List of All Articles with Tag 'us politics'

Security has ramped up in Washington DC as Donald Trump prepares to return to the alleged scene of the crime to face charges over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election and the events leading up to the January 6 Capitol riot. The former president is scheduled to appear for his arraignment at 4pm ET on Thursday afternoon at the E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse in Washington DC – just a few blocks away from the US Capitol where a mob of his supporters staged a violent insurrection to try to overthrow democracy back on 6 January 2021. Metal barricades were seen being erected outside the courthouse on Wednesday night while the Secret Service confirmed that it is working with multiple law enforcement agencies to “ensure the highest levels of safety and security”. “While the Secret Service does not comment on specific protective means or methods, we have the utmost confidence in the dedication and commitment to security shared by all of our law enforcement and government partners,” Anthony Guglielmi, chief of communications for the US Secret Service, said in a statement. “We are working closely with the Metropolitan Police Department, U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Park Police, U.S. Capitol Police and the Federal Protective Service to ensure the highest levels of safety and security for the former president, while minimizing disruptions to the normal court process.” The agency warned Washington DC residents that they could face “short-term traffic implications” in the centre of the capital on Thursday. Mr Trump is expected to surrender to authorities at the DC courthouse at 4pm ET where he will be formally arrested on the charges, have his fingerprints taken and be processed. He will then appear for his arraignment before Magistrate Judge Moxila A Upadhyaya where he is expected to plead not guilty to the charges. The former president does have the option of appearing virtually – instead of in-person – but is expected to travel to the hearing. The hearing will see Mr Trump return to the centre of his alleged attempts to upturn American democracy to face criminal charges over the plot. The courthouse is just a stone’s throw from the US Capitol – the scene of one of America’s darkest day 31 months ago when hundreds of Mr Trump supporters stormed the building to try to stop the certification of the election for President Joe Biden. Since then, hundreds have been charged and convicted over their role that day. This historic day marks the first time that their leader Mr Trump has been held to account. Mr Trump and his attorneys are already demanding that his “fake” criminal case be moved out of Washington DC to “unbiased” West Virginia, claiming he cannot get a fair trial in the capital. The former president is accused of conspiring with his allies to overturn the 2020 election, in a bid to sabotage the vote of the American people. A grand jury, which has spent months hearing evidence in special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation, returned a federal indictment on Tuesday hitting him with four federal charges: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. The Justice Department alleges that Mr Trump and his circle of co-conspirators knew that he had lost the election but launched a multi-prong conspiracy to do everything they could to enable him to cling onto power. This included spreading “knowingly false claims of election fraud to get state legislators and election officials to subvert the legitimate election results and change electoral votes for the Defendant’s opponent, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., to electoral votes for the Defendant”, the indictment states. Mr Trump and his allies also allegedly plotted to send slates of fake electors to seven “targeted states” of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin which President Joe Biden had won – to get them to falsely certify the election for Mr Trump. The indictment also alleges Mr Trump tried to use the DOJ to “conduct sham election crime investigations”, sending letters to the seven states claiming that “significant concerns” had been found in the elections in those states. As well as the false claims about the election being stolen from Mr Trump, the scheme also involved pushing false claims that Vice President Mike Pence had the power to alter the results – and pushing Mr Pence to “fraudulently alter the election results”. When Mr Trump’s supporters stormed the US Capitol in a violent attack that ended with five deaths, Mr Trump and his co-conspirators “exploited” the incident by “redoubling efforts to levy false claims of election fraud and convince Members of Congress to further delay the certification based on those claims,” the indictment claims. At a press conference on Tuesday, Mr Smith placed the blame for the January 6 attack on the US Capitol firmly on Mr Trump’s shoulders. “The attack on our nation’s capitol on January 6, 2021, was an unprecedented assault on the seat of American democracy,” he said. “As described in the indictment, it was fueled by lies. Lies by the defendant targeted at obstructing a bedrock function of the US government – the nation’s process of collecting, counting and certifying the results of the presidential election.” The indictment marks Mr Trump’s second federal indictment, his third criminal indictment overall – and potentially his most serious. While the former president is the only person charged in the case, the indictment also refers to six co-conspirators who worked with him to try to overturn the 2020 presidential election. The six individuals – four attorneys, one Justice Department official and one political consultant – have not been named in the charging documents because they have not yet been charged with any crimes. However, based on the details in the indictment and records already known about the events leading up to the Capitol riot, the identities are apparent as Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, John Eastman, Jeffrey Clark, Kenneth Chesebro and Boris Epshteyn. Read More Trump arraignment – live: Trump to appear in court today as he demands ‘fake’ Jan 6 case be moved out of DC Who are Trump’s six alleged co-conspirators in the 2020 election probe case? When is Donald Trump’s arraignment? Tanya Chutkan: Who is the judge overseeing Trump’s 2020 election probe case? Watch live: View of Capitol ahead of Donald Trump’s court appearance Who are Trump’s six alleged co-conspirators in the 2020 election probe case?

