threats

Earlier this year Albanese himself was evacuated from his official residence over a bomb threat. As of August, about 20 cases in which people were accused of making violent threats against him were winding their way through courts around the country.

In recent years, politicians here have been mailed bullets. Female MPs – and in some cases their children – have been threatened with sexual violence. A Jewish MP’s office has been firebombed, a Sydney mayor’s car has been torched and countless other politicians have had their workplaces vandalised.

Just last week Small Business Minister Anne Aly said she had received a wave of death threats after a politician from the opposition said she should be “shamed and stoned in the square” over a tax policy.

According to government statistics, there were 1,067 reports of “harassing and threatening behaviour” against “high office holders” in the year to June: an increase on last year.

“We tend to bury our head in the sand and say, ‘Not here’, but this has been happening now for well over a decade,” Josh Roose, a Deakin University Professor on violent extremism, tells the BBC.

Socioeconomic strain, growing mental health problems in the community, “grifters” who benefit politically or financially from whipping up further discontent, and a “carcinogenic” online environment are drivers of the trend, he says, which has dramatically escalated since the pandemic.

But the political class must also take responsibility for their role, he adds.

“We’ve seen a willingness to cross previously sacred terrain – you know, not targeting individuals, not targeting their families – but we now see that this is part and parcel of Australian political life.

“This is occurring at both ends of the political spectrum.”

And experts like him warn it is not just politicians who are vulnerable: it is members of the media, academics, court officials and other public figures too.

WASHINGTON — Former Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith, who brought two federal indictments against President Trump, told lawmakers on Tuesday that he “will not be silenced by continued threats of prosecution” from the Trump administration and that he believes the rule of law is being threatened like never before.

Smith also told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he stands behind the criminal cases he brought against Trump, a Republican, and that he and his team acted without regard to politics.

“I made those decisions without regard to President Trump’s political association, activities, beliefs or candidacy in the 2024 presidential election,” Smith said. “Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in serious crimes against our nation. If asked whether to prosecute a former president today based on the same facts, I would do so regardless of whether that president was a Republican or a Democrat.”

Republicans sought to cast the prosecution as a political fishing expedition, accusing Smith of bending ordinary procedures in an overzealous pursuit of the president.

“The Smith election case ultimately wasn’t just about Trump,” said Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the chairman of the committee. “It was about partisan agents and prosecutors mapping out the Republican apparatus.”

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the top Democrat on the committee, accused Republicans of spreading “baseless conspiracy theories” about Smith’s investigations as part of an effort to “whitewash” the history of Trump’s 2020 election loss and the Jan. 6, 2021, attack by a mob of Trump’s supporters on the U.S. Capitol.

“President Trump demonstrated a wanton disdain for the laws of the United States, the will of the people and our national security,” Durbin said. “The aspersions cast on Mr. Smith, nonstop, are petty, personal and political. They are nothing but a smoke screen to distract from the president’s own clear, unlawful conduct.”

The hearing is expected to focus on subpoenas for phone records

Even as Smith defends his investigations, he is expected to be pressed anew by Republican senators about his team’s access to the phone records of GOP lawmakers as prosecutors investigated Trump’s efforts to overturn his loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

In previous testimony, Smith has stood behind subpoenas that prosecutors issued for the phone records of Republican members of Congress who were in touch with Trump when violent supporters of the president rioted inside the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. He has said that such subpoenas are a “common practice” in investigations and were necessary in this instance to understand the “scope of the conspiracy” between Trump and his Republican allies.

Nonetheless, the revelation that Smith’s team secretly obtained the phone records during his investigation has animated some Republican lawmakers, who point to it as proof of overreach by the Biden administration Justice Department and a hard-charging prosecutor.

In July, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, referred Smith to the Justice Department for potential prosecution on allegations that he lied at a previous hearing about his collection of the records — something Smith’s attorneys have vigorously disputed.

“I stand by my testimony before the House of Representatives,” Smith said. “I will not be silenced by the continued threats of prosecution from the president or others.”

Grassley, the Senate committee chairman, first disclosed last year that Smith’s prosecutors had obtained what’s known as “toll records” — data that reveals the date, length and time of phone calls between two parties but not the content of the communications.

Smith has repeatedly justified the move as necessary to document any contact that Trump or surrogates may have had with lawmakers on Jan. 6, 2021, as the president beseeched his supporters to halt the certification of the election results.

“My office didn’t spy on anyone,” Smith said during a hearing in January.

Smith is the subject of a criminal referral from Republicans

Smith was appointed in 2022 by then-Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland to take over investigations into Trump’s efforts to reverse his election loss and Trump’s retention of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida. Both investigations resulted in felony indictments, but Smith abandoned the cases after Trump won back the White House in 2024, citing longstanding Justice Department opinions that say sitting presidents cannot be federally indicted.

Smith has remained a top target of retribution for Trump and his administration, which last year announced that it would revoke the security clearances of the lawyers representing the former special counsel. The Office of Special Counsel, an independent watchdog agency responsible for enforcing a law against partisan political activity by federal employees, also announced last year an investigation into Smith.

Jordan’s referral to the Justice Department centers on a December 2025 exchange in which Smith was asked about subpoenas that prosecutors had issued for the toll records.

Smith said the records he requested did not include the content of the communications. But Jordan maintains that answer was misleading in light of records released by Grassley showing that Smith had obtained the contents of 44 lawmakers’ text messages in a separate subpoena to the National Archives and Records Administration that sought the communications of various Trump advisers and aides.

In response, Smith’s lawyers called his answers “unimpeachably truthful” and noted that he was responding to questions explicitly about toll records, which did not include the contents of any text messages.

Tucker and Richer write for the Associated Press.

Germany – a fellow Nato ally – pledged to permanently station a combat-ready brigade in Lithuania in 2023 as a response to the changing security situation in Europe.

It is expected to be operational by 2027 and to number about 5,000 soldiers and civilian employees, though it has failed to recruit enough personnel voluntarily and is now turning to compulsory assignments to fill some positions.

The majority of troops will be based in Rūdninkai, near the Suwałki Gap – a line that borders Lithuania and Poland and also links Belarus with Russia’s Kaliningrad.

Nato said that as of December last year it had more than 5,000 troops stationed in Lithuania.

The origins of last week’s drone incident over Lithuania have not been confirmed, however Defence Minister Robertas Kaunas told Newshour that it had come from the direction of Belarus.

UK Defence Secretary Wes Streeting said: “Thanks to the swift and professional actions of Lithuanian and Italian forces, Nato once again demonstrated our readiness to protect our airspace.

“We stand united, around the clock, in defence of every inch of Nato territory.”

Moscow did not comment on the incident.

Military drone incursions have become increasingly common across Europe since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale of invasion of Ukraine.

Residents in Lithuania’s capital Vilnius were also forced to take shelter in May after a drone alert was triggered, briefly grounding flights and rail travel.

Nato jets have scrambled multiple times to shoot down stray Ukrainian drones that have crossed into fellow Baltic countries Estonia and Latvia this year.

Ukraine has blamed the stray drones on Russian electronic warfare, technology designed to change the flight paths of Ukrainian drones.

Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia all joined Nato in 2004, becoming signatories to the Article 5 provision that states “an armed attack against one Nato member shall be considered an attack against all members”.