Trump privately discussed Biden impeachment with House GOPers

Donald Trump has been weighing in behind the scenes in support of the House GOP push to impeach President Joe Biden, including talking with a member of leadership in the lead up to Tuesday’s announcement authorizing a formal impeachment inquiry.

The former president has been speaking weekly with House GOP Conference Chair Elise Stefanik, who was the first member of Republican leadership to come out in support of impeachment. The two spoke Tuesday, after House Speaker Kevin McCarthy announced Republicans would be pursuing the inquiry, according to two people familiar with the conversation.

Stefanik has been a longtime Trump ally. She endorsed his comeback presidential bid before he made his official announcement and has been mentioned as a potential Trump VP pick should he win the GOP nomination.

On Sunday night, Trump had dinner at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J., with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), an ally of Trump and McCarthy. At the gathering, the topic of impeachment was discussed, according to a person familiar with the conversation who spoke on condition of anonymity.

A Trump spokesperson did not comment. The former president has not been shy about his belief that Biden should be impeached. Late last month he wrote on Truth Social: "Either IMPEACH the BUM, or fade into OBLIVION. THEY DID IT TO US."

But the extent of his private involvement in encouraging House Republicans to plow forward with the process shows the influence he continues to wield inside the party as its likely presidential nominee. It could also spark further attacks from Biden’s camp that impeachment is being done merely to bloody him up before the election.

Trump was impeached twice by the Democratic-controlled House during his tenure — first, over his pressure campaign against Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to investigate Biden, and later for his role in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

Trump will be in Washington at the end of the week and is taping an interview with Megyn Kelly on Wednesday.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/Vg48QxM
via IFTTT

Read More

Iran can't use unfrozen funds in prisoner exchange however it wants, U.S. says

The Biden administration is pushing back after Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi said his government would choose how it will use the $6 billion in frozen funds set to be released by Washington in a prisoner exchange deal.

The deal, which would see South Korea releasing frozen Iranian funds to Qatar, marks a diplomatic breakthrough for the U.S. and Iran, as they have sparred over issues from the Iran nuclear deal to Tehran’s continued ties with Moscow. That money can be used only for humanitarian goods like food and medicine, the Biden administration has said.

However, Raisi told NBC News that the money “belongs to the Iranian people, the Iranian government, so the Islamic Republic of Iran will decide what to do with this money.”

State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller denied Raisi’s assertion, telling reporters on Tuesday afternoon that the funds would arrive in banks in Qatar and would be “under strict oversight” by the Treasury Department.

“The money can only be used for humanitarian purposes,” Miller told reporters. “We will remain vigilant in watching the spending of those funds and have the ability to freeze them again if we need to.”

Raisi might’ve been “playing to his domestic audience,” National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby said on MSNBC on Tuesday, adding that “the parameters of this arrangement are very clear.”

On top of unfreezing the money, the plan involves Iran releasing five Americans in exchange for the U.S. freeing a handful of imprisoned Iranians, a person briefed on the deal by the State Department, who was granted anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity, told POLITICO in August.

The deal is still coming under fire from Republican lawmakers, who say Washington shouldn’t be doing business with Tehran at all.

“There’s NO downside for dictatorships, like Iran or Russia, to take Americans hostage,” Rep. Mike Waltz (R-Fla.) tweeted on Tuesday morning. “With Biden, these regimes always get a good deal in the end and that’s why they’ll keep doing it.”

Rep. Ben Cline (R-Va.) called the deal "naive and dangerous."

But Miller insisted that without such negotiations, the Americans would never be freed.

“Iran is not going to release these American citizens out of the goodness of their heart,” he said. “That is not real life, not how this works, that was never going to happen. We have to make tough choices and engage in tough negotiations to bring these American citizens home.”

Kelly Garrity contributed to this report.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/xLFBKz2
via IFTTT

Read More

Owen Shroyer, InfoWars host and colleague of Alex Jones, gets 60 days for Jan. 6 misdemeanor

A judge on Tuesday sentenced InfoWars broadcaster Owen Shroyer — who shadowed his boss and ally Alex Jones onto Capitol grounds on Jan. 6, 2021 — to 60 days in prison for breaching the restricted area.

U.S. District Judge Tim Kelly handed down the sentence after contending that Shroyer, who never entered the Capitol building, played a role in “amping up” the mob at a sensitive moment during the riot. Shroyer’s foray onto Capitol grounds came even though Shroyer had been ordered to stay away from the area under a court-sanctioned agreement for disrupting a House impeachment hearing in 2019.

The sentence — half of the Justice Department’s call for 120 days in prison — closes a chapter in what all sides agreed was a “unique” prosecution stemming from the mob attack on the Capitol. Shroyer was facing only misdemeanor charges for his conduct that day and pleaded guilty to breaching restricted Capitol grounds earlier this year.

Prosecutors say Shroyer shadowed Jones from the Ellipse, where former President Donald Trump addressed supporters before urging them to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, to the Capitol. When they arrived, they witnessed the chaos that had begun unfolding at the building. Jones, who was trailed by a large throng of supporters, a security detail and other leaders of “Stop the Steal” groups, circled the Capitol and asked police for permission to exhort the crowd to deescalate the violence.

Jones has not been charged in connection with the Jan. 6 attack, but prosecutors said Shroyer, using a megaphone, delivered chants that further fueled the riot after breaching the protected perimeter of Capitol grounds. They also noted in court filings that Jones and his large cohort continued to traverse the perimeter of the Capitol despite police signaling they wanted people to leave the area.

Shroyer is seeking to frame his criminal case as a national flashpoint for First Amendment speech. He addressed InfoWars viewers and reporters for an hour after his sentence, saying he intends to appeal his case — to the Supreme Court if necessary — and that he has become a “martyr for free speech.”

Shroyer pointed out that prosecutors, in seeking his 120-day jail term, focused heavily on his comments in the lead-up to Jan. 6 and his chants of “1776” on the day of the riot. He contended that he was in Washington in his capacity as an opinion journalist for InfoWars. In remarks to Kelly, Shroyer also argued that when he exhorted the crowd that day, he was trying to capture their attention so he could assist Jones in trying to redirect the mob away from the Capitol.

Kelly rejected that contention, saying his review of the video of Shroyer’s actions did not appear to show Shroyer making an attempt to play a deescalating role. After leaving the courthouse, Shroyer said their disagreement over that episode stemmed from Kelly’s lack of familiarity with managing large crowds.

Kelly also said he paid minimal attention to prosecutors’ arguments about Shroyer’s speech in the lead-up to Jan. 6.

“There’s nothing wrong with the phrase ‘1776,’” Kelly said, adding that his main concern was Shroyer “amping up the crowd with a bullhorn.”

“I don’t think you were trying to distract the crowd or move the crowd away from the Capitol,” he added.

Kelly also said Shroyer’s role as a journalist — which he noted the Justice Department challenged — played no role in his ultimate sentence, saying the conduct Shroyer was charged with had nothing to do with his media role.

The case against Shroyer has been pending for more than two years and raised questions about whether Jones was under scrutiny as well. Shroyer and his attorney Norm Pattis — who also represents Jones — noted that Shroyer agreed to turn over his phone to prosecutors and sit for a proffer session after he was charged. They also noted that he agreed to plead guilty to the misdemeanor and be cooperative with the government after being assured it would result in a lenient recommendation from prosecutors.

Pattis said the government wanted to probe Shroyer’s phone for any links between Trump, Jones and Jan. 6 but said they didn’t uncover anything that would implicate a larger plot.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/M56w80b
via IFTTT

Read More

U.S. moves to advance prisoner swap deal with Iran

WASHINGTON — The Biden administration has cleared the way for the release of five American citizens detained in Iran by issuing a blanket waiver for international banks to transfer $6 billion in frozen Iranian money from South Korea to Qatar without fear of U.S. sanctions. In addition, as part of the deal, the administration has agreed to release five Iranian citizens held in the United States.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken signed off on the sanctions waivers late last week, a month after U.S. and Iranian officials said an agreement in principle was in place. Congress was not informed of the waiver decision until Monday, according to the notification, which was obtained by The Associated Press.

The outlines of the deal had been previously announced and the waiver was expected. But the notification marked the first time the administration said it was releasing five Iranian prisoners as part of the deal. The prisoners have not been named.

The waiver drew criticism of President Joe Biden from Republicans and others who say the deal will boost the Iranian economy at a time when Iran poses a growing threat to U.S. troops and Mideast allies.

On X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa said: “It’s ridiculous for US to be blackmailed into paying $6B for hostages which will help indirectly finance the number 1 foreign policy of Iran: terrorism.” Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas accused Biden of “paying ransom to the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism.”

