Donald Trump Announces 2016 White House Bid

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
37,568
3,290
113
Donald Trump’s lawyers urge N.Y. appeals court to overturn ’egregious’ civil fraud verdict
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Michael R. Sisak And Jennifer Peltz
Published Jul 22, 2024 • 4 minute read

NEW YORK — Fresh off victories in other legal cases, Donald Trump on Monday pressed a New York appeals court to overturn the nearly $500 million New York civil fraud judgment that threatens to drain his personal cash reserves as he campaigns to retake the White House.


In paperwork filed with the state’s mid-level appeals court, the former president’s lawyers said Manhattan Judge Arthur Engoron’s Feb. 16 finding that Trump lied to banks, insurers and others about his wealth was “erroneous” and “egregious.”

Trump’s appeal arguments echoed many of his gripes about the case, delivered during the trial to TV cameras outside the courtroom during his trial.

His lawyers argued that New York Attorney General Letitia James’ lawsuit should have been promptly dismissed, the statute of limitations barred some claims, and that no one was harmed by Trump’s alleged fraud.

They also complained that Engoron’s decision, if upheld, would bestow James, a Democrat, with “limitless power to target anyone she desires, including her self-described political opponents,” Trump’s lawyers wrote in a 116-page filing with the Appellate Division of the state’s trial court.


Trump posted a $175 million bond in April to halt collection of the judgment and prevent James’ office from seizing his assets while he appeals. If he wins, he won’t have to pay the state anything and will get back the money he has put up now.

The Appellate Court has said it will hear oral arguments in late September. Trump’s lawyers initiated the appeal days after Engoron’s ruling and had until Monday to file written arguments.

James’ office said Trump and his lawyers are raising unfounded arguments.


“We won this case based on the facts and the law, and we are confident we will prevail on appeal,” James’ office said in a statement.

Monday’s appeal filing is the latest development in a momentous legal and political stretch for Trump, who last week accepted the Republican party’s presidential nomination just days after he was hurt in a shooting at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. An attendee was killed and two others were hurt.


On July 1, the Supreme Court sided with Trump in ruling that ex-presidents have immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts performed while in office, further delaying his Washington, D.C., election interference case and causing his sentencing in his New York hush money criminal case to be delayed until Sept. 18 while his lawyers fight to have that conviction thrown out.

On July 15, a federal judge in Florida dismissed Trump’s classified documents case, ruling that Special Counsel Jack Smith, who filed the charges, was illegally appointed by the Justice Department. Smith is appealing.

In the civil fraud case, Engoron found that Trump, his company and top executives — including his sons Eric and Donald Trump Jr. _ schemed for years to inflate his wealth on financial statements used to secure loans and make deals.


In addition to the hefty monetary penalty, the judge put strict limitations on the ability of Trump’s company to do business. Among other consequences, Engoron put the Trump Organization under the supervision of a court-appointed monitor for at least three years.

Trump’s appeal ensures that the legal fight over Trump’s business practices will persist into the fall and beyond.

If upheld, Engoron’s ruling will force Trump to give up a sizable chunk of his fortune. The judge ordered Trump to pay $355 million in penalties, but with interest the total has grown to more than $470 million — including $16.8 million that has accrued since the verdict. The sum will increase by nearly $112,000 per day until he pays, unless the verdict is overturned.


Trump maintains that he is worth several billion dollars and testified last year that he had about $400 million in cash, in addition to properties and other investments. James, a Democrat, has said that if Trump is unable to pay, she will seek to seize some of his assets.

Trump and his lawyers laid groundwork for their appeal months by objecting frequently to Engoron’s handling of the trial. Trump called Engoron’s decision “election interference” and “weaponization against a political opponent.” He complained he was being punished for “having built a perfect company, great cash, great buildings, great everything.”

During the trial, Trump’s lawyers accused Engoron of “tangible and overwhelming” bias. They’ve also objected to the legal mechanics of James’ lawsuit. Trump contends the law she sued him under is a consumer-protection statute that’s normally used to rein in businesses that rip off customers.


Trump’s lawyers went to the Appellate Division at least 10 times to challenge Engoron’s prior rulings, including during the trial in an unsuccessful bid to reverse a gag order and $15,000 in fines for violations after Trump made a disparaging and false social media post about a key court staffer.

