Muckraker Farm

October 1, 2024

Aftermath of the Trump Administration, October 2024

For independent global news, visit Democracy Now!

For a newsletter about the history behind today’s politics, subscribe to Heather Cox Richardson’s newsletter, Letters from an American.

Tuesday, 1 October 2024:

JD Vance refuses to say Trump lost the 2020 presidential election, sparking the vice presidential debate’s biggest clash. Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Walz called Senator JD Vance’s non-answer ‘damning’ as the pair sparred over January 6 and Trump’s refusal to concede defeat. The Washington Post, Patrick Marley and Amy Gardner, Tuesday, 1 October 2024: “Sen. JD Vance refused to acknowledge that former president Donald Trump lost the 2020 election, setting off one of the most contentious exchanges in Tuesday night’s vice-presidential debate with Gov. Tim Walz. Walz vigorously pressed Vance on the issue near the end of a debate that had otherwise been marked by unusual comity. ‘I would just ask, did he lose the 2020 election?’ Walz asked. ‘Tim, I’m focused on the future,’ Vance said, without addressing the question. ‘That is a damning non-answer,’ Walz responded.” See also, Fact-checking the CBS News vice presidential debate between Vance and Walz, CNN Politics, CNN Staff, published on Wednesday, 2 October 2024.

Wednesday, 2 October 2024:

Judge Unseals New Evidence in Federal Election Case Against Trump. Judge Tanya Chutkan made public portions of a filing by prosecutors setting out their argument for why the case should go forward despite the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity. The New York Times, Alan Feuer and Charlie Savage, Wednesday, 2 October 2024: “When told by an aide that Vice President Mike Pence was in peril as the rioting on Capitol Hill escalated on Jan. 6, 2021, President Donald J. Trump replied, ‘So what?’ When one of his lawyers told him that his false claims that the election had been marred by widespread fraud would not hold up in court, Mr. Trump responded, ‘The details don’t matter.’ On a flight with Mr. Trump and his family after the election, an Oval Office assistant heard Mr. Trump say: ‘It doesn’t matter if you won or lost the election. You still have to fight like hell.’ Those accounts were among new evidence disclosed in a court filing made public on Wednesday in which the special counsel investigating Mr. Trump made his case for why the former president is not immune from prosecution on federal charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election. Made public by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of the Federal District Court in Washington, the 165-page brief was partly redacted but expansive, adding details to the already extensive record of how Mr. Trump lost the race but attempted nonetheless to cling to power. The brief from the prosecution team led by the special counsel, Jack Smith, asserts that there is ample evidence that Mr. Trump’s efforts to remain in office were those of a desperate losing candidate rather than official acts of a president that would be considered immune from prosecution under a landmark Supreme Court ruling this summer. ‘The defendant asserts that he is immune from prosecution for his criminal scheme to overturn the 2020 presidential election because, he claims, it entailed official conduct,’ prosecutors wrote. ‘Not so. Although the defendant was the incumbent president during the charged conspiracies, his scheme was fundamentally a private one.'” See also, Read the Special Counsel’s Newly Unsealed Evidence Against Trump. The New York Times, Wednesday, 2 October 2024: “A sprawling legal brief by the special counsel, Jack Smith, that was partly unsealed on Wednesday lays out his case for why former President Donald J. Trump is not immune from prosecution on federal charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election. It adds new details to the extensive public record of how Mr. Trump lost the race but attempted nonetheless to cling to power.” See also, Filing in Trump Election Case Fleshes Out Roles of a Sprawling Cast. Donald Trump is the only defendant in the special counsel’s case that charges him with a plot to remain in power after his 2020 loss. But a newly unsealed brief provides fresh details about many other figures. The New York Times, Alan Feuer and Charlie Savage, published on Thursday, 3 October 2024: “When the special counsel, Jack Smith, charged former President Donald J. Trump last year with plotting to overturn the 2020 election, the federal indictment filed in Washington had only one defendant: Mr. Trump himself, who stood accused of working with a small team of conspirators. But in a court filing unsealed on Wednesday, Mr. Smith drew on the actions of a much larger group to tell the tale of how Mr. Trump lost the race but sought to stay in the White House. He populated his brief with a sprawling cast of characters — lawyers, longtime Trump aides, campaign operatives, even some of the rioters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 — who all played a supporting role either for or against Mr. Trump’s attempts to cling to power. Most of them were not named in the 165-page filing, and were referred to only by numeric monikers, though many of their identities could be divined from details in the brief. And the sheer scope of the crew was evidenced by the fact that the anonymized references started with Person 1 and went all the way to Person 71.” See also, As rioters stormed the Capitol with Vice President Mike Pence inside, Trump allegedly said ‘So what?’ The Washington Post, Spencer S. Hsu, Josh Dawsey, Tom Jackman, and Amy Gardner, Wednesday, 2 October 2024: “President Donald Trump appeared indifferent as rioters stormed the Capitol to try to prevent the transfer of power on Jan. 6, 2021, telling an aide ‘So what?’ even after learning security measures were being taken to protect his vice president, prosecutors alleged in an explosive new court filing unsealed Wednesday. The much-anticipated 165-page filing from special counsel Jack Smith offers a searing portrayal of Trump just a month before the 2024 election. It describes in more extensive detail than before how many people — including Vice President Mike Pence, party and state leaders, his own campaign officials, his own campaign lawyers, and others — told Trump there was no proof the election was stolen, and how Trump nonetheless waged a campaign to overturn the result. Prosecutors reconstructed behind-the-scenes interactions, including one in which an aide rushed to the dining room to share with Trump, who had been watching the events on TV and tweeting, that action was being taken to ensure the safety of Pence, who was in the Capitol building. ‘The defendant looked at him and said only, So what?’ the filing alleges.” See also, 5 takeaways from the big new filing on Trump’s 2020 plot to overturn the presidential election. ‘So what,’ ‘Make them riot,’ ‘It doesn’t matter if you won or lost the election’ and what it all means legally and politically. The Washington Post, Aaron Blake, Wednesday, 2 October 2024: “We just got the most extensive new detail in years about former president Donald Trump’s plot to overturn the 2020 election, in the form of a much-anticipated filing from special counsel Jack Smith. The 165-page partially redacted filing, which was unsealed by U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, lays out the evidence Smith’s team would like to present in the long-delayed Jan. 6 federal criminal case against Trump. What evidence Smith can use and what charges can stand are disputed after the Supreme Court recently gave presidents including Trump extensive immunity from criminal prosecution. But the filing also doubles as a sort of blueprint for the case ahead. It features some significant revelations and quotes that could be important not just for the legal battle, but for the 2024 election.” See also, Judge Tanya Chutkan unseals new evidence against Trump in the January 6 election interference case, NPR, Carrie Johnson and Ryan Lucas, Wednesday, 2 October 2024: “In a newly unsealed court filing, special counsel Jack Smith provides the most detailed picture yet of his criminal case against Donald Trump for allegedly trying to overturn the 2020 election and why the former president isn’t immune from prosecution. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the case, released the filing, with minor redactions, on Wednesday. The special counsel uses the 165-page document to make his case that Trump’s actions around the election were made in a private capacity and not in his official role as president. The filing comes after the Supreme Court ruled this summer that presidents enjoy broad immunity for official acts while in office, but not for unofficial acts as a candidate or a private citizen.” See also, Prosecutors lay out new evidence in Trump election case and accuse him of having ‘resorted to crimes,’ Associated Press, Eric Tucker and Alanna Durkin Richer, Wednesday, 2 October 2024: “Donald Trump laid the groundwork to try to overturn the 2020 election even before he lost, knowingly pushed false claims of voter fraud and ‘resorted to crimes’ in his failed bid to cling to power, according to a court filing unsealed Wednesday that offers new evidence from the landmark criminal case against the former president. The filing from special counsel Jack Smith’s team offers the most comprehensive view to date of what prosecutors intend to prove if the case charging Trump with conspiring to overturn the election reaches trial. Although a months-long congressional investigation and the indictment itself have chronicled in stark detail Trump’s efforts to undo the election, the filing cites previously unknown accounts offered by Trump’s closest aides to paint a portrait of an ‘increasingly desperate’ president who, while losing his grip on the White House, ‘used deceit to target every stage of the electoral process.'”

If Trump Wins, Could He Really Use the Justice Department to Jail His Rivals? The New York Times, Emily Bazelon, Marco Hernandez, Mattathias Schwartz, and Bill Marsh, Wednesday, 2 October 2024: “It has become commonplace for Donald Trump to talk about how he will use the Justice Department to punish his enemies should he regain the presidency. He routinely calls for prosecuting his current opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, and regularly accuses her and President Biden of weaponizing the Justice Department against him. Though there is no evidence that Biden or Harris had any involvement in the charges Trump faces, relating to the 2020 election and mishandling classified documents, he frequently asserts that these cases justify his plans for retribution. Trump’s threats raise questions about what restraints could prevent him from following through. Since Watergate, when Richard Nixon resigned under threat of impeachment for meddling in an F.B.I. investigation, American presidents have taken pains to distance the White House from the Justice Department’s decisions about whom to investigate and prosecute. (The exception to this was Trump during his first term.) But only norms and precedents, not laws, prevent this. In our system, the attorney general and the director of the F.B.I. sit within the executive branch and answer to the president. How might a politically motivated prosecution actually unfold? The steps below show exactly how Trump could make his threats real — all while staying within the constitutional limits on presidential power.” See also, Why Legal Experts Are Worried About a Second Trump Presidency. In a survey of 50 members of the D.C. legal establishment, many warn that Trump could follow through on his threats to prosecute his political adversaries. The New York Times, Emily Bazelon and Mattathias Schwartz, Wednesday, 2 October 2024.

Continue reading Aftermath of the Trump Administration, October 2024:

October 1, 2024 Filed Under: Trump administration/Republican House and Senate/Supreme Court, Trump: A Daily Chronicle

September 1, 2024

Aftermath of the Trump Administration, September 2024

For independent global news, visit Democracy Now!

For a newsletter about the history behind today’s politics, subscribe to Heather Cox Richardson’s newsletter, Letters from an American.

Sunday, 1 September 2024:

Fund-Raiser for January 6 Rioters at Trump’s Golf Club Is Postponed. Donald Trump did not plan to attend the gala event at his venue in Bedminster, N.J., but it highlighted his efforts to rewrite the history of the attack on the Capitol. The New York Times, Alan Feuer, Sunday, 1 September 2024: “A gala event to raise money for some of the rioters who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, set to take place on Thursday at former President Donald J. Trump’s golf club in New Jersey, has been postponed, according to the event website. While Mr. Trump had not been planning to attend the soiree — billed as the J6 Awards Gala — the event attracted attention for the way it reinforced the strong connections he has maintained with those who stormed the Capitol on his behalf at an awkward moment: just as his campaign to return to the White House enters its final stages. The event’s website did not provide a reason for the delay or mention a new date when it might take place. But the primary planner, Sarah McAbee, who runs a nonprofit organization called the Stand in the Gap Foundation, which supports Jan. 6 defendants, said she would try to reschedule it for after the November election, perhaps in February, according to text messages obtained by The New York Times.”

Monday, 2 September 2024:

Trump says he had ‘every right to interfere in the 2020 election. Harris’ campaign called the former president’s remarks to Fox News evidence that he thought he was above the law. NBC News, Natasha Korecki, Monday, 2 September 2024: “Former President Donald Trump said Sunday that he had ‘every right’ to interfere with the 2020 election, even as two criminal cases involving those allegations hang over him. On Monday, Kamala Harris’ campaign charged that the comments were evidence that Trump believed he was ‘above the law.’ In a Fox News interview that aired Sunday, Trump went on a long screed about the Justice Department and its treatment of him, charging he had been targeted. Trump marveled that the criminal charges did nothing but boost his poll numbers, because, he surmised, his supporters didn’t buy them in the first place. ‘Whoever heard you get indicted for interfering with a presidential election where you have every right to do it, you get indicted, and your poll numbers go up?’ Trump said. ‘When people get indicted, your poll numbers go down. But it was such, such nonsense.’ Last week, Trump was indicted again in his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss. He is accused of trying to carry out a multipronged effort that included trying to disenfranchise voters in certain states and of interfering with the election results by repeatedly claiming it was stolen, even though he knew those claims were false. Authorities say Trump’s false claims were a catalyst for the violence attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. He faces similar charges of election interference in Fulton County, Georgia.” See also, Trump Claims He Had “Every Right” to Interfere in the 2020 Election, Letters from an American, Heather Cox Richardson, Monday, 2 September 2024: “In an interview with right-wing host Mark Levin on the Fox News Channel last night, Trump complained about the new grand jury indictment of him for trying to steal the 2020 presidential election. ‘Whoever heard you get indicted for interfering with a presidential election where you have every right to do it,’ he asked. In fact, no one has a right to interfere with a presidential election. Several federal laws prohibit such interference. Legal analyst Joyce White Vance added: ‘This is the banality of evil right here—Trump asserting he can override the will of the voters to claim victory in an election he lost. And, he will do it again. We must vote against him in overwhelming numbers.’ Former president Trump is approaching the election of 2024 the way southern white supremacists approached elections from 1876 to 1964. He has made it very clear he is not trying to win the votes of a majority of Americans. He and his loyalists are trying to intimidate his opponents to keep them from voting while egging on his supporters to commit violence. They are bringing the tactics of the reactionary southern Democrats after the Civil War forward to the present day in an attempt to impose the same sort of minority rule on the nation as a whole.”

Tuesday, 3 September 2024:

Judge Denies Trump’s Request to Move Criminal Case to Federal Court. Judge Alvin Hellerstein said the Supreme Court’s finding that presidents enjoy immunity does not apply in the hush-money case in which Donald Trump was already convicted. The New York Times, Jesse McKinley, Tuesday, 3 September 2024: “A federal judge in Manhattan denied an effort by Donald J. Trump to move his already adjudicated state criminal case to the federal courts on Tuesday, rejecting his claims of presidential immunity and brushing aside his allegation of bias. In late May, a jury convicted the former president on 34 felony counts of falsifying records to cover up hush-money payments to a porn star, Stormy Daniels, who had threatened to go public with her account of a one-night sexual encounter in 2006. A state judge, Juan M. Merchan, has scheduled his sentencing for Sept. 18, though Mr. Trump has asked him to delay it until after the presidential election. In a four-page decision on Tuesday, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of Federal District Court in Manhattan said he could not evaluate Mr. Trump’s claims of bias, saying those were issues for the state courts. But he said that Mr. Trump’s claims that he should have immunity from criminal prosecution — based on a recent Supreme Court decision affirming such protection for ‘official acts’ — were groundless. He noted that ‘hush-money payments were private, unofficial acts, outside the bounds of executive authority.'”

Continue reading Aftermath of the Trump Administration, September 2024:

September 1, 2024 Filed Under: Trump administration/Republican House and Senate/Supreme Court, Trump: A Daily Chronicle

August 31, 2024

Something’s Poisoning America’s Land. Farmers Fear ‘Forever’ Chemicals

Hiroko Tabuchi, The New York Times, Something’s Poisoning America’s Land. Farmers Fear ‘Forever’ Chemicals, Saturday, 31 August 2024: “For decades, farmers across America have been encouraged by the federal government to spread municipal sewage on millions of acres of farmland as fertilizer. It was rich in nutrients, and it helped keep the sludge out of landfills. But a growing body of research shows that this black sludge, made from the sewage that flows from homes and factories, can contain heavy concentrations of chemicals thought to increase the risk of certain types of cancer and to cause birth defects and developmental delays in children. Known as ‘forever chemicals’ because of their longevity, these toxic contaminants are now being detected, sometimes at high levels, on farmland across the country, including in Texas, Maine, Michigan, New York and Tennessee. In some cases the chemicals are suspected of sickening or killing livestock and are turning up in produce. Farmers are beginning to fear for their own health. The national scale of farmland contamination by these chemicals — which are used in everything from microwave popcorn bags and firefighting gear to nonstick pans and stain-resistant carpets — is only now starting to become apparent. There are now lawsuits against providers of the fertilizer, as well as against the Environmental Protection Agency, alleging that the agency failed to regulate the chemicals, known as PFAS. In Michigan, among the first states to investigate the chemicals in sludge fertilizer, officials shut down one farm where tests found particularly high concentrations in the soil and in cattle that grazed on the land. This year, the state prohibited the property from ever again being used for agriculture. Michigan hasn’t conducted widespread testing at other farms, partly out of concern for the economic effects on its agriculture industry.” See also, 5 Takeaways From Our Reporting on Toxic Sludge Fertilizer. The Times dug into the widespread use of sewage sludge as fertilizer, which is sometimes heavily contaminated by ‘forever chemicals.’ The New York Times, Hiroko Tabuchi, Saturday, 31 August 2024.

August 31, 2024 Filed Under: Environment

August 1, 2024

Aftermath of the Trump Administration, August 2024

For independent global news, visit Democracy Now!

For a newsletter about the history behind today’s politics, subscribe to Heather Cox Richardson’s newsletter, Letters from an American.

Thursday, 1 August 2024:

New York Appeals court upholds Donald Trump’s gag order as he again presses judge to exit hush money case, Associated Press, Michael R. Sisak, Thursday, 1 August 2024: “Two months after his felony conviction, Donald Trump still isn’t allowed to say everything he wants about his historic hush money criminal case. After a New York appeals court upheld his gag order Thursday, he won’t be for a while. The state’s mid-level appellate court denied the Republican former president and current nominee’s latest bid to lift the restrictions, swatting away a last-minute argument that he’s unfairly muzzled while Vice President Kamala Harris, his likely Democratic opponent, pits herself as an ex-prosecutor taking on a ‘convicted felon.'”

Friday, 2 August 2024:

$10 million cash withdrawal in 2016 drove secret investigation into whether Trump took money from Egypt. Political appointees rejected efforts to search for additional evidence investigators believed might provide answers, then closed the case. The Washington Post, Aaron C. Davis and Carol D. Leonnig, Friday, 2 August 2024: “Five days before Donald Trump became president in January 2017, a manager at a bank branch in Cairo received an unusual letter from an organization linked to the Egyptian intelligence service. It asked the bank to ‘kindly withdraw’ nearly $10 million from the organization’s account — all in cash. Inside the state-run National Bank of Egypt, employees were soon busy placing bundles of $100 bills into two large bags, according to records from the bank. Four men arrived and carried away the bags, which U.S. officials later described in sealed court filings as weighing a combined 200 pounds and containing what was then a sizable share of Egypt’s reserve of U.S. currency. Federal investigators learned of the withdrawal, which has not been previously reported, early in 2019. The discovery intensified a secret criminal investigation that had begun two years earlier with classified U.S. intelligence indicating that Egyptian President Abdel Fatah El-Sisi sought to give Trump $10 million to boost his 2016 presidential campaign, a Washington Post investigation has found. Since receiving the intelligence about Sisi, the Justice Department had been examining whether money moved from Cairo to Trump, potentially violating federal law that bans U.S. candidates from taking foreign funds. Investigators had also sought to learn if money from Sisi might have factored into Trump’s decision in the final days of his run for the White House to inject his campaign with $10 million of his own money. Those questions, at least in the view of several investigators on the case, would never be answered, The Post found.”

Trump election interference case returns to federal judge Tanya Chutkan in DC after Supreme Court immunity ruling, NPR, Carrie Johnson, Friday, 2 August 2024: “The election interference case against former President Donald Trump returned to a federal judge in Washington on Friday. What happens next, and how quickly, is now up to Judge Tanya Chutkan. But the conservative supermajority on the U.S. Supreme Court has handed her a lot of work to do. Last month, a six-justice majority delivered Trump a significant victory, ruling that he deserved substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts he took in the White House, including his efforts to get Department of Justice leaders to back his bogus claims of election fraud in 2020. Legal experts say Chutkan will need to review evidence at the heart of the historic four-count felony case, to determine whether other alleged actions by Trump get constitutional protection as official steps of a president, or whether they instead count as personal acts of a candidate seeking political office.” See also, Trump’s election subversion case returns to DC federal judge Tanya Chutkan after Supreme Court immunity ruling, The Washington Post, Spencer S. Hsu, Friday, 2 August 2024: “A federal judge in Washington regained control over former president Donald Trump’s 2020 election obstruction case Friday under a deadline set by the Supreme Court when it ruled that presidents have broad immunity from prosecution. The justices on July 1 ruled 6-3 along ideological lines that Trump and other presidents are absolutely immune from prosecution when carrying out their core constitutional powers, but can face trial for private conduct or for official acts under narrow exceptions to be hammered out by lower courts. U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan now must decide which if any of Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election while president may be prosecutable. However, a trial will not be possible before his November election matchup against Vice President Harris, now the Democratic nominee, because whatever the judge decides is expected to wind up back before the Supreme Court next year.”

Continue reading Aftermath of the Trump Administration, August 2024:

August 1, 2024 Filed Under: Trump administration/Republican House and Senate/Supreme Court, Trump: A Daily Chronicle

July 1, 2024

Aftermath of the Trump Administration, July 2024

For independent global news, visit Democracy Now!

For a newsletter about the history behind today’s politics, subscribe to Heather Cox Richardson’s newsletter, Letters from an American.

Monday, 1 July 2024:

Supreme court Says Trump Has Some Immunity in Election Case. The ruling makes a distinction between official actions of a president, which have immunity, and those of a private citizen. In dissent, the court’s liberals lament a vast expansion of presidential power. The New York Times, Adam Liptak, Monday, 1 July 2024: “The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that former President Donald J. Trump is entitled to substantial immunity from prosecution on charges of trying to overturn the last election, a blockbuster decision in the heat of the 2024 campaign that vastly expanded presidential power. The vote was 6 to 3, dividing along partisan lines. Its immediate practical effect will be to further complicate the case against Mr. Trump, with the chances that it will go before a jury ahead of the election now vanishingly remote and the charges against him, at a minimum, narrowed. The decision amounted to a powerful statement by the court’s conservative majority that presidents should be insulated from the potential that actions they take in carrying out their official duties could later be used by political enemies to charge them with crimes. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, said Mr. Trump had at least presumptive immunity for his official acts. He added that the trial judge must undertake an intensive factual review to separate official and unofficial conduct and to assess whether prosecutors can overcome the presumption protecting Mr. Trump for his official conduct…. In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the decision was gravely misguided. In a rare move and sign of deep disagreement, she summarized her dissent from the bench, making off-the-cuff remarks that underscored her frustration. ‘Today’s decision to grant former presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the presidency,’ she wrote. ‘It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of government, that no man is above the law.’ In her own dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that ‘the court has now declared for the first time in history that the most powerful official in the United States can (under circumstances yet to be fully determined) become a law unto himself.’… In dissent, Justice Sotomayor wrote that ‘the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The court effectively creates a law-free zone around the president, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the founding,’ she wrote, adding: ‘The president of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution.’ She gave examples: ‘Orders the Navy’s SEAL team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold on to power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.’… In her written dissent, Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Jackson and Elena Kagan, said: ‘The relationship between the president and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law.’ Justice Sotomayor ended her opinion in unusual fashion. ‘With fear for our democracy,’ she wrote, ‘I dissent.’” See also, Highlights of the Supreme Court Ruling on Presidential Immunity. Key excerpts from the decision reveal how the court’s conservative majority views the power of the nation’s leader. The New York Times, Charlie Savage, Monday, 1 July 2024. See also, Supreme Court Immunity Ruling Escalates Long Rise of Presidential Power. Beyond Donald J. Trump, the decision adds to the seemingly one-way ratchet of executive authority. The New York Times, Charlie Savage, Monday, 1 July 2024: “The Supreme Court’s decision to bestow presidents with immunity from prosecution over official actions is an extraordinary expansion of executive power that will reverberate long after Donald J. Trump is gone. Beyond its immediate implications for the election subversion case against Mr. Trump and the prospect that he may feel less constrained by law if he returns to power, the ruling also adds to the nearly relentless rise of presidential power since the mid-20th century. It had seemed like a constitutional truism in recent years when more than one lower-court opinion addressing novel legal issues raised by Mr. Trump’s norm-breaking behavior observed that presidents are not kings. But suddenly, they do enjoy a kind of monarchical prerogative. ‘The relationship between the president and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably,’ Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in an outraged dissent joined by the court’s other two liberals. ‘In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law.’… The structure of accountability — or lack thereof — for official presidential criminality that the country lives under now, as laid down by Chief Justice Roberts’s majority opinion, has three categories. The first is unofficial crimes that happen to be committed by someone who is president but fall entirely outside the outer perimeter of presidential responsibilities. In theory, a former president can still be prosecuted for those types of crimes. At the other end of the spectrum are crimes that a president commits as part of his ‘core’ constitutional powers and responsibilities. Congress cannot intrude on how a president exercises those powers through criminal law, the majority said. So presidents may freely abuse those powers with absolute immunity from later prosecution. At a minimum, this category clearly includes those listed in the Constitution, like granting pardons or vetoing legislation. But the majority opinion said this category also extends to Mr. Trump’s attempt to get Justice Department officials to gin up inquiries into sham claims of voter fraud. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that a president has ‘exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials.’ By that measure, he said, the president ‘may discuss potential investigations and prosecutions with his attorney general and other Justice Department officials’ under the constitutional duty to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed.’ This line was particularly notable because since Watergate, there has been a norm of Justice Department investigative independence from White House control. But Mr. Trump already eroded that norm under his administration and has openly vowed, should he return to power, that he would use the Justice Department to exact retribution upon his enemies. Finally, the majority opinion outlined a third, more ambiguous category. This one encompasses official actions a president takes that are not core executive powers, so Congress shares overlapping authority over them and, in theory, criminal laws could apply to them. A president ‘presumptively’ has immunity from criminal prosecution for actions that fall in this category, too, the majority opinion said, but that shield might be overcome if prosecutors ‘can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no ‘dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the executive branch.’ In her dissent, however, Justice Sotomayor portrayed that purported distinction as farcical. In practice, she said, it will be essentially impossible for prosecutors to show that there is ‘no’ danger of such intrusion.” See also, Supreme Court justices give presidents immunity for official acts, further delaying Trump’s trial. The justices said unofficial acts have no immunity, sending Donald Trump’s January 6 case back to the D.C. judge to decide which alleged acts are official. The Washington Post, Ann E. Marimow and Devlin Barrett, Monday, 1 July 2024: Donald Trump is immune from prosecution for official acts as president but can face trial for private conduct, a divided Supreme Court ruled Monday, declaring a broad new definition of White House power that may stand for generations and will further delay Trump’s election interference case in D.C. The 6-3 decision along ideological lines makes it highly unlikely that the 45th president will go to trial on charges of trying to subvert the 2020 election before voters cast ballots in this year’s presidential contest, in which Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee. Due to court procedures and the particular way in which the decision was rendered, the lower court will probably not be able to resume work on the case for 32 days; when and if the trial does proceed, it may be with a significantly whittled-down set of evidence. The high court specifically barred prosecutors from using one swath of evidence in any such trial — Trump’s conversations with Justice Department officials after Joe Biden’s 2020 election victory. The majority of the court also signaled that other significant parts of the prosecution case could be tossed out. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said a president ‘may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.'” See also, Read the full text of Supreme Court’s decision on Trump’s immunity. Former presidents are immune from prosecution for their official actions taken while in the White House, but don’t have immunity for unofficial acts, the Supreme Court ruled Monday. The Washington Post, Washington Post Staff, Monday, 1 July 2024. See also, 4 takeaways from the Supreme Court’s Trump immunity decision. The ruling is a win for Trump for a few reasons and is likely to reverberate in the 2024 campaign and beyond. Here’s what it means. The Washington Post, Aaron Blake, Monday, 1 July 2024. “The Supreme Court ruled Monday that former president Donald Trump and other presidents enjoy a significant degree of immunity for actions taken as president, a decision that could reverberate not just in Trump’s criminal cases but also for future presidents. The court split 6-3 along ideological lines in finding that a president is a) absolutely immune for actions taken while exercising his “core constitutional powers” and b) entitled to the presumption of immunity for all official acts.” See also, Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have broad immunity, dimming chance of a pre-election Trump trial, Associated Press, Mark Sherman, Monday, 1 July 2024: “The Supreme Court on Monday ruled for the first time that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution, extending the delay in the Washington criminal case against Donald Trump on charges he plotted to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss and all but ending prospects the former president could be tried before the November election. In a historic 6-3 ruling, the court’s conservative majority, including the three justices appointed by Trump, narrowed the case against him and returned it to the trial court to determine what is left of special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment. Trump celebrated a ‘BIG WIN’ on X. President Joe Biden said the justices set ‘a dangerous precedent (that) undermines the rule of this nation.'” See also, Trump is immune from prosecution for some acts in federal election case. The opinion leaves much unresolved, sending the case back to trial court for further proceedings. Politico, Josh Gerstein and Kyle Cheney, Monday, 1 July 2024: “Donald Trump has immunity from criminal prosecution for some actions he took as president while fighting to subvert the 2020 election, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, further complicating efforts to put Trump on trial in Washington on criminal charges that he engaged in fraud to try to cling to power. The largely 6-3 decision, which divided the court along ideological lines, immediately knocked out some of the central allegations that special counsel Jack Smith leveled against Trump, including claims that he attempted to weaponize his Justice Department to concoct or amplify false claims of voter fraud. However, the opinion also leaves much unresolved, sending the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. There, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan must now sift through the allegations to separate Trump’s official acts — those he took in his capacity as president — from private ones, when he was acting as a presidential candidate. That process could further stall the case by months and is likely to push any trial past Election Day.”

Supreme Court Immunity Ruling Further Slows Trump Election Case but Opens Door to Airing of Evidence. The Supreme Court’s immunity decision directed the trial court to hold hearings on what portions of the indictment can survive–a possible chance for prosecutors to set out their case in public before Election Day. The New York Times, Alan Feuer, Monday, 1 July 2024: “The Supreme Court’s decision on Monday about executive immunity makes it all but certain that former President Donald J. Trump will not stand trial on charges of seeking to overturn the last election before voters decide whether to send him back to the White House in the next one. But the ruling also opened the door for prosecutors to detail much of their evidence against Mr. Trump in front of a federal judge — and the public — at an expansive fact-finding hearing, perhaps before Election Day. It remains unclear when the hearing, which was ordered as part of the court’s decision, might take place or how long it would last. But it will address the big question that the justices kicked back to the trial court, which is how much of Mr. Trump’s indictment can survive the ruling that former presidents enjoy immunity for official actions they take in office. And it will be held in Federal District Court in Washington in front of the judge, Tanya S. Chutkan, who was handling the case before it was frozen more than six months ago as a series of courts considered his immunity claims.”

The Supreme Court Gives a Free Pass to Trump and Future Presidents, The New York Times, The Editorial Board, Monday, 1 July 2024: “In a stunning finale to its term on Monday morning, the Supreme Court delivered a gift of inestimable worth to Donald Trump and all future presidents who intend to violate the law and their oaths to the Constitution. In a 6-to-3 ruling, the court’s conservative majority said that official acts that are central to the presidency are given ‘absolute immunity’ from prosecution. Other acts, even those that reach to the outer edge of a president’s official duties, are ‘presumptively immune,’ the court said, making them much harder to be prosecuted. The immediate effect of the decision — one of the most consequential ever produced by the court on the subject of presidential powers and constitutional government — was to delay indefinitely the prosecution of Mr. Trump for his attempt to overturn the 2020 election. The vote this fall will now almost certainly move forward with no legal accountability for that act. But the long-term danger to the Constitution and the American government is even more serious, particularly given the real possibility that Mr. Trump, whose recent criminal conviction in New York is only the latest demonstration of his contempt for legal boundaries, could be returned to office in just a few months. As of Monday, the bedrock principle that no one is above the law has been set aside. In the very week that the nation celebrates its founding, the court undermined the reason for the American Revolution by giving presidents what one dissenting justice called a ‘law-free zone’ in which to act, taking a step toward restoring the monarchy that the Declaration of Independence rejected. Presidents can still be impeached for their crimes in office, but it is hard to see how they can ever be prosecuted. They can take once-unimaginable actions, like encouraging an insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, with no fear of later going to jail or being held legally accountable.” See also, Biden Warns That the Supreme Court’s Immunity Ruling Will Embolden Trump. The president, under scrutiny since his damaging debate appearance last week, did not stumble or falter during his brief remarks. The New York Times, Michael D. Shear, Monday, 1 July 2024: “President Biden warned on Monday that the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity meant that there were ‘virtually no limits on what the president can do’ and urged voters to prevent former President Donald J. Trump from returning to the White House freed from the constraints of the law. ‘The American people must decide if they want to entrust the president once again — the presidency — to Donald Trump,’ Mr. Biden said during brief remarks, ‘knowing he’ll be more emboldened to do whatever he pleases whenever he wants to do it.'” See also, Biden denounces Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity. Biden says the justices removed restraints on presidents, including Trump, and undermined US principles. The Washington Post, Matt Viser, Monday, 1 July 2024: “President Biden on Monday night issued a blistering attack on the U.S. Supreme Court for its decision earlier in the day declaring that Donald Trump was immune from prosecution for official acts he took during his presidency. In brief but forceful remarks that came in a late addition to his schedule, Biden said that the high court was setting a dangerous precedent that could fundamentally change the world’s most powerful office.’For all practical purposes, today’s decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what the president can do,’ Biden said, adding that he pledges ‘to respect the limits of the presidential powers.'” See also, After Supreme Court immunity ruling, Biden draws sharp contrast with Trump on obeying rule of law, The Associated Press, Colleen Long and Will Weissert, Tuesday, 1 July 2024: “President Joe Biden warned Monday that a Supreme Court ruling granting presidents broad immunity from prosecution would make an unchecked Republican Donald Trump “more emboldened to do whatever he wants” if he regains the White House in November’s election. Biden, under intense pressure after his disastrous debate performance against Trump last week, urged Americans to think carefully about their election decision and signaled he had no intention of dropping out of the race. Criticizing the decision by the court’s conservative majority — which all but guarantees Trump will not face trial in Washington ahead of the November election over his actions during the violent riot on Jan. 6, 2021 — Biden said it now fell to the American people “to do what the courts should have been willing to do but will not. ‘The American people have to render judgment about Donald Trump’s behavior.’ Biden’s efforts to reset his campaign following the debate, which spooked donors and stirred up major Democratic anxiety, has been looking a lot like his past attempts to keep the focus squarely on Trump’s misdeeds and shortcomings. During his brief remarks Monday, he made no mention of last week’s debate or his performance, and did not take questions, delivering an unusually political message from the White House.”

Continue reading Aftermath of the Trump Administration, July 2024:

July 1, 2024 Filed Under: Trump administration/Republican House and Senate/Supreme Court, Trump: A Daily Chronicle

June 1, 2024

Aftermath of the Trump Administration, June 2024

For independent global news, visit Democracy Now!

For a newsletter about the history behind today’s politics, subscribe to Heather Cox Richardson’s newsletter, Letters from an American.

Sunday, 2 June 2024:

A Felon in the Oval Office Would Test the American System. The system of checks and balances established in the Constitution was meant to hold wayward presidents accountable, but some wonder how it will work if the next president is already a felon. The New York Times, Peter Baker, Sunday, 2 June 2024: “The revolutionary hero Patrick Henry knew this day would come. He might not have anticipated all the particulars, such as the porn actress in the hotel room and the illicit payoff to keep her quiet. But he feared that eventually a criminal might occupy the presidency and use his powers to thwart anyone who sought to hold him accountable. ‘Away with your president,’ he declared, ‘we shall have a king.’ That was exactly what the founders sought to avoid, having thrown off the yoke of an all-powerful monarch. But as hard as they worked to establish checks and balances, the system they constructed to hold wayward presidents accountable ultimately has proved to be unsteady. Whatever rules Americans thought were in place are now being rewritten by Donald J. Trump, the once and perhaps future president who has already shattered many barriers and precedents. The notion that 34 felonies is not automatically disqualifying and a convicted criminal can be a viable candidate for commander in chief upends two and a half centuries of assumptions about American democracy. And it raises fundamental questions about the limits of power in a second term, should Mr. Trump be returned to office. If he wins, it means he will have survived two impeachments, four criminal indictments, civil judgments for sexual abuse and business fraud, and a felony conviction. Given that, it would be hard to imagine what institutional deterrents could discourage abuses or excesses. Moreover, the judiciary may not be the check on the executive branch that it has been in the past. If no other cases go to trial before the election, it could be another four years before the courts could even consider whether the newly elected president jeopardized national security or illegally sought to overturn the 2020 election, as he has been charged with doing. As it is, even before the election, the Supreme Court may grant Mr. Trump at least some measure of immunity. Mr. Trump would still have to operate within the constitutional system, analysts point out, but he has already shown a willingness to push its boundaries. When he was president, he claimed that the Constitution gave him ‘the right to do whatever I want.’ After leaving office, he advocated ‘termination’ of the Constitution to allow him to return to power right away without another election and vowed to dedicate a second term to ‘retribution.'”

Revenge: analysis of Trump posts shows relentless focus on punishing enemies. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington documents the former president’s threats against perceived political opponents. The Guardian, David Smith, Sunday, 2 June 2024: “A major study of Donald Trump’s social media posts has revealed the scale of the former US president’s ambitions to target Joe Biden, judges and other perceived political enemies if he returns to power. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew), a watchdog organisation, analysed more than 13,000 messages published by Trump on his Truth Social platform and found him vowing revenge, retaliation and retribution against his foes.”

Monday, 3 June 2024:

Multiple Trump Witnesses Have Received Significant Financial Benefits From His Businesses and Campaign. Witnesses in the various criminal cases against the former president have gotten pay raises, new jobs, and more. If any benefits were intended to influence testimony, that could be a crime. ProPublica, Robert Faturechi, Justin Elliott, and Alex Mierjeski, Monday, 3 June 2024: “Nine witnesses in the criminal cases against former President Donald Trump have received significant financial benefits, including large raises from his campaign, severance packages, new jobs, and a grant of shares and cash from Trump’s media company. The benefits have flowed from Trump’s businesses and campaign committees, according to a ProPublica analysis of public disclosures, court records and securities filings. One campaign aide had his average monthly pay double, from $26,000 to $53,500. Another employee got a $2 million severance package barring him from voluntarily cooperating with law enforcement. And one of the campaign’s top officials had her daughter hired onto the campaign staff, where she is now the fourth-highest-paid employee. These pay increases and other benefits often came at delicate moments in the legal proceedings against Trump. One aide who was given a plum position on the board of Trump’s social media company, for example, got the seat after he was subpoenaed but before he testified. Significant changes to a staffer’s work situation, such as bonuses, pay raises, firings or promotions, can be evidence of a crime if they come outside the normal course of business. To prove witness tampering, prosecutors would need to show that perks or punishments were intended to influence testimony. White-collar defense lawyers say the situation Trump finds himself in — in the dual role of defendant and boss of many of the people who are the primary witnesses to his alleged crimes — is not uncommon. Their standard advice is not to provide any unusual benefits or penalties to such employees. Ideally, decisions about employees slated to give evidence should be made by an independent body such as a board, not the boss who is under investigation.”

Continue reading Aftermath of the Trump Administration, June 2024:

June 1, 2024 Filed Under: Trump administration/Republican House and Senate/Supreme Court, Trump: A Daily Chronicle

May 20, 2024

How 3M Discovered, Then Concealed, the Dangers of Forever Chemicals

Sharon Lerner, The New Yorker and ProPublica, How 3M Discovered, Then Concealed, the Dangers of Forever Chemicals. The company found its own toxic compounds in human blood–and kept selling them. Monday, 20 May 2024: “Kris Hansen had worked as a chemist at the 3M Corporation for about a year when her boss, an affable senior scientist named Jim Johnson, gave her a strange assignment. 3M had invented Scotch Tape and Post-it notes; it sold everything from sandpaper to kitchen sponges. But on this day, in 1997, Johnson wanted Hansen to test human blood for chemical contamination. Several of 3M’s most successful products contained man-made compounds called fluorochemicals. In a spray called Scotchgard, fluorochemicals protected leather and fabric from stains. In a coating known as Scotchban, they prevented food packaging from getting soggy. In a soapy foam used by firefighters, they helped extinguish jet-fuel fires. Johnson explained to Hansen that one of the company’s fluorochemicals, PFOS—short for perfluorooctanesulfonic acid—often found its way into the bodies of 3M factory workers. Although he said that they were unharmed, he had recently hired an outside lab to measure the levels in their blood. The lab had just reported something odd, however. For the sake of comparison, it had tested blood samples from the American Red Cross, which came from the general population and should have been free of fluorochemicals. Instead, it kept finding a contaminant in the blood. Johnson asked Hansen to figure out whether the lab had made a mistake. Detecting trace levels of chemicals was her specialty: she had recently written a doctoral dissertation about tiny particles in the atmosphere. Hansen’s team of lab technicians and junior scientists fetched a blood sample from a lab-supply company and prepped it for analysis. Then Hansen switched on an oven-size box known as a mass spectrometer, which weighs molecules so that scientists can identify them. As the lab equipment hummed around her, Hansen loaded a sample into the machine. A graph appeared on the mass spectrometer’s display; it suggested that there was a compound in the blood that could be PFOS. That’s weird, Hansen thought. Why would a chemical produced by 3M show up in people who had never worked for the company? Hansen didn’t want to share her results until she was certain that they were correct, so she and her team spent several weeks analyzing more blood, often in time-consuming overnight tests. All the samples appeared to be contaminated. When Hansen used a more precise method, liquid chromatography, the results left little doubt that the chemical in the Red Cross blood was PFOS. Hansen now felt obligated to update her boss. Johnson was a towering, bearded man, and she liked him: he seemed to trust her expertise, and he found something to laugh about in most conversations. But, when she shared her findings, his response was cryptic. ‘This changes everything,’ he said. Before she could ask him what he meant, he went into his office and closed the door.” See also, Nine Takeaways From Our Investigation Into 3M’s Forever Chemicals. What you need to know about the inside story of how the company allowed PFOS to seep into all of us while sitting on research that showed the chemical is toxic. ProPublica, Friday, 24 May 2024: “As a 3M scientist in the 1990s, Kris Hansen found the company’s forever chemicals in almost every human blood sample she analyzed. Then she discovered that the company had known about the problem for decades.”

May 20, 2024 Filed Under: Environment, Ethics

May 1, 2024

Aftermath of the Trump Administration, May 2024

For independent global news, visit Democracy Now!

For a newsletter about the history behind today’s politics, subscribe to Heather Cox Richardson’s newsletter, Letters from an American.

Wednesday, 1 May 2024:

Trump, Repeating 2020 Election Lies, Will Not Commit to Accepting 2024 Results, The New York Times, Michael Gold and Chris Cameron, Wednesday, 1 May 2024: “Former President Donald J. Trump told The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Wednesday that he would not commit to accepting the results of the 2024 election, as he again repeated his lies that the 2020 election was stolen from him. ‘If everything’s honest, I’ll gladly accept the results. I don’t change on that,’ Mr. Trump said, according to The Journal Sentinel. ‘If it’s not, you have to fight for the right of the country.’ In an interview with Time magazine published on Tuesday, he also dismissed questions about political violence in November by suggesting that his victory was inevitable. When pressed about what might happen should he lose, he said, ‘if we don’t win, you know, it depends. It always depends on the fairness of an election.’ Mr. Trump’s insistent and fraudulent claims that the 2020 election was unfair were at the heart of his efforts to overturn his loss to President Biden, and to the violent storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, by a mob of supporters who believed his claims. Mr. Trump now faces dozens of felony charges in connection with those events.”

Thursday, 2 May 2024:

