SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington
Judge Delays Trump Sentencing in Hush Money Case Until After 2024 Election
One analyst argued the decision was "wrong," writing that "if no one is above the law, then Trump shouldn't be either."
Sep 06, 2024
The New York judge overseeing the criminal case stemming from hush money payments that Donald Trump made to porn star Stormy Daniels opted Friday to postpone the Republican nominee's sentencing until after the 2024 election, granting the former president's request for a delay.
New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan wrote Friday that "this is not a decision this court makes lightly but it is the decision which in this court's view, best advances the interests of justice."
Trump was originally scheduled to be sentenced in July for 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, but Merchan noted that the U.S. Supreme Court's sweeping presidential immunity decision provided Trump's legal team an opening to delay the process further.
Prior to Merchan's order Friday, Trump's sentencing hearing was set for September 18.
As The New York Timesreported, "it is unclear whether sentencing Mr. Trump" in the weeks ahead of the November 5 election "would have helped or harmed him politically; his punishment could have been an embarrassing reminder of his criminal record, but could have also propelled his claims of political martyrdom."
"The jury did its job and, after reviewing a mountain of evidence that resulted in his conviction on 34 felony counts, it's well past time for Donald Trump to be held accountable."
Norman Eisen, co-founder and board member of State Democracy Defenders Action, argued in an op-ed for MSNBC last month that Trump's sentencing should not be delayed, writing that "Trump should be denied the special treatment he seeks to delay his sentence simply because he is a presidential candidate."
"To avoid undermining public faith in the rule of law and fairness of the criminal justice system," Eisen wrote, "Trump's sentencing should go ahead as scheduled."
Eisen wrote on social media Friday that Merchan's decision to postpone Trump's sentencing was "wrong."
"Trump has already benefited from extraordinary special treatment," he added. "If no one is above the law, then Trump shouldn't be either."
Merchan wrote in his decision Friday that "this matter is one that stands alone, in a unique place in this nation's history," and experts are uncertain what would happen under various possible scenarios—including if Trump wins the 2024 election and is subsequently sentenced to prison.
One certainty, according to the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, is that "even if Trump is elected to a second term, he would not be able to pardon himself for these crimes because he was convicted on New York state charges."
Lisa Gilbert and Brett Edkins, co-chairs of the Not Above the Law Coalition, said in a statement Friday that "today's latest delay prevents justice from being served."
"At every step along the way, Trump and his legal team did everything they could to delay accountability in this case and undermine our legal system—even stooping so low as to intimidate witnesses, publicly criticize jurors, and defy orders from the judge," they continued. "The jury did its job and, after reviewing a mountain of evidence that resulted in his conviction on 34 felony counts, it's well past time for Donald Trump to be held accountable."
This story has been updated to include a statement from the Not Above the Law Coalition.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watchdog Finds 35 'Rogue' Election Officials Still in Position to Deny Results in 2024
"I think there's almost no question that this is going to happen," an expert said of county official obstructionism in 2024. "And it seems to be happening in a way this year that is more systematic than it has been in the past."
Aug 13, 2024
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group, released a report on Monday showing that 35 county officials around the country who've previously tried to subvert election results are still in place to do so.
The 113-page report not only identifies "rogue" election officials who pose a risk of obstructing the certification process in order to help Republican nominee Donald Trump but also includes state-by-state and federal election law analysis meant to help thwart such obstructionism. CREW's state-level analysis covers eight key swing states.
CREW warned that county officials in the eight states—Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Michigan—have refused to certify results in elections of relatively little consequence as a test run for obstructing the consequential 2024 election, in case they dislike the results.
"I think there's almost no question that this is going to happen," Noah Bookbinder, CREW's president, said of the obstructionism on The Rachel Maddow Show Monday night. "And it seems to be happening in a way this year that is more systematic than it has been in the past. So that's deeply, deeply concerning."
"The good news is it's clearly illegal in all of these states and there are steps that can be taken to effectively halt it," he said.
Since 2020, threats to election certification have only escalated, including in Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
We broke down what can be done to protect the 2024 election in our new report: https://t.co/8tLK0D7aV3
— Citizens for Ethics (@CREWcrew) August 13, 2024
The report makes it clear, as previous nonprofit research has done, that election certification is not optional or discretionary: it is a ministerial duty. The authors wrote:
It is not an opportunity for county officials to politically grandstand, lodge protest votes against election practices they dislike or investigate suspected voter fraud," the report says. "State laws provide robust mechanisms outside of the certification process—including recounts, audits, evidentiary hearings before state election boards, and election contests in court—to investigate suspected fraud and errors. These are the legally-designated avenues for resolving the rare cases where genuine problems arise in an election, not the certification process.
The authors also explained that certification is just one stage in a multi-step process and must be done in a timely fashion to avoid disruptions, which could feed conspiracy theories.
Many of the laws pertaining to the certification role of election officials date back to the turn of the 20th century, when they were passed in order to stop partisan election deniers of that era, the report says.
Democrats have been especially concerned about election obstructionism since 2020, when then-President Trump tried to subvert and discredit the presidential election results—making false claims about voter fraud—after his reelection bid failed. That effort culminated in a violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, as the U.S. Congress was preparing to certify the results.
Many county officials around the country, presumably feeling they had license given Trump's rhetoric, also voted against or delayed certification in 2020, but their efforts were unsuccessful due to being outvoted or legally forced to certify.
However, Republicans intent on winning at all costs are more organized this year, and there's more emphasis on the county level, CREW warned.
"The legal ground game that was brought to bear against certifying the election in 2020 was junior varsity compared to what we are going to see this year," Joshua Matz, a lawyer on the board at CREW, toldThe Guardian. "There is now a much better organized, much more sophisticated, far better funded and far more intentional effort to thwart the smooth and steady certification of election results required by the law."
The CREW report includes information on each of the 35 rogue officials, including their names and their stated reasons for refusing to certify one or more elections; many of them are included on the list because they tried to obstruct elections in the past two years.
Some of the county officials who've refused to certify elections have given reasons that are "brazenly lawless," the report says. In North Carolina, two officials voted against certification as a form of protest, and in Arizona two officials voted to delay certification as a "political statement." In other cases, in Georgia and Pennsylvania, obstructionist officials have offered a "veneer" of legal justification, the report says.
Very few county officials have faced legal consequences for their efforts to subvert the election process.
The CREW authors argued that the federal government needs to be ready to step in to enforce the Voting Rights Act and other laws.
"Because the states administer elections, they are the first lines of defense against county-level certification subversion," the report says. "But the federal government also has a vital role in enforcing relevant federal statutes and constitutional provisions protecting the right to vote. Thus, if a state is unable or unwilling to take action against rogue county officials who threaten to disenfranchise voters in violation of federal law, the U.S. Department of Justice should intervene."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'What's the Holdup?' Menendez to Resign Next Month
"It's time for New Jersey to move forward," said U.S. Rep. Andy Kim, who is running to replace the senator.
Jul 23, 2024
One day after the U.S. Senate Ethics Committee notified Sen. Bob Menendez that it had voted to move toward a potential vote on expelling him from the upper chamber of Congress, the New Jersey Democrat told Gov. Phil Murphy that he would resign, effective August 20.
Menendez announced his resignation a week after he was convicted of 16 counts of bribery and acting as a foreign agent.
But with senators and members of the U.S. House long having called on the lawmaker to resign over the federal bribery charges, one leading ethics group asked why Menendez was waiting nearly a month to leave office.
"What's the holdup?" asked Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).
Menendez was convicted last week of accepting bribes from three businessmen and acting as a foreign agent on behalf of the Egyptian government. He pleaded not guilty.
CREW promptly called on Menendez to resign after his conviction, saying he had spent years "ducking accountability for corruption."
"There is no room in the Senate for a convicted felon, especially not one convicted of taking bribes," said CREW president Noah Bookbinder last week. "He must resign today or be immediately expelled."
Manu Raju of CNN pointed out that the August 20 resignation date allows Menendez "to collect another taxpayer-funded paycheck."
Sens. Chris Coons (D-Del.) and James Lankford (R-Okla.), the chair and vice chair of the Senate Ethics Committee, respectively, said Monday that the panel had voted to begin "an adjudicatory review of [Menendez's] alleged violations of Senate Rules."
"An adjudicatory review is required when the committee considers disciplinary actions, such as expulsion or censure," said the senators.
Bloomberg reporter Steven Dennis noted that lawmakers' resignation before their colleagues have a chance to recommend their expulsion is "a pattern throughout history."
Menendez was convicted of using his influence to meddle in three state and federal criminal cases to protect his associates, as well as taking actions that benefited the government of Egypt in exchange for bribes. Prosecutors said he ghostwrote a letter to his Senate colleagues about lifting a hold on military aid to Egypt. He did the favors in exchange for stacks of gold bars and $480,000 in cash that he hid in his home.
The senator wrote to Murphy that "I fully intend to appeal the jury's verdict, all the way and including to the Supreme Court."
Menendez's term was set to expire in January 2025; following his resignation, Murphy will be empowered to appoint someone to serve for the remainder of the senator's term. U.S. Rep. Andy Kim (D-N.J.) is running to replace Menendez and is favored to win against Republican Curtis Bagshaw. The disgraced senator also launched a bid last month to run for his seat as an Independent.
Kim said Tuesday that Menendez had "made the right decision for New Jersey by agreeing to step down next month."
"It's time for New Jersey to move forward," he said. "We have big challenges ahead of us, and we can only tackle them if we show the people of our state that this is the beginning of a new era of politics built on integrity, service, and delivering for all families."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular