Witness before Jack Smith’s grand jury faced questions implicating ‘executive privilege,’ attorney says

An attorney representing figures associated with special counsel Jack Smith’s investigations of Donald Trump revealed Thursday that he had a client before the Washington, D.C.-based grand jury who was being asked questions that implicate “executive privilege.”

Stanley Woodward, who represents Trump’s codefendant Walt Nauta in Smith’s documents case as well as a constellation of Trump associates connected to both the documents matter and his bid to subvert the 2020 election, was compelled to reveal those details by a federal judge in another Jan. 6-related case.

U.S. District Court Judge Trevor McFadden was visibly frustrated that Woodward appeared 25 minutes late to a hearing related to two defendants in the Capitol riot prosecution. Woodward initially asked if he could privately huddle with the judge about the reason for his delay, citing grand jury secrecy rules, but McFadden quickly indicated he wanted Woodward to explain the delay in open court.

It’s unclear which of Woodward’s clients is appearing before the grand jury, though several reports have indicated that William Russell, a former Trump White House aide and a Woodward client, was expected to appear Thursday.

The fact that the questioning ranged into areas potentially related to executive privilege — a legal protection for presidential deliberations and advice — could be another signal that Smith’s prosecutors are pressing for information about Trump’s conduct in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election and the lead-up to the violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Trump disclosed on his social media platform this week that Smith’s prosecutors sent a so-called target letter indicating that Trump is likely to be indicted soon in the Jan. 6 investigation.

Woodward told McFadden, a Trump appointee, that he had been assured by prosecutors that he would be released from his client’s grand jury appearance in time for the 2 p.m. hearing in McFadden’s courtroom, which is located in the same federal courthouse where the grand jury meets. But instead, the defense attorney said, prosecutors began grilling his client on matters that “potentially involve executive privilege.” So Woodward said he felt obligated to remain just outside the grand jury room until the questioning had ended.

McFadden, for his part, said he fully accepted Woodward’s explanation and criticized the Justice Department, which he said had also assured him the grand jury matters would not interfere with the hearing, at which McFadden delivered a lengthy and complex verdict in a bench trial for two Jan. 6 defendants, Freddie Klein and Steven Cappuccio.

“Talking about obstructions of an official proceeding,” McFadden said, a biting reference to the charge that prosecutors have leveled against hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants and may be eyeing for Trump himself. “The government has not acted as I required.”

A spokesperson for Smith declined to comment on the episode.

The conflagration didn’t end with McFadden’s comments. After he began reading his lengthy verdict, he sent a U.S. marshal to summon Smith’s prosecutors to his courtroom.

Minutes later, Thomas Windom — a prosecutor on Smith’s Jan. 6 prosecution team — appeared, flanked by three other unidentified officials. They filed into the front row of McFadden’s courtroom while he continued to read the verdict.

Still mid-verdict, McFadden called Windom and Woodward up to the bench, along with the lead prosecutor in the Klein-Cappuccio case, Ashley Akers. He spoke with them under seal for about six minutes — a husher obscuring the conversation from the packed courtroom — before excusing Windom, who returned with a colleague to the grand jury room.

Josh Gerstein contributed to this report.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/R4ZjfWl
via IFTTT

Read More

Specter of Trump looms — silently — at Aspen forum

ASPEN, Colo. — The Aspen Security Forum is a place for elites to discuss U.S.-China competition, Russia’s war on Ukraine and the perils posed by technology. The only topic apparently off limits to high-flyers here? The possible return of Donald Trump to the Oval Office.

U.S. and foreign leaders, in power and out, get tongue-tied the moment reporters ask about the former president. Some switch to other topics. Others flat-out refuse to openly grapple with what the Republican frontrunner’s return could mean for the serious subjects discussed here in the Rockies.

Asked if he was worried that Trump would withdraw the U.S. from NATO, U.K. Foreign Secretary James Cleverly replied: “That’s one of those wonderful, wonderful questions that invites me to say something that gives you a good splash. Just letting you know: I’m not going to do that.”

Others more directly sidestepped la question Trump.