Donald Trump is demanding that his “fake” criminal case over his attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election be moved out of Washington DC to “unbiased” West Virginia. In a late-night Truth Social rant on Wednesday, the former president fumed that it is “IMPOSSIBLE to get a fair trial” in the capital and demanded it be relocated to “the politically unbiased nearby State of West Virginia”. “The latest Fake “case” brought by Crooked Joe Biden & Deranged Jack Smith will hopefully be moved to an impartial Venue, such as the politically unbiased nearby State of West Virginia!” he wrote. “IMPOSSIBLE to get a fair trial in Washington, D.C., which is over 95% anti-Trump, & for which I have called for a Federal TAKEOVER in order to bring our Capital back to Greatness. “It is now a high crime embarrassment to our Nation and, indeed, the World. This Indictment is all about Election Interference!!!” The former president is scheduled to appear in Washington DC’s E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse on Thursday for his arraignment on charges over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election and role in the events leading up to the January 6 Capitol riot. A grand jury, which has spent months hearing evidence in special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation, returned a federal indictment on Tuesday hitting him with four federal charges: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. The indictment marks Mr Trump’s second federal indictment, his third criminal indictment overall – and potentially his most serious. The former president is accused of conspiring with his allies to overturn the 2020 election, in a bid to sabotage the vote of the American people. The Justice Department alleges that Mr Trump and his circle of co-conspirators knew that he had lost the election but launched a multi-prong conspiracy to do everything they could to enable him to cling onto power. This included spreading “knowingly false claims of election fraud to get state legislators and election officials to subvert the legitimate election results and change electoral votes for the Defendant’s opponent, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., to electoral votes for the Defendant”, the indictment states. Mr Trump and his allies also allegedly plotted to send slates of fake electors to seven “targeted states” of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin which President Joe Biden had won – to get them to falsely certify the election for Mr Trump. The indictment also alleges Mr Trump tried to use the DOJ to “conduct sham election crime investigations”, sending letters to the seven states claiming that “significant concerns” had been found in the elections in those states. As well as the false claims about the election being stolen from Mr Trump, the scheme also involved pushing false claims that Vice President Mike Pence had the power to alter the results – and pushing Mr Pence to “fraudulently alter the election results”. When Mr Trump’s supporters stormed the US Capitol in a violent attack that ended with five deaths, Mr Trump and his co-conspirators “exploited” the incident by “redoubling efforts to levy false claims of election fraud and convince Members of Congress to further delay the certification based on those claims,” the indictment claims. At a press conference on Tuesday, Mr Smith placed the blame for the January 6 attack on the US Capitol firmly on Mr Trump’s shoulders. “The attack on our nation’s capitol on January 6, 2021, was an unprecedented assault on the seat of American democracy,” he said. “As described in the indictment, it was fueled by lies. Lies by the defendant targeted at obstructing a bedrock function of the US government – the nation’s process of collecting, counting and certifying the results of the presidential election.” While the former president is the only person charged in the case, the indictment also refers to six co-conspirators who worked with him to try to overturn the 2020 presidential election. The six individuals – four attorneys, one Justice Department official and one political consultant – have not been named in the charging documents because they have not yet been charged with any crimes. However, based on the details in the indictment and records already known about the events leading up to the Capitol riot, the identities are apparent as Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, John Eastman, Jeffrey Clark, Kenneth Chesebro and Boris Epshteyn. Mr Trump is expected to surrender to authorities at the DC courthouse at 4pm ET where he will be arraigned before Magistrate Judge Moxila A Upadhyaya. The former president does have the option of appearing virtually – instead of in-person – but is expected to travel to the US capital for the hearing. Security has been ramped up outside the courthouse in anticipation of his appearance. Read More Trump arraignment – live: Trump to appear in court today as he demands ‘fake’ Jan 6 case be moved out of DC Trump supporters claim special counsel seeking death penalty in indictment over 2020 election Can Donald Trump still run for president after charges over 2020 election? Can Donald Trump still run for president after charges over 2020 election? Trump to appear in court today as he demands Jan 6 case be moved from DC – live Six months after East Palestine derailment, Congress deadlocked on new rules for train safety

Donald Trump supporters and right-wing media outlets are incorrectly claiming that the federal government is seeking the death penalty as part of its four-count indictment against the former president for allegedly seeking to overturn the 2020 election. After the charges were announced on Tuesday, the claims quickly spread across conservative corners of the Internet. Mr Trump’s Truth Social platform sent users an alert that read “New charges against Trump carry DEATH PENALTY,” while conservative influencer Dinesh D’Souza claimed on X the alleged death sentence “proves how scared they are of Trump!” One MAGA Internet personality wrote on social media, “This is how you start a war.” A spokesperson for the special counsel’s office told The Independent these claims are “not accurate.” “The indictment does not contain the special findings required,” the DoJ official said. The misinterpretation stems from one of the federal statutes that prosecutors are accusing Mr Trump of violating, Section 241 of Title 18 of US Code. As The Independent has reported, the law is part of a landmark set of provisions passed in the brutal aftermath of the Civil War to prosecute those who sought to deprive the civil rights of newly enfranchised Black Americans. The punishment for violating this section, according to the Department of Justice, is a felony and up to 10 years in prison. That penalty can be extended to life in prison or death if the government “proves an aggravating factor (such as that the offense involved kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse, or resulted in death)”, per the DoJ. Five people, a mix of police officers and rioters, did die during the January 6 insurrection, but, as The Washington Post noted, nowhere in the lengthy indictment against Mr Trump are prosecutors arguing the former president is responsible for any such aggravating circumstances. (Police officer Michael Byrd, who shot January 6 rioter Ashli Babbitt, was cleared of wrongdoing by the DoJ and the Capitol police in April of 2021, and two of the men who attacked Brian Sicknick, a Washington police officer who died during the insurrection, have been sentenced to prison.) Rather, the DoJ is alleging that Mr Trump and his associates knew he lost the election, but launched a multi-part conspiracy to hold onto power anyway, a scheme that included spreading false claims, attempting to send false slates of electors to Washington, and pressuring officials to meddle with the election certification process. The scheme was largely focused on a handful of counties in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Wisconsin, all of which have large communities of Black and Latino voters, who tend to vote for Democrats. “The attack on our nation’s capitol on January 6, 2021, was an unprecedented assault on the seat of American democracy,” special counsel Jack Smith said Tuesday in a press conference describing the indictment. “As described in the indictment, it was fueled by lies. Lies by the defendant targeted at obstructing a bedrock function of the US government – the nation’s process of collecting, counting and certifying the results of the presidential election.” As Sean Morales-Doyle, director of the voting rights and elections programme at the Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law, told The Independent, the civil rights statute in question has been used to prosecute officials for attempting to alter election results in the past. He pointed to the example of the 1915 case US v Mosley, where Oklahoma officials were punished for trying to exclude votes from a final tally. “If you read that case, you’d never be able to tell that it’s about race. And there’s not a word about race mentioned, but that’s really the story underlying it,” Mr Morales-Doyle told The Independent. “And that’s really, throughout our nation’s history, the battle over our democracy. The battle over the right to vote has not always but pretty consistently also been a fight that has race at its heart,” he added. “And