Category Archives: Donald Trump

Carroll Bogert is president of the Marshall Project, a nonprofit publication dedicated to covering criminal justice.

Since Donald Trump was convicted of 34 felonies last week, gleeful headlines have sprouted across the media, with a new descriptor for the former president: felon.

The New York Times editorial board condemned him under the pithy banner: Donald Trump, Felon.

This newspaper ran an analysis by senior political reporter Aaron Blake headlined, Trump is a felon. Heres why that could matter in the 2024 race.

Even the New York Post, which ran a sympathetic one-liner on its front page, Injustice, included a subhead calling him the first felon president.

Trump has delayed and avoided judicial proceedings for much of his career. Surely part of the impetus behind the sudden widespread use of the word felon is to take Trump down a peg, to label him as no better than a common criminal. And that is the problem.

Most people in prisons and jails in America come from lives of poverty and discrimination. A label such as felon or inmate contributes to keeping them at the margins of society.

Im the president of the Marshall Project, a nonprofit journalism organization dedicated to covering criminal justice in the United States. We do not endorse candidates or political viewpoints, but we believe journalism can make our legal system more fair, effective, transparent and humane. Achieving that ambition requires covering people charged and convicted of crimes as just that people. It starts with the language we use.

The new edition of the Associated Presss influential stylebook, coincidentally released the day before Trumps conviction, states clearly, Do not use felon, convict, or ex-con as nouns. Instead, the stylebook advises journalists when possible, [to] use person-first language to describe someone who is incarcerated or someone in prison. The stylebook included a criminal justice chapter for which the Marshall Project was consulted.

Labels marginalize people. They turn a moving verb into a fixed noun. They dehumanize and subjugate. As my colleague Lawrence Bartley wrote in a moving essay, I am not your inmate, that term fell on his ears like the n-word.

Person-first language is a concept borrowed from the disability rights movement. We should use it as best we can, but in the beautifully clear words of the editor overseeing our guidance on word choice, Akiba Solomon, journalism is a discipline of clarity. Journalists shouldnt use jargon. People need to understand what the heck were writing about.

At the same time, language can and should change.

Trump does not come from the margins of society. He is wealthy, powerful and was convicted of 34 felonies. Why should the media treat him with the same care its beginning to show toward other people convicted of felonies?

By calling Trump a felon, we risk rehabilitating a word that has fallen out of favor for good reason.

Trump is a person convicted of felonies. So are millions of other Americans. How we describe him affects them, too.

Visit link:

Opinion | Media should stop calling Donald Trump a 'felon' - The Washington Post - The Washington Post

As The Post reported, on May 30, history was made when former president Donald Trump was found criminally guilty by a 12-person jury of his peers, thus becoming the first and only former president of the United States to be a felon.

The rule of law and the principle that no person is above it both prevailed, which is particularly rewarding being a member and practitioner in continuous good standing of a state bar for more than half a century. But while a New York jury won this battle for the nation, the war rages on, as reflected by the remarks Mr. Trump made after the verdict arrived. He asserted, as he has done for years with anything that doesnt go his way, that the case against him was rigged, that our country is in decline, that the trial judge was against him (although the judge performed admirably), that he was not tried by his peers (despite refusing to testify) and that the Biden administration was responsible (although the case was brought by a state district attorney according to that states law, over which President Biden had no influence).

Mr. Trump and his minions are attempting to delegitimize our rule of law and our justice system, as we have seen occur in Third World countries and Russia. We cannot allow this to happen. Voters from both sides of the aisle must ensure that Trumps warped, dictatorial and incredibly disingenuous thinking does not prevail on Nov. 5.

Miles J. Zaremski, Highland Park, Ill.

The writer is an attorney with Zaremski Law Group.

Justice still works in America when 12 randomly chosen jurors, screened carefully by attorneys from both sides and including people who confided that they had sought information in the past from Donald Trumps own social media site, weighed the evidence for weeks and brought forth a unanimous verdict against the powerful Republican Party leader. This is far from the least important of Mr. Trumps legal cases. What could be more consequential than the threshold misconduct that aided his election and, therefore, made all his other alleged crimes possible?

Larry Lobert, Grosse Pointe Park, Mich.

It is ironic that Donald Trump used the legal system for decades to his advantage and now claims the system is corrupt. It is ironic that the candidate who encouraged the phrase Lock her up may now be subjected to incarceration. Mr. Trump succeeded in leading half of the United States to believe the news media was biased and presented false news. With his own false claims, he succeeded again in sowing doubt in our election process. Now, hes focusing on the FBI and the U.S. justice system. Abraham Lincoln said, A house divided against itself cannot stand.

David Mendelsohn, Ashburn

The simple fact is that after 60-plus cases failed to prove that Donald Trumps 2020 defeat was in a stolen election, the only case to go to trial and stand legal scrutiny strongly suggests that it was the 2016 election, in which Mr. Trump won, that was stolen. The key was a plot to suppress, and hide from the voters, information about his profligate lifestyle that could have swung the election. To be sure, knowledge of his profligacy was known (the infamous Access Hollywood tape), but a scheme to catch and kill the evidence and illegally hide it is another matter. Weve heard so much disinformation about the 2020 election that we tend to forget how close the 2016 election was. Mr. Trumps margin of victory in some of the swing states in 2016 (especially Michigan and Pennsylvania) was considerably less than Joe Bidens margin of victory when those states flipped in 2020.

Mark Cooper, Silver Spring

Hold the champagne. The guilty verdict against Donald Trump is a classic example of winning the battle but losing the war. As catcher Yogi Berra said, It aint over till its over. Once the celebration by President Biden is over, voters will elect Mr. Trump because of his policies, which are more important than his being found guilty in a case that many believe should never have been brought to trial.

Paul Schoenbaum, Richmond

The U.S. House of Representatives has a rule that says members who are convicted of felonies that may result in two or more years imprisonment should refrain from voting on bills. The House strips those members of their ability to represent their constituents. That is how serious the House takes having a felon in their midst. Newt Gingrich, the firebrand conservative, passed that rule many years ago.

How hypocritical is it, then, that the Republican members of the House are now telling everyone that it is okay to have a felon as president? Representatives like Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.), Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) are hypocrites. Members of Congress would not allow Donald Trump, a felon, to vote in their House, so why should the rest of us want him to occupy our White House?

Michael J. Makara, Mays Landing, N.J.

I was an adolescent growing up in the mid-South during the Ronald Reagan presidency. My family members were all Republicans. I remember Reagan standing up to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. The United States wasnt perfect, but it seemed to have a strong standing in the world. I traveled abroad as a young person, and people in Europe and Russia admired this country and its freedoms.

But now, the Republican Party once the party of Abraham Lincoln plans this summer to nominate a felon convicted of falsifying business records as its candidate for president? Of the United States? The same party that has long been tough on crime, fiscally responsible and strong in foreign policy? What does this say to the rest of the world?

Im just an American standing in front of a political party asking them to get over their dang selves. Republicans: You used to love the justice system and the rule of law. But now you want to gut our American institutions because theyre not nice enough to Donald Trump? Come on.

Delia Zielinski, Hagerstown, Md.

I have heard attorneys described as officers of the court. They are responsible for upholding the justice system with respect and professionalism.

I am therefore appalled to see attorneys, especially those who hold elected office, denouncing the court cases against Donald Trump as President Biden weaponizing the Justice Department or witch hunts. They know these are lies.

They attack the New York case while knowing it was fairly decided. The judge was the ultimate professional, treating all sides fairly and impartially. The evidence and witnesses clearly described a criminal conspiracy to influence the 2016 presidential election. The jury took its responsibility seriously.

I wish these elected attorneys, as well as the Supreme Court and U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon, would take their responsibilities just as seriously.

Malcolm Lyle Jr., Asheville, N.C.

Donald Trump, now a felon, has mobilized the Republican Party and Republican members of Congress to criticize Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) for bringing the case against Mr. Trump, Justice Juan Merchan for his conduct of the trial and the jury for not acquitting defendant Trump.

However, not one of the people loyal to Mr. Trump has claimed that he is innocent of the acts that underlie the charges. Not one. For the party of law and order, it is apparently fine to falsify business records, and it is okay to use fraudulent documents to hide damaging information from voters. Republicans suggest that courts should ignore these violations of the law when they apply to Mr. Trump. Got it.

Andrea Port Jacobs, Columbia, Md.

This is a view from a British citizen who is struggling to understand why America needed to be made great again. It has always stood, sometimes struggling, as a beacon for justice. Its justice system, while never perfect, provides the potential of fairness without favor.

Without being reelected, Donald Trump has made America great again in the eyes of all who believe that no one is above the law.

Anthony McColgan, Cottingham, England

Regarding the June 1 Style article Fox News hosts express dismay over Trump verdict, what these MAGA pundits and politicians are doing by baselessly accusing the jurors of bias and impropriety is not just illogical and reprehensible. Psychologists call it projection. Poker players call it a tell. By accusing the jury, the Fox News hosts and their GOP repeaters reveal their lack of moral core. Their base assumption is that no person acts with integrity because they themselves are devoid of it. They cannot get their heads around the fact that someone can take an oath and follow the law; whether its a juror, or an FBI agent, or an election official. The MAGA blowhards that call the Trump verdict rigged are only showing their hands. And theyre holding trash.

While the world suffered considerably from the Trump regimes attack on the rule of law, the guilty verdict offers some respite. Let me express the feeling in verse:

Theres joy that comes with justice.

It first dances at her feet,

Then soars beyond the heavens

From where it wont retreat.

It is the call of freedom

That always may be heard,

The sound that lifts, unites us

In thought, in deed, in word.

It sings throughout the ages,

A harmony so pure

Heard by soldiers off to war:

Is whom theyve fallen for.

Justice holds us like our conscience,

When its felt and known to be.

It protects us from our weakness

We strengthened to just be.

Those not content to be themselves,

Whove forgotten who they are.

Need justice to remind them

That they have gone too far.

Martin Bell, Balgowlah, Australia

Continue reading here:

Opinion | Trump has been convicted, but maybe hold the champagne - The Washington Post

In 2016, Donald Trump seemed to pull an inside straight by narrowly winning Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin while losing the popular vote by three million. We now know, Trump committed 34 felonies to win that election.

Without these crimes, he seems almost certain to have lost to Hillary Clinton. She would have been sworn in on Jan. 20, 2017. She would have filled two Supreme Court vacancies and enacted her legislative agenda.

Roe v. Wade would never have been overturned. The progress made under the Obama administration would have been continued. Following a global pandemic, millions might still be alive.

As we reflect on the outcome of the New York trial, we should pause to acknowledge that history was tragically derailed by Trumps felonious conduct.

Trump continued his election crime spree in 2020. This time, it largely took place in the aftermath of an election he was surprised he did not win. When his frivolous legal attacks failed to overturn the result of President Joe Bidens seven million vote victory, he resorted to fake electors, racketeering and insurrection.

While criminal trials in those cases have been delayed, the evidence is overwhelming. His defense to the Washington, D.C. criminal case hinges on a theory of presidential immunity that would allow presidents to assassinate their political opponents and stage coups.

At the outset of his candidacy, the media discounted his bravado that he could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and wouldnt lose any voters. At the time, we were told to take Trump seriously but not literally. History has shown that was a mistake.

If Donald Trump succeeds, there will be no justice for him. He will become the autocrat he promises to his supporters.

Career criminals rarely stop unless they are apprehended and punished. Narcissistic authoritarians feed off abusing power and violating norms and laws. Sociopaths never develop a conscience.

The morning after his criminal conviction in New York, Trump gave a rambling speech attacking the judicial system and lying about the verdict, prosecutors and judge. Buried in his remarks was this line: Im willing to do whatever I have to do to save our country and to save our Constitution.

In an interview with Fox News, he warned that the public might not stand for a criminal punishment. He ominously predicted that at a certain point, theres a breaking point.

When Donald Trump says he will do whatever he has to do, he means it as a threat. When he talks about breaking points, he is threatening violence.

Trump has already told us he will only accept the outcome of the 2024 election if he wins. He recently claimed he won Minnesota in 2020. In fact, he lost by over 200,000 votes. He is claiming that absent fraud, he will win New York and New Jersey in 2024.

Trump is planning his next crime. We dont yet know the exact details, but we know it involves subverting the will of the voters and undermining free and fair elections. And we know that he will spare nothing and no one who gets in his way.

Already his campaign and their allies are suing states to throw out election rules to sow chaos by throwing out the rules by which elections are conducted. They are litigating to criminalize voter registration, increase the number of ballots that are discarded and purge voters. Perhaps most chilling, they assert a constitutional right to harass election officials and voters.

Most importantly for this fall, Trump and his allies are focused on empowering election deniers to refuse to certify election results. They tried this in a handful of places after the 2020 election. Now they are far more organized. Democracy is in far more danger.

This time Trump will have more willing accomplices, more committed conspirators. Rather than a misfit band of lawyers and a handful of sycophants, this time he will have nearly every Republican senator, congressman, governor and state attorney general at his disposal. His grassroots army of followers is more primed to take extreme action, including violence.

Meanwhile too many elites in politics and the media insist that the threat is overblown. Over expensive wine and canapes, they denounce partisanship as the real evil. They take pride in seeing two sides where this is only one; shades of gray, where there is only black and white. They smugly ignore the possibility and consequences if they are wrong.

If Donald Trump succeeds, there will be no justice for him. He will become the autocrat he promises to his supporters. The rule of law and democracy will be irreparably damaged.

Trump is plotting his next crime. We must do everything we can to prevent it.

See the article here:

Donald Trump Is Plotting His Next Crime - Democracy Docket

One March night in the nations capital, Senator J.D. Vance, Republican of Ohio, left a conservative gala to join a group having dinner with Donald Trump Jr.

As the meal wrapped, Mr. Vance decided, on a whim, to invite a friend, whom he had just introduced at the gala dinner, to meet the former presidents son. Soon, the three Republicans Mr. Vance, Mr. Trump Jr. and Mr. Vances friend, David Sacks, the Silicon Valley entrepreneur were getting to know one another for a half-hour or so in a private dining room of the Conrad Hotel.

It was there, at that impromptu post-dinner hang hours after Mr. Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, that Mr. Sacks signaled that he was all-in for Trump 2024.

On Thursday evening, this time on his own California turf, it will be Mr. Sackss turn to host Team Trump. The former president himself is flying to San Francisco to attend a fund-raiser at Mr. Sackss $20 million home on the toniest street in the citys tony Pacific Heights neighborhood. The private event, the first campaign fund-raiser since Mr. Trumps criminal conviction last week, is expected to raise north of $12 million, according to people involved in the gathering.

Beyond the money, the fund-raiser in the beating heart of the liberal tech industry is also shaping up to be a landmark event, at least symbolically.

Four years ago, and certainly eight years ago, the Bay Area remained a haven for liberalism and offered little support for Mr. Trump. But that Obama-era bonhomie between Silicon Valley and the Democratic Party has come close to disintegrating. These days, entrepreneurs complain as much about President Biden as they do about Lina Khan, the chair of the Federal Trade Commission, who has ascended to Darth Vader-like status in some corners of the technology industry.

The rest is here:

Trump Gets a Fund-Raiser in Silicon Valley - The New York Times

Former President Donald J. Trump says he is prepared to prosecute his political enemies if he is elected this fall. Simply making those threats, legal experts said, does real damage to the rule of law.

But if he is already challenging bedrock norms about the justice system as a candidate, Mr. Trump, if he wins the presidency again, would gain immense authority to actually carry out the kinds of legal retribution he has been promoting.

The Justice Department is part of the executive branch, and he will be its boss. He will be able to tell its officials to investigate and prosecute his rivals, and Mr. Trump, who has made no secret of his desire to purge the federal bureaucracy of those found insufficiently loyal to his agenda, will be able to fire those who refuse.

While the department has traditionally had substantial independence, that is only because presidents have granted it. If the legal system resists political prosecutions in a second Trump term, it will be largely because judges and jurors reject them.

Mr. Trumps musings on his planned prosecutions serve an immediate political purpose, highlighting his argument that his conviction in New York was the product of an effort by Democrats to keep him from being elected again and providing the red meat of prospective retribution to his base.

But they also have the effect, partly incidental and partly calculated, of undermining faith in the integrity of the criminal justice system, a development that could have profound effects in a nation where the rule of law has been foundational.

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:

Trump's Vows to Prosecute Rivals Put Rule of Law on the Ballot - The New York Times

On Sunday, Trump wrote on Truth Social, his personal social media site, that the Supreme Court MUST intervene after a New York jury found him guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records. Though Trumps post wasnt written with the precision of a legal brief, he appeared to float two separate theories that could justify tossing out his conviction: that the judge was impermissibly biased and that the prosecutor was out to get Trump.

Trumps rant was echoed by many Republicans, including US House Speaker Mike Johnson, who claimed that he knows many of the justices personally and that they are deeply concerned about Trumps conviction.

Speaker Johnson is undoubtedly correct that many of the justices are upset that the leader of their political party was convicted of multiple felony counts, a fact that could lead some voters to favor President Joe Biden over Trump in the 2024 election.

Last March, five of the Courts six Republicans voted to effectively neutralize a provision of the Constitution that prohibits former officials who engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States from seeking high office again. (All nine justices voted to reverse a state court decision tossing Trump off the ballot, but only five voted to effectively immunize Trump from accountability under this provision of the Constitution.)

Similarly, the Supreme Court has for months delayed Trumps federal criminal trial for attempting to overturn Bidens victory in the 2020 election, all but ensuring that it wont take place until after the November election.

But will the justices step in to nullify the one Trump criminal trial that was tried to conviction before the election? And can the Courts Republican majority intervene fast enough to throw out the conviction before voters cast their ballots this fall?

Lets take these questions in reverse order.

Assume, for just a moment, that a majority of the justices are partisan hacks who are determined to remove the stigma of a felony conviction from the Republican presidential candidate before the election. Could they actually invalidate his conviction before the November election?

The answer to this question should be no. Under the rules that apply to criminal defendants who are not named Donald Trump, two state-level appeals courts should review Trumps conviction before the justices could intervene. Both of those courts would ordinarily take months or longer to review a criminal appeal.

To toss out Trumps conviction before the election, the Court would have to take such extraordinary procedural liberties that this outcome is probably unlikely. But its also not possible to rule it out entirely. Not that long ago, it seemed unthinkable that the Court would give serious thought to Trumps argument that he is immune from prosecution for his attempt to overthrow the 2020 election. At oral argument in that case, however, most of the justices appeared eager to rule that former presidents have, at least, some immunity from criminal prosecution.

The Roberts Court also has a history of embracing legal arguments that were widely viewed as risible by the legal community after those arguments were adopted by the Republican Party. So, with a wide range of elected Republicans now calling for Trumps conviction to be tossed out, there is a real risk that the GOP-appointed justices will leap on this bandwagon.

This Supreme Court also has a history of manipulating its calendar to achieve substantive results. During the Trump administration, for example, when a lower court blocked one of Trumps immigration policies, the Court would often race to reinstate that policy days or weeks after the administrations lawyers asked the justices to do so. After Biden became president, however, the Court started sitting on similar cases for nearly a year, even in cases where the Court ultimately concluded that the lower court was wrong to block one of Bidens policies.

Similarly, after the Colorado Supreme Court held that Trump must be removed from the 2024 ballot because of his role in the January 6 insurrection, the Supreme Court reversed that decision on an extraordinarily expedited time frame, hearing oral arguments and deciding the case a little more than two months after the Colorado courts decision.

By contrast, the Court has now delayed Trumps federal election theft trial for nearly six months. And, based on the questions many justices asked during an April oral argument, the Court appears likely to hand down a decision that will force more delay and ensure that Trump is not tried before the November election.

Even so, to bypass the two state-level appeals courts that are supposed to consider Trumps conviction before the Supreme Court weighs in, the justices would have to engage in some truly extraordinary procedural gymnastics. Even Speaker Johnson didnt expect the Supreme Court to move quickly when he predicted that the justices would eventually step in to help Trump: Johnson told Fox News that its going to take a while.

Trumps conviction will first appeal to New Yorks intermediate appeals court (which, somewhat confusingly, is called the appellate division of the states Supreme Court). After the appellate division weighs in, the losing party can then appeal that decision to the highest court in New York, which is known as the Court of Appeals.

Except in very rare cases, any appeal of any trial court decision will take months. Trumps lawyers will need time to review the record in the trial and decide which issues they want to appeal, and they will need more time to brief the case. Then, the prosecutors will also need sufficient time to review Trumps briefs and prepare their own responsive brief, which Trumps lawyers will then be given some time to respond to. Once the briefs are ready, they will be distributed to a panel of judges, who ordinarily spend months reviewing the case, conducting oral arguments, and writing an opinion. This process can take even longer if a judge dissents.

This is just a brief summary of the process that will take place in the appellate division. If Trump plans to bring this case to the US Supreme Court, he will have to repeat this lengthy process in both the New York Court of Appeals and in the Supreme Court itself, and both of those courts have their own time-consuming process to decide which cases they will hear in the first place.

The Supreme Court does have a process, known as certiorari before judgment, which can be used to bypass an appellate court and bring a case directly to the justices, but cert before judgment is supposed to be granted only in the most exceptional cases, and its only supposed to be available to parties challenging a federal (not a state) court decision.

The Courts rules provide that it will be granted only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court. (Notably, when the shoe was on the other foot, the Supreme Court denied special counsel Jack Smiths request for cert before judgment in the Trump immunity case.)

Its hard to see what earth-shattering legal issue could be raised by a state-level prosecution over falsified business records that could justify such a deviation from normal procedures unless, of course, the justices believe that there is a moral imperative to rescue the Republican candidate from an embarrassing news story.

Meanwhile, some of Trumps allies have suggested that Trump could invoke even more obscure procedures, such as asking the Court to use its original jurisdiction to free him without going through the ordinary appeals process at all. But there are any number of problems with this approach among other things, as law professor Lee Kovarsky points out on Twitter, the Supreme Court hasnt granted this kind of relief to someone convicted of a crime since 1925.

In any event, even if the justices are inclined to move fast enough to toss out Trumps conviction before the election, Trumps lawyers would need to formally ask them to do so. So the thing to watch right now is whether Trumps legal team takes the audacious step of filing such a request in the Supreme Court.

As a general rule, each states highest court has the final word on questions of state law, and the Supreme Court is only supposed to get involved in a case if there is some allegation that the lower courts either violated the Constitution or a federal law. This matters because, while there are some plausible legal arguments Trump could raise on appeal, these arguments largely turn on the proper way to understand New Yorks laws.

Trumps strongest argument, for example, turns on the question of whether he was properly convicted of violating the felony version of New Yorks business records law, as opposed to a weaker misdemeanor version. But, while there is genuine uncertainty about how to read this law, the question of how to read a New York criminal statute is a question of state law and thus should be resolved exclusively by New Yorks state courts.

In his Truth Social post, Trump does hint, in his own way, at two legal arguments that could be raised under federal law. He claims that the prosecutor was improperly biased (Radical Left Soros backed D.A., who ran on a platform of I will get Trump) and that the judge is also too biased to hear his case (appointed by Democrats, who is HIGHLY CONFLICTED).

Yet, while it is theoretically possible to challenge a conviction on the grounds that the judge or the prosecutor was unconstitutional biased, as a practical matter these sorts of cases are almost impossible to win.

Before we get into that, its important to note that Trumps allegations against prosecutor Alvin Bragg and Judge Juan Merchan are, to put it mildly, exaggerated. Bragg did not run on an I will get Trump platform. He did, while he was campaigning for his current job, highlight his previous experience bringing civil lawsuits against Donald Trump, but thats because Braggs predecessor had already opened a criminal investigation into Trump. So it appears that Bragg was trying to convince voters that he had the experience necessary to take over supervision of this ongoing investigation.

As a candidate, Bragg also emphasized that he will follow the facts in that investigation and that every case still has to be judged by the facts and I dont know all the facts.

Similarly, its unclear what could be the basis of a recusal motion against Justice Merchan. The fact that Merchan was appointed by Democrats is not a valid reason to remove him from the case, any more than Judge Aileen Cannon, the Trump appointee overseeing a different Trump prosecution, can be removed from that case solely because she was appointed by Trump.

Similarly, some of Merchans critics have questioned a $35 donation the judge made to a pro-Biden organization. This donation is not ideal, but it also is not a basis for recusal. If judges could be forced off of cases solely because of such a small-dollar political donation, many judges would be forced off of countless cases.

Thats because most judges are either political appointees or elected officials, and people with political ambitions donate to political candidates and organizations all the time. Cannon, for example, gave $100 to Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. Judge Tanya Chutkan, the judge overseeing the election theft case that the Supreme Court has put on hold, made multiple donations to President Barack Obama, in addition to a 2008 donation to Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand.

So lets walk through what the law actually says about when a prosecutor or judge can be removed from a case because of unconstitutional bias.

For prosecutors, the leading case is United States v. Armstrong (1996). Armstrong did hold that the Constitution places some limits on selective prosecution, such as if a criminal defendant were targeted because of their race or religion. Because the First Amendment typically prohibits viewpoint discrimination, it follows that a politician could not be targeted because of their political beliefs.

As a practical matter, however, Armstrong laid out a legal standard that is almost impossible for anyone challenging an allegedly selective prosecution to overcome. Our cases delineating the necessary elements to prove a claim of selective prosecution have taken great pains to explain that the standard is a demanding one. To prevail, Trump would have to show that similarly situated individuals who do not share his political views were not prosecuted.

Selective prosecution claims are so hard to win that several scholars have argued that no court has ruled in favor of a party claiming they were impermissibly prosecuted because of their race since Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886). Admittedly, the most recent paper I was able to find examining these cases was published in 2008, so its possible that such a party has prevailed since then. Still, the fact that more than a century passed without such a case succeeding suggests that the bar in these cases is virtually impossible to clear.

There are good reasons, moreover, why it is so hard to prevail in a selective prosecution case. For starters, prosecutors are supposed to be biased in favor of convicting criminal defendants. It is literally their job to do so. Defendants, moreover, enjoy a wide range of protections, such as the requirement that the prosecution must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury. So even if a prosecutor does bring a case for unjust reasons, they dont have the power to convict that defendant on their own.

The constitutional rules governing judicial recusals are a bit more nuanced, but it is still very difficult to remove a judge from a case because of allegations of bias. Just look at Cannon, the Trump appointee who has behaved like she is a member of Trumps defense team in his stolen documents case but who has not yet been forced off the case.

Generally speaking, the Constitution only requires a judge to be removed from a case when they have a financial stake in the cases outcome or when the judge has an unusual personal stake in the case. In Mayberry v. Pennsylvania (1971), for example, the Court held that a judge who was cruelly slandered by a criminal defendant should not preside over that defendants trial for contempt of court because the target of these insults was unlikely to maintain that calm detachment necessary for fair adjudication.

In Caperton v. Massey (2009), the Court did hold that, in extreme cases, campaign donations can justify recusal. But, as the Court emphasized in Caperton, that case involved an extraordinary situation that went well beyond any ordinary case involving a judge who gave or accepted political donations: A wealthy businessman, who had a case pending before the West Virginia Supreme Court, spent $3 million to elect a justice who then ruled in favor of the businessmans company.

Thats a far cry from Merchans (or Cannons, or Chutkans) much smaller donations to political causes.

Caperton, moreover, also emphasized States may choose to adopt recusal standards more rigorous than due process requires. The Constitution has very little to say about judicial recusals because codes of judicial conduct are the principal safeguard against unethical judges. But that also means that the US Supreme Court should play virtually no role in policing claims that a state judge is impermissibly biased.

So its hard to imagine a legitimate reason why the Supreme Court might get involved in Trumps New York case.

Given the justices previous behavior in other cases involving Donald Trump, however, we cannot rule out the possibility that they may get involved anyway.

Update, June 5, 10:55 am: This piece was originally published on June 4 and has been updated to clarify the process someone convicted in state court can use to bypass the ordinary appeals process and bring a case directly to the Supreme Court.

Youve read 1 article in the last month

Here at Vox, we believe in helping everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help to shape it. Our mission is to create clear, accessible journalism to empower understanding and action.

If you share our vision, please consider supporting our work by becoming a Vox Member. Your support ensures Vox a stable, independent source of funding to underpin our journalism. If you are not ready to become a Member, even small contributions are meaningful in supporting a sustainable model for journalism.

Thank you for being part of our community.

Swati Sharma

Vox Editor-in-Chief

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via

See the original post here:

Will the Supreme Court nullify Trump's conviction? - Vox.com

Frank Bruni, a contributing Opinion writer, hosted a written online conversation with Josh Barro, who writes the newsletter Very Serious, and Olivia Nuzzi, the Washington correspondent for New York magazine, to banter and bicker about the potential political fallout of the Trump conviction.

Frank Bruni: Josh, Olivia, great to be with you. I want to start not with Donald Trump but with Joe Biden. What happens on Nov. 5 has as much to do with Bidens navigation of the coming months as with Trumps, and Biden is getting all sorts of conflicting advice.

Whats the optimal balance between running against a convicted felon and focusing on the day-to-day concerns of less partisan, less engaged voters? I for one think Biden needs to be very careful about overdoing the felon part voters are well aware of Trumps status, transgressions and, er, character. Your thoughts?

Josh Barro: A defining feature of this campaign, as Nate Cohn has written on extensively for The Times, is that Bidens support has been holding up well among highly engaged voters and has fallen terribly over the last four years among less-engaged Americans. Much of Bidens slide in the polls is because of worsening views of him among people who did not vote in the 2020 election. So Bidens big challenge is that he really needs to reach people who arent interested in politics and arent likely to hear any given message he sends out.

Most of those less-engaged voters were probably not following the trial closely, or at all. Its important for those people to hear that Trump is a convicted felon. Im not sure they need to hear it from Biden personally it might be a message to be pushed in paid media, by the Biden campaign or by affiliated pressure groups.

Bruni: Hmm, Josh, I dont know. Theres disengaged and then theres living off the grid. They really need a reminder that Trump is a felon?

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.

Go here to see the original:

Opinion | Trump Is Blocking Out the Sun: Three Writers on the Politics of the Guilty Verdict - The New York Times

In Both Sides of a Breakup, the Cut talks to exes about how they got together and why they split up. Etta, 36, and Jeff, 38, started a situationship in the Hamptons that didnt translate well to the city.

Etta: We met in the Hamptons when we were babies. It was early summer of 2016.

Jeff: We met out East the summer I turned 30.

Etta: Id been renting the same share-house with the same girls for a few years. I worked in the city during the week and would go out to the house every weekend. We always had our routine: pregame at our place while someone grills, drink a ton, then go out. Every summer, we all had tons of hookups and relationship dramas. It was early in the summer, so we were all like, What trouble will this year bring?

Jeff: I had a sweet place in Amagansett with a few buddies. Ive never been a Hamptons guy could never afford it till now, honestly so I was eager to get into the spirit of things.

Etta: One of my girlfriends, Rachel, doesnt drink, so shes always our driver. I was drinking screwdrivers all night. I remember having a sore throat and thinking the orange juice would be good for me, plus some Titos vodka; I know call it Hamptons math. The girls I was sharing the house with wanted to go clubbing, and even though I hate clubs, I was drunk and always looking for guys, and they easily convinced me to come along.

Jeff: My buddies and I all had some luck that year workwise. I sold a TV show that Id been writing for a few years while working in the fintech industry. My friends had gotten various promotions at their law firms and whatnot. It was a sick rental, and we felt like ballers. I grew up in Florida, so I love beach life.

Etta: Jeffs friends were flirting with my friends. I thought Jeff was the cutest one of all. I liked his height, and he had a quiet confidence that Im attracted to. There was something kind of preppy about him, or maybe he just seemed rich. I remember thinking he was the most promising in terms of finding a future boyfriend. I was really looking for a relationship. Dating was so tiring, and even though I was only 28, I felt ready to settle down.

Jeff: All of Ettas friends were hot. We were like, Jackpot! I remember thinking, Ill take any of these girls home tonight! But Etta was flirting with me the most aggressively. She told me she was a writer, and I was attracted to that because I had just sold that screenplay and my more bro-y guy friends didnt understand my creative side. We bonded about that a little bit, but it was loud, so we mostly just drank and danced.

Etta: He introduced himself as a writer, which I thought was a plot twist. His look screamed lawyer or banker. I was a copywriter at an advertising agency, but I also freelanced for some lifestyle websites.

Jeff: We got hammered. I bought everyone a couple bottles of Champagne at our table. Etta was plastered. She was dancing on the tables, etc. She was clearly a very sexual person.

Etta: I got really drunk. I was afraid to throw up in front of him, so I just left the club, puked on the road, and found Rachel to drive me home.

Jeff: We exchanged info and then she left with some friends; I cant remember the details.

Etta: I was so sick the next day. A hangover plus strep. Later in the day, I saw a DM from Jeff. He remembered my first and last name and found me on Instagram. I was so happy to see that he thought of me, and even though I felt like death, I was smiling from ear to ear. I didnt text him that I was so deathly ill because it just wasnt a sexy thing to say.

Jeff: We started bullshitting via text. Just basics like Where did you grow up? Do you have brothers and sisters?

Etta: Our texts were witty and cute. I was crushing on him pretty hard from the start. And then we spent the rest of the summer hanging out. We hung out the next weekend, just us, and we had sex on our first date. The sex was amazing. I honestly couldnt get enough of it. And we became a couple quickly.

Jeff: We were hanging out all the time. I liked spending time with her. We had an incredible physical connection. Shes a very attractive girl. She always had to go back to the city for her job, which was in an office, whereas I could pretty much work from wherever since my boss gave me a few paid months off to work on the TV development of my series. I would miss her when she wasnt at the beach.

Etta: After all of July and August together, it was clear that we were a couple. I knew we were monogamous because I asked him to be monogamous and he was in full agreement that that was the right move. And as for our official status, I mean, I fully thought we were boyfriend-girlfriend. Its not cool to ask about labels, so I didnt get into specifics with him, but all signs pointed to the fact that we were a couple.

Jeff: Were we sleeping with other people? No. She asked me not to sleep with other girls if we were going to be in an intimate relationship. I respected that. Were we a serious couple? Unclear. Truthfully, it was always a summer fling for me. My career was more important than anything. If my TV series took off, Id probably have to move to L.A. If it didnt take off, I had enough momentum to take on other projects in that world. My love life was secondary, or even third or fourth, to anything else. I was really young and hungry careerwise!

Etta: So its September and everyone is moving back to the city, and Im excited to see Jeff more and in my real life, not fantasy Hamptons life. A couple of my friends ended up dating a couple of his friends, and we had a little crew to start the fall with. I really liked Jeff. He was kind of detached emotionally and really focused on his work, but behind closed doors he was sweet and affectionate. He texted and called all the time. He called me my girl in front of people. I met his parents, who were visiting from Florida. They were super-nice but definitely into Donald Trump being the next president. I saw it as a small red flag but didnt think much about it. I also believed there was no way in hell hed get elected, so it seemed like a moot point. They also made an off-color joke about my skin color (Im half-Filipino). But parents can be stupid. It was fine.

Jeff: Oh yeah, my parents have been Trump supporters from the start. We dont agree on politics, but I understand where theyre coming from. Theyve worked unbelievably hard for their modest salaries, and they dont want to give it up to lazy people I mean, thats how they see it, not me. Im a liberal guy, and I would never vote for Trump, but back then I kind of admired the balls on him. I was entertained by his antics, shall we say. I was also very ill-informed. Now I recognize that hes a sociopath.

Etta: Everything fell apart at once. Trump got elected, and I was wrecked over it. At the same time, Jeff found out that his TV series was not happening. He was freaking out. Not in a good way.

Jeff: The producer on my project wanted me to pivot and write it as a feature, not a TV series. I was psyched. Before I knew it, I was writing a movie.

Etta: It felt like Jeff was pulling away. He was never available to hang out. He blamed deadlines and other time crunches. He was totally unconcerned with the fact that Trump got elected. He said I was being annoying about the fact that I felt scared for our country.

Jeff: Im not sure if its PC to use the word, but Etta was being a snowflake. She only wanted to talk about politics and the doom and gloom of our nations future. I wasnt especially thrilled that Trump was elected, but I had so many other things on my mind. It was around this time that I felt the relationship had run its course. She was upset all the time about Trump and politics, and I was somewhere completely different in my headspace. I just wanted to write this movie and keep the career on track.

Etta: Whenever wed hang out in November and December, it was all because of me. Id chase him to make plans, Id make the dinner reservations, or Id show up at his house and basically just fuck him. We were super-disconnected. I felt distraught. First our country was a dumpster fire and then my relationship was drifting away in front of my eyes. Even so, I wanted him to be my boyfriend so badly. I was dead set on it. In hindsight, I dont even know why. He didnt exactly fill my love cup, but I liked the optics of it we were a striking couple with a lot of chemistry and I guess I was also dickmatized. I was so attracted to him.

Jeff: I personally did not think hanging out for a few months warranted a proper breakup, but Etta was relentless about seeing me. I remember she showed up at my house one day after partying with her friends, and she was like, I want to fight for us I was like, There is no us. It was pretty rude of me, but I just snapped. I was like, We arent a thing. Go back to your woke friends still crying about Hillary while their fathers pay their rent. I didnt say that part, but I was kind of thinking it.

Etta: I went to his apartment, all messy and drunk, and begged him to prioritize our relationship. He was so cold. He told me we were never in a relationship. Totally gaslit me. Asked me never to contact him again. I left and just sobbed the entire night and for a few days after.

Jeff: I was really irritated that she kept showing up; it felt a little stalkerish. I just needed to shut it down. It took a while for her to finally go away.

Etta: It took a few months, but finally I stopped thinking about him and then I met someone about a year later. My new boyfriend is a professor of international politics, and Ill tell you right now: He is no fan of Donald Trump theres no gray area around it. I look back and laugh about how desperate I was to make Jeff, a closeted Republican, my boyfriend. I was so desperate and so insecure. Ive had a lot of therapy since then!

Jeff: Im now married. My wife and I are both full-time screenwriters. Weve had a tough year with the strike, and shes trying to get pregnant and yadda yadda yadda, but Im very happy and very much in love. When I think about the Etta situation, it just feels like we were silly and immature. Every now and then, Ill DM her about something shes published or vice versa, and its all good.I wish her only the best.

Etta: I think hes a super-talented writer. Hes finding enormous success, and despite it all, Im rooting for him. He was a real asshole to me when we were dating and I tell him that straight up when we talk but he deserves a happy ending. His wife looks perfect for him. Good for them.

Get the Cut newsletter delivered daily

By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice and to receive email correspondence from us.

See the original post here:

Both Sides of a Breakup: He Didn't Think Trump Was So Bad - The Cut

Cindy Elgan glanced into the lobby of her office and saw a sheriffs deputy waiting at the front counter. Lets start a video recording, just in case this goes sideways, Elgan, 65, told one of her employees in the Esmeralda County clerks office. She had come to expect skepticism, conspiracy theories and even threats related to her job as an election administrator. She grabbed her annotated booklet of Nevada state laws, said a prayer for patience and walked into the lobby to confront the latest challenge to Americas electoral process.

The deputy was standing alongside a woman that Elgan recognized as Mary Jane Zakas, 77, a longtime elementary schoolteacher and a leader in the local Republican Party. She often asked for a sheriffs deputy to accompany her to the elections office, in case her meetings became contentious.

Hi, Mary Jane. What can I do for you today? Elgan asked, as she slid a bowl of candy across the counter.

I hope youre having a blessed morning, Zakas said. Unfortunately, a lot of people are still very concerned about the security of their votes. Theyve lost all trust in the system.

Id be happy to answer any questions and explain our process again, Elgan said.

Were beyond that, Zakas said. She reached into her purse and set a notarized form on the counter. Elgan recognized it as a recall petition, a collection of signatures from voters who wanted to remove an elected official from office. It had been more than 20 years since the countys last successful recall, and Elgan leaned down to study the form.

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 article here:

Republican Election Clerk Takes on Trump and His Supporters - The New York Times

A group of Central American migrantsmostly Honduransclimb a metal barrier on the Mexico-U.S. border near El Chaparral border crossing, in Tijuana, Baja California State, Mexico, on November 25, 2018. (Photo by PEDRO PARDO/AFP via Getty Images)

DEMOCRATS AND PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN are overlooking what could be a powerful argument in their do-or-die campaign to make sure Donald Trump does not win the November election. They should immediately seize the problem-solver high ground on immigration and border security.

Theres never been a better or more urgent moment for Democrats to claim the mantle of pragmatists who get that corrective action is needed, and force Trump to own his nakedly political efforts to prolong the border chaos so he could run on it and win. National polls increasingly find immigration is peoples top concern, and Democrats have plenty of material to work with.

Start with Trumps proxy veto of a bipartisan border security deal because, apparently, he feared it might work. As things stand now, he can keep attacking Biden and immigrants and insisting America will implode into an even worse hellscape of chaos and violenceunless he wins.

Inconveniently for Trump, the U.S. crime rate is falling and statistics show that immigrants, documented or not, are less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans. But millions buy into his fantasy that hes a savior come to deliver the United States from American carnage, part deux. A past and possibly future president who would rather fuel a crisis than welcome a solution? The ad writes itself:

Scenes of border chaos. Conservative Republican Senate negotiator James Lankford touting that bipartisan deal as a win for stricter border controls. The Trump-friendly Border Patrol union endorsing the deal as far better than the status quo. Biden repeatedly embracing it as the toughest set of border security reforms weve ever seen. Trump saying Republicans would be STUPID to support it. Speaker Mike Johnson calling it dead on arrival in the House. The tagline: Donald Trump did this.

If that tagline sounds familiar, its because the Biden campaign has already used it in a gut-wrenching ad about a pregnant Texas woman who nearly died because, under the state abortion ban enabled after Trumps Supreme Court nominees overturned Roe v. Wade, doctors were afraid to provide standard medical care to prevent infectionan abortionwhen she had a miscarriage at eighteen weeks. She was in the ICU with sepsis for three days, the ad says, and her fertility was so compromised she may never be able to get pregnant again.

Donald Trump did this is the perfect theme for an expansive ad campaign tying Trump to his actual presidency. A chunk of the nation is in the grip of severe amnesia, as a new CNN poll shows. There are multiple episodes and policies that people have minimized, forgotten, or never knew about, including avoidable COVID deaths, dangerous national security lapses, and the brutal January 6th attack on the Capitol.

Immigration is the most pressing because of its salience to voters and Trumps advantage on who would do a better job on it (for instance, nearly 2 to 1 in a recent poll of key swing-state Wisconsin, which is nowhere near the southern border with Mexico). And now it appears theres growing national support for Trumps mass deportations plan. Or, as Axios puts it, America is warming to throwing out an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants.

Americans may be warming to that policy in the abstract, but the harsh reality of families and communities torn apart, amplified across news programs and social media, would change that fast. It would be a reprise of Trumps historically unpopular 2018 border policy of separating thousands of children from their asylum-seeking parents. Americans were horrified by the footage of crying, parentless children penned into what looked like internment camps. Six years later, voters should be reminded of that traumaa nightmare easily conjured by any parentand reminded that Donald Trump did this.

REPUBLICANS LIKE TRUMP talk big and tough on the border, but theyre reaping mostly failure and backlash from their stunts, power grabs, cynicism, cruelty, and, sometimes, raw racism.

This months eye-blink impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas was a national embarrassment. House Republicans impeached him 214213 on two counts, in essence for trying to do his job in a Democratic administration while begging Republicans in Congress for resources to do that joband at the same time working with Lankford on the doomed Senate border deal. Even some Republicans said the charges the House approved did not approach the constitutional bar of high crimes and misdemeanors. The Democratic-run Senate dismissed them in a brisk three hours.

Out in the states, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is claiming an invasion and trying usurp federal authority at the border. Thats now on hold with Biden winning an early round in court. And Florida Gov. Ron DeSantiss outrageous plan to fly some four dozen migrants from San Antonio (not in Florida, as far as I know) to Massachusetts has backfired.

The migrants, almost all from Venezuela, were offered jobs and housing at destinations like New York and Washington, D.C. But they landed at Marthas Vineyard, a surprise to both the migrants and the resort island community. And in whats doubtless a surprise to DeSantis, who claimed credit for the scheme, some are on a path to legal residency because they have been certified victims of possible crimes who are helping authorities investigatethe crimes in this case being that they were lured . . . under false pretenses to board the planes to Marthas Vineyard and stranded on arrival.

Meanwhile, Trump is still talking about shithole countries versus nice countries, immigrants he doesnt want (from Haiti and Africa, prisons and Yemenwhere theyre blowing each other up all over the place), and nations he wishes would send more (Norway, Denmark, Switzerland). Not subtle. Nor is how he refers to immigrants in America illegally (animals) while linking them to murder and violence.

There are at least two ways to neutralize or even triumph over the dystopian immigration fictions Trump and the GOP are spinning. The first is for Biden and the Senate to try again to pass the bipartisan border dealbut given House demands, thats an unrealistic goal, and the odds are steadily worse as the election draws near. The second is to throw scads of money at ads and other messaging, from now until November, painting Trump and MAGA conservatives as committed to scapegoating immigrants and perpetuating border chaos.

It is tempting to stand aside as Trump disintegrates into lies, insults, and incoherence at rallies and on social media, or as he deflates in courtroomsan aging and angry criminal defendant no longer in control of his life. But Democrats need maximum, sustained engagement starting right now.

They are in an existential race against a criminally charged aspiring dictator, and they should act accordinglyespecially and first on immigration. For Biden, his party, their allies, and their donors, heres the takeaway from decades of GOP hardball: Dominate the political landscape rather than accepting it, accommodating it, and realizing too late that they should have been trying all along to remake it.

Take a moment to share this article with someone you think would appreciate it.

Share

See the article here:

'Donald Trump Did This': How to Beat MAGA on Border Security - The Bulwark