ЦЕНЗОРА.NET

Washington — In 2016, Donald Trump’s presidential campaign echoed with a frequent vow to crush “radical Islamic terrorism.” 

Fast forward to today, as he seeks a second chance in the White House, Trump rarely mentions the phrase, his erstwhile rhetoric about Islamist terrorism eclipsed by a focus on immigration, crime and other domestic issues.  

The shift came into sharp relief on Sunday when a coordinated terrorist assault on a police station, churches and synagogues in southern Russia left at least 20 people dead. What might once have prompted a flurry of tweets went unmentioned on Trump’s Truth Social platform.  

Why the silence on what was once a rallying cry? Experts suggest two factors: diminished public concern about terrorism and a possible strategic play for the Muslim American vote. 

Brian Levin, an extremism expert who has closely followed Trump’s rhetoric, said the former president — “more of an opportunist than an ideologue” — is zeroing in on issues that resonate with voters.   

“Eight years ago, when the threat of foreign-inspired extremism polled among the top concerns of voters, Trump successfully invoked terror attacks … to drum up support,” Levin said. “Today, however, Trump has to pivot somewhat to domestic issues relating to the economy, democracy, crime and the border as well as the record of an incumbent he hopes to unseat.” 

Defending his record in office, including his handling of southern border immigration, President Joe Biden has made protecting democracy a centerpiece of his campaign, casting Trump as a grave threat to the country.  

But Biden’s staunch support of Israel during its military campaign in Gaza has angered many Muslim voters, opening a rare opportunity for Trump, according to experts.  

Gabriel Rubin, a justice studies professor at Montclair State University, said Trump may be eyeing the Muslim vote in key battleground states with large Muslim populations that could determine the outcome of the November election.   

“He has an avenue not to mention [‘radical Islamic terrorism’] too much,” Rubin, who has written about Trump’s past rhetoric about Muslims and terrorism, told VOA in an interview. “I think he can win some of these Midwestern states if he plays his cards right.”  

To be sure, the threat of international terrorism hasn’t vanished. In the months since the outbreak of conflict in Gaza, U.S. officials, including FBI Director Christopher Wray, have been sounding the alarm about an increased potential for terrorist attacks.    

But while the warnings seem to have raised the public’s worries about terrorism, “overall concern about the issue still doesn’t match the higher levels of concern it garnered” in 2015 and 2016, according to an April Gallup report.   

Trump’s 2016 campaign rhetoric — from claiming “Muslims hate us” to calling for a “complete and total” shutdown of Muslims entering the country — did not happen in a bubble.  

Though on the run, the Islamic State (IS) still controlled large swaths of territory in Syria and Iraq and advocated attacking the West. Adding to Americans’ angst about terrorism were a spate of IS-inspired terror attacks across Europe and the United States. 

In the 12 months leading up to the November election, Trump tweeted 164 times about Islamic State, “radical Islam” and terrorism — nearly twice as much as he did about border security and immigration, according to one estimate. 

Trump’s vitriolic comments on Muslims and Islam, welcomed by his supporters, unnerved many in the Muslim community, drawing charges of Islamophobia against him, which he and his allies reject.   

VOA reached out to the Trump campaign for comment but did not receive a response. The Biden campaign did not respond to a request for comment.    

Biden’s stance on terrorism, particularly Islamist terrorism, also has evolved over the years. 

While he is not known to have used the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism,” in the past he was more willing to employ similar language while taking a tough stance on terrorism.  

In 2014, as vice president under President Barack Obama, he criticized Turkey and the United Arab Emirates for supporting jihadi groups in Syria and “the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts to the world.” He later apologized for the comment. 

Since becoming president in 2021, Biden has focused on terrorism more broadly without singling out any one region or religion, moving away from the rhetoric of the “War on Terror” of the 2000s.  

On the day he entered the White House, he repealed the Trump administration’s “Muslim ban,” calling it “a stain on our national conscience.”