“I haven’t even begun to think about 2024,” declared Stephen Biegun, a deputy secretary of State during the first Trump administration.

“I don’t do politics,” said Stephen Hadley, a former national security adviser to then-President George W. Bush.

“Ha! Thank you. I have enough problems at home,” said former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, walking away from a POLITICO reporter.

Many of the people in Aspen say they’re not here to engage in partisanship but rather to seek solutions to problems that require buy-in from both U.S. political parties and global allies. And few of the discussions on stage referenced Trump, and when they did, it was usually in the context of his last administration’s policies. (Cleverly, when asked on stage, said the U.K. government would work with whoever wins in 2024.)

But many of the issues being discussed, such as fighting climate change or protecting democracy, would likely go on the backburner in a new Trump era. He and his team are expected to make the centralization of power in the presidency a priority. That includes cutting out many career government officials who could help devise solutions to the challenges facing the world.

And in private, conversations about Trump are happening, given that this is the last Aspen Security Forum before the 2024 presidential campaign hits high gear. The first Republican presidential debate is next month.

Some people expressed trepidation about a Trump return precisely because they worry the former president will upend strategies and policies around the challenges being discussed openly at the conference.

“Chaos is a very difficult way to govern,” said a former White House official who served under Trump. Like several others, the person was granted anonymity to discuss a sensitive issue that also could affect their career prospects.

One common concern people raised privately is what a Trump return would mean for Ukraine.

The former president has well-known sympathies toward Russian strongman Vladimir Putin; his first impeachment resulted from his effort to halt military aid to Ukraine. There’s fear that Trump will simply stop U.S. military and economic help keeping the Ukrainians afloat as they fight the Kremlin.

One former Capitol Hill staffer said some Aspen attendees were already quietly making predictions about who would wind up in Trump’s Cabinet.

Some potential candidates, the ex-staffer predicted, would never obtain Senate confirmation and would likely take top roles on an acting basis.

Some of the people interviewed declined to say if they were Republicans or Democrats, but they expressed an appreciation for the sense of normalcy and predictability President Joe Biden has brought to the office after four years of constant tumult.

The Aspen Security Forum is not exactly a MAGA stronghold. Not a single Republican presidential candidate attended this year. The closest is slated to be Mike Pompeo, Trump’s former secretary of State and CIA director, who was unfailingly loyal to him during his time in office.

But Pompeo has quietly criticized Trump on certain issues in recent years, and Pompeo’s decision not to run in 2024 suggested his ties to the deep-red GOP base weren’t strong enough to win it over.

Given Trump’s refusal to accept that he lost the 2020 race to Biden, many who were gathered worry Trump’s brand of bedlam could return well before the first vote is cast.

Chris Krebs, whom Trump fired from his cybersecurity role for declaring the 2020 election was secure, warned that the former president’s domestic acolytes might be a threat to the 2024 race.

Those with technical know-how could try to hack precincts or other voting infrastructure to sow doubts about the results, Krebs said. That’s on top of foreign actors from China and Russia who may try to attack the election.

Asked if that made Trump a national security threat to the election, Krebs said: “There’s a hierarchy of threats. He’s certainly in that hierarchy.”

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/oC8jLhS
via IFTTT

Read More

Intelligence nominee warns generative AI poses threat to 2024 elections

Generative artificial intelligence technologies will likely pose a major threat in next year’s U.S. presidential election, Lt. Gen. Timothy Haugh, Joe Biden’s pick to lead the NSA and Cyber Command, warned Thursday.

Big picture: Haugh's remarks come as lawmakers in the House and Senate scramble to come up with ways to regulate and monitor the use of new AI technologies, amid heightened fears after hackers including from Russia have attempted to interfere in the last few U.S. elections.

“As we look at this election cycle, the area we do have to consider that will be slightly different is the role of generative AI as part of this, and so our concern is foreign use attempting to be a part of our electoral process,” Haugh, who currently serves as deputy commander of U.S. Cyber Command, testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee during his nomination hearing.