that’s true now still, and I think it is an overlooked thread underlying much of the story about Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election.” Prosecutors may not be arguing Mr Trump caused conduct worthy of the death penalty, but the former president’s sentencing still will be a delicate issue. "Possible jail time for Donald Trump if he’s convicted of one, some, or all the criminal cases is a fascinating but speculative business," former federal prosecutor Michael McAuliffe told Newsweek. "As for the federal cases charging Trump with crimes, the sentencing guidelines – which assign numerical values to various factors to create a range for a presumptive sentence – will prove inadequate." In regards to Mr Trump, both "the crimes and the defendant are singular.” Alex Woodward contributed reporting to this story. Read More Trump’s election fraud claims were always bogus. Will his history of lies finally catch up to him? Why Trump is charged under a civil rights law used to prosecute KKK terror Donald Trump due in court charged with ‘conspiracy to defraud United States’ Trump supporters claim special counsel seeking death penalty in indictment Trump supporters view the latest indictment as evidence of a crime — against Trump Selection of Thailand’s new prime minister delayed again, to await court decision on election winner

A parliamentary vote to select Thailand’s new prime minister expected on Friday was delayed again after a court put off a decision in a case involving the progressive party that won May's election, adding to growing uncertainty about when a new government can take office. The Constitutional Court on Thursday said it needs more time to deliberate on whether to accept a petition from the state ombudsman on whether it was constitutional for Parliament to bar Move Forward Party leader Pita Limjaroenrat, the surprise election winner, from being nominated as a prime ministerial candidate a second time. The progressive Move Forward Party finished in first place in the May election and assembled an eight-party coalition with 312 seats in the 500-member lower house. But Parliament has struggled to confirm a new prime minister, which requires a majority vote together with the conservative 250-member appointed Senate. Pita’s initial bid last month fell short by more than 50 votes, largely because only 13 senators backed him. He was barred from a second try the following week when Parliament voted that he could not submit his name again. Many senators, who were appointed by a previous military government, said they would not vote for Pita because of his party’s call to reform a law that makes it illegal to defame Thailand’s royal family. Critics say the law, which carries a penalty of up to 15 years in prison, has been abused as a political weapon. The Senate’s members see themselves as guardians of conservative royalist values which hold the monarchy to be sacrosanct. Move Forward, whose agenda appealed greatly to younger voters, also seeks to reduce the influence of the military, which has staged more than a dozen coups since Thailand became a constitutional monarchy in 1932, and big business monopolies. After Pita was barred from a second bid, several complaints were submitted to the state ombudsman asserting that the action violated the constitution. The complainants include private citizens and lawmakers from Pita’s party. When the case was filed to the court last week, Parliament postponed the vote but rescheduled it days later, although the court had yet to make a decision. The court said in a statement Thursday that it will meet again on Aug. 16 to decide whether to accept the petition. If accepted, the court could order the vote to be postponed until it issues a ruling. House Speaker Wan Muhamad Noor Matha said the vote for a prime minister would be delayed pending the court's decision. He said Parliament will still convene on Friday to debate a Move Forward petition seeking an amendment of the military-enacted constitution to eliminate the Senate’s de facto ability to veto a prime minister candidate. Regardless of the court ruling, Pita's chances of being nominated again appear nil. Move Forward faces several legal challenges which its supporters see as dirty tricks deployed by its political opponents to cling to power. One of the cases, which accuses Pita of violating the constitution by running for office while allegedly holding shares in a media company, resulted in him being suspended from Parliament last month while Parliament was debating his second nomination. In the latest major blow, Pheu Thai, the second biggest party in the eight-party coalition, which took over the lead role in forming a government after Move Forward's two attempts, said Wednesday that Move Forward has been excluded because its platform to reform the royal defamation law made it impossible to rally enough support from other parties and the Senate. Chonlanan Srikaew, Pheu Thai's leader, said the party does not support Move Forward’s call to amend the law and will form a coalition with new partners and nominate its candidate, real estate tycoon Srettha Thavisin, as prime minister. Pheu Thai is the latest in a string of parties affiliated with ex-Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, a billionaire populist who was ousted in a 2006 military coup. His daughter has announced that he plans to return on Aug. 10 following years of self-imposed exile to escape a prison term in several criminal cases which he has decried as politically motivated. The party’s plan to unveil its new coalition partners on Thursday was also postponed following the court’s announcement. Read More Ukraine war’s heaviest fight rages in east - follow live Charity boss speaks out over ‘traumatic’ encounter with royal aide Pope Francis urges students in Portugal to fight economic injustice and protect the environment Adidas brings in $437 million from selling Yeezy shoes that will benefit anti-hate groups Israel's Supreme Court hears case against a law protecting Netanyahu from being removed from office

Donald Trump is scheduled to appear in court today to be formally arraigned on charges of conspiring to overturn the 2020 presidential election, in what marks his third – and potentially most serious – criminal case. The former president was indicted on four charges by a grand jury hearing evidence in special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation in efforts to overturn the 2020 election and the January 6 Capitol riot. The indictment also described six unnamed co-conspirators, now believed to be identified. Mr Trump has been ordered to make an initial appearance in federal court in Washington DC on Thursday, while the case has been assigned to US district judge Tanya Chutkan, a Barack Obama-appointee. Mr Trump has railed against the indictment and is calling for the “fake” case to be moved from Washington DC. In a late-night Truth Social rant on Wednesday, the former president fumed that it is “IMPOSSIBLE to get a fair trial” in the capital and demanded it be relocated to “the politically unbiased nearby State of West Virginia”. This is Mr Trump’s third criminal indictment and his second federal indictment. Read Trump’s indictment from the January 6 grand jury in full Read More When is Donald Trump’s arraignment? Should Trump go to jail? The 2024 election could become a referendum on that question Trump supporters falsely claim special counsel seeking death penalty in indictment over 2020 election Former prosecutor explains why Donald Trump was the main focus of the January 6 indictment

Diversity, equity and inclusion programs were abolished Tuesday from Walt Disney World's governing district, now controlled by appointees of governor Ron DeSantis, in an echo of the Florida governor's agenda which has championed curtailing such programs in higher education and elsewhere. The Central Florida Tourism Oversight District said in a statement that its diversity, equity and inclusion committee would be eliminated, as would any job duties connected to it. Also axed were initiatives left over from when the district was controlled by Disney supporters, which awarded contracts based on goals of achieving racial or gender parity. Glenton Gilzean, the district's new administrator who is African American and a former head of the Central Florida Urban League, called such initiatives “illegal and simply un-American”. Gilzean has been a fellow or member at two conservative institutions, the James Madison Institute and the American Enterprise Institute Leadership Network, as well as a DeSantis appointee to the Florida Commission on Ethics. “Our district will no longer participate in any attempt to divide us by race or advance the notion that we are not created equal," Mr Gilzean said in a statement. "As the former head of the Central Florida Urban League, a civil rights organization, I can say definitively that our community thrives only when we work together despite our differences.” An email was sent seeking comment from Disney World. Last spring, Mr DeSantis, who is running for the GOP presidential nomination, signed into law a measure that blocks public colleges from using federal or state funding on diversity programs. Mr DeSantis also has championed Florida's so-called “Stop WOKE” law, which bars businesses, colleges and K-12 schools from giving training on certain racial concepts, such as the theory that people of a particular race are inherently racist, privileged or oppressed. A federal judge last November blocked the law’s enforcement in colleges, universities and businesses, calling it "positively dystopian.” The creation of the district, then known as the Reedy Creek Improvement District, was instrumental in Disney’s decision to build a theme park resort near Orlando in the 1960s. Having a separate government allowed the company to provide zoning, fire protection, utilities and infrastructure services on its sprawling property. The district was controlled by Disney supporters for more than five decades. The DeSantis appointees took control of the renamed district earlier this year following a yearlong feud between the company and Mr DeSantis. The fight began last year after Disney, beset by significant pressure internally and externally, publicly opposed a state law banning classroom lessons on sexual orientation and gender identity in early grades, a policy critics call “Don’t Say Gay.” As punishment, Mr DeSantis took over the district through legislation passed by Republican lawmakers and appointed a new board of supervisors to oversee municipal services for the sprawling theme parks and hotels. Disney sued Mr DeSantis and his five board appointees in federal court, claiming the Florida governor violated the company’s free speech rights by taking the retaliatory action. Before the new board came in, Disney made agreements with previous oversight board members who were Disney supporters that stripped the new supervisors of their authority over design and development. The DeSantis-appointed members of the governing district have sued Disney in state court in a second lawsuit stemming from the district’s takeover, seeking to invalidate those agreements. ___ Follow Mike Schneider on Twitter at @MikeSchneiderAP Read More Florida father tried to remove ‘Arthur’ book from schools because it could ‘damage souls’ DeSantis says DC jury would ‘convict a ham sandwich’ if it was Republican Republican National Committee boosts polling and fundraising thresholds to qualify for 2nd debate Ukraine war’s heaviest fight rages in east - follow live Charity boss speaks out over ‘traumatic’ encounter with royal aide

Family members of US Army Pvt. Travis King said Wednesday night that they had no reason to believe the soldier,

Former Attorney General Bill Barr said Wednesday that he believes Donald Trump "knew well he lost the election," speaking to CNN on the eve of the former president's arraignment in the special counsel's probe into 2020 election interference.

The contribution from the professional basketball team to Never Back Down, a group supporting the Florida governor's campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, has drawn attention and criticism from Democrats and LGBTQ activists in the state.

About a hundred Iowa National Guard troops will be sent to the U.S.-Mexico border for the month of August in a federally funded operation, Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds announced Wednesday. The move reflects a broader trend across the country of Republican governors joining forces with Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to counter President Joe Biden's immigration policies, which they say have created a crisis at the border. “Since the administration refuses to invest in securing the border and protecting its citizens, Texas has asked other states to help, and Iowa is ready and willing to assist," Reynolds said in a statement. The Biden administration sent 1,500 active-duty troops for a 90-day deployment in May, amid concerns that the end of asylum restrictions linked to the pandemic would lead to an increase in illegal border crossings. Even when the restrictions were in place, a record number of people were crossing the border. Instead, numbers have fallen, and 1,100 troops will conclude their 90-day mission by Aug. 8, a defense official said on the condition of anonymity in order to discuss details ahead of an announcement. The remaining 400 will be extended through August 31. An additional 2,300 National Guard troops remain at the border under federal orders. This is the third time since 2020 that Reynolds is sending troops to the country’s southern border. Officers with the state’s Department of Public Safety will follow National Guard troops at the end of August for the month of September. The governor’s office indicated in May, when the deployment was first announced, that about 30 public safety officers would be sent. Iowa's neighbor, Nebraska, will also dispatch about 60 troops to the southern border in August, Republican Gov. Jim Pillen announced Monday. Governors in Florida, Virginia and South Carolina, among other states, have made similar deployments for Operation Lone Star, a multibillion dollar operation that is distinct from federal efforts, and whose lack of transparency and metrics have drawn questions. ___ Associated Press writers Tara Copp and Rebecca Santana contributed to this story from Washington. Read More Ukraine war’s heaviest fight rages in east - follow live Charity boss speaks out over ‘traumatic’ encounter with royal aide

