was triggered by a now-infamous January 2, 2021, phone call between Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in which Trump asked Raffensperger to help “find” the votes he needed to win the state.

But the probe expanded as investigations examined alleged efforts by Trump supporters to appoint a slate of fake presidential electors, make baseless claims about election fraud before the Georgia legislature, harass election workers and steal election equipment data.

The 41-count indictment stands out from the other three against Trump, as it names 19 co-defendants, including the former president, former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, lawyers Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman, and 30 unindicted co-conspirators.

The 97-page indictment accuses the group of conspiring to participate in a “criminal organization” to keep Trump in power.

Trump is charged with 13 counts. And while not every defendant faces the same charges, they all stand accused of violating one count of Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO.

If convicted of the racketeering charge, Trump and his co-defendants could face five to 20 years in prison.

Willis said Monday that she’ll seek to try all 19 defendants together.

Implications for presidential bid

Although the outcome of the charges remains uncertain, there is a consensus among legal experts that even if convicted, Trump can still run for president. 

The U.S. Constitution sets forth three key requirements for presidential candidates: They must be natural-born American citizens, at least 35 years old and residents of the United States for no less than 14 years. However, the Constitution is silent on the question of criminal records or convictions of candidates.

That means Trump could run for president as a convicted felon or even from behind bars, as Eugene V. Debs, a presidential candidate representing the Socialist Party, did more than a century ago.
…

Over a million people visit the Iowa State Fair during its annual 11-day run in August.

But this year, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, resident Rick Stewart isn’t attending the fair to judge the livestock contests, sample the diverse food offerings — including pork chops on a stick — or lining up to see the life-size cow made entirely of butter.

He’s here to perform a civic duty.

“It’s a chance to see all the candidates for president,” Stewart told VOA. “They’ve got a soapbox event. They’ve got a sit-down with [Iowa Governor] Kim Reynolds if they are a Republican. And I feel it’s a personal obligation as an Iowan to go and do my homework, because the rest of the country is relying on us to caucus intelligently next January, and I take that responsibility very seriously.”

Just a few weeks ahead of the first Republican presidential debate, candidates are campaigning at the Iowa State Fair to court voters in the first state to say who they think should represent the Republican Party in the 2024 presidential election. With incumbent President Joe Biden the likely Democratic nominee, the race to challenge him on the Republican side is heating up under Iowa’s summer sun, although former president Donald Trump is the clear front-runner in most polls.

“I’ll be honest, I’m a Trump supporter. But I want to hear what the other people have to say,” said Celia Criswell, who had a choice location in the front row of seats at the Des Moines Register newspaper’s Political Soapbox stage, which provides an opportunity for candidates such as Miami Mayor Francis Suarez and businessman Perry Johnson — both significantly trailing Trump in polling — to make their campaign pitch directly to voters like Criswell in the hopes that they can change their minds — and their votes.

“I’m not sure at this point anything is going to shift it,” Criswell said. “Maybe in 2028 some of these people would be good for the presidency. Maybe they’re good for vice president right now.”

Trump has visited Iowa less than others seeking the nomination yet still enjoys support among likely Republican voters.

While most candidates appeared at the Political Soapbox or attended Reynolds’ “Fair-Side Chats,” Trump declined those opportunities and instead visited the fair on his own terms, flying in for a few hours on Saturday to walk among cheering crowds.

“I want to see him get in there and finish what he started,” Robert Hand said to VOA. Hand flew in from New Jersey to take in the political atmosphere the Iowa State Fair offers. He said his support for Trump remained, despite mounting legal issues the former president faces.

But other Republican voters at the fair voiced their concerns.

“Trump — I really loved what he did for his four years. But he’s getting up there in years,” said New Albany, Indiana, voter Terri Rumpf, who traveled to the fair seeking an alternative to the former president.

“If we get into the general [election], the comparisons with Biden with age is not a good thing. Plus, he’s got baggage. I don’t want all the riots in the streets for four more years,” she said.

“I think that the Republican team is very strong, especially the ones I’ve seen so far. I’m very impressed,” said Rick Stewart, who explained that while he is a supporter of the Libertarian Party, he’ll likely support a Republican in next year’s voting.

“I don’t believe that Trump can beat Biden. I hope that we don’t have that election again,” he said.

Tim Hagle, a political science professor at the University of Iowa, said Stewart’s view reflects those of a number of Republican voters, “but not enough at this point to shift the momentum to other candidates.”

Hagle said that doing well in the Iowa caucuses is critical for those hoping to overtake Trump for the nomination, like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.

“DeSantis really has to do well in Iowa, at least a very strong second, for him to have any viability going forward,” Hagle said. “But for Trump, if he wins, and especially if he wins big in Iowa, probably this time around it would portend that he would get the nomination.”

“I believe that every Republican candidate I’ve seen so far can beat Biden, and that would be good for me,” Stewart said. “But I’m not going to pick a favorite until I’ve seen them all.”

The Iowa State Fair ends Aug. 20. The first Republican presidential debate is Aug. 23 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Voters cast ballots in the lead-off Iowa caucus on Jan. 15.
…

Former President Donald Trump’s legal troubles are escalating by the day.  

Trump is facing an unprecedented slate of criminal charges that threatens his political future and, if convicted, could land him in prison. 

Last week, the former president and front-runner for the 2024 Republican nomination was indicted in Washington on charges of conspiring to overturn his electoral defeat in 2020, adding to existing criminal cases in New York and Florida. A fourth indictment in Georgia could come any day.  

No American president has ever been criminally charged before, and no one knows what happens if Trump is found guilty.  

The indictments have raised legal and constitutional questions, some of which are easier to answer than others.  

Can Trump run for president if he is convicted? Can he go to prison? Can states keep him off the ballot by requiring that candidates have a clean criminal record? What if Trump is convicted but wins the election? Can he take office and then pardon himself?  

Can Trump run for president if convicted? 

There is near universal agreement on this question: Even if convicted, Trump will face no constitutional barriers to running for the White House.  

The U.S. Constitution has only three requirements for presidential candidates: They must be natural-born American citizens, at least 35 years old, and have lived in the country for at least 14 years. 

Trump meets all three, and most constitutional scholars agree that states can’t impose additional requirements on presidential hopefuls.  

Eugene Mazo, an election law expert and incoming professor at Duquesne University, said that even a candidate with a “mental incapacity” can’t be barred from running “because the Constitution lists all the requirements.” 

“If you want an additional requirement, it has to come through a constitutional amendment,” Mazo said in an interview with VOA.  

In recent years, legislation by states such as California and New Jersey requiring presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns was struck down as unconstitutional, Mazo said.  

That means that states can’t keep Trump off the ballot by passing legislation requiring presidential hopefuls to have a clean criminal record, he added.  

The 14th Amendment debate 

While states can’t disqualify presidential candidates on new grounds, there is one caveat to this general rule, said Frank Bowman, emeritus professor of law at the University of Missouri. 

Under the third clause of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, a person found guilty of “rebellion” or “insurrection” can be barred from running for president, Bowman said.  

The obscure provision was originally designed to prevent members of the rebel Confederacy from holding office following the 1861-65 U.S. Civil War.  The clause remained dormant for more than a century.  

But in recent months, liberal groups such as Mi Familia Vota and Free Speech for People have been pressing states to disqualify Trump under the 14th Amendment. They argue that Trump incited an insurrection against the United States on January 6, 2021, when a group of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol to prevent Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s victory.  

Trump was later impeached for incitement but acquitted by the U.S. Senate. And Bowman noted that none of the current criminal charges against Trump alleges engagement in rebellion or insurrection. 

“Whether these efforts will actually work is debatable, not impossible,” Bowman said in an interview.  

But others see the effort as a long shot.  

“I think that eventually it would get to the Supreme Court and be quickly swatted down.” said Jonathan Turley, a conservative law professor at George Washington University, in a recent interview.  

Can Trump go to prison and campaign from behind bars? 

If convicted, Trump could be sentenced to prison and, theoretically, he could continue to campaign from there. 

“From the perspective of the criminal law, he’s just a guy and, therefore, like any other guy, if he is convicted of a felony, he can be sentenced to prison for whatever term the law provides,” Bowman said.  

No former president has ever been incarcerated, but some presidential candidates have campaigned from behind bars.  

In 1920, Eugene V. Debs, a presidential candidate for the Socialist Party, received almost 1 million votes while serving a sentence for sedition. In 1992, political activist Lyndon LaRouche campaigned for president while in prison for fraud.  

“Can he run a campaign from jail?” Mazo asked rhetorically. “It’s hard, but the answer is, sure.” 

Trump himself has vowed to continue campaigning even if he is convicted.  

“I’ll never leave,” he said in an interview with Politico in June.  

Whether the former president will receive a prison sentence remains uncertain, but Politico recently estimated that he could face up to 641 years if convicted of all charges and given the maximum penalty for each.  

This is a far-fetched scenario, however, as judges rarely impose the maximum penalty on first-time offenders and usually allow sentences to run concurrently.  

The sentencing decision will ultimately rest with the judge, who will weigh various factors such as the severity of the crime, the defendant’s character, and the public interest. 

Some legal experts argue that a judge might spare Trump from prison and instead give him probation or home confinement, if only to avoid the spectacle of a former American president in a prison jumpsuit.  

But others say Trump could face prison time if he is convicted.  

“I think it’d be very hard for any judge, particularly out of the D.C. district, having sent so many of his supporters and minions to prison for essentially acting on his instigation …not to give him time,” Bowman said. 

Could Trump pardon himself? 

Since the waning days of the Trump presidency, experts have fiercely argued the question of a presidential self-pardon.  

The American president can pardon anyone for federal crimes, and some have speculated that Trump may have secretly pardoned himself before leaving office to avoid future prosecution.  

But Turley said he has seen no evidence to that effect.  

“If there were (a secret self-pardon), he would have already made that defense,” Turley said in an interview on Tuesday. 

On the other hand, if Trump were reelected, he could issue himself a pardon, Turley said. “So if these federal trials are held after the election, Trump could pardon himself before any trial occurs, and Jack Smith will never see a jury in either of these cases.”  

Trials in two of the three cases are set for March and May 2024,  but those dates could be pushed back by pretrial motions and other legal maneuvers.  

And the question of a presidential self-pardon remains far from settled. Legal experts such as Bowman have argued that a presidential self-pardon violates the Constitution. No one can be their own judge.  

“Indeed, a presidential self-pardon is antithetical to the language and structure of the Constitution, contrary to the evident intentions of the Founders, and a very real danger to republican government,” Bowman wrote in Just Security in November 2020.  

Even if Trump could pardon himself, it would not extend to state crimes with which Trump has been charged, Turley noted. 
…

Ohio voters on Tuesday resoundingly rejected a Republican-backed measure that would have made it more difficult to change the state’s constitution, setting up a fall campaign that will become the nation’s latest referendum on abortion rights since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned nationwide protections last year. 

The defeat of Issue 1 keeps in place a simple majority threshold for passing future constitutional amendments. It would have raised that to a 60% supermajority, which supporters said would protect the state’s foundational document from outside interest groups. 

While abortion was not directly on the special election ballot, the result marks the latest setback for Republicans in a conservative-leaning state who favor imposing tough restrictions on the procedure. Ohio Republicans placed the question on the summer ballot in hopes of undercutting a citizen initiative that voters will decide in November that seeks to enshrine abortion rights in the state. 

Dennis Willard, a spokesperson for the opposition campaign One Person One Vote, called Issue 1 a “deceptive power grab” that was intended to diminish the power of the state’s voters. 

“Tonight is a major victory for democracy in Ohio,” Willard told a jubilant crowd at the opposition campaign’s watch party. “The majority still rules in Ohio.” 

A major national group that opposes abortion rights, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, called the result “a sad day for Ohio” while criticizing the outside money that helped the opposition. In fact, both sides relied on national groups and individuals in their campaigns. 

Other states where voters have considered abortion rights since last year’s Supreme Court ruling have protected them, including in red states such as Kansas and Kentucky. 

Interest in the special election was intense. Voters cast nearly 700,000 early in-person and mail ballots ahead of Tuesday’s final day of voting, more than twice the number of advance votes in a typical primary election. Early turnout was especially heavy in the Democratic-leaning counties surrounding Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati. 

One Person One Vote represented a broad, bipartisan coalition of voting rights, labor, faith and community groups. The group also had as allies four living ex-governors of the state and five former state attorneys general of both parties, who called the proposed change bad public policy. 

In place since 1912, the simple majority standard is a much more surmountable hurdle for Ohioans for Reproductive Rights, the group advancing November’s abortion rights amendment. It would establish “a fundamental right to reproductive freedom” with “reasonable limits.” 

Voters in several states have approved ballot questions protecting access to abortion since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, but typically have done so with less than 60% of the vote. AP VoteCast polling last year found that 59% of Ohio voters say abortion should generally be legal. 

The result came in the very type of August special election that Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose, a candidate for U.S. Senate, had previously testified against as undemocratic because of historically low turnout. Republican lawmakers just last year had voted to mostly eliminate such elections, a law they ignored for this year’s election. 

Voters’ rejection of the proposal marked a rare rebuke for Ohio Republicans, who have held power across every branch of state government for 12 years. 

Ohio Right to Life, the state’s oldest and largest anti-abortion group and a key force behind the special election measure, vowed to continue fighting into the fall. 
…

A federal judge presiding over former President Donald Trump’s trial on charges of trying to overturn the 2020 election has ordered his attorneys and federal prosecutors to appear in court on Friday for a hearing to help determine how evidence can be used and shared in the case.

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan set the hearing for Friday at 10 a.m. ET (1400 GMT), shortly after Trump’s attorneys and members of U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office had clashed over when to schedule the proceeding.

Prosecutors had said they were available all week, while Trump’s lawyers had asked for a postponement until early next week.

Prosecutors request protective order

Friday’s hearing comes after Trump’s defense team on Monday opposed a request from prosecutors for Chutkan to impose a protective order to ensure confidential evidence is not shared publicly by Trump, suggesting he could use the information to intimidate witnesses. Trump has pleaded not guilty and called the charges politically motivated.

Trump’s attorneys said limits would infringe on his right to free speech, protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Trump is not expected to be present in the courtroom on Friday, after Chutkan waived his appearance.

Typically, defense lawyers do not oppose such protective orders because doing so can delay the government from producing the evidence it intends to use at trial in a process known as discovery.

Defense tries to slow proceedings

The disagreement between the parties over the hearing date represented the latest effort by Trump’s team to delay or slow legal proceedings.

It also underscored the logistical challenges that Trump’s team may have as it continues to represent him in two separate federal criminal cases brought by Smith’s office, one in Washington and the other in Florida, where Trump is charged with retaining highly classified records after leaving the White House and obstructing the government’s efforts to have the records returned. Trump also pleaded not guilty in that case.

One of Trump’s attorneys, Todd Blanche, will be in federal court in Florida on Thursday for an arraignment, after the government filed a superseding indictment that charged Trump with additional criminal counts and also charged another one of his employees in the case.

In the joint Washington filing, Trump’s lawyers said Trump wished for both Blanche and his other lawyer John Lauro to be present for the hearing before Chutkan.
…

Declaring it good “not only for Arizona but for the planet,” President Joe Biden on Tuesday signed a national monument designation for the greater Grand Canyon, turning the decades-long visions of Native American tribes and environmentalists into reality. 

