JUST WATCHED
‘They even broke into my safe’: Trump responds to search of his Mar-a-Lago home
MUST WATCH
‘They even broke into my safe’: Trump responds to search of his Mar-a-Lago home 02:06
Politics
The extraordinary political storm unleashed by the FBI search of Trump's Florida resort – CNN
(CNN)The FBI search of Donald Trump’s Florida resort is an extraordinary, historic development given that it targeted a former President of the United States and set off a political uproar he could use to stoke his likely 2024 White House bid.
In the past, political investigations that have threatened Trump have only increased his superpower appeal to supporters. But federal agents on Monday acted on a judge-approved warrant, which suggests they had probable grounds to believe a crime had been committed. They focused on Trump’s offices and personal quarters in his Mar-a-Lago winter residence while the former President was away in New York.
Monday’s search was related to the possible mishandling of presidential documents, potentially some that were classified, that may have been taken to Trump’s home — the subject of one of two Justice Department investigations related to the former President.
The news was one of the most staggering twists yet in the story of Trump, who was impeached twice, incited a mob riot to try to overturn his 2020 election loss and constantly tore at the guardrails of his office and democracy during his single term, and afterward, like no other President.
It threatened to inject new toxins into the political life of a nation that is hopelessly divided — with millions of Trump supporters already believing his lies that the 2020 election was stolen — and that on many issues no longer has a common understanding of truth itself.
It also comes with the ex-President itching to launch a 2024 campaign rooted in his false claims of electoral fraud, which his authoritarian rhetoric suggests would present a profound challenge to democracy. That looming campaign will likely feed on the political rocket fuel of a perception among Trump supporters — which he himself created in his statement announcing the search Monday — that he is being unfairly persecuted.
Trump seizes on the search to fire up supporters
Trump was quick to put a political spin on the operation, claiming that his “beautiful home” was “under siege, raided and occupied” while complaining that he was a victim of the “weaponization of the Justice system” by Democrats who wanted to stop him from becoming president after the 2024 election. His statement used the same explosive language and sense of grievance that motivated some of his supporters to violence in Washington on January 6, 2021.
“Such an assault could only take place in broken, Third-World Countries. Sadly, America has now become one of those Countries, corrupt at a level not seen before. They even broke into my safe!” Trump said. He did not mention that the search was conducted on the basis of a legally authorized warrant.
Early Tuesday morning, Trump shared a new campaign-style video to his Truth Social site declaring “the best is yet to come” and he also has been fundraising off the search.
In some ways, his reaction, in itself, read like the opening salvo of a new presidential campaign built around a narrative of persecution by deep-state forces, familiar from the approach of other strongmen leaders around the world.
The FBI and Justice Department declined to comment on the search. President Joe Biden was unaware of the search of Mar-a-Lago until after it was reported on the news, according to a senior administration official.
Without knowing whether Trump had broken any laws, many Republicans picked up Trump’s lead, reacting furiously, demanding the Justice Department explain itself and claiming the ex-President was victim of a political vendetta. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, whose hopes of becoming speaker rely on Trump’s patronage, immediately vowed to investigate Attorney General Merrick Garland if Republicans win the House of Representatives in November’s midterm elections.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who’s facing voters this fall, tweeted: “Using government power to persecute political opponents is something we have seen many times from 3rd world Marxist dictatorships But never before in America.” Florida Sen. Rick Scott, who chairs the Senate GOP’s campaign arm, wrote on Twitter: “We need answers NOW. The FBI must explain what they were doing today & why.”
The instant reactions supportive of the former President, more testimony to his enduring power within the Republican Party, were also an early sign how this investigation will face extreme political pressure. Those responses may also show that the ex-President’s potential 2024 campaign could benefit from the rallying effect of a government investigation that he can portray as politicized and unfair — and that potential GOP rivals may have little option but to rally around too.
But the magnitude of Monday’s events should not be underestimated, even if the question of whether the former President was in real danger of being charged with a crime — in what would be a stunning, historic step — was not immediately clear on Monday night. The exact parameters of the search warrant were also not available. Presidents have the capacity to declassify sensitive information, and it was not clear whether Trump might have taken such steps with the material involved. Former Presidents do not have such powers, however. CNN reported that boxes of items were taken by the FBI after the search on Monday. And Trump’s attorney, Christina Bobb, said the bureau seized “paper” after what she said was “an unannounced raid.”
A most sensitive decision
Taking such action against any major political figure would be highly delicate. Given Trump’s status as a former commander-in-chief, it is especially grave. And the ex-President’s history of inciting anger and violence makes this about as sensitive a move as is possible to make.
It is clear that the top levels of the Justice Department and the FBI would have signed off on the decision to search Trump’s resort — in full knowledge of the explosive political reverberations that were certain to be unleashed.
“I cannot overemphasize … how big of a deal this would have been within the Department of Justice and the FBI,” former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe said on CNN on Monday evening.
“This is something that would have been planned out and reevaluated and legally examined from every possible angle by the entirety of the leadership structure of both organizations,” McCabe, a CNN law enforcement analyst, said.
Given the political implications, there is no room for error for the Justice Department or for the FBI, whose director, Christopher Wray, is a Trump appointee. There was never a doubt that Trump would react to the search by lighting a political touch paper. His false claims that the 2020 election was stolen have already helped incite an insurrection.
The stakes for the investigators and for the country’s political future are, therefore, enormous. Those implications would only become more critical if it later emerges that the FBI search was not conducted by the book or was not critical to the nation’s national security. The political sensitivities are so acute that it is easy to see how a failure to prosecute Trump after taking such a public step would raise questions over whether the search was justified. That said, in order to secure a warrant to search Trump’s property, FBI officials would have had to prove to a judge that there was probable cause to believe that a federal crime had been committed and that evidence of such could be obtained at the resort.
Trump faces multiple investigations
The Justice Department has two known active investigations connected to Trump, one on the effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election and the events surrounding January 6, 2021, and the other involving the handling of classified documents.
This search appears to be linked to the latter investigation. The National Archives, which is responsible for collecting and sorting presidential records, has previously said at least 15 boxes of White House documents were recovered from Mar-a-Lago, including some that were classified. Members of Trump’s former White House team have frequently said that he was careless or contemptuous of the legal requirement to archive all presidential documents and cavalier with classified information. Earlier Monday, newly revealed photos, which New York Times reporter and CNN contributor Maggie Haberman is publishing in her forthcoming book, showed documents apparently in Trump’s handwriting that he allegedly tried to flush down the toilet.
News of the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago comes after CNN first reported last week that the former President’s lawyers were in discussions with the Justice Department in connection with its investigation into the events in Washington surrounding the Capitol insurrection. Trump may also have some legal jeopardy in a separate probe in Georgia into attempts by the former President and his aides to overturn Biden’s election win in a critical swing state.
Monday’s search at Mar-a-Lago also comes against the backdrop of the House select committee’s investigation into the Capitol insurrection, which has uncovered damning new evidence about Trump’s attempts to steal the 2020 election and his failure to try to stop the violent assault on the Capitol once it was underway. The committee has not yet said whether it will recommend criminal action against the ex-President by the Justice Department.
While Democrats might take comfort in a sense that legal problems are piling up for the former President and serious criminal investigations are getting ever closer to a GOP presidential favorite, they might do well to remember the history of attempts to call him to account.
The then-President managed to wriggle clear of the Robert Mueller investigation, even though the special prosecutor noted multiple strange links between his 2016 campaign and Russia and compiled a list of occasions when many outside observers considered he tried to obstruct justice.
Trump’s two impeachments in the US House — for trying to coerce Ukraine into investigating Biden ahead of the 2020 election and over the insurrection — did not result in convictions in Senate trials or any efforts to bar him from future federal office. His extraordinary support among grassroots Republicans makes it all but impossible for politicians who want a political future to oppose him. And it doesn’t seem like anything but a clear criminal case against the ex-President could turn his supporters against him — and even that might not change their opinion of him if he responds with the right rhetoric.
That is even more true after FBI agents crossed a Rubicon on Monday by entering Trump’s pride-and-joy residence in a move that will have massive political implications, however the investigation eventually turns out.
|
|
Canada’s Ambassador to the U.S. Kirsten Hillman says the country’s relationship with its American counterparts required rebuilding after the Trump administration.
On CTV’s Power Play Wednesday, host Vassy Kapelos asked Hillman if she agreed with a characterization that the relationship needed to be rebuilt.
“Yes, I do, in some respects I think it did require rebuilding,” she answered.
Her comments followed remarks from White House Coordinator for Strategic Communications at the National Security Council John Kirby Wednesday afternoon.
“In the first year of this administration we focused on rebuilding that bilateral relationship,” Kirby said in a White House briefing.
Hillman told Kapelos the federal government was able to find common successes with the Trump administration in the early days of the pandemic and in NAFTA negotiations.
“But it wasn’t an administration that was that interested working with allies to solve certain kind of problems,” Hillman said. She highlighted climate change and NATO as some of those problems.
Hillman’s remarks on the Canada-U.S. relationship comes ahead of U.S. President Joe Biden’s visit to Canada Thursday evening and Friday.
Hillman discusses President Biden’s visit in the video at the top of this article.
Politics
Trudeau’s chief of staff Katie Telford to testify at committee probing Chinese government interference
|
|
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s chief of staff has agreed to testify before one of the committees investigating the extent of the Chinese government’s interference in Canada’s elections — and what the Liberal government knew about it.
“While there are serious constraints on what can be said in public about sensitive intelligence matters, in an effort to make Parliament work, [Katie] Telford has agreed to appear at the procedure and House affairs committee as part of their study,” says a Tuesday statement from the Prime Minister’s Office.
The decision clears a logjam at the procedure and House affairs committee (PROC), where Liberal MPs have been filibustering over the past two weeks to stall a vote on calling Telford to appear.
The committee resumed Tuesday morning and voted to call Telford to appear for two hours between April 3 and April 14.
St-Albert Edmonton Conservative MP Michael Cooper introduced a motion to force the prime minister’s Chief of Staff Katie Telford to testify at committee on election interference.
Committee member and Conservative MP Michael Cooper, who first floated the motion, said that while Liberal MPs should answer for their actions in obstructing the committee, he’s pleased with Tuesday’s decision.
“It’s critical that she testify. She’s the second most powerful person in this government, arguably. But not only that, she played an integral role in the 2019 and 2021 election campaigns on behalf of the Liberal Party,” he said.
“She is a critical witness to get to the heart of the scandal, which is what did the prime minister know, when did he know about it and what did he do or fail to do about Beijing’s interference in our elections?”
Liberal MP Greg Fergus said he wasn’t willing to call her to testify, but Telford volunteered.
“It allows us to move on to other business,” he said. “The tradition is not to have political staff come before committees. It should be ministers who are really responsible for this. It makes a lot of sense. It’s been a long-standing tradition of the House and one that should be broken with great hesitation.”
The approved motion also invites the national campaign directors for the Liberal and Conservative parties during the 2019 and 2021 federal election campaigns to testify. It extends the invitation to Jenni Byrne, adviser to Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, and Tauscha Michaud, chief of staff to former leader Erin O’Toole.
Public and political interest in foreign election interference has intensified since the Globe and Mail alleged that China tried to ensure that the Liberals won a minority government in the last general election. The newspaper also published reports saying Beijing worked to defeat Conservative candidates who were critical of China.
Back in the fall, Global News reported that intelligence officials warned Trudeau that China’s consulate in Toronto floated cash to at least 11 federal election candidates “and numerous Beijing operatives” who worked as campaign staffers.
Trudeau has said repeatedly he was never briefed about federal candidates receiving money from China.
The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) calls foreign interference activities by the Chinese government the “greatest strategic threat to national security.”
An independent panel tasked with overseeing the 2021 election did detect attempts at interference but concluded that foreign meddling did not affect the outcome.
Conservative motion fails in House
NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh took credit for Telford’s decision to appear on Tuesday.
Earlier in the day, Singh said his party would back the Conservatives in passing a motion compelling her to appear before another parliamentary committee — the standing committee on access to information, privacy and ethics — if the government didn’t stop filibustering in committee. The PMO announced Telford’s appearance not long after.
“I forced the government and I made it really clear today they had a choice. They could stop the obstruction in committee, allow the witness to testify or we would support the motion,” Singh told reporters Tuesday. His party has a confidence-and-supply agreement with Trudeau’s Liberal minority government.
The Conservative motion was defeated in the House of Commons Tuesday by a vote of 177 to 145.
NDP MPs voted on the side of the Liberals. They were booed by the Conservative bench.
Speaking to journalists after the vote, Conservative MP Andrew Scheer took a swing at Singh.
“I’ve served with several NDP leaders. I served in the house with Jack Layton, Ed Broadbent, Alexa McDonough and Thomas Mulcair. I’ve never seen an NDP leader like this, selling out longstanding principles that that party used to stand for, in exchange for who knows what,” he said.
The former Conservative leader went on to lambaste the government for staging what he called a “theatrical display” at committee before climbing down and agreeing to let Telford testify.
“Now the prime minister is expecting, Justin Trudeau is expecting a gold star for exhausting every attempt to delay and block Ms. Telford from testifying,” he said.
“None of this takes away from the urgent need for a full independent public inquiry.”
Singh said he’ll also still push for a public inquiry into the allegations of election interference.
“I’ve said clearly, both publicly and privately, that … we need a public inquiry and we need questions answered in the meantime,” said Singh,
“Absent a public inquiry process, the only process that we have is the committee work.”
“The Conservatives have wanted to vandalize committees,” said Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic LeBlanc. “Many of the questions that they pretend they want to ask Ms. Telford are protected by national security confidences.”
The Liberals floated making the vote on the Telford motion a confidence matter, but Trudeau shut that down — pushing off speculation about an early election for the time being.
On Tuesday, the Prime Minister’s Office also released the mandate for former governor general David Johnston‘s position as independent special rapporteur on foreign interference.
The terms of reference say Johnston will report regularly to the prime minister and must make a decision on whether the government should call a public inquiry by May 23, 2023. The PMO says the prime minister expects Johnston to complete his review by Oct. 31, 2023.
The Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois have pushed back against Johnston’s appointment, arguing that he is too closely linked with the prime minister.
Trudeau has shot back by accusing Poilievre of attacking Canada’s “institutions with a flamethrower.”
|
|
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau responds to a question from the opposition during Question Period, March 21, in Ottawa.Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau retreated on Tuesday so that his chief of staff, Katie Telford, will now testify before a parliamentary committee. But it turns out retreat is a good plan for his Liberals.
Despite the chatter, Mr. Trudeau was never going to trigger an election simply to stop Ms. Telford from testifying. That would be a nutty political calculation.
The Liberals had already spent a lot of political capital blocking the opposition demands for Ms. Telford to testify, filibustering at the committee and taking a beating from commentators and painting themselves into a corner.
Retreat, on the other hand, provided some technical political advantages.
Ms. Telford’s appearance at the procedure and House affairs committee, when it comes, could still be tricky, though she won’t be telling all about the PM’s intelligence briefings on Chinese interference in Canadian elections.
But it was getting harder and harder to avoid ever since the NDP, the Liberals’ parliamentary allies in a confidence and supply agreement, broke with the Liberals and supported the opposition demand to have Ms. Telford testify.
The Conservatives had presented a motion in the House of Commons demanding she appear that was coming to a vote Tuesday night.
But once the Liberals conceded, and Mr. Trudeau announced that Ms. Telford would testify, the NDP voted against that motion. And the Liberals avoided umpteen hours of hearings including testimony from 30 cabinet ministers, officials and political party representatives.
Mr. Trudeau’s opponents can crow that he blinked – and Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said he had flip-flopped after weeks of pressure – but retreat was good for the Liberals.
There will still be the spectacle of the Prime Minister’s chief of staff refusing to reveal much about what the Canadian Security Intelligence Service told the PM about Beijing’s efforts to influence Canada’s elections in 2019 and 2021. Mr. Trudeau told reporters that there are lot of things about intelligence that Ms. Telford, much like officials who have previously testified, won’t be able to say in public.
The Conservatives know that. Perhaps what they really want to ask Ms. Telford – also a key figure in Liberal election campaigns – is whether CSIS warned campaign staffers that they suspected Liberal candidates might be compromised by ties to Beijing. (Ontario Progressive Conservative Premier Doug Ford answered a similar question on Tuesday by telling reporters that CSIS briefed his chief of staff about MPP Vincent Ke last fall, but only in vague terms.)
But at this point, the Liberals are almost hoping that the Conservatives will have their knives out for Ms. Telford when she testifies.
Mr. Trudeau keeps saying that Canadians don’t want to see Chinese interference become a partisan issue. The Liberals accuse the Conservatives of turning the issue into a political circus, but the truth is they hope the hearings will look like one.
At any rate, Ms. Telford was always going to end up having to testify, at least to avoid something worse. The Liberals suffered damage in a vain attempt to prevent it. Mr. Trudeau should learn a lesson about the value of retreat.
While the opposition parties howled for an inquiry, Mr. Trudeau named former governor-general David Johnston as a “special rapporteur” – prompting both the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois to argue that Mr. Johnston’s friendship with the Trudeau family makes him unfit for the role.
But now the timeline that Mr. Trudeau has given to his “special rapporteur” presents the opportunity for another retreat. Mr. Johnston has six months to issue his final recommendations but a surprisingly short time, until May 23, to come up with recommendations on whether there should be another process – such as an inquiry.
You would think that in that brief period, Mr. Johnston can only look around at all the perplexing questions hanging over the Canadian polity, and realize he has little choice but to recommend some step that will be seen as providing a truly independent review that offers some transparent answers.
Mr. Trudeau should hope so. That’s the place where all of this has to go. The Prime Minister would be better off backing out of the corner he is in quickly, and getting to that place with less damage.
News21 mins ago
Canada housing market: What to expect this spring as prices drop – Global News
Tech38 mins ago
How To Play Counter-Strike 2 Limited Test | GameSpot News – GameSpot
Business55 mins ago
US Fed announces latest interest hike in wake of banking turmoil – Al Jazeera English
-
Media14 hours ago
Why one county is suing social media companies
-
Health13 hours ago
‘Worsening spread’ of deadly fungal infection raising alarm in U.S.
-
Business14 hours ago
Shake Shack plans to expand to Canada next year
-
Economy11 hours ago
NOVA Chemicals sets bold ESG aspirations to lead the plastics circular economy
-
News21 hours ago
The Losani Family Foundation celebrates 10 years of giving back
-
Economy19 hours ago
US interest-rate decision the world is watching
-
Investment14 hours agoWall Street is thirsty for its next big investment opportunity: The West’s vanishing water
-
Tech12 hours ago
£12999 Trance Advanced E+ Elite 0 is Giant’s lightest ever eMTB
