adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Politics

Trump turns his legal battle after FBI search into political rallying cry – CNN

Published

 on


(CNN)Donald Trump’s new lawsuit over the FBI search of his Florida resort codifies his political fury into a legal strategy and implicitly spells out how the ex-President intends to exploit the drama as a springboard for his likely 2024 White House bid.

Trump’s legal team on Monday asked a federal judge to appoint a “special master” to ensure the Justice Department returns any private documents taken from his residence, maintaining that his constitutional rights were violated.
The request for a special master — an independent legal official — is not a surprising one, and may well be granted in such a case. It is a move that can be used to ensure that legally privileged or other similar documents collected by investigators are not drawn unnecessarily or unfairly into an ongoing case.
But in many other ways, Trump’s filing — the most concrete and aggressive formal legal move in the case so far — is a classic of its genre. It fits squarely into the ex-President’s history of using the legal system to delay, distract, distort and politicize accusations against him, a strategy that has often worked well to spare or postpone serious accountability. And it is also a characteristic example of how the former President often mixes and matches political and legal strategies when he comes under investigation.
While the motion is a formal legal document, it serves as a political roadmap that explains how Trump would style himself as a presidential candidate persecuted, as he sees it, for partisan reasons by the Biden administration. It’s also offers 27 pages of talking points for Trump’s GOP allies and serves to take the focus away from the core questions in the case: did he illegally and recklessly keep classified information and government secrets to which he was not entitled and which could put national security as risk? And did Trump or those around him try to obstruct the investigators from continuing their pursuit?
The gambit also once again underscores the extraordinarily sensitive stakes of the investigation and the political hornet’s nest disturbed by the Justice Department in going ahead with the search of Trump’s home. Such an operation at the home of any former president would be a deeply serious undertaking. The involvement of Trump — who’s nursing a false grievance over his exit from power, who knows how to turn attempts to hold him to account into fundraising ammunition and who has incited violence — means the current case is one of the most serious in the DOJ’s modern history. This reality appears to put even more of an onus on the department to explain and justify its actions and to provide the maximum amount of transparency possible to the public.
But it also underscores yet another truism of Trump’s career in politics — the simple act of investigating him inevitably exposes the institutions set up to constrain presidents and enforce the law to a backlash that leaves them politicized and often illegitimate in the eyes of his millions of supporters.
Trump’s loyalists have likewise tried to discredit probes of the January 6, 2021, insurrection. There were new signs on Monday that the DOJ’s separate investigation into events surrounding that day are ramping up when CNN reported exclusively that the department issued a fresh subpoena to the National Archives — another development that could be troublesome for the former President and deepen his legal quagmire.

New legal clashes loom

Trump’s move in the escalating showdown stirs the legal pot ahead of a Thursday deadline for the DOJ to provide the judge in the case with redactions in an underlying sealed affidavit that sets out detailed reasons for the search of Trump’s residence two weeks ago and the material that FBI agents expected to find there.
Judge Bruce Reinhart, meanwhile, wrote in an order on Monday that he was satisfied that the facts in the affidavit are “reliable” and that while he understood calls for transparency, agreed that the Justice Department has genuine reasons, including the need to protect witnesses, for stopping the disclosure of information in the document.
The ostensible purpose of Trump’s filing is to secure the appointment of a special master in the case. CNN legal analyst Elie Honig said that the request appeared on its face to be fair under the circumstances.
“I think Donald Trump has a fairly good chance of prevailing,” Honig said on “The Lead with Jake Tapper” on Monday. “It’s a reasonable request. It’s actually not unprecedented.”
If material is discovered that is subject to attorney-client privilege or executive privilege, the special master could ensure that it is not passed on to prosecutors.
Still, the move could also be seen as a way to delay the case against Trump, and to push it further into campaign season — ahead of November’s midterm elections and the already stirring 2024 presidential race — and make it easier for the former President to cement the impression that he is being targeted for political reasons. On the other hand, the government has already had the documents for two weeks and the ex-President’s legal team has not previously made such a request.
Parts of the motion filed by Trump’s team on Monday bore all the hallmarks of a document either prepared for, or with, the ex-President’s predilections in mind. It was far more lively than a typically dry legal motion. It seemed at times an attempt to troll the legal system and even adopted a boastful tone in describing Mar-a-Lago, lauding it as a “historic landmark” with 58 bedrooms, 33 bathrooms, on 17 acres and bearing a name that means “sea to lake.”
The filing opened with a statement that “politics cannot be allowed to impact the administration of justice” — a claim that came with considerable chutzpah since Trump was often accused in office of politicizing the Department of Justice.
It went on to state that “President Donald J. Trump is the clear frontrunner in the 2024 Republican Presidential primary and in the 2024 General Election should he decide to run. Beyond that his endorsement in the 2022 mid-term primary elections has been decisive for Republican candidates.”
Trump’s team then put his complaints about the search, previously delivered on social media, into a formal legal framework with the words: “Law enforcement is a shield that protects Americans. It cannot be used as a weapon for political purposes.”
There is a clear implication in the document that Trump, as a former president or as a potential 2024 presidential candidate, should not have been subjected to such a search. If this standard were adopted, it would offer potential impunity to anyone involved in politics. The Trump team’s implicit argument is also consistent with the belief, which he showed throughout his presidency, that he had special status that made him immune from the widely understood constraints of the law.

Trump leverages legal case to seek political opportunity

In legal terms, the search of his residence could be disastrous for the former President if it emerges that he broke laws, especially on the handling of the most sensitive national security material. It is not possible to know from the limited material available publicly how any case against him might turn out. But Trump has left little doubt that he sees the search as a massive political opportunity. And he’s leveraged the moment to effectively force potential GOP presidential primary rivals to step in behind him and condemn it.
As Trump has throughout his time in politics, the legal filing from his team appeared to take considerable liberties with the facts of the FBI search and the process that led up to it. It blamed the bureau’s “shockingly aggressive move” that it said came with “with no understanding of the distress that it would cause most Americans.” That half-line is characteristic Trumpian exaggeration.
The document goes on to argue that the ex-President offered extraordinary and cordial cooperation with the National Archives and the FBI. But it also overlooks the fact that the search went ahead on the basis of a warrant approved by judge on the grounds that a probable crime had been committed.
The arguments in the filing also seem to conflict with other publicly known aspects about the government’s approach — including requests by the National Archives for the return of documents, the DOJ’s involvement, a subpoena that was served on Trump for the material and the fact that agents still did not get what they wanted when they visited the former President at the property before they sought a search warrant. Not to mention that, according to CNN and New York Times reports, a lawyer for Trump told investigators in writing that no classified records were left at Mar-a-Lago after June. The FBI said in an inventory list at the end of its search that there were additional classified documents retrieved.
The motion also contains yet another classic Trump flourish.
It reveals that on August 11, 2022, counsel for Trump spoke with one of the lead officials in the case, Jay Bratt, the chief of the counterintelligence section in the DOJ’s national security division. The message was intended for Attorney General Merrick Garland.
“President Trump wants the Attorney General to know that he has been hearing from people all over the country about the raid. If there was one word to describe their mood — it is ‘angry.’ The heat is building up. The pressure is building up. Whatever I can do to take the heat down, to bring the pressure down, just let us know.”
This statement is remarkable since it was Trump who announced the search of his resort. And he used his social media network to initiate a backlash among his followers and to deliver a political dividend.
The message comes across as an implicit threat — about the consequences of investigating the former President — that is chilling in the aftermath of the January 6 insurrection. The approach also recalls previous Trump efforts to contact, and possibly influence, authorities who are investigating him. His attempt to co-opt former FBI Director James Comey during the Russia investigation, whom he later fired, comes to mind.
Trump’s new lawsuit could succeed in advancing some of his legal goals — such as they are. But it’s a reminder of the legal and political ordeal that the country faces with an investigation into a combative and angry former president who is also showing every sign of weaponizing it to bolster his 2024 election bid.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

News

Beyoncé channels Pamela Anderson in ‘Baywatch’ for Halloween video asking viewers to vote

Published

 on

 

NEW YORK (AP) — In a new video posted early Election Day, Beyoncé channels Pamela Anderson in the television program “Baywatch” – red one-piece swimsuit and all – and asks viewers to vote.

In the two-and-a-half-minute clip, set to most of “Bodyguard,” a four-minute cut from her 2024 country album “Cowboy Carter,” Beyoncé cosplays as Anderson’s character before concluding with a simple message, written in white text: “Happy Beylloween,” followed by “Vote.”

At a rally for Donald Trump in Pittsburgh on Monday night, the former president spoke dismissively about Beyoncé’s appearance at a Kamala Harris rally in Houston in October, drawing boos for the megastar from his supporters.

“Beyoncé would come in. Everyone’s expecting a couple of songs. There were no songs. There was no happiness,” Trump said.

She did not perform — unlike in 2016, when she performed at a presidential campaign rally for Hillary Clinton in Cleveland – but she endorsed Harris and gave a moving speech, initially joined onstage by her Destiny’s Child bandmate Kelly Rowland.

“I’m not here as a celebrity, I’m not here as a politician. I’m here as a mother,” Beyoncé said.

“A mother who cares deeply about the world my children and all of our children live in, a world where we have the freedom to control our bodies, a world where we’re not divided,” she said at the rally in Houston, her hometown.

“Imagine our daughters growing up seeing what’s possible with no ceilings, no limitations,” she continued. “We must vote, and we need you.”

The Harris campaign has taken on Beyonce’s track “Freedom,” a cut from her landmark 2016 album “Lemonade,” as its anthem.

Harris used the song in July during her first official public appearance as a presidential candidate at her campaign headquarters in Delaware. That same month, Beyoncé’s mother, Tina Knowles, publicly endorsed Harris for president.

Beyoncé gave permission to Harris to use the song, a campaign official who was granted anonymity to discuss private campaign operations confirmed to The Associated Press.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

News

Justin Trudeau’s Announcing Cuts to Immigration Could Facilitate a Trump Win

Published

 on

Outside of sports and a “Cold front coming down from Canada,” American news media only report on Canadian events that they believe are, or will be, influential to the US. Therefore, when Justin Trudeau’s announcement, having finally read the room, that Canada will be reducing the number of permanent residents admitted by more than 20 percent and temporary residents like skilled workers and college students will be cut by more than half made news south of the border, I knew the American media felt Trudeau’s about-face on immigration was newsworthy because many Americans would relate to Trudeau realizing Canada was accepting more immigrants than it could manage and are hoping their next POTUS will follow Trudeau’s playbook.

Canada, with lots of space and lacking convenient geographical ways for illegal immigrants to enter the country, though still many do, has a global reputation for being incredibly accepting of immigrants. On the surface, Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver appear to be multicultural havens. However, as the saying goes, “Too much of a good thing is never good,” resulting in a sharp rise in anti-immigrant sentiment, which you can almost taste in the air. A growing number of Canadians, regardless of their political affiliation, are blaming recent immigrants for causing the housing affordability crises, inflation, rise in crime and unemployment/stagnant wages.

Throughout history, populations have engulfed themselves in a tribal frenzy, a psychological state where people identify strongly with their own group, often leading to a ‘us versus them’ mentality. This has led to quick shifts from complacency to panic and finger-pointing at groups outside their tribe, a phenomenon that is not unique to any particular culture or time period.

My take on why the American news media found Trudeau’s blatantly obvious attempt to save his political career, balancing appeasement between the pitchfork crowd, who want a halt to immigration until Canada gets its house in order, and immigrant voters, who traditionally vote Liberal, newsworthy; the American news media, as do I, believe immigration fatigue is why Kamala Harris is going to lose on November 5th.

Because they frequently get the outcome wrong, I don’t take polls seriously. According to polls in 2014, Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives and Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals were in a dead heat in Ontario, yet Wynne won with more than twice as many seats. In the 2018 Quebec election, most polls had the Coalition Avenir Québec with a 1-to-5-point lead over the governing Liberals. The result: The Coalition Avenir Québec enjoyed a landslide victory, winning 74 of 125 seats. Then there’s how the 2016 US election polls showing Donald Trump didn’t have a chance of winning against Hillary Clinton were ridiculously way off, highlighting the importance of the election day poll and, applicable in this election as it was in 2016, not to discount ‘shy Trump supporters;’ voters who support Trump but are hesitant to express their views publicly due to social or political pressure.

My distrust in polls aside, polls indicate Harris is leading by a few points. One would think that Trump’s many over-the-top shenanigans, which would be entertaining were he not the POTUS or again seeking the Oval Office, would have him far down in the polls. Trump is toe-to-toe with Harris in the polls because his approach to the economy—middle-class Americans are nostalgic for the relatively strong economic performance during Trump’s first three years in office—and immigration, which Americans are hyper-focused on right now, appeals to many Americans. In his quest to win votes, Trump is doing what anyone seeking political office needs to do: telling the people what they want to hear, strategically using populism—populism that serves your best interests is good populism—to evoke emotional responses. Harris isn’t doing herself any favours, nor moving voters, by going the “But, but… the orange man is bad!” route, while Trump cultivates support from “weird” marginal voting groups.

To Harris’s credit, things could have fallen apart when Biden abruptly stepped aside. Instead, Harris quickly clinched the nomination and had a strong first few weeks, erasing the deficit Biden had given her. The Democratic convention was a success, as was her acceptance speech. Her performance at the September 10th debate with Donald Trump was first-rate.

Harris’ Achilles heel is she’s now making promises she could have made and implemented while VP, making immigration and the economy Harris’ liabilities, especially since she’s been sitting next to Biden, watching the US turn into the circus it has become. These liabilities, basically her only liabilities, negate her stance on abortion, democracy, healthcare, a long-winning issue for Democrats, and Trump’s character. All Harris has offered voters is “feel-good vibes” over substance. In contrast, Trump offers the tangible political tornado (read: steamroll the problems Americans are facing) many Americans seek. With Trump, there’s no doubt that change, admittedly in a messy fashion, will happen. If enough Americans believe the changes he’ll implement will benefit them and their country…

The case against Harris on immigration, at a time when there’s a huge global backlash to immigration, even as the American news media are pointing out, in famously immigrant-friendly Canada, is relatively straightforward: During the first three years of the Biden-Harris administration, illegal Southern border crossings increased significantly.

The words illegal immigration, to put it mildly, irks most Americans. On the legal immigration front, according to Forbes, most billion-dollar startups were founded by immigrants. Google, Microsoft, and Oracle, to name three, have immigrants as CEOs. Immigrants, with tech skills and an entrepreneurial thirst, have kept America leading the world. I like to think that Americans and Canadians understand the best immigration policy is to strategically let enough of these immigrants in who’ll increase GDP and tax base and not rely on social programs. In other words, Americans and Canadians, and arguably citizens of European countries, expect their governments to be more strategic about immigration.

The days of the words on a bronze plaque mounted inside the Statue of Liberty pedestal’s lower level, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…” are no longer tolerated. Americans only want immigrants who’ll benefit America.

Does Trump demagogue the immigration issue with xenophobic and racist tropes, many of which are outright lies, such as claiming Haitian immigrants in Ohio are abducting and eating pets? Absolutely. However, such unhinged talk signals to Americans who are worried about the steady influx of illegal immigrants into their country that Trump can handle immigration so that it’s beneficial to the country as opposed to being an issue of economic stress.

In many ways, if polls are to be believed, Harris is paying the price for Biden and her lax policies early in their term. Yes, stimulus spending quickly rebuilt the job market, but at the cost of higher inflation. Loosen border policies at a time when anti-immigrant sentiment was increasing was a gross miscalculation, much like Trudeau’s immigration quota increase, and Biden indulging himself in running for re-election should never have happened.

If Trump wins, Democrats will proclaim that everyone is sexist, racist and misogynous, not to mention a likely White Supremacist, and for good measure, they’ll beat the “voter suppression” button. If Harris wins, Trump supporters will repeat voter fraud—since July, Elon Musk has tweeted on Twitter at least 22 times about voters being “imported” from abroad—being widespread.