Coming as Biden is on a three-state Western trip, the move will help preserve about 4,046 square kilometers (1,562 square miles) just to the north and south of Grand Canyon National Park. It was Biden’s fifth monument designation. 

Tribes in Arizona have been pushing the president to use his authority under the Antiquities Act of 1906 to create a new national monument called Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni. “Baaj Nwaavjo” means “where tribes roam,” for the Havasupai people, while “I’tah Kukveni” translates to “our footprints,” for the Hopi tribe. 

“Preserving these lands is good, not only for Arizona but for the planet,” said Biden, who spoke with a mountain vista behind him, using a handheld microphone against the wind and wearing a baseball cap and dark sunglasses against the sunshine and heat. “It’s good for the economy. It’s good for the soul of the nation.” 

Living up to treaty obligations

Biden likened the designation to his administration’s larger push to combat climate change and noted this summer’s extreme heat, which has been especially punishing in places like Phoenix.  

Biden said the new designation would see the federal government live up to its treaty obligations with Native American tribes after many were forced in decades past from their ancestral homes around the Grand Canyon as officials developed the site of the national park. 

“At a time when some seek to ban books and bury history, we’re making it clear that we can’t just choose to learn what we want to learn,” Biden said, a reference to his frequent criticism of some top Republicans who have sought to impose limits on school libraries, citing parental complaints about explicit material. 

Arizona key in election

The political stakes are high. Arizona is a key battleground state that Biden won narrowly in 2020, becoming the first Democrat since Bill Clinton in 1996 to carry it. And it’s one of only a few genuinely competitive states heading into next year’s election. Winning Arizona would be a critical part of Biden’s efforts to secure a second term. 

Republican lawmakers and the mining industry have touted the area’s economic benefits and argued that mining is a matter of national security. 

Representatives Bruce Westerman, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, and Paul Gosar, an Arizona Republican who also holds a leadership position on the committee, released a letter to Biden on Tuesday, criticizing the designation and suggesting it “would permanently withdraw the richest and highest-grade uranium deposits in the United States from mining — deposits that are far outside the Grand Canyon National Park.” 

The Interior Department, reacting to concerns over the risk of contaminating water, enacted a 20-year moratorium on the filing of new mining claims around the national park in 2012. 

Existing mining claims will not be affected by this designation, senior Biden administration officials counter. Furthermore, the monument site encompasses about 1.3% of the nation’s known and understood uranium reserves. Officials say there are significant resources in other parts of the country that will remain accessible. 

Invitees at Tuesday’s event included Yavapai-Apache Nation Chairwoman Tanya Lewis, Colorado River Indian Tribes Chairwoman Amelia Flores, Navajo President Buu Nygren and Havasupai Tribal Councilwoman Dianna Sue White Dove Uqualla. 

Uqualla is part of a group of tribal dancers who performed a blessing at the designation ceremony. 

“It’s really the uranium we don’t want coming out of the ground because it’s going to affect everything around us — the trees, the land, the animals, the people,” Uqualla said. “It’s not going to stop.” 

After Arizona, Biden will go on to Albuquerque in New Mexico on Wednesday, where he will talk about how fighting climate change has created new jobs. During a visit to Salt Lake City in Utah on Thursday, the president will mark the first anniversary of the PACT Act, which provides new benefits to veterans who were exposed to toxic substances. He’ll also hold a reelection fundraiser in each city.
…

The Justice Department has asked a federal judge overseeing the criminal case against former President Donald Trump in Washington to step in after Trump released a post online that appeared to promise revenge on anyone who goes after him.

Prosecutors on Friday requested that U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan issue a protective order concerning evidence in the case, a day after Trump pleaded not guilty to charges of trying to overturn his 2020 election loss and block the peaceful transition of power. The order, different from a “gag order,” would limit what information Trump and his legal team could share publicly about the case brought by special counsel Jack Smith.

Chutkan on Saturday gave Trump’s legal team until 5 p.m. Monday to respond to the government’s request. Trump’s legal team, which has indicated he would look to slow the case down despite prosecutors’ pledge of a speedy trial, then filed a request to extend the response deadline to Thursday and to hold a hearing on the matter, saying it needed more time for discussion. 

Chutkan swiftly denied that extension request Saturday evening, reaffirming that Trump must abide by Monday’s deadline. 

Protective orders are common in criminal cases, but prosecutors said it’s “particularly important in this case” because Trump has posted on social media about “witnesses, judges, attorneys and others associated with legal matters pending against him.”

Prosecutors pointed specifically to a post on Trump’s Truth Social platform from earlier Friday in which Trump wrote, in all capital letters, “If you go after me, I’m coming after you!”

Prosecutors said they are ready to hand over a “substantial” amount of evidence — “much of which includes sensitive and confidential information” — to Trump’s legal team.

They told the judge that if Trump were to begin posting about grand jury transcripts or other evidence provided by the Justice Department, it could have a “harmful chilling effect on witnesses or adversely affect the fair administration of justice in this case.”

Prosecutors’ proposed protective order seeks to prevent Trump and his lawyers from disclosing materials provided by the government to anyone other than people on his legal team, possible witnesses, the witnesses’ lawyers or others approved by the court. It would put stricter limits on “sensitive materials,” which would include grand jury witness testimony and materials obtained through sealed search warrants.

A Trump spokesperson said in an emailed statement that the former president’s post “is the definition of political speech” and was made in response to “dishonest special interest groups and Super PACs.”

Chutkan, a former assistant public defender who was nominated to the bench by President Barack Obama, has been one of the toughest punishers of rioters who stormed the Capitol in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack fueled by Trump’s baseless claims of a stolen election.

The indictment unsealed this week accuses Trump of brazenly conspiring with allies to spread falsehoods and concoct schemes intended to overturn his election loss to President Joe Biden as his legal challenges foundered in court.

The indictment chronicles how Trump and his Republican allies, in what Smith described as an attack on a “bedrock function of the U.S. government,” repeatedly lied about the results in the two months after he lost the election and pressured his vice president, Mike Pence, and state election officials to take action to help him cling to power.

Trump faces charges that include conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and conspiracy to obstruct Congress’ certification of Biden’s electoral victory.

It’s the third criminal case brought this year against the early front-runner in the 2024 Republican presidential primary. But it’s the first case to try to hold Trump responsible for his efforts to remain in power during the chaotic weeks between his election loss and the attack by his supporters on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Smith has also charged Trump in Florida federal court with illegally hoarding classified documents at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate and thwarting government efforts to get them back.

The magistrate judge in that case agreed to a protective order in June that prohibits Trump and his legal team from publicly disclosing evidence turned over to them by prosecutors without prior approval. Prosecutors are seeking another protective order in that case with more rules about the defense team’s handling of classified evidence.

After his court appearance on Thursday in the Washington case, Trump characterized the prosecution as a “persecution” designed to hurt his 2024 presidential campaign. His legal team has described it as an attack on his right to free speech and his right to challenge an election that he believed had been stolen.

Smith has said prosecutors will seek a “speedy trial” against Trump in the election case. Judge Chutkan has ordered the government to file a brief by Thursday proposing a trial date. The first court hearing in front of Chutkan is scheduled for Aug. 28.

Trump is already scheduled to stand trial in March in the New York case stemming from hush-money payments made during the 2016 campaign and in May in the classified documents case.
…

The Justice Department has asked a federal judge overseeing the criminal case against former President Donald Trump in Washington to step in after Trump released a post online that appeared to promise revenge on anyone who goes after him.

Prosecutors on Friday requested that U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan issue a protective order concerning evidence in the case, a day after Trump pleaded not guilty to charges of trying to overturn his 2020 election loss and block the peaceful transition of power. The order, different from a “gag order,” would limit what information Trump and his legal team could share publicly about the case brought by special counsel Jack Smith.

Such protective orders are common in criminal cases, but prosecutors said it’s “particularly important in this case” because Trump has posted on social media about “witnesses, judges, attorneys and others associated with legal matters pending against him.”

Prosecutors pointed specifically to a post on Trump’s Truth Social platform from earlier Friday in which Trump wrote, in all capital letters, “If you go after me, I’m coming after you!”

Prosecutors said they are ready to hand over a “substantial” amount of evidence — “much of which includes sensitive and confidential information” — to Trump’s legal team.

They told the judge that if Trump were to begin posting about grand jury transcripts or other evidence provided by the Justice Department, it could have a “harmful chilling effect on witnesses or adversely affect the fair administration of justice in this case.”

Prosecutors’ proposed protective order seeks to prevent Trump and his lawyers from disclosing materials provided by the government to anyone other than people on his legal team, possible witnesses, the witnesses’ lawyers or others approved by the court. It would put stricter limits on “sensitive materials,” which would include grand jury witness testimony and materials obtained through sealed search warrants.

A Trump spokesperson said in an emailed statement that the former president’s post “is the definition of political speech” and was made in response to “dishonest special interest groups and Super PACs.”

It’s unclear when Chutkan might rule on the matter. Chutkan, a former assistant public defender who was nominated to the bench by President Barack Obama, has been one of the toughest punishers of rioters who stormed the Capitol in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack fueled by Trump’s baseless claims of a stolen election.

The indictment unsealed this week accuses Trump of brazenly conspiring with allies to spread falsehoods and concoct schemes intended to overturn his election loss to President Joe Biden as his legal challenges foundered in court.

The indictment chronicles how Trump and his Republican allies, in what Smith described as an attack on a “bedrock function of the U.S. government,” repeatedly lied about the results in the two months after he lost the election and pressured his vice president, Mike Pence, and state election officials to take action to help him cling to power.

Trump faces charges that include conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and conspiracy to obstruct Congress’ certification of Biden’s electoral victory.

It’s the third criminal case brought this year against the early front-runner in the 2024 Republican presidential primary. But it’s the first case to try to hold Trump responsible for his efforts to remain in power during the chaotic weeks between his election loss and the attack by his supporters on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Smith has also charged Trump in Florida federal court with illegally hoarding classified documents at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate and thwarting government efforts to get them back.

The magistrate judge in that case agreed to a protective order in June that prohibits Trump and his legal team from publicly disclosing evidence turned over to them by prosecutors without prior approval. Prosecutors are seeking another protective order in that case with more rules about the defense team’s handling of classified evidence.

After his court appearance on Thursday in the Washington case, Trump characterized the prosecution as a “persecution” designed to hurt his 2024 presidential campaign. His legal team has described it as an attack on his right to free speech and his right to challenge an election that he believed had been stolen.

Smith has said prosecutors will seek a “speedy trial” against Trump in the election case. Judge Chutkan has ordered the government to file a brief by Thursday proposing a trial date. The first court hearing in front of Chutkan is scheduled for Aug. 28.

Trump is already scheduled to stand trial in March in the New York case stemming from hush-money payments made during the 2016 campaign and in May in the classified documents case.
…

Former US President Donald Trump pleaded not guilty Thursday to four charges of criminal conspiracy to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. VOA’s congressional correspondent Katherine Gypson has more from the courthouse.
Camera: Saqib Ul Islam
…

Former US President Donald Trump is due to appear in court Thursday, after a grand jury in Washington accused him of illegally trying to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. VOA’s Congressional Correspondent Katherine Gypson has more from Washington.
…

The White House says it’s closely watching a coup in Niger, as the US Embassy prepares to evacuate staff from the West African nation. With the coup plotters staring down a Sunday deadline to reinstate the deposed democratically elected president, analysts say Moscow and Beijing are also monitoring Niamey – and looking for opportunities to widen their influence. VOA’s Anita Powell reports from Washington.
…

Former U.S. President Donald Trump will be facing two vastly different pools of possible jurors and judges with divergent views when he goes on trial in Washington, accused of illegally orchestrating an attempt to upend his 2020 election loss, and in Florida for allegedly trying to hoard classified national security documents.

Trump was indicted by Justice Department Special Counsel Jack Smith on Tuesday in the Washington case, and Trump is set to make his first court appearance on Thursday afternoon.

A federal court grand jury handed up a four-count indictment alleging that Trump conspired to defraud the United States to stay in power even though he knew he had lost his reelection bid to Democrat Joe Biden and then helped foment the January 6, 2021, riot of Trump supporters at the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to block lawmakers from certifying the election outcome.

Jurors do not necessarily decide criminal cases the way they voted in elections, but when the case goes to trial — and that could be months from now — Trump will face a pool of would-be jurors, all residents of Washington, the national capital, who voted against him 92% to 5% in the 2020 election.

In the southern state of Florida, where Trump lives at his oceanside Mar-a-Lago estate in the winter months, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon has indicated she is likely to hold the classified documents case Smith filed against Trump at the courthouse where she normally presides, in Fort Pierce, about 200 kilometers (124 miles) north of the resort city of Miami.

If the trial is in Fort Pierce, jurors would be chosen from a list of voters in five counties, four of which handed Trump more than 60% of their votes in the 2020 election, while he eked out a slim majority in the fifth county.

The two federal judges overseeing the cases have already issued rulings for and against Trump.

Cannon, a Trump appointee to the federal bench in the waning days of his presidency, was randomly picked to oversee the classified documents case. Last year, she appointed a special master Trump sought, over the protests of Smith’s prosecutors, to review documents seized from Mar-a-Lago, which at the time delayed the government’s investigation.

The government appealed her decision and an appellate court rebuked Cannon, ruling that she had no right to name the special master.

More recently, when Smith sought to start the classified documents trial in December and Trump’s lawyers wanted to push it past the 2024 election, Cannon pretty much split the difference, ordering the trial to start in May 2024.

In Washington, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, nominated to the federal bench by former Democratic President Barack Obama, was randomly selected to oversee the case accusing Trump of election interference to stay in power.

Smith alleged that Trump knew he had lost but continued to make false claims that he had been cheated out of another four-year term in the White House and then tried to keep Congress from certifying that Biden had won, resulting in the mayhem at the Capitol on January 6 two years ago.

A specially appointed committee in the House of Representatives examined the riot at length in public hearings last year, and Chutkan played a role in the committee’s evidence gathering.

Trump sought to block release of documents sought by the committee by asserting executive privilege over the material, even though he was no longer president and Biden had cleared the way for the National Archives to turn over the papers. Chutkan ruled that Trump could not claim that his privilege “exists in perpetuity.”

Chutkan notably wrote, “Presidents are not kings, and plaintiff is not president.”

Chutkan is one of two dozen federal judges in Washington who have overseen the cases of rioters charged with offenses for their roles in the January 6 rampage at the Capitol building.

She has sentenced all 38 defendants convicted in her court to prison terms, ranging from 10 days to more than five years. In four of the cases, prosecutors weren’t seeking any jail time at all.

“It has to be made clear that trying to violently overthrow the government, trying to stop the peaceful transition of power and assaulting law enforcement officers in that effort is going to be met with absolutely certain punishment,” she said at one sentencing.
…

Donald Trump for years has promoted baseless claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him. In truth, Trump was the one who tried to steal the election, federal prosecutors said Tuesday in a sprawling indictment that paints the former president as desperate to cling to power he knew had been stripped away by voters.

The Justice Department indictment accuses Trump of brazenly conspiring with allies to spread falsehoods and concoct schemes intended to overturn his election loss to President Joe Biden as his legal challenges foundered in court.

The felony charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith are built around the words of White House lawyers and others in his inner circle who repeatedly told Trump there was no fraud.

It’s the third time this year the early front-runner in the 2024 Republican presidential primary has been charged in a criminal case. But it’s the first case to try to hold Trump responsible for his efforts to remain in power during the chaotic weeks between his election loss and the attack by his supporters on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Trump has said he did nothing wrong, and he has accused Smith and the Justice Department of trying to harm his 2024 campaign.

Here’s a look at the charges Trump faces and other key issues in the indictment:

With what is Trump charged?

Trump is charged with four counts: obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and conspiracy to prevent others from carrying out their constitutional rights.

In the obstruction charge — which carries penalties of up to 20 years in prison — the official proceeding refers to the January 6, 2021, joint session of Congress at which electoral votes were counted in order to certify Biden as the official winner. Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding also carries a maximum of 20 years in prison.

That obstruction charge has been brought against hundreds of the more than 1,000 people charged in the January 6 riot, including members of the far-right Oath Keepers and Proud Boys extremist groups. More than 100 people have been convicted at trial or pleaded guilty to the offense.

Conspiracy to defraud the U.S., which is punishable by up to five years in prison, prohibits efforts to obstruct or interfere with government functions “by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest,” the Supreme Court has held. The indictment alleges that Trump used “dishonesty, fraud and deceit” to obstruct the counting and certifying of the election results.

Trump had the right to contest the election — and even falsely claim that he had won, the indictment says. The charges, however, stem from what prosecutors say were illegal efforts to subvert the election results and block the peaceful transfer of power.

The indictment alleges a weekslong plot that began with pressure on state lawmakers and election officials to change electoral votes from Biden to Trump, and then evolved into organizing fake slates of pro-Trump electors to be sent to Congress.

Trump and his allies also attempted to use the Justice Department to conduct bogus election-fraud investigations in order to boost his fake electors scheme, the indictment says.

As January 6 approached, Trump and his allies pressured Vice President Mike Pence to reject certain electoral votes, and when that failed, the former president directed his supporters to go to the Capitol to obstruct Congress’ certification of the vote, the indictment alleges.

Finally, the indictment says, Trump and his allies tried to exploit his supporters’ attack on the Capitol by redoubling their efforts to spread election lies and convince members of Congress to further delay the certification of Biden’s victory.

“Each of these conspiracies — which built on the widespread mistrust the Defendant was creating through pervasive and destabilizing lies about election fraud — targeted a bedrock function of the United States federal government: the nation’s process of collecting, counting, and certifying the results of the presidential election,” the indictment says.

What is the ‘conspiracy against rights’ charge?

Trump is accused of violating a post-Civil War era civil rights statute that makes it a crime to conspire to interfere with rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution, in this case: the right to vote and have one’s vote counted. It’s punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

The provision was originally part of a set of laws passed in 1870 in response to violence and intimidation by members of the Ku Klux Klan aimed at keeping Black people from the polls.

But it has been used over the years in a wide range of election fraud cases, including to prosecute conspiracies to stuff ballot boxes or not count certain votes. The conspiracy doesn’t have to be successful, meaning the fraud doesn’t have to actually affect the election.

Was anyone else charged?

Trump is the only defendant charged in the indictment, which mentions six co-conspirators. The six people are not explicitly named, but the indictment includes details that make it possible to identify some of them. It’s unclear why they weren’t charged or whether they will be added to the indictment at a later date.

The co-conspirators include an attorney “who was willing to spread knowingly false claims and pursue strategies” that Trump’s 2020 campaign attorneys would not, and an attorney whose “unfounded claims of election fraud” Trump privately acknowledged to others sounded “crazy.” Another co-conspirator is a political consultant who helped submit fake slates of electors for Trump.

What happens next?

The case was filed in Washington’s federal court, where Trump is expected to make his first appearance on Thursday.

For more than two years, judges in that courthouse — which sits within sight of the Capitol — have been hearing the cases of the hundreds of Trump supporters accused of participating in the January 6 riot, many of whom have said they were deluded by the election lies pushed by Trump and his allies.

Trump has signaled that his defense may rest, at least in part, on the idea that he truly believed the election was stolen, saying in a recent social media post, “I have the right to protest an Election that I am fully convinced was Rigged and Stolen, just as the Democrats have done against me in 2016, and many others have done over the ages.”

But prosecutors have amassed a significant amount of evidence showing that Trump was repeatedly told he had lost.

Trump is already scheduled to stand trial in March in the New York case stemming from hush-money payments made during the 2016 campaign and in May in the federal case in Florida stemming from classified documents found at his Mar-a-Lago estate.
…

Legal jeopardy for Donald Trump is growing after a federal grand jury in Washington indicted the former U.S. president, accusing him of illegally trying to upend his 2020 election loss to retain power. VOA’s Michael Brown reports.
…

Former U.S. President Donald Trump’s indictment on four federal charges for working to overturn his 2020 election loss drew reaction from across the political spectrum, including from his vice president at the time, Mike Pence, who said “anyone who puts himself over the Constitution should never be president of the United States.” 

The indictment describes a series of events after the November election, culminating in the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters. The indictment says many in the “large and angry crowd” had been deceived by Trump into believing Pence could change the election results. 

Among those tasked with defending the Capitol from the mob was U.S. Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn, who said in a statement released by his lawyer, “All I have wanted from day one is accountability and justice for the law enforcement men and women who fought bravely on January 6th.” 

“I would be lying if I did not acknowledge my numbness with the news of the indictment today of a former president of the United States,” Dunn said. “I am confident our legal system will handle this case properly.” 

‘A stark reminder’

Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said in a joint statement that Tuesday’s indictment “will stand as a stark reminder to generations of Americans that no one, including a president of the United States, is above the law.” 

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose office was ransacked by the January 6 mob, said in a statement that as the legal process plays out, “justice must be done according to the facts and the law.” 

“The charges alleged in this indictment are very serious, and they must play out through the legal process, peacefully and without any outside interference. Like every criminal defendant, the former President is innocent until proven guilty,” Pelosi said. 

Claims of political interference

Republican leaders cast the indictment as a form of political interference ahead of the 2024 presidential election in which Democratic President Joe Biden is seeking reelection and Trump remains the leading candidate for the Republican Party. 

They also mentioned Biden’s son, Hunter, ongoing congressional probes into Hunter Biden’s business dealings and criticism of a plea agreement for tax evasion. 

“Everyone in America could see what was going to come next: DOJ’s attempt to distract from the news and attack the frontrunner for the Republican nomination, President Trump,” Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy said in a statement. “House Republicans will continue to uncover the truth about Biden Inc. and the two-tiered system of justice.” 

Republican House Majority Leader Steve Scalise called Trump’s indictment “an outrageous abuse of power” and accused the U.S. Justice Department of giving favorable treatment to Hunter Biden while “trying to persecute” Trump. 

Reublican Senator Ted Budd said the Biden administration has repeatedly “weaponized the justice system to target his chief political opponent.” 

Some information for this report came from The Associated Press and Reuters.
…

Former U.S. President Donald Trump continues to defy expectations as he surges ahead of other Republican contenders for the presidential nomination despite multiple indictments against him — and with words of support from some of his own rivals. As he was indicted again Tuesday over his attempts to overturn the 2020 election, VOA’s Anita Powell looks at the unprecedented path of the former president.
…

The federal judge assigned to the election fraud case against former President Donald Trump has stood out as one of the toughest punishers of rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attack fueled by Trump’s baseless claims of a stolen election. She has also ruled against him before. 

Trump is to appear Thursday before U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, a former assistant public defender who was nominated to the bench by President Barack Obama. She often handed down prison sentences in January 6, 2021, riot cases that were harsher than Justice Department prosecutors recommended. 

Trump was indicted Tuesday on federal felony charges for his persistent efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election in the two months leading up to the violent assault on the U.S. Capitol by his supporters. 

Chutkan has ruled against Trump before in a separate January 6 case. In November 2021, she refused his request to block the release of documents to the U.S. House’s January 6 committee by asserting executive privilege. 

She rejected his arguments that he could hold privilege over documents from his administration even after President Joe Biden had cleared the way for the National Archives to turn the papers over. She wrote that Trump could not claim his privilege “exists in perpetuity.” 

In a memorable line from her ruling, Chutkan wrote, “Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President.” 

Chutkan has sentenced at least 38 people convicted of Capitol riot-related crimes. All 38 received prison terms, ranging from 10 days to more than five years, according to an Associated Press analysis of court records. 

She is one of two dozen judges in Washington who collectively have sentenced nearly 600 defendants for their roles in the January 6 siege. More than one-third of them avoided sentences that included incarceration. 

Other judges typically have handed down sentences that are more lenient than those requested by prosecutors. Chutkan, however, has matched or exceeded prosecutors’ recommendations in 19 of her 38 sentences. In four of those cases, prosecutors weren’t seeking any jail time at all. 

Chutkan has said prison can be a powerful deterrent against the threat of another insurrection. 

“Every day we’re hearing about reports of anti-democratic factions of people plotting violence, the potential threat of violence, in 2024,” she said in December 2021 before sentencing a Florida man who attacked police officers to more than five years behind bars. At the time, that sentence was the longest for a January 6 case. 

“It has to be made clear that trying to violently overthrow the government, trying to stop the peaceful transition of power and assaulting law enforcement officers in that effort is going to be met with absolutely certain punishment,” she said. 

Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump nominee, suggested during a hearing in 2021 that the Justice Department was being too hard on those who broke into the Capitol compared with the people arrested during racial injustice protests following George Floyd’s 2020 murder. 

Without naming her colleague, Chutkan criticized McFadden’s suggestion days later. 

“People gathered all over the country last year to protest the violent murder by the police of an unarmed man. Some of those protesters became violent,” Chutkan said during an October 2021 hearing. 

“But to compare the actions of people protesting, mostly peacefully, for civil rights, to those of a violent mob seeking to overthrow the lawfully elected government is a false equivalency and ignores a very real danger that the Jan. 6 riot posed to the foundation of our democracy.” 
…