crime

NEW YORK (AP) — A New York appeals court on Thursday denied Donald Trump's request to lift a news blackout in his hush-money criminal case, rejecting the previous Republican president's argument that his conviction in May represented “a change of circumstances” that justified lifting the restrictions.

A five-judge panel of the state's appeals court ruled that trial judge Juan M. Merchan acted accurately in extending parts of the news blackout until Trump is convicted, writing that “the fair administration of justice necessarily includes the promulgation of a verdict.”

The ruling got here a day after Trump's lawyers tried to file papers with the appeals court asking for the news blackout to be lifted immediately. Shortly before the decision was announced, the court denied the request, calling the blackout an “unconstitutional, election-influencing” restriction on Trump's free speech as he tries to return to the White House.

In a duplicate of the motion obtained by the Associated Press, Trump's lawyers wrote that Vice President Kamala Harris' entry into the presidential campaign on the Democratic side gives the matter recent urgency because she portrays herself as a former prosecutor taking up a “convicted felon.”

“It is unethical that Harris can speak freely about this case but President Trump cannot,” wrote Trump's lawyer Todd Blanche.

Blanche declined to comment on Thursday's ruling.

Trump's lawyers have tried multiple times to get the news ban lifted. Their most up-to-date fight resulted in the state's appeals court – the Appellate Division, one step above Merchan's trial court – after they failed within the state's highest court. The appeals court last month refused to listen to Donald Trump's challenge to the news ban, saying it didn’t raise “substantial” constitutional issues that may warrant immediate motion.

Merchan imposed the news blackout in March, weeks before the trial was set to start, after prosecutors raised concerns about Trump's habit of attacking people involved in his cases. During the trial, he accused Trump of contempt of court and fined him $10,000 for violations, threatening him with jail if he did it again.

In June, the judge lifted some restrictions: Trump was now allowed to talk to witnesses and jurors, but prosecutors, court staff and their families – including the judge's daughter – weren’t allowed to talk until the decision was announced.

Trump, who denies any wrongdoing, was originally scheduled to be sentenced on July 11, but Merchan postponed sentencing until September 18 as a final resort while he considers a motion by his defense to overturn his conviction under the Supreme Court's immunity ruling.

A Manhattan jury convicted Trump on May 30 of falsifying records to cover up a possible sex scandal, making him the primary former president to be convicted of a criminal offense.

Trump's 34-count conviction was based on an try to cover up a hush-money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 presidential election. She claims she had a sexual encounter with Trump ten years earlier, which he denies.

Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen paid Daniels and was later reimbursed by Trump. Prosecutors said Cohen concealed the reimbursements with Trump's knowledge by submitting monthly invoices for retainer payments as his personal attorney. Trump's company recorded the payments to Cohen as legal expenses.

Prosecutors said the payment to Daniels was a part of a broader plot to purchase the silence of people that could have gone public with embarrassing stories accusing Trump of extramarital sex through the 2016 campaign.

Trump has announced that he’ll appeal the conviction, but he is not going to have the ability to accomplish that until the decision is final.

A federal appeals court has overturned the conviction of a researcher who was accused of concealing work he conducted in China while employed on the University of Kansas.

Feng “Franklin” Tao was sentenced in April 2022 on three counts of wire fraud and one count of constructing a cloth false statement. U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson kick out the wire fraud convictions a couple of months later, but left the conviction for making false statements standing. Later sentenced him to a jail sentence he had already served.

But the tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Kansas City, Missouri, ruled Thursday that the federal government had not presented enough evidence to indicate that Tao's failure to reveal his potential conflict of interest was actually relevant and ordered the lower court to acquit him on that only remaining count.

The case against Tao was a part of the Trump administration’s efforts to China Initiativewhich was launched in 2018 to stop what the Justice Department said was the transfer of original ideas and mental property from U.S. universities to the Chinese government. The department ended this system after public criticism and a number of other failed prosecutions.

Tao was a tenured professor within the University of Kansas' chemistry and petroleum engineering departments from 2014 until his arrest in 2019. The appeals court found that while the case began as an espionage case, the FBI ultimately found no evidence of espionage.

However, the professor was accused of failing to reveal, when completing an annual “institutional responsibility form” under the university's conflict of interest policy, that he had traveled to China to establish a laboratory and recruit staff for Fuzhou University, where he hoped to secure a prestigious position. Federal prosecutors argued that through his activities, Tao defrauded the University of Kansas, in addition to the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation, which had awarded Tao grants for research projects in Kansas.

Tao's lawyers argued of their appeal that the case against Tao was a “breathtaking case of prosecutorial overreach” aimed toward turning a university personnel matter right into a federal crime.

Appeals Judge Mary Beck Briscoe dissented, saying that Tao's failure to reveal his time spent in connection along with his potential position at Fuzhou University was of concern to each agencies because, of their role as stewards of taxpayers' money, they desired to know who was chargeable for the trustworthiness of the research results.

Originally published: July 13, 2024 at 1:35 p.m.

Former President Donald Trump is the likely Republican presidential candidate. He is now also a convicted felona New York State ruling concerning a hush money conspiracy prior to his presidency.

Typically, a serious party candidate gets access to top-secret information, including a version of the president's each day intelligence report. A president-elect gets much more. And the sitting president has more access and authority over the country's secrets than anyone else.

However, a criminal conviction often ends in someone not being granted security clearance – that’s, no permission to read documents marked “SECRET” or “TOP SECRET.”

So what can we do with a candidate who can also be a serious criminal – and subsequently potentially elected?

As a Law Professor who teaches and writes about secrecy and as someone who earlier in his profession worked for the US intelligence community and a US Senate committee and handled classified information, I never would have expected this dilemma.

The excellent news is that the law has several clear answers.

Presidents receive access to classified information due to their office, not because they meet criteria in management Orders and administrative Rules. Technically, the President doesn’t even have clearance. Practically and legally speakingThe president also sits at the highest of the manager branch’s massive secrecy apparatus. So if Trump is re-elected, he would have extensive access to and control over classified information. And control over secrets and Shares available for others.

Joseph R. Biden is the incumbent president and subsequently has legal authority to choose whether his opponent will receive the standard access to confidential information.

Whether Trump's 34 felony convictions and other questionable behavior bar him from accessing classified information is ultimately the identical query voters are asking: Should Trump run for president again?

The US secrecy system

Most U.S. government employees and contractors wouldn’t have security clearances. If their records suggest trustworthiness, those that have to know can obtain this license to access the multiple levels of confidential informationcalled “Confidential”, “Secret” and “Top secret.”

Federal investigators Check applicants fastidiously for national security positions and security clearances. To assess a candidate's trustworthiness, investigators interview the candidate, review their records, and search databases. Some investigations include giving the candidate a lie detector test and interviewing people they know. Once a clearance is granted, investigators proceed to observe clearance holders.

Important aspects that investigators consider These include loyalty to the United States, respect for rules and the rule of law, psychological stability, common sense, and a very good character by way of trustworthiness and integrity. Substance abuse, marital infidelity, or financial problems may indicate poor judgment and vulnerability to blackmail or other types of coercion.

The far-reaching power of the president

The President oversees the whole national security secrecy system of the country. The President has the authority to read all secret documents, the classification and declassification of virtually all information, and the oversight of the safety clearance system. There is not any other government official who decides whether the President could have access to state secrets.

The The Supreme Court has decided This authority over secrecy and clearances stems partially from the facility the Constitution vests within the President. In a dangerous international security environment, the President must have the opportunity to know classified details about foreign threats, communicate confidentially with foreign counterparts and subordinates, and act with what Alexander Hamilton called Federalist Papers “Secrecy and speed.”