Jury Hears Tape of Trump and Michael Cohen Discussing Hush-Money Deal. The tape, played at the former president’s criminal trial, captured Michael Cohen telling Donald Trump about a payment to former Playboy model Karen McDougal. The New York Times, Jonah E. Bromwich and Jesse McKinley, Thursday, 2 May 2024: “Two voices reverberated in the courtroom. The first was loud, deep and unctuous, the second was casual — until money came up. They were discussing a deal made during the 2016 presidential campaign to silence a woman who claimed to have had an extramarital affair with the Republican candidate. The first voice on the recording belonged to Michael D. Cohen, a former personal lawyer and fixer for Donald J. Trump. The second was the candidate himself, Mr. Trump, who on Thursday sat mutely as jurors heard his words. The Manhattan district attorney’s office used the tape, surreptitiously made by Mr. Cohen, to bring the trial’s two main characters together for the first time. The recording vividly captured how Mr. Cohen reported details of a key transaction to his then boss. On it, Mr. Cohen discusses a hush-money deal that the parent company of The National Enquirer made on Mr. Trump’s behalf with the former Playboy model Karen McDougal, as well as the question of how to deal with ‘the financing’ — that is, repaying — the supermarket tabloid’s publisher, David Pecker. ‘What financing?” Mr. Trump asked, suddenly snapping to attention. He then directed Mr. Cohen to ‘pay with cash.’ (Mr. Pecker, the jurors already know, was never repaid.) The existence of the recording, made by Mr. Cohen about two months before the election, was previously known. But it demonstrated for the jury the direct involvement of the future president in what prosecutors have said was a conspiracy to help him get elected.” See also, At Trump’s Trial, a Decade’s Worth of Celebrity Sleaze Is Exhumed. Donald Trump’s lawyers tried to paint Keith Davidson, the man who helped broker a hush-money payment for Stormy Daniels, as a specialist in extracting money from the famous. The New York Times, Alan Feuer and Jonah E. Bromwich, Thursday, 2 May 2024: “An attempt to shake down the actor Charlie Sheen. Rumors that the Hollywood star Lindsay Lohan was in rehab. A lawsuit by Hulk Hogan, the former pro wrestler, against the gossip website Gawker for publishing a tape of him having sex. Testimony on Thursday at former President Donald J. Trump’s criminal trial in Manhattan dove deeply into the celebrity-obsessed digital media environment of the past fifteen years or so that helped fuel Mr. Trump’s rise to political prominence. The lurid tales were introduced to the jury largely through the witness Keith Davidson, a Los Angeles lawyer who specialized in getting money for clients who had dirt on famous people. In his testimony, particularly as he was cross-examined, Mr. Davidson and a defense lawyer, Emil Bove, together led the jurors on a whirlwind tour of several gossipy and tawdry deals he had a hand in…. The purpose of Mr. Bove’s interrogation appeared to be to suggest to the jury that Ms. McDougal and Ms. Daniels may have sought to extract their own payments from Mr. Trump. But making that point required Mr. Bove to drag Mr. Davidson through some old patches of mud.” See also, Live Coverage Including Five Takeaways: Jurors Hear Tape of Trump Discussing Deal With Playboy Model Karen McDougal. The recording, secretly made by Donald Trump’s longtime fixer, Michael Cohen, came at the end of a day of testimony detailing a separate hush-money deal with the porn star Stormy Daniels. The New York Times, Thursday, 2 May 2024. See also, Trump Hush Money Trial: Trump defense suggests he was shakedown target, not hush money schemer. During contentious questioning of Stormy Daniels lawyer Keith Davidson, Donald Trump’s lawyers portray their client as the victim in the case. The Washington Post, Devlin Barrett, Shayna Jacobs, and Mark Berman, Thursday, 2 May 2024: “Donald Trump’s defense team suggested Thursday that rather than orchestrating a hush money scheme, the former president was really the target of a shakedown attempt by unscrupulous entertainment figures who saw his 2016 presidential campaign as an opportunity for a quick payday. In the most contentious testimony yet in the criminal trial, Los Angeles lawyer Keith Davidson denied accusations that he flirted with extortion when he negotiated settlements with celebrities to keep potentially damaging stories out of the public eye. By accusing him, Trump’s lawyers displayed a key element of their defense strategy: getting jurors to focus on the lawyers and middlemen who negotiated hush money payments on Trump’s behalf in 2016, rather than the politician who — according to prosecutors — orchestrated the payments and allegedly falsified paperwork about one of them to try to separate it from his presidential campaign. The jury also heard a secretly recorded phone conversation between Davidson and Trump’s then-lawyer, Michael Cohen, in which Cohen claimed Trump told him, ‘I hate the fact that we did it,’ in reference to the hush money payment to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels.” See also, Trump Trial takeaways: ‘When in doubt, steer clear.’ Donald Trump’s lawyers used tabloid stories to portray their client as a victim and argued he should be able to respond to political jokes against him. The Washington Post, Perry Stein and Devlin Barrett, Thursday, 2 May 2024: “Another day in Manhattan criminal court, with much more testimony about the messy, shady world of celebrities and tabloid media. But unlike the last week and a half, Donald Trump’s legal team tried to use the tabloid stories Thursday to go on offense, rather than play defense against the prosecutor’s allegations.” See also, Live coverage: Stormy Daniels’s lawyer completes testimony in Trump’s hush money trial, The Washington Post, 6 Live coverage contributors, Thursday, 2 May 2024. See also, Highlights from day 10 of the Trump hush money trial, Associated Press, Thursday, 2 May 2024.

Friday, 3 May 2024:

Hope Hicks Takes the Stand: 5 Takeaways From Trump’s Criminal Trial. In a riveted courtroom, Ms. Hicks, the former spokeswoman for Donald Trump, testified how she and her former boss managed one scandal after another. The New York Times, Jesse McKinley and Kate Christobek, Friday, 3 May 2024: “Gasps were heard in the overflow courtroom when Hope Hicks was called as a witness on Friday in Donald J. Trump’s criminal trial in Manhattan, an audible sign of the anticipation as Mr. Trump’s former press secretary and White House communications director took the stand. Her testimony ended the trial’s third week in dramatic fashion. In nearly three hours on the stand, Ms. Hicks described the impact on Mr. Trump’s campaign of the so-called ‘Access Hollywood’ tape, in which Mr. Trump bragged about grabbing women’s genitals. As soon as the tape was disclosed in October 2016, Ms. Hicks said, she knew it would be ‘a massive story.’ Taking the stand under a subpoena, Ms. Hicks said she was nervous, and at one point, early in the cross-examination, she broke down in tears.” See also, Live Coverage of Trump Trial: Hope Hicks Delivers Emotionally Gripping Testimony Before Trial Adjourns for Weekend, The New York Times, Friday, 3 May 2024: “The former Trump spokeswoman testified about his 2016 campaign’s damage-control efforts after the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape, in which the candidate spoke of groping women, became public. Prosecutors say it made Mr. Trump’s aides more eager to quash damaging stories, like Stormy Daniels’s account of an affair.” See also, Live coverage of Trump Hush Money Trial: Hope Hicks testimony ends; Trump hush money trial concludes for the week, The Washington Post, 6 Live coverage contributors, Friday, 3 May 2024: “Hope Hicks, a former top aide to then-President Donald Trump, ended her testimony Friday in his New York criminal trial for allegedly falsifying records related to a hush money payment to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels. Hicks said she was stunned by the ‘Access Hollywood’ video revealed by The Washington Post in 2016 and worried about what Trump’s recorded comments about grabbing women’s genitalia could mean for his campaign.”

Continue reading Aftermath of the Trump Administration, May 2024:

May 1, 2024 Filed Under: Trump administration/Republican House and Senate/Supreme Court, Trump: A Daily Chronicle

April 1, 2024

Aftermath of the Trump Administration, April 2024

For independent global news, visit Democracy Now!

For a newsletter about the history behind today’s politics, subscribe to Heather Cox Richardson’s newsletter, Letters from an American.

Monday, 1 April 2024:

Gag Order Against Trump Is Expanded to Bar Attacks on Judge’s Family. Donald Trump had in recent days targeted the daughter of Juan Merchan, the judge overseeing his criminal trial in Manhattan, in blistering social media posts. The New York Times, Jesse McKinley, Ben Protess, and William K. Rashbaum, Monday, 1 April 2024: “The New York judge overseeing Donald J. Trump’s criminal trial later this month expanded a gag order on Monday to bar the former president from attacking the judge’s family members, who in recent days have become the target of Mr. Trump’s abuse. Justice Juan M. Merchan last week issued an order prohibiting Mr. Trump from attacking witnesses, prosecutors, jurors and court staff, as well as their relatives. That order, however, did not cover Justice Merchan himself or the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, who brought the criminal case against the former president. And although the ruling issued on Monday still does not apply to the judge or the district attorney, Justice Merchan, granting a request from Mr. Bragg’s office, amended the gag order so that it does now cover their families. In his ruling, the judge cited recent attacks against his daughter, and rejected Mr. Trump’s argument that his statements were ‘core political speech.’ ‘This pattern of attacking family members of presiding jurists and attorneys assigned to his cases serves no legitimate purpose,’ Justice Merchan wrote. ‘It merely injects fear in those assigned or called to participate in the proceedings, that not only they, but their family members as well, are ‘fair game’ for defendant’s vitriol.’ Mr. Bragg’s office had asked the judge to clarify that their relatives were included, calling such protection ‘amply warranted.’ Noting Mr. Trump’s track record of issuing ‘threatening and alarming remarks,’ Mr. Bragg’s office warned of ‘the harms that those family members have suffered.’” See also, Trump ramps up attacks on judges, sparking concerns as criminal trial nears. The judge overseeing the criminal trial that will start April 15 issued an expanded gag order late Monday in response to some of the former president’s rhetoric. The Washington Post, Marianne LeVine, Clara Ence Morse, and Shayna Jacobs, Monday, 1 April 2024: “Former president Donald Trump is ramping up efforts to disparage judges overseeing his criminal and civil cases — reprising a long-standing strategy as a high-profile trial draws near and prompting growing concerns from legal experts and an an expanded gag order late Monday. The presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s approach, part of a broader election-year attempt to portray the judicial system as weaponized against him, was evident in a slew of attacks over the weekend. Such broadsides, which Trump has often lobbed without evidence for his claims, have raised worries about the safety of judges and threaten to undermine faith in the court system, some legal experts said Monday. Trump’s personal attacks against the daughter of the New York judge overseeing a hush money case prompted the judge to expand an existing gag order to include his family and the district attorney’s family.” See also, Judge expands gag order in Trump hush money case to include family members of the court, CNN Politics, Kara Scannell, Lauren del Valle, and Jeremy Herb, Monday, 1 April 2024: “The judge overseeing Donald Trump’s criminal hush money trial expanded a recently imposed gag order to include family members of the court and family members of the Manhattan district attorney, according to a late Monday ruling. In the ruling, which comes after Trump leveled comments against Judge Juan Merchan’s daughter in recent days, the judge issued a warning that Trump’s rhetoric threatens to instill fear in those who might be involved in the proceedings for their loved ones. ‘The average observer, must now, after hearing defendant’s recent attacks, draw the conclusion that if they become involved in these proceedings, even tangentially, they should worry not only for themselves, but for their loved ones as well,’ Merchan wrote. ‘Such concerns will undoubtedly interfere with the fair administration of justice and constitutes a direct attack on the Rule of Law itself.’ ‘It is no longer just a mere possibility or a reasonable likelihood that there exists a threat to the integrity of the judicial proceedings. The threat is very real. Admonitions are not enough, nor is reliance on self-restraint,’ he said.”

