Tag: united states

US police officers found not guilty in killing of Black man | Crime News

Three Tacoma police officers cleared of all charges in 2020 death of Manuel Ellis.

Three police officers in the US state of Washington have been found not guilty of all charges in the 2020 killing of a Black man whose death drew comparisons with the murder of George Floyd.

Christopher Burbank, 38, and Matthew Collins, 40, were found not guilty of murder and manslaughter, while Timothy Rankine, 34, was acquitted of manslaughter following a 10-week trial.

Manuel Ellis, 33, died while in police custody in Tacoma, Washington, on March 3, 2020.

Footage presented at trial showed the officers putting Ellis, who was unarmed, in a chokehold, shooting him with a stun gun and pinning him to the street with their body weight.

In video of the encounter, Ellis can be heard pleading with the officers, telling them, “Can’t breathe, sir, can’t breathe.”

The police officers’ lawyers argued that Ellis died from a lethal dose of methamphetamine combined with an existing heart condition and that he had kicked the door of their police car.

Prosecution witnesses told the jury that the officers had been the aggressors, making an unprovoked effort to subdue Ellis that began while he was standing on the footpath.

Matthew Ericksen, a lawyer representing the Ellis family, said the defence had been allowed to essentially put Ellis on trial.

“The defence attorneys were allowed to dredge up Manny’s past and repeat to the jury again and again Manny’s prior arrests in 2015 and 2019. That unfairly prejudiced jurors against Manny,” Ericksen said.

The Seattle Times quoted Collins’ lawyer, Casey Arbenz, as saying the verdict was “a huge sigh of relief” and reflected that the jurors were willing to look beyond the video.

The officers “should never have been charged,” Arbenz said.

City officials said the Tacoma Police Department was nearing the end of its internal investigation into the officers’ conduct, which could result in them being disciplined.

Ellis’s death came nearly three months before the murder of George Floyd, which set off protests calling for police accountability and racial justice across the United States and around the world.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

A Biden-Netanyahu rift? ‘Distraction’, Palestinian rights advocates say | Israel-Palestine conflict News

Washington, DC – Rock-solid. Unwavering. Unshakeable. After months of describing his commitment to Israel in fervent terms, United States President Joe Biden shifted his rhetoric this month — and issued his most firmly worded criticism of the country since the start of the war in Gaza.

At a December 12 fundraiser, Biden warned that Israel is losing international support because of its “indiscriminate bombing” in the Palestinian territory.

Those two words launched hundreds of headlines. The “rifts” between Biden and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had finally “spilled into public view”, CNN wrote. The Washington Post signalled the two leaders were headed for a “collision”.

But Palestinian rights advocates have questioned how much of a “rift” exists — or whether Biden’s words were merely a means of allaying criticism without taking substantial action.

Biden has faced intense scrutiny for his support of Israel’s military offensive in Gaza, which has killed more than 20,000 Palestinians since October 7. And the US remains one of the last countries in the world to oppose ending the war.

The president’s statement on December 12, however, did not signal a shift in policy. Rather, his administration has reasserted that it will draw “no red lines” to restrict Israel’s actions or what it does with US military aid.

Some advocates, therefore, argue that the reported disagreements between Biden and Netanyahu are inconsequential so long as the US continues to back Israel.

“It doesn’t matter whether Biden and Bibi [Netanyahu] like each other or not because, at the end of the day, American money is still being transferred to fund the Israeli army. Weapons are still being sent with or without Congress’s approval,” said Laura Albast, a Palestinian American organiser in the Washington, DC, area. “Biden did not come out and call for a ceasefire.”

Advocates denounce political ‘theatre’

Albast said the Biden administration is engaging in occasional criticism of Israel to address growing domestic concerns about the atrocities in Gaza. She noted that Biden’s popularity in the US has plunged during the war, particularly among young people.

A Monmouth University poll this week showed Biden’s approval rating at a record low of 34 percent. Among voters under 34, that number tumbled to 23 percent.

“They think that average voters in the United States are not critical thinkers, so they’re putting together this theatre,” Albast said.

Hours after Biden made his comments about Israel’s “indiscriminate bombing” of Gaza, the US voted against a United Nations General Assembly resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.

Days earlier, Washington had also vetoed a similar measure in the UN Security Council.

Still, US officials have said on several occasions that they are raising concerns with their Israeli counterpart over civilian harm in Gaza.

“It’s clear that the conflict will move and needs to move to a lower-intensity phase, and we expect to see and want to see a shift to more targeted operations,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken told reporters on Wednesday.

But the bombing nevertheless appears to be intensifying despite Washington’s demand. More than 5,000 Palestinians have been killed since the fighting resumed on December 1 after a brief truce.

Amer Zahr, a Palestinian American comedian and activist, said Biden is trying to avoid responsibility for the carnage in Gaza, even as his administration seeks billions of dollars in additional assistance to Israel. He called reports of a feud between Biden and Netanyahu a “distraction”.

“This is an attempt by the Biden administration to distance themselves from the genocidal policies of Netanyahu, which they have supported from the beginning,” Zahr told Al Jazeera.

‘Clown show of foreign policy’

Adam Shapiro, the director of advocacy for Israel-Palestine at Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), said the Biden administration was fully committed to the Israeli war in Gaza since its earliest days.

But as the “horrific” reality of the Israeli offensive becomes more apparent, the Biden administration does not know how to disengage from it, he added.

“It’s a ship without any kind of direction at this point. It’s like a drowning man, in a way, who’s just flailing,” Shapiro said. “That’s how I interpret all these random statements that come out from the administration. Meanwhile, the reality continues: Israel does what it wants. The weapons continue to flow.”

Since the war broke out on October 7, some points of contention have emerged between the Israeli and US governments.

They have, for example, articulated different visions for post-war Gaza. The US wants the Palestinian Authority to eventually govern the territory, but Israel wants Gaza to remain under its security control.

Disagreements about the future, however, have not shaken Washington’s support for the ongoing war, the scale and intensity of which puts Palestinians at “risk of genocide“, according to UN experts.

US officials, including Biden, have also emphasised the need for a two-state solution to the conflict, putting them again at odds with Netanyahu’s government, which opposes the establishment of a Palestinian state.

But on Tuesday, the US was one of four countries, along with Israel, to vote against a UN General Assembly resolution reasserting Palestinians’ right to self-determination. The measure was backed by 172 other nations.

To Zahr, the vote is yet another example of how US policy remains behind Israel even when Biden’s rhetoric appears to diverge from that of Israeli leaders.

“How can you dare to say that you want to be an honest broker, that you want to create ‘peace’ between Palestinians and Israelis when you say you believe in the right to self-determination of one party and not the right to self-determination of the other?” Zahr said. “This is a clown show of foreign policy.”

Shapiro, meanwhile, said the Biden administration was committing “unforced errors”. Its position towards the bloodshed in Gaza undermines its credibility and the principles it claims to support on the world stage, he explained.

“This administration is so tied up in a pretzel; it doesn’t know the beginning from the end.”



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Trump ally Rudy Giuliani files for bankruptcy following defamation case | Courts News

Giuliani was ordered to pay a $148m penalty for falsely accusing two 2020 election workers of facilitating fraud.

Rudy Giuliani has filed for bankruptcy, just days after he was ordered to pay $148m to two former Georgia election workers he falsely accused of fraud as he worked to overturn Donald Trump’s 2020 presidential election loss.

The former mayor of New York, in a bankruptcy petition seeking protection from his creditors on Thursday, listed assets of between $1m and $10m and liabilities of up to $500m.

The largest of his debts is the $148 million a federal jury in Washington, DC ordered him to pay on December 15 to Ruby Freeman and her daughter Wandrea “Shaye” Moss for repeatedly making false claims that they engaged in 2020 election fraud.

The Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition filed with a New York bankruptcy court also listed debts ranging from the hundreds of thousands to the millions of dollars to the Internal Revenue Service, New York tax authorities and his former lawyers and accountants.

“Unknown” amounts were also recorded as being owed to Hunter Biden, former president Joe Biden’s son, and the voting machine companies Dominion and Smartmatic.

Hunter Biden, Dominion and Smartmatic have all filed lawsuits against Giuliani. They are ongoing.

A spokesperson for Giuliani said the bankruptcy filing will give him time to appeal the $148m penalty and ensure that other creditors are treated fairly.

“No person could have reasonably believed that Mayor Rudy Giuliani would be able to pay such a high punitive amount,” spokesperson Ted Goodman said.

The 79-year-old Giuliani was found liable in August by US District Judge Beryl Howell of defaming Freeman and Moss, both Fulton County poll workers, with his 2020 election lies on behalf of Trump.

An eight-person federal jury awarded Freeman and Moss more than $16m each for defamation, $20m each for emotional distress and $75m in punitive damages.

Giuliani, who led Trump’s legal efforts to overturn the results of the election, posted a video of the pair that falsely accused them of engaging in fraud during ballot counting and made numerous other baseless claims about them.

Freeman and Moss, who are Black, told the jury during the four-day trial that Giuliani’s false accusations upended their lives and made them the target of racist threats.

“The flame that Giuliani lit with those lies and passed to so many others to keep that flame blazing changed every aspect of our lives, our homes, our family, our work, our sense of safety, our mental health,” Moss said.

The defamation case is just one of a number of legal challenges facing Giuliani, who has been indicted on racketeering charges in Georgia along with Trump and others for allegedly conspiring to overturn the 2020 election results in the southern state.

Giuliani was New York mayor from 1994 to 2001, guiding the city through the shock of the September 11, 2001 attacks and becoming known as “America’s Mayor” – before signing up as Trump’s personal lawyer while he was in the White House.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Will the US again veto the UNSC resolution on Gaza? | Israel-Palestine conflict News

A United Nations Security Council (UNSC) vote to call for the suspension of hostilities in Gaza and deliver humanitarian aid there has been postponed for a third day in a row.

The delays come as the UN chief has sounded an alarm about the deteriorating humanitarian situation in the besieged Palestinian enclave, which has been facing relentless Israeli bombardment since October 7. More than 20,000 Palestinians have been killed and tens of thousands are going hungry due to an Israeli blockade.

Here is a recap of the developments surrounding the draft resolution:

What is the UAE-led UNSC draft resolution on Gaza?

The United Arab Emirates circulated a “final version” of a draft resolution late on Friday. The first version of the draft was circulated on December 8 after the United States vetoed a resolution calling for a Gaza ceasefire.

In short, this is what Friday’s draft called for:

  • All parties to the conflict should comply with international humanitarian law and protect civilians, hospitals, UN facilities, and humanitarian and medical personnel.
  • An urgent and sustainable cessation of hostilities should take place alongside the unhindered flow of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip.
  • Parties to the conflict should allow and facilitate the flow of humanitarian aid to Gaza through land, sea and air routes. This includes prompt implementation of the opening of the Karem Abu Salem border crossing, called Kerem Shalom in Hebrew.
  • States that are not party to the conflict are welcome to permit free passage of humanitarian relief. This particularly refers to Egypt and the coordination of its border crossing with Gaza at the southern Gaza city of Rafah. The UN will exclusively monitor all aid that enters through these routes.

The draft now looks quite different after several changes. The revisions are owing to a diplomatic back and forth that has continued for days. The draft has been watered down to secure a compromise and still awaits voting.

The latest draft also calls for an “immediate and unconditional release of all hostages”. Security Council Report, an independent think tank that monitors the UNSC, said this language was added following requests from several members, including France, Japan, the United Kingdom and the US.

Monday’s developments

The draft circulated on Friday was expected to come to a vote as early as Monday, depending on negotiations between the UAE and the US.

“We have engaged constructively and transparently throughout the entire process in an effort to unite around a product that will pass,” an anonymous US official told the Reuters news agency. “The UAE knows exactly what can pass and what cannot. It is up to them if they want to get this done.”

The resolution put forth by the UAE on December 8 called for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire between Israel and Hamas and was vetoed by the US while the UK abstained. All the other 13 Security Council members voted for it. The negotiations that followed have focussed on ensuring that the US does not veto the resolution again.

Diplomats reported that the US wanted to tone down the language on a cessation of hostilities.

Al Jazeera’s Rami Ayari reported that the voting was pushed to a later time on Monday and he was told “cessation” would be replaced with “suspension” after the US objected to the language.

Security Council Report added that the UK had requested substituting “immediate” cessation of hostilities with language calling for an “urgent and sustainable” cessation of hostilities. Language calling “for an urgent and sustainable cessation of hostilities” had appeared in the draft that was put forth on Friday.

Ayari later reported that voting had been pushed to Tuesday morning to allow more time for negotiations. “The US is eager to avoid using their veto again, according to several sources,” the Al Jazeera correspondent wrote.

Tuesday’s developments

On Tuesday, an updated draft was circulated, and “cessation” was changed to “suspension”.

Besides this, the clause that talks about the UN monitoring aid initially said the UN would notify the Palestinian Authority and Israel of the humanitarian nature of the aid without prejudice to inspections carried out outside Gaza by states that are not party to the conflict. In the new version, it adds that the UN would notify authorities without prejudice to any inspection that does not unduly delay the provision of humanitarian aid to Gaza.

Akbar Shahid Ahmad, the senior foreign affairs reporter from the HuffPost, posted on X that a Muslim diplomat said a US veto was likely.

Ayari reported that Washington remained unswayed despite the revisions, and the vote was delayed again to Wednesday morning.

Security Council Report said that during the negotiations, “the US apparently objected to references to Israel as ‘the occupying power’ and to language that Washington believed could be read as imposing binding legal obligations under the UN Charter.”

US Department of State spokesperson Matthew Miller said Washington would welcome a resolution that fully supports addressing the humanitarian needs of the people in Gaza but the details of the text matter.

Wednesday’s developments

The US ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, reportedly met with US President Joe Biden on Wednesday.

Ahmad posted on X that a diplomat told him Israel was heavily involved in the US decision-making on aid inspections. He also reported that Biden had instructed the US mission at the UN to veto a Security Council resolution on Gaza on Thursday, according to a diplomat.

He added that the diplomat said the main sticking point for Biden was transferring control of the aid inspections to the UN, “a step the US has advocated for in other warzones”.

PassBlue, an independent organisation that monitors the UN, posted on X that US diplomats were all right with the UN’s monitoring of aid until Israel saw it.

Ayari said some were under the impression that the repeated delays on voting were due to attempts to get Biden on board. “Those efforts appear to have failed,” he said.

Security Council Report also reported that part of the negotiations involved other member states suggesting ways to make the aid monitoring system quicker so it doesn’t add another layer to the aid provision to Gaza.

The US came back with a rewrite that essentially removed the UN aid monitoring mechanism.

Voting on the resolution has been further delayed until Thursday.

Thursday’s outlook

The UAE’s ambassador to the UN, Lana Zaki Nusseibeh, has voiced optimism for the resolution to pass.

“I am optimistic, and if this fails, then we will continue to keep trying because we have to keep trying,” Nusseibeh told reporters. “There is too much suffering on the ground for the council to continue to fail on this. … We have a resolution, and we need to build on that.”

Ayari wrote on X that Arab countries and members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation had proposed new language to the US on aid monitoring by the UN.

They are awaiting Washington’s response, but “the initial signals are not good. If there had been agreement then the updated text would have been circulated to #UNSC members already,” Ayari said.

Ahmad posted that a diplomat said the likelihood of the US vetoing the resolution on Thursday morning remains high.

To pass, the resolution needs at least nine of the 15 Security Council members to vote for it and none of the permanent members – the US, France, China, the UK and Russia – to veto it.



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Greece to join US-led coalition to protect Red Sea shipping from Houthis | Houthis News

The maritime alliance wants to counter threats that the Yemeni rebel group says are a response to Israeli ‘crimes’ in Gaza.

Greece will send a warship to support a United States-led naval coalition in the Red Sea, becoming the latest country to join the alliance to counter threats from Yemen’s Houthis.

Defence Minister Nikos Dendias announced the move in a televised address on Thursday, saying Greece, as a major shipping nation, has a “fundamental interest” in addressing the “massive threat” to maritime transport.

The naval task force, announced by the US on Tuesday, initially listed 10 member nations to help patrol the waters to deter the Iran-aligned Houthis, who have attacked more than a dozen vessels they claim were linked to Israel amid the war on Gaza.

The Houthis say they will halt their attacks only if Israel’s “crimes in Gaza stop”.

The original members of the Red Sea task force – called Operation Prosperity Guardian – include the United Kingdom, Bahrain, Canada, France, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Seychelles and Spain.

Since then, Denmark has also joined the alliance, according to the Reuters news agency. Meanwhile, the European Union member states have agreed to contribute through the European Naval Force.

Australia stopped short of committing its warships to the alliance but said on Thursday it would send 11 military personnel to support the mission.

‘Will not stand idly by’

Despite the Western show of force, the Houthis have promised to continue their attacks on vessels travelling to or from Israel for as long as the Gaza war goes on, saying operations will not cease even if the US mobilises “the entire world”.

On Wednesday, Houthi leader Abdel-Malik al-Houthi warned the group would not hesitate to strike US warships if Washington targeted it.

“We will not stand idly by if the Americans are tempted to escalate further and commit foolishness by targeting our country or waging war against it,” al-Houthi said in a televised speech.

“Any American targeting of our country will be targeted by us, and we will make American battleships, interests, and navigation a target for our missiles, drones, and military operations,” he added.

In recent months, Houthi drone attacks and attempted hijackings have pushed more than a dozen shipping firms to suspend operations in the Red Sea, through which 12 percent of all global trade passes.

On Thursday, the foreign minister of Egypt, which has not formally joined the maritime coalition, said countries on the Red Sea have a responsibility to protect the contentious waters and that Cairo would do its part to ensure “freedom of navigation”.

“We continue to cooperate with many of our partners to provide suitable conditions for the freedom of navigation in the Red Sea,” said Sameh Shoukry at a news conference.



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Venezeula, US reach prisoner swap deal as tensions ease | Nicolas Maduro News

As part of the agreement, US President Joe Biden grants clemency to Alex Saab, an ally of Nicolas Maduro.

The United States and Venezuela have reached a deal to swap 10 American prisoners for a jailed ally of President Nicolas Maduro, the latest sign of improving relations between Washington and Caracas.

The White House said on Wednesday that the deal secured the release of 10 US citizens from Venezuela, including six people who it said had been wrongfully detained.

As part of the agreement, US President Joe Biden granted clemency to Alex Saab, a Colombian businessman and Maduro ally who was being held in a Miami jail awaiting trial on a charge of money laundering.

Saab was released from custody and returned to Venezuela on Wednesday, the Venezuelan government said.

US prosecutors have accused Saab of siphoning off $350m from Venezuela via the US in a scheme that involved bribing Venezuelan government officials. He has denied the charge.

“The government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela celebrates with joy the liberation and return to his homeland of our diplomat Alex Saab, who until today was unjustly kidnapped in a U.S. jail,” the Venezuelan government said in a statement.

Reporting from Bogota, Colombia, Al Jazeera’s Alessandro Rampietti said Saab was seen as being “very close” to the Venezuelan leader.

“Alex Saab is a Colombian entrepreneur, a very close ally for Nicolas Maduro, a person who is seen here as a bag man for the Venezuelan regime,” Rampietti said.

The White House said Venezuela had also agreed to release at least 20 Venezuelan prisoners, including “political detainees”.

The prisoner swap talks were facilitated by Qatar, the White House said. Qatar’s chief negotiator met Maduro last week.

Six Venezuelan activists have already been freed, according to their lawyer and the wife of one of them. The longtime education campaigners were convicted on conspiracy charges this year and sentenced to 16 years but have proclaimed their innocence.

As part of the deal, all six Americans who were classified by the US as wrongfully detained in Venezuela were released, US officials told the Reuters news agency.

Venezuela also returned to the US fugitive Malaysian businessman Leonard Glenn Francis, known as “Fat Leonard”, who is implicated in a US navy bribery case, the officials said.

The White House has said in recent weeks that it expected to see progress on prisoner releases if it were to continue with sanctions relief for Caracas. The sanctions relief was unveiled in October in response to an agreement by the Venezuelan government to hold fair elections in 2024.

While relations between the US and Venezuela remain uneasy, the two nations have taken steps to ease tensions in recent months.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

US charges alleged Hezbollah member over 1994 Buenos Aires bombing | Hezbollah News

The bombing of a Jewish community centre killed 85 people, and Hezbollah has been accused of other attacks in Argentina.

The United States has charged an alleged Hezbollah member, Samuel Salman El Reda, with giving material support to a “terrorist group”, accusing him of providing assistance for a 1994 bombing in Argentina.

Federal prosecutors announced charges against the 58-year-old on Wednesday, linking El Reda to the truck bombing of the AMIA Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires, which killed 85 people.

“This indictment serves as a message to those who engage in acts of terror: that the Justice Department’s memory is long, and we will not relent in our efforts to bring them to justice,” Assistant Attorney General Matthew Olsen of the US Department of Justice’s National Security Division said in a press release.

Rescue workers search for survivors and victims in the rubble left when a car bomb destroyed the Buenos Aires headquarters of the Argentine-Israeli Mutual Association (AMIA) on July 18, 1994 [File: Enrique Marcarian/Reuters]

The US has long characterised the 1994 bombing as an example of the far reach of the Iran-backed group Hezbollah, which at the time of the bombing was locked in a deadly battle with Israeli forces occupying southern Lebanon.

Iran and Hezbollah denied responsibility for the attack, which sent shockwaves through the city’s Jewish community. Small commemorative tiles with the names of those killed can still be seen on sidewalks around Buenos Aires.

US authorities said El Reda, a dual Lebanese-Colombian citizen, has helped coordinate the activities of Hezbollah’s Islamic Jihad Organization in South America, Asia and Lebanon since at least 1993.

The statement from the Justice Department said El Reda is based in Lebanon and “remains at large”. The US Department of State sanctioned him in 2019 and offered $7m for information regarding his whereabouts.

The bombing remains a source of controversy in Argentina, where former President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has been accused of working to shield the perpetrators of the attack through a joint investigation with Iran, which helped found and nurture Hezbollah.

Argentina has also accused Hezbollah of carrying out a 1992 attack on the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, which killed 29 people. The country froze Hezbollah’s assets and branded it a “terrorist organisation” in 2019.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Secrets of the Clergy | Al Jazeera

Fault Lines examines how state laws in the US can lead to child sexual abuse in religious communities going unpunished.

Over the past 20 years, religious organisations from the Catholic Church to Jehovah’s Witnesses have had a reckoning with cases of child sexual abuse. Many states have tried to tackle the abuse by making clergy mandatory reporters of abuse to officials, just like doctors, therapists and teachers are. However, more than 30 states in the United States do not require church officials to report knowledge or allegations of child abuse if the information is deemed privileged, specifically coming from confession or counselling. It means that abuse can all too often be hidden – and survivors are left without recourse or justice.

Fault Lines investigates how state laws in the US can lead to child sexual abuse in religious communities going unpunished.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Can Trump still run for US presidency? What to know about Colorado ruling? | Donald Trump News

The top court in the US state of Colorado has ruled that former President Donald Trump is disqualified from holding office again over his role in the January 6, 2021 assault on the United States Capitol by his supporters.

Tuesday’s verdict makes Trump the first presidential candidate in US history to be deemed ineligible for the White House under a rarely used provision of the US Constitution that bars officials who have engaged in “insurrection or rebellion” against the Constitution after taking oath to protect it.

Trump’s campaign spokesperson dubbed the verdict “flawed” and promised to “swiftly” file an appeal in the United States Supreme Court.

Here is more to know about the ruling and what it means for Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign.

What did the Colorado court rule on Donald Trump on Tuesday?

A slim majority of the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the former president is ineligible to hold the US presidency and is to be disqualified from the state’s ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, which bars anyone involved in insurrection or rebellion from running for federal office.

“We do not reach these conclusions lightly,” the Colorado Supreme Court wrote in its four-three majority decision.

“We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us,” the Colorado justices said. “We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.”

This is the first time a court has ruled on the basis of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War.

A lower court judge in the state previously ruled that Trump’s actions on January 6, 2021, amounted to insurrection but stopped short of disqualifying him, saying Section 3 does not apply to presidents.

The Colorado Supreme Court paused its own ruling pending review by the US Supreme Court.

The ruling was aligned with advocacy groups and activists who called for the disqualification of Trump from the presidential race following his involvement in the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack.