Trump’s lawyers have long argued that some of the allegations are barred by the statute of limitations, contending that Engoron failed to comply with an Appellate Division ruling last year that he narrow the scope of the trial to weed out outdated allegations.

The Appellate Division could either uphold Engoron’s verdict, reduce or modify the penalty or overturn the decision entirely. If Trump is unsuccessful at the Appellate Division, he can ask the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, to consider taking his case.
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
37,568
3,290
113
Prosecutors urge judge not to toss Trump’s hush-money conviction
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Michael R. Sisak And Jennifer Peltz
Published Jul 25, 2024 • 4 minute read

NEW YORK — Prosecutors are urging a judge to uphold Donald Trump’s historic hush-money conviction, arguing in court papers made public Thursday that the verdict should stand despite the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on presidential immunity.


The Manhattan district attorney’s office said in a court filing that the high court’s opinion “has no bearing” on the hush-money case because it involves unofficial acts for which the former president is not immune.

“This case involved evidence of defendant’s personal conduct, not his official acts,” prosecutors wrote in a 66-page filing. They contend there is “no basis for disturbing the jury’s verdict.”

The Republican presidential nominee is trying to get the verdict — and even the indictment — tossed out because of the Supreme Court’s July 1 decision. The ruling curbs prosecutions of ex-presidents for official acts and restricts prosecutors from pointing to official acts as evidence that a commander-in-chief’s unofficial actions were illegal.


Trump’s lawyers have argued that prosecutors rushed to trial instead of waiting for the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision, and that the trial was “tainted” by evidence that should not have been allowed under the high court’s ruling, such as testimony from some Trump White House staffers and tweets he sent while president in 2018.

Prosecutors countered that the Supreme Court ruling doesn’t apply to the evidence in question, and that regardless, it’s “only a sliver of the mountains of testimony and documentary proof” that the jury considered before reaching its verdict May 30.


In a letter Thursday to trial Judge Juan M. Merchan, Trump lawyer Todd Blanche said the prosecution filing contains “several legal and factual misrepresentations,” and asked for permission to file a 30-page response next week.

The Supreme Court ruled about a month after the jury found Trump guilty of falsifying business records to conceal a deal to pay off porn actor Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 election. At the time, she was considering going public with a story of a sexual encounter with Trump a decade earlier.

He denies her claim, maintains he did nothing wrong and says the case is politically motivated. Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg is a Democrat.

Trump was a private citizen — campaigning for president, but neither elected nor sworn in — when Cohen paid Daniels. But Trump was president when Cohen was reimbursed, and Cohen testified that they discussed the repayment arrangement in the Oval Office.


Prosecutors say the reimbursements to Cohen were misleadingly logged as legal expenses in Trump’s company records.

Merchan is due to rule Sept. 6 on Trump’s request to overturn the verdict and dismiss the indictment. Trump’s sentencing is set for Sept. 18, if the verdict stands.

The sentencing, which carries the potential for anything from probation to up to four years in prison, was initially set for mid-July. But within hours of the Supreme Court’s ruling, Trump’s lawyers persuaded Merchan to delay it.

The Supreme Court did not define what constitutes an official act, leaving that matter to lower courts. Indeed, even the conservative justices responsible for the majority opinion differed about what is proper for jurors to hear about a president’s conduct.


In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that the Constitution does not require juries to be blinded “to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which presidents can be held liable” and suggested that it would needlessly “hamstring” a prosecutor’s case to prohibit any mention of an official act in question.

Before the Supreme Court ruling, Trump’s lawyers brought up presidential immunity in a failed bid last year to get the hush-money case moved from state court to federal court. In rejecting the move, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein wrote that “hush money paid to an adult film star is not related to a president’s official acts.”

Later, Trump’s lawyers beseeched Merchan to hold off the hush-money trial until the Supreme Court ruled on his immunity claim, which arose from a separate prosecution — the Washington, D.C., federal criminal case pertaining to Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss. But Merchan ruled that they raised the issue too late because it came well after a deadline for such pretrial requests.


Trump’s lawyers never raised presidential immunity as a defence in the hush-money trial, but they tried unsuccessfully to prevent prosecutors from showing the jury evidence from his time in office. As the trial got underway in April, Merchan balked at the idea that prosecutors be prohibited from showing jurors tweets that Trump had voluntarily sent out to millions of followers.

Trump’s lawyers argue that presidential immunity should have ruled out some testimony from former White House communications director Hope Hicks and another aide, as well as documents including his 2018 financial disclosure.

