Connect with us

Washington

All eyes on a Washington grand jury amid signs of possible third Trump indictment | CNN Politics

Published

on

All eyes on a Washington grand jury amid signs of possible third Trump indictment | CNN Politics




CNN
 — 

The biggest question about the 2024 presidential campaign so far is whether voters or juries will get to cast the first verdict on Donald Trump.

A White House race that figures to be one of the most fraught in history is again in suspended animation as the political world awaits more potential criminal charges the Republican front-runner is expecting from special counsel Jack Smith.

Trump has lost none of his ability to shatter political conventions. Just months ago, the notion that a former president and potential future commander in chief could be indicted was staggering and unprecedented. Now it’s becoming an almost regular occurrence.

Advertisement

Trump has already been charged in Manhattan in a case triggered by a hush money payment to an adult film star, and separately, is facing federal charges related to his alleged mishandling of classified documents he hoarded in Florida. He announced this week that he’d been named as a target of Smith’s investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and events leading up to the attack on the US Capitol. Receiving such a notification is a procedural step that often leads to an indictment. And he’s waiting to find out whether he’ll be charged in a probe in Georgia over efforts to reverse President Joe Biden’s win there. The ex-president has pleaded not guilty to both indictments and denies wrongdoing in every other case against him.

Trump, his Republican rivals for the 2024 nomination, and much of America will be waiting for any developments out of a grand jury in Washington, DC, that is expected to meet on Thursday. Two sources told CNN that Will Russell, a former special assistant to Trump in the White House who has continued to work for him, is due to testify for at least the third time. Any indictment in the probe, in the days or weeks to come, would likely emerge from this grand jury – a fact that lends its work great historical significance. Trump indicated that the target letter he received on Sunday gave him four days to take up an option to testify. Legal custom suggests that any indictment could come at any time after that.

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie – one of the rare Trump rivals who has openly criticized the ex-president – told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Wednesday that he was waiting to examine any charges from Smith before forming a judgment. But, given his experience as an ex-prosecutor, Christie suggested that the target letter from Smith was a grave omen.

“I never sent the target letter if I was not completely sure that I had put enough in front of the grand jury for them to return an indictment,” he said on “The Situation Room.”

“My sense is it’ll be a speaking indictment, as we call it in the business, which provides a lot of detail. So, you can really give folks a sense of what the evidence is that backs up the charges.”

Advertisement

CNN reported Wednesday that the ex-president’s legal team was scrambling to find out whether Smith had evidence about Trump’s conduct they didn’t know about. This raises the possibility that any election-related case Smith might bring against Trump may be far broader than his camp may have expected.

Multiple news outlets, including The Wall Street Journal, reported Wednesday that the target letter cites three statutes under which he could be charged pertaining to deprivation of rights; conspiracy to commit an offense against or defraud the United States; and tampering with a witness. The Justice Department has been known to be examining possible violations of the law around conspiracy and obstruction of the congressional proceeding on January 6, 2021, which is part of the witness tampering law, CNN previously reported.

Trump has long used the court system to delay accountability by exhausting every legal option available to him. But he got more setbacks Wednesday in some of the other cases against him. First, a federal judge denied his request for a new civil trial in the E. Jean Carroll case, finding that a jury that found that he abused and defamed Carroll did not reach a “seriously erroneous result.” The jury had awarded Carroll $5 million in damages. (Lawyers for Trump said they are appealing all of the rulings against him in the case.)

In another blow to the ex-president, another federal judge Wednesday denied his effort to move the New York indictment – which charged him with falsifying business records in connection with the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels – into federal court. Judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled that the payments had nothing to do with Trump’s former presidential duties. “Whatever the standard, and whether it is high or low, Trump fails to satisfy it,” the judge said.

