Connect with us

Politics

Former President Trump Will Avoid Trial on 2020 Election Charges

Published

on

trump 2020 election
Artist depiction of Trump Trial: Source AP

Former President Donald Trump is facing significant charges in two trials, including whether he intended to subvert the Constitution by overriding the results of a fair election and illegally remaining in power.

However, a New York case involving bribes to silence an adult film performer may provide the sole legal reckoning this year about whether the Republican attempted to destroy a pillar of American democracy.

The hush money case charges Trump with attempting to falsify business records, but it was difficult to determine as the trial began Monday.

During his opening arguments, lead prosecutor Matthew Colangelo spent minimal time linking the case to Trump’s campaigns during his first presidential bid. He claimed that the payments made to Stormy Daniels constituted “a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election.”

Whether the jury recognizes that connection will determine Trump’s fate. The probable Republican nominee is facing allegations of manipulating company documents, which are normally misdemeanors unless linked to another crime.

Change the 2020 election results

Prosecutors were able to charge them with felonies because they allege that the fake records were part of an effort to cover up state and federal election law breaches — albeit this is still not the same type of direct election tampering that Trump is facing elsewhere.

Trump has referred to the New York trial and the three other criminal charges filed against him as a kind of election meddling, implying without evidence that they are part of a Democratic plot to disrupt his campaign for reelection.

“I’m here instead of being able to campaign in Pennsylvania, Georgia, and many other places, which is very unfair,” he told reporters before Monday’s court session.

While the allegations are felonies, the New York case is considered the least serious against the former president. In the two election cases, Trump is accused of a more direct role in attempting to change the 2020 election results.

He faces a four-count federal indictment in Washington for his conduct leading up to his supporters’ violent attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021. He and others were accused in Georgia with breaking the state’s anti-racketeering legislation by attempting to illegally overturn his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden. He has pled not guilty to all of the allegations against him, including a fourth for mishandling confidential data.

All of the other cases are involved in appeals, which are expected to postpone any trials until after the November election. If that happens, the New York case will be the lone legal test throughout the campaign to determine whether Trump sought to illegally manipulate an election — and it’s not even about the election results he intended to overturn.

Linking Payments to election interference

On Monday, Trump’s attorney moved immediately to refute the notion that a case about record-keeping could be considered an illegal attempt to disrupt an election.

“I have a spoiler alert: there’s nothing wrong with attempting to influence an election.” Todd Blanche, his attorney, said that it is known as democracy. “They added something evil to this idea, as if it were a crime. You’ll discover it’s not.”

Some legal experts tracking Trump’s cases said they were cautious of linking the payments to “election interference.” This also risks reducing the seriousness of the other charges in the public mind.

Richard Painter, a University of Minnesota Law School professor and former associate White House counsel during the George W. Bush administration, said the facts of the case met the evidence needed to determine whether a felony had been committed that violated campaign law, but added, “The election interference part, I have a little bit of trouble with this.”

According to Richard Hasen, a UCLA law expert, the New York case pales in comparison to the other election-related claims against Trump.

“We can draw a fairly bright line between attempting to change vote totals to flip a presidential election and failing to disclose embarrassing information on a government form,” he said in a recent Los Angeles Times essay.

In an email, Hasen stated that New York prosecutors were treating the case as election meddling “because that boosts what may be the only case heard before the election.”

Fabricating business records

Some said that prosecutors’ decision to portray the New York case as election interference was an attempt to increase its attention.

“When (Manhattan District Attorney) Alvin Bragg calls it an election interference case, that’s more of a public relations strategy,” said Paul Butler, a former federal prosecutor and Georgetown Law professor. “I think there was concern that people were looking at the other prosecutions and they weren’t discussing the Manhattan case.”

Declaring the case a hush money trial made it appear less relevant than the others, so they rebranded it as a case about election meddling. But, once again, he is charged with fabricating business records.

Trump has denied having a sexual encounter with Daniels, and his lawyers claim the payments to Cohen were reasonable legal expenditures.

According to Chris Edelson, an assistant professor of government at American University, the essential point in the prosecution’s case is why were the business documents faked. They claim that “Trump was preventing voters from making an informed decision in the election.”

It is an argument he feels prosecutors can present. “I believe that the prosecutors will need to explain this to the jury. “I do not think it is impossible,” he replied.

The New York trial revolves around charges that Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer and personal fixer, paid Daniels $130,000 to keep her claims of a sexual encounter with Trump from becoming public in the final days of the 2016 presidential campaign.

“Candidates want to hide negative news about themselves. But there’s a difference between trying to limit people’s access to that information and breaking the law to keep them from finding out,” said Andrew Warren, a former state attorney in Florida who was suspended by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis and is running for his old job while his court case is ongoing.

Warren believes the matter has always been about more than just cash. If it is considered as a hush money case, “Trump wins,” he stated. “If there was intent to deceive the voters, the prosecution wins.”

Source: AP

 

Politics

U.N. Special Rapporteur Calls on Thailand’s Banks to Cut-Off Myanmar Junta

Published

on

UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar Tom Andrews speaks during a press conference after a meeting with Thailand's Parliamentary Committee

The U.N special rapporteur for human rights in Myanmar has said the Bank of Thailand, commercial banks, and the anti-money laundering office are working on measures to stop the Myanmar Junta from acquiring weapons through Thailand’s banking system.

Tom Andrews the U.N. special rapporteur for human rights in Myanmar, said that some banks commercial in Thailand had aided Myanmar Junta’s by facilitating transactions that supplied military equipment to the Junta through the international banking system.

He called on the Bank of Thailand and financial institutions to do more to stop Myanmar’s junta acquiring weapons which they use on civilians to maintain power.

The special rapporteur was in Bangkok to address a parliamentary committee on security, he called on the Thai government to stop financial transactions that help supply weapons to Myanmar’s junta in line with a plan promoted by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) that sets out an end to violence as a first step toward peace.

In his 2023 report “The Billion Dollar Death Trade,” Andrews noted that Singapore had implemented a clear policy opposing the transfer of weapons to Myanmar.

Thailand's Banks

Thai Baht – File Image

Thailand’s Banks Lacked Clear Policy

As a result, exports of weapons and related materials from Singapore-registered entities using the formal banking system dropped from almost U.S. $120 million in fiscal year 2022 to just over $10 million over the next 12 months.

However, he said Thailand had no explicit policy position opposing weapons transfer to the Myanmar Junta, which saw exports from Thai-registered entities more than double in 2023, from just over $60 million to nearly $130 million.

He called on Thai Government to conduct a thorough investigation into transfers as Singapore had done into its companies’ dealings.

Andrews told the the committee that five Thai commercial banks and Thai-based companies were assisting Myanmar’s junta obtain weapons, dual-technology items and jet fuel, enabling Military Junta to conduct atrocities against the people.

But said he had found no evidence that the Thai government was involved or was aware of the transactions or that Thai commercial banks had knowledge.

Thailand's Banks

Photo courtesy of The Nation

Banks Condemn Myanmar Junta Violence

Meanwhile representatives from Thailand’s central bank, anti-money laundering office and the commercial banks named in the report were also present at the parliamentary meeting at government house in Bangkok.

A representative of the Bank of Thailand said officials were working with the commercial banks and the anti-money laundering office to make sure that enhanced oversight was properly practiced.

The Thai Bankers Association that was also at the parliamentary meeting said it did not have the means to investigate and monitor such irregularities beyond Thailand’s borders.

Mr. Pongsit Chaichatpornsuk, a Thai Bankers Association representative told the committee that If government security agencies tell us, we will stop transactions. We don’t support arms procurement by Myanmar Junta or any military government to violate human rights.

Thailand, which shares a long border with Myanmar and hosts many thousands of refugees fleeing conflict there, has tried to promote dialogue between Myanmar’s military rulers and opposition forces but no progress has been made.

This Article was first published in RFA

Continue Reading

Politics

People Rushing Sign Online Petition to Impeach South Korea’s President Crash Site

Published

on

South Korea's President

The Speaker of the National Assembly of South Korea said in a statement that an online petition calling for South Korea’s President Mr. Yoon Suk-yeol’s impeachment crashed due to the enormous number of individuals attempting to sign the petition. Saying the National Assembly would resolve the matter as quickly as possible.

Since the petition was launch on the National Assembly’s website on June 20, more than 811,000 people have signed it. The petition urges Parliament to introduce legislation to impeach President Yoon on the grounds that he is unfit for office.

Late on June 30, National Assembly Speaker Mr. Woo Won-shik issued an apology for the disturbance and stated that Parliament would take action to protect the public’s fundamental rights.

People attempting to access the petition on July 1 experienced delays of up to four hours. At one point, an error message indicated that more than 30,000 individuals were waiting to access the site.

South Korea’s Parliament Hesitant

The online petition accuses Yoon of corruption, escalating the risk of conflict with North Korea, and endangering South Koreans’ health by failing to prevent Japan from leaking treated radioactive water from the destroyed Fukushima nuclear power plant.

By law, Parliament must assign every petition signed by more than 50,000 people to a committee, which will then decide whether to put it to a vote in the assembly.

However, the opposition Democratic Party, which has a majority in Parliament, is hesitant to turn the petition into an impeachment bill, according to media reports, with a spokesperson stating that the party has yet to address the topic.

The Parliament can impeach a president with a two-thirds majority. The Constitutional Court then deliberates the motion and decides whether to remove or reinstall the president.

Meanwhile, on Monday Reuters reported North Korea criticized a joint military exercise performed this month by South Korea, Japan, and the United States, according to official media, saying such drills demonstrate the three nations’ alliance has evolved into “the Asian version of NATO”.

On Thursday, the three countries began large-scale combined military drills named “Freedom Edge” featuring navy destroyers, fighter fighters, and the nuclear-powered US aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt, with the goal of strengthening defenses against missiles, submarines, and air strikes.

The drill was designed at a three-way meeting at Camp David last year to boost military cooperation amid concerns on the Korean peninsula caused by North Korea’s weapons testing.

Pyongyang will not overlook the strengthening of a military bloc led by the United States and its allies, and it would respond aggressively and decisively to defend regional peace, according to North Korea’s foreign ministry, as reported by KCNA.

 

Continue Reading

Politics

Joe Biden Assures Donors He Can Still Win Presidential Election Despite Debate Concerns

Published

on

Joe Biden Assures Donors he Can Still Win Presidential Election Despite Debate Concerns

(CTN News) – US President Joe Biden has convinced Democratic donors that he can still defeat Donald Trump in the November presidential election, following a dismal debate performance that raised concerns about his prospects.

On Saturday, the 81-year-old president attended a series of fundraising events in New York and New Jersey, defending his performance in CNN’s Presidential Debate.

On Thursday, Joe Biden conceded, “I didn’t have a great night, but neither did Trump” at one event.

“I promise you we’re going to win this election,” the politician declared.

Joe Biden’s debate performance was marked by difficult-to-follow and wobbly responses, generating further concerns among some Democrats about whether he is the ideal candidate to run in this high-stakes race.

Former Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Joe Biden’s debate performance “wasn’t great,” while his former communications director, Kate Bedingfield, termed it “very disappointing.”

The president acknowledged the worry but committed to fighting harder.

New Jersey’s Democratic governor, Phil Murphy, attended the fundraiser alongside Mr. Biden and the First Lady, telling Mr. Biden, “We are all with you 1,000 percent.”

The Joe Biden team acknowledged that the debate did not go as planned but maintained he would not step aside for another nominee.

On Saturday, campaign chairwoman Jennifer O’Malley Dillon stated that internal post-debate polling revealed that “voters’ opinions were not changed”.

“It will not be the first time that overblown media narratives have driven temporary dips in the polls,” she told reporters.

Former President Barack Obama, a friend of Mr. Biden, admitted on social media that “bad debate nights happen”.

“This election is still a choice between someone who fought for ordinary folks his entire life and someone who only cares about himself,” said Mr. Obama.

Hours later, Mr Trump told his supporters that he saw the discussion as a “big victory” for his campaign.

“Joe Biden’s problem is not his age,” Trump, 78, added. “It is his competence. He’s quite incompetent.

Politicians were not the only ones who criticized Mr Biden’s performance.

A prominent editorial in the New York Times condemned his decision to run again as a “reckless gamble” and advised him to conduct some soul-searching this weekend.

It urged Democrats to “acknowledge that Joe Biden can’t continue his race and create a process to select someone more capable to stand in his place” .

Voters in the US have expressed misgivings about voting for any candidate after Thursday’s debate.

Lori Gregory, a long-time Democrat, told the BBC she “could not handle” watching the discussion, asking, “Is this the best our country can do?”

Republican Crystal Myers-Barber said it was “painful to watch,” but she also thought “Trump came across very level-headed and presidential, and Biden came across very weak.”

Democrat Shana Ziolko said she was “frustrated” by the debate and believed there was no obvious winner.

A post-debate poll conducted by liberal pollster Data for Progress revealed that 62% of potential voters who saw or read about the debate believed Trump won. Only 30% of those polled believed Mr Biden had won the debate.

Until more polling is done, fundraising could be another indicator of Joe Biden’s sustained popularity.

In a memo, chairwoman Jennifer O’Malley Dillon stated that the campaign had raised more than $27 million (£21.3 million) between the Thursday debate and Friday evening.

“After Thursday night’s debate, the Beltway class is counting Joe Biden out. “The data in battleground states, however, tells a different story,” she explained.

“This election was incredibly close before Thursday, and by every metric we’ve seen since, it remains just as close” , she commented.

Source: BBC

Continue Reading

Trending