Past efforts: Both Cyber Command and the NSA have played key roles in monitoring for and disrupting threats to U.S. elections in recent years. This includes Cyber Command reportedly carrying out an operation on the day of the 2018 U.S. midterm elections to block internet access for the key Russian troll farm involved in spreading disinformation about the vote. Russian hackers were also linked to efforts in 2016 to target voting infrastructure and spread disinformation designed to sway the outcome of the presidential election.

The advent of AI technologies, such as the surging use of OpenAI’s ChatGPT, poses new challenges. Jen Easterly, director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the main agency that protects U.S. election infrastructure, warned in a speech in May that AI poses “epoch-defining” risks, including increasing disinformation online.

AI in the spotlight: The confirmation hearing Thursday was heavy on AI-related questions from senators on both sides of the aisle eager to tackle the problem. When asked about his concerns with adversarial nations using AI, Haugh pointed to China and how its use of AI to monitor and surveil its citizens could be a worrying portend of trends worldwide.

“It’s an area from a threat perspective we should continue to inform and understand what that means to any nation they would be considering partnering with, and the implications of that technology on that society,” Haugh said of Chinese developments.

Haugh also noted that the Department of Defense is working on an “AI roadmap” to help define how to use AI technologies, something critical as China plows ahead with its efforts.

“The other area that I think the nation expects from us is to understand how our adversaries use this technology, and be able to inform what that looks like in terms of threat both to our national security and to our industry,” Haugh said.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/PhD7LHe
via IFTTT

Read More

'It makes them all look silly': Dems prepare to scorch RFK Jr. testimony

House Republicans are openly goading their Democratic colleagues by handing a megaphone to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Democrats are determined to make sure it backfires.

GOP leaders invited Kennedy to testify at a Thursday hearing on alleged social media censorship, sticking by the plan even after the long-shot presidential contender’s recent false claims that the coronavirus pandemic was designed to spare Jews and Chinese people.

The move essentially gave Democrats two choices.

They could either ignore what they see as a blatant attempt to embarrass Biden by elevating an opponent or they could embrace a chance to directly rebut the unfounded claims Kennedy has spread, particularly on vaccines. They’re going with the latter and, in the process, taking Republicans to task for elevating him.

“He is spouting baseless, unfactual, unscientific conspiracy theories,” said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.). “You shine a white-hot spotlight on someone like that and expose the Republicans for their hypocrisy.”

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) put it more simply, calling Kennedy's appearance another example of Republicans having “crackpots for witnesses.”

The strategy will force Democrats to go head-to-head with a member of one of their most famous dynasties amid broader jitters about a third-party spoiler in the presidential race. But they’re hoping to turn Republicans' attempted trolling to their advantage, driving home one of their core arguments against the House GOP’s investigative onslaught this year: that it’s a politically motivated sideshow for the Republican base, not the policymaking swing voters crave.

“It makes them all look silly. … His own family has said: ‘We don’t support any of that.’ So you’re going to put a discredited witness at the table that is going to embarrass himself, embarrass the family and embarrass [Republicans]. That is your witness?” Connolly asked.

In addition to Kennedy — who has billed himself as the “prime witness” — Republicans have also called in an editor from the ultra-right publication Breitbart and D. John Sauer, the special assistant attorney general from the Louisiana Department of Justice.

A Democratic committee aide described calling Kennedy Jr. as the “ultimate troll job” but added that the party’s bigger point will be highlighting that “there are real problems and real issues in this country, and this isn’t one of them.” Democrats have invited Maya Wiley, the president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, as their witness.

"This hearing is about Big Government's censorship of Americans and nothing else," said a GOP spokesperson for the Judiciary Committee.

Kennedy's presidential campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

As odious as they find Kennedy's rhetoric, top Democrats aren’t ready to let him speak unchecked on Thursday. Totally ignoring him was never on the table — they'd seen first firsthand how declining to participate in the Jan. 6 select committee had disadvantaged Republicans.

“I don’t want to leave the hearing room for the Republicans to have a free-for-all without being checked on inaccuracies and spreading more hate,” said Del. Stacey Plaskett (D-V.I.), the top Democrat on the Judiciary subcommittee that investigates GOP claims of bias within the federal government.

Not all Democratic members of the panel wanted to spend energy rebutting Kennedy during the hearing. Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-Calif.) said experts had already “refuted all of his crazy theories.”

“They're just digging themselves into a hole, deeper and deeper,” she said of the panel’s Republicans.

Republicans raced to distance themselves from Kennedy’s comments over the weekend. Speaker Kevin McCarthy said Monday that he disagreed with “everything” Kennedy said, though GOP leader added that he did not believe Kennedy should be disinvited from the hearing. Multiple Republicans have defended moving forward with his testimony, arguing that Democrats had injected 2024 into the conversation by trying to “censor” Kennedy.

Kennedy had been suspended from Meta-owned Instagram after posting vaccine misinformation — a fact he's poised to testify on at the hearing, though his account was restored after he kicked off his presidential bid.

Biden allies have "been trying to censor their Democratic opponent” since the start of the administration, Jordan said, referring to criticism that Kennedy's invitation amounted to stepping into the 2024 Democratic primary. Jordan also defended his witness track record, saying that he’s “invited more Democrats than probably Democrats have.”

Democrats aren't concerned that Kennedy poses a real threat to Biden's nomination. Their real worry is the effect that minor candidates — or even a dark horse third-party candidate — could have on the general election, possibly cannibalizing Biden's votes in favor of the Republican nominee.

“If you said you're running for president, in the Democratic primary against Joe Biden, what is your motive? Why are you doing this?” said Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), a close Biden confidant. “Just because somebody calls themselves a Democrat doesn’t mean they are a Democrat.”

As the veteran South Carolina Democrat saw it, “there's nobody in his or her right mind who believes that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is going to be President of the United States of America or is going to be a representative of the Democratic Party.”

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/HhGlv7d
via IFTTT

Read More

Florida and DeSantis blasted over voter eligibility in new federal lawsuit

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — The group that pushed to restore voting rights for most convicted felons in Florida is suing Gov. Ron DeSantis and local elections officials, contending that the Republican governor and his allies have put in place a byzantine and at times intimidating scheme designed to block people from voting.

Florida Rights Restoration Coalition — along with four Florida residents who had been previously convicted of felonies — filed a federal lawsuit in Miami that asserts the current process surrounding voter eligibility in the nation’s third most populous state is unconstitutional and violates federal voting laws.

“Florida’s failure to accept responsibility in determining voter eligibility hurts every Florida citizen,” said Desmond Meade, the executive director of the coalition, in a statement. “This is not a Black, white, Latino, Native American, Asian, or multi-racial issue or a Republican or Democrat issue; this is an everybody issue. If Floridians cannot rely on the state to determine voter eligibility, then who can we rely on?”

Carey Dunne, who works for the Free and Fair Litigation Group, one of the firms representing the coalition, said, “ever since the people of Florida passed a constitutional amendment to grant people with felony convictions a new right to vote, the governor and the state have done everything in their power to prevent those 1.4 million new voters from actually voting.”

The governor’s office and Florida Secretary of State Cord Byrd did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the legal challenge, which also includes all the state's county court clerks as defendants.

The legal challenge represents yet another round of litigation over voting rights and election laws in what used to be one of the prime battleground states — but which went solidly red during the midterm elections.

Defendants in the lawsuit say they are unsure about their eligibility and were afraid to vote in the 2022 elections after DeSantis created a new election crimes office that wound up arresting people who had voted in 2020. Those arrested were considered ineligible to vote because of their previous offenses, but several of the defendants said they were confused because they had received voter identification cards after they registered.

“Through this campaign, the defendants have created a climate of intimidation even among people who believe in good faith that they are eligible to vote: a fear that they may be criminally prosecuted if their belief turns out to be wrong,” the lawsuit states. “This effort, coupled with the earlier-created roadblocks to registration, has turned the simple act of voting into a complicated and risky venture in the eyes of those who were re-enfranchised by Amendment 4, as well as others who have been affected by the defendants’ conduct.”

The rights restoration coalition led the push to end Florida’s lifetime ban on convicted felons voting. Voters in 2018 overwhelming approved Amendment 4, a measure that restored voting rights to most felons except those convicted of murder or sex offenses.

The Republican-led Florida Legislature, however, passed a law in 2019 that said voters remained ineligible if they had owed outstanding fines and fees that were placed on them due to their felony convictions. This law was challenged and a lower court judge ruled that it was unconstitutional. A federal appeals court ruled in a 6-4 decision that the state was within its rights to put in the requirement.

But the lawsuit contends it is nearly impossible for convicted felons to find out how much they owe and within which jurisdiction they owe payments.

The lawsuit notes that Alabama has a centralized database that allows convicted felons to check their status and that applicants are told within 44 days if they are eligible — and explains the reasons behind any denial.

Those who have sued the governor want a federal judge to order the creation of a “reliable” statewide database that will allow individuals to determine if they owe any fees and fines.

The lawsuit also asks a federal judge to declare that the implementation of Amendment 4 violates federal law and requests that the court takes steps within 60 days of an order that include the database as well as the appointment of a federal monitor to oversee compliance.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/5b47nFB
via IFTTT

Read More

Biden meets privately with auto workers’ union president

President Joe Biden and United Auto Workers leader Shawn Fain met Wednesday at the White House, a union official and a White House aide told POLITICO, as labor contract discussions are beginning between the powerful union and the Big Three automakers.

The meeting comes as Democratic officials and labor observers brace for a likely strike by UAW, which could have major economic and political ramifications. It also took place in the shadow of the UAW withholding its support from the president’s reelection campaign for the time being due to its concerns over his handling of the electric vehicle transition.

UAW spokesperson Jonah Furman told POLITICO that Fain asked for Biden’s support in contract talks with GM, Ford and Stellantis. Furman said Fain asked Biden to use his “bully pulpit” and pushed him to attach stronger labor provisions to federal grants and loans funded by the Inflation Reduction Act.

UAW's contract with the car companies ends Sept. 14.

A White House official said that UAW asked to set up a meeting with Biden’s senior staff so that they could present their position on the labor negotiations with the automakers. When Biden heard about the meeting, the official said, he asked if he could speak with Fain privately. The two had a short discussion.

The meeting with top aides and UAW included Gene Sperling, who Biden has tapped as a point person on talks between UAW and the Big Three.

The UAW has prodded Biden publicly over provisions and funding from the IRA, which is key to his political, economic and climate agenda. The union took aim at $9.2 billion in loans awarded to Ford last month, criticizing taxpayer support flowing to states with less favorable organizing rights like Kentucky and Tennessee.

“[Fain] knows that President Biden is one of the most pro-union presidents that we’ve had in this country,” Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), who met with Fain on Wednesday, said in an interview. “But clearly President Fain is focused on an aggressive negotiation for his members.”

Biden has made shifting to electric vehicles a central part of his climate and economic strategy. He has sought to make all new vehicle sales electric by 2030, and his EPA has proposed vehicle standards that would require 67 percent of new vehicle sales to be zero-emissions by 2032.

The auto union has said it supports a transition to electric vehicles but is concerned about the quality of jobs in the emerging sector. The UAW has acknowledged the market is trending toward electric vehicles. But it has said the new federal funding contains too few provisions to encourage better standards for workers in the emerging batteries industry that will be central to electric vehicle employment.

Much of the UAW’s anxiety stems from transitioning out of factories where union members work on internal combustion engines to the emerging battery sector. But the U.S. battery industry is nascent and therefore has little connection to organized labor.

GM and Stellantis said in response to questions from POLITICO that they support workers’ rights to organize, including at facilities where joint ventures exist with other companies. Ford did not immediately return a request for comment.

“We believe the UAW, given their historic and constructive relationship in the automotive industry, would be well positioned to represent the workforce,” GM spokesperson Jeannine Ginivan said in a statement.

Fain is also meeting with House members and senators over the next couple days, according to multiple congressional aides and members. The Congressional Labor Caucus was scheduled to begin a conversation with Fain at 3 p.m. Wednesday.

Some lawmakers have shared the UAW’s worries that the Biden administration has not done enough to convince auto companies to improve standards for workers.

“I was disappointed in some of the deployment of that initial investment,” Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.), who has GM facilities in his district, said in an interview. “I want to see more in Michigan, and I want to see more on existing factory sites or existing facilities where we have a history of UAW contracts.”

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/xlMdGqe
via IFTTT

Read More

Israeli president responds to U.S. lawmaker criticism

In an address delivered to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday, Israeli President Isaac Herzog emphasized his country's close relationship with the U.S., while also responding to recent criticism from some lawmakers.

At least five progressive members boycotted Herzog's speech, including Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Cori Bush (Mo.), Rashida Tlaib (Mich.) and Ilhan Omar (Minn.), principally over Israel’s treatment of Palestinian people and its democratic norms. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (Wash.), who days prior had called Israel a “racist state” and apologized after her remarks drew bipartisan condemnation, missed the speech due to scheduling conflicts, a spokesperson said.

In response, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy fast-tracked a resolution declaring that Israel was not racist or an apartheid state, which passed 412-9 on Wednesday night with Jayapal voting in favor.

Herzog addressed the boycotts from some lawmakers during his address.

“I am not oblivious to criticism among friends, including some expressed by respected members of this House,” Herzog said. “I respect criticism, especially from friends, although one does not always have to accept it. But criticism of Israel must not cross the line into negation of the state of Israel’s right to exist.”

He warned of the line between criticism and antisemitism.

“Questioning the Jewish people’s right to self-determination is not legitimate diplomacy, it is antisemitisim. Vilifying and attacking Jews, whether in Israel, in the United States, or anywhere in the world is antisemitism,” he said. “Antisemitism is a disgrace in every form, and I commend President Joe Biden for laying out the United States’ first-ever national strategy to combat antisemitism.”

No signs of disunity appeared during the address, with lawmakers frequently erupting in applause and delivering standing ovations. Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) held an Israeli flag. Nearly every seat was occupied during what was only the second address Israel’s head of state has ever given to Congress — the first being Herzog's own father, former Israeli President Chaim Herzog, in 1987.

Herzog’s visit to Washington has been shadowed by Biden’s dynamic with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who the president has invited to the U.S. sometime this year. That invitation came in a Monday call between the two men on the eve of Biden hosting Herzog at the White House, a visit interpreted by many as a rebuke to Netanyahu.

His speech comes during a heightened period of scrutiny over democratic norms in Israel. Netanyahu, who leads the most right-wing government in the country’s history, has indicated he will move forward with a contentious plan to limit the influence of Israel's judiciary — despite massive protests that have covered the country since January.

“I am well aware of the imperfections of Israeli democracy, and I am conscious of the questions posed by our greatest friends,” Herzog said during the address. “The momentous debate in Israel is painful, and deeply unnerving, because it highlights the cracks within the whole.”

Herzog also railed against the possible nuclear capabilities of Iran, as the Biden administration continues navigating how to constrain the country's approach to nuclear weapons.

“Let there be no doubt: Iran does not strive to attain nuclear energy for peaceful purposes,” Herzog said to a standing ovation. “Allowing Iran to become a nuclear threshold state — whether by omission or by diplomatic commission — is unacceptable.”

Herzog expressed a hope to unite a younger generation of Israelis and Palestinians, but warned Israel could not accept what he called “Palestinian terror” against the country, which undermined “a future of peace.”

Herzog also praised Tel Aviv’s LGBTQ Pride Parade — one of the largest in the world — to cheering from Democrats that was not mirrored on the other side of the aisle.

The lines that received consistent bipartisan applause were those praising the longtime allyship between the U.S. and Israel.

“It is clear that America is irreplaceable to Israel, and Israel is irreplaceable to America,” Herzog said.

Jonathan Lemire and Nicholas Wu contributed to this report.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/G4Qnvmb
via IFTTT

Read More