Connect with us

Breaking News Emails

Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings.

By Allan Smith

Amid a quickly developing possible election fraud scandal in North Carolina’s 9th congressional district, Democrat Dan McCready on Thursday withdrew his concession to Republican Mark Harris.

“I didn’t serve overseas in the Marines to come home to NC and watch a criminal, bankrolled by my opponent, take away people’s very right to vote,” McCready tweeted.

McCready’s withdrawal of his concession comes amid mounting pressure for North Carolina to resolve the outstanding race as allegations of election fraud continue to surface.

Harris had appeared to defeat McCready by slightly more than 900 votes on Election Day last month. And for weeks following that result, it appeared Harris would serve in the new Congress. But that changed on Nov. 27th when the bipartisan state Board of Elections voted unanimously to delay certification of the election.

NBC retracted its call of the race for Harris on Thursday.

It is possible that a new election could be ordered by the state Board of Elections or the U.S. House of Representatives. The Charlotte Observer and others have called for a new election in the district.

Dallas Woodhouse, the executive director of the state Republican party, told NBC News: “We think the board of elections should hold a public hearing and fully lay out the facts. If they can show with certainty that the outcome could not have been changed, they need to certify Mr. Harris and continue to support all state and federal criminal investigations. If they can show a substantial likelihood it could have changed the race then we fully would support a new election.”

At the center of the controversy are claims that absentee ballots were improperly interfered with, according to witnesses and records. Investigators are digging into those allegations.



Source link

Politics

Court filings present Trump as key figure in multiple federal investigations

Published

on

Breaking News Emails

Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings.

By Carol E. Lee

WASHINGTON — In court documents filed Friday, Special Counsel Robert Mueller for the first time cites President Donald Trump’s time in the White House as relevant in the investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.

It’s the same time frame in which Trump’s former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, says he prepared and circulated a statement to congressional investigators that was false.

The revelations were two of four areas in which the special counsel says Cohen provided “useful” assistance in the Russia investigation over the course of seven meetings with investigators.

The Mueller filing and a separate one also filed Friday by federal prosecutors in New York essentially place the president as a key figure in multiple federal investigations.

Yet Trump wrote on Twitter about an hour after the filings became public: “Totally clears the President. Thank you!”

President Donald Trump steps off Marine One on Friday after returning to the White House.Jim Young / Reuters

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement that the “filings in Mr. Cohen’s case tell us nothing of value that wasn’t already known.”

“Mr. Cohen has repeatedly lied and as the prosecution has pointed out to the court, Mr. Cohen is no hero,” Sanders said.

New York prosecutors state in their 40-page document that Cohen admits that during the campaign he violated campaign finance laws by arranging payments to silence women alleging affairs with Trump “in coordination with and at the direction of” the president.

Separately, Cohen’s contacts with people connected to the White House while Trump was in office, as well as the “circumstances of preparing and circulating his response to the congressional inquiries” were two of the four key topics on which Mueller says he cooperated with the Russia investigation.

Part of Mueller’s probe into Russia’s election interference, and whether any Trump associates colluded with Moscow on the effort, includes whether the president has tried to obstruct the investigation.

In Mueller’s court filing to recommend sentencing for Cohen, the special counsel writes that the president’s personal lawyer provided valuable information “concerning his contacts with persons connected to the White House during the 2017–2018 time period.”

FBI Director Robert Mueller speaks during a news conference at the FBI headquarters in Washington on June 25, 2008.Alex Wong / Getty Images file

Both the Mueller and New York documents were filed to recommend sentencing for Cohen. The New York prosecutors said Cohen’s cooperation has been minimal, meeting with them just one time, according to the special counsel’s document.

“Cohen provided relevant and useful information” on communications that took place during the president’s first year in office, that document states.

NBC News has reported that Mueller has examined aspects of Trump’s transition, as well as his time in the White House.

Mueller also writes in Friday’s filing that in November 2015, Cohen, acting as Trump’s personal lawyer and a senior executive in his company, was in communication with a well-connected Russian national seeking political and business “synergy” with the Trump campaign.

A previous court filing revealed that Trump and members of his family knew more about Cohen’s efforts to construct a Trump Tower in Moscow than was previously known, and that those discussions went on longer into 2016 than he had told Congress they had.

Trump insisted throughout the campaign he had no business connections with Russia.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

U.S. appeals court won’t immediately allow Trump asylum ban

Published

on

Breaking News Emails

Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings.

By Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO — A divided U.S. appeals court late Friday refused to immediately allow the Trump administration to enforce a ban on asylum for any immigrants who illegally cross the U.S.-Mexico border.

The ban is inconsistent with an existing U.S. law and an attempted end-run around Congress, a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a 2-1 decision.

“Just as we may not, as we are often reminded, ‘legislate from the bench,’ neither may the Executive legislate from the Oval Office,” 9th Circuit Judge Jay Bybee, a nominee of Republican President George W. Bush, wrote for the majority.

A spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice, Steven Stafford, did not have comment. But he referred to an earlier statement that called the asylum system broken and said the department looked forward to “continuing to defend the Executive Branch’s legitimate and well-reasoned exercise of its authority to address the crisis at our southern border.”

At issue is President Donald Trump’s Nov. 9 proclamation that barred anyone who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border between official ports of entry from seeking asylum. Trump issued the proclamation in response to caravans of migrants approaching the border.

A lower court judge temporarily blocked the ban and later refused to immediately reinstate it. The administration appealed to the 9th Circuit for an immediate stay of Judge Jon Tigar’s Nov. 19 temporary restraining order.

In a dissenting opinion Friday, 9th Circuit Judge Edward Leavy said the administration “adopted legal methods to cope with the current problems rampant at the southern border.” Nothing in the law the majority cited prevented a rule categorically barring eligibility for asylum on the basis of how a person entered the country, Leavy, a nominee of Republican President Ronald Reagan, said.

In his Nov, 19 ruling, Tigar sided with legal groups who argued that federal law is clear that immigrants in the U.S. can request asylum regardless of whether they entered legally.

The president “may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden,” the judge said in his order.

The ruling led to an unusual public dispute between Trump and Chief Justice John Roberts after Trump dismissed Tigar — an appointee of Trump’s predecessor — as an “Obama judge.”

Roberts responded with a statement that the federal judiciary doesn’t have “Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

California GOP chief gets candid: Party's in deep trouble because of failure to attract non-whites

Published

on

The state’s once-dominant GOP, which has sent two of its members to the Oval Office, once had 25 Republicans in Congress. Now, it’s seven.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending