Gayle Felix

Thursday 20 October 2022

Judge Signals Trump Knowingly Signed Court Doc With False Election Fraud Claims – Alaska Native News

The judge ordered the former president’s lawyer John Eastman to provide the January 6 panel with emails deemed “sufficiently related to and in furtherance of a conspiracy to defraud the United States.”

A federal judge indicated Wednesday that former U.S. President Donald Trump signed a legal document containing voter fraud claims about the 2020 presidential election that he knew were false.

“The emails show that President Trump knew that the specific numbers of voter fraud were wrong but continued to tout those numbers, both in court and to the public.”

That revelation came in U.S. District Judge David Carter’s ruling that ordered ex-Trump lawyer John Eastman—considered —to share some emails with the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.

Critics of the twice-impeached former president argue his “Big Lie” that the election was rigged by Democrats provoked the 2021 attack, which is tied to at least seven deaths and briefly delayed the certification of the results. As the new ruling highlights, Trump’s bid to hold on to power despite losing reelection also featured legal battles over the outcomes in specific swing states.

“Four emails demonstrate an effort by President Trump and his attorneys to press false claims in federal court for the purpose of delaying the January 6 vote,” wrote Carter, a California-based judge appointed by former President Bill Clinton. “The evidence confirms that this effort was undertaken in at least one lawsuit filed in Georgia.”

Trump and his legal team claimed to a Georgia state court on December 4, 2020 that Fulton County improperly counted votes from 10,315 deceased people, 2,560 felons, and 2,423 unregistered voters. The battle then moved to federal court.

“On December 30, 2020, Dr. Eastman relayed ‘concerns’ from President Trump’s team ‘about including specific numbers in the paragraph dealing with felons, deceased, moved, etc.’ The attorneys continued to discuss the president’s resistance to signing ‘when specific numbers were included,” Carter explained.

According to the judge, Eastman wrote in an email on December 31, 2020: “Although the President signed a verification for [the state court filing] back on Dec. 1, he has since been made aware that some of the allegations (and evidence proffered by the experts) has been inaccurate. For him to sign a new verification with that knowledge (and incorporation by reference) would not be accurate.”

Carter noted that “President Trump and his attorneys ultimately filed the complaint with the same inaccurate numbers without rectifying, clarifying, or otherwise changing them. President Trump, moreover, signed a verification swearing under oath that the incorporated, inaccurate numbers ‘are true and correct’ or ‘believed to be true and correct’ to the best of his knowledge and belief.”

“The emails show that President Trump knew that the specific numbers of voter fraud were wrong but continued to tout those numbers, both in court and to the public,” the judge continued. “The court finds that these emails are sufficiently related to and in furtherance of a conspiracy to defraud the United States.”

As The New York Times reported Wednesday:

The episode was the latest example of how Mr. Trump was repeatedly told that his claims of widespread voter fraud were false and often pressed forward with them anyway. His attorney general at the time, William P. Barr, informed him at least three times that his accusations about fraud were unfounded, as did other top officials at the Justice Department, the White House Counsel’s Office, and the Trump campaign.

Judge Carter’s ruling came as part of a federal lawsuit Mr. Eastman filed at the beginning of the year, seeking to bar the committee from obtaining his emails as part of its inquiry into Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the election.

Carter previously ruled in March that “it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the joint session of Congress on January 6, 2021” and that he, Eastman, “and several others entered into an agreement to defraud the United States by interfering with the election certification process.”

The latest development comes on the heels of what could be the select committee’s final hearing; its only two Republicans are not returning to Congress next year and the panel’s work could be discontinued if the GOP wins control of the House during the November midterms.

While the panel members last week voted unanimously to subpoena Trump—eliciting a “rambling” response from the ex-president—New York University School of Law professor Ryan Goodman said that “I think they were trying to hand the Justice Department all the evidence on a silver platter.”

Trump’s legal problems aren’t limited to the January 6 attack and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Along with a New York state suit related to the Trump Organization, federal agents in August executed a search warrant on Mar-a-Lago, his Florida estate. Since then, there have been fights in court over the seized materials, including documents marked classified.

If the evidence is there for obstruction charges, Trump should be indicted.