Multiple lawsuits have been filed across several US states in efforts to disqualify Trump from running for president in those states. Similar lawsuits have previously been dismissed by courts in Michigan, Florida and New Hampshire. The Minnesota Supreme Court has also rejected a disqualification case.

However, this ruling can influence other states to invoke similar rulings in competitive states that Trump needs to win.

What happened on January 6, 2021?

On January 6, 2021, a mob of Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol to prevent the Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s election victory. This was after Trump prematurely declared victory and alleged voter fraud. In a speech on the day of the riot, Trump urged his supporters to march on the Capitol. A US Congressional committee concluded that Trump was responsible for the Capitol riots.

Can Trump still run for presidency and what does it mean for the 2024 election?

Even if the ruling survives Supreme Court review, it could be inconsequential to the outcome of the November 2024 election because Trump does not need to win Colorado, which is a Democratic-leaning state.

Colorado has nine of the 270 electoral votes required to win the presidency. Biden won the state by more than 13 percentage points in the 2020 election.

But similar lawsuits could be filed in competitive states that Trump must win to prevail, and while none of those courts would be bound by the Colorado decision, judges will likely study it closely while reaching their own conclusions.

How did Trump and Republicans react to Colorado’s ruling?

Trump’s campaign called the court decision “undemocratic”. Trump and his allies have dubbed disqualification cases in Colorado and other states as part of a conspiracy by his political rivals to keep him out of office.

“The Colorado Supreme Court issued a completely flawed decision tonight and we will swiftly file an appeal to the United States Supreme Court,” a campaign spokesperson said.

Campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung said the “all-Democrat appointed” panel in Colorado was doing the bidding of a “[George] Soros-funded, left-wing group’s scheme to interfere in an election on behalf of Crooked Joe Biden”.

Even after his absence from the Republican debates, Trump remains a frontrunner in the polls. “Democrat Party leaders are in a state of paranoia over the growing, dominant lead President Trump has amassed in the polls,” he added.

Despite their exasperation with Trump, US Republican leaders joined in to call the ruling undemocratic and campaign for its appeal on X. This included Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who is running against Trump for the 2024 Republican nomination. DeSantis said the US Supreme Court “should reverse” the Colorado ruling.

“The Left invokes ‘democracy’ to justify its use of power, even if it means abusing judicial power to remove a candidate from the ballot based on spurious legal ground,” he wrote on X,

What’s next?

The ruling has been placed on hold by the Colorado Supreme Court until January 4, or until a review by the US Supreme Court, which Trump said he will immediately seek. Colorado officials have said the issue needs to be settled by January 5, which is when the state prints its presidential primary ballots.

It is unclear how the Supreme Court would rule, but it is dominated by a conservative majority that includes three Trump appointees, some of whom are longtime sceptics of giving courts powers that are not clearly based in legislation.

That was a top concern for the dissenting justices in the 4-3 Colorado decision, who said the majority’s ruling would strip Trump of one of his most basic rights without adequate due process.

“Even if we are convinced that a candidate committed horrible acts in the past – dare I say, engaged in insurrection – there must be procedural due process before we can declare that individual disqualified from holding public office,” Justice Carlos Samour Jr said.

They noted that Trump has not been convicted of insurrection by a jury and did not have the right to subpoena records or compel witnesses to testify in the case, among other basic rights afforded to criminal defendants.

What is the status of other cases against Trump?

The current ruling adds to the legal woes facing the former president. A US federal judge on Monday set March 4, 2024, as the date for his election subversion conspiracy trial – a move immediately decried by Trump himself as “election interference”.

That date is the eve of the so-called “Super Tuesday” – one of the biggest moments of the primaries when voters in more than a dozen states, including populous California and Texas, go to the polls. Colorado is also on that list, but will Trump be on the ballot?

Trump noted the timing, saying it was “just what our corrupt government wanted”.

Then, just three weeks later, on March 25, Trump will have another court date – this time in New York, where he is facing charges over alleged hush money payments made to porn star Stormy Daniels.

On May 20, 2024, all eyes will be on Florida, where the third case against the ex-president will open: over his alleged mishandling of classified documents after leaving office.

A fourth trial could even open in 2024: Trump is also under indictment in Georgia, over an alleged conspiracy to overturn the results of the 2020 election he lost to Joe Biden.

