Connect with us

Pennsylvania

Trump indictment: Charges feature former president’s effort to subvert Pennsylvania election results

Published

on

Trump indictment: Charges feature former president’s effort to subvert Pennsylvania election results


A federal grand jury in Washington charged former President Donald Trump with conspiracy to defraud the United States and other counts Tuesday for his efforts to subvert the 2020 presidential election results in Pennsylvania and six other battleground states.

Here are some of the local highlights:

Subverting the Pennsylvania results

The four-count indictment unsealed accused Trump and six uncharged, unnamed coconspirators of a broad conspiracy to falsely claim the election results in Pennsylvania were fradulent and convince state legislators to overturn them. .

Advertisement

Specific steps listed in the indictment include:

· A Nov. 11, 2020, tweet in which Trump publicly maligned then-Philadelphia City Commissioner Al Schmidt for saying on TV news that there was no evidence of widespread fraud in Philadelphia. Schmidt, who is now the Pennsylvania Secretary of State, testified before the congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol that he and his family later received death threats.

· A Nov. 25, 2020, hearing that State Sen. Doug Mastriano and Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani convened in Gettysburg the day after certification of the state’s election results. At that hearing, Giuliani falsely claimed Pennsylvania had issued 1.8 million absentee ballots and received 2.5 million in return.

According to the indictment, a Trump campaign staffer later sent an internal message saying that Giuliani’s claims were “just wrong” and that “there’s no way to defend it.”

Trump’s deputy campaign manager responded: “We have been saying this for a while. It’s very frustrating,” .

Advertisement

· On Dec. 4, 2020, after Republican leadership in the Pennsylvania legislature issued a statement that they lacked authority to overturn the popular vote and appoint their own slate of electors, Trump retweeted a post labeling them cowards.

· Trump repeatedly raised allegations with Justice Department officials that there were 205,000 more votes than voters in Pennsylvania. Each time, they informed him that claim was false.

· On Jan. 6, as rioters stormed the Capitol building, Trump publicly repeated that false claim .

Conspirators with Pennsylvania ties

The indictment does not name Trump’s alleged coconspirators, but one is identifiable as Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official who grew up in Northeast Philadelphia and graduated from Father Judge High School in 1985.

Advertisement

The charging document describes him as a DOJ official who “worked on civil matters” and, along with Trump, “attempted to use the Justice Department to open sham election crime investigations and influence state legislatures with knowingly false claims of election fraud.”

The Jan. 6 congressional committee previously documented Clark’s efforts in the fake elector scheme.

The indictment cites a draft letter Clark proposed sending to state officials in Georgia that said the legislature there should appoint pro-Trump electors.

Senior DOJ officials under Trump have testified to Congress that they threatened to resign amid Trump’s plan to appoint Clark acting attorney general, at which point the plan fizzled out.

Neither Clark nor any of Trump’s other alleged coconspirators have been officially accused of wrongdoing.

Advertisement

Clark left Philadelphia soon after high school and went on to receive advanced degrees from Harvard and Georgetown. He spent most of his career practicing environmental law in Washington. Only after the 2020 election did he become a key Trump ally.

Swift reaction to the indictment

Both Trump and Attorney General Merrick Garland were in Pennsylvania in the days surrounding the unsealing of the indictment against the former president.

Trump, speaking at a campaign rally in Erie on Saturday, told the crowd of more than 4,000 people that the latest criminal charges are a part of what he described as an ongoing “witch hunt” to block him from winning another election. He railed against elected Republicans who he said aren’t doing enough to defend him.

“They impeach me. They indict me. They rig our elections,” he said. “And the Republicans just don’t fight the way … they’re supposed to fight.”

Advertisement

Garland, meanwhile, participating in a previously scheduled community event Tuesday night to celebration National Night Out in North Philadelphia, addressed reporters briefly. He did not comment on the contents of the indictment but praised special counsel Jack Smith and his team.

“Mr. Smith and his team are experienced, principled career agents and prosecutors — can follow the facts and the law wherever they lead,” he said. “Any questions about this matter will have to be answered by the filings made in court.”

Staff writer Gillian McGoldrick contributed to this article.



Source link

Advertisement
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.

Pennsylvania

Suspect in killing of woman in Pa. motel in custody in N.J., cops say

Published

on

Suspect in killing of woman in Pa. motel in custody in N.J., cops say


A suspect in the homicide of a woman in Bensalem, Pennsylvania is in custody at the Trenton Police Department, police said Wednesday afternoon.

The suspect and victim’s identities have not been made public.

The Bensalem, Pennsylvania police and the Buck County District Attorney’s Office said in a statement that officers found a woman dead at the Sleep Inn & Suites, on Street Road, early Wednesday. They did not detail the circumstances of her death.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Pennsylvania

Shapiro threatens to pull Pennsylvania out of PJM over electricity prices

Published

on

Shapiro threatens to pull Pennsylvania out of PJM over electricity prices


Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro (D) is warning regional electricity grid operator PJM that the state will consider leaving the organization if it doesn’t do more to protect consumers against soaring power prices.

Shapiro’s letter marks a sharp escalation of his dispute with PJM, the largest U.S. wholesale power market and transmission coordinator, serving 65 million people from the Atlantic Seaboard to Chicago.

The risk of more power price escalation “threatens to undermine public confidence in PJM as an institution,” Shapiro said in his letter to Mark Takahashi, chair of PJM’s board of managers.

In a statement Tuesday, PJM said, “We appreciate the governor’s letter and have reached out to his office to discuss next steps.”

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Pennsylvania

Group weighs potential and peril of performance funding for Pa. universities • Pennsylvania Capital-Star

Published

on

Group weighs potential and peril of performance funding for Pa. universities • Pennsylvania Capital-Star


A group of lawmakers, university administrators and the head of the Department of Education heard Tuesday about the possibilities — and perils — of tying public funding of state-related universities at least in part to their performance and students’ academic outcomes.

The Performance-Based Funding Council was created by the General Assembly last summer and tasked with making recommendations on a performance-based funding formula by the end of April. Members include four lawmakers, Interim Acting Secretary of Education Angela Fitterer and three non-voting members from the state-related schools that would be affected: Penn State, Temple University and the University of Pittsburgh. Lincoln University, an HBCU and a fourth state-related university, would not be affected.

Currently, the three state-related schools collectively receive more than $550 million in state funding annually. The move to a performance-based funding formula has been supported by lawmakers from both parties, as well as Gov. Josh Shapiro.

“These legislative hearings offer a unique opportunity to fundamentally reassess how we align public resources and educational outcomes,” said Rep. Jesse Topper (R-Bedford), the council chairperson. “I believe we need to show the public how those resources are used and why — why we invest in higher education.”

Advertisement

More than 30 states already use a performance-based funding model. According to testimony heard by the council, the most common academic targets in states with performance-based funding models include graduation rates, student retention and degree or credential completion. But a potential formula could also take into account factors like research output, administrative efficiency, and employment rates of graduated students.

While policies vary greatly around the country, about 10% of money sent to four-year schools in states with performance-based funding formulas is based on the targeted metrics, according to testimony by Andrew Smalley, a policy specialist who focuses on higher education at the National Conference of State Legislatures.

But experts warned that coming up with a comprehensive formula can be “daunting.”

“Everyone knows that colleges and universities subject to these formulas find themselves in a bit of a Catch-22,” said Charles Ansell, vice president of research, policy and advocacy at Complete College America, a nonprofit focused on best practices in higher education. “They need funds for their performance and improved graduation rates, but they cannot access funds without demonstrating improvement first.”

One potential solution, another expert testified, could be awarding funds based on improvements at an individual school over time instead of an arbitrary benchmark, like graduation rate, that applies to all schools.

Advertisement

Experts also warned that some performance-based funding models can exacerbate disparities in educational outcomes between high- and low-income students, and between white and minority students.

“Performance funding is typically tied to advantages for the advantaged students and disadvantages for the disadvantaged,” said Justin Ortagus, an associate professor of higher education administration and policy at the University of Florida. Though he noted that a funding formula can take these pitfalls into account by incentivizing enrollment and degree or certification attainment for students in impacted groups.

Speakers also highlighted the benefits of performance-based funding models. Ortagus noted that they can promote institutional accountability.

It could also provide predictability when it comes to school budgets.

As it stands, Pennsylvania’s method for funding these universities requires a two-thirds vote of the legislature, which has led to months-long delays in the past. Creating a predictable funding formula that would be distributed through the Department of Education would mean future appropriations would only require a simple majority.

Advertisement

Moreover, lawmakers could use performance metrics to encourage specific educational outcomes. Part of the funding formula, for example, could rely on students enrolling or graduating in programs of study that would lead to them entering high-demand fields in the job market.  

The state could also target specific outcomes based on goals like increasing low-income, veteran or minority student graduation rates, encouraging adult education and incentivizing students to enter high-demand jobs by focusing on particular majors. And the formula can be adapted when new needs or issues arise.

“It’s very common for states to revise these frequently,” Smalley said.

The council expects to hold three more hearings, some at the campuses of affected state-related universities.  Its recommendations are due to the legislature and governor April 30.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending