Mediaboss Marketing

ExploreLive updates: AJC coverage of the Georgia GOP state convention, Day 2

Though the meeting agenda is unclear, activists expect to pass resolutions that rebuke Raffensperger and Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan, who both disputed falsehoods about systemic election irregularities and cast Trump as the author of his own defeat.

Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan, a critic of former President Donald Trump, was not invited to speak at this year's state Republican convention. (Bob Andres/Atlanta Journal Constitution/TNS)

Credit: TNS

Credit: TNS

Neither is set to attend the convention. Aides to Duncan and Raffensperger said the two werent invited to speak. Its little surprise. Trump has endorsed U.S. Rep. Jody Hices bid to unseat Raffenspeger and cheered Duncans decision not to stand for a second term.

Raffensperger and Duncan also were certain to get a cascade of boos if they had delivered their message. Duncan, for one, said that any GOP narrative about a stolen election is wasted energy that makes it easier for Democrats to prevail in 2022.

The easy fix is for former President Trump to stand up and dismiss that theres fraud and move on, Duncan said. But our job as Republicans is to walk into every GOP meeting whether its comfortable or uncomfortable and convince them theres no fraud.

Duncan added, Some days its like convincing people hundreds of years ago that the Earth isnt flat.

The bigger question might be the reception awaiting Kemp, who is racing to shore up once-solid support with the partys base.

The states first lifelong Republican governor since Reconstruction is no favorite of some of the activists, who fault him for refusing Trumps demands to call a special legislative session to overturn his defeat.

Gov. Brian Kemp still faces opposition from some grassroots activists in the state GOP because he refused to call a special session of the Legislature to overturned Donald Trump's loss here in the presidential election. But Kemp, who is running for reelection in 2022, thinks he can still win them over. (ALYSSA POINTER/ALYSSA.POINTER@AJC.COM)

Credit: Alyssa Pointer

Credit: Alyssa Pointer

More than a dozen county GOPs passed resolutions this year reprimanding Kemp, and one larger gathering of suburban Republicans voted to censure him. A rural district voted this week to express concern about his ability to put Georgia and Georgians first after Trumps defeat.

The governors poll numbers sank following Novembers election but have steadied this year thanks in part to efforts to woo skeptical conservatives, including his support for new voting restrictions and demands for less stringent coronavirus rules.

Yet ahead of an expected rematch with Democrat Stacey Abrams, hes facing pressure from his right flank. Democrat-turned-Republican Vernon Jones, a primary challenger, has led the charge with a call for a forensic audit of election results meant to cast doubt on Joe Bidens victory.

Kemp has repeatedly refused to hit back at Trump, though hes expressed frustration with the narrative that he had power to overturn the election. In an interview, Kemp expressed confidence he could win back their support.

Thats going to be a part of the primary process. A lot of people are still frustrated because they still havent been able to talk to me, and thats kind of what a primary is all about, telling people why youre the best person, he said.

But, he added, we also have to remember there are a lot of people out there, whether they liked what happened in Georgia or not, they want the state to have a good economy, they want their kids back in school, they want to have college football games this year.

Newcomers to Georgia Republican meetings raise their hands last month during the 1st District GOP convention.

Credit: Brandon Phillips

Credit: Brandon Phillips

Even without a top-tier primary opponent, the governor has much work ahead. Brandon Phillips, chair of the 2nd GOP District, said hes heard gripes from activists at the 18 GOP meetings hes attended in the past two months that Kemp is taking the Republican base for granted. He added that he hasnt seen Kemp staffers at any of those meetings.

To the base, especially the influx of new activists, thats concerning because these folks want to make sure were doing everything we can to not have a Democrat win next November, Phillips said.

Others cautioned patience. Former Gov. Sonny Perdue, one of Kemps most powerful allies, predicted Kemp would steady shaky GOP nerves over the next 18 months.

Anytime anybody runs for reelection, they have work to do. I think Gov. Kemp is prepared to do that work, and at the end of the day, people will unite around a candidate they believe will be successful in November 2022, Perdue said. Gov. Kemp will do what it takes.

Democrats, meanwhile, say theyre stunned that the GOP hasnt moved on from 2020.

Instead of feeding into conspiracy theories, we are rolling up our sleeves and working, Augusta-Richmond County Commissioner Jordan Johnson said. And thats what you can expect from the Democratic leadership across the state: getting back on track.

The uneasy environment at a GOP convention is nothing new for elected Republican officials.

Then-Gov. Nathan Deal was scolded for vetoing a religious liberty measure and objecting to campus gun legislation. Before that, then-U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss was booed for his stands on immigration. Others have seen their fortunes rise or recede in front of the activists.

The Trump era, however, has only heightened the backlash. Case in point: Veteran Republicans expected incumbent Georgia GOP Chair David Shafer to face stiff opposition after several election defeats.

Some veteran operatives in the Republican Party expected Georgia GOP Chair David Shafer to have trouble holding on to his job following the party's defeats in November's presidential election and January's U.S. Senate runoffs. But support from former President Donald Trump has made his reelection as head of the state party a near certainty. (Alyssa Pointer / Alyssa.Pointer@ajc.com)

Credit: Alyssa Pointer / Alyssa.Pointer@ajc.com

Credit: Alyssa Pointer / Alyssa.Pointer@ajc.com

Instead, many of the most formidable potential challengers melted away after Trump endorsed Shafer, who played a leading role in challenging Bidens victory in Georgia.

(Former Cobb GOP Chair Jason Shepherd is Shafers highest-profile opponent, but even he expressed second thoughts about a run.)

The Trump influence will also unspool in speeches from announced and possible contenders for higher office, including those jockeying to face Democratic U.S. Sen. Raphael Warnock next year. The GOP race remains wide open, and patience is running thin among party leaders waiting for former University of Georgia football great Herschel Walker to make up his mind.

The 2022 primary season in Georgia begins in earnest over the next 24-48 hours, said veteran activist Cole Muzio, who leads an anti-abortion group. Lets roll.

Joining the GOP crowd will be many new faces. Alex Johnson unsuccessfully ran several times to lead the state GOP before shifting his efforts to the Georgia Republican Alliance, an outside group aimed at pulling the party further to the right. He sees a more energized party this year, galvanized by election defeats.

Republicans are showing up to be involved this year because they are demanding accountability from elected Republicans instead of simply going along with and believing them as they have in the past, Johnson said. Its a positive awakening.

Staff writer Maya T. Prabhu contributed to this article.

Read the rest here:
Georgia GOP meeting will test Kemp and Trumps influence - Atlanta Journal Constitution

Jonathan Drake/Reuters Former President Donald J. Trump in North Carolina on Saturday. Jonathan Drake/Reuters

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday slammed Big Tech for deplatforming him, accusing Silicon Valley executives of ruining the country.

He also said he wasn't interested in waiting two years to be allowed back on Facebook.

"They may allow me back in two years. We got to stop that, we can't let it happen - so unfair," he said. "They're shutting down an entire group of people. Not just me. They're shutting down the voice of a tremendously powerful - in my opinion, a much more powerful and a much larger group."

The comments came as Trump emerged from his post-presidency hiatus to speak at the North Carolina Republican Party Convention.

He gave a meandering 90-minute speech, speaking to a mostly subdued crowd of about 1,200 seated guests, and touching on well-worn highlights of his political rallies.

Trump said President Joe Biden had been destroying the country "before our very own eyes." He then criticized the country's top infectious disease expert, Anthony Fauci, denouncing him as "not a great doctor."

Trump also said the ongoing criminal investigation into the Trump Organization was part of a "five-year witch hunt" and that dead people had voted in November.

The speech was carried live on C-Span, which tagged it as a "Campaign 2024" event. Despite losing the 2020 election, Trump has a firm grip on the GOP. He told associates he planned to run again in 2024, if he's healthy, Politico reported last month.

"We will break up the Big Tech monopoly," he said on Saturday. "We will reject left-wing cancel culture."

Trump took aim at Mark Zuckerberg, chief executive at Facebook, calling him "another beauty," saying his "human nature" was ruining the country.

"This election will go down as the crime of the century," Trump said. "And our country is being destroyed by people who perhaps have no right to destroy it. Zuckerberg broke the law, spending millions of dollars - don't you think he broke the law? - millions of dollars to get out the vote in highly Democrat areas."

Insider has reached out to Facebook for comment.

The speech came a day after Facebook announced Trump's suspension would last at least two more years. He was removed from the social network the day after the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol. The company's Oversight Board in early May had extended the ban by six months.

He was permanently banned from Twitter in January.

Without direct access to the billions of social-media users, Trump has struggled to find a way to speak directly to his followers. He launched a blog called "From the Desk of Donald J. Trump," posting statements that could be shared by users allowed on Facebook or Twitter. But readership and sharing floundered. It was also buggy. The blog was taken offline last week.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki on Friday said: "Feels pretty unlikely that the zebra is going to change his stripes over the next two years. We'll see."

Read the original post:
Donald Trump attacks Big Tech during a meandering speech, in which he accused Silicon Valley firms of ruining the US and demanded their 'monopoly' be...

Melissa Sue Gerrits/Getty Images Fox News and CNN did not air former President Donald Trump's address at the North Carolina GOP Convention on Saturday night.

Fox News and CNN did not air former President Donald Trump's address at the North Carolina GOP State Convention on Saturday night. MSNBC did broadcast segments of Trump's address, reportedly with correspondent Ali Vitali speaking over the ex-presidents remarks.

Everything We Know About The Trump Organization Investigations And Criminal Probe

Click to expand

UP NEXT

As Trump began his speech at the Greenville Convention Center, several social media users noted that Fox News was not broadcasting his first official speech since the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in February.

CNN host Brian Stelter tweeted, "Fox News is NOT airing Trump's first speech in months. Fox is sticking with a pre-taped 'Watters World' instead. Newsmax and One America News are showing Trump live, as expected."

"Fox News thus far hasn't carried any portion of former Pres. Trump's speech live," tweeted Atlantic White House reporter Peter Nicholas.

Instead of broadcasting Trump's address, CNN dedicated a segment to discussing the potential impact of his first official speech in over three months with former presidential adviser David Gergenwho served under the administrations of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clintonand Amanda Carpenter, a former senior staffer to Senators Ted Creuz and Jim DeMint.

"As long as he remains stuck on November 2020, everyone else will remain stuck on January 6th. Because those two things are inextricably linked," Carpenter said. "He is entering this speech so diminished as a twice-impeached, losing president under multiple investigations. His aides are talking about reinstating him as president. He can't even be reinstated on social media right now."

Trump spent a large portion of his 90-minute speech bashing President Joe Biden's handling of the border crisis, economy and foreign policy, touting his own administration's alleged successes and repeating his baseless claim that widespread voter fraud caused his 2020 election loss.

It was "the crime of the century" and "by far the most corrupt election in the history of our country," he said. "It was a third-world country election like we've never seen before."

On January 6, pro-Trump rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol, seeking to overturn the results of the election as lawmakers met to certify the results. Five people were killed in the incident, including one Capitol police officer.

Since then, Trump has doubled down on spreading conspiracy theories about the election. He told the crowd tonight, "I am not the one trying to undermine American Democracy, I'm the one trying to save it. Please remember that."

The ex-president also vowed that the GOP would force out House Speaker Nancy Pelosi by taking over Congress next year. "The survival of America depends upon our ability to elect Republicans at every level, starting with the midterms next year," he said.

Newsweek reached out to Trump representatives and Fox News for comment. This story will be updated with any response.

Related Articles

Start your unlimited Newsweek trial

The rest is here:
Fox News and CNN Decline to Air Donald Trump's First Official Speech in Three Months - msnNOW

Facebook on Friday announced that it may allow former President Donald Trump's Facebook and Instagram accounts to be reinstated in January 2023.

At that time, the social media company will reevaluate whether the risk to public safety of allowing Trump back onto its services has receded.

"We will evaluate external factors, including instances of violence, restrictions on peaceful assembly and other markers of civil unrest," the company said in a blog post. "If we determine that there is still a serious risk to public safety, we will extend the restriction for a set period of time and continue to re-evaluate until that risk has receded."

If Trump is allowed back on the service, there will be a strict set of rapidly escalating sanctions that will be triggered if Trump further violates the company's content moderation rules, Facebook said.

This two-year suspension will prevent Trump from using Facebook or Instagram to broadcast to his followers until after the 2022 U.S. midterm elections.

FacebooksuspendedTrump's accounts following the Jan. 6 insurrection on the U.S. Capitol. The decision was Facebook's most aggressive action against Trump during his four-year term.

Facebook referred the ban to its oversight board a few weeks later,sayingthat given the significance of the suspension, "we think it is important for the board to review it and reach an independent judgment on whether it should be upheld."

Facebook's independent Oversight Board in May decided to uphold the company's choice to suspend Trump's accounts. In its decision, however, the board noted that Facebook needed to reassess how it moderates the speech of political leaders, clearly outline those rules for the public and determine how long is appropriate for these users to be suspended.

The company said it determined that a two-year suspension was the appropriate length to allow a safe period of time after the acts of the Jan. 6 insurrection and it was a significant enough suspension to be a deterrent to Trump and others from repeating the violations in the future.

In a statement issued by his office, Trump criticized Facebook's decision, calling it an insult to his voters and falsely claiming that the 2020 presidential election was rigged.

"They shouldn't be allowed to get away with this censoring and silencing, and ultimately, we will win," Trump said in the statement. "Our Country can't take this abuse anymore!"

Go here to read the rest:
Facebook says Donald Trump to remain banned for two years, effective from Jan. 7 - CNBC

That may change thanks to a civil suit filed in March by Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) against Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Alabama Rep. Mo Brooks and Trumps former attorney, Rudy Giuliani. The lawsuit, which alleges negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, aiding and abetting common-law assault, disorderly conduct, terrorism, inciting a riot, and conspiracy to violate civil rights protected under federal law, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. And it has the potential to create new law regarding the scope of presidential duties that are considered official and therefore immune from legal jeopardy.

In their recently filed motion to dismiss the case, Trumps attorneys assert that Trump enjoys absolute immunity from lawsuits over statements he made at a Stop the Steal rally held at the Ellipse that preceded the riot. Presidents should be allowed to give rousing speeches against congressional action, Trumps lawyers argue.

But Swalwell argues that Trumps behavior that dayurging the crowd to fight like hell to stop the certification of the Electoral College vote by Congresswas not done on behalf of the country but himself. Trump did all these things solely in his personal capacity, for his own personal benefit, and to advance his personal interests as a candidate, Swalwell alleges in his suit.

And this is where a federal court, possibly even the Supreme Court, is going to have to attempt to make a distinction that has never been made before: Can a president act so self-interestedly that he loses the sweeping civil law protections that come with the worlds most powerful office?

Suits against a government office or official for money from government coffers or for an injunction relating to official conduct are routine disputes. The question here is whether former presidents should have to worry that they can be sued personally for money damages regarding acts they took as president. As a matter of logic, the answer should be: probably not, except in the rarest of circumstances. This is pretty much how the law has shaped up, too.

Although the Constitution expressly affords members of Congress immunity for matters arising from speech and debate, it is silent when it comes to presidents. The Supreme Court has taken upon itself to make up the rules for presidents, holding that they are absolutely immune from actions for civil damages in connection with acts within the outer perimeter of their official duties.

In the 1982 case, Nixon v. Fitzgerald, a former employee, A. Ernest Fitzgerald, sued Richard Nixon over his firing from the Department of Defense, which he claimed was in retaliation for his testimony before Congress about cost overruns and technical problems in the production of a particular aircraft. The Supreme Court extended to presidents absolute immunity from suits for money damages on the rationale that, without it, they would feel hampered in exercising their discretion in the administration of public affairs, thus harming the interests of the public. The upshot of the decision was that any lawsuits predicated on [a presidents] official acts are banned.

The question here, of course, is: What constitutes an official act? In Fitzgerald, the court explained that the sphere of protected action must be related closely to the immunitys justifying purposes and that, for presidents, it extends to acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities.

Its impossible to create a comprehensive job description for presidents or to compare a real-world action to a list of tasks covered by Article II of the Constitution. Inquiries of this kind could be highly intrusive, the court wrote, especially as presidents are charged with a panoply of supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity. The court rejected Fitzgeralds claim that presidents could be sued for their role in dismissals from employment made for reasons other than authorized by Congress, reasoning that [i]t is clearly within the Presidents constitutional and statutory authority ... to prescribe reorganizations and reductions in force.

But is it within a presidents constitutional and statutory authority to incite a mob to block a co-equal branch of government from certifying the Electoral College victory of a political rival? This is a tougher sell.

Ironically, the Fitzgerald court justified its ruling in Nixons favor by pointing to the alternative constitutional remedy of impeachment, despite Nixon being out of office by the time Fitzgerald sued him. By the same token, a conviction on Trumps second impeachment for his role on Jan. 6 failed in the Senate on the Republicans ostensible rationale that he was no longer in office. The Fitzgerald court continued: Other incentives to avoid misconduct may include a desire to earn reelection, the need to maintain prestige as an element of Presidential influence, and a Presidents traditional concern for his historical stature. These guardrails, too, were shattered by Trump and cannot now be trusted, in the words of the Fitzgerald court, as sufficient protection against misconduct on the part of the Chief Executive.

In Clinton v. Jones, the Supreme Court bookended the spectrum of possible immunized acts for presidents at the other end, making clear that actions having no connection to the presidency are not protected, even temporarily. The court held that a president does not have even qualified, or lesser, immunity from civil lawsuits for money damages regarding conduct alleged to have taken place prior to his election. It thus denied President Bill Clintons request to delay Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit until his term was over. In Jones, the court rejected Clintons bid for a stay, reasoning that [t]he principal rationale for affording certain public servants immunity from suits for money damages arising out of their official acts is inapplicable to unofficial conduct, as immunities are grounded in the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it.

Previously, the Supreme Court shed light on the immunity question in United States v. Nixon, as well, holding that President Nixon had to comply with a subpoena directing him to produce tapes of Oval Office conversations with aides. It reasoned that neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances.

In the Swalwell case, Trumps lawyers cite Fitzgerald to claim absolute immunity for Trumps remarks on Jan. 6 but argue that [e]ven when a plaintiff alleges a presidents actions exceed his legal authority, the privilege still prohibits litigation. They further claim that the privilege is bounded by purely personal and purely unofficial actions which are not protected. In other words, they appear to argue that the Clinton case defines the only set of circumstances that are not protected by blanket immunity. Anything and everything that happens while a president is president cannot give rise to civil liability, unless it is purely personalsuch as, say, the writing of a private letter to a family member about an issue involving the family. This purely test is not the law, at least to date. Moreover, it flies in the face of the Nixon Supreme Courts rhetoric that there is no absolute immunity for presidents, even when it comes to conversations with aides in the Oval Office.

The Trump defense goes on to argue that rousing and controversial speeches are a key function of the presidency, especially when, as is the case here, the President is advocating for or against congressional action.

This is significant: Trump urges a ruling that it is within the official authority of presidents to advocate for the appointment and certification of electors other than those that the states have identified as granting the presidency to someone other than the incumbent. For his part, Trump implored his supporters on Jan. 6 to fight like hell and walk down Pennsylvania Avenue ... to the Capitol, and Swalwell claims that 40 percent of rally attendees complied.

The rest, of course, is history. Members of Congress and their staffers were trapped behind barricaded doors, the Capitol buildings ransacked and defaced, and five lives lost. Trump reportedly told those around him that he was delighted by the events and confused about why other people on his team werent as excited as he was.

(Separately, the Trump team argues that his speech was also fully protected by the First Amendment, although it is well-settled that speech directed to inciting imminent lawlessness and likely to achieve that result is not protected. Moreover, there is no First Amendment protection when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, a line of authority that would come into play if Trump were to convince the court that his Jan. 6 speech was an official act.)

The lower courts ruling on this issue could easily go one of two ways. Either the judge decides that inciting an insurrectionwhich is expressly mentioned in the 14th Amendment as a bar to holding federal or state officeis not within the protected official conduct of presidents. Or, he buys the claim that presidents can use their bully pulpit however they want, and absent an impeachment conviction, do so with complete impunity.

If this question were ever to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, its safe to predict that the outcome will not be unanimous because the law is vague, and the court is ideologically dividedby design, with the three newest justices appointed after McConnell killed the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. Judicial conservatives tend to read presidential power expansively, and the threat of indefinite civil litigation over acts in office is likely to persuade a majority to draw the line in favor of executive discretion. But its also safe to predict that, if the court were to rule for Trump on the question of whether his Stop the Steal rally fell within the absolute protected power of presidents, Jan. 6-type insurrections will become common in America.

Go here to see the original:
The Confusing Law That Could Shape Trumps Legal Fate - POLITICO