In the wake of the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, moreover, his administration placed a greater emphasis on domestic terrorism as a significant threat to homeland security. In 2021, it launched the first-ever national strategy for countering domestic terrorism. 

After the October 7 Hamas attack, Biden condemned the attack as “pure, unadulterated evil” while putting a distance between the perpetrators and the broader Muslim community. 

“You know, I know many of you in the Muslim American community or the Arab American community, the Palestinian American community, and so many others are outraged and hurting, saying to yourselves, ‘Here we go again,’ with Islamophobia and distrust we saw after 9/11,” Biden said on October 10.  

Trump is not known for moderating his rhetoric, even while in office. But after his second year in the White House, the volume of his rhetoric about Muslims and terrorism fell dramatically as he shifted his focus to a new area: border security and illegal immigration. 

That trend has continued into the current campaign. A VOA examination of his most recent social media posts and campaign statements found fewer than 20 references since the start of his reelection campaign, including only one mention of “radical Islamic terrorists.” 

That came last July when he announced that he’d reinstate a travel ban on several Muslim countries that he imposed during his first term in office and which Biden later repealed. 

“We don’t want people coming into our country that hate us. We want people that love us,” he told a rally, citing anti-police riots in France sparked by the killing of a French Moroccan teenager.   

Trump supporters dismiss his rhetoric about Muslims and terrorism as just that — rhetoric.  

“Let’s forget about what this guy says. Let’s look at what he does,” a Muslim Republican activist said, speaking on condition of anonymity.  

Another activist questioned whether Trump has ever said he hates Muslims, adding that more Muslims will likely vote for the former president than did in 2016.  

But if there is one thing both Trump supporters and detractors agree on, it is that Trump will likely follow through on his vow to bring back the “Muslim ban.”  

“The legal structure that allowed the Muslim ban to be implemented in the first place is still on the books so we have to start planning as if a new Muslim ban will come into existence,” said Corey Saylor, research and advocacy director for the Council on American Islamic Relations. 
…

Washington — The closed-door trial of American journalist Evan Gershkovich is set to begin on Wednesday in Russia, nearly 15 months after he was jailed on espionage charges that are widely viewed as baseless and politically motivated.

A correspondent with The Wall Street Journal, Gershkovich was detained in March 2023 on spying charges that he, his employer and the U.S. government vehemently deny. The State Department has also declared Gershkovich wrongfully detained.

Press freedom experts have said that the trial against Gershkovich will almost certainly be a politically motivated sham.

The trial is taking place in Yekaterinburg, where Gershkovich was first detained. The city in the Ural Mountains is about 1,400 kilometers (870 miles) east of Moscow.

Russian authorities have accused Gershkovich of “gathering secret information” about a military facility. But to date, Moscow has not publicly provided any evidence to substantiate the charges against Gershkovich, who was accredited by Russia’s foreign ministry to work in the country.

Russia’s Washington Embassy did not immediately reply to a VOA email requesting comment.

Secret trials are common practice in Russia for cases of alleged treason or espionage involving classified state material. The charges against Gershkovich carry a sentence of up to 20 years behind bars.

In an open letter on Tuesday, The Journal’s editor-in-chief, Emma Tucker, reaffirmed her view that the trial will not be a fair display of justice.

“To even call it a trial, however, is unfair to Evan and a continuation of this travesty of justice that already has gone on for far too long,” she wrote.

It is not clear whether U.S. officials will be permitted to observe the trial. But Daniel Kanigan, the spokesperson of the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, told VOA that the mission “will make efforts to attend any future proceedings.”

Gershkovich is one of two American journalists currently jailed in Russia.

Alsu Kurmasheva, a U.S.-Russian national who works at VOA’s sister outlet Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in Prague, has been jailed since October 2023 on charges of failing to self-register as a “foreign agent” and spreading what the Kremlin views as false information about the Russian army.

Kurmasheva rejects the charges against her, and the U.S. government has called for her immediate release.
…

Серед інших в Україну вдалося повернути 59 оборонців Маріуполя, з них 52 бійця, що вийшли з «Азовсталі», також з полону визволили 5 нацгвардійців, які охороняли ЧАЕС
…

NEW YORK — A judge on Tuesday modified Donald Trump’s gag order, freeing the former president to comment publicly about witnesses and jurors in the hush money criminal trial that led to his felony conviction but keeping others connected to the case off limits at least until he’s sentenced July 11. 

Judge Juan M. Merchan’s ruling — just days before Trump’s debate Thursday with President Joe Biden — clears the presumptive Republican nominee to again go on the attack against his former lawyer Michael Cohen, adult film actor Stormy Daniels and other witnesses. Trump was convicted May 30 of falsifying records to cover up a potential sex scandal, making him the first ex-president convicted of a crime. 

Trump’s lawyers had urged Merchan to lift the gag order completely, arguing there was nothing to justify continued restrictions on Trump’s First Amendment rights after the trial’s conclusion. Trump has said that the gag order has prevented him from defending himself while Cohen and Daniels continue to pillory him. 

The Manhattan district attorney’s office asked Merchan to keep the gag order’s ban on comments about jurors, court staffers and the prosecution team in place at least until Trump is sentenced on July 11 but said last week they would be OK with allowing Trump to comment about witnesses now that the trial is over. 

Trump was convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records arising from what prosecutors said was an attempt to cover up a hush money payment to Daniels just before the 2016 presidential election. She claims she had a sexual encounter with Trump a decade earlier, which he denies. 

The crime is punishable by up to four years behind bars, but prosecutors have not said if they would seek incarceration, and it’s unclear if Merchan would impose such a sentence. Other options include a fine or probation. 

Following his conviction, Trump complained that he was under a “nasty gag order” while also testing its limits. In remarks a day after his conviction, Trump referred to Cohen, though not by name, as “a sleazebag.” 

In a subsequent Newsmax interview, Trump took issue with jury and its makeup, complaining about Manhattan, “It’s a very, very liberal Democrat area so I knew we were in deep trouble,” and claiming: “I never saw a glimmer of a smile from the jury. No, this was a venue that was very unfair. A tiny fraction of the people are Republicans.” 

Trump’s lawyers, who said they were under the impression the gag order would end with a verdict, wrote a letter to Merchan on June 4 asking him to lift the order. 

Prosecutors urged Merchan to keep the gag order’s ban on comments about jurors and trial staff in place “at least through the sentencing hearing and the resolution of any post-trial motions.” They argued that the judge had “an obligation to protect the integrity of these proceedings and the fair administration of justice.” 

Merchan issued Trump’s gag order on March 26, a few weeks before the start of the trial, after prosecutors raised concerns about the presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s propensity to assail people involved in his cases. 

Merchan later expanded it to prohibit comments about his own family after Trump made social media posts attacking the judge’s daughter, a Democratic political consultant. The order did not prohibit comments about Merchan or District Attorney Alvin Bragg, whose office prosecuted the case. 

During the trial, Merchan held Trump in contempt of court, fined him $10,000 for violating the gag order and threatened to put him in jail if he did it again. 

In seeking to lift the gag order, Trump lawyers Todd Blanche and Emil Bove argued that Trump was entitled to “unrestrained campaign advocacy” in light of Biden’s public comments about the verdict, and Cohen and Daniels’ continued public criticism. 
…

…

Elections in the United States are some of the most expensive in the world. In 2020, more than $16 billion was spent on U.S. presidential and congressional races. 2024 election costs are likely to be higher. How do campaigns help finance these elections? Fundraising.
…

Прикордонники зупинили чотири мікроавтобуси з чоловіками разом із супроводжуючим транспортом у селі Обжиле Подільського району
…

Ухвалене сьогодні рішення про продовження не змінює рішення від березня 2022 року
…

UNITED NATIONS — The United States and its key European allies clashed with Iran and Russia over Tehran’s expanding nuclear program, with the U.S. vowing “to use all means necessary to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran” in a U.N. Security Council meeting Monday.

The U.S., France, Britain and Germany accused Iran of escalating its nuclear activities far beyond limits it agreed to in a 2015 deal aimed at preventing Tehran from developing nuclear weapons, and of failing to cooperate with the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Iran and Russia accused the U.S. and its allies of continuing to apply economic sanctions that were supposed to be lifted under the deal and insisted that Tehran’s nuclear program remains under constant oversight by the IAEA.

The clashes came at a semi-annual meeting on implementation of the nuclear deal between Iran and six major countries — the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany — known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

Under the accord, Tehran agreed to limit enrichment of uranium to levels necessary for the peaceful use of nuclear power in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions.

Then-President Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of the deal in 2018. Trump said he would negotiate a stronger deal, but that didn’t happen.

The council meeting followed an IAEA report in late May that Iran has more than 142 kilograms of uranium enriched up to 60% purity, a technical step away from weapons-grade level of 90%. The IAEA said this was an increase of over 20 kilograms from February.

The IAEA also reported on June 13 that its inspectors verified that Iran has started up new cascades of advanced centrifuges more quickly enrich uranium and planned to install more.

U.S. deputy ambassador Robert Wood told the council that the IAEA reports “show that Iran is determined to expand its nuclear program in ways that have no credible civilian purpose.”

Wood said the U.S. is prepared to use all means to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, but said it remains “fully committed to resolving international concerns surrounding Iran’s nuclear program through diplomacy.”

The three Western countries that remain in the JCPOA — France, Germany and the United Kingdom — issued a joint statement after the council meeting also leaving the door open for diplomatic efforts “that ensure Iran never develops a nuclear weapon.”

They said Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium is now 30 times the JCPOA limit and stressed that Iran committed not to install or operate any centrifuges for enrichment under the JCPOA.

Their joint statement also noted that “Iranian officials have issued statements about its capacity to assemble a nuclear weapon.”

Iran’s U.N. Ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani blamed “the unilateral and unlawful U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA” and the failure of the three European parties to the deal “to honor their commitments,” saying it is “crystal clear” they are responsible for the current non-functioning of the agreement.

In the face of U.S. and European sanctions, he said, Iran has the right to halt its commitments under the JCPOA.

Iravani reiterated Iran’s rejection of nuclear weapons, and insisted its nuclear activities including enrichment are “for peaceful purposes” and are subject to “robust verification and monitoring” by the IAEA.

The Iranian ambassador strongly endorsed the JCPOA, calling it a hard-won diplomatic achievement “that effectively averted an undue crisis.”

“It remains the best option, has no alternative, and its revival is indeed in the interest of all of its participants,” he said. “Our remedial measures are reversible if all sanctions are lifted fully and verifiably.”

But France, Germany and the UK said some of Iran’s nuclear advances are irreversible.

Russia’s U.N. Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia said U.S. promises “to abandon the policy of maximum pressure on Tehran and to return to the nuclear deal remained empty words.”

He accused some other JCPOA parties, which he didn’t name, of “doing everything possible to continuously rock the boat, jettisoning opportunities for the implementation of the nuclear deal.”

Nebenzia urged the European parties to the agreement and the United States to return to the negotiating table in Vienna and “demonstrate their commitment to the objective of restoration of the nuclear deal.”

EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell, the coordinator of the JCPOA, said the compromise text he put forward two years ago for the U.S. to return to the JCPOA and for Iran to resume full implementation of the agreement remains on the table.
…

WASHINGTON — News that the U.S. Justice Department has reached a plea deal that will lead to freedom for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange brings a stunning culmination to a long-running saga of international intrigue that spanned multiple continents. Its central character is a quixotic internet publisher with a profound disdain for government secrets.

A look at Assange, the case and the latest developments:

Who is Julian Assange?

An Australian editor and publisher, he is best known for having founded the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks, which gained massive attention — and notoriety — for the 2010 release of almost half a million documents relating to the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

His activism made him a cause célèbre among press freedom advocates who said his work in exposing U.S. military misconduct in foreign countries made his activities indistinguishable from what traditional journalists are expected to do as part of their jobs.

But those same actions put him in the crosshairs of American prosecutors, who released an indictment in 2019 that accused Assange — holed up at the time in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London — of conspiring with an Army private to illegally obtain and publish sensitive government records.

“Julian Assange is no journalist,” John Demers, the then-top Justice Department national security official, said at the time. “No responsible actor, journalist or otherwise, would purposely publish the names of individuals he or she knew to be confidential human sources in war zones, exposing them to the gravest of dangers.”

What is he accused of?

The Trump administration’s Justice Department accused Assange of directing former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning in one of the largest compromises of classified information in U.S. history.

The charges relate to WikiLeaks’ publication of thousands of leaked military and diplomatic documents, with prosecutors accusing Assange of helping Manning steal classified diplomatic cables that they say endangered national security and of conspiring together to crack a Defense Department password.

Reports from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq published by Assange included the names of Afghans and Iraqis who provided information to American and coalition forces, prosecutors said, while the diplomatic cables he released exposed journalists, religious leaders, human rights advocates and dissidents in repressive countries.

Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison after being convicted of violating the Espionage Act and other offenses for leaking classified government and military documents to WikiLeaks. President Barack Obama commuted her sentence in 2017, allowing her release after about seven years behind bars.

Why wasn’t he already in U.S. custody?

Assange has spent the last five years in a British high-security prison, fighting to avoid extradition to the U.S. and winning favorable court rulings that have delayed any transfer across the Atlantic.

He was evicted in April 2019 from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he had sought refuge seven years earlier amid an investigation by Swedish authorities into claims of sexual misconduct that he has long denied and that was later dropped. The South American nation revoked the political asylum following the charges by the U.S. government.

Despite his arrest and imprisonment by British authorities, extradition efforts by the U.S. had stalled prior to the plea deal.

A U.K. judge in 2021 rejected the U.S. extradition request in 2021 on the grounds that Assange was likely to kill himself if held under harsh U.S. prison conditions. Higher courts overturned that decision after getting assurances from the U.S. about his treatment. The British government signed an extradition order in June 2022.

Then, last month, two High Court judges ruled that Assange can mount a new appeal based on arguments about whether he will receive free-speech protections or be at a disadvantage because he is not a U.S. citizen. The date of the hearing has yet to be determined.

What will the deal require?

Assange will have to plead guilty to a felony charge under the Espionage Act of conspiring to unlawfully obtain and disseminate classified information relating to the national defense of the United States, according to a Justice Department letter filed in federal court.

Rather than face the prospect of prison time in the U.S., he is expected to return to Australia after his plea and sentencing. Those proceedings are scheduled for Wednesday morning, local time in Saipan, the largest island in the Northern Mariana Islands.

The hearing is taking place there because of Assange’s opposition to traveling to the continental U.S. and the court’s proximity to Australia.

On Monday evening, he left a British prison ahead of a court hearing expected to result in his release.

Is this case connected to the 2016 election?

It’s not, but beyond his interactions with Manning, Assange is well-known for the role WikiLeaks played in the 2016 presidential election, when it released a massive tranche of Democratic emails that federal prosecutors say were stolen by Russian intelligence operatives.

The goal, officials have said, was to harm the electoral effort of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and boost her Republican challenger Donald Trump, who famously said during the campaign: “WikiLeaks, I love WikiLeaks.”

Assange was not charged as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. But the investigation nonetheless painted an unflattering role of WikiLeaks in advancing what prosecutors say was a brazen campaign of Russian election interference.

