By NADIA LATHAN, Associated Press/Report for America

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A jury in Texas will soon determine whether a convoy of supporters of then-President Donald Trump violently intimidated former Democratic Rep. Wendy Davis and two others on a Biden-Harris campaign bus when a so-called “Trump Train” surrounded them for greater than an hour on a Texas highway just days before the 2020 election.

The process that began on September 9will proceed on Monday and is predicted to last one other week.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued that six of the Trump Train riders violated state and federal laws. Attorneys for the defendants said they didn’t conspire against the Democrats on the bus and that their actions were protected speech.

Here’s what else it’s best to know:

What happened on October 30, 2020?

Dozens of cars and trucks organized by an area Trump Train group surrounded the bus because it made its way from San Antonio to Austin. It was the last day of early voting in Texas for the 2020 general election, and the bus was scheduled to make a stop in San Marcos for an event at Texas State University.

Video recorded by Davis shows pickup trucks carrying large Trump flags slamming on their brakes and surrounding the bus because it attempted to drive away from the Trump Train. One defendant rammed a campaign employee's automobile while the trucks occupied every lane, slowing the bus and everybody around it to a crawl of 15 mph.

Those on the bus – including Davis, a campaign staffer and the motive force – repeatedly called 911, asking for help and a police escort through San Marcos, but when no police arrived, the campaign canceled the event and continued on to Austin.

Saint Mark settled a separate legal dispute submitted by the identical three Democrats against the policeand agreed to pay $175,000 and require mandatory training for law enforcement officials on how one can cope with political violence.

Davis testified that she felt like she was being “held hostage” and sought treatment for her anxiety disorders.

In the times leading as much as the event, Democrats were also intimidated and harassed and received death threats, the lawsuit says.

“I feel like they enjoyed scaring us,” Davis testified. “It's traumatic for all of us to relive that day.”

What is the plaintiffs’ argument?

A lawyer for the plaintiffs said in opening statements that the convoy's organizers targeted the bus in a calculated attack to intimidate Democrats, a violation of the Ku Klux Klan Act, an 1871 federal law that prohibits political violence and intimidation.

“We are here because of actions that put people's lives in danger,” said Samuel Hall, an attorney with the law firm Willkie Farr & Gallagher. The plaintiffs were “literally driven out of town by a horde of trucks,” he said.

The six riders of the Trump Train succeeded in getting the campaign to cancel its remaining events in Texas in a war they believed was “between good and evil,” Hall said.

Two nonprofit advocacy groups, Texas Civil Rights Project and Protect Democracy, are also representing the three plaintiffs.

What is the defense argument?

Lawyers for the defendants accused of driving and organizing the convoy said that they had no plan to harass the Democrats on the bus, which could have left the highway at any time.

“This was a political rally. This was not a conspiracy to intimidate people,” said attorney Jason Greaves, who represents two of the drivers.

The defense also argued that their clients' actions were a violation of freedom of expression and that the trial was a concerted try to “rip off conservatives,” said Francisco Canseco, a lawyer for 3 of the defendants.

“It was a hooray group that wanted to support and represent a candidate of their choice in a very vocal way,” Canseco said in his opening speech.

The defense failed last month in an try to have the case decided of their favor and not using a trial. The judge wrote that “attacks, intimidations, or imminent threats of violence against others are not protected speech.”

Lathan is a corps member of the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on under-reported issues.

Originally published: September 16, 2024 at 10:44 am

The world has turn into cynical about the integrity of major international sportsAnd not without reason. Of the Bribery scandal on the Olympic Games within the Nineteen Nineties – involving the hosts of Nagano 1998, Sydney 2000 and Salt Lake City 2002 – we now have witnessed other corruption scandals at major global sporting events in countries as diverse as Germany, France, South Africa, Brazil, Russia, China and Qatar.

But Paris 2024 could mark the start of a brand new era.

The Olympic Games in Paris were characterized by a relative absence of the scandals that always plague the Games. While controversies surrounding the Algerian and Taiwanese boxers and the opening ceremony made headlines, the general tone was positive. In the run-up to the event, there have been minor controversies surrounding the Awarding of some contracts and the way of Payment for the director of Paris 2024however the event itself was largely freed from the official corruption scandals which have overshadowed previous Olympic Games.

As a number one voice within the global efforts to combat corruptionI’m convinced that the hosts haven’t only prevented wrongdoing but have also left a positive legacy within the fight against corruption for the long run of world sport.

Nevertheless, because the USA is preparing to host 4 major international sporting events In the following decade – which also includes the Summer Olympics and the World Cup – the country faces a surprising identity crisis within the fight against corruption.

A “French Revolution” of sport

The Frenchman Pierre de Coubertin revived the Olympic Games 125 years ago within the hope that they might set an example of how different nations of excellent will could compete with one another on the premise of an agreed algorithm.

One of the foundations that the world most demands compliance with today is the Anti-corruption principle: that power must not be abused for personal gain and that athletes and firms alike must compete in response to common rules with transparency and accountability.

After 25 years repeated violations – and the dramatic decline of the Olympic brand – each France and the International Olympic Committee adopted a series of reforms in 2017. Together, these reforms quietly led to a “French Revolution” within the administration of the mega-sport.

The IOC modified its “Omnibus Host City Agreement For the primary time in history, a clause might be included within the tournament requiring the host city to take leading measures to combat corruption.

In the identical 12 months, France, fully independent, found itself within the midst of a Anti-corruption reform movementSpurred on by quite a few embarrassing scandals in the private and non-private sectors, France implemented a groundbreaking anti-corruption law, Chapter IIThe law has two highly modern features.

First, it requires that broad sections of private and non-private institutions introduce mandatory anti-corruption compliance systems.

Secondly, a special anti-corruption agency was established, which French anti-corruption agencywhose sole task is to help these corporations in implementing best anti-corruption practices.

As prudent as these measures sound, there aren’t any such measures within the United States or in a lot of the remainder of the world.

Later in 2017, these forces joined forces when the IOC Award for the 2024 Summer Olympics to Paris.

It was a completely satisfied coincidence: the primary country to be subject to the brand new IOC hosting rules was already within the midst of a historic and modern reform movement to combat corruption – and this within the birthplace of the fashionable Olympic Games.

“Most important decade” for sport within the USA

Seven years later, it is obvious that the brand new system has not only succeeded in curbing corruption, but has also had a long-lasting positive impact in the shape of improved anti-corruption standards and practices in the private and non-private sectors.

French anti-corruption agency conducted a comprehensive review of the Paris 2024 ecosystemThe concerns identified throughout the audit were referred to prosecutors, who launched thorough investigations to follow up on any evidence of corruption.

When the Paris Olympic Games come to an end on 11 August, they may leave France with a brand new Olympic legacy and a blueprint for future hosts: a set of strengthened laws, policies, practices and norms promoting anti-corruption principles that can last beyond the event and whose implementation might be accelerated by hosting the event.

In other words, in a number of years we’ll probably say that France shouldn’t be worse off within the fight against corruption, but higher off since it hosted the Olympic Games. That could be a dramatic paradigm shift.

With the top of the Olympic Games in Paris, the eyes of the sporting world will soon turn to the United States and what the U.S. State Department the nation’s “most important decade” in sports. Within 10 years, the United States will host the 2026 FIFA Men's World Cup (with Canada and Mexico), the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles, the 2031 Rugby World Cup, and the 2034 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.

One might expect the United States to construct on the French example and lift the bar even higher within the fight against corruption. But the situation for the United States on this regard is uncertain.

An Olympic challenge to fight corruption

The United States' fight against corruption has historically been based on two assumptions: first, that the United States is less tolerant of corruption than most other countries. And second, that when given the chance to guide, the United States is willing – some would say too willing – to take it.

Isolationist tendencies have gained traction in US politics over the past decade, and plenty of voters seem able to support candidates involved in credible corruption controversies. It stays to be seen whether Americans will remain as committed to setting a worldwide example of world-class anti-corruption efforts as they once did.

In addition, the United States lacks the 2 elements of the French anti-corruption framework that made the anti-corruption revolution possible. The United States only encourages corporations to adopt anti-corruption compliance programs, not requires them to achieve this. And it lacks an agency that gives the form of anti-corruption compliance support that the Agence Francaise Anticorruption Paris provided.

This signifies that the organizing committees of those US events find themselves in a form of blind spot within the fight against corruption.

So I imagine the US must innovate if it doesn't need to lose the baton within the fight against corruption that France is about handy over. Do Americans still need to be a worldwide leader within the fight against corruption, in sports, if not beyond? With the country set to be within the mega-sports highlight over the following decade, perhaps it needs to try itself.