As the President, Members of Congress gain access to confidential information consequently of an election, not through the conventional security check Release process.

Normally Trump wouldn’t get approval

The dilemma is clear: Trump is running to go a national security establishment that may surely have denied him a security clearance if he needed to follow the foundations that apply to his past and potential future subordinates.

If someone has been criminally convicted of fraud or has a civil court case pending against them, they sometimes cannot get a release. Such court rulings indicate problems with compliance with regulations essential to protecting confidential information, in addition to violations of the law and dishonesty.

I cannot imagine that any reasonable background investigator would Shocking evidence against Trump In this regard.

Under the heading “SMICE,” for instance, Trump is filled with red flags. SMICE stands for sex, money, ideology, crime and smuggling, and ego.

First, there’s extensive evidence that Trump committed sexual assault. 34 charges were related to his hush money payments to a porn star with whom Trump had sex in 2008 when his now wife was pregnant.

Even adultery alone can jeopardize a divorce since it suggests infidelity and cheating. It creates a unclean secret and carries the chance of blackmail.

Trump's infidelity to all three of his wives is well documented. In 2005 Trump bragged on tape about his sexual assaultssaid he would “just start kissing women” without their consent, knowing that “you can do anything when you're famous.” Last 12 months, author E. Jean Carroll won a Civil judgment against Trump for the rape within the Nineteen Eighties.

Secondly, some of the common reasons for refusal or suspension of approval is Credit card debt or other financial problemsThey create a motive for accepting bribes or conducting business deals in exchange for sharing secrets or other disloyalty.

Trump's corporations recorded six bankruptciesThe fraud verdict immediately turned Trump's funds the wrong way up at risk againThere is ample evidence that his Corporate Finance are linked to foreign governments, especially Russia.

Third, Trump also has extreme ideological views. Trump has told violent militias to “step back and stand by.” The US House Committee on January 6, 2022 found that Trump was a part of a “multi-part conspiracy” to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election, an effort that included the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Trump can also be said to Thousands of pages of confidential documents stored after the top of his term in office – at which point his authority to own them expired. He also resisted lawful efforts by the federal government to get well them.

Trump's record still matters

If Trump were treated like everyone else, he would never be cleared. But voters could give him back his powers over classified information by sending him back to the White House.

The flood of warning signs in Trump's past could, nevertheless, be significant in two ways.

On the one hand, Biden could use this basis to interrupt with tradition and prohibit Trump, as a candidate of a serious party, from obtaining intelligence information during his election campaign or as president-elect.

And Trump's criminal conviction, together with other evidence of his lack of trustworthiness and commitment to the rule of law, could function a guide for voters as they head to the polls.

By WILL WEISSERT (Associated Press)

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden's The re-election campaign is spending $50 million through the top of June, a blitz that features the primary television ad that Donald Trump's The felony conviction is an indication that the Democratic incumbent is attempting to make his Republican opponent's legal troubles an even bigger issue heading into November.

The promoting offensive comes despite the fact that Election Day continues to be months away, but Biden's campaign team says it desires to more clearly define the alternative between candidates before the election. the primary debate between them in Atlanta on June twenty seventh.

The promoting campaign includes greater than $1 million geared toward reaching black, Hispanic and Asian American voters through the media, in addition to a spot that Trump's conviction on 34 counts in a New York hush money case. The show will air on general television and connected TV on streaming devices and mobile phones in swing states, in addition to on national cable television.

In addition to Trump's criminal conviction, the ad, titled “Character Matters,” points out that the previous president was also found guilty Sexual harassment And Financial fraud in a separate case. Trump can also be charged in three other criminal cases, none of that are expected to go to trial before the November election.

“In the courtroom, we see Donald Trump as he really is,” says the ad's narrator. Over images of a mug shot of Trump and Biden's high-five supporters, he adds: “This election is about a convicted criminal who only cares about himself and a president who is fighting for your family.”

Biden has also spoken incessantly about Trump’s 34 capital crimes convictions, while denounce the previous president for claiming that the case against him was politically motivated. Biden argues: “It is reckless, dangerous and irresponsible for someone to claim that the case was rigged just because they don't like the verdict.”

Biden's son Hunter was convicted last week in Delaware of three charges of significant crimes just about the acquisition of a revolver in 2018despite the fact that, prosecutors argued, Hunter had lied on a compulsory gun purchase form by saying he was not using or hooked on illegal drugs. The president has said he’ll accept the consequence of the case and “continue to respect the legal process while Hunter considers an appeal.”

“It's a stark contrast, and it's one that matters deeply to the American people,” Biden campaign spokesman Michael Tyler said in a press release. “And that's why we're going to make sure we remind voters every day how Joe Biden is fighting for them while Donald Trump is running a campaign focused on one man: himself.”

Trump has denied any wrongdoing and argued without evidence that Biden or Justice Department officials orchestrated the New York case against him for political reasons. He and his allies have also raised the prospect of Persecution of political opponents out of revenge when he returns to the White House.

Karoline Leavitt, spokeswoman for Trump's campaign, said the Biden administration had “used the justice system as a weapon against President Trump” and the contrast between her candidate and Biden “will be very clear on the debate stage.”

According to a jury sentenced Donald Trump from 34 charges of falsifying business documents to cover up a politically damaging relationship, he responded with Warning to viewers his press conference after the decision: “If they can do that to me, they can do that to anyone.”

This statement concurrently invokes the perfect of an independent judiciary and attempts to delegitimize it.

As a scholar of political communicationI study how rhetoric strengthens or undermines democratic institutions and might prepare an audience to expect or accept violence. Regardless of what anyone thinks of the legal arguments made during Trump's trial, Trump's attempts to prevail within the court of public opinion proceed his campaign to discredit democratic institutions and threaten anyone who stands in his way.

Demagogy is a political communication used as a weapon, which, as communication scientists Jennifer Mercieca explains“undermines both democratic decision-making and democracy itself.” Demagogues use rhetoric to dominate an electorate quite than persuade it. One of their key characteristics is that they evade responsibility for his or her claims and scapegoat anyone who’s disloyal to the demagogue.

Demagogic communication includes a number of of the terms defined by scholars Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt as “Key indicators of authoritarian behavior.” These include rejection or weak commitment to democratic rules and norms, denial of the legitimacy of political opponents, tolerance or promotion of violence, and willingness to limit civil rights and freedom of the press.

After Trump's conviction for a serious crime, Trump and his Republican allies delegitimized democratic institutions with their demagogic rhetoric and fueled threats of violence.

“Designed to distract”

When Trump declared, “If they can do it to me, they can do it to anyone,” he was in fact right. Ideally, that's how laws work. They should apply equally to an bizarre citizen and a former president.

Trump’s case is phenomenal given his status as a former president, and the legal theory utilized by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has been called “novel.” Nevertheless, within the legal and national security publication Just Security, Siven Watt and Norman L. Eisen document a long history of prosecutors pursuing politicians who violate laws to support political campaigns in the same way.

Trump's social media posts aimed to distract from these facts by undermining the independence and trustworthiness of the judiciary and scapegoating anyone who will not be a Trump supporter, including President Joe Biden, Court officialsImmigrants and even a Fox News host who’s seen as not being sufficiently supportive.

As the jury deliberated, Trump set the stage and described the proceedings as “Biden witch hunt,” The “Use the justice system as a weapon!” And “Election interference.” Later claims that the news blackout imposed by Judge Juan Merchan was “UNCONSTITUTIONAL” and called members of the “Justice Department and the White House” “criminals and monsters who are destroying our country.”

Immediately after the jury announced its verdict, Trump stepped up his delegitimization of the American legal system. claim “The real verdict will be made by the people on November 5,” adding: “Our whole country is being manipulated right now.”

Stirring up fear

A very necessary aspect of Trump's response to the ruling is that in his comments he combines the delegitimization of democratic institutions with personal attacks – name-calling – and scapegoating strategies. This strategy is textbook demagoguery.

The day after the decision, Trump began his 33 minutes public comments with an apparent non sequitur that leads from the case to non-public attacks, to immigration and back to non-public attacks again:

“If they can do that to me, they can do that to anyone. They're bad people. In many cases, I think they're sick people. When you look at what's happening in our country, where millions of people are pouring into the country from all over the world – not just from South America, from Africa, from Asia, from the Middle East – and they're coming from prisons and detention centers and they're coming from mental institutions and asylums. They're coming into our country from all over the world. And we have a president and a group of fascists who won't do anything about it. Because they could, right now, today. They could stop it, but he's not. They're destroying our country.”

Voters are being made to consider that the federal government – ​​made up of “sick people” and “fascists” – is targeting them just as much because it is targeting immigrants.

Although Trump's confused approach makes his rhetoric sound disjointed – even chaotic – it’s fastidiously designed to stoke fear and create an environment more amenable to an anti-democratic ruler. Trump's snappy 2016 campaign promise was: “I alone can fix it”, and his newer, alleged “joke” that he was “Dictator for a day”, are a terrible Trump’s comments about his fellow residentslike this statement from late 2023: “The threat from external forces is way less ominous, dangerous and serious than the threat from inside. Our threat comes from inside.”

The strategy could be less effective if Trump were the just one implementing it. But following a well-known pattern The Republicans reliably repeated his formulation.

The Associated Press reported “The intensity of the outcry was remarkable. It pushed aside the usual reticence that lawmakers and politicians have shown in the past when it comes to anticipating criticism of judges and juries.”

The guard summarized the answers of the Republicans: “A shameful day in American history. A sham show trial. A sham court. A veritable witch hunt. Befitting a banana republic. That is how senior Republicans who once claimed the mantle of the party of law and order reacted to the news that Donald Trump is the first former U.S. president to be convicted of a crime.”

The passionate attack on the judiciary by Republican Senator and vice presidential candidate Tim Scott was emblematic of the response. He called the decision a “hoax,” a “farce,” and a “totally unjust justice system.” He then addressed Bragg, the Manhattan District Attorney, directly, saying, “DA Bragg, hear me carefully: You cannot silence the American people. You cannot stop us from voting for change.”

“Hang everyone!”

Instilling fear through personal attacks and scapegoating is commonly a precursor to violence. The attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021 followed Trump’s complaints a couple of “rigged” election.

NBC News reported that following Trump's criticism a couple of “rigged” jury trial, social media posts have been circulating that include doxxing, intimidation, and even death threats against Judge Merchan, Bragg, and the jury.

NBC quoted one poster as saying: “We have to identify every juror. Then we'll make them unhappy. Maybe even suicidal.” Reuters quoted Patriots.win user who said: “A million (armed) men must go to Washington and hang them all. That is the only solution” and “Trump should already know that he has an army ready to fight and die for him if he says so. … I will take up arms if he asks me to.”

Not everyone who supports Trump politically is able to “take up arms”, but Video posted on X by Donald Trump Jr. with the slogan “F— JOE BIDEN” shows an arena filled with Fans are waiting for the UFC lightweight championship They chanted “F— Joe Biden” and cheered for Trump as he smiled and raised his fist.

Video of the event was posted on YouTube and spread by right-wing web sites akin to Daily caller And Breitbart.

In her book “Demagogy and democracy”, explains communication scientist Patricia Roberts-Miller: “Demagoguery does not exist in our culture because a demagogue came to power. When demagoguery becomes the normal way of participating in public discourse, it is only a matter of time before a demagogue appears.”

A demagogue has emerged.

PITTSBURG – A former Pittsburg police officer was sentenced to 6 months' probation after pleading guilty to 2 misdemeanors as a part of an agreement that required prosecutors to drop 4 serious weapons charges against him, records show.

Armando Montalvo, 29, pleaded no contest to 2 counts of obstruction of justice in March. In exchange, prosecutors dropped 4 charges related to possession and sale of assault rifles, records show.

Montalvo was sentenced to a brief term of probation that ends in September, based on court records. Montalvo joined the Pittsburg Police Department in 2015 and resigned in 2022 when the investigation got here to light. He was charged two years ago.

Montalvo was the primary of 14 Pittsburg and Antioch law enforcement officials charged as a part of a sprawling corruption investigation by the FBI and Contra Costa District Attorney's Office, but his case was only tangentially related to the much larger scandal. Prosecutors said on the time that they found evidence that he had illegally possessed assault rifles and sold them to another person while examining other officers' phones.

The other 13 East Contra Costa officers were charged with, amongst other things, bribes in the shape of alcohol to get out of traffic tickets, wire fraud, violent civil rights violations and drug trafficking.

The FBI also uncovered a parallel scandal still unfolding in Contra Costa. After seizing Antioch officers' phones, agents found quite a few racist, sexist and homophobic texts and memes in chats involving dozens of officers. This has to date led to firings and disciplinary actions against officers, the dismissal of dozens of charges and a rise in special circumstances in a multi-defendant gang case that was dismissed by a judge.

WASHINGTON: President Joe Biden took on his recently convicted opponent on Friday, saying a New York jury's guilty verdict against former President Donald Trump have to be respected and condemning attempts to undermine the justice system as “reckless,” “dangerous” and “irresponsible.”

Biden broke his long silence on Trump's legal troubles, directly and unequivocally calling the presumptive Republican nominee a lawbreaker whose conviction could be a victory for the rule of law. And he rejected claims that the prosecution was a political witch hunt, noting that it was not a case brought by his own administration.

“The American principle that no one is above the law has been reaffirmed,” Biden said in a swiftly arranged televised address from the White House before outlining his recent efforts to finish the war in Gaza. “Donald Trump was given every opportunity to defend himself. It was a state case, not a federal case. And it was tried by a jury of 12 citizens, 12 Americans, 12 people like you, like millions of Americans who have served on juries.”

“This jury,” he continued, “was selected in the same way that every other jury in America is selected. There is a process that involved Donald Trump's lawyer. The jury heard evidence for five weeks, for five weeks. And after careful deliberation, the jury reached a unanimous verdict. They found Donald Trump guilty on all 34 counts.”

While he can have taken pleasure in noting that his opponent on this fall's election was found guilty on all counts, Biden made no mention of the crux of the case, during which Trump was convicted of falsifying business records to cover up hush money payments to a porn star who claimed to have had an affair with him.

Instead, Biden focused on the orchestrated efforts of the previous president and his allies to discredit the indictment and the jury's verdict by portraying the trial as a political persecution during which Trump was allegedly treated unfairly.

“It's reckless, it's dangerous, it's irresponsible for someone to claim the trial was rigged just because they don't like the verdict,” Biden said. “Our justice system has stood the test of time for nearly 250 years and is literally the cornerstone of America. Our justice system, the legal system, should be respected, and we should never allow anyone to destroy it. It's as simple as that. That's America. That's who we are.”

The president's decision to talk on to the consequence of the case was a serious strategic shift. Since Trump was charged last 12 months in the primary of 4 indictments by state and federal prosecutors, Biden has staunchly refused to debate the matter, hoping to remain out of the fray and never reinforce the previous president's false claims that the White House was directing the prosecutions.

As recently as Thursday evening, a Biden adviser, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity while describing internal deliberations, said the president was not expected to make a proper, scripted statement on the ruling on television. The adviser added that it was possible the president could reply to reporters' questions on it.

But based on one other Biden adviser, a series of conversations that lasted through Thursday evening and Friday morning eventually concluded that it was time for the president to talk out. Biden's team crafted comments that were more in defense of the justice system than addressing the specifics of the case against Trump.

“As president, it was important to acknowledge the moment and its significance, but not to dwell on it,” said David Axelrod, who served as Biden's vp and was a senior adviser to President Barack Obama. “That's what he did.”

Still, Jennifer Palmieri, a former communications director for Hillary Clinton, warned that Biden's words wouldn’t persuade his opponent's supporters, who’re already unmoved by 4 criminal charges, including misusing classified documents and illegally attempting to overturn the 2020 election he lost.

“A Trump supporter who is outraged by the verdict is not going to be pacified by any Democratic or Republican president who does not support Donald Trump,” she said. “Even if Biden were not his political opponent, if you are so outraged by the verdict that you are willing to take to the streets, a Democratic president is not going to reach you. That is the sad reality of being president today.”

Trump has tried to get Biden to get entangled within the New York case and the opposite charges by falsely accusing the president of orchestrating them. While Biden appointed the attorney general who oversaw the 2 federal cases against Trump, there isn’t any known evidence that the president or his White House played any role in them. And the New York case, just like the Georgia election tampering case, was brought by a neighborhood prosecutor who shouldn’t be accountable to the president.

Of course, that didn't stop Trump from claiming the other shortly after his conviction on Thursday night. “The Biden administration did this to hurt or harm an opponent, a political opponent,” he said outside the courthouse. His allies immediately reiterated that claim. On Fox News, moderators and guests spoke of the “evil forces” and “evil people” persecuting Trump and blamed the costs on Biden, “who is now the villain.”

The concept that the Justice Department is merely a political weapon definitely surprises Biden, because the same department is putting his own son, Hunter, on trial for gun violations on Monday.

Biden and his team have shown more willingness in recent weeks to handle Trump's criminal justice problems, even without directly attacking them. The president mocked his predecessor for falling asleep through the trial (“Sleepy Don”) and sent actor Robert De Niro to the courthouse to carry a heated press conference attacking Trump (“guilty and we all know it”).

And they, like Trump, sought to capitalize on Thursday's verdict by launching a series of fundraising appeals. “Although a jury found Donald Trump guilty today, there is still only one way to keep Donald Trump out of the Oval Office: at the ballot box,” Biden said in a fundraising email just hours after the jury announced its verdict, adding, “Donald Trump's supporters are excited and will likely set fundraising records for his campaign.”

Still, the Biden team didn’t anticipate that the ruling would alter the election campaign, which polls show is amazingly close, especially within the crucial swing states needed to win the Electoral College. Instead, advisers said Biden would proceed to construct his arguments to voters on issues corresponding to the economy, abortion rights and democracy.

One adviser said he didn’t expect the campaign to run ads specializing in Trump's status as a felon, nor did he think Biden would try to drag out of the June 27 debate on the grounds that he mustn’t be on stage with a criminal, as some Democrats have demanded. It says something about today's politics that taking up a felon shouldn’t be seen as a winning strategy.

When asked by a reporter at a later event Friday whether the other was true, that the conviction could actually help Trump win the election, Biden said no. “I have no idea,” he said.

The president's official statement got here initially of an announcement of the most recent ceasefire proposal within the Middle East and just before a gathering with the Belgian prime minister and a celebration of the Kansas City Chiefs. Biden then traveled to Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, for the weekend before traveling to France next week to attend ceremonies marking the eightieth anniversary of the D-Day invasion.

The Biden team is just too comfortable to advertise this contrast: on the one hand, a commander in chief who welcomes foreign leaders and football champions to the White House, grapples with the necessary problems with war and peace, and travels to the famous beaches of Normandy to honor American heroes. On the opposite hand, a challenger who rails against the system and prepares for a criminal trial that might see him receive a jail sentence, as is common with serious criminals.

“Trump will sink even deeper into anger and self-pity. He can't help it,” Axelrod said. “Biden and the campaign would do well to focus more on the contrast between a president who is fighting for people's most pressing concerns and Trump who is fighting only for himself.”

This story originally appeared within the New York Times.

A federal one Court of Appeals unanimously confirmed on Friday criminal contempt of Congress Sentencing former Trump White House senior adviser Steve Bannon for refusing to testify and supply documents to the House committee investigating the January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol.

The appeals court rejected Bannon's argument that he was not guilty because his lawyer advised him to not comply with a House committee subpoena.

The ruling by a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia makes it more likely that Bannon will soon begin serving a four-month prison sentence for his conviction on two contempt counts.

A lawyer for Bannon said he’ll now request that the total D.C. Circuit panel hear his appeal again, which could extend his prison sentence.

Bannon's attorney Doug Schoen told CNBC in an email: “The appeals court ruled today that it does not have the authority to overrule the court's 1961 panel that ruled in the Licavoli case on the definition of the word ' willfully' decided.”' as utilized in the contempt of Congress statute. Mr. Bannon will now seek redress before the total appeals court, which has the ability to overrule Licavoli.

“There are many fundamentally important constitutional issues at stake in this case,” Schoen said. “Today’s decision is wrong from a legal perspective and reflects a very dangerous view of the threshold for criminal liability for a defendant in our country and for future political abuses in the congressional hearing process.”

But requests just like the one Bannon plans to file typically have a really high probability of success.

Friday's decision was written by Judge Bradley Garcia, who was appointed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals by President Joe Biden last yr. The other two justices on the panel were Justin Walker, appointed by former President Donald Trump, and Cornelia Pillard, appointed by former President Barack Obama.

March, Peter Navarro, one other former Trump adviser, served a four-month federal prison sentence after the Supreme Court refused to listen to an appeal of his conviction for refusing to comply with a Jan. 6 House committee subpoena. Pillard also served on the three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit that upheld Navarro's conviction.

Bannon is scheduled to face trial individually in New York City state court in September for allegedly defrauding donors who allegedly gave money to a nonprofit group to construct a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.

The judge in that case, Juan Merchan, is currently presiding over Trump's hush money trial in Manhattan Supreme Court.

Bannon was convicted of violating the House committee subpoena after a five-day trial in U.S. District Court in Washington in 2022. He remained at large pending the consequence of his appeal.

In its 20-page ruling Friday on Bannon's case, the D.C. Court of Appeals panel noted that “the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol issued a subpoena to Appellant Stephen Bannon in September 2021.” to testify and produce documents.”

“Bannon failed to comply with the subpoena – he knew what the subpoena required, but he did not appear or produce a single document,” the ruling says.

The law Bannon was convicted of violating makes it a crime to “willfully” fail to respond to a congressional subpoena.

“Bannon insists that 'willful' must be interpreted to require bad faith and argues that his failure to comply isn’t at issue because his counsel advised him not to reply to the subpoena,” the appeals panel wrote in its Verdict.

“However, this court has clearly found this to be 'intentional.' [that law] simply means that the defendant willfully and willfully refused to comply with a congressional subpoena, and that very “counsel recommendation” defense is no defense at all.”

The panel added: “As each this Court and the Supreme Court have repeatedly stated, a provision on the contrary would violate the text of the contempt statute and impair Congress's investigative power.”

“Because we have no basis to depart from this binding precedent, and because none of Bannon's other challenges to his convictions have merit, we affirm,” the panel wrote.

Bannon was indicted in 2020 on federal charges related to the nonprofit's alleged fraud on donors involved within the border wall plans.

Trump pardoned Bannon in January 2021, on certainly one of his final days within the White House, on this case before it went to trial. Three other men who were federally charged in reference to the scheme were convicted or found guilty in court and sentenced to prison.

This is breaking news. Please check back for updates.