The waiver means that European, Middle Eastern and Asian banks will not run afoul of U.S. sanctions in converting the money frozen in South Korea and transferring it to Qatar’s central bank, where it will be held for Iran to use for the purchase of humanitarian goods.

The transfer of the $6 billion was the critical element in the prisoner release deal, which saw four of the five American detainees transferred from Iranian jails into house arrest last month. The fifth detainee had already been under house arrest.

Due to numerous U.S. sanctions on foreign banks that engage in transactions aimed at benefitting Iran, several European countries had balked at participating in the transfer. Blinken’s waiver is aimed at easing their concerns about any risk of U.S. sanctions.

People familiar with negotiations said they expect the detainees will be released as early as next week.

The American prisoners include Siamak Namazi, who was detained in 2015 and was later sentenced to 10 years in prison on internationally criticized spying charges; Emad Sharghi, a venture capitalist sentenced to 10 years; and Morad Tahbaz, a British-American conservationist of Iranian descent who was arrested in 2018 and also received a 10-year sentence. The fourth and fifth prisoners were not identified.

“To facilitate their release, the United States has committed to release five Iranian nationals currently held in the United States and to permit the transfer of approximately $6 billion in restricted Iranian funds held in (South Korea) to restricted accounts in Qatar, where the funds will be available only for humanitarian trade,” Blinken wrote.

The sanctions waiver applies to banks and other financial institutions in South Korea, Germany, Ireland, Qatar and Switzerland.

“I determine that it is in the national security interest of the United States to waive the imposition of sanctions ... with respect to foreign financial institutions under the primary jurisdiction of Germany, Ireland, Qatar, the Republic of Korea, and Switzerland that are notified directly in writing by the U.S. government, to the extent necessary for such institutions to engage in transactions occurring on or after August 9, 2023,” Blinken wrote.

Sanctions waivers apply to transactions involving previously penalized entities such as the National Iranian Oil Company and Central Bank of Iran “to transfer funds from accounts in the Republic of Korea to accounts in Switzerland and Germany and from accounts in Switzerland and Germany to accounts in Qatar, and to use the transferred funds for further humanitarian transactions in accordance with written guidance from the U.S. Government,” he wrote.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/7TPK2UO
via IFTTT

Read More

Trump asks judge overseeing Jan. 6 prosecution to step aside

Former President Donald Trump is asking the judge assigned to his federal prosecution for seeking to overturn the 2020 election results to step aside because of her past comments about his responsibility for the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol.

In a motion filed Monday afternoon, Trump’s attorneys said U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s comments about Trump during sentencing hearings for two Capitol riot defendants indicated she had already concluded that Trump is responsible for crimes related to the violence that took place that day.

It’s a steep hurdle for Trump — recusal motions in criminal cases are rarely successful — and one that is directly rooted in the records of the cases Chutkan has presided over and judged. In both of them, the Jan. 6 defendants argued that they should receive lighter sentences because Trump bore responsibility for steering them to the Capitol. Chutkan’s comments that Trump now says require recusal stem from her assessment of those arguments.

“Although Judge Chutkan may genuinely intend to give President Trump a fair trial — and may believe that she can do so — her public statements unavoidably taint these proceedings, regardless of outcome,” Trump lawyers Todd Blanche and John Lauro wrote in the bid to oust Chutkan, an appointee of former President Barack Obama.

“Public statements of this sort create a perception of prejudgment incompatible with our justice system,” Blanche and Lauro added. “In a case this widely watched, of such monumental significance, the public must have the utmost confidence that the Court will administer justice neutrally and dispassionately. Judge Chutkan’s pre-case statements undermine that confidence and, therefore, require disqualification.”

Trump has publicly attacked Chutkan as biased for weeks, but his attorneys had yet to back up his complaints in court. They’ve also asked for her to consider it on an expedited basis before other aspects of the fast-moving case are decided.

Supreme Court precedent says judges must recuse whenever their “impartiality be reasonably questioned.” However, those cases appear to bless judges’ remaining on cases where their opinions or analyses came from official proceedings in prior cases they handled.

Trump’s attorneys argue in their motion that it’s reasonable to conclude that Chutkan’s view of Trump was informed by sources beyond the official records and testimony in cases she oversaw.

It’s not the first time Trump has sought recusal in the four criminal cases he now faces. In May, his attorneys asked for a new judge in the state-court prosecution in New York related to hush money paid to porn star Stormy Daniels prior to the 2016 presidential election. They accused Manhattan-based Judge Juan Merchan of having a “preconceived bias” against the former president.

Merchan turned down the request last month.

Before Monday, Trump’s latest move to sideline a judge came in the criminal case that special counsel Jack Smith brought in August, charging the former president with four felony counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. The indictment also accused Trump of trying to exploit the violent Jan. 6 assault on Congress to continue his effort to cling to power.

The new motion centers on Chutkan’s in-court comments about Jan. 6 defendants who have claimed their sentences should take into account the prominent figures, such as Trump, who promoted false notions that the 2016 election had been stolen.

During the December 2021 sentencing of Robert Palmer for assaulting police during the riot, Chutkan addressed the question of whether the absence of any charges against those who promoted the election-fraud theory meant that those who were charged should be treated more leniently. She seemed to suggest the answer was they should not, but she seemed to suggest some agreement with Palmer’s lament.

“Mr. Palmer — you have made a very good point, one that has been made before — that the people who exhorted you and encouraged you and rallied you to go and take action and to fight have not been charged. That is not this court’s position. I don’t charge anybody. I don’t negotiate plea offers. I don’t make charging decisions. I sentence people who have pleaded guilty or have been convicted. The issue of who has or has not been charged is not before me. I don’t have any influence on that. I have my opinions, but they are not relevant,” Chutkan said before sentencing Palmer to more than five years in prison for throwing a fire extinguisher at police and battering them with a metal pole.

At another sentencing last October, for a defendant named Christine Priola, Chutkan seemed to zero in on Trump, suggesting that those who rampaged at the Capitol were in his thrall.

“The people who mobbed that Capitol were there in fealty, in loyalty, to one man — not to the Constitution, of which most of the people who come before me seem woefully ignorant; not to the ideals of this country; and not to the principles of democracy,” Chutkan declared. “It’s a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.”

Priola, a school therapist from Ohio, got a 15-month sentence for spending about 10 minutes in the Capitol during the riot. Prosecutors said she also destroyed evidence after the event.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/AZbEP5W
via IFTTT

Read More

White House threatens to veto House GOP defense spending bill

President Joe Biden would veto a right-wing defense funding bill that's slated to be considered on the House floor this week, his administration said Monday.

The White House declared it "strongly opposes" the Pentagon spending measure in a statement outlining its objections, dinging Republicans for loading the bill with conservative policy riders, including on abortions and transgender troops.

"Including divisive policy provisions within an appropriations bill also dramatically increases the threat of a continuing resolution, which would further damage America’s national security," the administration argued.

The administration further criticized House GOP appropriators for scaling back a Pentagon push for multi-year contracts to boost missile production, among other gripes.

Background

House Republicans included provisions in the bill to block funding for the Pentagon's policy of allowing troops to travel for abortions as well as surgery and hormone treatments for transgender military personnel. The defense bill also includes provisions to limit diversity and climate change-fighting programs at the Pentagon.

Party-line bill

The rightward tilt of the spending bill means Democrats won't support it, so Speaker Kevin McCarthy can only afford to lose a few GOP votes. That may mean adding even more conservative proposals to shore up support on his right flank.

If it passes, the bill is a nonstarter with Senate Democrats. Senate appropriators have advanced their own bipartisan Pentagon bill.

Abortion

The White House ripped a provision that blocks funding to implement Pentagon policies for reimbursing travel costs for troops to seek abortions. The administration argued the policy is critical for readiness and that it is "in full accordance with the law," countering GOP arguments that it contravenes a ban on taxpayer funding for abortions.

Missiles

The administration also slammed House appropriators for their revisions to the Pentagon's first-ever request for multi-year procurement authority for munitions. Appropriators granted the authority for five of seven missile systems sought by the administration, but rejected two others.

Lawmakers also trimmed a large portion of the $1.9 billion Pentagon request to support bulk purchases, known as economic order quantities — funding the White House argued is needed to generate savings and boost production.

Other objections

The Biden team said it opposes an ambitious House plan to significantly raise junior enlisted military personnel pay before an upcoming four-year military compensation review, fearing the unfunded cost it would incur.

The White House rebuffed a move, touted by House Republicans, to cut just over $1 billion from the administration's budget for funding the Pentagon civilian workforce — warning it could impact defense operations and harm civilian recruitment and retention.

The administration also assailed provisions in the bill that block the Navy from retiring certain ships, which the Pentagon sought to do to save money.

What's next

The House Rules Committee meets Tuesday to review amendments, and floor debate on the legislation is expected to begin Wednesday.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/EW4KiSl
via IFTTT

Read More

Biden inches toward decision on long-range missiles as Ukraine ups pressure

The Biden administration is in active conversations about whether to send long-range missiles to Ukraine amid an intense campaign for the U.S. to transfer the weapon, according to two U.S. officials and a person close to the Ukrainian government.

It’s unclear if a decision memo has reached President Joe Biden’s desk. The officials said a final call would be made with Ukraine’s input, but Washington and Kyiv aren’t engaged in discussions about an announcement or a rollout of Army Tactical Missile Systems.

Ukraine is pushing the U.S. to greenlight the delivery of ATACMS by next week’s U.N. General Assembly attended by Biden and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Officials in Kyiv said they’re expecting some good news on that front after the Ukrainian leader touches down in New York City.

But U.S. officials say that timeline is too tight. A decision by Biden on sending ATACMS for Ukraine’s use against Russian forces would almost certainly come after the annual Turtle Bay confab.

Asked about the prospect of delivering ATACMS, deputy national security adviser Jon Finer said the White House hasn’t taken anything off the table. “Our position all along has been we will get Ukraine the capabilities that will enable it to succeed on the battlefield,” he told reporters on the sidelines of the G20 summit in India. “We will continue to assess the situation on the ground and make decisions based on that.”

If Biden signs off on the transfer, he will provide a weapon for which Ukraine has clamored since the earliest days of the 18-month war. ATACMS, which can travel up to 190 miles, would give Ukraine’s forces the ability to strike far beyond Russia’s defensive positions inside Ukraine and, possibly, deep into Russian sovereign territory.

Ukraine already has received some long-range missiles, such as the U.K.-donated Storm Shadow that can travel over 150 miles. The Storm Shadow is launched from Ukrainian Soviet-era jets, while the ATACMS can be fired from the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System already in Ukraine, which would allow the Ukrainians much more flexibility in where and how they launch the missile.

Those launchers normally fire rockets that travel about 50 miles, though the U.S. has also promised to send the ground-launched small diameter bomb by the end of the year, which can hit targets over 90 miles away.

As its ground forces launch attacks against well-defended Russian trench lines and heavily fortified positions, Ukraine has prioritized hitting Russian logistics nodes and transportation hubs well behind the front lines. The Storm Shadow missiles have also targeted ammunition dumps in Crimea.

ABC News first reported that the U.S. was nearing a decision on sending ATACMS. Pentagon spokesperson Brig. Gen. Patrick Ryder said Monday he had nothing to announce on ATACMS and declined to discuss U.S. inventory levels.

Zelenskyy told CNN on Sunday that he is planning to speak with Biden about the issue, and “I think he can change this page and this war. Once he did it with the HIMARS — it was very important, these HIMARS.”

On talks to get ATACMS into Ukrainian hands, “we are moving. I hope we'll get it in autumn,” Zelenskyy said. “For us, it's very important not to do the pause in this counteroffensive and I need it very much.”

The administration has long been skeptical of providing ATACMS to Ukraine. Last year, national security adviser Jake Sullivan told an Aspen Security Forum audience that Biden wanted “to ensure that we don’t get into a situation in which we are approaching the Third World War.” Sending missiles that Ukraine could launch into Russia would increase that risk, he said.

But in July, Sullivan told the same conference that the administration was “prepared to take risks, and we will continue to be prepared to take risks to provide support to Ukraine.” The strong statement came after the United Kingdom and France both sent long-range weapons of their own to Ukraine, leading to criticism of the U.S. for not following suit.

The Pentagon, meanwhile, has been hesitant to send ATACMS because of concerns over how many missiles the U.S. has in its inventory. DOD officials previously told their Ukrainian counterparts that the U.S. didn’t have any ATACMS in its stockpile to spare. The weapons’ manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, currently makes about 500 ATACMS a year, though they’re all slated for sale to Poland, Finland, Romania, the UAE and Taiwan, which have ordered the missile system in recent years.

The Army hasn’t purchased new ATACMS in several years, though it has upgraded them with better guidance systems. The service is also preparing to move past the ATACMS, and beginning this year will start the transition to the new Precision Strike Missile, which can travel at least 310 miles, vastly outranging the ATACMS’ 190 miles.

The Army will start receiving deliveries of the new missile this year, which could make more ATACMS available to transfer to other countries.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/u0rSAWG
via IFTTT

Read More