The prosecutor in that case has asked for a 2024 trial.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Colorado’s top court finds Donald Trump ineligible for US presidency | Donald Trump News

Colorado’s Supreme Court has ruled former United States President Donald Trump is ineligible to run for the White House because of his role in the 2021 assault on the Capitol by his supporters and should be removed from the state’s primary ballot.

While the ruling only applies to Colorado, it marks the first time in US history that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars from public office anyone who “engaged in insurrection”, has been used to disqualify a presidential candidate and comes as courts in other states consider similar legal actions.

“A majority of the court holds that President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” the Colorado high court wrote in its four-three majority decision.

“Because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Colorado Secretary of State to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot.

“We do not reach these conclusions lightly,” they added.

The decision – which Trump’s campaign said it would appeal – drew immediate condemnation from Republicans.

The one-time property tycoon and reality TV star faces a raft of court cases, from criminal charges over alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election, to mishandling classified documents, hush money payments in the 2016 election and fraud in his business practices.

Trump has claimed he is the victim of political persecution.

“We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us,” the Colorado justices said. “We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.”

A lower court earlier found that while Trump incited an insurrection, for his role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, he could not be barred from the ballot because it was unclear that the 14th Amendment was intended to cover the presidency.

Noah Bookbinder of the campaign group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which brought the original case along with a group of Colorado voters, welcomed Tuesday’s higher court ruling.

The court’s decision is “not only historic and justified, but is necessary to protect the future of democracy in our country”, he said in a statement.

“Our Constitution clearly states that those who violate their oath by attacking our democracy are barred from serving in government.”

Swift appeal expected

The Colorado court placed its ruling on hold until January 4 or until the US Supreme Court rules on the case. State officials say the issue must be settled by January 5, the deadline for the state to print its presidential primary ballots. The Republican primary is due to take place in March.

Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung said they would “swiftly file an appeal” to the Supreme Court, which has the final say on constitutional matters.

Cheung claimed Colorado’s “all-Democrat appointed” panel was doing the bidding of a “[George] Soros-funded, left-wing group’s scheme to interfere in an election on behalf of Crooked [President] Joe Biden”.

The Supreme Court at the federal level has a six-three conservative majority and includes three judges Trump appointed when he was president.

Trump, who is the frontrunner for the Republican nomination, faces dozens of lawsuits under Section 3, which was designed to keep former Confederates from returning to government after the Civil War.

It bars from office anyone who swore an oath to “support” the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against it, and has been used only a handful of times since the decade after the Civil War.

“I think it may embolden other state courts or secretaries to act now that the bandage has been ripped off,” Derek Muller, a Notre Dame law professor who has closely followed the cases, told the Associated Press news agency after Tuesday’s ruling. “This is a major threat to Trump’s candidacy.”

The Colorado court decision brought swift rebukes from senior Republicans, including Trump’s one-time rival for the 2016 nomination, Senator Marco Rubio.

“The US has put sanctions on other countries for doing exactly what the Colorado Supreme Court has done today,” he wrote on social media.

The Colorado ruling stands in contrast with the Minnesota Supreme Court, which last month decided that the state party can put anyone it wants on its primary ballot. It dismissed a Section 3 lawsuit but said the plaintiffs could try again during the general election.

In another 14th Amendment case, a Michigan judge ruled that Congress, not the judiciary, should decide whether Trump can stay on the ballot in a ruling that is being appealed.

(Al Jazeera)

The liberal group behind those cases, Free Speech For People, has also filed a lawsuit in Oregon seeking to remove Trump from the ballot there.

Both groups are financed by liberal donors who also support President Biden, who is set to run for a second term in office. Trump has blamed the president for the lawsuits against him. Biden has no role in them.

Three Colorado Supreme Court justices dissented in Tuesday’s ruling.

One of the dissenting justices, Carlos Samour, said in a lengthy opinion that a lawsuit was not a fair mechanism for determining Trump’s eligibility for the ballot because it deprived him of his right to due process, noting that a jury had not convicted him of insurrection.

“Even if we are convinced that a candidate committed horrible acts in the past – dare I say, engaged in insurrection – there must be procedural due process before we can declare that individual disqualified from holding public office,” Samour said.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Exit mobile version