Regardless of who wins tomorrow, Americans need to cool down; and give the divisive rhetoric a long overdue break. The right to an opinion belongs to everyone. Someone whose opinion differs from yours is not by default sexist, racist, a fascist or anything else; they simply disagree with you. Americans adopting the respectful mindset to agree to disagree would be the best thing they could do for the United States of America.

______________________________________________________________

 

Nick Kossovan, a self-described connoisseur of human psychology, writes about what’s

on his mind from Toronto. You can follow Nick on Twitter and Instagram @NKossovan.

Continue Reading

Politics

RFK Jr. says Trump would push to remove fluoride from drinking water. ‘It’s possible,’ Trump says

Published

 on

 

PHOENIX (AP) — Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent proponent of debunked public health claims whom Donald Trump has promised to put in charge of health initiatives, said Saturday that Trump would push to remove fluoride from drinking water on his first day in office if elected president.

Fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by replacing minerals lost during normal wear and tear, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The addition of low levels of fluoride to drinking water has long been considered one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century.

Kennedy made the declaration Saturday on the social media platform X alongside a variety of claims about the heath effects of fluoride.

“On January 20, the Trump White House will advise all U.S​. water systems to remove fluoride from public water,” Kennedy wrote. Trump and his wife, Melania Trump, “want to Make America Healthy Again,” he added, repeating a phrase Trump often uses and links to Kennedy.

Trump told NBC News on Sunday that he had not spoken to Kennedy about fluoride yet, “but it sounds OK to me. You know it’s possible.”

The former president declined to say whether he would seek a Cabinet role for Kennedy, a job that would require Senate confirmation, but added, “He’s going to have a big role in the administration.”

Asked whether banning certain vaccines would be on the table, Trump said he would talk to Kennedy and others about that. Trump described Kennedy as “a very talented guy and has strong views.”

The sudden and unexpected weekend social media post evoked the chaotic policymaking that defined Trump’s White House tenure, when he would issue policy declarations on Twitter at virtually all hours. It also underscored the concerns many experts have about Kennedy, who has long promoted debunked theories about vaccine safety, having influence over U.S. public health.

In 1950, federal officials endorsed water fluoridation to prevent tooth decay, and continued to promote it even after fluoride toothpaste brands hit the market several years later. Though fluoride can come from a number of sources, drinking water is the main source for Americans, researchers say.

Officials lowered their recommendation for drinking water fluoride levels in 2015 to address a tooth condition called fluorosis, that can cause splotches on teeth and was becoming more common in U.S. kids.

In August, a federal agency determined “with moderate confidence” that there is a link between higher levels of fluoride exposure and lower IQ in kids. The National Toxicology Program based its conclusion on studies involving fluoride levels at about twice the recommended limit for drinking water.

A federal judge later cited that study in ordering the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to further regulate fluoride in drinking water. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen cautioned that it’s not certain that the amount of fluoride typically added to water is causing lower IQ in kids, but he concluded that mounting research points to an unreasonable risk that it could be. He ordered the EPA to take steps to lower that risk, but didn’t say what those measures should be.

In his X post Saturday, Kennedy tagged Michael Connett, the lead attorney representing the plaintiff in that lawsuit, the environmental advocacy group Food & Water Watch.

Kennedy’s anti-vaccine organization has a lawsuit pending against news organizations including The Associated Press, accusing them of violating antitrust laws by taking action to identify misinformation, including about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines. Kennedy is on leave from the group but is listed as one of its attorneys in the lawsuit.

What role Kennedy might hold if Trump wins on Tuesday remains unclear. Kennedy recently told NewsNation that Trump asked him to “reorganize” agencies including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration and some agencies under the Department of Agriculture.

But for now, the former independent presidential candidate has become one of Trump’s top surrogates. Trump frequently mentions having the support of Kennedy, a scion of a Democratic dynasty and the son of former Attorney General Robert Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy.

Kennedy traveled with Trump Friday and spoke at his rallies in Michigan and Wisconsin.

Trump said Saturday that he told Kennedy: “You can work on food, you can work on anything you want” except oil policy.

“He wants health, he wants women’s health, he wants men’s health, he wants kids, he wants everything,” Trump added.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending