Monthly Archives: April 2024

Donald Trump weighed in on the White House Correspondents Dinner on Sunday, giving a terse, certified rotten review of its key players.

The White House Correspondents Dinner was really bad, he wrote on Truth Social. Colin Jost BOMBED, and Crooked Joe was an absolute disaster! Doesnt get much worse than this!

Though the only Trump in the building on Saturday night was Lara, the presidential daughter-in-law recently named head of the Republican National Committee, the former presidents shadow was felt even in the absence of his distinct orange glow. He was a frequent subject of the roasts by both Biden and the keynote comedians.

Biden poked fun at everything from his ongoing criminal trial (You might call it stormy weather) to his age (Im a grown man running against a 6 year old) to his floundering campaign fundraising, including a jab at the weird merch Trump has peddled this year.

Trumps so desperate, he started reading those Bibles hes selling, Biden said, referencing the $60 Trump-endorsed Bibles the presumptive Republican nominee started hawking around Easter.

Then he got to the First Commandment: You shall have no other gods before me. Thats when he put it down and said, This books not for me.

Saturday Night Live comedian Colin Jost also took shots at Trump, riffing on the courtroom drawings of the former president from his hush-money trial.

Every sketch of Trump looks like the Grinch had sex with the Lorax, he joked.

Comedian Matt Friend joined in the action, too, with a swipe at South Dakota governor and recently confessed puppy-killer Kristi Noem as a bonus. Putting on a Trump voice impression, Friend said, I am killing this dinner harder than Kristi Noem kills the puppies!

Trump famously never attended the event while he was in office, and his hatred for the event has long simmered. When he attended as a guest in 2011, he was thoroughly flamed by President Obamaa humiliation which some speculate may have fueled his desire for the presidency in 2016.

See the original post here:

Donald Trump Pans White House Correspondents' Dinner: 'Colin Jost BOMBED' - The Daily Beast

So thats not true? Thats not true?

The judge in control of Donald J. Trumps Manhattan criminal trial had just cut off the former presidents lawyer, Todd Blanche. Mr. Blanche had been in the midst of defending a social media post in which his client wrote that a statement that had been public for years WAS JUST FOUND!

Mr. Blanche had already acknowledged during the Tuesday hearing that Mr. Trumps post was false. But the judge, Juan M. Merchan, wasnt satisfied.

I need to understand, Justice Merchan said, glaring down at the lawyer from the bench, what I am dealing with.

The question of what is true or at least what can be proven is at the heart of any trial. But this particular defendant, accused by the Manhattan district attorneys office of falsifying business records to conceal a sex scandal, has spent five decades spewing thousands and thousands of words, sometimes contradicting himself within minutes, sometimes within the same breath, with little concern for the consequences of what he said.

Mr. Trump has treated his own words as disposable commodities, intended for single use, and not necessarily indicative of any deeply held beliefs. And his tendency to pile phrases on top of one another has often worked to his benefit, amusing or engaging his supporters sometimes spurring threats and even violence while distracting, enraging or just plain disorienting his critics and adversaries.

If Mr. Blanche seemed unconcerned at the hearing that he was telling a criminal judge that his client had said something false, it may have been simply because the routine has become so familiar.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit andlog intoyour Times account, orsubscribefor all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?Log in.

Want all of The Times?Subscribe.

See the original post here:

Trump's Trial Could Bring a Rarity: Consequences for His Words - The New York Times

As Donald Trump’s “hush money/election interference” trial continues in state court, it implicitly heralds an epic and tragic failure of the United States Supreme Court. This state case is surely not the one the American people needed to have tried and decided prior to the 2024 presidential election.

Of the four criminal cases against Trump and the other state election interference cases naming him as an unindicted co-conspirator, Jack Smith’s case charging him with orchestrating the Jan. 6 attempt to overthrow the lawful results of the 2020 election is paramount.

For two compelling reasons the resolution of that case prior to the 2024 presidential election is indispensable to our constitutional government. First, the American people have a right to know all the facts about Trump’s involvement in the coup attempt before they cast their votes in that election. Second, if the case were postponed until after the election, a Trump victory would allow him to dismiss the case, suppress evidence of his alleged criminal behavior and forever escape the consequences of his actions.

Thus, the Supreme Court’s tragic failure is glaring: It has methodically blocked the prompt and timely resolution of that essential case.  

1.  Instead of hearing Trump’s “absolute” immunity claim in December 2023, it deferred to proceedings in a lower appellate court.

2.  Instead of upholding the excellent and unanimous opinion of that lower court denying the immunity claim, it agreed to hear yet another appeal on the issue.

3.  Instead of recognizing the absence of proper grounds for continuing the stay of the district court’s pre-trial preparations, it ordered a continued stay of those proceedings.

4.  Instead of setting a short briefing schedule to expedite its hearing of the immunity claim — recognizing that the parties had already thoroughly briefed the issue — it set a lazy schedule that gave the parties two additional months to file their briefs.

5.  Instead of setting an early date to hear arguments, it set the date as late as possible, placing it on the very last day of the court’s term.

6. Instead of focusing on the facts of the case in the oral argument, it obscured the actual issue and pretended that the case presented an imagined comprehensive immunity issue, a red herring potentially enabling it to refuse to make a final decision, justify a remand and cause even further delay.   

7. Instead of deciding the case immediately after argument, it confirmed the likelihood that it would not issue its decision before late June or even July.

The court could easily have decided the immunity claim as early as January or February and given the district court ample time to complete pre-trial proceedings and begin the trial by May or June. Instead, it managed to delay the case for countless months, making trial before the election increasingly unlikely if not virtually impossible.

The court’s determination to delay the case is particularly obvious when its actions are compared to its actions in a second case it faced involving Trump and the Jan. 6 riot. There, a Fourteenth Amendment challenge to Trump’s eligibility for federal office, a quick decision served Trump’s interests by ensuring that no state could use the Fourteenth Amendment to exclude him from early primary or later general election ballots. Although the case presented open, difficult and substantially contested constitutional claims, the court decided it swiftly and in Trump’s favor. In revealing contrast, in Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 case, where delay, not speed, served Trump’s interests, the Supreme Court repeatedly imposed delays and abjured speed.

As a constitutional matter, moreover, any delay was wholly unnecessary because no genuine immunity issue even exists in the case. There are no fairly conceivable constitutional grounds — historical, textual, structural, originalist or theoretical — for holding that a president could have immunity from criminal charges that he attempted to overthrow the results of a lawful presidential election in order to stay in office and illegally retain power.

Despite Trump’s groundless assertion of an “absolute” immunity, Jack Smith’s case presents a far narrower and quite specific immunity issue that is neither difficult nor even debatable. A president of the United States cannot possibly enjoy immunity from a criminal prosecution for attempting to overturn a lawful election and illegally seize control of the national government. Thus, the court’s delaying tactics are based on its willingness to feign credence to a constitutional phantasm. 

If and when the court decides the case, it will — as it must — deny Trump’s claim. Thus, the only meaningful result of the court’s methodical foot-dragging is the unavoidable conclusion that it has sought to help Trump avoid trial while he campaigns for the presidency. In effect, the court agreed to grant Trump a de facto absolute immunity through the 2024 election. That is an epic constitutional tragedy. 

Edward Purcell is the Joseph Solomon distinguished professor at New York Law School and an author whose latest book is “Antonin Scalia and American Constitutionalism: The Historical Significance of a Judicial Icon.”

Read the original here:

The Supreme Court's epic failure in dealing with Trump's cases - The Hill

With its rich, dark wood, golden dcor, and an invigorating oud musk, the American Moslem Society on the south end of Dearborn, Michigan, masks its age well. Opened in 1937, it was the first mosque in America to broadcast the call to prayer through loud speakers. It was founded by Arab immigrants who had initially been drawn by the promise of $5-a-day jobs at a nearby Ford plant, which laid the foundation for what is now Americas largest concentration of Arab Americans.

On a recent Friday there, an imam clad in a traditional white thobe and kufi delivered his sermon. Several hundred worshipers sat on the blue-patterned carpet stretching across the space and listened attentively as the imam evoked scenes of devastation from Israels relentless bombardment of Gaza. True attachment to Allah is demonstrated beautifully by our brothers and sisters in Palestine and in Gaza, he said. When they see the dead bodies of family members and they are asked what their message is to the world, they reply, We Belong to Allah, and to him we shall return. They know that whoever is truthful with Allah, Allah will never abandon them, even if they are betrayed by all of creation.

The room was heavy, and clearly emotional. After the prayer, as people retrieved their shoes at the entrance, I overheard discussions of the bombardment of Gaza. I saw people scrolling for news, after earlier reports that Gazans scrambling for aid were shot by the Israeli military. When I spoke to the people around me, it was clear whom they blamed.

If it came down to Trump and Joe Biden, I will vote for Trump. Because it doesnt get worse than Joe Biden, a man named Salah told me. His friend, Amad, added, Biden was supposed to be the peacemaker. The comfort-maker. Instead, he became accessory to the biggest genocide in modern history.

Biden had recently overcome an attempt to disrupt the Michigan Democratic primary with uncommitted votes tied to the United States support for Israel. But in Dearborn and nearby Hamtramckhome to large Arab populations that were part of a coalition that moved Michigan from Donald Trump to Biden in the 2020 presidential electionBiden lost. And the people here made clear they plan to bring the fight to November.

We want to show a shift from the 2020 election to 2024. That they are not only losing the presidency, but they are losing the constituency, Salah told me. Nearby, a man named Mohamed looked visibly distressed as he exited the mosque. Im ashamed to be American today, he said, holding back his tears at the latest news out of Gaza, in which everyone I spoke to said the United States was complicit. Mohamed said he cast his ballot for Trump in the primary and would again in the general.

The anger toward Biden in Dearborn is intense and tangible. Though his administration and 2024 campaign seem to have begun to recognize the extent of the threat, they may be too late. Michigan is one of a handful states likely to decide the U.S. presidential election, and it could be a crucial tipping point in Bidens path to winning the Electoral College. The uncommitted campaign in the primary may have been a mere warning shot from the 300,000 Arab American voters here, who are far from a monolith but have been largely united on this issue, and who have considerable electoral power, especially given Bidens weaknesses with other Michigan voters. In 2020, Biden surpassed Trump in Michigan by a margin of only 154,000 votes. He currently trails the former president in most polls.

You might wonder: How could an Arab Americanmuch less a Muslimnot want to defeat Trump? Did they forget Islam hates us? Did they forget the Muslim ban, the mass deportations, the relentless bigotry? Ive asked this of myself and my own family, as when, in the course of reporting this article, a relative made a startling admission at the dinner table. Ive now come to understand the incandescent rage many feel toward Biden. And in Dearborn, I heard a lot more than distaste for him. I heard many who fully believe Donald Trump will fight for them more than Joe Bidenand plan to take that belief to the ballot box in November.

What do they say? What are they going to do, vote for the guy that banned Arabs? And the answer is yes, Amer Zahr, a Palestinian American comedian and Dearborn local, told me at one of the citys many Yemeni cafs one afternoon. We had both arrived exactly 20 minutes late, matching each others tardiness, and he spent the early part of the meeting jokingly insulting the cuisine in Egypt, where my parents are from. Then he got down to it.

He noted with obvious disdain how Biden clumsily waved off dwindling support among Arab Americans, suggesting they will eventually be forced to rally behind him or otherwise risk helping Trump. The former president wants to put a ban on Arabs coming into the country, Biden had said. Well make surewe understand who cares about the Arab population.

Imagine thinking its a good argument to say to a community that has lost 30,000 people, Watch out for the guy thats going to ban you. Youre really asking me whether Im going to take a ban or a genocide? Ill take a ban, Zahr told me. (The Biden campaign didnt reply to a request for comment.)

Long before the uncommitted vote push, just weeks after Israel declared war in October, a poll conducted by the Arab American Institute showed Arab American support for Biden crater from 59 percent to just 17 percent. My conversation with Zahr got visceral as he explained why.

I mean, weve literally seen our families and our people being thrown into mass graves. Babies blown to bits. Its not some far-off thing to us, he said. Its been a struggle to declare our own humanity while mourning for our people being massacred.

In October, he and other local activists in Dearborn organized an emergency community rally for Palestine. That later became the centerpiece of a Wall Street Journal opinion article titled Welcome to Dearborn, Americas Jihad Capital. Biden condemned the piece, calling it exactly what can lead to Islamophobia and anti-Arab hate, but Zahr told me it was clear from the early days that the United States would support Israels retaliation unfettered. Statements of support for the community did nothing.

By the time of the primary, Zahr was helping campaign against Biden. In collaboration with the Dearborn-based Arab American Political Action Committee, he helped send 15,000 mailers to homes in Dearborn requesting people vote anyone but Biden. He told me his principal goal this coming election is only to make sure Biden loses. The primary vote was the beginning of a process that ends with him losing in November, he said. Weve already cost the Democrats the White House. We know how to do it, OK? And we have a chance to do it this time around. And thats all Im interested in, Zahr said, in reference to Hillary Clintons 2016 defeat to Trump. If punishing Biden means helping Trump win the next election, Zahr says he can live with that.

If Trump were president right now, this war mightve been over, because there might have been enough uproar from rank-and-file Democrats, he said. I think we have a lot of power in not being wed to a party.

Im anticipating a huge shift in our community switching back to the Republican Party, said Abed Hammoud, a founding member of the Arab American Political Action Committee. He remembers feeling like a pariah for being a Democrat in the early 2000s, when an estimated 72 percent of the Arab American vote went to the Republican candidate, George W. Bush. But after 9/11, with the rise of the war on terror and the vilification of Arab American communities, Hammoud helped to shift the tide of voters away from Republicans. It was largely successful. Now, Hammoud says the pendulum could swing again in favor of Republicans.

They took us for granted, Hammoud said. The problem is the stand we are asking Biden to take is not even political. Its humanitarian. He lamented the irony of Democratic messaging on human rights next to the partys policy appearing to be complicit in the destruction of civilian life in Gaza. I try not to sound extreme when I talk about these things, but theres no other way to describe it other than encouraging killing. Theres no way around it. You cant say hes just watching. He is encouraging it.

But what about Trump?,I asked Hammoud. How does he square support for someone who was widely seen as favorable to the Israeli government? Biden is deeply committed to Zionism, a true believer, not acting on the whims of some lobby. That scares me a lot more, Hammoud said. On this front, he says, he prefers someone like Trump. Lets assume my nonvote for Biden is a vote for Trump automatically. That indirect vote for Trump brings a guy into office who I dont know what he will do. At the worst, he will be nasty toward us here, like he was in the past. And we can fight him within the law. I cannot fight Joe Biden when he stands with Israel, he said.

In Hammouds view, Bidens chance to win Michigan has evaporated. Though he is a lifelong Democrat, he said theres no chance he will go back. Ill take my chances with Trump, hoping that something is going to give and something will go sideways and then all of a sudden Trump, Trump will fight Netanyahu. Thats why I am willing to take that risk today. Trump doesnt scare me, he said.

Dearborn is run by a Democrat. Mayor Abdullah Hammoud, the son of Lebanese immigrants, only just turned 34. He is the first Muslim leader of the city. Not long ago, he went on television and said, We have survived the Trump presidency four years ago, and Im not blind to what is being said by Trump and other Republican candidates at the podium. But as it pertains to the decisions being made overseas, it seems like there is no real difference between former President Trump and current President Biden.

He is a quintessential local son. Inside his office, he has displayed little tokens like an encased Detroit Lionsbranded football, a lacrosse helmet, a folded and framed American flag, and a few keepsakes from his historic campaign in 2022. When we met, Hammoud seemed a little exhausted at the media crush that had led up to the Michigan primary. But he also did not hold back. The president should withdraw his support from the war tyrant and war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu if he wants to save our American democracy from unraveling with a reelection of Donald Trump, he told me. This is not a Muslim issue. This is an American issue. Hammoud has not decided whether to support Biden in the fall.

He reclined in his chair, fingers touching his chin, as he described why this distant war had become so impossible for people here to ignore. I have a resident who lost over 80 family members, all killed by American-made bombs and weapons, he said. Theres no way [Biden] is going to win back this individual in November.

How does that stance work for a hopeful rising star in the Democratic Party? Trump is an atrocity himself. And if you look at Trumps foreign policy decision-making, its just as disastrous as Joe Bidens, Hammoud conceded. Trump recognized illegal settlements in the West Bank, moved and recognized the embassy in Jerusalem, and provided Saudi Arabia with weaponry resulting in the deaths of over 30,000 innocent Yemenis. These are all things people tend to forget about. Even still, he said, he hears daily from people here who cannot fathom what the government is doing now. Were witnessing the loss of two mothers every single hour in Gaza. Thats the reality Im dealing with. Im not concerned with the Democratic Party establishment. Im concerned with my constituents. I have the audacity to put my community first.

He was more measured about what might be in store for November. I dont believe youre witnessing a mass exodus to the Republican Party, he said. Its more likely a repeat of 2016, where Trumps victory wasnt just about the votes he gained but also about the significant number of people who skipped the top of the ticket.

Theres a segment of the constituency that with the adoption of a permanent cease-fire, a halt in unrestricted U.S. military aid, and steps toward establishing a Palestinian state might reconsider their support for Biden, he said. But theres certainly a portion of the vote that might remain lost, and we should anticipate that.

In our brief conversation, Hammoud seemed aware some people are ready to take advantage of this moment. I met several of them in Michigan. They all knew the area could be a potential tipping point in the electionif only local Republicans werent such a mess.

Stephanie Butler, a local Republican activist, wants to turn uncommitted votes into votes for Trump. She called those votes a a waste. You guys are using it as political leverage and saying, Let us show them the power of the Arab vote, she said. Youre going to give this maniac two weeks before a general election to call for a cease-fire? Does that bring back the 30,000 lives that have been lost? Who are you proving a lesson to?

Butler has been a fixture in the community since she successfully helped corral Arab Americans into protesting sexual material in public schools and libraries. But she admits that Republicans dont have the greatest track record when it comes to courting Arab and Muslim votes, partly because in Michigan, theyve been especially exclusionary. It is literally religious fanatics. Im Catholic Christian, and they dont even like me. You have to be an evangelist, the crazy type, to fit into their clique. And Im not that. Theyre constantly quoting Bible verses and this and that. These people are insane, she said, describing the Michigan Republican convention. But she said the power of some GOP messaging is evident in the book-ban fracas that briefly rocked Dearborn. Shes trying to convince more Republicans to take advantage of that.

Rola Makki, the first hijab-wearing elected Michigan GOP outreach official, blamed Dearborn itself for Republicans troubles there since 9/11. The Republican presence is not that great in the city because theyre not welcoming to the Republican Party. Its a two-way street. It feels like that could change in the near future. I believe its already changed.

She downplayed the partys obvious Islamophobia problem as exaggerated by the media: Our enemy is not each other. Its not Democrats versus Republicans. Its really the media at the end of the day because they are the ones that are spreading the hate and lies.

Hassan Nehme, a Republican official running for Congress in Rashida Tlaibs district, has also been working behind the scenes to move Arab voters to the right, as he himself had after joining the army in 2012. He says Islamophobia has been an issue in the states Republican Party, and that at times he doesnt feel welcome, but he chalks it up to an education issue. Its like theyve never sat with an actual Muslim or an Arab-American and actually had a conversation, he said. But he quickly pointed to Trumps appointment of him, a Muslim, as a state delegate as a sign of progress.

A lot more people are switching sides now, he said. Ive only spoken to three people in the last four or five months who still support Joe Biden. Honestly. Even with Democrats that I go back and forth with all the time. On Biden, everyone agrees.

Its depressing to think of our community as being so selfish, said Saladin Ahmed, 48, a well-known comic book artist who has seen Dearborn grow and change over the years. He was venting his frustrations not long after the uncommitted movement had its moment in the primary.

Ahmed is accomplished in his field, most known for his work with Marvel comics for big characters like Miles Morales: Spider-Man, The Magnificent Ms. Marvel, and Black Bolt. He was heavily influenced by his great-grandmother, who was part of Malcolm Xs spiritual journey and the spread of Islam in the country. His father, too, a local radio personality, instilled in him the importance of understanding various struggles, not just those of the Arab American community. Youre willing to put someone who theres no question will be a worse president for Black people than Joe Biden is. He is going to be worse for more people. Things are going to be worse for students, for workers, for gay people, for womenthat difference matters, he said.

We met for dinner, and he barely touched his food while he tried to explain exactly how worried he is about Trump. The small differences between candidates may seem insignificant to some, he said, but he believes four more years of Trump will have tangible consequences for real people. One of their neighbors is going to not be able to make rent because of this fucking decision. Your kids art program at school is going to close because of this shit. And people feel so righteous. Thats the part that bothers me. The world as a whole matters, he said. His children are half-Black, and one is trans; he doesnt understand how no one can see what another Trump presidency would bring.

Few have seen Dearborn change like Ahmed. He was born in 1975 after his family had already been in America for several generations. They were among the first of Arab descent to settle in Michigan in the early 1900s. He remembers what it was like to grow up in a segregated Dearborn, in which an Arab minority lived in the more industrial south end. He recalls a time when the mayor, Michael Guido, clashed with the growing Arab population and campaigned using anti-Arab stereotypes.

Previous generations of Arab activists understood this. They didnt see Palestine in a vacuum. They saw it as part of an international struggle. So, deciding everything else has to come to a stop to make this thing that isnt going to change anything policy wiseits a literal objective fact that Donald Trumps proposed notions for Palestine are worse than Bidens. Which is hard to do, he said.

Even so, he said the activism he has seen surge through Dearborn has been inspiring, in a way. Its surprising and impressive, he said. I think if it were handled differently, Id say this is exactly the kind of thing Michigan needs. Its one state where people who care about Palestinian lives can have a voice. But taking it far enough to support Trump to try and derail Biden in November is wild to me.

The truth is Ahmed was one of the only Arabs I could find in Dearborn who openly admitted they actually planned to vote for Biden in November. I spent much of my time there immersed in the citys caf culture, and the more I talked to people, the more I saw the full extent of what was happening in Dearborn.

Qahwah House is one of the citys jewels, open late and often packed. There I met Maryam, who was seated alone across a kettle filled with Turkish coffee. She told me she found the uncommitted voters annoyingbut not because they voted against Biden.If you can vote, you really should, she said, noting she was a recent immigrant who couldnt yet. I asked her whom she would be supporting if she could, and she confidently told me it would be Trump. I dont get why people hate him. My cousins say its because he hates Arabs. But nobody likes Arabs in this country.

I heard a similar sentiment from another patron, Fares, a Palestinian man who became a U.S. citizen 20 years ago, and voted for Biden in 2020. I feel like whether Republicans or Democrats, its all the same, he said. I dont think Im going to vote for any because it doesnt matter. Its a major shift for him. He was born in Syria to parents exiled in 1948 from what is now Haifa. He told me he hadnt missed a presidential election before, but now he doesnt see a point. If 12,000 dead kids dont change their hearts, you think you or I will?

I did manage to find one person who voted for Biden in the primary, a student named Shreya. But shes already starting to change her mind. Im thinking about it now, and Im not sure I want to vote anymore, she said. We only have bad options. And now Im thinking uncommitted is a better option too. I cant support whats going on with Palestine, she said. The easiest choice now feels like voting uncommitted.

I began to think the Dearborn mayor was onto something. Most people I spoke to said they thought it was at least worth trying Trump again if Biden was the other optionbut many said they simply wouldnt vote for anyone at all.

The genesis of the grassroots uncommitted vote movement, which has since traveled to other states, was in Dearborn just weeks before the Michigan primary. In early February, the idea was sparked by a group of young activists determined to pressure Biden into changing course on Gaza. From these discussions emerged Listen to Michigan, a campaign aimed at diverting disillusioned voters away from Biden. At the forefront of this movement is Layla Elabed, the groups campaign manager and the younger sister of Rep. Rashida Tlaib.

In a conversation at Qahwah House, Elabed seemed tired. It had become obvious to her she could no longer support Biden, and she didnt see why that was so hard to understand. It is hard for me to reconcile my core beliefs and morals to support a president that dehumanizes my people, Elabed said. This is a president that I met in person. That knows my sister. That met my mom, who wore a traditional Palestinian thobe at the White House.

Nobody from Bidens campaign has reached out to Listen to Michigan, Elabed said, but she believes shes doing it a favor. We are literally handing the Democratic Party and President Biden a gift to say were months away from November, and you have a chance to change course right now and stop the alienation of your core constituency, Elabed said.

Back home in New Jersey, not long after my time in Dearborn, I confronted this head-on myself.Under no circumstance could any of us vote for Joe Biden, a relative suddenly said at dinner one night. How could anyone vote for someone with this much blood on his hands?

I posed the obvious question, asking if she thought Trump would be better. Whats worse than genocide? she retorted. Maybe if the Democrats lose this election, theyll learn their lesson. Im happy to take several steps back if thats what it takes to take a step forward. When I argued, I got thousand-yard stares.

I thought back to my conversation with Elabed, who seemed a little horrified that many seemed content to restore Trump to the White House. I tell people all the time, Im like, What are you guys talking about? Theres literally an illegal settlement called Trump Heights. Even my own family members. I have to remind them, because theyre like Trump 2024! And Im like, Are you crazy? But she arrived back to the same place the conversation did at my dinner table that night with my relativesthat nothing can matter as much as what she believes America is enabling in Gaza. Right now, it seems like it wont matter if its Biden or Trump. We are going to have the same outcome when it comes to Palestine, she said.

Read the original post:

Donald Trump: In America's most important swing state, a key Biden group wants to hand the presidency to Trump. - Slate

Its cold in the courtroom where Donald Trump is on trial. Judge, is it possible just to warm it up a degree or two? Todd Blanche, Trumps hapless lead attorney, asked last week. We are shaking. Judge Juan Merchan acknowledged the temperature. It is cold, there is no question, he said from the bench. But there wasnt much he could do. The Manhattan Criminal Courthouse opened in 1941, and its HVAC system has two settings: icebox or oven. I would rather be real cold than sweating, Merchan said. And really those are your choices.

Trump, a fifteen-minute escorted motorcade ride from the gilded comforts of Trump Tower, is feeling the chill. Theyre keeping me in a courtroom thats freezing, he told reporters in a courthouse hallway. In Trumps case, however, this sensation may also be a physiological response to the stone-cold insults directed at him by what feels like nearly every participant in the trial so far. During jury selection, last week, he was forced to sit silently as everyday New Yorkers said infuriating things to his face. I feel that nobody is above the law, whether it be a former President or sitting President or a janitor, one prospective juror said, with disdain. In order to weed out anti-Trump bias in the jury pool, Trumps lawyers went through prospective jurors social-media histories. At several points, Susan Nechelesanother Trump lawyerrecited negative posts written about her client, as if it were one of Jimmy Kimmels Celebrities Read Mean Tweets segments. Stop the election of a racist, sexist narcissist, Necheles said, standing at the defense table. I wouldnt believe Donald Trump if his tongue were notarized. Another post read, Trump is an anathema to everything I was taught to love about Jesus, everything I was taught about how to live out my faith. His disdain for decency, disrespect toward basic tenets of right and wrong and complete disregard for the most vulnerable among us could not be more fundamentally un-Christian. As Necheles read these words out loud and into the record, Trump sat just a few feet from her, his face scrunched into a frown.

The prosecutors have called Trump a cheat, a crook, and a miser, who knew exactly what he was doing when he tried to subvert the rule of law. The defendant, Donald Trump, orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 Presidential election, Matthew Colangelo, an Assistant District Attorney, said in the governments opening statement. Then he covered up that criminal conspiracy by lying in his New York business records over and over and over again. Trump has had to sit there as the prosecutors have discussed the sexual affairs that the adult-film star Stormy Daniels and the former Playboy Playmate Karen McDougalboth expected to testify in the casesay they had with him in the early two-thousands, when he was already married to his wife, Melania. Hes had to sit there as the prosecutors have detailed the grubby hush-money scheme he concocted to buy Danielss and McDougals silence before the 2016 election. Hes had to sit there as the recent civil judgments against him have been brought up, including the journalist E. Jean Carrolls sexual-assault and defamation lawsuits, and the New York State Attorney Generals civil fraud case that resulted in a nearly half-billion-dollar judgment against him. Hes had to sit there as his high-priced lawyers and the judge have debated his perverse relationship with social media, and drilled down into whether, in a legal sense, retweets do or do not equal endorsements. He is just mad at the world, a source familiar with Trumps thinking told CNNs Dana Bash.

Merchan has spoken of the constitutional requirement of a fair trial. But hes been visibly exasperated by Trumps recklessness and viciousness. For weeks, Trump has been complaining about the gag order that the judge imposed on him before the start of the trial, prohibiting him from making public statements about potential witnesses or prospective jurors. Most criminal defendants stick to such a proscription, in deference to the law, or at least fear of it. Trump has said all kinds of things lately about Daniels and his old lawyer Michael Cohen, who are expected to be the prosecutions key witnesses. Sleaze bags who have, with their lies and misrepresentations, cost our Country dearly! hes called them. The former President has also attacked and intimidated potential jurors on social media. Last week, Merchan reprimanded him for muttering and gesturing aggressively while a potential juror spoke. A few days ago, he posted that undercover liberal activists had been caught lying to try to get onto the jury. Prosecutors from the Manhattan District Attorneys office asked Merchan to find Trump in contempt, and to fine him a thousand dollars for each of ten recent online posts. President Trump is being very careful to comply with Your Honors rules, Blanche told Merchan on Tuesday. Merchan glowered on the bench. You, Mr. Blanche, you are losing all credibility, he said.

Trumps own lawyers have all but acknowledged that their client is a liar, and a terrible, impossible person. Speaking to a prospective juror who said shes once been the victim of sexual assault, Necheles caught herself after almost suggesting that Trump had sexually assaulted Daniels and McDougal, who have said that they had consensual sex with Trump. You understand, in this case, that there will be women who havewell, not in this case in particularbut there have been women who have accused President Trump of assaulting them? Necheles asked. You would be able to put that out of your mind?

Trump is lucky that New York doesnt allow cameras to be used during court hearings. Aside from courtroom sketches, the only images of him in the courtroom are taken by a handful of photojournaliststhe spraywho are allowed about thirty seconds every morning to snap a few pictures of him at the defense table. In front of these cameras, Trump gathers himself and juts his chin at a practiced angle. As soon as theyre gone, he visibly slumps in his chair. Coming into or out of the courtroom, he walks without his wife or his kids, flanked by lawyers, Secret Service agents, and aides wearing worried faces. All day long, he endures bemused stares from the journalists in the gallery. A few spaces in the back are reserved for members of the public who have come to gawk. I have so many quotes from it in my notebook because it was just that funny, one teen-age spectator told the Post after observing a day of proceedings.

At the end of court each day, Trump has done his best to spin whats happening inside. Last week, he took an evening trip to Harlem to visit a bodega whose owner was arrested and then cleared in a 2022 fatal stabbing in his store. Trump had hoped to embrace him as a fellow-victim of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Braggs overzealous prosecution. But the bodega owner wasnt therehe was on vacation in the Dominican Republic, his lawyer said. The reality is that Trump is being exposed and humiliated by whats happening in Merchans courtroom. On Monday, the government called its first witness in the case: David Pecker, the former C.E.O. of the National Enquirers parent company. In 2015, Pecker met with Trump and Cohen and agreed to serve as the eyes and ears of Trumps Presidential campaign. Throughout the next two years, the Enquirer bought and buried bad stories about Trump, ran flattering articles about him, and ran damaging stories about his opponents. (Examples: Ted Cruz Shamed by Porn Star, Family Man Marco Rubios Love Child Stunner!) Pecker, a soft-spoken man with silver hair and a bushy mustache, called himself an old friend of Trumps. Mr. Trump was well known as the most eligible bachelor and dated the most beautiful women, he said. When someone is running for public office like this, it is very common for these women to call up a magazine like the National Enquirer to try to sell their stories. Despite his grandfatherly demeanor, Pecker described to the jury how he willingly participated in Trumps hush-money scheme, with hardly a second thought for the morality of smearing people, and using contracts as levers to control individuals and information. Talking about his tabloids investigation of a rumor that Trump had fathered a child with his housekeeper, Pecker said, If the story was true and I published it, it would be probably the biggest sale of the National Enquirer since the death of Elvis Presley. (The rumor turned out to be false.)

So far, Trumps lawyers have not mounted much of a defense. Somebody at Trump Tower generated a check, Blanche said, during his opening statement on Monday. The check made its way down to the White House, and President Trump signed it. All the defendant had done was pay hush money while running the country. What is a crime about what I just described? Blanche asked. For most of his life, Trump has acted as if the Constitution protects his right to do basically whatever he wants. It doesnt. The deference that Trump takes for granted because of his money and power extends somewhat into the courtroomno other criminal defendant would be allowed to post about witnesses and jurors the way he has, and Merchan has yet to rule on the contempt issuebut it doesnt extend all the way. In the courtroom, Trump is being confronted directly in a way he simply is not used to. It might be cold in there, but the heat is on.

Link:

Donald Trump Is Being Ritually Humiliated in Court - The New Yorker

Just hours after the Supreme Court heard arguments last week in an important abortion case and the day before it considered whether former President Donald J. Trump must face trial on charges that he plotted to subvert the 2020 election, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. took a break to share some timely reflections on the role of oral arguments in the courts work.

He has given the question a lot of thought. Before he joined the court in 2005, he was a leading member of its bar, arguing before the court 39 times. Since then, he has heard more than 1,000 arguments. And he has published a study of what makes for an effective oral presentation.

Oral argument remains the organizing point for the entire judicial process, he told an audience at Georgetown University Law Center on Wednesday that included Justices Elena Kagan and Brett M. Kavanaugh.

Indeed, he said, oral arguments are when the justices effectively begin their deliberations.

While some of the justices questions are clearly earnest inquiries trying to nail down facts or clarify the lawyers positions, much of the communication at arguments is actually among the justices.

Because the members of our court generally do not discuss the cases too much before oral argument, Chief Justice Roberts said, there are two sets of conversations taking place at the argument: an obvious one between the advocates and the justices and the usually more subtle one between the justices, because we reveal by the tone and content of our questions clues about how we may be looking at the issues in the case.

He added, The discussion at argument frequently shapes not only the result, but also the rationale, as the back-and-forth reveals hidden complexities or concerns about how the holding in the case at hand might affect other decisions.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit andlog intoyour Times account, orsubscribefor all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?Log in.

Want all of The Times?Subscribe.

Visit link:

Amid Cases on Abortion and Trump, Roberts Reflects on Supreme Court's Work - The New York Times

It was Super Tuesday at Mar-a-Lago, and the people his people were feeling good. They had arrived around sundown, disgorged from a small fleet of buses and ushered into the grand ballroom. Some of them were old hands at this place, they explained with great pleasure. Others, first-timers, gawked visibly at the chandeliers the size of jet turbines, the gilded molding and the grape-dangling cherubs, all that marble and mirror.

Its not quite Versailles, a county party chairman mused aloud, but its the closest thing we have here.

Screens around the room were tuned to Fox News, relaying word of one state primary triumph after another, and the mood was expansive. Forgiato Blow, a self-described MAGA rapper, was showing off a heavy Cuban link chain, from which dangled a lemon-size bust of the man we had all come to see. His face was rendered in solid gold. His diamond eyes peered out from beneath the brim of a red cap, the cap, emblazoned with his once and future promise to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.

The man himself appeared at 10:14 p.m., strolling into the ballroom from somewhere in the private depths of the club. For a strange moment he stood there, alone and mostly unnoticed in the doorway, a ghost at his own party, before the music kicked in and he made his way to the stage.

He began with some thank-yous and superlatives, some reminiscences about his presidency and denunciations of the one that followed. Then he got down to business. Were going to win this election, because we have no choice, Donald J. Trump told us. If we lose this election, were not going to have a country left. He said it in a tone he might have used to complain about the rain that had doused Palm Beach that weekend.

Go here to read the rest:

How Trumps Rhetoric at Rallies Has Escalated - The New York Times

At a quarter to ten on Thursday morning at the Supreme Court of the United States, the current and several former U.S. Solicitors General milled about in the well between the counsels tables and the front rows, shaking hands with attorneys who were about to make oral arguments and chatting with veteran reporters who have covered the Court for decades. Special Counsel Jack Smith came in and took his seat. A U.S. marshal sternly shushed some prominent figures, and they went silent.

It was the third argument before the Court in three months related to Donald Trumps attempt to overturn his loss of the 2020 Presidential election. This one (Trump v. U.S.) was about his claim that Smiths prosecution of him for election interference (U.S. v. Trump) must be dismissed because a former President is immune from criminal liability for any official acts he undertook in office. When the Justices took the bench at 10 A.M. and looked out at the not-quite-full courtroom, their grumpy countenances seemed to reflect the Trump fatigue that many Americans are feeling.

As the Justices ground through nearly three hours of arguments, my mind went into split-screen mode: the gray decorum of constitutional debate over executive power in Washington, D.C., and the sordid vividness of Trumps criminal trial about hush money happening at the same time in New York City. Trump himself was not at the Supreme Court hearing, because he had to be present as a defendant in a gritty lower Manhattan criminal courtroom, where David Pecker, the former publisher of the National Enquirer, was testifying that, in order to aid Trumps 2016 campaign, he paid a hundred and fifty thousand dollars for a Playboy models story about having sex with Trump, with no intent to publish it, and sought reimbursement from Trump. The contrast between the two proceedings could not have better underscored the distinction that the Justices were puzzling through that day: between the person who is President and the institution of the Presidency.

Without Presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, there can be no Presidency as we know it, Trumps lawyer John Sauer began. His brief argued that a denial of criminal immunity would incapacitate every future President with de facto blackmail and extortion while in office, and condemn him to years of post-office trauma at the hands of political opponents. The rhetoric was histrionic, but every Justice seemed to take seriously the concern that a sitting Presidents worry about future personal liability would impair his ability to fulfill his constitutional duties. This concern led the Supreme Court, in 1982, to hold that a President is forever and absolutely immune from civil-damages lawsuits for any official act he undertakes as President. The Department of Justice has also long taken the view that the President cannot be criminally prosecuted for federal crimes while he is in office, though it has assumed that he is not entirely immune from prosecution once he leaves office.

In the current case, Trump asserts that the same concerns that warrant a Presidents absolute immunity from civil-damages lawsuits for his official acts also warrant absolute criminal immunity for his official acts. The government points out that, though the likelihood of a former President being attacked with myriad civil lawsuits justifies blanket immunity, the risk of unjustified criminal prosecutions by the Department of Justice is not so worrisome, because federal prosecutors are regulated by legal and ethical norms that serve as sufficient safeguards. Justice Alito, who noted that he served in the Justice Department for a long time, was skeptical that it was enough to protect former Presidents.

Michael Dreeben, arguing for the government, said, The Framers knew too well the dangers of a king who could do no wrong. To that point, Justice Elena Kagan asked Sauer whether a President who ordered the military to stage a coup would be immune from prosecution. After an uncomfortable beat of silence, he answered, I think it would depend on the circumstances whether it was an official act. When Kagan flatly asked, Is it an official act? he said that it could well be, but that it would depend on the specific facts and context.

Although at first blush there appeared to be an enormous gulf between Trumps position and that of the Justice Department, it turned out to be not as wide as all that. Both sides clearly agree that a former President can be prosecuted for his unofficial or personal acts. Trump even admits that some of the conduct that Smith alleged in the indictment, such as conspiring with private attorneys to create fraudulent slates of electors, are unofficial actsmeaning that if Smith decided to pursue only those allegations, Trump would claim no immunity. Moreover, the government agrees with Trump that some official acts are in the core of power that the Constitution exclusively assigns to the President, such as the pardon power, the power to recognize foreign nations, the power to veto legislation, the power to make appointments, and that Congress cannot regulate them at allmeaning that it would be unconstitutional to prosecute the President under federal criminal statutes that interfere with that power.

The dispute that remains concerns the Presidents official acts that fall outside that core of exclusive Presidential power; Trump argues that those acts are criminally immune; the government, that they are not. Given the concerns the Justices displayed in their questioning, and the Justice Departments own moderate position, the Justices are likely to put some limits on the ability to prosecute a former President. The Courts ruling will make little practical difference for Smiths prosecution of Trump, because the chances of a trial being completed by the November election even in the most expedited scenarios are slim. Smiths best hope, though, may be to move forward quickly with allegations that both sides agree involve Trumps unofficial acts.

One clue that the Justices are going to take their time and resist the pressure of the election schedule was that, during the hours of oral argument, none of them uttered the name Trump. His name was mentioned exactly once by Sauer, and by Dreeben only in reference to a case called Trump v. Hawaii. Sauers opening statement named George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, but not Trump. And discussions of the President tended to default to a President in the abstract, a hypothetical President, or multiple former Presidents other than Trump. It was as if there were an unspoken understanding about He who must not be named.

A further clue that the Court will not coperate with any plans to get this prosecution resolved before November was the conservative Justices insistence that Trump (again, not named) was not their concern. Justice Alito: I want to talk about this in the abstract because what is before us, of course, does involve this particular case, which is immensely important, but whatever we decide is going to apply to all future Presidents. Justice Gorsuch: Im not concerned about this case, but I am concerned about future uses of the criminal law to target political opponents. Justice Kavanaugh: Like Justice Gorsuch, Im not focussed on the here and now of this case. Im very concerned about the future.

Read more here:

The Supreme Court Appears Poised to Protect the Presidencyand Donald Trump - The New Yorker

Watergate figure John Dean opined on the importance of the documents that are being presented in former President Donald Trumps hush money trial as he revealed what has made him restless about the proceedings.

Trump is accused of falsifying business records to cover up hush money that he allegedly paid to porn actor Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election to keep her quiet about their earlier alleged affair.

Dean, who served as White House counsel to President Richard Nixon and later flipped on Nixon to cooperate with prosecutors, told CNN over the weekend that a lot of documents were involved in the case.

But, he pointed out, We dont know if they have or do not have information or witnesses or documents that directly link Donald Trump to the falsification of the documents or whether thats going to be something that has to be inferred by really overwhelming evidence that theres no other way it could have happened other than from his allowing it to happen.

Thats a thinner case, he explained. If they have a direct witness, or they have direct evidence, thats going to be a powerful case.

So, this is whats keeping me on the edge of my seat as I watch what unfolds, Dean added.

Watch the full interview here:

Originally posted here:

John Dean Says 1 Thing 'Keeping Me On The Edge Of My Seat' In Trump Trial - Yahoo! Voices

THE PETITIONER in Trump v United States was not present on April 25th when the Supreme Court considered whether he and other ex-presidents should enjoy immunity from criminal liability for their official actions while in office. Rather than being ensconced at One First Street among the Italian marble and red velvet, Donald Trump was seated in a less august courtroom in New York Citywhere he faces state charges for allegedly covering up hush-money payments to an adult-film star.

A win in Trump v United States would not help him in New York, as those alleged crimes took place on the eve of the 2016 election before he became president. Nor would success at the Supreme Court let him wriggle out of charges in Florida related to classified documentsthat alleged mishandling happened after he left office. Yet a dose of immunity would spell the end of the most serious case against Mr Trump: federal charges brought by Jack Smith, the special counsel, that he conspired to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

Two lower courts rejected Mr Trumps plea for blanket immunity. In February, a three-judge panel at the appeals court wrote that wholly immunising presidents who have left office would undercut the primary constitutional duty of the judicial branch to do justice in criminal prosecutions. But the nearly three-hour hearing at the Supreme Courtwhich for long stretches sounded more like a graduate-level seminar on presidential power than a judicial proceedingmade clear that the justices think the legal matter is less than clear.

John Sauer, Mr Trumps lawyer, warned that a looming threat of prosecution after leaving office will distort the presidents decision-making and hamstring him while in office. Without blanket immunity, he suggested, Barack Obama could be charged today with murder for errant drone strikes and, down the road, President Joe Biden could be held criminally liable for letting immigrants overrun the border. Thats no way to run an executive branch, Mr Sauer insisted.

But Mr Sauers pat plea aroused scepticism across the bench. Chief Justice John Roberts asked whether a president who appoints an ambassador after accepting a bribe could be prosecuted after leaving office. Mr Sauers replythat bribe-taking is outside the scope of official presidential conductdid not satisfy the chief. But appointing an ambassador is certainly within the official responsibilities of the president, he said, demonstrating the difficulty of untangling the acts two components. This led Justice Sonia Sotomayor to resuscitate a hypothetical scenario from the appeals-court hearing: what about using a Navy SEAL team to assassinate a political rival? When Mr Sauer said that a president could not be held liable for such an official act, Justice Sotomayor, with backing from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, said Americas founders never envisioned that ex-presidents would be immune from prosecution for criminal acts undertaken for personal gain. The constitutions framers toyed with granting such a cloak to presidents, Justice Sotomayor said, and opted against it.

A pair of questions emerged as the justices main concerns. First, which of Mr Trumps alleged actions count as official (and are thus potentially immunised) and which are private (and thus a legitimate basis for criminal prosecution)? Second, more broadly, which principles should judges use to discern the difference, and through what type of judicial process?

Mr Sauer conceded early on that many of Jack Smiths allegations against Mr Trump fell in the private category. He admitted that spreading knowingly false claims of election fraud and conspiring with a private attorney to file false allegations are both private acts, and therefore prosecutable. By contrast, meeting with the Department of Justice to deliberate about whos going to be the acting attorney-general of the United States is an official act, Mr Sauer said, and should not spur criminal liability.

Justice Elena Kagan also pressed Mr Sauer on how to draw these lines. She was aghast at his claim that Mr Trump was acting officially when he urged legislators in Arizona to hold a hearing on election fraud, and when he worked with Republican Party officials to organise fraudulent slates of presidential electors. And she coaxed Mr Sauer into a corner where he, uncomfortably, conceded that perhaps presidents could not be held liable for spurring coups or sharing nuclear secrets with foreign governments.

Neither these extraordinary admissions nor a meticulous presentation by Michael Dreeben, who argued against Mr Trumps plea, deterred the conservative justices from standing up for a robust reading of presidential power. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas all seemed to lean heavily in Mr Trumps direction, even if not towards a grant of absolute immunity. And Justice Brett Kavanaugh advocated an idearecently floated in conservative legal circlesthat only criminal laws with a clear statementreferencing the president can limit a presidents conduct. But only two criminal laws fit that bill, Mr Dreeben said, and so, under Justice Kavanaughs reading, the entire corpus of federal criminal law, including bribery offences, sedition, murder, would all be off limits.

As Justice William Brennan used to say, with five votes, you can do anything at the Supreme Court. Four justices seem intent on giving Mr Trump enough of a win that his election-stealing case will be scuttled. (This would happen if delaysstemming from an instruction to the lower courts to sort out which of Mr Trumps alleged acts count as privatepush the trials start past the presidential election in November. If he wins, Mr Trump could end the litigation.) Four more, the quartet of women, seem keen to allow the trial to get started, one way or another. Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised the spectre of letting it begin immediately and was the only jurist to broach the elephant in the courtroom: Mr Smiths concern for speed.

That makes Chief Justice Roberts, whose sceptical questions for Mr Dreeben balanced his worries about Mr Sauers position, the probable deciding vote. The nuances and divisions revealed in the hearing may make speedy resolution of the case difficult. The ruling could come in a matter of weeksor might not arrive until the end of June.

Stay on top of American politics withThe US in brief, our daily newsletter with fast analysis of the most important electoral stories, andChecks and Balance, a weekly note from our Lexington columnist that examines the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters.

The rest is here:

The Supreme Court seems divided over Donald Trump's immunity - The Economist