Our Politics

Tag: 2024election

  • Biden Administration Sanctions Russia, Iran Over Interference In The 2024 Presidential Election

    Biden Administration Sanctions Russia, Iran Over Interference In The 2024 Presidential Election

    The Biden Administration announced on December 31, 2024 that it is leveling sanctions on entities in Iran and Russia over attempted election interference. The Treasury Department said the entities, a subordinate organization of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and a Moscow-based affiliate of Russia’s military intelligence agency, the GRU, attempted to interfere in the 2024 elections.

    “As affiliates of the IRGC and GRU, these actors aimed to stoke socio-political tensions and influence the U.S. electorate during the 2024 U.S. election,” said the Treasury Department in a news release. “The Governments of Iran and Russia have targeted our election processes and institutions and sought to divide the American people through targeted disinformation campaigns,” Acting Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Bradley T. Smith said in the statement. “The United States will remain vigilant against adversaries who would undermine our democracy,” Smith added.

    A spokesperson for Iran’s mission to the United Nations in New York said that Iran has denied interfering in US elections “on multiple occasions,” citing past statements that denied the allegations and calling them “devoid of any credibility and legitimacy,” “fundamentally unfounded” and “wholly inadmissible.” “Our reaction remains the same,” said Ali Karimi Magham, a mission spokesperson. Russia’s Embassy in Washington, D.C., denied the US allegations in a statement, saying “we respect the will of the American people.”

    The Treasury sanctions announcement on December 31 said that the named Cognitive Design Production Center, acting on behalf of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, planned operations “since at least 2023 … to incite socio-political tensions among the U.S. electorate.” The Treasury also said the Moscow-based Center for Geopolitical Expertise, “at the direction of, and with financial support from, the GRU,” directed and subsidized “the creation and publication of deepfakes and circulated disinformation about candidates in the U.S. 2024 general election.” That included disinformation that was “designed to imitate legitimate news outlets to create false corroboration between the stories, as well as to obfuscate their Russian origin,” the department’s release said.

    US intelligence officials said in September that propagandists in Russia, Iran and China were using artificial intelligence in efforts to deceive Americans and interfere in the 2024 presidential election. Though none of the entities sanctioned by the Treasure Department are affiliated with China, the department said in a separate letter Monday that its computers had been hacked in a state-sponsored Chinese operation in “a major incident.” China denied that allegation.

  • Former President Donald Trump Appeals Colorado ‘Insurrection Clause’ Ruling to Supreme Court

    Former President Donald Trump Appeals Colorado ‘Insurrection Clause’ Ruling to Supreme Court

    Former President Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court on January 3 to allow him to stay on the presidential primary ballot in Colorado, saying a state ruling banning him was unconstitutional, unfair, and based on a January 6 insurrection that his appeal said did not happen. The court filing, dominated by technical and procedural challenges to the Colorado Supreme Court ruling last month, does not ask the high court to weigh in on whether the former president indeed participated in an insurrection. The state’s highest court concluded that Trump indeed engaged in the January 6 insurrection effort and thus was banned from running under an obscure, Civil War-era clause in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment banning such a person from holding office.

    Former President Donald Trump’s appeal, which experts expect the high court to consider, instead argues that the Colorado court had no business getting involved in the matter at all and that keeping Trump off the ballot would deprive voters of their right in a democracy to choose their leaders. The decision is “a ruling that, if allowed to stand, will mark the first time in the history of the US that the judiciary has prevented voters from casting ballots for the leading major-party presidential candidate,” said the court papers filed late Wednesday afternoon, two days before a deadline to appeal or get booted off the Colorado Republican Party primary ballot.

    The Colorado court ruled in favor of six Republican and independent voters who said the “insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution makes Trump ineligible to hold office and thus, not qualified to be on the ballot. That clause, originally directed at Confederates, says no one can hold office who has previously taken an oath to support the Constitution but then engaged in an insurrection or provided help to enemies of the US.

    Former President Donald Trump’s team, in their legal brief, argued that Congress gets to decide a candidate’s eligibility to serve as president. And while the appeal was specific to the Colorado case, it tacitly invited the high court to offer a ruling that applied nationwide. “It would be beyond absurdity” for the ballot question to be determined by 51 separate state and District of Columbia jurisdictions rather than federal courts, the brief said. “The election of the President of the United States is a national matter, with national implications, that arises solely under the federal Constitution and does not implicate the inherent or retained authority of the states.”

    The brief said former President Donald Trump was never an “officer” of the US and that the oath he took as president was different than those taken by other public servants, meaning he was not subject to the ban on insurrectionists. Further, the court papers said, the clause merely says such an individual cannot serve – not that he or she can’t run for office. The term “insurrection” is unclear, the brief said, and anyway, his lawyers said, Trump did not engage in “insurrection.” “Trump never told his supporters to enter the Capitol, either in his speech at the Ellipse or in any of his statements or communications before or during the events at the Capitol,” the appeal said. “To the contrary, his only explicit instructions called for protesting “peacefully and patriotically” to “support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement,” to “[s]tay peaceful” and to “remain peaceful.”

    Jena Griswold, Colorado’s Democratic secretary of state, urged the high court to settle the matter. “Donald Trump just filed an appeal to the US Supreme Court to consider whether he is eligible to appear on Colorado’s Presidential Primary ballot. I urge the Court to consider this case as quickly as possible,” Griswold wrote on social media.

    The appeal is virtually certain to be heard by a Supreme Court whose reputation as an unbiased arbiter has suffered immensely in recent years. Questions about ethical transgressions, along with the stunning 2022 reversal of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision guaranteeing abortion rights, have turned the court, in the eyes of many Americans, into another partisan entity. The Trump case puts the court in an extremely uncomfortable position: No matter how it may rule, and no matter the legal arguments used to justify it, the decision is likely to cause a backlash from some political segments in deeply divided America. The high court was the target of criticism after its 2000 ruling that effectively made George W. Bush president. And while the justices may not want to enter that political fray again, competing decisions on the insurrection clause likely means the Supreme Court will have no choice but to get involved.