Prosecutors countered that the aides’ testimony — including Hicks’ account of conversations with Trump about news coverage — concerned Trump’s personal matters or described his work practices so generally that immunity doesn’t apply. The financial disclosure form fell within allowances for using public records, they argued.

As for Trump’s tweets, his lawyers contend they were official acts: A president’s communications to Americans about something pertinent to his credibility as their leader.

Prosecutors maintained otherwise in the new filing.

“Defendant’s tweets conveying his personal opinion about his private attorney do not bear any conceivable relationship to any official duty of the presidency,” they wrote.
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
37,568
3,290
113
Trump election subversion case returned to trial judge following Supreme Court opinion
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Eric Tucker
Published Aug 02, 2024 • Last updated 20 hours ago • 2 minute read

WASHINGTON (AP) — The criminal case charging former President Donald Trump with plotting to overturn the 2020 presidential election was returned Friday to the trial judge in Washington after a Supreme Court opinion last month that narrowed the scope of the prosecution.


The case was formally sent back to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan for further proceedings aimed at sorting out which acts in the landmark indictment constitute official acts and which do not.

The procedural move is expected to restart the case with a flurry of motions and potential hearings, but the sheer amount of work ahead for the judge and lawyers ensures that there’s no way a trial can take place before the November presidential election in which Trump is the Republican nominee. If Trump is elected president, he can appoint an attorney general who would presumably order the case dismissed.

The four-count indictment, one of four criminal cases brought against Trump last year, accuses him of illegally conspiring to cling to the presidency by working with aides to try to undo the results of the election he lost to Democrat Joe Biden.


But the Supreme Court on July 1 dealt prosecutors a major blow, ruling in a 6-3 opinion that presidents enjoy absolute immunity for core constitutional duties and are presumptively immune from prosecution for all other official acts.

The justices left it to Chutkan, who is presiding over the case, to decide how to apply their opinion to the remainder of the case.

That means she’ll be deciding in the weeks ahead whether key allegations in the case — including that Trump badgered his vice president, Mike Pence, to reject the official counting of electoral votes showing that he had lost the election — can remain part of the prosecution or must be discarded.

The case brought by special counsel Jack Smith had been effectively frozen since last December amid Trump’s appeal, which was argued in April before the Supreme Court, that he was immune from prosecution for the acts charged in the indictment.


A separate case brought by Smith, accusing Trump of illegally hoarding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, was dismissed by a different judge last month who held that Smith’s appointment was illegal. The Justice Department is appealing.

The high court’s immunity opinion has been cited by defense lawyers in another of Trump’s prosecutions, with attorneys arguing that his hush money conviction in New York should be set aside in light of the ruling. The judge in the case postponed sentencing and has said he’ll rule on the matter next month.

Trump faces a separate prosecution in Fulton County, Georgia, related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election. That case has been significantly delayed, preventing a trial from taking place this year.
 

Serryah

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 3, 2008
10,010
2,413
113
New Brunswick
So it is all Trumps fault a Democrat sen got busted taking bribes from Egypt? got it.

No? What the hell gave you that idea.

Menendez was found guilty and rightly so. Hope he's sentenced to jail. There should be more said from Dems about him, sure, for what he did. But at least there were voices saying he should be removed from his seat and they stuck with it.

Why is it Trump gets away with the same kind'a crime? And Republicans fall over themselves to defend him?

That's the point.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,256
12,777
113
Low Earth Orbit
No? What the hell gave you that idea.

Menendez was found guilty and rightly so. Hope he's sentenced to jail. There should be more said from Dems about him, sure, for what he did. But at least there were voices saying he should be removed from his seat and they stuck with it.

Why is it Trump gets away with the same kind'a crime? And Republicans fall over themselves to defend him?

That's the point.
Are you selfidentifying it as the same? Use logics Ms. Man
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
37,568
3,290
113
Judge in Trump’s federal election subversion case rejects defense effort to dismiss the prosecution
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Eric Tucker
Published Aug 03, 2024 • 2 minute read

WASHINGTON (AP) — The federal judge presiding over the election subversion case against former President Donald Trump rejected Saturday a defense effort to dismiss the indictment on claims that he was prosecuted for vindictive and political purposes.


The ruling from U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan is the first substantive order since the case was returned to her Friday following a landmark Supreme Court opinion last month that conferred broad immunity for former presidents and narrowed special counsel Jack Smith’s case against Trump.

In their motion to dismiss the indictment, defense lawyers argued that Trump was mistreated because he was prosecuted even though others who have challenged election results have avoided criminal charges. Trump, the Republican nominee in the 2024 presidential race, also suggested that President Joe Biden and the Justice Department launched a prosecution to prevent him from winning reelection.

But Chutkan rejected both arguments, saying Trump was not charged simply for challenging election results but instead for “knowingly making false statements in furtherance of criminal conspiracies and for obstruction of election certification proceedings.” She also said that his lawyers had misread news media articles that they had cited in arguing that the prosecution was political in nature.


“After reviewing Defendant’s evidence and arguments, the court cannot conclude that he has carried his burden to establish either actual vindictiveness or the presumption of it, and so finds no basis for dismissing this case on those grounds,” Chutkan wrote in her order.

Also Saturday, she scheduled an Aug. 16 status conference to discuss next steps in the case.

The four-count indictment, brought in August 2023, accuses Trump of conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 election he lost to Biden through a variety of schemes, including by badgering his vice president, Mike Pence, to block the formal certification of electoral votes.

Trump’s lawyers argued that he was immune from prosecution as a former president, and the case has been on hold since December as his appeal worked its way through the courts.

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 opinion, held that presidents enjoy absolute immunity for core constitutional duties and are presumptively immune from prosecution for all other official acts. The justices sent the case back to Chutkan to determine which acts alleged in the indictment can remain part of the prosecution and which must be discarded.
 

justfred

Electoral Member
Dec 26, 2004
268
42
28
Drumheller
I see where Donnie is saying that the polls are fake. Let’s make the polls report which party is paying for it, each and every question that is asked (to prevent bias outcomes) is the poll company known to be biased? Having said that the polls are fake, is Donnie admitting that he is behind, rather than realizing that the public are tired of his lies?
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,256
12,777
113
Low Earth Orbit
I see where Donnie is saying that the polls are fake. Let’s make the polls report which party is paying for it, each and every question that is asked (to prevent bias outcomes) is the poll company known to be biased? Having said that the polls are fake, is Donnie admitting that he is behind, rather than realizing that the public are tired of his lies?
Dont worry, Biden has this in the bag.
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
37,568
3,290
113
Judge in Trump’s hush money case delays date for ruling on presidential immunity
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
By Jennifer Peltz
Published Aug 06, 2024 • 2 minute read

NEW YORK (AP) — The judge in Donald Trump’s hush money trial is pushing back a date for a key ruling on presidential immunity until two days before Trump’s scheduled sentencing.


The immunity decision had been due Sept. 6, with the sentencing set for Sept. 18. But then Trump’s lawyers asked Judge Juan M. Merchan last week to rule first on their renewed bid to get the judge to step aside from the case.

In a letter made public Tuesday, Judge Juan M. Merchan postponed the immunity ruling to Sept. 16 — if it’s still needed after he decides next week whether to recuse himself.

Merchan said the Republican presidential nominee is still due in court Sept. 18 for “the imposition of sentence or other proceedings as appropriate.”

The Manhattan district attorney’s office, which is prosecuting the case, declined to comment. A request for comment was sent to prosecutors and Trump’s lawyers.

A Manhattan jury found Trump guilty in May of falsifying business records to conceal a deal to pay off porn actor Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 election. At the time, she was considering going public with a story of a sexual encounter with Trump a decade earlier.


He denies her claim, maintains he did nothing wrong and says the case is politically motivated. Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg is a Democrat.

Trump’s lawyers now say the Supreme Court’s July ruling on presidential immunity warrants overturning the May guilty verdict and entirely dismissing the hush money case against Trump. The defense also c ontends that the trial was “tainted” by evidence that should not have been allowed under the high court’s ruling, such as testimony from some Trump White House staffers and tweets he sent while president in 2018.

The high court’s ruling curbs prosecutions of ex-presidents for official acts and restricts prosecutors in pointing to official acts as evidence that a commander in chief’s unofficial actions were illegal.


The Manhattan district attorney’s office maintains that the high court’s opinion “has no bearing” on the hush money case because it involves unofficial acts for which the former president is not immune.

Meanwhile, Trump’s lawyers asked Merchan last week, for a third time, to exit the case, saying his daughter’s work for Vice President Kamala Harris’ 2020 presidential campaign underscores questions about his ability to be impartial. Harris is now the likely Democratic nominee for president.

Merchan rejected two prior recusal requests last year, saying the defense’s concerns were “hypothetical” and based on “innuendos” and “unsupported speculation.”

But Trump lawyer Todd Blanche argued that Harris’ entry into the presidential race makes those issues “even more concrete” and said the judge hadn’t addressed them in enough detail.
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
37,568
3,290
113
FBI: California woman brought sword, whip and other weapons into Capitol during Jan. 6 riot
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Michael Kunzelman
Published Aug 07, 2024 • 2 minute read

A California woman is charged with taking a cache of weapons, including a sword, a steel whip and a knife into the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack by a mob of Donald Trump supporters, according to court records unsealed Wednesday.


Kennedy Lindsey had a short sword, a steel tactical whip, a collapsible baton, pepper spray, a butterfly knife and a flashlight taser in her possession when a U.S. Secret Service officer searched her backpack, according to an FBI affidavit.

Lindsey was arrested in Los Angeles last month on charges including disorderly conduct and possession of a dangerous weapon in a Capitol building.

More than 1,400 people have been charged with Capitol riot-related federal crimes. Rioters were armed with an array of weapons on Jan. 6, including firearms, knives and stun guns. Many others used items like flagpoles and broken pieces of office furniture as makeshift weapons during the siege.

Lindsey was charged with a woman who flew with her from California to Washington, D.C. Lindsey bought plane tickets for both of them after then-President Donald Trump announced that there would be a “wild” protest there on Jan. 6. Lindsey posted on social media that she was going because “boss man called for us to be there.”


After attending Trump’s “Stop the Steal” rally near the White House, the two women rode to the Capitol on the back of a golf cart.

“Everyone is storming the building, folks,” Lindsey said on a self-recorded video, according to the affidavit. “We must do this as patriots. It says so in the Constitution.”

Lindsey, who wore a red “Make America Great Again” hat and a tactical vest, entered the Capitol through a broken window, the FBI said. The Secret Service officer who approached Lindsey had seen the sword strapped to her leg, according to the affidavit.

Lindsey later told the FBI that she had retrieved the backpack from her hotel room after attending Trump’s speech. She described her confiscated weapons as “tools” and acknowledged that they were in her backpack when she entered the Capitol, the affidavit says.

Lindsey was released from custody after her July 28 arrest.

Lindsey didn’t immediately respond to a text message seeking comment. An attorney who represented Lindsey at her initial court appearance didn’t immediately respond to an email seeking comment.
 

Taxslave2

House Member
Aug 13, 2022
3,666
2,195
113
FBI: California woman brought sword, whip and other weapons into Capitol during Jan. 6 riot
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Michael Kunzelman
Published Aug 07, 2024 • 2 minute read

A California woman is charged with taking a cache of weapons, including a sword, a steel whip and a knife into the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack by a mob of Donald Trump supporters, according to court records unsealed Wednesday.


Kennedy Lindsey had a short sword, a steel tactical whip, a collapsible baton, pepper spray, a butterfly knife and a flashlight taser in her possession when a U.S. Secret Service officer searched her backpack, according to an FBI affidavit.

Lindsey was arrested in Los Angeles last month on charges including disorderly conduct and possession of a dangerous weapon in a Capitol building.

More than 1,400 people have been charged with Capitol riot-related federal crimes. Rioters were armed with an array of weapons on Jan. 6, including firearms, knives and stun guns. Many others used items like flagpoles and broken pieces of office furniture as makeshift weapons during the siege.

Lindsey was charged with a woman who flew with her from California to Washington, D.C. Lindsey bought plane tickets for both of them after then-President Donald Trump announced that there would be a “wild” protest there on Jan. 6. Lindsey posted on social media that she was going because “boss man called for us to be there.”


After attending Trump’s “Stop the Steal” rally near the White House, the two women rode to the Capitol on the back of a golf cart.

“Everyone is storming the building, folks,” Lindsey said on a self-recorded video, according to the affidavit. “We must do this as patriots. It says so in the Constitution.”

Lindsey, who wore a red “Make America Great Again” hat and a tactical vest, entered the Capitol through a broken window, the FBI said. The Secret Service officer who approached Lindsey had seen the sword strapped to her leg, according to the affidavit.

Lindsey later told the FBI that she had retrieved the backpack from her hotel room after attending Trump’s speech. She described her confiscated weapons as “tools” and acknowledged that they were in her backpack when she entered the Capitol, the affidavit says.

Lindsey was released from custody after her July 28 arrest.

Lindsey didn’t immediately respond to a text message seeking comment. An attorney who represented Lindsey at her initial court appearance didn’t immediately respond to an email seeking comment.
Only someone from California would be stupid enough to bring a knife to a gun fight.
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
37,568
3,290
113
Donald Trump's campaign says its emails were hacked
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Bill Barrow
Published Aug 10, 2024 • Last updated 1 day ago • 3 minute read

Former President Donald Trump’s presidential campaign said Saturday that it has been hacked and suggested Iranian actors were involved in stealing and distributing sensitive internal documents.


The campaign provided no specific evidence of Iran’s involvement, but the claim comes a day after Microsoft issued a report detailing foreign agents’ attempts to interfere in the U.S. campaign in 2024.

It cited an instance of an Iranian military intelligence unit in June sending “a spear-phishing email to a high-ranking official of a presidential campaign from a compromised email account of a former senior advisor.”

Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung blamed the hack on “foreign sources hostile to the United States.” A spokesperson for the National Security Council said in a statement that it takes any report of improper foreign interference “extremely seriously” and condemns any government or entity that attempts to undermine confidence in U.S. democratic institutions, but said it deferred to the Justice Department on this matter.


Iran’s mission to the United Nations, when asked about the claim of the Trump campaign, denied being involved. “We do not accord any credence to such reports,” the mission told The Associated Press. “The Iranian government neither possesses nor harbours any intent or motive to interfere in the United States presidential election.”

However, Iran long has been suspected of running hacking campaigns targeting its enemies in the Middle East and beyond. Tehran also long has threatened to retaliate against Trump over the 2020 drone strike he ordered that killed prominent Revolutionary Guard Gen. Qassem Soleimani.

The U.S. Justice Department this past week unsealed criminal charges against a Pakistani national with ties to Iran alleged to have plotted assassination attempts against political figures in the United States, including potentially Trump, and to have sought to hire purported hitmen who were actually undercover law enforcement officials. Court documents in that case pointedly noted a desire by Iran to conduct operations against perceived enemies of the regime and to avenge the killing of Soleimani.


Politico first reported Saturday on the hack. The outlet reported that it began receiving emails on July 22 from an anonymous account. The source — an AOL email account identified only as “Robert” — passed along what appeared to be a research dossier the campaign had apparently done on the Republican vice presidential nominee, Ohio Sen. JD Vance. The document was dated Feb. 23, almost five months before Trump selected Vance as his running mate.

“These documents were obtained illegally” and “intended to interfere with the 2024 election and sow chaos throughout our Democratic process,” Cheung said.

He pointed to the Microsoft report issued Friday and its conclusions that “Iranian hackers broke into the account of a ‘high ranking official’ on the U.S. presidential campaign in June 2024, which coincides with the close timing of President Trump’s selection of a vice presidential nominee.”


“The Iranians know that President Trump will stop their reign of terror just like he did in his first four years in the White House,” Cheung said, adding a warning that “any media or news outlet reprinting documents or internal communications are doing the bidding of America’s enemies and doing exactly what they want.”

Cheung did not immediately respond to questions about the campaign’s interactions with Microsoft on the matter. Microsoft said Saturday it had no comment beyond its blog post and Friday report.

In that report, Microsoft stated that “foreign malign influence concerning the 2024 US election started off slowly but has steadily picked up pace over the last six months due initially to Russian operations, but more recently from Iranian activity.”


The analysis continued: “Iranian cyber-enabled influence operations have been a consistent feature of at least the last three U.S. election cycles. Iran’s operations have been notable and distinguishable from Russian campaigns for appearing later in the election season and employing cyberattacks more geared toward election conduct than swaying voters.”

“Recent activity suggests the Iranian regime — along with the Kremlin — may be equally engaged in election 2024,” Microsoft concluded.

Specifically, the report detailed that in June 2024, an Iranian military intelligence unit, Mint Sandstorm, sent a phishing email to an American presidential campaign via the compromised account of a former adviser.

“The phishing email contained a fake forward with a hyperlink that directs traffic through an actor-controlled domain before redirecting to the listed domain,” the report states.

Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the reported hacking or on the Democratic nominee’s cybersecurity protocols.

— Associated Press writers Jon Gambrell in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, Mae Anderson in New York, Fatima Hussein in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, and Eric Tucker in Washington contributed to this report.
 

Serryah

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 3, 2008
10,010
2,413
113
New Brunswick
Donald Trump's campaign says its emails were hacked
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Bill Barrow
Published Aug 10, 2024 • Last updated 1 day ago • 3 minute read

Former President Donald Trump’s presidential campaign said Saturday that it has been hacked and suggested Iranian actors were involved in stealing and distributing sensitive internal documents.


The campaign provided no specific evidence of Iran’s involvement, but the claim comes a day after Microsoft issued a report detailing foreign agents’ attempts to interfere in the U.S. campaign in 2024.

It cited an instance of an Iranian military intelligence unit in June sending “a spear-phishing email to a high-ranking official of a presidential campaign from a compromised email account of a former senior advisor.”

Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung blamed the hack on “foreign sources hostile to the United States.” A spokesperson for the National Security Council said in a statement that it takes any report of improper foreign interference “extremely seriously” and condemns any government or entity that attempts to undermine confidence in U.S. democratic institutions, but said it deferred to the Justice Department on this matter.


Iran’s mission to the United Nations, when asked about the claim of the Trump campaign, denied being involved. “We do not accord any credence to such reports,” the mission told The Associated Press. “The Iranian government neither possesses nor harbours any intent or motive to interfere in the United States presidential election.”

However, Iran long has been suspected of running hacking campaigns targeting its enemies in the Middle East and beyond. Tehran also long has threatened to retaliate against Trump over the 2020 drone strike he ordered that killed prominent Revolutionary Guard Gen. Qassem Soleimani.

The U.S. Justice Department this past week unsealed criminal charges against a Pakistani national with ties to Iran alleged to have plotted assassination attempts against political figures in the United States, including potentially Trump, and to have sought to hire purported hitmen who were actually undercover law enforcement officials. Court documents in that case pointedly noted a desire by Iran to conduct operations against perceived enemies of the regime and to avenge the killing of Soleimani.


Politico first reported Saturday on the hack. The outlet reported that it began receiving emails on July 22 from an anonymous account. The source — an AOL email account identified only as “Robert” — passed along what appeared to be a research dossier the campaign had apparently done on the Republican vice presidential nominee, Ohio Sen. JD Vance. The document was dated Feb. 23, almost five months before Trump selected Vance as his running mate.

“These documents were obtained illegally” and “intended to interfere with the 2024 election and sow chaos throughout our Democratic process,” Cheung said.

He pointed to the Microsoft report issued Friday and its conclusions that “Iranian hackers broke into the account of a ‘high ranking official’ on the U.S. presidential campaign in June 2024, which coincides with the close timing of President Trump’s selection of a vice presidential nominee.”


“The Iranians know that President Trump will stop their reign of terror just like he did in his first four years in the White House,” Cheung said, adding a warning that “any media or news outlet reprinting documents or internal communications are doing the bidding of America’s enemies and doing exactly what they want.”

Cheung did not immediately respond to questions about the campaign’s interactions with Microsoft on the matter. Microsoft said Saturday it had no comment beyond its blog post and Friday report.

In that report, Microsoft stated that “foreign malign influence concerning the 2024 US election started off slowly but has steadily picked up pace over the last six months due initially to Russian operations, but more recently from Iranian activity.”


The analysis continued: “Iranian cyber-enabled influence operations have been a consistent feature of at least the last three U.S. election cycles. Iran’s operations have been notable and distinguishable from Russian campaigns for appearing later in the election season and employing cyberattacks more geared toward election conduct than swaying voters.”

“Recent activity suggests the Iranian regime — along with the Kremlin — may be equally engaged in election 2024,” Microsoft concluded.

Specifically, the report detailed that in June 2024, an Iranian military intelligence unit, Mint Sandstorm, sent a phishing email to an American presidential campaign via the compromised account of a former adviser.

“The phishing email contained a fake forward with a hyperlink that directs traffic through an actor-controlled domain before redirecting to the listed domain,” the report states.

Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the reported hacking or on the Democratic nominee’s cybersecurity protocols.

— Associated Press writers Jon Gambrell in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, Mae Anderson in New York, Fatima Hussein in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, and Eric Tucker in Washington contributed to this report.

Aww, Muffin.

Karma coming home to roost for the Orange Turd.