As Smith’s investigation into the aftermath of the 2020 election appears to be reaching a critical point, details have been emerging about its vast scope. Smith and his prosecutors have spoken to officials in multiple swing states where Trump and his aides allegedly sought to apply pressure to change election results. Sources have suggested the special counsel is also interested in an ultimately unsuccessful fake electors scheme designed to potentially defy the will of voters by awarding electoral votes to Trump instead of Biden. Influential figures in Trump’s inner circle – including his son-in-law Jared Kushner, his former aide Hope Hicks and ex-Vice President Mike Pence – have all testified to the grand jury, CNN reported.

Advertisement

The work of the House select committee that investigated January 6 suggested the broad possibilities for Smith after it collected huge amounts of evidence about Trump’s conduct and presented it to the public last year.

“There is so much he could be charged with, it’s a matter of picking,” CNN legal analyst Karen Friedman Agnifilo said Wednesday. Reinforcing that point, CNN reported that federal prosecutors looking at the alleged scheme to overturn the election have subpoenaed all security videos from Atlanta’s State Farm Arena around polling day. This could relate to false claims by Trump and his campaign that election workers there were counting fake mail-in ballots.

As Trump waits to hear his fate in this investigation, he’s already ensnared in Smith’s other probe – into the retention of national defense information. During a hearing in Florida on Tuesday, the judge presiding over case suggested that Smith’s request for a trial in December was premature. But she did not tip her hand about whether she was swayed by the Trump team’s argument that the trial needed to wait until after the 2024 election because he’s a candidate. Smith has strongly opposed the idea that Trump is too busy to stand trial or wouldn’t get fair trial simply because he is running for president. Some legal experts have warned that granting his request to delay the trial would mean that an ex-president gets more deference in the court system than any other citizen, thereby challenging the principle that everyone is equal under the law.

The flurry of indictments and potential new charges against Trump do, however, raise the question of how he can concentrate on the demands of a full-bore presidential campaign while preparing for multiple trials. He already has a court date for the Manhattan case in March, which falls right in the middle of primary season.

For now, though, Trump has been able to harness his legal troubles to boost his campaign fundraising. A CNN analysis of itemized donations – those larger than $200 – to his campaign shows his day-by-day contributions over the first six months of this year spiked following the earlier indictment news.

Advertisement

It was always clear that a presidential election entangling with the reckoning over the legal and political fallout of the Trump presidency – and his claims that the last presidential race was stolen – would cause national trauma.

Much of this is by design for Trump. He has, after all built, his 2024 campaign on the notion that he’s an innocent victim of political persecution intended to keep him out of the White House. It’s a narrative GOP voters appear to be buying. Trump’s power can be seen in the way his primary opponents have mostly been loath to seize on his extraordinary crush of legal problems and in the way his congressional allies attack the Justice Department.

One of Trump’s Republican rivals further stoked a combustible political atmosphere Wednesday. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said on “The Shawn Ryan Show” show that it was “possible” his campaign could face interference from the Department of Justice or the FBI when asked if he was worried about it. “I think there should be some accountability for how those prosecutors are wielding power, especially if they’re doing it for political reasons,” he added. DeSantis did not give any evidence for his view that he could be vulnerable to investigation.

In any normal political world, a candidate facing multiple indictments would see their hopes of high office collapse. But American politics has rarely known normality since Trump glided down his golden elevator in his eponymous New York skyscraper to join the 2016 campaign. And former Rep. Fred Upton, a Michigan Republican, told CNN’s Erin Burnett Wednesday that the maelstrom of legal woes would not derail Trump’s bid for the GOP nomination. “I don’t think it moves the needle at all,” Upton said. “In terms of where the voters are, particularly the base, Trump is using this to raise more money. He’s stronger than ever before.”

“He’s got all of the wind out of the room from any of the dozen or so other candidates. They can’t get a breakthrough.”

Advertisement



Source link

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.

Washington

Lawmakers again trying to lower legal alcohol limit for drivers in Washington • Washington State Standard

Published

on

Lawmakers again trying to lower legal alcohol limit for drivers in Washington • Washington State Standard


A measure to lower the legal limit for drunk driving in Washington cleared its first legislative hurdle Thursday.

If passed, Washington would join Utah as the only state with a 0.05% blood alcohol concentration limit. Other states have considered similar legislation, but haven’t passed it.

Utah made the move in 2018. The state was also the first to lower the limit from 0.1% to 0.08% in the 1980s.

After the switch from 0.08% to 0.05%, Utah saw a 20% drop in fatal crashes, but that figure crept back up during the COVID-19 pandemic, in line with national trends.

Advertisement

The bill in Washington is sponsored by Sen. John Lovick, D-Mill Creek. Lovick was a longtime Washington State Patrol trooper before serving as Snohomish County sheriff. 

“I see driving behavior beyond anything I could have imagined when I started as a state trooper,” Lovick told the Senate Law & Justice Committee this week. “Drivers are speeding, following too close, passing on the shoulders, running red lights, driving aggressively. Drunk drivers have made our communities unsafe.”

Opponents argue the legislation, Senate Bill 5067, would elevate the liability risk for bars and other establishments that sell alcohol.

Traffic deaths have risen rapidly in recent years, from 538 in 2019 to 809 in 2023, according to the Washington Traffic Safety Commission. The 2023 figure was the most deaths on Washington roads since 1990.

Of those 809 deaths, impaired drivers were involved in about half.

Advertisement

Compared to those driving sober, drivers with a blood alcohol concentration over 0.05% are twice as likely to crash, said Mark McKechnie, the director of external relations for the traffic safety commission. When that rises to 0.07%, the risk triples.

Early estimates for the first half of 2024 showed a marked decline in deaths on Washington roads, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The lower legal limit would take effect July 1, 2026. 

As part of the legislation, the Washington Traffic Safety Commission would run a campaign to inform the public of the new legal limit. The Washington State Institute for Public Policy would have to evaluate the impacts of the new law in a report submitted to the Legislature.

By way of background

Lovick and others have tried repeatedly in recent years to lower the legal limit. The measure has never reached the Senate floor.

Advertisement

Last year, one of the proposal’s chief backers, Sen. Marko Liias, D-Edmonds, expressed frustration after the Senate passed over his drunk driving bill and instead took up legislation to solidify “The Evergreen State” as Washington’s official nickname.

Experts have said consuming a beer or a glass of wine with dinner wouldn’t land drivers above the lowered legal limit.

Two hours after his first drink, a 180-pound man would reach 0.05% after drinking three beers or three glasses of wine. The same is true after two hours for a 140-pound woman, after two beers or glasses of wine.

Worldwide, more than 100 countries have legal limits of 0.05% or lower. 

The concerns

As in years past, hospitality industry groups oppose the legislation. They have argued the proposal could hurt bars and other establishments that rely on alcohol sales to stay afloat.

Advertisement

Julia Gorton, a lobbyist for the Washington Hospitality Association, noted it’s already illegal to drive with a 0.05% blood alcohol concentration if officers see clear signs of impairment.

This legislation “will impact those who decide to stop drinking before they are impaired,” she said. “These are individuals choosing to behave responsibly, who will now be subject to the strongest and strictest DUI penalties in the country.”

The Washington Wine Institute’s Executive Director Josh McDonald said it would be hard for servers to identify impairment at the lower legal limit so they could cut off service.

Jason Lantz, of the Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, noted Colorado and New York also have 0.05% limits, but violations at that level come with lower penalties.

He recommended a similar two-tier system, with the 0.05% limit considered “driving after consumption” instead of driving under the influence.

Advertisement

Amy Freedheim, the chair of the Felony Traffic Unit in the King County prosecutor’s office, tried to assuage concerns. She argued the lower limit wouldn’t lead to more arrests or lawsuits against bars held liable for crashes caused by impaired drivers.

On Thursday, Sen. Phil Fortunato, R-Auburn, offered an amendment to Lovick’s bill, lowering a blood alcohol concentration limit already in state law that brings stiffer penalties. The amendment would have dropped the limit from 0.15% to 0.12%. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

Advertisement

Penalties for first-time offenders at the higher threshold include a minimum $500 fine and at least two days in jail, 30 days of electronic home monitoring or a 120-day 24/7 sobriety program.

Below the 0.15% level, drunk driving penalties drop to a minimum fine of $350 and at least one day in jail, 15 days of electronic home monitoring or a 90-day sobriety program.

“Right now you go from .08 to .15. There’s nothing in the middle,” Fortunato said.

Advertisement

Sen. Manka Dhingra, D-Redmond, said she didn’t disagree with Fortunato’s change, but recognized the political reality for the proposal.

“I think it has been very challenging to get this bill out of the Senate with even the decrease to .05,” she said. “Let’s try to focus on getting the limit to .05, and then let’s continue working toward making sure that we are addressing the penalties.”

The committee approved Lovick’s proposal without Fortunato’s amendment. 

The House version of the bill is set for a committee hearing Tuesday.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Washington

Commanders Coach Knew ‘We’re Going to Win’ When Offense Got the Ball Back

Published

on

Commanders Coach Knew ‘We’re Going to Win’ When Offense Got the Ball Back


ASHBURN, Va. — Hope is a powerful thing, but belief is even stronger, and that’s what the Washington Commanders have plenty of after defeating the Tampa Bay Buccaneers 23-20 in the Wild Card Round.

That belief didn’t just show up in Florida, however, it has been growing ever since the Commanders first got together for OTAs and into rookie minicamp, and so on. Every step this team has taken, the belief it has in itself has grown.

Because of it, while most are going to predict Washington will lose to the Detroit Lions this weekend, the coaches and players believe in themselves. And they believe that if they have the ball last with a chance to win they’re going to, because that is exactly what defensive coordinator Joe Whitt Jr. believed last weekend – and it came true.

Washington Commanders defenders Dorance Armstrong and Bobby Wagner.

Jan 12, 2025; Tampa, Florida, USA; Tampa Bay Buccaneers quarterback Baker Mayfield (6) runs against Washington Commanders defensive end Dorance Armstrong (92) and linebacker Bobby Wagner (54) during the second quarter of a NFC wild card playoff at Raymond James Stadium. Mandatory Credit: Kim Klement Neitzel-Imagn Images / Kim Klement Neitzel-Imagn Images

“We’re going to win,” is what Whitt says he felt after his defense stopped the Buccaneers’ last possession of the game. “This game here, so it was a second-and-one. We got the stop. And then third-and-one, they sort of bobbled it, we get the stop. Now, they punted to us, I think it was four minutes or something else. Alright, ‘We’re going to go down and win it,’ That’s winning time. We got the stop that we needed, the special teams secured the ball, and we went down there and kicked the field goal. So, that’s what complementary football was all about, playing as a team.” 

Advertisement

Sunday night, the Commanders put together one of the cleanest performances they have had as a team in over a month. Penalties were low–though we’re sure the coaches would say any penalty is too many–mistakes weren’t critical, and like Whitt said, the football was complimentary.

Head coach Dan Quinn knows that’s exactly what his team will need again to keep their season going for at least one more weekend.

“Much like last game, I told you we’ll play our best complimentary game all year, offensively, defensively, and special teams,” said Quinn. “And Detroit in this game calls for that again. And so, we’re working hard on all those things from our field position stuff, our winning time moments, just all of it.”

Stick with CommanderGameday and the Locked On Commanders podcast for more FREE coverage of the Washington Commanders throughout the 2024 season.

• Commanders Get Unexpected Boost in Win vs. Buccaneers

Advertisement

• After Playoff Win, Commanders QB Jayden Daniels Isn’t Satisfied

• Commanders Share Thoughts as Game-Winning Field Goal Doinked In

• Dan Quinn Reveals Emotion During Final Kick in Commanders-Buccaneers



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Washington

Purdue vs. Washington player grades: Boilers wake up in second half

Published

on

Purdue vs. Washington player grades: Boilers wake up in second half


Purdue vs. Washington player grades: Boilers wake up in second half

Team GPA: 3.4

Sparse-shooting big man Great Osobor made more 3s than Purdue, but the Boilers won in the paint.

Advertisement

No. 17 Purdue (14-4, 6-1 Big Ten) had initial trouble dispelling Washington (10-8, 1-6), in a similar result on the scoreboard to the Boilers’ win against Minnesota. But, as in that game, Purdue climbed out of a halftime hole to show its superiority away from home in the second half. The main difference Wednesday was that the Boilers created open 3s for themselves and struggled mightily to make them, second period included.

Instead, Purdue found its inside presence via junior point guard Braden Smith’s offensive orchestration and racked up a free throw margin the Huskies couldn’t compete with.

Player stats below, with ratings to follow:

Braden Smith: A-

He played sped up all night, increasingly as the game wore on to its final minutes. The result was more turnovers than usual for the junior guard, but also a great deal of credit for the Boilers’ win.

Advertisement

Smith’s attacking and probing opened things up for Trey Kaufman-Renn (19) and Caleb Furst (15), even if the jumpers never fell in their usual quantity.

Without Smith’s 3 in the mid-second half, it could have been a different ballgame. Instead, he knocked it down, mean-mugged the crowd, and a, “Let’s go Boilers,” chant was clearly audible from my TV speakers in the mid-second half.

Smith’s motor also propelled him to five steals, and Purdue scored 18 points off turnovers.

Fletcher Loyer: B+

Loyer’s first field goal dropped through the net at the nine-minute mark of the second half. Then the rest came. The junior scored 12 points in the final 20 minutes as Washington had too many things to worry about to contain him.

He was uneasy handling the ball and passing in the first half, perhaps due to the bizarre slickness of the court caused apparently by a film on the hardwood or lack of an adequate sticky pad by the scorer’s table, per referee chatter picked up by the broadcast.

Advertisement

Plus, often underrated, Loyer is phenomenal at drawing fouls on defense. He got a big one with less than two minutes to go, and hit a 3 on the other end to stymie the slim chance Washington was clinging to.

Trey Kaufman-Renn: B+

Kaufman-Renn came alive in the second half after an awkward opening period with four turnovers. Once he and Smith found their pick and roll magic, and a few baseline dump-offs here and there, it was all Purdue.

 C.J. Cox: B-

Quiet night from the field, but made good decisions and dribbled dangerously enough to shift Washington’s defense.

Caleb Furst: A-

It was an up-and-down game on the defensive side of the ball for Furst: He forced Wildcat star Great Osobor into a big man air ball – all backboard – early in the first half, but got spun around off-ball in the mid-second for an Osobor bucket.

But offensively, he was exactly what Purdue needed. Fifteen points on a perfect night from the field and excellent at the line. Three offensive boards, too.

Advertisement

Myles Colvin: B-

Had his moments as an off-ball weapon on offense, but otherwise quiet as part of a poor shooting night all around for Purdue.

Camden Heide: B

Out-athleted the Huskies with three rebounds (one offensive) and an authoritative swat in the late second half.

Gicarri Harris: B-

Provided good defensive minutes, matching up well with Washington’s athletic guards.

Raleigh Burgess: NA

Played his three minutes, ran like crazy in them, took a seat.

How I do these

A lot is anchored to Game Score, a metric invented by John Hollinger which (quite imperfectly) estimates a player’s box score contributions. It’s just a starting point for the grades, and it’s readily available. During the game, I focus most of my attention on watching defensive reps, box-outs, offensive movement/involvement, and non-assist passing. I’ll add all the off-ball value to these grades that my eyes can catch.

Advertisement

Further, these are role dependent – my grades answer a question that goes something like, “How well did a player take advantage of the opportunities they were given?”

Late game heroics earn bonus points, and the opposite is true for important errors. Oh, and I hate missed free throws.



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending