Tag: donald trump

The resolution by had been expected to be discussed at the Republican National Committee’s winter meeting in Las Vegas next week…reports Asian Lite News

The Republican National Committee has pulled a resolution to consider declaring Donald Trump the party’s “presumptive 2024 nominee” before he formally clinches the requisite number of delegates, a person familiar with the decision said Thursday.

News of the withdrawal came shortly after Trump posted on his Truth Social site that, while he “greatly” appreciated the notion, he felt, “for the sake of PARTY UNITY, that they should NOT go forward with this plan, but that I should do it the ‘Old Fashioned’ way, and finish the process off AT THE BALLOT BOX.”

The measure, according to a draft obtained, had said it “declares President Trump as our presumptive 2024 nominee for the office of President of the United States and from this moment forward moves into full general election mode welcoming supporters of all candidates as valued members of Team Trump 2024.”

The withdrawal was confirmed by a person familiar with the decision who was not authorized to publicly discuss the proposal and spoke on condition of anonymity Thursday night.

If approved, the measure would have further solidified Trump’s control of the party and its operation at a time when former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley is still competing against Trump for the GOP nomination.

RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel had earlier signaled her approval for the resolution. On Tuesday, after Haley finished second to Trump in New Hampshire, McDaniel said that while she felt the former ambassador had “run a great campaign,” Republicans “need to unite around our eventual nominee, which is going to be Donald Trump.”

The resolution had been expected to be discussed at the RNC’s winter meeting in Las Vegas next week, even though only two states have voted and the former president had nowhere near the requisite number of delegates to secure the nomination.

Haley’s camp said Thursday that it wasn’t up to the RNC to decide who the GOP nominee would be.

“Who cares what the RNC says? We’ll let millions of Republican voters across the country decide who should be our party’s nominee, not a bunch of Washington insiders,” said campaign spokesperson Olivia Perez-Cubas.

The AP has a policy to not refer to any candidate as the “presumptive nominee” until he or she has captured the number of delegates needed to win a majority vote at the national party conventions this summer. The earliest that could happen is March.

But there were no party rules prohibiting the RNC from making such a move. If it had been adopted, it could have given the Republican Party a jump-start on planning a general election matchup with Democratic President Joe Biden, who has begun framing his reelection campaign as a 2020 rematch against Trump.

There was also precedent for the committee to declare a candidate the presumptive nominee before winning the 1,215 requisite delegates to clinch the nomination. Then-RNC Chair Reince Priebus did so with Trump in May 2016.

Despite losing both the Iowa and New Hampshire contests to Trump, Haley has argued that her performance — outlasting all the other Trump rivals — shows the strength of her candidacy.

Trump currently has 32 delegates to Haley’s 17. There is one delegate left to be assigned after the New Hampshire contest.

During a rally Wednesday night in her home state of South Carolina, Haley — the former governor — noted that her campaign had brought in more than $1 million since her second-place finish in New Hampshire. Trump followed up with a remark that appeared aimed at intimidating her donors.

“Anybody that makes a ‘Contribution’ to Birdbrain, from this moment forth, will be permanently barred from the MAGA camp,” Trump wrote, using the nickname he has crafted for Haley and the abbreviation for his “Make America Great Again” slogan. “We don’t want them, and will not accept them, because we Put America First, and ALWAYS WILL!”

Haley’s campaign said Thursday that it raised an additional $1.2 million “after Trump’s unhinged pledge to ‘permanently bar’ any individual who contributed to Haley’s campaign.”

“Donald Trump’s threats highlight the stark choice in this election: personal vendettas or real conservative leadership,” said Haley spokesperson AnnMarie Graham-Barnes. “Trump’s scheme blew up in his face. The contributions to the Haley campaign are pouring in — proof that people are sick of the drama and are rallying behind Nikki’s vision for a strong and proud America.”

Trump’s dismissal of any Haley donors had no effect on T.J. Petrizzo, a former top Capitol Hill staffer and now lobbyist who supports Haley.

“That’s something out of a ‘Godfather’ movie. Never betray the family? Come on,” he added. “You’ve got to play this through.”

Petrizzo said he understands that some Republicans may be ready to pivot to a head-to-head contest between Trump and Biden, but he notes that there is a lot of time left before a general election.

“I’ve heard a lot of elected officials in the Republican Party, including the RNC chair, say, ‘We need to rally around a candidate.’ That this is going to be our candidate. ‘It was chosen by Iowa and New Hampshire, so we must go ahead and rally around Trump,’” Petrizzo said. “Well, there’s 285 days until the election. There’s plenty of time on the clock.”

ALSO READ: Closer or Tougher? Trump 2.0’s Agenda for India

Ramaswamy finished fourth in Iowa, well behind Trump, Florida Goveror Ron DeSantis and former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley….reports Asian Lite News

Indian-American entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy who dropped out of the 2024 Republican presidential race after finishing fourth in the Iowa caucuses, has endorsed former President Donald Trump and urged Republican voters to put an “America First patriot” in the White House.

Taking to social media platform X, Ramaswamy stated, “This entire campaign is about speaking the TRUTH. We did not achieve our goal tonight, & we need an America-First patriot in the White House. The people spoke loud & clear about who they want. Tonight I am suspending my campaign and endorsing Donald J. Trump and will do everything I can to make sure he is the next U.S. President.”

The 38-year-old political novice said at a press conference at Des Moines, “There is no path for me to be the next president absent things that we don’t want to see happen in this country,” as reported by the Washington Post.

“We did not achieve the surprise we wanted to deliver tonight,” Ramaswamy said.

Ramaswamy finished fourth in Iowa, according to CNN News projections, well behind Trump, Florida Goveror Ron DeSantis and former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley.

The biotech entrepreneur said he plans to appear with Trump in New Hampshire at a Tuesday evening rally. He further expressed his support for Trump, adding that he is extremely proud of the team, the movement, and the country.

“Earlier tonight I called Donald Trump to tell him that I congratulate him on his victory. And now going forward, he will have my full endorsement for the presidency,” Ramaswamy said.

Meanwhile, CNN reported that a spokesperson for Ramaswamy’s presidential campaign expressed dismay at the result and said the campaign is “digesting and determining” as it looks ahead to the next stage.

The Iowa caucus victory is considered the first step in Donald Trump’s bid to claim the Republican nomination in a third consecutive election. Incidentally, Trump had lost in the State eight years ago.

In a speech from his campaign headquarters in Des Moines in Iowa, Trump congratulated his opponents DeSantis and Haley both of whom he thought “did very well.” He also praised Vivek Ramaswamy for doing a “hell of a job,” CNN reported. “They are very smart, very smart people, very capable people,” Trump said of his opponents.

According to the latest figures by CNN, after 96 per cent of results were released, Ramaswamy is projected to win only three out of 40 delegates in Iowa.

Ramaswamy had been one of Trump’s staunchest defenders against the four indictments levelled against him. He pledged to remove himself from the ballots in Colorado and Maine after the former president was disqualified from the two states. He even vowed to pardon Trump of all charges on his first day in office. (ANI)

ALSO READ: Vivek Ramaswamy Drops Out of GOP Race, Backs Trump

Judge Arthur Engoron nixed Trump’s unusual plan on Wednesday, a day ahead of closing arguments….reports Asian Lite News

Donald Trump won’t make his own closing argument after all in his New York civil business fraud trial after his lawyers objected to the judge’s insistence that the former president stick to “relevant” matters and “not deliver a campaign speech.”

Judge Arthur Engoron nixed Trump’s unusual plan on Wednesday, a day ahead of closing arguments.

The judge had initially indicated he was open to the idea, saying he’d let Trump speak if he agreed to abide by rules that apply to attorneys’ closing arguments. Among other things, Engoron wanted the former president and current Republican front-runner to promise he wouldn’t assail his adversaries in the case, the judge or others in the court system.

Trump’s legal team said those limitations unfairly muzzled him. When Engoron didn’t hear from them by a Wednesday deadline, the judge told them he assumed Trump was not agreeing to the restrictions and therefore would not be speaking.

“MEAN & NASTY,” Trump wrote of the judge’s decision on his Truth Social platform. Trump indicated he will still attend Thursday’s court proceeding and reiterated his desire to “personally do the closing argument.”

The trial could cost Trump hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties and strip him of his ability to do business in New York. He’s fighting allegations that his net worth was inflated by billions of dollars on financial statements that helped him secure business loans and insurance.

The former president denies any wrongdoing, and he has lambasted the case as a “hoax” and a political attack on him. The judge is a Democrat, as is New York Attorney General Letitia James, who brought the lawsuit.

The trial came after Engoron decided, in a pretrial ruling, that Trump had engaged in fraud for years. The judge ordered at that point that a receiver take control of some of the ex-president’s properties, but an appeals court has put that order on hold.

The trial concerns remaining claims of conspiracy, insurance fraud and falsifying business records. Engoron will decide the verdict.

It’s extremely uncommon for people who have lawyers to give their own closing arguments. But Trump’s lawyers had signaled privately to the judge last week that the ex-president planned to deliver a summation personally, in addition to arguments from his legal team. James’ office objected, saying that the proposal would effectively amount to testimony without cross-examination.

In an email exchange filed in court Wednesday, Engoron initially approved the request, saying he was “inclined to let everyone have his or her say.”

But he said Trump’s remarks would have to stay within the bounds of “commentary on the relevant, material facts that are in evidence, and application of the relevant law to those facts.”

Trump would not be allowed to introduce new evidence, “comment on irrelevant matters” or “deliver a campaign speech” — or impugn the judge, his staff, the attorney general, her lawyers or the court system, the judge wrote.

Trump attorney Christopher Kise responded that those limitations were “fraught with ambiguities, creating the substantial likelihood for misinterpretation or unintended violation.” Engoron said that they were ”reasonable, normal limits” and would allow for comments on the attorney general’s arguments but not personal attacks.

Kise termed the restrictions “very unfair.”

“You are not allowing President Trump, who has been wrongfully demeaned and belittled by an out of control, politically motivated attorney general, to speak about the things that must be spoken about,” the attorney wrote.

“I won’t debate this yet again. Take it or leave it,” the judge shot back, with an all-caps addition saying he wouldn’t push back an already extended and imminent deadline to resolve the matter. The deadline passed without a response from Trump’s lawyers.

Earlier in the exchange, the judge also denied Kise’s request to postpone closing arguments until Jan. 29 because of the death Tuesday of Trump’s mother-in-law, Amalija Knavs. The judge expressed condolences but said he was sticking to the scheduled date, citing the security and logistics required for Trump’s planned visit to court.

Taking on a role usually performed by an attorney is dicey for any defendant, and summations are a last chance to try to show how the evidence from the trial has or hasn’t met legal requirements for proving the case.

A closing argument isn’t constrained to the question-and-answer format of testimony. But “it’s absolutely not a free-for-all,” said Christine Bartholomew, a University at Buffalo School of Law professor who specializes in civil procedure.

“Unless you’re legally trained … the chance of a misstep is really, really high,” she said, adding that it’s “extra-risky” when a judge has already taken issue with a defendant’s conduct during the case.

Trump ran afoul of Engoron after making a disparaging social media post about the judge’s law clerk on the trial’s second day. The post included a false insinuation about the clerk’s personal life.

Engoron then imposed a limited gag order, barring all participants in the trial from commenting publicly about court staffers. The judge later fined Trump a total of $15,000, saying he’d repeatedly violated the order. Trump’s defense team is appealing it.

During the recent email exchange about Trump’s potential summation, Engoron warned Trump’s lawyers that if the former president violated the gag order, he’d be removed from the courtroom and fined at least $50,000.

Trump testified in November, sparring verbally with the judge and state lawyers as he defended himself and his real estate empire. He later considered but ultimately decided against a second round of testimony, explaining that he had “nothing more to say.”

ALSO READ: US-India Satellite to Monitor Earth’s Snow-Covered Areas

Trump chose to attend the hearing, a reminder of the role that his four criminal indictments are playing in his presidential campaign….reports Asian Lite News

A federal appeals panel on Tuesday expressed deep scepticism over Donald Trump’s immunity from prosecution for trying to overturn the 2020 elections, raising the potentially extreme implications of absolute presidential immunity, CNN reported on Tuesday.

According to the report, the Republican leader’s lawyers argued that his federal election subversion indictment should be dismissed because he is immune from prosecution. But the three judges on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit panel questioned whether this immunity theory championed by Trump’s lawyers would allow presidents to sell pardons or even assassinate political opponents.

CNN reported that judges also wondered if they even had the jurisdiction to decide the question of presidential immunity at this point in the case. Trump is scheduled to go on trial in March for his role in trying to overturn the 2020 election. He has pleaded not guilty

Special counsel Jack Smith’s team argued that a president is not above the law, warning that allowing presidential immunity from prosecution would open a “floodgate” and saying that it would be “awfully scary” if there were no criminal mechanism to stop future president’s from usurping the vote and remaining in power.

Trump chose to attend the hearing, a reminder of the role that his four criminal indictments are playing in his presidential campaign.

The appeals court ruling is likely to set up a showdown over presidential immunity at the Supreme Court. The judges have not set a deadline but given the circumstances, it’s unlikely they will take too much time.

The Circuit Court judges asked pointed questions of Trump’s attorney John Sauer over his claims that Trump has immunity because his actions after losing the 2020 election were part of his presidential duties. The judges also challenged him on his claim that Trump could only face criminal prosecution if he was first impeached and convicted by Congress for the same conduct.

DC Circuit Court Judge Karen Henderson, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, appeared dubious that Trump was acting within his official duties.

“I think it is paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to take care of the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate criminal law,” Henderson said.

Some of the judges pushed back on Trump’s immunity claims by highlighting the potentially dangerous path that it could lead to, with future presidents being able to brazenly break the law without consequences.

This signalled their overall scepticism of Trump’s view, suggesting they are closer to where District Judge Tanya Chutkan landed, which was a strong rejection of Trump’s absolute immunity theory.

Judge Florence Pan, a President Joe Biden nominee, posed some striking hypothetical questions to Sauer, to flesh out the bounds of his immunity argument. His legal theory claims former presidents are shielded from prosecution for official actions if there isn’t an impeachment and conviction by Congress first.

Pan also peppered Sauer with hypotheticals about whether his immunity theory would also apply to a president selling pardons to criminals or selling military secrets to an enemy state.

Assistant special counsel James Pearce later picked up on the judges’ line of thinking.

“It would be awfully scary if there weren’t some sort of mechanism” to indict future ex-presidents if they similarly tried to stay in power despite losing an election, Pearce said.

Trump’s attorney, Sauer, argued that a president can only be criminally charged and tried following a conviction for the alleged actions in the Senate. He had been acquitted by the Senate in February 2021.

Pan questioned Sauer over his contention that impeachment and conviction by Congress was required for any criminal prosecution, while also pressing him to acknowledge that he was conceding that there is a path for presidents to face prosecution.

“Once you concede that presidents can be prosecuted under some circumstances, your separation of powers argument falls away, and the issues before us are narrowed to are you correct in your interpretation of the impeachment judgment clause?” Pan said.

CNN reported that the judge noted that many senators relied on the idea that it would be up to the Justice Department to handle an investigation into Trump’s actions following the 2020 election when they were considering whether to convict Trump following his impeachment.

Sauer repeated at the end of Tuesday’s hearing that a former president could be prosecuted for “official acts” if they were first convicted by the Senate during impeachment proceedings.

“Say the president was impeached and convicted on a charge of incitement of insurrection,” Pan asked, “then the government could bring a prosecution for the same or related conduct?” (ANI)

ALSO READ: US crude production to touch a record in 2024

All eyes are now on the US Supreme Court — which is poised to play a major role in the 2024 election as it sits on a series of major Trump — related cases,…writes TN Ashok

Legal experts across the US opine that all is not lost yet for ex-President Donald Trump found unfit for running for Presidency in 2024 by a Colorado Supreme Court under Article 3A of the 14th amendment on the basis of “insurrection on Capitol Hill on January 6”, as the judges in a split verdict 4-3 paused the ruling, allowing Trump to appeal in the US Supreme Court.

Legal experts, however, agree that the decision would not be the final word.

All eyes are now on the US Supreme Court — which is poised to play a major role in the 2024 election as it sits on a series of major Trump — related cases, media reports said.

The Colorado Supreme Court made history on Tuesday with an unprecedented, “freeze-in-your-tracks” ruling that former President Donald Trump is constitutionally ineligible to run in 2024 because of the 14th Amendment’s ban on insurrectionists holding public office which defined and covered his conduct on January 6, 2021.

His supporters attacked the Congress in an effort to prevent election authorities from certifying and declaring the verdict that chose Joe Biden as President.

Trump faces a swathe of charges in the federal court in Washington DC and the Fulton County Court in Georgia where he is accused of conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election verdict, conspiracy to prevent election authorities from certifying a valid election process to declare duly elected Joe Biden as President and racketeering charges under the RICO act for allegedly intimidating court officials and witnesses on phones and emails through his supports.

But importantly, in their 4-3 decision, the Colorado justices paused their decision so Trump can appeal to the US Supreme Court, which his campaign managers said he will “swiftly” do.

The pause means Trump’s spot on the Colorado GOP primary ballot in March might be safe, if the nation’s highest court does not settle the matter quickly, legal experts said.

The unprecedented landmark ruling holds Trump accountable for trying to overturn the 2020 election and provides a political punishment for his anti-democratic behaviour.

The ruling is also a massive vindication for the liberal groups and constitutional scholars of all stripes who championed such 14th Amendment lawsuits despite their long odds, legal pundits told CNN when contacted.

Trump has mastered the art of converting legal setbacks into polling bounces, CNN said, adding that he is already in a stronger position today to beat President Joe Biden than he was one year ago, before he was criminally indicted in four jurisdictions.

The top Colorado court upheld the trial judge’s conclusions that the January 6 assault on the US Capitol was an insurrection and that Trump “engaged in” that insurrection. These are key legal hurdles that the challengers needed to clear before Trump could be removed from any ballot, largely because the text of the 14th Amendment does not actually define an “insurrection” or spell out what it means to “engage in” insurrection.

Trump has unsuccessfully pushed this argument in state and federal courts, which found that he incited violence when he told supporters to “walk down to the Capitol” and “fight like hell” to “take back our country”.

“President Trump incited and encouraged the use of violence and lawless action to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power,” the justices wrote in the 134-page majority opinion.

Republicans Back Trump Over Colorado SC Ruling

Angry over Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling declaring former US President Donald Trump unfit to run for Presidency in 2024 under the 14th amendment, GOP Republicans are calling for President Joe Biden’s removal from the state presidential ballots with one of them citing the failure to control influx of immigrants.

Some Republicans have said Biden, too, should be removed from state ballots, the media reported.

Newsweek said in an analysis of the Colorado SC’s decision impacting the electoral fortunes of Trump in 2024.

Anthony Sabatini, a Republican running for Congress in Florida’s 11th district who previously served as a Florida state representative, wrote on X: “Remove Biden from the Florida ballot now!”

Speaking to Fox News, Texas Lt Governor Dan Patrick suggested Biden should be removed from his state’s 2024 ballot due to his administration’s response to immigration at the US-Mexico border.

“Seeing what happened in Colorado makes me think –except we believe in democracy in Texas — maybe we should take Joe Biden off the ballot in Texas for allowing eight million people to cross the border since he’s been president disrupting our state,” Patrick said.

Political commentator Gunther Eagleman posted on X that Biden should be removed from the Texas ballot after the Colorado ruling.

In a 4-3 decision on Wednesday, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the former president violated the 14th Amendment, which bars public officials from holding federal office if they have engaged in insurrection.

In November, a lower court in Colorado admitted to a group of Colorado voters including Norma Anderson, a petitioner and former Republican majority leader of the Colorado House and Senate, that Trump engaged in insurrection over his behavior during the riot at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.

During the siege, Trump supporters stormed the building protesting his election loss.

Trump, the GOP frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, has denied all wrongdoing and has not been charged with insurrection.

He has argued that courts do not have the authority to bar candidates from the ballot under the constitutional provision.

The Colorado Supreme Court said in its ruling: “A majority of the court holds that President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President… even when the siege on the Capitol was fully underway, he continued to support it by repeatedly demanding that Vice President Mike Pence refuse to perform his constitutional duty and by calling Senators to persuade them to stop the counting of electoral votes. These actions constituted overt, voluntary, and direct participation in the insurrection.”

ALSO READ: Ramaswamy Backs Trump Following Colorado Verdict

Biden’s campaign points to past policies Trump has touted such as “stop and frisk”. …writes T.N. Ashok

US President Joe Biden’s 2024 re-election campaign targeted his predecessor Donald Trump over his rhetoric on defunding police, arguing his policy prescriptions would lead to “a less safe America”.

Biden’s campaign points to past policies Trump has touted such as “stop and frisk”. It also hits the former president over his proposed cuts to community policing programmes while simultaneously criticising the “defund the police” movement, media reports said.

Biden’s birthday reminds voters ‘Bubble Wrap’ plan to protect him, the Washington Examiner said, claiming to have had an exclusive preview of his (Trump’s) vision for America in 2025.

When President, Trump took a hard line on policing projecting himself as a “law and order” president amid rising crime and racial justice protests. Trump called for drug dealers to receive the death penalty and even suggested that police be empowered to shoot shoplifters on the spot. The Biden campaign managers have capitalised on this offensive rhetoric to counter Trump’s, arguing his solutions to crime would actually leave America less safe.

Referring particularly to Trump’s past support for “stop and frisk,” the Biden team said it was a controversial much criticised police strategy with the potential risk of racial bias and an undue violation of individual’s privacy.

In 2018, Trump claimed, ″Stop and frisk works and it was meant for problems like Chicago.”

Biden’s team says such a policy would amount to police harassing citizens on the street.

On several occasions, Trump has also signalled his support for arming teachers with firearms to protect students from coming harm’s way in the event of a mass shooting by serial offenders. Republican politicians see this as a potential deterrent but has been categorically opposed by Democratic politicians.

Biden’s re-election team says such a policy would make America’s classrooms less safe.

“Political violence, harassing citizens in their own neighbourhoods, gunning down Americans at will, flooding classrooms with more guns. That’s what Donald Trump is promising if he’s elected president again. He’s proudly campaigning on a platform of fear, division and violence. He’s betting that a scared and divided nation is how he wins this election. It didn’t work in 2020, and it won’t work this time either,” Biden campaign spokesman Seth Schuster said in a statement, the Examiner reported.

The Biden campaign is attempting to portray Trump as weak on law enforcement, highlighting his administration’s proposal to disband the Community Relations Service and Community Oriented Policing Services and move their duties to other parts of the Justice Department. The administration at the time defended the proposal as a way to “improve efficiency,” but the Biden campaign is calling it part of a “dangerous MAGA agenda to defund law enforcement”.

Trump’s campaign did not provide comment to the Washington Examiner.

The Biden campaign has already hit the former president over his expected policies on abortion and immigration in a potential 2025 administration as it ramps up attacks on the likely Republican nominee.

ALSO READ: Biden lauds role of Qatar, Egypt in Israel ceasefire