Donald Trump’s latest federal indictment is not the lengthiest of the charging documents that has come his way so far, but it may well be the most profound. That was the reaction of legal analysts and journalists this week after Jack Smith delivered the Department of Justice’s initial charges against Mr Trump for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, with much of his conduct in the weeks leading up to and during the January 6 attack going unaddressed in the indictment. All in all, the twice-impeached ex-president is charged with four crimes related to the election-meddling efforts, including conspiracy to deprive Americans of their rights — a law passed as part of anti-Ku Klux Klan legislation. What was absent from the document was a charge that many expected to see after the conclusion of the House of Representatives’ select committee investigation into the attack: A count of giving aid or comfort to an insurrection. There was no mention of that charge, or the related accusation of seditious conspiracy, which has been leveled against members of the Oathkeepers and Proud Boys. There was also no mention of charges for Mr Trump’s long list of allies, some of whom spread conspiracy theories about the election, and other enablers who either knowingly or unknowingly pushed complete and utter falsehoods on a wide range of issues for months after their boss lost the presidential election. Notably, a number (like ex-legal counsel Rudy Giuliani) are referred to as co-conspirators, and specifically not described as “unindicted”. But the initial document charged Mr Trump and Mr Trump alone, with the entirety of its focus being on the actions of the man at the head of the table. A former deputy assistant attorney general and federal prosecutor who analysed the indictment in an interview with The Independent said that decision was likely deliberate, to ensure that the focus of the case remained on Mr Trump’s efforts and potentially to streamline the path to trial. “Each new defendant brings a possible doubling, if not more, of potential causes for delays,” Harry Litman explained. “It's a very considered, strategic decision to bring an indictment only against Trump. And you and I know, those people are by no means out of the woods.” Bringing an indictment against the former president, he added, was the DoJ’s way of cutting as much of the potential delays away as possible in the hopes of getting the ex-president to trial before the 2024 election has concluded. “It maximises the possibility of it happening quickly,” said Mr Litman. “Whereas before yesterday, it seemed doubtful, at least very tenuous, that there would be a federal trial before the election. But I think it now seems likely.” The exclusion of (arguably) more serious charges like seditious conspiracy and giving comfort to a rebellion, he posited , was a decision made for a similar reason. By focusing on Mr Trump’s efforts to change the results and not his words themselves, Mr Litman explained, Mr Smith’s team was “attack[ing] around” any First Amendment-related defences the former president’s legal team would raise against those charges. Mr Trump has denied guilt in all the instances where he is accused of taking illegal measures to remain in the White House, and continues to insist to this day that he is the rightful winner of the 2020 election. Vast swaths of his loyal fanbase believe the same. The former president continues to await a decision by prosecutors in Georgia related to his efforts to change the election results in that state as well; Fulton County officials have said that a decision on that matter is coming later this month. Read More Trump lawyer hints at a First Amendment defense in the Jan. 6 case. Some legal experts are dubious When is Donald Trump’s arraignment? Watch view of Capitol Hill after police say no active shooter found at Senate office after lockdown GOP senators who condemned Trump on Jan 6 but voted against impeachment remain silent on indictment Prosecutors may be aiming for quick Trump trial by not naming alleged conspirators, experts say Rudy Giuliani’s accuser reveals tapes detailing alleged sexually vulgar remarks

For the past four years, President Joe Biden and the first lady took cues from their son Hunter on how to discuss the 4-year-old girl in Arkansas a paternity test had determined was their granddaughter.