Politics
Trump’s lawyers urge dismissal of ‘flimsy’ impeachment case
Published
7 years agoon
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s legal team asserted Monday that he did “absolutely nothing wrong,” urging the Senate to swiftly reject an impeachment case that it called “flimsy” and a “dangerous perversion of the Constitution.” The lawyers decried the impeachment process as rigged and insisted that abuse of power was not a crime.
The brief from Trump’s lawyers, filed before arguments expected this week in the Senate impeachment trial, offered the most detailed glimpse of the lines of defense they intend to use against Democratic efforts to convict the president and oust him from office over his dealings with Ukraine. It is meant as a counter to a filing two days ago from House Democrats that summarized weeks of testimony from more than a dozen witnesses in laying out the impeachment case.
The 110-page filing from the White House shifted the tone toward a more legal response. It still hinged on Trump’s assertion he did nothing wrong and did not commit a crime — even though impeachment does not depend on a material violation of law but rather on the more vague definition of “other high crimes and misdemeanors” as established in the Constitution.
“It is a constitutional travesty,” the lawyers wrote.
The prosecution team of House managers was spending another day on Capitol Hill preparing for the trial, which will be under heavy security. Before the filing, House prosecutors made their way through crowds of tourists in the Rotunda to tour the Senate chamber.
In their own filing Monday, House prosecutors replied to Trump’s not guilty plea by making fresh demands for fair trial in the Senate, where the Republican majority aligned with Trump has not yet disclosed the rules.
“President Trump asserts that his impeachment is a partisan ‘hoax.’ He is wrong,” the prosecutors wrote in their reply.
They wrote that the president can’t have it both ways — rejecting the facts of the House case but also stonewalling congressional subpoenas for witnesses and testimony. “Senators must honor their own oaths by holding a fair trial with all relevant evidence,” they wrote.
The White House document Monday, much more fulsome than its weekend pleading, says the two articles of impeachment brought against the president — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — don’t amount to impeachment offenses. It asserts that the impeachment inquiry, centered on Trump’s request that Ukraine’s president open an investigation into Democratic rival Joe Biden, was never about finding the truth.
“Instead, House Democrats were determined from the outset to find some way — any way — to corrupt the extraordinary power of impeachment for use as a political tool to overturn the result of the 2016 election and to interfere in the 2020 election,” Trump’s legal team wrote. “All of that is a dangerous perversion of the Constitution that the Senate should swiftly and roundly condemn.”
The impeachment case accuses Trump of abusing power by withholding military aid from Ukraine at the same time that he was seeking an investigation into Biden, and of obstructing Congress by instructing administration officials not to appear for testimony or provide documents, defying congressional subpoenas.
In a brief filed Saturday, House Democrats called Trump’s conduct the “worst nightmare” of the framers of the Constitution.
“President Donald J. Trump used his official powers to pressure a foreign government to interfere in a United States election for his personal political gain,” the House prosecutors wrote, “and then attempted to cover up his scheme by obstructing Congress’s investigation into his misconduct.”
But Trump’s team contended Monday that even if Trump were to have abused his power in withholding the Ukraine military assistance, it would not be impeachable, because it did not violate a specific criminal statute. And it said that the White House was within its legal right to shield close advisers of the president from having to appear before Congress, saying that position has been taken by administrations of both parties.
Opening arguments are expected within days following a debate Tuesday over rules, including about whether witnesses are to be called in the trial.
Trump signaled his opposition to witnesses, tweeting Monday: “They didn’t want John Bolton and others in the House. They were in too much of a rush. Now they want them all in the Senate. Not supposed to be that way!”
That’s a reference to former national security adviser John Bolton, who was not subpoenaed by the House in its impeachment inquiry but has said he is willing to testify in the Senate if he is subpoenaed.
The White House brief argues that the articles of impeachment passed by the House are “structurally deficient” because they charge multiple acts, creating “a menu of options” as possible grounds for conviction.
The Trump team claims that the Constitution requires that senators agree “on the specific basis for conviction” and that there is no way to ensure that the senators agree on which acts are worthy of removal, because a single count contains multiple allegations.
Administration officials have argued that similar imprecision applied to the perjury case in the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton, who was acquitted by the Senate.
The Trump lawyers accused Democrats of diluting the standards for impeachment, an argument that echoed the case made Sunday by one of Trump’s attorneys, Alan Dershowitz, who contended in talk shows that impeachable offenses must be “criminal-like conduct.”
That assertion has been rejected by scholars, and Rep. Adam Schiff, the Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, called it an “absurdist position.”
You may like
Florida
Civil Rights Group Honors Nobel Peace Prize Winner Navi Pillay, Highlights Florida’s Trayvon Martin Connection
Published
1 day agoon
October 13, 2026The Orlando-based civil rights association recalls supporting the former U.N. human rights chief’s 2012 call for an investigation into the teenager’s killing in Sanford.
ORLANDO, Fla. (FNN) — The Florida Civil Rights Association is congratulating 2026 Nobel Peace Prize winner Navanethem “Navi” Pillay, recalling her call for an investigation into Trayvon Martin’s killing and the international attention it brought to questions of racial equality and justice in Florida.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee announced Pillay’s selection Oct. 9 for her efforts to promote peace and international law. The South African jurist served as United Nations high commissioner for human rights from 2008 to 2014 and helped shape landmark international court decisions.
In a press release, FCRA President J. Willie David III said Pillay’s intervention connected a Florida family’s demand for answers to a broader concern for human rights.
“Pillay’s call for an investigation reinforced that a family’s demand for justice in Sanford mattered beyond Florida and the United States,” David said.
“We welcomed her intervention in 2012 because families deserve answers and the law must protect everyone equally.”
FCRA recalls its response in 2012
Martin, an unarmed Black 17-year-old, was fatally shot by neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman on Feb. 26, 2012, in Sanford, northeast of Orlando.
In April 2012, Pillay called for an immediate investigation into the killing as the case drew international attention and scrutiny of Florida’s Stand Your Ground law.
FCRA welcomed that call. The association’s current release cites an April 7, 2012, West Orlando News report that quoted David discussing the case’s global impact.
“The shooting death of Trayvon Martin and Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law have created a worldwide movement that calls into question how justice is delivered to victims of color,” David said at the time, according to the release.
FCRA describes the activism surrounding Martin’s death as a defining moment that galvanized a new generation of civil rights advocates.
Zimmerman was charged with second-degree murder and acquitted in July 2013. In February 2015, the U.S. Justice Department closed its separate investigation, finding insufficient evidence to pursue federal criminal civil rights charges.
The Florida Civil Rights Association (FCRA) held a press conference outside the State of Florida’s regional offices in Orlando in 2012, calling on then-Gov. Rick Scott to take action following Trayvon Martin’s killing. Photo by FCRA.
Why Florida’s case drew global scrutiny
The Florida connection shows how the handling of a local killing can draw international scrutiny over racial discrimination, access to justice and the protection of human rights.
Pillay’s intervention brought those concerns into the international discussion surrounding Martin’s death. In September 2013, U.N. human rights experts also urged the United States to complete its civil rights investigation and examine concerns about racial profiling.
The significance lies in human rights oversight: how public institutions investigate deaths and provide equal treatment can attract attention beyond national borders. Pillay’s call was an appeal for investigation, rather than an international court judgment about Zimmerman’s guilt or Florida’s compliance with international law.
For FCRA, that connection remains relevant to how Florida leaders evaluate laws and practices affecting the communities they serve.
Pillay’s record in international justice
Pillay challenged discrimination under apartheid before serving on South Africa’s High Court, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Court.
At the Rwanda tribunal, she was part of the judicial panel that established that rape and sexual violence can constitute acts of genocide, a landmark development in international criminal law.
David said honoring that career should also encourage accountability at home.
“Her Nobel Peace Prize recognizes a career built on confronting injustice through the rule of law,” he said. “Honoring that work means demanding transparent investigations and equal protection here at home. Rights belong to everyone.”
A renewed call for fairness in Florida
FCRA urged Florida leaders to safeguard impartial investigations, examine whether Stand Your Ground and other laws are applied fairly, and address policies or practices that produce discriminatory outcomes.
Founded in 2005, the association advocates for civil rights, human rights and civil liberties through education, advocacy and accountability. Its statement links Pillay’s international recognition to a continuing demand for fairness and human dignity in Florida.
Florida
Florida Governor Candidates: Donalds Spent Longer as a Democrat; Jolly Reports Longer Republican History
Published
4 days agoon
October 11, 2026Party changes and congressional votes offer a closer look at both candidates’ records on issues affecting Black Americans.
ORLANDO, Fla. (FNN) — Republican Byron Donalds spent nearly seven years as a registered Democrat—longer than Democrat David Jolly’s approximately 18 months in the party. Jolly, however, reports having spent 25 years as a Republican, exceeding Donalds’ approximately 16½ years.
The two major-party candidates for Florida governor have political histories that cross party lines. Their congressional votes offer another basis for scrutiny: Jolly supported repealing the Affordable Care Act, while Donalds opposed major voting-rights and police-accountability proposals. Both also supported other legislation relevant to Black communities.
Why This Article Matters to Voters
Voters can examine previous decisions in public office alongside campaign promises. Party affiliation identifies a political association; legislative records show how candidates acted on specific proposals.
The measures examined here concern health insurance, employment opportunities, voting discrimination, police accountability and racial violence. These issues affect African Americans and the wider electorate, making the candidates’ records relevant to voters deciding who should lead Florida.
Who Spent Longer in Each Party?
Donalds was registered as a Democrat in Collier County from April 2003 until March 2010, according to Florida Politics. He then became a Republican. Jolly left the Republican Party in September 2018, became an unaffiliated voter and registered as a Democrat in April 2025.
| Candidate | Time as a Democrat | Time as a Republican |
|---|---|---|
| Byron Donalds | Approximately 6 years, 11 months, April 2003–March 2010 | Approximately 16 years, 7 months, March 2010–October 2026 |
| David Jolly | Approximately 1 year, 6 months, April 2025–October 2026 | 25 years, according to his account, before leaving in September 2018 |
Durations are approximate as of Oct. 11, 2026. Jolly’s 25-year Republican history was reported by WUSF; his original Republican registration date was not independently verified for this comparison.
Donalds’ documented Democratic registration exceeds Jolly’s by approximately five years and five months. Jolly’s stated Republican history exceeds Donalds’ by approximately eight years.
Jolly’s Defeat, Party Change and Return to Electoral Politics
Jolly lost his 2016 congressional reelection bid as a Republican to Democrat Charlie Crist in Florida’s 13th Congressional District. Published election results show Crist received 184,693 votes to Jolly’s 171,149, winning by 13,544 votes.
Crist, a former Republican governor, had already moved from Republican to independent to Democrat. Jolly later followed the same sequence, although that does not establish identical motivations. Reporting republished on Jolly’s campaign website described his departure from the Republican Party as a response to its direction under Donald Trump.
Jolly declined to endorse Trump in 2016, according to Sunshine State News. PolitiFact subsequently found that a Democratic campaign advertisement portraying Jolly as a Trump ally was inaccurate.
After considering but declining another congressional run in 2018, as reported by Roll Call, Jolly returned to electoral politics with his governor campaign. He registered as a Democrat in April 2025, roughly six weeks before announcing his candidacy June 5—more than a year before the 2026 election.
Different Congressional Terms, Relevant Policy Questions
Official congressional biographies show that Jolly served in Congress from March 2014 through Jan. 3, 2017, during President Barack Obama’s administration. His service ended before Trump’s first inauguration. Donalds entered Congress in January 2021 after serving in the Florida House from 2016 through 2020.
Their congressional terms did not overlap, so this comparison examines different bills rather than votes they cast together.
Both served as Republicans during the votes examined below. Their subsequent or previous party affiliations do not change those legislative records.
Jolly Supported ACA Repeal and Workforce Training
Official U.S. House Clerk records show that Jolly voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act on Feb. 3, 2015. The proposal did not become law, but his vote supported removing a framework that expanded health insurance access for African Americans.
According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the uninsured rate among nonelderly Black Americans fell from 20.9% in 2010 to 10.8% in 2022 following implementation of the ACA’s coverage provisions. Those gains make health coverage relevant to examining repeal proposals, without establishing that Jolly’s unsuccessful repeal vote caused anyone to lose insurance.
House Clerk records also show that Jolly supported the final House agreement to the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act on July 9, 2014. The legislation supported training and employment services for people facing employment barriers, including eligible Black workers and young people. Its programs serve people across racial groups, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.
Donalds Opposed Voting-Rights and Policing Bills, Backed Antilynching Measure
House Clerk records show that Donalds voted against the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act on Aug. 24, 2021. The proposal sought stronger federal safeguards against racial discrimination in voting, including renewed requirements for certain jurisdictions to obtain approval before changing election practices.
On March 3, 2021, Donalds voted against the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. The congressional bill summary describes proposed protections against racial profiling and changes to police accountability.
In a statement published by his congressional office, Donalds defended his opposition by arguing that the measure would defund and dismantle policing. That was his characterization of the proposal, whose provisions included measures addressing racial profiling and constitutional violations by law enforcement.
Donalds voted for the Emmett Till Antilynching Act on Feb. 28, 2022, according to House Clerk records, supporting federal legislation addressing lynching through hate-crime law—a measure with particular historical significance for African Americans.
What Voters Can Assess
These selected votes document Jolly’s support for ACA repeal and workforce opportunities, and Donalds’ opposition to major voting-rights and policing proposals alongside support for antilynching legislation.
They do not establish discriminatory intent or determine whose entire record benefited African Americans more. That would require a broader review of policies and measurable outcomes, including Donalds’ Florida legislative record.
Donalds spent longer as a documented registered Democrat, while Jolly reports a longer Republican history. Both cast the congressional votes examined here as Republicans.
Either Major-Party Candidate Would Bring a Republican History
If either of the two major-party candidates wins, Florida’s next governor will bring a substantial Republican history to office—Donalds as a current Republican and Jolly as a former Republican congressman now running as a Democrat. Voters can weigh those histories alongside their legislative records, current positions and plans for Florida.
Central Florida News
Commissioner Uribe Announces New Date for Hispanic Heritage Festival Due to Weather
Published
6 days agoon
October 9, 2026ORLANDO, Fla. (FNN) — Commissioner Uribe announced that the Hispanic Heritage Festival has been rescheduled due to weather conditions. The event will now take place Saturday, Oct. 24, 2026, from 9 a.m. to noon at Cypress Grove Park, 290 Holden Ave., Orlando.
The festival will celebrate the rich history, cultures, traditions and contributions of Hispanic and Latino communities through live music, dance performances, food and community resources.
Scheduled highlights include:
- Live music by youth orchestra The Nucleus Orchestral.
- Dance performances featuring Maria Saavedra of FusionFest with Huellas de Colombia, Unidos for Ecuador and Mexico Dansa.
- Food from Zaza.
- Community resources from 311 and other participants.
Join Commissioner Uribe and the community for a morning celebrating Hispanic and Latino heritage.
NEW DATE: Saturday, Oct. 24, 2026
TIME: 9 a.m. to noon
LOCATION: Cypress Grove Park
ADDRESS: 290 Holden Ave., Orlando, FL 32839