In fact, there’s a long list of crimes he should be indicted for.https://t.co/heoh9Acs24

— Citizens for Ethics (@CREWcrew) October 19, 2022

Bloomberg reported Wednesday that “a group of Justice Department prosecutors believe there is sufficient evidence to charge Donald Trump with obstruction of justice, but the path to an actual indictment is far from clear.”

“The team that’s part of the classified records probe has not yet made a formal recommendation to Attorney General Merrick Garland, who would ultimately approve or reject such a move,” the report noted, with unnamed sources warning that a decision would likely come after the midterms and potentially even after Christmas.

The Justice Department declined to comment, according to the outlet.

Common Dream’s work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

court, fraud, lies, obstruction, trump

ACLU Asks Supreme Court To Overturn Arkansas’ Anti-Boycott Law Against Israel

Election Deniers Could Make Deep Changes To Arizona Voting

PHOENIX (AP) — Gathered at a table in the state Capitol a little less than two years ago, two Republicans and a Democrat took part in a ceremony prescribed by state law that made official Joe Biden’s 10,500-vote victory in Arizona’s 2020 presidential contest.

While sifting through pages, pen in hand and cameras rolling, Republican Gov. Doug Ducey stopped to silence the “hail to the chief” ringtone on his cell phone. It was a call from President Donald Trump, who was in the midst of a frenetic fight to reverse the results of the election he had lost. Ducey continued signing the papers, in what some saw as a dramatic affirmation of democracy at work.

How a similar scene would play out in 2024 if the three Republicans running for the top statewide offices win in November is anyone’s guess. Each has said they would not have signed off on the 2020 results if they had held office at the time. Kari Lake, the Republican candidate for governor, and Mark Finchem, running for secretary of state, have signaled support for vastly overhauling election rules.

Lake, Finchem and Abraham Hamadeh, the attorney general nominee, are running for offices that play a central role in administering or certifying elections and earned Trump’s support by spreading falsehoods about the 2020 election.

“When you have stolen, corrupt elections, you have serious consequences, even deadly consequences,” Lake said in June while she was competing in the GOP primary. “And unfortunately, we had a stolen election, and we actually have an illegitimate president sitting in the White House.”

Multiple reviews in battleground state s, including in Arizona, dozens of court cases and Trump’s own Department of Justice have found there was no widespread fraud in the 2020 presidential election.

Despite that, Republican candidates up and down the ballot continue to deny the legitimacy of Biden’s election. Several are running for governor, secretary of state or attorney general in some of the battleground states where Trump disputed his loss, including Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Nevada.

The possibility of those candidates winning in November raises questions about what they might do regarding elections and certification of results once in office, especially in regard to the 2024 presidential race. Arizona’s candidates for top statewide office offer a window into that possible future.

Election experts say any of the three, if elected, could try to tilt the 2024 election toward Trump if he runs again for president. That could happen through a refusal to certify an election he loses or long before that through pre-emptive changes to the election process.

Arizona has a recent history of extremely close elections, so small changes to its election laws could have a huge impact on the outcome and reverberate nationally.

The Republicans say they’re motivated by boosting faith in elections, not returning Trump to power or helping his allies.

For her part, Lake said last month that she would certify the 2024 election if courts did not substantiate any official election challenges. That answer runs counter to her message through much of her campaign, when she said she would not have certified the 2020 results despite courts rejecting all challenges.

Finchem said in a text message that he would certify the election “as long as all lawful votes are counted and all votes cast are under the law.” He did not respond to follow-up questions about who decides if the votes were lawful or whether he would accept results of court proceedings.

Hamadeh said in a statement that he would “faithfully follow the law.”

The governor, secretary of state and attorney general in Arizona wield enormous power over election decisions big and small. If all three win, the steps they could take would be nearly limitless, according to Arizona election attorneys deeply versed in the laws, rules and norms that govern the process.

They could rewrite the state’s elections procedures manual, a tome laying out in minute detail the rules for conducting elections and certification. It’s written by the secretary of state and must be approved by the attorney general and governor. If all three sign off, the changes carry the force of law.

That’s even without any of the more expansive changes that could be made by a Legislature that is almost certain to be controlled by Republicans.

“If you have people who are supportive of the Big Lie in charge of our elections, there’s a lot of stuff they can do,” said Jim Barton, a longtime Democratic election attorney in Arizona. “And they can do it in ways that look pretty boring.”

Finchem, who was outside the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, but says he did not join rioters who attacked the building that day, has vowed to rewrite those rules. He’s said little about what he would change.

He could create rules for accepting voter registrations, eliminate the right for county officials to provide drop boxes to accept mail ballots, and even refuse to accept filings for voter initiatives, just to name a few, Barton said.

On registration alone, the secretary could adopt small changes, such as when forms need to be turned in or the color of ink that must be used, and pass them off as needed to make processing easier, Barton said. Small changes affecting comparatively few voters could add up in a close race.

“Nobody’s winning the elections anymore by 10%,” Barton said. “So you don’t have to say, ‘Oh, I’m not going to count any of the votes from Pima County’ to sway the vote. If you make it a little bit harder for low-income people to vote, then the state’s not purple anymore.”

And that’s just the start if someone really wants to seize the reins of election rules and make small but substantive changes.

Eric Spencer, an attorney who represents Republican and conservative organizations and is a former state elections director, said a slew of rules could be changed under a new administration.

That could include eliminating unattended ballot drop boxes, which are convenient spots for voters to turn in their ballots. The trio also could pursue changes to rules for ballot-counting machines and the election canvass, in which elected leaders certify the results, Spencer said.

That’s where “a new triumvirate could make some radical, radical changes,” he said.

For example, a new secretary of state could remove a provision Spencer developed that says county and state officials must certify the election results and can’t change the vote totals. Spencer developed that rule after a county official balked at certifying a local election in 2016 and nearly derailed the statewide certification.

Any controversy over certification could create a pretext for Arizona’s electoral votes to be challenged when Congress meets to count them in early 2025.

As secretary of state, Finchem also would have unilateral authority to certify — or not — election equipment. He told CBS News that vote tabulating machines should be banned unless the manufacturer shares the source code.

No voting system manufacturers release the underlying software for their systems to protect code they regard as proprietary and to prevent hacking. Finchem and other Trump allies claim they can’t trust the systems if they can’t review the software that powers it line by line.

Lake and Finchem also both signaled they want to ensure that voting rolls are accurate, which election experts worry could lead them to purge certain voters or force people to continuously re-register.

“We must protect the count of all legal votes and quarantine votes that are outside of the law,” Finchem said.

Lake, who has emerged as one of the most popular new figures in Trump’s “Make America Great Again” movement, has avoided disclosing specific changes she would pursue for elections. But she’s offered clues.

She has said she wants Arizonans to go to bed on election night knowing the results, which some regard as a threat to the mail balloting system used by the overwhelming majority of voters.

“I’m going to work with the lawmakers to make sure we have a system where voting is honest,” Lake said. “I’m not sure what it’s going to look like.”

Wednesday 19 October 2022

AP News Summary At 7:55 P.m. EDT

Putin adds martial law in Ukraine regions, limits in Russia

KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — Russian President Vladimir Putin doubled down Wednesday on his faltering invasion of Ukraine with a declaration of martial law in four illegally annexed regions and preparations within Russia for draconian new restrictions and crackdowns. Putin’s drastic efforts to tighten his grip on Ukrainians and Russians follow a series of embarrassing setbacks: stinging battlefield defeats, sabotage and troubles with his troop mobilization. The martial law order belies the Kremlin’s attempts to portray life in the annexed regions as returning to normal. The reality is that a military administration has replaced civilian leaders in the southern city of Kherson and a mass evacuation from the city is underway as a Ukrainian counteroffensive grinds on.

First Native American woman in space awed by Mother Earth

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) — The first Native American woman in space says she’s overwhelmed by the beauty and delicacy of Mother Earth. She’s also channeling “positive energy” as her five-month mission gets underway at the International Space Station, something she learned from her mother. NASA astronaut Nicole Mann spoke with The Associated Press on Wednesday, answering questions gathered from AP members, as well as tribal news outlets. She’s a member of the Wailacki of the Round Valley Indian Tribes in Northern California. Mann says it’s important to recognize that there are all types of people aboard the space station, highlighting “our diversity.” She rocketed into orbit with SpaceX two weeks ago.

Trump deposed in defamation suit filed by E. Jean Carroll

NEW YORK (AP) — Former President Donald Trump answered questions under oath in a defamation lawsuit filed by a writer who says he raped her in the mid-1990s. The deposition Wednesday provided lawyers for E. Jean Carroll a chance to interrogate the Republican ex-president about Carroll’s assault allegations, as well as statements he made in 2019 when she first told her story publicly. Trump has said the rape allegation is “a hoax and a lie.” A judge last week rejected Trump’s request to delay the deposition. Details on how the deposition went weren’t immediately disclosed.

COVID-19 linked to increase in US pregnancy-related deaths

Government Rests In Foreign-Agent Case Against Trump Friend Barrack

NEW YORK — In the early days of the Trump administration, billionaire Thomas Barrack was poised to be an unofficial channel between the White House and the United Arab Emirates, a place where the Los Angeles-based investor had business interests and geopolitical acumen.

Barrack was a longtime friend of Donald Trump’s who headed his presidential inauguration committee and was a member of his national security advisory council during the 2016 campaign. He made trips to the White House and offered himself as an expert in the Persian Gulf region eager to make introductions to President Trump and his staff, according to evidence introduced at his ongoing criminal trial.

Federal prosecutors at U.S. District Court in Brooklyn, however, have said the Colony Capital founder and an associate, Matthew Grimes — who is also on trial and is accused of aiding Barrack’s efforts — were using their access to the president to promote the agenda of the UAE government and to enrich themselves by using their favor in the UAE to make money.

Prosecutors spent several weeks presenting their arguments against Barrack and Grimes before resting their case Wednesday. They relied heavily on dozens of text messages and emails that they argue amount to Barrack taking marching orders from officials in the UAE.

In some cases, UAE officials sent talking points that Barrack apparently worked into comments he made in national TV interviews and in news publications, according to prosecutors.

Barrack, 75, who has pleaded not guilty and denies any wrongdoing, is among several Trump insiders who have been investigated for alleged violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Under federal law, advocates of foreign nations operating in the United States must disclose the nature of their work to the attorney general.

In recent years, former Trump consultants Paul Manafort and Rick Gates were convicted of acting as agents of Ukraine without registering and Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, admitted to violating FARA during his dealings with Turkey. Rudy Giuliani, a Trump advocate who aggressively pushed his false election-fraud claims in 2020, was also the subject of a FARA investigation over his contacts in Ukraine.

The Barrack trial has at times been a walk-through of the early days of Trump’s presidency. In some communications, there are mentions of Manafort, former White House strategist Stephen K. Bannon and other campaign and White House officials.

Former secretary of state Rex Tillerson was a witness for the government. On direct examination, he confirmed that Barrack did not have an official foreign relations role in the Trump administration, although he called Tillerson at the State Department and floated the idea of an ambassador position. The idea fizzled out after Tillerson mentioned it to Trump, Tillerson said.

Tillerson’s testimony could help to support the prosecution’s assertion that Barrack was gaming his access to the highest ranks of the U.S. government to bolster his credibility with UAE government officials and business executives.

Steven Mnuchin, who was treasury secretary under Trump, was set to be called as a defense witness, a prosecutor mentioned in court Wednesday outside the jury’s presence. It was not immediately clear when Mnuchin would be called or whether the scope of his testimony would be limited by U.S. District Judge Brian Cogan.

At Barrack’s trial, jurors heard testimony about conversations and saw communications among Barrack, Grimes and a Rashid al-Malik, an Emirati living in Los Angeles who was also indicted in the case but fled the country after being interviewed by the FBI.

Grimes was allegedly a frequent go-between bridging Malik, who had access to UAE officials, and Barrack. Grimes and Malik were texting frequently on WhatsApp and iMessage throughout the time of the alleged crimes, government exhibits at the trial show.

The texts reveal what had apparently become a close relationship. At times, Grimes called Malik his “best friend” and remarked that he missed him when time passed between their chats.

Malik was the main channel from the Emiratis to Barrack and Grimes, 29, who routinely facilitated dealings for Barrack, his boss at the investment firm, according to prosecutors. Grimes also denies wrongdoing, and his attorney has sought to downplay any decision-making ability Grimes had under Barrack.

“For two years, these two men met with, took direction from and acted in the interests of the UAE and its national security officials,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Hiral Mehta argued in his opening statement last month, referring to the defendants.

Barrack and Grimes “partnered with [Malik], who was secretly operating in the United States on behalf of the UAE government” and “acted as the eyes, ears and voice of the UAE” over the years of the charged crimes, Mehta said.

Barrack faces up to 20 years in prison on a count of obstruction of justice. He is also charged with acting as an agent of a foreign government, conspiracy to act as an agent of a foreign government and making materially false statements. Grimes faces up to a decade in prison on the top count he faces, acting as an agent of the UAE.

The first defense witness on Wednesday was Bernard Haykel, a Princeton University professor with expertise on politics and prominent figures in the Middle East.

Several defense witnesses are expected to be called to illustrate the claim that Barrack, who has a Lebanese background, was trying to be helpful and to facilitate healthy relationships between Middle Eastern allies and the United States and that nothing in their dealings was amiss.

Barrack’s pro-UAE comments at issue in the case were made only because “he wanted to and because he believed it was the right thing to do for his business, for his work, for his shareholders, and for America,” Barrack’s lawyer, Michael Schachter, said in opening remarks at the start of the trial.

Grimes was a vice president at Colony Capital who started there as an 18-year-old intern and continued working for Barrack after college. His attorney, Abbe Lowell, has described Grimes as a more junior employee than his title conveyed, suggesting he did what he was told by Barrack.

“Matthew started almost every day getting Mr. Barrack’s coffee or smoothies,” Lowell argued in opening statements.

Trump’s Promised ‘Crime Of The Century’ Fizzles In The End

By Eric Tucker | Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Former President Donald Trump once predicted that a special prosecutor appointed during his administration would uncover “the crime of the century” — a conspiracy to sink his 2016 campaign.

Yet here are the results of the three-year probe by prosecutor John Durham: two trial acquittals — the latest on Tuesday — and a former FBI attorney sentenced to probation.

That has fallen far short of Trump supporters’ expectations that Durham would reveal a “deep state” plot behind the U.S. government’s investigation into ties between Russia and Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

The outcome has led to scrutiny over the purpose of Durham’s appointment by former Attorney General William Barr, who tasked him with sussing out misconduct in the Trump-Russia probe. It also has raised questions about whether or when the current attorney general, Merrick Garland, might move to rein in Durham’s work or hasten its completion.

“You really measure the success of an investigation by what it uncovers in terms of pernicious activity, and he’s uncovered nothing,” said Stephen Saltzburg, a George Washington University law professor and former senior Justice Department official.

There are no signs Durham plans to charge anyone else in his investigation. He is expected to produce a report at some point, but it’s unclear whether he will identify any significant misconduct or errors beyond those already reported by the Justice Department’s watchdog.

Barr gave Durham a broad mandate in 2019 to hunt for wrongdoing by the FBI or other agencies in the early days of their investigation into potential coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia. At the time, Durham was the U.S. attorney in Connecticut with decades of Justice Department experience, including investigating CIA interrogations of terror suspects.

Trump supporters cheered the appointment, and not just because of Durham’s bona fides.

The appointment was made shortly after the conclusion of an investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller, which found substantial contacts between Russians and Trump associates but did not allege a criminal conspiracy between them. In December 2019, a Justice Department inspector general report concluded that the Russia investigation was opened for a legitimate reason but identified numerous errors in how it was conducted — giving Trump and his supporters an avenue of attack and optimism over Durham.

But by the end of 2020, there were signs Durham’s investigation was losing momentum.

One of his top prosecutors resigned without explanation from the Justice Department. Months later, Barr told The Wall Street Journal that he did not believe there had been improper activity during the Russia investigation by the CIA, even though suspicions about the intelligence community had helped prompt Durham’s appointment in the first place.

The year ended with just one criminal case — a guilty plea by an FBI lawyer who admitted doctoring an internal email related to the surveillance of a former Trump campaign adviser. Kevin Clinesmith was sentenced to probation, rather than prison. Notably, the case involved conduct uncovered in an earlier investigation by the inspector general, rather than by Durham’s team.

Two other criminal cases, also narrow in nature, faltered. After deliberating for just a few hours, a jury in May acquitted Michael Sussmann, a lawyer for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. He had been accused of lying to the FBI during a meeting in which he presented the bureau’s top lawyer with information about Trump he thought should be investigated.

On Tuesday, a jury acquitted Igor Danchenko, a Russian analyst at a U.S. think tank who’d been accused of lying to the FBI about his role in the creation of a largely discredited dossier — a compendium of unproven assertions that sought to tie Trump to Russia and whose creation was funded by Democrats. During the trial, he attacked the credibility of FBI agents who were his own witnesses.

Despite the lack of convictions, Durham has still managed to cast an unflattering light on aspects of the Russia investigation. The Danchenko trial, for instance, centered on the origins of the dossier, which helped form the basis of secret surveillance applications the FBI filed to monitor the communications of ex-Trump campaign aide Carter Page.

Even so, Page was one of numerous threads investigated by the FBI, and the dossier did not initiate the Russia probe. The allegations from Durham’s probe have also not erased the core finding of the Mueller probe — that Russia wanted Trump elected and that Trump’s team welcomed the help — nor have they swayed jurors.

“While Durham essentially tried to put the FBI itself on trial through these prosecutions by pointing to missteps and errors in the early Trump-Russia probe, the cases painted the FBI as more victim than perpetrator and evidence of any orchestrated scheme by FBI agents to steer the investigation for political purposes never materialized,” Robert Mintz, a New Jersey lawyer and former federal prosecutor, wrote in an email.

The Justice Department declined to comment about Durham’s future, including how much longer his team might continue or when he might produce a report. Weeks before he resigned, Barr designated Durham as a special counsel to ensure his investigation would continue in the Biden administration.

A spokesman for Durham declined to comment on criticism of the work.

Garland and senior Justice Department leaders, perhaps careful to avoid the perception of meddling in such a politically charged investigation, have taken a hands-off approach to Durham’s work.

Before Sussmann was indicted, his attorneys appealed to senior department officials in hopes of preventing a charge, according to a person familiar with the matter who insisted on anonymity to discuss private conversations. But the Justice Department rebuffed the protest, allowing the case to proceed.

Now, though, there is rising pressure not only on Durham to wrap up but on Garland, as attorney general, to urge him along.

“I think he was very wise to let this run its course,” Saltzburg said of Garland. “I believe the course has been run. It’s over. I believe what Merrick Garland should say to Durham is, it’s time to submit your report and go home.”

Associated Press writer Matthew Barakat in Alexandria, Virginia, contributed to this report.

US Forecast

City/Town, State;Yesterday’s High Temp (F);Yesterday’s Low Temp (F);Today’s High Temp (F);Today’s Low Temp (F);Weather Condition;Wind Direction;Wind Speed (MPH);Humidity (%);Chance of Precip. (%);UV Index

Albany, NY;52;36;56;34;Partial sunshine;S;10;52%;28%;3

Albuquerque, NM;70;47;72;46;Sunny and pleasant;SSE;7;36%;0%;5

Anchorage, AK;47;39;45;34;Periods of rain;SSW;7;80%;93%;0

Asheville, NC;53;27;59;31;Mostly sunny;NW;5;43%;1%;4

Atlanta, GA;59;32;63;37;Mostly sunny;WSW;6;35%;1%;4

Atlantic City, NJ;58;44;62;46;Mostly sunny, breezy;SSW;15;42%;3%;4

Austin, TX;74;51;86;57;Sunshine and warmer;SSW;7;35%;0%;5

Baltimore, MD;57;39;62;43;Brilliant sunshine;SW;9;33%;13%;4

Baton Rouge, LA;65;36;73;50;Sunny and nice;SSW;5;44%;0%;5

Billings, MT;75;49;80;46;Breezy, warm;E;16;25%;4%;3

Birmingham, AL;60;31;64;39;Mostly sunny;SSW;7;37%;1%;4

Bismarck, ND;70;35;75;43;Partly sunny, warm;W;9;47%;1%;3

Boise, ID;75;44;76;44;Sunny and warm;ENE;6;26%;0%;3

Boston, MA;57;42;59;42;Mostly sunny, breezy;SSW;16;46%;6%;3

Bridgeport, CT;55;39;58;40;Breezy in the p.m.;SW;12;43%;6%;3

Buffalo, NY;45;38;45;36;A couple of showers;SSW;19;67%;95%;1

Burlington, VT;53;38;52;36;Winds subsiding;S;15;54%;32%;1

Caribou, ME;65;38;54;35;Mostly sunny;S;8;61%;17%;3

Casper, WY;72;36;78;37;Breezy, warm;WSW;14;21%;1%;4

Charleston, SC;64;41;68;45;Sunny;W;6;42%;5%;4

Charleston, WV;55;32;59;35;Partly sunny;SSW;9;43%;3%;4

Charlotte, NC;59;33;64;35;Mostly sunny;SSW;6;45%;4%;4

Cheyenne, WY;71;38;77;45;Breezy in the p.m.;W;14;19%;0%;4

Chicago, IL;48;36;59;43;Partly sunny, warmer;SW;12;28%;3%;3

Cleveland, OH;46;37;49;40;Breezy;S;16;51%;23%;1

Columbia, SC;61;35;67;37;Mostly sunny, cool;SW;6;42%;5%;4

Columbus, OH;44;30;53;36;Partly sunny, cool;SSW;11;36%;1%;3

Concord, NH;57;31;55;30;Mostly sunny;S;9;53%;6%;3

Dallas-Ft. Worth, TX;68;54;85;55;Sunny and warmer;NNE;11;38%;2%;4

Denver, CO;76;44;78;48;Sunny and very warm;SW;7;19%;0%;4

Des Moines, IA;50;34;67;44;Warmer;SSW;9;41%;4%;3

Detroit, MI;46;36;49;37;A couple of showers;SW;10;52%;85%;1

Dodge City, KS;75;41;80;45;Sunny and very warm;SSW;10;29%;1%;4

Duluth, MN;47;30;52;42;Variable cloudiness;SW;7;61%;6%;2

El Paso, TX;70;46;76;52;Sunny and nice;WSW;4;43%;0%;5

Fairbanks, AK;38;28;38;28;Cloudy;WSW;5;80%;94%;0

Fargo, ND;58;34;62;46;Partly sunny;S;8;65%;3%;3

Grand Junction, CO;73;42;73;43;Sunny and pleasant;SE;7;27%;0%;4

Grand Rapids, MI;45;37;52;36;Partly sunny, warmer;SSW;10;49%;27%;3

Hartford, CT;55;37;58;38;Sunny and breezy;S;14;47%;6%;3

Helena, MT;70;35;71;49;Sunny and warm;WSW;8;35%;1%;3

Honolulu, HI;86;70;84;74;A shower or two;SSE;8;62%;84%;2

Houston, TX;67;46;82;59;Sunny and warmer;SSW;8;43%;0%;5

Indianapolis, IN;53;29;60;41;Partly sunny, breezy;SSW;14;35%;1%;4

Jackson, MS;63;34;71;48;Mostly sunny;S;7;42%;0%;5

Jacksonville, FL;66;42;73;48;Sunny and nice;NNW;6;43%;5%;5

Juneau, AK;52;45;48;42;Rain;S;9;91%;100%;0

Kansas City, MO;56;40;74;52;Partly sunny, warmer;SSW;7;39%;4%;4

Knoxville, TN;59;29;60;34;Mostly sunny, cool;SSW;7;43%;3%;4

Las Vegas, NV;88;59;88;60;Partly sunny;N;5;19%;0%;4

Lexington, KY;54;28;58;39;Breezy in the p.m.;SSW;12;41%;0%;4

Little Rock, AR;61;35;74;46;Partly sunny, warmer;S;8;43%;11%;4

Long Beach, CA;95;67;84;64;Partly sunny;S;7;51%;0%;4

Los Angeles, CA;93;68;87;63;Partly sunny, warm;SE;7;41%;1%;4

Louisville, KY;55;31;63;42;Partly sunny;SSW;11;36%;0%;4

Madison, WI;45;29;58;36;Partly sunny, warmer;SSW;6;36%;5%;3

Memphis, TN;57;37;70;50;Mostly sunny, warmer;S;8;37%;4%;4

Miami, FL;70;64;80;68;A shower or two;NNW;9;69%;89%;2

Milwaukee, WI;46;33;56;40;Partly sunny, warmer;SW;9;35%;6%;3

Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN;48;30;58;43;Milder;S;8;49%;5%;3

Mobile, AL;65;37;69;45;Mostly sunny;WSW;5;44%;2%;5

Montgomery, AL;63;32;64;38;Mostly sunny, cool;WSW;6;43%;2%;5

Mt. Washington, NH;30;18;24;18;Windy;WSW;33;86%;31%;2

Nashville, TN;57;30;64;40;Partly sunny;SSW;8;39%;0%;4

New Orleans, LA;64;48;71;54;Plenty of sun;SW;5;40%;0%;5

New York, NY;55;42;58;46;Mostly sunny, breezy;SSW;14;39%;3%;3

Newark, NJ;55;38;59;38;Sunny and breezy;SSW;13;39%;3%;3

Norfolk, VA;59;38;65;42;Mostly sunny;S;8;47%;9%;4

Oklahoma City, OK;66;44;79;51;Sunny and warmer;SSW;7;44%;0%;4

Olympia, WA;70;47;65;43;Periods of sun;SW;8;82%;42%;2

Omaha, NE;57;35;72;44;Partly sunny, warmer;S;8;45%;4%;3

Orlando, FL;67;52;75;58;Mostly sunny, nice;N;8;49%;5%;5

Philadelphia, PA;55;40;60;44;Winds subsiding;SSW;14;37%;3%;4

Phoenix, AZ;90;65;90;66;Mostly sunny;NE;6;26%;0%;4

Pittsburgh, PA;45;33;51;37;Becoming cloudy;S;10;44%;16%;4

Portland, ME;58;39;57;38;Sunshine and breezy;SW;14;52%;6%;3

Portland, OR;76;50;70;46;Partly sunny;NW;5;66%;12%;3

Providence, RI;57;37;59;39;Mostly sunny, breezy;SSW;14;47%;6%;3

Raleigh, NC;58;35;64;37;Mostly sunny;SSW;6;49%;7%;4

Reno, NV;79;40;79;43;Partly sunny, warm;WSW;4;25%;0%;4

Richmond, VA;57;35;63;37;Sunny;S;9;43%;8%;4

Roswell, NM;73;43;80;44;Sunshine and nice;SSW;7;40%;2%;5

Sacramento, CA;90;52;88;53;Mostly sunny, warm;S;4;38%;1%;4

Salt Lake City, UT;75;48;76;50;Sunny and warm;SE;7;30%;0%;4

San Antonio, TX;75;48;83;53;Sunny and delightful;SSW;10;40%;0%;5

San Diego, CA;91;63;80;63;Not as warm;SSW;7;61%;0%;4

San Francisco, CA;85;57;70;55;Partly sunny, cooler;WSW;8;59%;1%;4

Savannah, GA;65;38;70;41;Plenty of sunshine;WNW;5;42%;3%;5

Seattle-Tacoma, WA;70;52;64;49;Partly sunny;S;5;76%;44%;1

Sioux Falls, SD;56;34;66;42;Warmer with some sun;S;7;49%;4%;3

Spokane, WA;73;42;71;44;Partly sunny, mild;W;7;49%;2%;3

Springfield, IL;49;30;68;40;Partly sunny, milder;SW;10;35%;2%;4

St. Louis, MO;52;32;70;43;Partly sunny, warmer;SW;8;37%;2%;4

Tampa, FL;67;49;74;53;Sunny and nice;N;8;51%;7%;5

Toledo, OH;48;35;50;34;A couple of showers;SW;9;46%;84%;2

Tucson, AZ;84;60;86;61;Plenty of sunshine;ESE;7;34%;0%;5

Tulsa, OK;65;40;76;48;Mostly sunny, warmer;S;4;45%;3%;4

Vero Beach, FL;67;61;76;63;Clouds and sun;NNW;11;61%;44%;3

Washington, DC;56;38;61;40;Plenty of sunshine;SSW;9;37%;9%;4

Wichita, KS;67;39;80;48;Partly sunny, warmer;S;9;41%;1%;4

Wilmington, DE;56;38;61;39;Sunny and breezy;S;13;38%;3%;4

_____