Connect with us

Published

on

Facing possible indictment in Georgia for his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, former President Donald Trump asked the state’s highest court to step in on his behalf. On Monday, the court unanimously declined to do so.

Last week, Trump’s legal team filed a petition with the Supreme Court of Georgia, against Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and Judge Robert McBurney of the Atlanta Superior Court. The filing sought to disqualify Willis from involvement in the unfolding case against Trump.

In February 2021, Willis opened a criminal investigation into Trump’s conduct after the 2020 electionspecifically, his January 2, 2021, phone call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in which he was recorded pressuring Raffensperger to “find 11,780 votes” to win Trump the state. The following year, Willis impaneled a special grand jury with the power to issue subpoenas, expanding her investigation to include any attempts to “disrupt the lawful administration of the 2020 elections” in Georgia. McBurney is the Superior Court judge overseeing the grand jury’s proceedings.

The grand jury interviewed around 75 witnesses before concluding in January. While its report has not been fully released, the available evidence indicates bad news for Trump: Willis recently signaled that indictments may be unsealed in August.

In the July 13 filing, Trump asked the court to compel McBurney to “quash” the grand jury’s report, “bar its use in regular grand-jury proceedings,” and “bar the use of any evidence obtained” in the process “in any subsequent proceedings.” It also asked the court to prevent Willis from any further involvement in Trump’s case.

On Monday, less than a week after Trump’s complaint was filed, the Georgia Supreme Court decided unanimously against him. In an unsigned five-page decision, the court declined to rule on the merits of many of Trump’s arguments, contending instead that his filing was improper. Instead of petitioning the superior court and “appeal[ing] from any adverse decision,” the judges wrote, Trump was skipping ahead and asking the higher court to “step in and allow him to circumvent the regular judicial process.” And while Trump accurately claims that the court would have the legal authority to step in, “he
makes no showing that he has been prevented fair access to the ordinary channels.”

Trump’s filing cited a litany of complaints, from claiming the law authorizing special grand juries was too “vague” and, therefore, “facially unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment” and the Georgia Constitution, to alleging that Willis has an “impermissible and actual conflict of interest.” (Last year, Willis hosted a fundraiser for a Democratic candidate for lieutenant governor after already having named the candidate’s Republican opponent, state Sen. Burt Jones, a “target” of her investigation. McBurney barred the grand jury from targeting Jones or issuing subpoenas to him, though he declined to do the same for any other targets of the investigation.)

The filing even complains that the process has gone too fast, observing that “criminal processes, particularly in Georgia, can be ponderously slow,” and the fact that this case would proceed so quickly is “grossly unrealistic.”

Much of Trump’s complaint also hinges on the novelty of the situation. “That this case is extraordinary goes almost without saying,” it states. “No prosecutor, state or federal, has ever indicted a former president for conduct committed while in office.” In that respect, Trump is correct: It is indeed novel and unprecedented for a former president to be indicted. But that by itself doesn’t mean that an indictment is unwarranted. Publicly available evidence of a defeated incumbent leaning on a state official to “find” enough votes for him to carry that state is also novel and unprecedented.

As Eric Boehm wrote in the July 2023 issue of Reason, the Georgia case “could be important in setting clear standards for how much pressure future presidents can exert on state and local election officials.”

The Georgia case is just one of several across the country that pose serious legal risk to Trump. In April, the former president was indicted in Manhattan over 2016 hush money payments to pornographic actress Stormy Daniels. And a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., is considering whether Trump, in his actions after the 2020 election, may have committed federal crimes.

Continue Reading

Business

Tesco eyes delivery of Crown Post Office branches

Published

on

By

Tesco eyes delivery of Crown Post Office branches

Tesco has expressed interest in acquiring more than 100 Crown Post Offices whose future has been placed under review as the state-owned company explores shifting them to a franchise model.

Sky News has learnt that Nigel Railton, the Post Office chairman, told a group of MPs this week that Britain’s biggest retailer had informed it of a potential interest in taking over the sites.

One MP who attended the talks on the future of the directly managed branches said that Mr Railton had given the impression in his remarks that Tesco was among a small number of suitors which could take over the entire 108-strong network.

Money latest: Tesco trialling major Clubcard change
Read more:
Full list of Crown sites under threat

The fate of the Crown Post Offices was called into question last autumn as part of a wider strategic review initiated by Mr Railton, who took over as chair of the company following Henry Staunton’s sacking by Kemi Badenoch, the then business secretary.

Collectively, the branches employ close to 1,000 people, with many of those jobs likely to be safeguarded in the event of an acquisition of the whole network by a single retailer.

The meeting between Mr Railton and more than 20 MPs was organised to discuss the future of the directly managed branches, which form a very small part of the wider Post Office network.

Trade union officials have expressed concern about the company’s plans.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

November: Post Office could close 115 branches

Following several enquiries, Tesco eventually responded by saying it would not comment.

A Post Office spokesperson said: “We are fully committed to engaging openly and transparently with MPs regarding any potential plans related to our Directly Managed Branch (DMB) network.

“Since inviting expressions of interest for 108 Post Offices that we currently operate, we have received interest from retail partners and independent postmasters in the hundreds.

“We remain committed to engaging with our trade unions over the potential future ownership of our Directly Managed Branches, which are loss-making for us, into March before updating our colleagues who work in these branches on any potential next steps.”

Read more from Sky News:
‘Godfather’ of AI warns of arms race risks
Grey belt planning policy ‘not thought through
Electric car demand hits record but misses target

The strategic review outlined in November is designed to bolster sub-postmasters’ pay substantially during the coming years.

The loss-making Post Office requires an annual subsidy from the Treasury, with its future called into question as the Horizon IT scandal continues to sow controversy.

Sky News revealed last year that the Department for Business and Trade had drafted in consultants from BCG to explore options for turning the Post Office into a mutual.

Continue Reading

Politics

Africa is the key to crypto mass adoption

Published

on

By

Africa is the key to crypto mass adoption

Africa’s unique challenges and vast potential drive crypto innovation, potentially catalyzing global adoption and refining blockchain technology for everyday use.

Continue Reading

Politics

Southport killer Axel Rudakubana’s anti-terror referral ‘closed prematurely’, review finds

Published

on

By

Southport killer Axel Rudakubana's anti-terror referral 'closed prematurely', review finds

Southport killer Axel Rudakubana’s anti-terror case should have been kept open, a review into his attacks has found.

Following the killings in Southport last summer, a rapid review was launched into Rudakubana’s contact with Prevent – a government strategy aimed at stopping people from becoming terrorists.

Speaking in the House of Commons, Home Office minister Dan Jarvis repeated that Rudakubana was in contact three times before his attacks at a Taylor Swift dance class where three young girls were murdered.

Politics latest: Local elections delayed

He added that the report found Rudakubana should have been referred to Channel, another anti-terror scheme.

Mr Jarvis said: “The review concluded that too much focus was placed on the absence of a distinct ideology, to the detriment of considering the perpetrator’s susceptibility, grievances, and complex needs.

“There was an under-exploration of the significance of his repeat referrals and the cumulative risk, including his history of violence.

“There were potentially incomplete lines of inquiry, that at the time the perpetrator could have fallen into a mixed, unclear or unstable category for Channel due to his potential interest in mass violence.

“Indeed, the overall conclusion of the review is that he should have been case-managed through the Channel multi-agency process, rather than closed to Prevent.”

He said the review found Rudakubana’s referral to Prevent was “closed prematurely”, and there was “sufficient concern to keep the case active while further information was collected”.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Could the Southport killings have been prevented?

The review noted Rudakubana was referred to Prevent on three occasions: first in December 2019 when he was 13, again in February 2021 when he was 14, and finally in April 2021.

The first report was due to concerns he was carrying a knife and searching for school shootings online.

The second was for online activity relating to Libya and Colonel Gaddafi, and the third for searching for London bombings, the IRA and the Israel-Palestine conflict.

“On each of these occasions, the decision at the time was that the perpetrator should not progress to the Channel multi-agency process,” Mr Jarvis said.

👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈

The report highlighted that in the second referral, Rudakubana’s name was spelt differently from the first.

It then says a Prevent supervisor was unable to find the previous referral and “this may have caused the case to be closed quickly on minimal information”.

Read more:
Rudakubana’s family moved to secret location
Murderer refuses to leave cell for court hearing

As part of the review, 14 recommendations were made on how to improve Prevent, which Mr Jarvis said they had accepted and would be implementing.

Mr Jarvis said the government is working to set up an inquiry into what happened as soon as possible, although confirmed it would not initially be on a statutory footing.

Continue Reading

Trending