Connect with us

News

The Fulton County charges against Donald Trump face a major test Monday. Here’s what to watch for | CNN Politics

Published

on

The Fulton County charges against Donald Trump face a major test Monday. Here’s what to watch for | CNN Politics



CNN
 — 

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis will lay out the first details of her sprawling anti-racketeering case against former President Donald Trump, his White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and 17 other co-defendants at a federal court hearing on Monday.

This will be the first time that substantive arguments will be made in court about the four criminal cases brought against Trump this year.

The subject of the hearing is Meadows’ motion to move his case to federal court and possibly have it thrown out, but it’s much more than that – it could end up acting as a mini-trial that determines the future of Fulton County’s case against the former president.

Willis is expected to preview the case that she is planning to bring against the 19 co-defendants, getting on the public record some of her evidence and legal arguments for why Trump and his allies broke the law when pressuring Georgia election officials to meddle with the 2020 results.

Advertisement

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who received the January 2021 call from Trump to “find” the votes that would reverse his loss, has been subpoenaed to testify, along with an investigator in his office and two other lawyers who were present on the call.

Here’s what to watch for:

Meadows is one of several defendants who have filed to move their cases from Georgia state court to federal court, and Trump is expected to file a similar motion.

Several defendants who have filed similar removal notices, including ex-Georgia Republican Party chair David Shafer and Cathy Latham, who served as a fake elector, have argued they were acting at Trump’s direction.

Meadows is arguing that the charges against him in Georgia should be dismissed under a federal immunity claim extended, in certain contexts, to individuals who are prosecuted or sued for alleged conduct that was done on behalf of the US government or was tied to their federal position.

Advertisement

While he may still face an uphill battle to move his case, Meadows is “uniquely situated” in Willis’ case, said Steve Vladeck, a CNN analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.

“Folks should be wary of this being a bellwether,” Vladeck said, describing the dispute instead as an “opening salvo in what is going to be a long and complicated series of procedural fights.”

If US District Judge Steve Jones grants Meadows’ or another defendant’s request to move the prosecution to federal court, it does not ultimately doom Willis’ case.

For one, it is not clear whether Meadows’ co-defendants would join him in the federal forum, and even if the judge accepts Meadows’ claim that his case should play out in federal court, it does not mean that Jones will buy Meadows’ arguments that the charges against him should be dismissed.

For instance, in Trump’s New York case, in which he was charged by the Manhattan district attorney with 34 counts of falsifying business records, a federal judge rejected the former president’s bid to move the case to federal court.

Advertisement

US law allows defendants in state civil suits or criminal cases to seek to move those proceedings to federal court if those defendants face charges based on conduct they carried out “under color” of the federal government.

While such proceedings are not uncommon in civil lawsuits against current and former federal officials, they are extremely rare in criminal cases, legal experts told CNN, meaning Jones will be navigating in uncertain legal territory.

“This is just that rare case where there is just not a lot of law,” Vladeck said.

Meadows is arguing that under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, the federal court should dismiss the charges against him, because the conduct underlying the charges was conducted as part of his duties as a close White House adviser to Trump.

“If Mr. Meadows had absented himself from Oval Office meetings or refused to arrange meetings or calls between the President and governmental leaders, that would have affected his ability to provide the close and confidential advice that a Chief of Staff is supposed to provide,” Meadows’ lawyers wrote in a court filing.

Advertisement

Beyond Meadows’ participation on the Raffensperger call, Willis has also highlighted as alleged acts in the racketeering conspiracy his surprise visit to an Atlanta election audit and a request Meadows and Trump are said to have made to a White House official to compile a memo on how to disrupt the January 6, 2021, election certification vote in Congress.

“In order to prevail, Meadows has to convince the court that when he was banging on the audit door he wasn’t representing the private interests of Donald Trump,” said Lee Kovarsky, a University of Texas law professor and expert in the removal statute.

Willis, in her response to Meadows’ filings, is leaning on a federal law known as the Hatch Act, which prohibits government officials from using their federal office to engage in political activity, including campaign-oriented conduct. She argues Meadows’ involvement in the pressure campaign on Georgia election officials is clearly conduct he was not allowed to engage in as a federal officer, and therefore he is not entitled to the federal immunity defense.

The Hatch Act framing is a “nice way of illustrating that he was acting outside the scope of his official duties,” Kovarsky said, adding that Willis will not have to prove that Meadows violated the federal statute to be successful in the argument.

Willis’ filings in the dispute also appear to be a shot across the bow at Trump and any attempt he could make with similar claims.

Advertisement

“An evaluation of the actions named in the indictment makes clear that all of them were intended to ‘interfere with or affect’ the presidential election in Georgia and elsewhere in order to somehow transform Mr. Trump from an unsuccessful candidate into a successful one,” the district attorney’s office said. “The activities are precisely the type which other courts have already determined to be ‘unofficial’ and therefore beyond the color of the defendant’s office.”

Key witnesses potentially taking the stand

Jones, a Barack Obama appointee, has shown that he would like to avoid a circus while also not giving short shrift to Meadows’ arguments, Vladeck said. The orders the judge has already issued have hewed tightly to the relevant statutes and case law, and he has moved the proceedings along efficiently.

The judge is “by the book, which includes quickly and quietly,” Vladeck said.

Still, the hearing could feature some revelatory moments, as Willis appears to be preparing to put on the stand several witnesses to the pressure campaign Trump and Meadows are accused of applying to Georgia election officials.

In addition to Raffensperger, Willis subpoenaed Frances Watson, who was chief investigator in the Georgia secretary of state’s office. According to the grand jury indictment, Meadows arranged a call between Trump and Watson, and texted Watson himself to offer Trump campaign funding toward speeding up a ballot review in Fulton County.

Advertisement

Willis also subpoenaed two lawyers who were on the Trump-Raffensperger phone call on Trump’s behalf: Kurt Hilbert and Alex Kaufman.

“The central question is: Were Meadows and Trump acting in the context of … their federal positions, or were they just candidates for office or campaign staff acting in the state of Georgia?” said Elliot Williams, a CNN legal analyst and former Justice Department official. “Raffensperger will come to testify as to, ‘Maybe I actually think these guys were acting on behalf of the campaign, not the presidency.’”

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

‘This is Bill. Bill Hwang’: US jury hears founder’s call to Archegos lenders

Published

on

‘This is Bill. Bill Hwang’: US jury hears founder’s call to Archegos lenders

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Bill Hwang told panicked Wall Street investment banks that his family office Archegos needed up to three weeks to “make everyone whole” shortly before the fund collapsed in 2021, which ended up costing his lenders more than $10bn.

On the second day of Hwang’s trial for fraud and market manipulation, the jury in New York heard portions of a call he held three years ago with six investment banks that were on the hook for billions of dollars as the value of Archegos’s investments plummeted.

The audio recording was a rare insight into the dealings of Hwang, who kept a low profile on Wall Street and worked hard to mask his trading strategy and the positions taken by Archegos, which managed his personal fortune. 

Advertisement

For some on the call — which included bankers from Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs, Nomura, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank and UBS — it was the first time they had heard from Hwang directly.

“This is Bill. Bill Hwang,” he said. “We are really confident in our ability to wind down these names given a little more time,” he told the banks during the call on March 25, 2021.

Earlier that week, the value of Archegos’s largest positions, especially media group ViacomCBS, had plummeted in value, and Hwang was being required by the banks to provide extra cash.

Prosecutors have alleged that Archegos executives misled investment banks to believe that the fund held large positions in easily tradable stocks such as Amazon and Apple at other lenders, when in reality it had similarly concentrated bets in less liquid stocks across all its lenders.

Hwang estimated on the call that it would probably take two to three weeks to sell his holdings and repay the banks what they were owed.

Advertisement

Bryan Fairbanks, a senior executive at UBS at the time of Archegos’s collapse who testified in the case, described some of the numbers given by Hwang during the call as “extremely alarming”.

Shortly after the call, UBS and some of the other investment banks decided to sell the positions they were holding for Hwang, resulting in a fire sale of several stocks.

Fairbanks testified that it took UBS between six and seven weeks to exit positions tied to Archegos.

UBS ended up losing about $860mn. Credit Suisse, now owned by UBS, lost more than $5bn from Archegos.

At the trial in Manhattan federal court, US prosecutors have accused Hwang of running his family office Archegos Capital as a criminal enterprise in an attempt to become a “legend on Wall Street”. Hwang and Patrick Halligan, his top deputy and Archegos’s former finance chief, who have pleaded not guilty, face decades behind bars if convicted.

Advertisement

Barry Berke, a lawyer for Hwang, has sought to portray his client as a high-conviction investor who took large bets in companies he believed in, such as ViacomCBS and Discovery.

Continue Reading

News

Small but mighty Nimble becomes first mixed-breed dog to win Westminster agility title

Published

on

Small but mighty Nimble becomes first mixed-breed dog to win Westminster agility title

Cynthia Hornor poses with Nimble, the first mixed-breed dog ever to win the Westminster Kennel Club dog show’s agility competition, in New York on Monday.

Jennifer Peltz/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Jennifer Peltz/AP


Cynthia Hornor poses with Nimble, the first mixed-breed dog ever to win the Westminster Kennel Club dog show’s agility competition, in New York on Monday.

Jennifer Peltz/AP

She was nimble, she was oh-so-very quick – with the perfect moniker to match.

A 6-year-old canine from of Ellicott City, Md., named Nimble beat out 350 competitors to become the first mixed-breed dog to win the Westminster Kennel Club’s Masters Agility Championship in New York.

Advertisement

“I was surprised,” Nimble’s handler Cynthia Hornor told NPR. “But she proved that she’s the little engine that could.”

Nimble, who finished the race in a blistering 28.76 seconds, is a first in more ways than one: She also became the first dog from the 12-inch height division to take home the top prize since the agility competition — itself the first WKC event to allow mixed breeds to compete — was introduced in 2014.

Dogs compete in the 8-inch, 12-inch, 16-inch, and 20-inch categories. The top 10 dogs from each height category go on to compete in the championships.

While she made two firsts, Nimble also had at least two big aces in her paws.

Advertisement

Despite coming in an underdog — as part of the non-purebred category the WKC refers to as “All American Dogs” — Nimble is a combination of two pedigrees made up of winners: a border collie-papillon mix. Border collies have won eight of the last 11 agility titles, while the top three finishers in this year’s competition were all papillons.

Nimble’s second secret weapon: her owner and handler Hornor, who won the Masters Agility title in 2023 with her other dog Truant, a 20-inch border collie.

“This is going to be a fun run,” a Fox Sports announcer predicted on Saturday as Nimble eagerly waited for the clock to start her final run.

When it did, the pointy-eared black and white pup rocketed her way through a series of hoops, seesaws, ladders and more with hardly any cueing needed from Horner.

“I said it was going to be fun, but I didn’t know it was going to be an e-ticket!” the announcer said halfway through Nimble’s race, with eager crowds cheering in the background.

Advertisement

Hornor says she hopes Nimble’s big win will be enough to put to bed any false ideas that mixed breeds can’t be as fast as purebred dogs.

“Agility is the equalizer,” Hornor said. “Mixed-breed dogs can be just as fast as purebred dogs.”

Nimble’s reward for proving it?

“She got steak, and she got to play,” said Hornor. “She just really loves playing, so her reward is being able to go run and play.”

And if there’s one lesson Hornor wants other dog owners to take away from Nimble’s big win, it’s that agility is a great way for owners to bond with their dogs.

Advertisement

“It’s the thing I enjoy the most about this sport,” said Hornor, who has been an agility trainer for more than 20 years. “When I see my students, I love seeing their bond grow with their dogs because of agility.”

Continue Reading

News

China poses ‘genuine and increasing cyber risk’ to UK, warns GCHQ head

Published

on

China poses ‘genuine and increasing cyber risk’ to UK, warns GCHQ head

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

China poses a “genuine and increasing cyber risk to the UK”, the head of Britain’s signals intelligence agency has said.

The remarks by Anne Keast-Butler, director of GCHQ, follow a slew of alleged China-related espionage activity in the UK, including a suspected cyber attack that targeted the records of thousands of British military personnel.

Keast-Butler told a security conference in Birmingham on Tuesday that while the cyber threats from Russia and Iran were “globally pervasive” and “aggressive” respectively, China was her agency’s top priority.

Advertisement

“China poses a genuine and increasing cyber risk to the UK,” she said, calling the country “the epoch-defining challenge” in a direct echo of the British government last year.

“In cyber space, we believe that the PRC’s [People’s Republic of China’s] irresponsible actions weaken the security of the internet for all,” said Keast-Butler.

“China has built an advanced set of cyber capabilities and is taking advantage of a growing commercial ecosystem of hacking outfits and data brokers at its disposal,” she added.

Her warnings came a week after a reported cyber attack on private IT contractor SSCL, which has multiple government contracts, accessed the records of up to 272,000 people on the UK Ministry of Defence’s payroll.

Defence secretary Grant Shapps told parliament last week that the attack had been carried out by a “malign actor”. He did not confirm who was behind it, but a person with direct knowledge of the incident said Beijing was thought to be the culprit.

Advertisement

SSCL, which is owned by Paris-based Sopra Steria, a digital services company, holds the payroll details of most of the British armed forces and 550,000 public servants in total through its other state contracts, including with the Home Office, Ministry of Justice and Metropolitan Police.

The hack is one of a series of recent incidents that has sparked growing concern across Europe and in the US about Chinese cyber and espionage activity.

On Monday, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said Britain faced threats from “an axis of authoritarian states like Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China” as three men appeared in a London court on charges of assisting intelligence services in Hong Kong.

On Tuesday, the UK government summoned China’s ambassador to Britain, Zheng Zeguang, over the case.

John Lee, Hong Kong’s chief executive, on Tuesday said his administration had demanded the British government provide an explanation about the prosecution of one of the three men, Bill Yuen, who was the office manager of the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in London.  

Advertisement

Beijing officials have also repeatedly denied the British accusations, calling them “groundless and slanderous” in what has become a tit-for-tat series of allegations and denials.

Meanwhile, Felicity Oswald, who heads the National Cyber Security Centre, a branch of GCHQ, warned CyberUK conference attendees about the Chinese Communist party’s cyber capability, which she described as “vast in scale and sophistication”.

She said western security agencies had repeatedly raised the alarm about Volt Typhoon, a Chinese hacking network, which FBI director Christopher Wrap said this year had targeted the US electricity grid and water supply.

Oswald added that a Chinese law, introduced in recent years, that required Chinese citizens to report any cyber security vulnerabilities they identified to the government “should worry all of us”.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending