WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court agreed Thursday to consider blocking Congress’ access to secret grand jury materials from the probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

The action was a victory for the Trump administration, which is fighting to keep a House committee controlled by Democrats from obtaining material it says could lead to another impeachment inquiry.

The immediate significance is that any decision almost surely will come after the presidential election, a blow to House Democrats in pursuing a potential obstruction of justice charge against President Donald Trump in a possible second impeachment inquiry. The case likely will be heard by the high court in the fall or winter and decided in 2021.

“Unfortunately, President Trump and Attorney General (William) Barr are continuing to try to run out the clock on any and all accountability,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y. “While I am confident their legal arguments will fail, it is now all the more important for the American people to hold the president accountable at the ballot box in November.”

Source Article from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/07/02/supreme-court-decide-if-democrats-get-russia-grand-jury-material/3260227001/

“The defendant appears to have been hiding on a 156-acre property acquired in an  all-cash purchase in December 2019 (through a carefully anonymized LLC) in Bradford, New Hampshire, an area to which she has no other known connections,” said a court filing by Manhattan federal prosecutors. An LLC is a limited liability corporation.

Other records show the buyer was Granite Reality, LLC, which was set up by a Boston lawyer named Jeffrey Roberts. He did not respond to a request for comment.

The property was featured by WMUR-9 in May 2019 in an article titled “Mansion Monday: Peace, quiet and breathtaking views in Bradford,” which says: “this custom-built timber frame home in Bradford is one where you can truly get away from it all.”

The main residence has “four bedrooms, three full bathrooms and one half-bath,” according to WMUR, which called the home “an amazing retreat for the nature lover who also wants total privacy.”

“From every room, there are views of the Mt. Sunapee foothills to the west,” the article said.

Maxwell, 58, is due to appear in New Hampshire federal court on Thursday to begin facing charges of conspiring with the now-dead Epstein in the mid-1990s to sexually abuse underage girls, as well as on two counts of perjury.

The daughter of the crooked media mogul Robert Maxwell is accused of helping Epstein recruit and groom girls as young as 14 to satisfy his sexual obsessions, and of participating in the alleged abuse at times herself.

The charges were filed in Manhattan federal court by the same prosecutors’ office that had had Epstein arrested last July on child sex trafficking charges related to alleged conduct from 2002 through 2005.

Epstein, a wealthy investor who was a former friend of Prince Andrew and of Presidents Donald Trump and Bill Clinton hanged himself in a Manhattan federal jail last August after being denied bail.

The property where the FBI said Maxwell “slithered” to as she was under investigation in connection with Epstein was until late last year owned by a lawyer.

The lawyer’s real estate agent said the property features an “absolutely gorgeous home. It had a main house and a guest house.”

Source Article from https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/02/ghislaine-maxwell-accused-jeffrey-epstein-procurer-caught-in-1-million-home.html

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and the GOP majority have confirmed 200 judicial nominees by President Trump. It’s a record that will affect U.S. law for decades.

Patrick Semansky/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Patrick Semansky/AP

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and the GOP majority have confirmed 200 judicial nominees by President Trump. It’s a record that will affect U.S. law for decades.

Patrick Semansky/AP

With a boost from the Republican-led Senate, President Trump has now confirmed 200 federal judges. Each one has a life term, representing a legacy that could extend for a generation.

The president often trumpets the achievement in speeches and on Twitter. But the credit belongs as much to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who took a victory lap last week.

“When we depart this chamber today, there will not be a single circuit court vacancy for the first time in at least 40 years,” said McConnell, who’s been advancing the judicial nominees with single-minded focus.

Conservative advocate Carrie Severino is thrilled.

“Filling all of these circuit seats is an unmitigated success, no downside to that,” said Severino, who leads the Judicial Crisis Network, a group that pushes for confirmation of Trump judges. “Let’s, as leader McConnell has said, ‘Leave no vacancy behind.’ “

She pointed to Trump’s record in appointing judges to the federal appeals court, one step below the Supreme Court. Over eight years, President Barack Obama confirmed 55 appellate picks. Trump already has installed 53 in just four years.

Unfair, say Democrats

Democrats said there’s a reason for that startling number — Republican stonewalling of the previous president.

“McConnell confirmed the fewest judges since President Truman during Obama’s last two years in office,” said Christopher Kang, who vetted judicial nominees in the Obama White House. “So the reason President Trump had 200 judgeships to fill in the first place is because McConnell obstructed.”

Obama made the nominations, but McConnell kept them from being confirmed to wait for a Republican — in Trump — whose campaign the Senate majority leader then carried out with zeal, Kang said.

Aside from the sheer numbers of Trump judges, the other important thing is the longevity this cadre likely will have.

Many of the Trump nominees are in their 30s and 40s, not anywhere near retirement age. There is no minimum age restriction to serve as a judge.

Judge Allison Jones Rushing, who sits on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, was 36 years old when she was nominated. Justin Walker, who is preparing to take the bench on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, is 38.

“Even if Donald Trump is gone from office in January, these judges are going to be ruling for decades to come,” Kang said.

And, he added, they’ll be ruling in cases that matter: abortion access, climate change, voting rights and more.

For some civil rights advocates, something else stands out about the Trump judge picks: diversity.

“They are largely white and male,” said Vanita Gupta, who runs the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. “It is an astonishing lack of representation.”

By her count, nearly 7 in 10 of the Trump judges are white men. Just 28 of the 200 are people of color. And, she said, there’s only one Latina appeals court judge, and no Black appellate judges.

“You end up with a judiciary that is really out of step with where the country is as a whole because it takes a fair amount of work actually to end up with those statistics,” Gupta said.

Supporters defend the new cadre

But Trump allies said some of the nominees do represent diverse backgrounds more broadly: Judge Amy Coney Barrett on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is the mother of seven children. Judge Don Willett on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was raised by his single mom in a trailer park. And Judge Jim Ho, also on the 5th Circuit, is the son of immigrants from Taiwan.

All three of them could appear on Trump’s shortlist for the next Supreme Court vacancy. The president said he’ll publish a new list by September before the election. Candidate Trump adopted a similar approach four years ago to signal that Republican voters could trust him.

Things worked well back then, Severino said. She said Trump’s judges have been different — they’re bolder — but not in a bad way.

“They’re not simply trying to keep their heads down and become the blank slate that may have been the ideal nominee in a prior Republican administration — someone who really has no track record whatsoever,” she said. “But instead these nominees are people who were willing to stand up for what they knew was right.”

For Democrats such as Kang, that’s not something to celebrate.

“These are far more extreme judges than even President George W. Bush put on the bench, and we’re moving in the wrong direction,” said Kang, who now works at Demand Justice, a group that’s trying to mobilize Democrats’ interest in the courts as an election issue.

Kang said he has no doubt that if more vacancies emerge later this year, Trump and McConnell will race to fill them while they control the White House and the Senate — underscoring how important judges are to Republican officeholders and the people who vote for them.

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2020/07/02/886285772/trump-and-mcconnell-via-swath-of-judges-will-affect-u-s-law-for-decades

As coronavirus cases continue to mushroom throughout the state, Los Angeles has unveiled a new color-coded system to assess and report the risk of infection.

The online indicator, which Mayor Eric Garcetti unveiled Wednesday, is broken into four categories — red, orange, yellow and green — each representing different threat levels.

“Information and data on the threat helps us all inform our behavior, guides us to better days,” Garcetti said.

As of Thursday morning, L.A.’s indicator was orange, meaning that the risk of infection remains very high, according to Garcetti.

“When the indicator is orange, you want to stay at home as often as possible … and only leave for essential activities like going to work or going to the market,” he said. “And you should assume everyone around you is infectious.”

Red, the highest threat level, would mean that “residents must stay at home and take precautious and will likely be on a mandated safer-at-home order,” Garcetti said.

Yellow means “we’re successfully flattening the curve” and green “will indicate that COVID-19 is mostly contained and presents a very low risk to Angelenos,” he added.

“We all want to live in that green and yellow area until there’s a cure or a treatment for COVID-19,” he said.

The new tool was released as Los Angeles, like many areas in the state and nation, continues to see distressing spikes in coronavirus infections and hospitalizations.

On Tuesday, there were 1,893 patients with confirmed infections in L.A. County hospitals — up from 1,429 two weeks earlier.

“Whether we stop the threat of COVID-19, whether we save lives and preserve livelihoods, is up to us,” Garcetti said. “COVID-19 has taken control, and it’s time for us to take control back.”

Statewide, the number of people hospitalized with coronavirus has shot up 56% in the last two weeks — from 3,337 to 5,196. Coronavirus cases also have surged, setting four daily records over that same time frame.

After four daily infection records in the last two weeks, officials fear social gatherings could bring even more outbreaks over the July 4 weekend.

More Coverage

So severe are the recent increases that some counties, including San Bernardino and Riverside, have said they are prepared to open overflow facilities as their hospitals approach surge capacity.

The state also announced the reactivation of four alternate care locations Wednesday — the Imperial Field Medical Site, Seton Medical Center, Fairview Developmental Center and Porterville Developmental Center. Combined, those facilities will make hundreds of additional beds available to relieve stress on the healthcare system.

“As hospitalizations continue to rise, these alternative care sites will expand capacity and support additional acute care specifically dedicated to COVID-19 patients,” according to the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services.

Amid the worsening outbreak, Gov. Gavin Newsom on Wednesday ordered 19 particularly hard-hit counties to walk back some reopenings and halt visits to indoor restaurants, bars, wineries and tasting rooms, entertainment centers, movie theaters, zoos, museums and card rooms for the next three weeks.

Gov. Gavin Newsom restricts indoor dining, tasting rooms, entertainment centers, movie theaters, zoos, museums and card rooms in California counties struggling to control the coronavirus.

More Coverage

Counties affected by the order include Los Angeles, Riverside, Ventura, Orange, San Bernardino and Sacramento.

As infections continue to climb, officials are pleading with residents to not gather with friends or family members they don’t live with over the Fourth of July weekend.

To that end, officials have moved to stave off some of the communal traditions that typically mark the holiday. Most fireworks shows have been canceled, and some coastal areas also will close their beaches.

As COVID-19 numbers swell and Fourth of July approaches, L.A., Ventura county beaches will close while most parks, trails stay open

“This is not going to be the type of Fourth of July weekend that most of us are used to — nor should it be,” L.A. County Supervisor Janice Hahn said in a statement.

“The spike we have seen in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations across our county should alarm all of us. We all have to make personal sacrifices to protect the people we love and our communities from this virus.”

San Francisco city and community leaders also held an online news conference Thursday to urge residents to stay home for the holiday.

Dr. Grant Colfax, the city’s public health director, said San Francisco has experienced a “significant and alarming increase in COVID-19 infections.”

“Our rates have soared,” he said. “We are in a situation where we could be seeing early signs of surge.”

Local hospital capacity remains in good shape, however, and the city is accepting patients from other harder-hit areas — including 18 inmates from San Quentin State Prison, he said.

“Once this virus takes off at a high rate, it is very aggressive,” Colfax said.

Times staff writers Rong-Gong Lin II, Colleen Shalby, Alejandra Reyes-Velarde, Hannah Fry, Taryn Luna and Phil Willon contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-07-02/la-unveils-color-coded-system-to-assess-coronavirus-risk

Some noted with irony that amid the House’s effort to impeach Trump for obstructing Congress, many of the president’s allies argued they should have pursued court battles for evidence first — yet Thursday’s decision underscored that the legal process operates at a glacial pace compared to the election cycle.

“[T]his delay is why impeachment could not ‘wait for the courts’ as GOP said,” argued Norm Eisen, a former House Judiciary Committee counsel who helped organize the House’s impeachment strategy.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) predicted that the House would win at the Supreme Court, but expressed disappointment that evidence potentially relevant to voters would be kept secret until after the election.

“While I am confident their legal arguments will fail, it is now all the more important for the American people to hold the President accountable at the ballot box in November,” Nadler said in a statement.

The justices’ decision to hear the case was included in a routine list of high court orders made public Thursday morning. The Trump administration asked the justices to rule on the issue after a federal appeals court in Washington issued a ruling in March upholding a lower court order granting the House request to review grand jury information deleted from the public version of Mueller’s report, as well as the underlying testimony.

The high court’s decision to take the case was widely expected after the justices stepped in two months ago, agreeing to the Justice Department’s request to put the D.C. Circuit ruling on hold. The justices will likely hear arguments in the case sometime this fall and rule sometime in 2021. The dispute might even evaporate if Democrats win the White House and the Justice Department agrees to release the details sought by lawmakers.

Last July, the House Judiciary Committee asked a judge for access to information the Justice Department withheld when it made most of Mueller’s report public. Lawyers for the House said the committee needed the uncut report as part of its impeachment investigation of Trump, but that process eventually went forward without the House seeing the details it sought.

House Democrats also argued that they needed to see the hundreds of deletions and supporting testimony to compare statements witnesses made in the Mueller investigation with statements some of those same witnesses made to the House.

Most of the redactions related to the grand jury pertain to the portion of Mueller’s investigation that focused on alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Mueller’s inquiry into alleged obstruction of justice by Trump was conducted almost entirely through voluntary interviews, rather than grand jury testimony or subpoenas.

The chief judge of the U.S. District Court in Washington, Beryl Howell, granted the committee’s access request in October, but the Justice Department appealed the decision. In March, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit divided, 2-1, as it upheld Howell’s ruling.

The appeals court panel ruled that the House’s request for the information as part of the impeachment process was sufficient to qualify under an exception in court rules that permits disclosure of grand jury information as part of a judicial proceeding. Although Trump was acquitted by the Senate earlier this year, the judges accepted a House argument that the theoretical possibility of another impeachment was enough to qualify.

The House impeached Trump on a charge of obstructing Congress’ investigation into allegations that he abused his power to pressure Ukraine to investigate his Democratic rivals. Senate Republicans all united to acquit Trump of the charge, with many indicating the House should have done more to pursue documents and testimony in court, echoing arguments from Trump’s legal team. One GOP senator, Mitt Romney of Utah, voted to convict Trump on a separate charge of abuse of power.

Yet the White House and Justice Department have also argued in ongoing court battles that judges have no role in deciding disputes between Congress and the executive branch, a conflicting position that Democrats said was further evidence of efforts to merely protect the president from scrutiny.

Democrats argued that they pressed ahead with impeachment urgently because the charges suggested Trump was actively working to solicit foreign help in the 2020 election, and waiting for a court process would all but ensure the election would pass before any final decisions.

Source Article from https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/02/supreme-court-mueller-grand-jury-347989

It could be weeks before former Vice President Joe Biden makes a final announcement about his running mate, but some voters have a clear preference: either Sen. Elizabeth Warren or Sen. Kamala Harris, according to recent surveys.

The two senators, both of whom ran for president themselves, led a list of several reported contenders in a slew of June polls: A Yahoo News/YouGov poll of registered voters conducted June 9-10 had Warren in the lead, with 30 percent of respondents backing her and 24 percent supporting Harris. Meanwhile, a Monmouth University poll of a segment of Democratic primary voters fielded June 1-9 found Harris with 28 percent support, while 13 percent preferred Warren. (The Monmouth survey was predominately voters from Iowa and New Hampshire, and skewed older — so the pollster warns against projecting this result onto the general primary electorate.)

Another candidate who notched strong numbers in a June poll was former Georgia gubernatorial nominee Stacey Abrams. When USA Today and Suffolk University asked Democrats about their enthusiasm for different candidates, Harris, Abrams, and Warren received the most positive responses. In that poll, fielded from June 25-29, 36 percent of Democrats said they’d be excited about Harris as a running mate, while 28 percent said the same for Abrams and 27 percent Warren.

In recent weeks, polls have also shown that calls for Biden to select a Black running mate have registered with a growing number of voters: 72 percent of Democrats in the USA Today/Suffolk survey agreed it was “important” for Biden to choose a woman of color.

Experts caution, however, against reading too much into these surveys’ overall results, given some of the factors at play: Both Warren and Harris have extensive records in public service and are likely seeing a large boost due to their name recognition, for example. “It’s more about who people recognize and who they know well than it is anything else,” says Lonna Atkeson, a professor of political science and director of the Center for the Study of Voting, Elections and Democracy at the University of New Mexico. Plus, she notes, the vice presidential pick hasn’t historically been tied to the electoral outcome or broader voter turnout.

Still, Biden’s choice of running mate could hold more weight this election cycle given his age (if elected, he’ll be the oldest president ever inaugurated), and these polls provide a snapshot of voter sentiment toward different candidates. According to Politico, Biden hasn’t landed on a short list yet, and he’s not expected to announce his final decision until the beginning of August.

While politics aren’t the only thing on his mind — Biden has said he’s focused on a nominee who is ready to be president “on day one” and “simpatico” with his governing approach — these polls offer a limited glimpse of whom some voters currently favor.

A brief rundown of recent polls and what to make of them

Polling so far has highlighted two key takeaways. One is that Warren’s and Harris’s respective profiles currently dwarf those of other contenders whose names have been floated, including Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) and Rep. Val Demings (D-FL). The other is that neither lawmaker is a runaway favorite. In the Yahoo News/YouGov and Monmouth University polls, neither Warren nor Harris secured a majority of respondents’ support, a sign that many voters are still open to other options.

Warren has ranked highly in several polls, particularly among younger voters.

In the mid-June Yahoo News/YouGov survey, Warren was up by 6 points with 30 percent support, compared with Harris’s 24 percent. They were followed by Abrams and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), both of whom picked up 14 percent backing. (Klobuchar has since withdrawn her name from consideration.)

As captured by the YouGov survey, Warren’s support isn’t the same across different demographics: She had particularly strong backing among voters aged 18-29 and 30-44, while she and Harris were more closely tied among voters ages 45-64 and 65 and older. Harris and Abrams both led Warren among Black voters, with 25 percent and 22 percent support, respectively, compared with Warren’s 15 percent.

Meanwhile, in Monmouth’s June poll, which surveyed Democratic primary voters predominantly located in Iowa and New Hampshire, Harris was the top choice overall. She picked up 28 percent support, followed by Warren with 13 percent, Klobuchar with 12 percent, and Abrams with 10 percent. The June USA Today/Suffolk poll, conducted more recently, also showed that Democratic voters were most excited about Harris, Abrams, and Warren, in that order.

A May Morning Consult poll — which had a 2 percent margin of error — had Warren and Harris polling closely as well. Adding either of them to the ticket would have an effectively neutral impact on the general electorate’s interest in electing Biden, according to the survey: Twenty-six percent of registered voters told Morning Consult they’d be more likely to support Biden if he picked Warren as his running mate, while 23 percent said it would make them less likely to back him. Harris saw a comparable breakdown: 22 percent of registered voters were more likely to support Biden with her on the ticket, while 21 percent were less likely to do so.

Democratic voters, however, were more likely than Republicans or independents to say they’d be more open to voting for Biden if his VP choice is Warren or Harris.

Some — but not all — voters back the push for a more diverse ticket

Recent polls have found that many Democrats think Biden should pick a woman of color as his vice president. Data from the Monmouth survey, which focused on Democratic primary voters, underscored this point: In it, 59 percent of respondents thought having a woman of color as a running mate would increase Biden’s likelihood of winning. The USA Today/Suffolk poll also found that an overwhelming majority of Democrats thought it was important for Biden to nominate a woman of color.

Voters writ large, however, appear much more ambivalent. Take the New York Times/Siena College poll published last week: In the survey, which was conducted in early June, 14 percent of voters said they believed Biden should select a vice president who is Black, while 82 percent said race shouldn’t be a factor. That result is slightly different from that of a June Morning Consult survey, which found that 29 percent of registered voters thought it was important for Biden to select a woman of color, an uptick of 7 points from April.

“Voters are not the best strategists, but the nominee has to be attentive to his base. And a lot of Democratic voters think having a woman of color on the ticket would be a home run,” Monmouth pollster Patrick Murray said in a statement.

The push for Biden to back a vice president who is a woman of color, and a Black woman in particular, stems from a couple different places, including the recent focus on addressing systemic racism in policing and increasing representation in an array of fields. There’s also a sense that Biden owes much of his success in the primaries to the support of Black voters, as well as the possibility that a Black running mate could help spur higher voter turnout in November, though the likelihood of the latter is an open question.

“We need America to imagine the possibilities that exist for changing the face of leadership,” says Glynda Carr, president and CEO of Higher Heights for America, an organization dedicated to supporting black women running for office.

While vice presidential picks have rarely affected electoral outcomes in the past, there is a possibility that a more diverse ticket will increase voter turnout, which is vital for Democrats to win this fall. As experts have emphasized, even though Biden has seen strong support from Black voters, that’s not the same as voter enthusiasm — a dynamic that was apparent during Hillary Clinton’s run in 2016.

Across key battleground states like Michigan and Wisconsin, for example, turnout rates dipped among Black voters between 2012 and 2016. Former President Barack Obama’s groundbreaking candidacies in 2008 and 2012 were viewed as a significant reason for higher turnout from Black voters in both elections, and the historic choice of a Black woman as vice president could possibly lead to a similar uptick. A Northwestern University survey conducted in late May indicated as much: 57 percent of African American voters polled said they’d be more excited about voting for Biden if he selected a Black woman for his running mate.

“I expect that selection of a Black woman as VP would increase excitement about the election by setting the stage for another historic first,” Keneshia Grant, an assistant professor of political science at Howard University, told Vox. Grant emphasized, however, that a focus on descriptive representation is far from enough: She noted that it was also important for both the vice presidential nominee and Biden himself to focus on policies prioritized by Black voters.

Whether changes to turnout will ultimately materialize, however, is uncertain.

Historically, vice presidential nominees don’t sway the electorate much, except in the case of particularly polarizing selections. As Vox’s Ella Nilsen reported, the research suggests that many voters don’t weigh the vice presidential pick that heavily in their final decision:

[Chris Devine of the University of Dayton and Kyle Kopko of Elizabethtown College] analyzed election and voter data going back more than 100 years, and found vice presidential candidates usually only make a difference to the outcome of a general election when they are either very popular or very polarizing.

The Wall Street Journal in 2016 also analyzed years of election data and found that even when a vice presidential pick was viewed favorably by voters in their party, a majority of voters ultimately said the VP pick ultimately had no measurable impact on their vote for president.

Biden’s age and the possibility that he might not seek reelection after his first term are among the reasons why this year’s selection could loom larger than that of years past. As Biden has said, he’s interested in finding a running mate who’s able to govern from the get-go.

“I want someone strong, and someone who can — who is ready to be president on day one,” he told CBS News in June.


Support Vox’s explanatory journalism

Every day at Vox, we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you, and our audience around the world, with information that has the power to save lives. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower you through understanding. Vox’s work is reaching more people than ever, but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles, videos, and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today.

Source Article from https://www.vox.com/2020/7/2/21301703/joe-biden-vice-president-pick-polls-elizabeth-warren-kamala-harris-stacey-abrams

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court said Thursday it will decide whether House investigators can get access to grand jury material gathered by Robert Mueller’s special counsel team.

The court agreed to hear the case during its new term that begins in the fall.

The court’s action means the House Judiciary Committee will have to wait several more months before finding out whether it can see the material. House Democrats told the court that its investigations of President Donald Trump “did not cease with the conclusion of the impeachment trial” in February.

When Mueller’s work ended in March 2019, the Justice Department sent a version of his final report to Congress but redacted, or blacked out, references to information that was gathered by the Mueller grand jury. The House Judiciary Committee asked a federal judge for an order directing the Justice Department to hand over an unredacted copy of the report along with some of the documents and interviews referred to by the blacked-out items.

The proceedings of a federal grand jury, including its findings and any materials generated during its investigations, are generally secret but there are some exceptions. Courts are allowed to authorize disclosure when they find the material would be used “preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding.”

The Justice Department said the exceptions to grand jury secrecy rules do not apply in this case.

“The ordinary meaning of ‘judicial proceeding’ is a proceeding before a court, not an impeachment trial before elected legislators,” it said its filing.

But two lower courts ruled that the Judiciary Committee is covered by that exception, reasoning that a House impeachment is preliminary to a Senate trial, which is a judicial proceeding. A federal appeals court in March ordered the government to hand the materials over by May 11, but the Supreme Court put a hold on that ruling while it decided whether to take up the case.

The House noted that the Constitution says the Senate has the sole power to “try” all impeachments, requires the chief justice to preside, and refers to a “judgment” in cases of impeachment. House lawyers note that even one of Trump’s lawyers, Kenneth Starr, said during his Senate trial that “we are not a legislative chamber … we are in court.”

The Judiciary Committee also said the grand jury material remains central to its continuing investigation of the president, and if it reveals new evidence of possible impeachable offenses the committee might recommend new articles of impeachment. But in an election year, with Congress hampered by the pandemic, the possibility of new impeachment proceedings seems at best remote.

For that reason, the Supreme Court’s decision in the current case is likely to guide impeachment proceedings against future presidents.

Source Article from https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-decide-if-house-gets-mueller-grand-jury-material-n1232757

The Trump campaign, however, reports it still has plenty sitting in the bank, with $295 million cash on hand. Democrats did not disclose that figure on Wednesday.

“It’s clear that voters are looking for steady leadership, experience, empathy, compassion, and character — and they’ll find all of these qualities in Vice President Joe Biden. This has been our argument since day one of this campaign, and it will be our winning argument in November,” Biden campaign manager Jen O’Malley Dillon wrote in an email to supporters.

O’Malley Dillon wrote that 68 percent of last month’s donors were new to the campaign, that the overall average online donation was $34 and that more than 2.6 million also signed up to join the campaign.

The money has flowed to Democrats as Trump’s poll numbers have taken a tumble, particularly in the last two weeks, amid a deadly Covid-19 pandemic and as protests of police brutality swept across the country.

Still, the Trump campaign touted its ability to consistently raise money from small dollar donors, including a record $14 million on a single day on Trump’s birthday.

Source Article from https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/01/biden-trump-fund-raising-347843

Horace Lorenzo Anderson Sr., the father of a 19-year-old black man who was shot and killed last month inside Seattle’s Capitol Hill Organized Protest (CHOP), publicly pleaded for answers on “Hannity” Wednesday night, saying police and Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan have failed to reach out to him since his son’s death.

SEATTLE POLICE RESPONSE TO FATAL CHOP SHOOTING SEEN ON BODYCAM FOOTAGE

“They need to come talk to me and somebody needs to come tell me something, because I still don’t know nothing,” an emotional Anderson told host Sean Hannity. “Somebody needs to come to my house and knock on my door and tell me something. I don’t know nothing. All I know is my son got killed up there.

“They say, ‘He’s just a 19-year-old.'” No, that’s Horace Lorenzo Anderson [Jr.]. That’s my son, and I loved him.”

“Somebody needs to come to my house and knock on my door and tell me something.”

— Horace Lorenzo Anderson, “Hannity”

The younger Anderson was killed early on the morning of June 20, when shots rang out near Cal Anderson Park on 10th Avenue and East Pine Street inside the CHOP zone. A 33-year-old man was wounded in the shooting.

Anderson Sr. broke down in tears as he recalled learning of his son’s death.

“The only way I found out was just two of his friends, just two friends that just happened to be up there and they came and told me,” he said. “They weren’t even from Seattle. Now, mind you, I haven’t heard —  the police department, they never came …

LATEST CHOP SHOOTING KILLS TEEN, CRITICALLY WOUNDS 14-YEAR-OLD

“Someone should’ve came and knocked on my door and … should’ve been, like, coming to talk to me and let me know about my son. To this day, I really don’t know nothing. I’m still here sitting. I don’t know nothing.”

Anderson, who plans to bury his son on Thursday, told Hannity that he is “numb” and hasn’t been able to sleep as questions about his son’s final moments remain unanswered.

“I still don’t know what’s going on,” he said. “I’m hearing from YouTube. I don’t know nothing. All I know is my son is dead. I’m still trying to figure out answers so I can sleep. I don’t sleep. My kids don’t sleep. I can’t even stay at home. My kids, they feel like they are unsafe at home. I’ve been buying motel rooms and I don’t have that type of money. I wasn’t prepared for this.”

“My son needed help, and I don’t feel like they helped my son,” Anderson said of law enforcement. “My son needed help, and I don’t feel like they helped my son … I feel like he doesn’t — without this, he would just be nobody. He’s just — it doesn’t matter, he’s just another guy. Just another child, just swept up under the rug and that’s it and forgotten about.”

At one point in the interview, Hannity became emotional as Anderson described the daily trauma of waking up to the realization that his son is no longer alive.

“I wake up in the morning … I look for my son in the morning. He’s not there no more. You know I’m saying? It’s like I go in there, I’m kissing a picture. He’s not there.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“You’re taking away generations,” he went on. “You’re taking away our youth. You are taking away, my son never had a chance to have another child. My grandbaby would never be … that’s a generation taken from me.”

“I understand Black Lives Matter and everything that’s going on,” Anderson said at another point in the interview. “But that’s not my movement right now. My movement is [to] let them know that was my son.”

Despite his grief, Anderson told Hannity, “I am being a Christian now, in my heart” as he tries to lead his family through this time of tragedy.

“Everything is in God’s hands now,” he said. “God’s going to take care of it, I feel like … God is going to take care of me and he is going to take care of my son.”

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/media/horace-lorenzo-anderson-father-chop-shooting-victim

President Donald Trump and the Republican National Committee raised a combined $131 million in June, a significant jump over its recent monthly fundraising hauls — though less than the $141 million Joe Biden and the Democratic National Committee raised in the same period.

Trump and the RNC announced in an email Wednesday evening that they brought in $266 million during the second fundraising quarter, after raising $212 million in the first three months of 2020. The campaign also said it has $295 million in cash on hand, maintaining a financial edge that Republicans have consistently held over Democrats.

But in May, Biden outraised Trump for the first time, bringing in $7 million more than the president. Notably, it was the first month Biden and the DNC could raise money jointly, opening up new funding streams and allowing wealthy donors to give more than $620,000 at a time. Trump and the RNC have been raking in cash through a joint fundraising agreement for months.

Source Article from https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/01/trump-rnc-raised-131-million-june-347455

This is what Seattle’s Capitol Hill Organized Protest zone looks like after police officers stormed in on Wednesday to clear protesters out.

Photos showing the aftermath of the eviction showed city crews using heavy equipment to remove concrete barriers and cart away debris, including plywood signs that read “BLM” and “Still our streets.”

“I was just stunned by the amount of graffiti, garbage and property destruction,” Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best said after she walked around the area.

Sanitation workers were spotted scrubbing the pavements in the former protest zone and cleaning graffiti.

Police also strung yellow caution tape from tree to tree warning people not to reenter.

Earlier on Wednesday, Mayor Jenny Durkan authorized police to remove protesters who are “unlawfully occupying Cal Anderson Park area” — dubbed the Capitol Hill Organized Protest zone, or CHOP.

More than three dozen people were arrested during the early-morning ouster, charged with failure to disperse, obstruction, assault and unlawful weapon possession.

Durkan said that while she supported cops in making arrests Wednesday, she didn’t think many of those arrested for misdemeanors should be prosecuted.

The dismantling of the CHOP came after two teens were shot and killed in the zone that spans multiple blocks in the city’s Capitol Hill neighborhood.

With Post wires

Source Article from https://nypost.com/2020/07/01/seattles-chop-full-of-destruction-after-cops-oust-protesters/

At 11pm local time on Tuesday, Hong Kong’s government unveiled the text of a draconian new national security law that gives the Chinese government vast new powers to crackdown on free speech and dissent in Hong Kong.

Drafted in secrecy by top Chinese officials in Beijing — and not seen by the public until that very moment — the law criminalizes “secession, subversion, organization and perpetration of terrorist activities, and collusion with a foreign country or with external elements to endanger national security.”

Those who commit such acts — which experts say are vaguely defined in the law, and thus allow for an extremely broad interpretation by authorities — face severe punishment, up to and including life in prison.

“The things that you talk about, you write about, you publish about, and even the people you know about, that you have connection with, can be potentially at risk of being prosecuted under this law,” Ho-Fung Hung, a political economy professor at Johns Hopkins University who focuses on China and East Asia, told Vox.

And, according to the New York Times, “The law opens the way for defendants in important cases to stand trial before courts in mainland China, where convictions are usually assured and penalties are often harsh.”

The law went into effect immediately. Less than 24 hours later, Hong Kong police announced the first arrest under the new policy.

And they weren’t subtle about it: They immediately posted photos on their official Twitter account of the young man they’d arrested. His alleged offense? Holding a pro-Hong Kong independence flag.

Chinese state media quickly reported the story of the first arrest — but they made sure to blur out the offending images of the pro-independence flag itself, lest they commit the same grievous act of promoting such a seditious idea (something the Hong Kong Police Force apparently didn’t think to do before tweeting the photos).

For many Hong Kong watchers, these images marked the beginning of the end of the freedoms that Hong Kong, unlike the rest of mainland China, had enjoyed for decades.

The law effectively ends “one country, one system”

The “one country, two systems” principle — enshrined in the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s de facto constitution — has been in place ever since Britain handed back control of the territory to China in 1997.

As Vox’s Jen Kirby explains, “The ‘one country’ part means [Hong Hong] is officially part of China, while the ‘two systems’ part gives it a degree of autonomy, including rights like freedom of the press that are absent in mainland China. China is supposed to abide by this arrangement until 2047, but it has been eroding those freedoms and trying to bring Hong Kong more tightly under its control for years.” Kirby continues:

Last spring, Hong Kong’s legislature tried to pass an extradition bill that critics feared would allow the Chinese government to arbitrarily detain Hongkongers. That ignited massive protests, leading to months of unrest that sometimes turned violent. The bill was withdrawn, but the demonstrations continued, as the fight transformed into a larger battle to protect Hong Kong’s democratic institutions.

But Beijing’s imposition of this new national security law is the most direct and dramatic move China has made toward erasing those freedoms once and for all.

“[The National Security Law] is a complete destruction of the rule of law in Hong Kong and threatens every aspect of freedom the people of Hong Kong enjoyed under the international human rights standards or the Basic Law,” Lee Cheuk Yan, a veteran Hong Kong politician and activist, told US lawmakers during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on the new law on Wednesday.

On July 1, 2020, Hong Kong residents awoke to discover a barge with a large banner reading “Celebrate the National Security Law” floating in the waters of Victoria Harbor.
Anthony Wallace/AFP via Getty Images

And Bonnie Glaser, director of the China Power Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank, told Vox, “This law really eliminates ‘one country, two systems.’”

But Hong Kong’s pro-democracy activists aren’t cowed — or at least, not yet

Pro-democracy supporters hold a Hong Kong independence flag and shout slogans during a rally against the national security law as riot police secure an area in a shopping mall in Hong Kong on July 1, 2020.
Anthony Kwan/Getty Images

On Wednesday, Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam held a press conference to announce the new law — a law drafted without her input and whose full details even she didn’t know until just the day before.

Outside, thousands of Hongkongers took to the streets to protest against — and in direct defiance of — it, despite a heavy police presence.

Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Carrie Lam speaks during a press conference with Justice Secretary Teresa Cheng (L) and Security Secretary John Lee (R) about the new national security law in Hong Kong on July 1, 2020, on the 23rd anniversary of the city’s handover from Britain to China.
STR/AFP via Getty Images

Demonstrators in Hong Kong take part in a protest on July 1, 2020, against the new national security law that infringes on freedoms residents have had since Britain handed back control of the territory in 1997.
Anthony Kwan/Getty Images

Riot police deployed around the city held up large purple banners that read: “This is a police warning. You are displaying flags or banners / chanting slogans / or conducting yourselves with an intent such as secession or subversion, which may constitute offenses under the ‘HKSAR National Security Law.’ You may be arrested and prosecuted.”

By the end of the day, nearly 400 people had been arrested, including 10 who were specifically arrested for violating the new law.

Riot police detain a man as they raise a warning flag during a demonstration on July 1, 2020, against a new national security law imposed by Beijing.
Anthony Kwan/Getty Images

Riot police detain a man as they clear protesters taking part in a rally against a new national security law in Hong Kong on July 1, 2020.
Dale de la Rey/AFP via Getty Images

But experts fear that despite this initial strong opposition, the law’s chilling effect will happen eventually.

“People will be intimidated. They will charge people and they will sentence them,” Glaser said. “The Chinese have this saying, ‘kill the chicken to scare the monkey.’ They will look for very early cases that they can prosecute so that they can demonstrate their resolve in the hope of intimidating other people from challenging their authority.”

Johns Hopkins’s Hung also said the law could have major implications for September’s Hong Kong legislative elections, because the Chinese government could use the new law as a legal basis to suppress pro-democracy candidates.

“Under the new law, many of the slogans, many of the opinions are going to be illegal,” Hung said.

There’s already precedent for Chinese election officials intervening in Hong Kong’s legislative elections — in 2016, a number of candidates were disqualified for allegedly supporting Hong Kong independence, Hung said.

“I think that the Chinese were nervous after the last round of the district elections that there could be many Democrats who would be elected and, potentially, the pro-China legislature would lose legislators,” Glaser said.

“I think that if candidates do not moderate what they say, that they will be prevented from running under the law,” Glaser added. “They could easily be arrested.”

In fact, that has already happened: one pro-democracy lawmaker, the Democratic Party’s Andrew Wan, was arrested during the protests Wednesday.

It’s a stark example of just how quickly life has changed in Hong Kong, literally overnight.

Source Article from https://www.vox.com/world/2020/7/1/21309990/china-hong-kong-national-security-law-protests-arrests

A New York state judge closed one chapter on an attempt to block a book by President Donald Trump’s niece, which paints a harsh portrait of Trump and their family’s history, ruling Wednesday that it can hit store shelves.

State appeals Judge Alan D. Scheinkman reversed a lower court’s decision this week that issued a temporary restraining order.

Mary Trump’s book about her uncle, “Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World’s Most Dangerous Man,” is a potential bestseller, with tens of thousands of copies having shipped before its July 28 publication. The book has also been at the top of online lists for book presales.

“Too Much and Never Enough,” by Mary L. Trump.Simon & Schuster

“We support Mary L. Trump’s right to tell her story in ‘Too Much and Never Enough,’ a work of great interest and importance to the national discourse that fully deserves to be published for the benefit of the American public,” said Adam Rothberg, a spokesman for the company. “As all know, there are well-established precedents against prior restraint and pre-publication injunctions, and we remain confident that the preliminary injunction will be denied.”

Robert Trump, the president’s younger brother, filed a suit in late June in Queens County Surrogate’s Court, where the estate of their father, Fred Trump Sr., who died in 1999, was settled. However, the judge tossed the case out because it was not the proper venue.

Lawyers for Robert Trump quickly refiled a claim in state court in Dutchess County in upstate New York, where he lives. Robert Trump has argued that Mary Trump is not allowed to publish anything about her family as part of a settlement agreement in Fred Trump Sr.’s inheritance case.

Judge Hal B. Greenwald initially issued a temporary injunction after Robert Trump refiled.

The publisher, Simon & Schuster, said in a filing Tuesday that it had already printed 75,000 copies and that more copies are being made.

Simon & Schuster said in court documents that it would be unconstitutional to stop publication and that it was unaware that Mary Trump had signed a nondisclosure agreement. The company also said it believes it is not liable if she breached the agreement.

“We did not learn anything about Ms. Trump signing any agreement concerning her ability to speak about her litigation with her family until shortly after press broke concerning Ms. Trump’s Book about two weeks ago, well after the Book had been accepted, put into production, and printing had begun,” CEO Jonathan Karp said in an affidavit. “And we never saw any purported agreement until this action was filed against Ms. Trump and Simon & Schuster.”

Download the NBC News app for breaking news and politics

Karp said in his affidavit that Mary Trump revealed to the company that she leaked the president’s tax returns to The New York Times for a 2018 investigation, which won the Pulitzer Prize. Karp argued that because “no litigation” was taken after the tax returns were leaked, the company was “entirely confident in Ms. Trump’s ability to tell her story regarding her own family.”

Source Article from https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-family-tell-all-book-his-niece-mary-trump-can-n1232733

President Donald Trump says that he now supports a second stimulus check.

Here’s what you need to know.

Second Stimulus Check

Trump said on Fox Business Wednesday that he not only supports second stimulus checks, but also that he supports a “larger” second stimulus check than the Democrats. “I do. I support it, but it has to be done properly,” Trump said. “I support actually larger numbers than the Democrats.” This is the clearest expression to date from Trump regarding his support for a second stimulus check. Last month, he said there would be another stimulus package coming soon. There have been many proposals for a second stimulus check, ranging from a one-time $1,200 second stimulus check to $2,000 a month stimulus checks. While Trump did not specify which proposal from Democrats he was referring to, most likely he is referring to the one-time, $1,200 second stimulus check proposed by House Democrats.


Second stimulus check could be “larger” than $1,200

If Trump get his way in Congress, then his vision for a second stimulus check implies a second stimulus check larger than $1,200 for each individual. Why? House Democrats passed the Heroes Act, a $3 trillion stimulus package that also includes a second stimulus check. The Heroes Act would provide up to $1,200 for each individual and up to $1,200 for each dependent (with a maximum of three dependents). Unlike the CARES Act, the Heroes Act would count high school and college students as eligible dependents for a stimulus payment. House Democrats proposed the $1,200 second stimulus check in the Heroes Act, and based on Trump’s comments, he may support a larger second stimulus check than this. That said, only Congress (not the president) ultimately will decide whether there will be a second stimulus check, and if so, its size. To date, Senate Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), are unlikely to support a second stimulus check. However, this could change due to pressure from the White House, worsening employment numbers, and potentially more positive cases due to the Covid-19 pandemic.


Return to work bonus instead of unemployment

Trump also said he prefers a “return-to-work” bonus over extending supplemental unemployment benefits. It’s unclear whether a “return to work bonus” would be in addition to, or in lieu of, a second stimulus check. Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) proposed a “return to work” bonus, which would pay you money to get a job if you’re unemployed or return to work if you are furloughed. The proposal has emerged as an alternative to extending certain unemployment benefits beyond July 31, 2020. That said, the $600 a week unemployment benefits were slated to expire on July 31. However, these unemployment benefits will now expire one week early. This means that states could stop paying unemployment benefits as early as July 25 or July 26.

Some, including Trump, have argued that the current supplemental unemployment benefits through the Cares Act pay some people more money than they earned when they were employed. “Also it was an incentive not to go to work,” Trump said during the interview. “You’d make more money if you don’t go to work. That’s not what the country’s all about. We want to create a tremendous incentive for people to want to go back to work.” Under Portman’s proposal, you can earn your regular wages plus $450 a week, if you are employed. A return to work bonus could be supported by both Senate Republicans and the White House in the next stimulus bill.


Trump supports “at least” a $2 trillion stimulus bill

According to White House trade advisor Peter Navarro, the president wants the next stimulus bill to be “at least $2 trillion.” This is nearly double the $1 trillion amount that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he would target and two-thirds the size of the $3 trillion Heroes Act that House Democrats passed. If Congress passes a stimulus bill with a larger second stimulus check, however, the next stimulus bill could cost more than the Heroes Act. Trump’s advisors have indicated the next stimulus bill could be focused on manufacturing jobs, a payroll tax cut, a return-to-work bonus, a $4,000 travel credit and an infrastructure plan, among others. However, this could change if the president, who is up for re-election in November, pushes a second stimulus check over other priorities to stimulate the economy.


Next Steps

Will there be a second stimulus check? Congress, not the president, will make the ultimate decision. Congress will vote this month on a new stimulus package. To date, the next stimulus package was expected to help individuals and businesses, with a particular focus on how to stimulate the economy. This may change somewhat, if the president continues to focus on direct payments such as a second stimulus check. Congress will need to weigh total spending, the state of the economy, and how and where to target support against the backdrop of Covid-19.


Related Resources

Second stimulus checks: your questions answered

Second stimulus check could look like this

No, Trump didn’t say there would be second stimulus checks

Don’t expect a second stimulus check

Trump wants at least $2 trillion for next stimulus

15 secrets to refinance student loans

Kamala Harris and Andrew Yang renew call for $2,000 a month stimulus check

Don’t expect student loan forgiveness or a $2,000 a month stimulus check

Student loan forgiveness reduced in new stimulus bill

Source Article from https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2020/07/01/second-stimulus-checks-trump/

Work crews remove the statue of Confederate Gen. Stonewall Jackson on Wednesday in Richmond, Va. The city’s mayor, Levar Stoney, has ordered the immediate removal of multiple Confederate statues in the city, saying he was using his emergency powers to speed up their removal for public safety.

Steve Helber/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Steve Helber/AP

Updated at 4:53 p.m. ET

Virginia’s capital city began taking down its statue of Stonewall Jackson after Mayor Levar Stoney ordered the immediate removal of multiple Confederate statues in Richmond.

A crane and a cherry picker swiftly arrived on the city’s Monument Avenue to remove the statue of the Confederate general. Crowds gathered to watch and cheer the crew’s work, reported Mallory Noe-Payne of NPR member station WVTF.

Stoney says he has the powers to remove the statues immediately because of powers he holds during a declared state of emergency.

In an interview Wednesday afternoon with NPR, Stoney said he had moved quickly to remove the statue for public safety and other reasons.

“We’ve had 33 days of unrest,” the mayor said. “It’s time. It’s time to move beyond the lost cause and embrace the righteous cause. We can be more than just the capital of the Confederacy. It’s time for us to be the capital of compassion.”

Earlier in the day, Stoney had sought approval from the Richmond City Council for the immediate removal of the city-owned Confederate statues, arguing that they posed a threat to public safety.

While many council members voiced full support for the mayor’s proposal, procedural issues caused them to push a vote on the matter until Thursday, to allow enough time for public notice. Interim City Attorney Haskell Brown warned that the mayor’s going ahead with emergency statue removal would be contrary to the legal advice he has offered previously.

Stoney says that he will work with the council in the coming weeks on a public process to determine the ultimate fate of the statues. Until then, the monuments will go into storage.

Monument Avenue’s Robert E. Lee statue is owned by the state. Gov. Ralph Northam is trying to remove it, but that effort has been blocked by an injunction from a Richmond judge. A statue of Jefferson Davis was toppled by protesters last month, leaving Monument Avenue with two other city-owned statues of Confederate figures still standing: J.E.B. Stuart and Matthew Fontaine Maury.

City Council member Michael Jones was among those watching the statue come down on Wednesday. He said the protesters who have been rallying for racial justice in Richmond are a manifestation of what Martin Luther King Jr. called “the beautiful community.”

“That’s what he was shooting for,” Jones told CBS station WTVR. “Out here in the streets protesting you have black young men and women, white young men and women, Latinx young men and women, Asian. Everyone is gathering together to say, ‘Black Lives Matter’ and that white supremacy cannot exist and should not exist in this country.”

“I’m proud of everything young Richmonders have done to get us to this point, to where we can truly say that Virginia is for lovers.”

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/07/01/886204604/richmond-va-mayor-orders-emergency-removal-of-confederate-statues