Assange denied in a Fox News interview that aired in January 2017 that Russians were the source of the hacked emails, though those denials are challenged by a 2018 indictment by Mueller of 12 Russian military intelligence officers.
…

…

washington — WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange will plead guilty to a felony charge in a deal with the U.S. Justice Department that will free him from prison and resolve a long-running legal saga that spanned multiple continents and centered on the publication of a trove of classified documents, according to court papers filed late Monday.

Assange is scheduled to appear in the federal court in the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. commonwealth in the Western Pacific, to plead guilty to an Espionage Act charge of conspiring to unlawfully obtain and disseminate classified national defense information, the Justice Department said in a letter filed in court.

The guilty plea, which a judge must approve, abruptly ends a criminal case of international intrigue and the U.S. government’s yearslong pursuit of a publisher whose hugely popular secret-sharing website made him a cause celebre among many press freedom advocates who said he acted as a journalist to expose U.S. military wrongdoing. Investigators, by contrast, have repeatedly asserted that his actions broke laws meant to protect sensitive information and put the country’s national security at risk.

He is expected to return to Australia after his plea and sentencing, which is scheduled for Wednesday morning, local time in Saipan, the largest island in the Northern Mariana Islands. The hearing is taking place there because of Assange’s opposition to traveling to the continental U.S., and because of the court’s proximity to Australia.

Assange’s U.S. attorney, Barry Pollack, did not immediately return messages seeking comment Monday.

The deal ensures that Assange will admit guilt while also sparing him from any additional prison time. He had spent years hiding out in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London after Swedish authorities sought his arrest on rape allegations before he was locked up in the United Kingdom.

Prosecutors have agreed to a sentence of the five years Assange has already spent in a high-security British prison while fighting to avoid extradition to the U.S. to face charges, a process that has played out in a series of hearings in London. Last month, he won the right to appeal an extradition order after his lawyers argued that the U.S. government provided “blatantly inadequate” assurances that he would have the same free-speech protections as an American citizen if extradited from Britain.

Assange has been heralded by many around the world as a hero who brought to light military wrongdoing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Among the files published by WikiLeaks was a video of a 2007 Apache helicopter attack by American forces in Baghdad that killed 11 people, including two Reuters journalists.

But his reputation was also tarnished by rape allegations, which he has denied.

The Justice Department’s indictment unsealed in 2019 accused Assange of encouraging and helping U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning steal diplomatic cables and military files that WikiLeaks published in 2010. Prosecutors had accused Assange of damaging national security by publishing documents that harmed the U.S. and its allies and aided its adversaries.

The case was lambasted by press advocates and Assange supporters. Federal prosecutors defended it as targeting conduct that went way beyond that of a journalist gathering information, amounting to an attempt to solicit, steal and indiscriminately publish classified government documents. It was brought even though the Obama administration Justice Department had passed on prosecuting him years earlier.

The plea agreement comes months after President Joe Biden said he was considering a request from Australia to drop the U.S. push to prosecute Assange.

Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison after being convicted of violating the Espionage Act and other offenses for leaking classified government and military documents to WikiLeaks. President Barack Obama commuted her sentence in 2017, allowing her release after about seven behind bars.

Assange made headlines in 2016 after his website published Democratic emails that prosecutors say were stolen by Russian intelligence operatives. He was never charged in special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, but the inquiry laid bare in stark detail the role that the hacking operation played in interfering in that year’s election on behalf of then-Republican candidate Donald Trump.

Justice Department officials mulled charges for Assange following the documents’ 2010 publication, but were unsure a case would hold up in court and were concerned it could be hard to justify prosecuting him for acts similar to those of a conventional journalist.

The posture changed in the Trump administration, however, with former Attorney General Jeff Sessions in 2017 calling Assange’s arrest a priority.

Assange’s family and supporters have said his physical and mental health have suffered during more than a decade of legal battles, which includes seven years spent inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

Assange took refuge there in 2012 and was granted political asylum after courts in England ruled he should be extradited to Sweden as part of a rape investigation in the Scandinavian country. British police arrested him after Ecuador’s government withdrew his asylum status in 2019, and then he was jailed for skipping bail when he first took shelter inside the embassy.

Although Sweden eventually dropped its sex crimes investigation because so much time had elapsed, Assange has remained in London’s high-security Belmarsh Prison during the extradition battle with the U.S.
…

…

FORT PIERCE, Florida — An attorney for Donald Trump told a federal judge on Monday that the criminal prosecution against the former president on charges he mishandled classified documents was unlawfully funded, as they made another attempt to get the charges thrown out of court. 

Prosecutors told U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon that the funding mechanism for their office has been upheld in past cases, as they sought to work through a thicket of legal challenges that have delayed the trial indefinitely. 

Trump has pleaded not guilty to charges that he illegally held on to sensitive national security papers after leaving office in 2021 and that he obstructed government efforts to retrieve them. The criminal case is one of four Trump has been facing as he seeks to unseat Democratic President Joe Biden in the November 5 election. 

Cannon, a Trump appointee, set hearings on Friday and Monday in her Florida courtroom for Trump’s lawyers to argue several motions making claims similar to those that have been rejected in other cases. On Friday, Trump attorneys urged her to find U.S. special counsel Jack Smith has too much independence – even though Trump has repeatedly blasted him as a puppet of Biden. 

On Monday, Trump lawyer Emil Bove said the U.S. Justice Department should not be allowed to use a fund Congress set aside in the 1970s for independent politically sensitive investigations to pay for the documents probe. 

“More oversight from Congress is required for the extraordinary things that are going on in these prosecutions,” Bove said. Some Republicans in the House of Representatives have called for defunding Smith’s office. 

Special counsels have been appointed in Democratic- and Republican-led administrations alike to ensure an attorney can independently investigate and, if warranted, prosecute a case without any appearance of political influence. 

U.S. prosecutor James Pearce told Cannon that the funding had been upheld in previous court cases that challenged other special prosecutors – including David Weiss, who recently won a criminal conviction of Biden’s son, Hunter Biden. 

Pearce said the Justice Department would fund Smith’s office out of its regular budget if Cannon ruled that it cannot rely on the 1970s law. 

Cannon has allowed a flurry of motions by Trump’s legal team and has ruled in favor of the Republican presidential candidate on previous requests. It is unlikely the case will reach a jury before Trump and Biden face voters in the election. 

Gag order request 

Smith’s team was due to ask Cannon later on Monday to bar Trump from making statements that pose a threat to law enforcement while he awaits trial. 

Trump falsely claimed that a routine FBI use-of-force policy in effect during a 2022 search of his Florida resort authorized agents to attempt an assassination. 

Prosecutors called the claim “deceptive and inflammatory” in a court filing and said it subjected agents to “unjustified and unacceptable risks.” 

Trump’s lawyers say a gag order  would violate Trump’s free-speech rights in the heat of the presidential campaign. They also argue that prosecutors have not presented evidence of threats against the FBI. 

Cannon previously denied the request on procedural grounds after she ruled that prosecutors had not adequately consulted with Trump’s lawyers before filing it. 

Trump faces gag orders limiting his public statements in another federal case, also overseen by Smith, accusing him of attempting to overturn his defeat in the 2020 election, and a case in New York that led to his conviction in May for falsifying business records. 

Trump has verbally attacked prosecutors, judges and witnesses in legal cases against him, contending that the U.S. justice system is being used to undermine his campaign. 

Trump’s criticism of the FBI search of his Mar-a-Lago social club intensified last month after the bureau’s use-of-force policy was made public as part of a tranche of records related to the FBI operation. 

The policy stipulated that the FBI could not use lethal force unless an agent or other person was at serious risk of death or serious injury. Trump was not present at the club at the time of the search. 

Trump’s baseless claim about an attempted assassination was included in campaign fundraising emails and was echoed by his allies in Congress. 
…