Sunday, 6 August 2023

False dawn or real deal: What should Russia expect from Saudi Arabia’s Ukraine 'peace summit’?

False dawn or real deal: What should Russia expect from Saudi Arabia’s Ukraine 'peace summit’?

False dawn or real deal: What should Russia expect from Saudi Arabia’s Ukraine 'peace summit’?





FILE PHOTO: Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov
©Sputnik/Russian Foreign Ministry






Brussels, Washington and Kiev are stepping up efforts to consolidate international support for a Ukrainian plan for hypothetical peace talks with Russia. Last Sunday it was announced that a major international meeting of around 30 states will be held in Jeddah this weekend, 5-6 August, to discuss the process.







In addition to countries such as Indonesia, Egypt, Mexico, Chile and Zambia, the largest states of the 'global South' – India and Brazil – are expected to attend.


The fact that this is the second such meeting on a Ukrainian settlement (the first meeting in a similar format was held in Copenhagen at the end of June) shows that there isn’t unconditional support for the Ukrainian plan in the international community, and Kiev will have to compromise. On the other hand, Russia was not invited. This means that a common international position could be formed without Moscow’s participation, and it could find itself confronted with the consequences.


Russian experts speculate on what this could mean.


Ivan Timofeev, Programme Director of the Valdai Club and Director General of the Russian International Affairs Council:


I am skeptical about this Saudi initiative, because any peace plan discussed without Russia is unlikely to be accepted by Russia. It seems that this is an attempt by the West to create a situation in which non-Western countries do not speak from a position of neutrality and impartiality, but instead directly, or indirectly, aligned with the West’s position.


If we look at the situation from the point of view of non-Western states, it could be a means for them to diversify their foreign policy status. They can show that they are playing from both Western and non-Western platforms, and that they still have room for maneuver.


The Ukrainian crisis was caused not only by Russian-Ukrainian relations and contradictions, but also by security contradictions between Moscow and the collective West. And without resolving these contradictions, it is very difficult to expect a sustainable solution.


But there are also a number of problems in Ukraine itself that are perceived critically in Russia. In particular, one of these now is the rights of Christians and the attempt to split the Orthodox Church, which is gaining momentum and is accompanied by the seizure of church property and the persecution of believers, and so on. Just last week the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs prepared a rather detailed report on this.


The problems associated with the Ukrainian crisis are not limited to the peaceful resolution of the conflict itself. It is a broader picture of relations between Russia and the West, the human rights situation in Ukraine itself and, in particular, the problems that Moscow is drawing attention to.


Dr Aleksey Gromyko, Director of the Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy of Sciences:


I assume that the format of the negotiations in Saudi Arabia did not envisage Russia's participation or, accordingly, an invitation for Moscow.


The point is twofold: to work on consolidating the global South's peacemaking efforts in relation to the Ukrainian crisis and, secondly, to work specifically with Ukraine and its sponsors. In principle, it is clear that Kiev, not Moscow, is fundamental to any ceasefire and eventual settlement.


Everyone knows that it was the Ukrainians who withdrew from the [peace] negotiations in April 2022, not the Russians. And since then, Russia has repeatedly signaled its openness to pragmatic negotiations, while Kiev has fantasized about the return of all its former territories, including Crimea.


If this work bears fruit, Russia could probably get involved later. But a condition for Saudi Arabia's chances of success in this endeavor is 'quiet diplomacy' and complete confidentiality.


If it turns out that Kiev and the West are just using it for another political show, then there will be no benefit.


Political expert Andrey Dubnov:


The goal of the conference is not to formulate "agreements acceptable to all parties." Russia has not been invited to this event, and this makes sense, because otherwise the meeting would have been doomed to failure. It is obvious that Moscow's position has been articulated; the last time it was expressed was at the Russia-Africa summit.


Moscow's main position is essentially an arrangement that can be called a ceasefire, based on Russia's retention of the Ukrainian territories now organized as four Russian regions. It is difficult to imagine that Moscow is prepared to abandon this as its main negotiating position.


On the other hand, Kiev's stance on peace is articulated as being possible only if Russia withdraws its troops to the 1991 borders. With such positions of the parties, a general meeting would be pointless.


What is the purpose of the summit in Saudi Arabia? Since this initiative comes mainly from Kiev and is backed by the US, it is now about consolidating the whole wider world – not just the West, but the big South, including the BRICS member countries (India, Brazil and South Africa). It is an attempt to find a consolidated expression of support for the Ukrainian peace plan. Within this "formula of support" there are some limits regarding the flexibility of Kiev's negotiating position: under what conditions it is ready to give up its categorical demand to return to the 1991 borders and to compromise with Russia? Clarifying this kind of flexibility may be one of the ulterior goals of this conference.


But practice shows that such diplomatic conferences look first and foremost like big, big PR. Diplomacy needs silence and confidentiality. The Saudi initiative does not yet provide for this silence and confidentiality, so it is still more of a political meeting than a search for a diplomatic solution to the problem.


President Vladimir Zelensky's peace plan will be at the center of the Saudi initiative. Within this framework, an attempt will be made to somehow find acceptable windows in which Kiev, I repeat, will be prepared to make further compromises with Moscow. But at the end of the day, everything will depend on the outcome of the military operations on the ground, which are being actively pursued.


No peace plan for Ukraine can become a reality without China's participation. The meeting in Saudi Arabia could be a precursor to a financial and economic assistance plan to rebuild Ukraine. This is how the plan to help Afghanistan began at the Bonn conference many years ago.


Andrey Suzdaltsev, Political expert, Associate Professor of the Faculty of World Economy and World Politics of the Higher School of Economics:


The Saudi initiative is the second attempt at such negotiations to resolve the Ukrainian crisis. The first took place in the Danish capital, Copenhagen, in early summer. It did not go well, as the organizers were unable to attract high-level representatives, particularly from the BRICS countries; the talks were attended by deputy foreign ministers and others.


Now they want a conference with higher-level representation, especially among the Indian representatives. That is why they chose Saudi Arabia, which has strong cooperation with New Delhi. They are using the existing experience of these big countries.


All this is happening because it has now been discovered that there are several factions of power on the planet and that the world is multipolar. The unipolar world that existed before was somewhat incomplete, but it still existed. Now, however, it has begun to fall apart.


A vivid example of this is the events of 2008, the Ossetian-Georgian war, where the West intervened when it was too late. French President Nicolas Sarkozy arrived, the situation was stopped, and Russia was not even seriously sanctioned.


In 2014, when Crimea returned to Russia, the West could do nothing about it and showed that the unipolar world was beginning to fail. The system started to collapse.


When the system of international relations collapses, it manifests itself in three aspects. The first aspect is the loss of various contacts, traditions of contacts, and traditions of discussions at the expert and diplomatic levels. This can be seen not only in relations between Russia and the West, but also those between China and the US with regard to Taiwan, and in the fraught relations of most African countries with the US and Western Europe. Contacts and relations built up over decades have begun to disintegrate.


The second aspect is that international organizations are becoming dysfunctional, losing respect, and being ignored. In the 1950s and 1960s, United Nations decisions were viewed almost as law in a bipolar world. However, when the world became unipolar, the largest international organizations became unnecessary as Washington made all the decisions.


The third aspect is that international law is canceled. Many agreements lose their force, though not all.


These three aspects show that the world system is changing. The US and the European Union want to stop this process. The Russian military operation in Ukraine was the turning point. The unipolar world has to make the other poles of global power – including China and India – support the West and stand firmly on the Western positions and on the side of Ukraine. There is no equality in this. The proposed negotiations are a conversation in the format of the traditional unipolar world, which can only offer coalitions, and of the feudal vassal type.


This conference is being held to force Africa and India to side with the West against Russia.



China joins Ukraine talks in Jeddah



Ukrainian and Western diplomats hope the meeting in Jeddah of senior officials from about 40 countries will agree on key principles for a future peace settlement of the war in Ukraine. (AN file photo)


Chinese special envoy for Eurasian affairs Li Hui will take part in weekend talks in Saudi Arabia on finding a peaceful settlement to the war in Ukraine, China’s foreign ministry said on Friday. “China is willing to work with the international community to continue to play a constructive role in promoting a political solution to the crisis,” ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said.


Ukrainian and Western diplomats hope the meeting in Jeddah of national security advisers and other senior officials from about 40 countries will agree on key principles for a future peace settlement. The participation of China is a diplomatic coup for the Kingdom. China was invited to a previous round of talks in Copenhagen in late June but did not attend.


Saudi diplomacy played a key role in persuading Beijing to attend the Jeddah talks, a German official said.


Saudi state news agency SPA said the kingdom anticipated the meeting would reinforce “dialogue and cooperation... to ensure a solution for the crisis through political and diplomatic means.” Ukrainian and Western officials said Riyadh wants to play a prominent diplomatic role.


The gathering is more palatable to Beijing with Saudi Arabia as host since it will not be seen as engineered by the West, said Yun Sun, director of the China Program at the Stimson Center in Washington. A senior European Union official said Saudi Arabia reached “into parts of the world where (Ukraine’s) classical allies would not get to as easily.”



10-point formula



Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said on Wednesday he hoped the initiative will lead to a “peace summit” of leaders from around the world this autumn to endorse the principles, based on his own 10-point formula for a settlement.


Zelensky’s formula includes respect for Ukraine’s territorial integrity and the withdrawal of Russian troops, anathema to Moscow which claims to have annexed occupied Ukrainian territory forever. Ukrainian, Russian and international officials say there is no prospect of direct peace talks between Ukraine and Russia at the moment, as the war continues to rage and Kyiv seeks to reclaim territory through a counter-offensive.


But Ukraine aims first to build a bigger coalition of diplomatic support beyond its core Western backers by reaching out to Global South countries such as India, Brazil and South Africa, many of which have remained publicly neutral. Earlier this week, the Kremlin said it would keep an eye on the Jeddah meeting, while restating Moscow’s position that it currently saw no grounds for peace talks with Kyiv.


“We need to understand what goals are set and what will be discussed. Any attempt to promote a peaceful settlement deserves a positive evaluation,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Monday.


Western diplomats say an endorsement of all of Zelensky’s peace formula is highly unlikely at the talks. But they want to at least get clear backing for principles enshrined in the UN Charter — the founding document of the United Nations — such as territorial integrity.


The US and its allies also have been wary about embracing a Beijing-led peace initiative, and analysts doubted China would look to take a leading role at the conference.


“I don’t see the Chinese pushing an agenda,” said Jon Alterman, head of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Beijing’s participation was more likely motivated by prestige and the opportunity to court Middle East and Global South countries.


In seeking to win over Global South countries, Western officials said they will stress that food prices have jumped since Russia quit a deal to allow safe passage of Ukrainian grain through the Black Sea and carried out a string of air strikes on Ukraine’s ports. “We’ll be for sure making this point and loud and clear,” another senior EU official said.


As officials prepared for the talks, Ukraine carried out a drone strike against Russian naval targets on the Black Sea, damaging the Olenegrorsky Gornyak landing ship in the Novorossiysk naval base in southern Russia. “The goal was to show that Ukraine can attack any Russian warship in that zone,” a Ukrainian security source said.


“Another Russian ship is on the edge of its fall,” the Ukrainian foreign ministry said, publishing video footage of a military vessel listing heavily. Ukrainian presidential aide Mykhailo Podolyak said: “The presence of the Russian fleet in the Black Sea... will be put to an end. Ukraine will ensure freedom and security in the Black Sea for world trade.”


























































google.com, pub-0655609370809761, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0

CTES Elog Bimbel - Daftar bimbel Tes SMAKBO

google.com, pub-0655609370809761, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0
















google.com, pub-0655609370809761, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0

CTES Elog Bimbel - Daftar bimbel UTBK SNBT

google.com, pub-0655609370809761, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0








































Saturday, 5 August 2023

Russian forces liberate LPR’s Novoselovskoye in Kupyansk area — top brass

Russian forces liberate LPR’s Novoselovskoye in Kupyansk area — top brass

Russian forces liberate LPR’s Novoselovskoye in Kupyansk area — top brass





©Russian Defence Ministry/TASS






The Russian forces have liberated the Novoselovskoye settlement in the Lugansk People's Republic (LPR), Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Lieutenant General Igor Konashenkov said.







"The settlement of Novoselovskoye in the LPR was liberated in the Kupyansk area thanks to the competent and professional actions of the western battlegroup," he pointed out.



Russian forces improve situation in Kharkov area, says top brass



The Russian forces have improved the situation on the front line in the Kharkov Region during the offensive, Russian Defense Ministry Spokesman Lieutenant General Igor Konashenkov said.


The Russian Ministry of Defense published footage of the battle in the Kupyansk direction, during which the settlement of Novoselovskoye in the LPR was liberated.

In the battle, the Russian military captured 11 strongholds of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.


"In addition, during the offensive operations on the wide front, [Russian] assault detachments have improved the situation along the front line in the areas of Olshana and Pershotravnevoye settlements in the Kharkov Region," he said.



Russian forces destroy three Ukrainian assault groups west of Zaporozhye Region’s Orekhov



©Alexei Konovalov/TASS


The Russian armed forces have destroyed three Ukrainian assault groups west of Orekhov in the Zaporozhye Region, Acting Governor Yevgeny Balitsky reported.


According to him, the Ukrainian strike group tried to attack the Russian positions in the Rabotino area. "At the same time, our aerial reconnaissance detected the concentration of three assault groups to the west of Orekhov. All groups were destroyed, the remaining Ukrainian fighters withdrew in the northern direction," he wrote on his Telegram channel.



Russian forces destroy ammo depot, radar for detecting air targets — top brass



The Russian forces destroyed an ammunition depot of the 44th Ukrainian mechanized brigade in the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) and a radar station for detecting air targets in the Kharkov Region, Russian Defense Ministry Spokesman Lieutenant General Igor Konashenkov said.


"The Russian troops hit 126 Ukrainian artillery units in firing positions, personnel and military equipment in 138 areas. In addition, a radar station for detecting air targets was hit near the Rogan settlement in the Kharkov Region," he said.


According to Konashenkov, an ammunition depot of the 44th Ukrainian mechanized brigade was also destroyed near the DPR’s settlement of Torskoye.




































































google.com, pub-0655609370809761, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0

CTES Elog Bimbel - Daftar bimbel Tes SMAKBO

google.com, pub-0655609370809761, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0
















google.com, pub-0655609370809761, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0

CTES Elog Bimbel - Daftar bimbel UTBK SNBT

google.com, pub-0655609370809761, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0





































If Trump is convicted, Secret Service protection may be obstacle to imprisonment

If Trump is convicted, Secret Service protection may be obstacle to imprisonment

If Trump is convicted, Secret Service protection may be obstacle to imprisonment






Secret Service and Palm Beach police are seen in front of the Florida home of former president Donald Trump. (Eva Marie Uzcategui/Getty Images)






Presidents since 1965 have been afforded lifetime protection. Since then, only Richard M. Nixon has waived it, as a cost-saving move for taxpayers 11 years after his resignation.







But unless he follows Nixon’s example, Trump could force politically and logistically complex questions over whether officials should detail agents to protect a former American president behind bars, leave it to prison authorities to keep him safe, or secure him under some type of home confinement, former U.S. officials said.


Could Trump face prison? “Theoretically, yes and practically, no,” said Chuck Rosenberg, a former top federal prosecutor and counsel to then-FBI Director James B. Comey. Rosenberg served briefly as head of the Drug Enforcement Administration in the Trump administration and notably said the president had “condoned police misconduct” in remarking to officers in Long Island that they need not protect suspects’ heads when loading them into police vehicles.







“Any federal district judge ought to understand it raises enormous and unprecedented logistical issues,” Rosenberg said of the prospect Trump could be incarcerated. “Probation, fines, community service and home confinement are all alternatives.”



TRUMP INVESTIGATIONS



Donald Trump has been indicted in three cases and is under investigation in one other. The Washington Post is keeping track of where each Trump investigation stands. Here is a breakdown of all 78 charges Trump faces.


End of carousel


Trump is now facing three, separate criminal cases, with the prospect of at least one more on the horizon. He has a pending March trial date in a New York state fraud case. He was charged by special counsel Jack Smith in federal court in Florida over the handling of classified documents that were taken from his Mar-a-Lago home after he left the White House. In federal court in D.C., Smith’s team alleges Trump conspired to subvert the results of the 2020 election. He could soon be charged in Georgia on similar allegations.


The charges Trump faces technically come with the possibility of decades in prison — though pleas, verdicts and possible punishments are very far off.


Mary McCord, who served as acting assistant attorney general for national security during President Barack Obama’s administration and led the department for the first several months under Trump, said Trump presents unique challenges to the Justice Department. Ensuring some penalty for a former president under Secret Service detail would require extensive discussions and potential accommodations, “because it really would be a pretty enormous burden on our prison system to have to incarcerate Donald Trump.”


The question is an open one at the U.S. Secret Service. Asked whether a former president who does not waive protection can be incarcerated, agency spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said, “The Secret Service does not have a comment or response, only because there is no such policy or procedure that currently exists.”


“We won’t have any further comment,” added Marsha Espinosa, spokeswoman for the Secret Service’s parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security.


How do you imprison a former president? Former president Donald Trump appeared at a D.C. courthouse on Aug. 3 for an arraignment on charges that he conspired to overturn the 2020 election results.






(Video: HyoJung Kim/The Washington Post, Photo: Tom Brenner/The Washington Post) Former and current Secret Service agents said that while there is no precedent, they feel certain the agency would insist on providing some form of 24/7 protection to an imprisoned former president. And, they say, the agency is probably planning for that possibility, seeking to match to some degree its normal practice of rotating three daily shifts of at least one or two agents providing close proximity protection.






“This question keeps getting raised, yet no official answers” from the Secret Service, said Jonathan Wackrow, a former Secret Service agent and now chief operating officer for Teneo Risk, a corporate advisory and communications firm. “However, we can infer how security measures could be implemented based on existing protective protocols. Unless there are changes in legislation or the former president waives protection, the U.S. Secret Service would likely maintain a protective environment around the president in accordance with their current practices.”


Current and former agents said Trump’s detail would coordinate their protection work with the Federal Bureau of Prisons to ensure there was no conflict about duties or about how they would handle emergencies, as well as the former president’s routine movements in a prison — such as heading to exercise or meals. The Secret Service, they said, would maintain a bubble around Trump in any case, keeping him at a distance from other inmates.


“In some ways, protection may be easier — the absence of travel means logistics get easier and confinement means that the former president’s location is always known,” Wackrow said. “Theoretically, the perimeter is well fortified — no one is worried about someone breaking into jail.”


The Justice Department’s Bureau of Prisons declined to say whether former presidents with Secret Service protection could be incarcerated, or to comment on circumstances of a possible Trump designation. However a spokesman said general factors can include the level of security an inmate requires, any health needs, proximity to their release locations and “separation and security measures to ensure the inmate’s protection.” The bureau has had to handle VIP inmates in the past, though minimum security camps often have dormitory style housing.


Another agency official said it was in a position similar to the Secret Service, lacking a policy or procedure.


What would sentencing look like?


The prospect of potentially decades in prison for Trump is politically loaded, though the charges he faces could carry such a penalty. After entering a not-guilty plea in Miami federal court on June 13, Trump claimed he was being threatened with “400 years in prison,” adding up the statutory maximum penalty for the 37 counts against him. The charges he faces in D.C. related to his alleged efforts to stay in power despite losing the election could add additional decades, based on that math.


Judges almost never apply maximum penalties to first offenders and rarely stack sentences rather than let them run concurrently. However, federal sentencing guidelines are highly technical. Specialists estimate that a first offender convicted of multiple counts of willfully retaining national defense information and obstructing or conspiring to obstruct an investigation by concealing evidence might face a range of anything from 51 to 63 months on the low end — about five years — to 17½ to 22 years on the high end — or about 20 years, given Trump’s alleged leadership role and abuse of trust.


Similarly, Jan. 6 riot defendants convicted at trial of two of the same counts with which Trump is charged — conspiring to or actually obstructing an official proceeding — have faced sentencing guideline ranges as high as seven to 11 years, and as low as less than two years.



But judges always have the final say.



“Without question, if it were anyone else [but Trump], prison would be a certainty,” said Thomas A. Durkin, a former federal prosecutor who teaches national security law at Loyola University Chicago. However, he said, “The Secret Service waiver issue is a novel and complex issue” that could theoretically factor into an exception.


The Justice Department has mounted at least a dozen investigations into the removal or unlawful retention of classified information since 2005. Pentagon employees, contractors and people employed by the FBI, the CIA and National Security Agency have all been convicted and sentenced to prison. Among the most recent, former contractor Harold Martin was convicted in 2019 and is serving a nine-year prison term for taking home a huge number of hard and digital copies of classified materials — the equivalent of 500 million pages. And former FBI analyst Kendra Kingsbury was recently sentenced to nearly four years in prison after taking home more than 300 documents including materials related to al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.



How Jack Smith Structured the Trump Election Indictment to Reduce Risks



In accusing former President Donald J. Trump of conspiring to subvert American democracy, the special counsel, Jack Smith, charged the same story three different ways. The charges are novel applications of criminal laws to unprecedented circumstances, heightening legal risks, but Mr. Smith’s tactic gives him multiple paths in obtaining and upholding a guilty verdict.


Jack Smith’s indictment is a selective take on the efforts by former President Donald J. Trump and his associates to overturn the 2020 election. Credit... Doug Mills/The New York Times


“Especially in a case like this, you want to have multiple charges that are applicable or provable with the same evidence, so that if on appeal you lose one, you still have the conviction,” said Julie O’Sullivan, a Georgetown University law professor and former federal prosecutor.


That structure in the indictment is only one of several strategic choices by Mr. Smith — including what facts and potential charges he chose to include or omit — that may foreshadow and shape how an eventual trial of Mr. Trump will play out.


The four charges rely on three criminal statutes: a count of conspiring to defraud the government, another of conspiring to disenfranchise voters, and two counts related to corruptly obstructing a congressional proceeding. Applying each to Mr. Trump’s actions raises various complexities, according to a range of criminal law experts.


At the same time, the indictment hints at how Mr. Smith is trying to sidestep legal pitfalls and potential defenses. He began with an unusual preamble that reads like an opening statement at trial, acknowledging that Mr. Trump had a right to challenge the election results in court and even to lie about them, but drawing a distinction with the defendant’s pursuit of “unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results.”


While the indictment is sprawling in laying out a case against Mr. Trump, it brings a selective lens on the multifaceted efforts by the former president and his associates to overturn the 2020 election.


“The strength of the indictment is that it is very narrowly written,” said Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., a Harvard Law School professor and former public defender. “The government is not attempting to prove too much, but rather it went for low-hanging fruit.”


For one, Mr. Smith said little about the violent events of Jan. 6, leaving out vast amounts of evidence in the report by a House committee that separately investigated the matter. He focused more on a brazen plan to recruit false slates of electors from swing states and a pressure campaign on Vice President Mike Pence to block the congressional certification of Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory.


That choice dovetails with Mr. Smith’s decision not to charge Mr. Trump with inciting an insurrection or seditious conspiracy — potential charges the House committee recommended. By eschewing them, he avoided having the case focus on the inflammatory but occasionally ambiguous remarks Mr. Trump made to his supporters as they morphed into a mob, avoiding tough First Amendment objections that defense lawyers could raise.


For another, while Mr. Smith described six of Mr. Trump’s associates as co-conspirators, none were charged. It remains unclear whether some of them will eventually be indicted if they do not cooperate, or whether he intends to target only Mr. Trump so the case will move faster.


Mr. Smith chose to say very little about the violent events of Jan. 6 and instead focused on the scheme to recruit slates of fake electors and the pressure Mr. Trump brought upon Vice President Pence. Credit... Jason Andrew for The New York Times


Among the charges Mr. Smith did bring against Mr. Trump, corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding is the most familiar in how it applies to the aftermath of the 2020 election. Already, hundreds of ordinary Jan. 6 rioters have been charged with it.


To date, most judges in Jan. 6 cases, at the district court and appeals court level, have upheld the use of the statute. But a few Trump-appointed judges have favored a more narrow interpretation, like limiting the law to situations in which people destroyed evidence or sought a benefit more concrete than having their preferred candidate win an election.


Mr. Trump, of course, would have personally benefited from staying in office, making that charge stronger against him than against the rioters. Still, a possible risk is if the Supreme Court soon takes up one of the rioter cases and then narrows the scope of the law in a way that would affect the case against Mr. Trump.



Proving Intent



Some commentators have argued in recent days that prosecutors must persuade the jury that Mr. Trump knew his voter fraud claims were false to prove corrupt intent. But that is oversimplified, several experts said.


To be sure, experts broadly agree that Mr. Smith will have an easier time winning a conviction if jurors are persuaded that Mr. Trump knew he was lying about everything. To that end, the indictment details how he “was notified repeatedly that his claims were untrue” and “deliberately disregarded the truth.”


“What you see in Trump — a guy who seems to inhabit his own fictional universe — is something you see in other fraud defendants,” said David Alan Sklansky, a Stanford University law professor. “It’s a common challenge in a fraud case to prove that at some level the defendant knew what he was telling people wasn’t true. The way you prove it is, in part, by showing that lots of people made clear to the defendant that what he was saying was baseless.”


Moreover, the indictment emphasizes several episodes in which Mr. Trump had firsthand knowledge that his statements were false. Prosecutors can use those instances of demonstrably knowing lies to urge jurors to infer that Mr. Trump knew he was lying about everything else, too.


The indictment, for example, recounts a taped call on Jan. 2 with Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, in which Mr. Trump shared a series of conspiracy theories that he systematically debunked in detail. But on Twitter the next day, Mr. Trump “falsely claimed that the Georgia secretary of state had not addressed” the allegations.


And on Jan. 5, Mr. Pence told Mr. Trump that he had no lawful authority to alter or delay the counting of Mr. Biden’s electoral votes, but “hours later” Mr. Trump issued a statement through his campaign saying the opposite: “The vice president and I are in total agreement that the vice president has the power to act.”


In any case, several rioters have already argued that they did not have “corrupt intent” because they sincerely believed the election had been stolen. That has not worked: Judges have said that corrupt intent can be shown by engaging in other unlawful actions like trespassing, assaulting the police and destroying property.


“Belief that your actions are serving a greater good does not negate consciousness of wrongdoing,” Judge Royce C. Lamberth wrote last month.


Mr. Trump, of course, did not rampage through the Capitol. But the indictment accuses him of committing other crimes — the fraud and voter disenfranchisement conspiracies — based on wrongful conduct. It cites Mr. Trump’s bid to use fake electors in violation of the Electoral Count Act and his solicitation of fraud at the Justice Department and in Georgia, where he pressured Mr. Raffensperger to help him “find” 11,780 votes, enough to overcome Mr. Biden’s margin of victory.


“Whether he thinks he won or lost is relevant but not determinative,” said Paul Rosenzweig, a former prosecutor who worked on the independent counsel investigation into President Bill Clinton. “Trump could try to achieve vindicating his beliefs legally. The conspiracy is tied to the illegal means. So he has to say that he thought ‘finding’ 11,000 votes was legal, or that fake electors were legal. That is much harder to say with a straight face.”


Proving Mr. Trump’s intent will also be key to the charges of defrauding the government and disenfranchising voters. But it may be easier because those laws do not have the heightened standard of “corrupt” intent as the obstruction statute does.


Court rulings interpreting the statute that criminalizes defrauding the United States, for example, have established that evidence of deception or dishonesty is sufficient. In a 1924 Supreme Court ruling, Chief Justice William H. Taft wrote that it covers interference with a government function “by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest.” A 1989 appeals courts ruling said the dishonest actions need not be crimes in and of themselves.


This factor may help explain the indictment’s emphasis on the fake electors schemes in one state after another, a repetitive narrative that risks dullness: It would be hard to credibly argue that Mr. Trump and his co-conspirators thought the fake slates they submitted were real, and the indictment accuses them of other forms of trickery as well.


The opening of the Michigan Electoral College session at the State Capitol in 2020. The indictment emphasizes Mr. Trump’s involvement in fake electors schemes in several swing states. Credit... Pool photo by Carlos Osorio


“Some fraudulent electors were tricked into participating based on the understanding that their votes would be used only if the defendant succeeded in outcome-determinative lawsuits within their state, which the defendant never did,” it said.



A Novel Charge



The inclusion of the charge involving a conspiracy to disenfranchise voters was a surprising development in Mr. Smith’s emerging strategy. Unlike the other charges, it had not been a major part of the public discussion of the investigation — for example, it was not among the charges recommended by the House Jan. 6 committee.


Congress enacted the law after the Civil War to provide a tool for federal prosecutors to go after Southern white people, including Ku Klux Klan members, who used terrorism to prevent formerly enslaved Black people from voting. But in the 20th century, the Supreme Court upheld a broadened use of the law to address election-fraud conspiracies. The idea is that any conspiracy to engineer dishonest election results victimizes all voters in an election.


“It was a good move to charge that statute, partly because that is really what this case really is about — depriving the people of the right to choose their president,” said Robert S. Litt, a former federal prosecutor and a top intelligence lawyer in the Obama administration.


That statute has mostly been used to address misconduct leading up to and during election, like bribing voters or stuffing ballot boxes, rather than misconduct after an election. Still, in 1933, an appeals court upheld its use in a case involving people who reported false totals from a voter tabulation machine.


It has never been used before in a conspiracy to use fake slates of Electoral College voters from multiple states to keep legitimate electors from being counted and thereby subvert the results of a presidential election — a situation that itself was unprecedented.


Mr. Trump’s lawyers have signaled they will argue that he had a First Amendment right to say whatever he wanted. Indeed, the indictment acknowledged that it was not illegal in and of itself for Mr. Trump to lie.


But in portraying Mr. Trump’s falsehoods as “integral to his criminal plans,” Mr. Smith suggested he would frame those public statements as contributing to unlawful actions and as evidence they were undertaken with bad intentions, not as crimes in and of themselves.


Mr. Trump at Reagan National Airport Thursday following his court appearance. Mr. Trump’s legal team has signaled they will argue that he had a First Amendment right to say whatever he wanted. Credit... Doug Mills/The New York Times


A related defense Mr. Trump may raise is the issue of “advice of counsel.” If a defendant relied in good faith on a lawyer who incorrectly informed him that doing something would be legal, a jury may decide he lacked criminal intent. But there are limits. Among them, the defendant must have told the lawyer all the relevant facts and the theory must be “reasonable.”


The indictment discusses how even though White House lawyers told Mr. Trump that Mr. Pence had no lawful authority to overturn Mr. Biden’s victory, an outside lawyer — John Eastman, described in the indictment as Co-Conspirator 2 and who separately faces disbarment proceedings — advised him that Mr. Pence could.


Several legal specialists agreed that Mr. Trump has an advice-of-counsel argument to make. But Samuel W. Buell, a Duke University law professor, said Mr. Smith was likely to try to rebut it by pointing to the repeated instances in which Mr. Trump’s White House legal advisers told him that Mr. Eastman was wrong.


“You have to have a genuine good-faith belief that the legal advice is legitimate and valid, not just ‘I’m going to keep running through as many lawyers as I can until one tells me something I want to hear, no matter how crazy and implausible it is,’” Mr. Buell said.


Charlie Savage is a Washington-based national security and legal policy correspondent. A recipient of the Pulitzer Prize, he previously worked at The Boston Globe and The Miami Herald. His most recent book is “Power Wars: The Relentless Rise of Presidential Authority and Secrecy.” More about Charlie Savage



































































google.com, pub-0655609370809761, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0

CTES Elog Bimbel - Daftar bimbel Tes SMAKBO

google.com, pub-0655609370809761, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0
















google.com, pub-0655609370809761, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0

CTES Elog Bimbel - Daftar bimbel UTBK SNBT

google.com, pub-0655609370809761, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0








































Russian artillery destroys control center of Ukrainian UAVs in area of Novodonetsk

Russian artillery destroys control center of Ukrainian UAVs in area of Novodonetsk

Russian artillery destroys control center of Ukrainian UAVs in area of Novodonetsk





©Russian Defence Ministry Press Office/TASS






Russian artillery destroyed the Ukrainian control center for unmanned aircraft in the Novodonetsk region, Oleg Chekhov, head of the press center of the battlegroup Vostok, told TASS.







"Rocket-launching artillery fire destroyed the command post for unmanned aircraft of the Ukrainian armed forces in the Novodonetsk region and the Msta-B towed howitzer in the Novoivanovka region," he said.


Chekhov also noted that howitzer artillery fire destroyed an enemy electronic warfare station west of Zolotaya Niva, a mortar crew of the Ukrainian armed forces northwest of Novodonetsk, and a grenade launcher crew north of Urozhaynoye.


He also said that Russia’s Lancet drones destroyed two Ukrainian Gvozdika self-propelled howitzers in the Donetsk People’s Republic.


"Lancet loitering ammunition destroyed two Gvozdika self-propelled howitzers in the areas northwest of Ravnopol and Velyka Novoselka," he said.



Russian Military Thwarts Ukraine's Assault Attempts Near Krasny Liman



Russia's armed forces have thwarted Ukrainian mechanized brigades' attempts to carry out an attack in the Krasny Liman direction, Alexander Savchuk, the head of the Center Group of Forces' press center, has told Sputnik.


"In the Krasny Liman direction, in the areas of the Torsky section and the forest area of Serebryansky, artillery fire and strikes by the army aviation the Center Group foiled attack attempts by assault groups of the Ukrainian armed forces' mechanized brigades," Savchuk said.


"The enemy's losses amounted to up to 90 militants, and an infantry fighting vehicle, two armored vehicles and two mortars were destroyed."


He added that Russia's air defenses have also shot down four drones, and bombers have stroke two strongpoints of the enemy in the vicinity of Torsky and Serebryansky.


The latest comes a day after Russian defense foiled two attempts overnight Friday near the city of Kerch and near the naval base in Novorossiysk.
























































google.com, pub-0655609370809761, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0

CTES Elog Bimbel - Daftar bimbel Tes SMAKBO

google.com, pub-0655609370809761, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0
















google.com, pub-0655609370809761, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0

CTES Elog Bimbel - Daftar bimbel UTBK SNBT

google.com, pub-0655609370809761, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0