Trump Gets Bond Deal to Ward Off $454 Million Judgment, for Now. The guarantee means that New York’s attorney general will not be able to pursue Donald Trump’s assets and bank accounts until Mr. Trump’s appeals are settled. The New York Times, Ben Protess, Monday, 1 April 2024: “Former President Donald J. Trump averted a financial disaster on Monday, reaching a deal that will spare him from paying a $454 million judgment in his civil fraud case while he appeals the penalty. The lifeline came in the form of a bond that will prevent New York’s attorney general, who brought the lawsuit that led to the judgment, from collecting the $454 million until Mr. Trump’s appeal is resolved. The attorney general, Letitia James, accused Mr. Trump of fraudulently inflating his net worth by as much as $2 billion, and a judge ruled in her favor. Mr. Trump secured the bond after an appeals court last week granted his request to lower the bond amount, setting it at $175 million and staving off a financial crisis for Mr. Trump. He otherwise would have had to post a bond for the full $454 million, which his lawyers declared a ‘practical impossibility.’ Had he failed to do so, Ms. James could have frozen his bank accounts.” See also, Trump posts $175M bond to keep New York authorities from seizing his property, The Washington Post, Shayna Jacobs, Monday, 1 April 2024: “Donald Trump posted a $175 million bond on Monday to prevent New York authorities from seizing his assets, including properties such as Trump Tower, pending appeal of a civil fraud judgment against him of nearly a half-billion dollars. The former president’s posting of the bond was necessary to keep New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) from initiating legal steps to take over his properties. The bond arrangement was made with Knight Specialty Insurance Company, according to a court document. After a 10-week trial late last year, New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron found Trump, the Trump Organization, Trump’s adult sons and two former executives liable in February for using illegal tactics to knowingly cheat business partners to increase the company’s profits and savings.” See also, Donald Trump has posted a $175 million bond to avert asset seizure as he appeals New York fraud penalty, Associated Press, Michael R. Sisak and Jennifer Peltz, Monday, 1 April 2024: “Donald Trump posted a $175 million bond on Monday in his New York civil fraud case, halting collection of the more than $454 million he owes and preventing the state from seizing his assets to satisfy the debt while he appeals, according to a court filing. A New York appellate court had given the former president 10 days to put up the money after a panel of judges agreed last month to slash the amount needed to stop the clock on enforcement. The bond Trump is posting with the court now is essentially a placeholder, meant to guarantee payment if the judgment is upheld. If that happens, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee will have to pay the state the whole sum, which grows with daily interest. If Trump wins, he won’t have to pay the state anything and will get back the money he has put up now.”

The Church of Trump: How He’s Infusing Christianity Into His Movement. Ending many of his rallies with a churchlike ritual and casting his prosecutions as persecution, the former president is demanding–and receiving–new levels of devotion from Republicans. The New York Times, Michael C. Bender, Monday, 1 April 2024: “Long known for his improvised and volatile stage performances, former President Donald J. Trump now tends to finish his rallies on a solemn note. Soft, reflective music fills the venue as a hush falls over the crowd. Mr. Trump’s tone turns reverent and somber, prompting some supporters to bow their heads or close their eyes. Others raise open palms in the air or murmur as if in prayer. In this moment, Mr. Trump’s audience is his congregation, and the former president their pastor as he delivers a roughly 15-minute finale that evokes an evangelical altar call, the emotional tradition that concludes some Christian services in which attendees come forward to commit to their savior. ‘The great silent majority is rising like never before and under our leadership,’ he recites from a teleprompter in a typical version of the script. ‘We will pray to God for our strength and for our liberty. We will pray for God and we will pray with God. We are one movement, one people, one family and one glorious nation under God.’ The meditative ritual might appear incongruent with the raucous epicenter of the nation’s conservative movement, but Mr. Trump’s political creed stands as one of the starkest examples of his effort to transform the Republican Party into a kind of Church of Trump. His insistence on absolute devotion and fealty can be seen at every level of the party, from Congress to the Republican National Committee to rank-and-file voters. Mr. Trump’s ability to turn his supporters’ passion into piety is crucial to understanding how he remains the undisputed Republican leader despite guiding his party to repeated political failures and while facing dozens of felony charges in four criminal cases. His success at portraying those prosecutions as persecutions — and warning, without merit, that his followers could be targeted next — has fueled enthusiasm for his candidacy and placed him, once again, in a position to capture the White House.”

Continue reading Aftermath of the Trump Administration, April 2024:

April 1, 2024 Filed Under: Trump administration/Republican House and Senate/Supreme Court, Trump: A Daily Chronicle

March 1, 2024

Aftermath of the Trump Administration, March 2024

For independent global news, visit Democracy Now!

For a newsletter about the history behind today’s politics, subscribe to Heather Cox Richardson’s newsletter, Letters from an American.

Friday, 1 March 2024:

Judge Aileen Cannon Makes No Immediate Decision on Timing of Trump Classified Documents Trial. Cannon previously indicated that she would push back the start of the proceeding from the initially planned date in May. Prosecutors want to begin in July, and the former president in August. The New York Times, Anan Feuer, Maggie Haberman, and Eileen Sullivan, Friday, 1 March 2024: “A federal judge in Florida held a hearing on Friday to consider a new date for former President Donald J. Trump’s trial on charges of mishandling classified documents, but made no immediate decision about a choice that could have major consequences for both his legal and political future. Four months ago, the judge, Aileen M. Cannon, declared she was inclined to make some “reasonable adjustments” to the timing of the classified documents trial, which was originally scheduled to start on May 20 in Federal District Court in Fort Pierce, Fla. But by holding off on making a decision at the hearing on Friday, Judge Cannon further delayed resolving the question of how long the trial would be postponed. In all of Mr. Trump’s criminal cases, the issue of timing has been paramount in a way that is unusual for most prosecutions. He is facing four separate indictments in four different cities, and proceedings have to be scheduled in relation to each other and against the busy backdrop of his presidential campaign.”

Saturday, 2 March 2024:

Times/Siena Poll Finds Voters Doubt Biden’s Leadership and Favor Trump. The share of voters who strongly disapprove of President Biden’s handling of his job has reached 47 percent, higher than in Times/Siena polls at any point in his presidency. The New York Times, Shane Goldmacher, Saturday, 2 March 2024: “President Biden is struggling to overcome doubts about his leadership inside his own party and broad dissatisfaction over the nation’s direction, leaving him trailing behind Donald J. Trump just as their general-election contest is about to begin, a new poll by The New York Times and Siena College has found. With eight months left until the November election, Mr. Biden’s 43 percent support lags behind Mr. Trump’s 48 percent in the national survey of registered voters. Only one in four voters thinks the country is moving in the right direction. More than twice as many voters believe Mr. Biden’s policies have personally hurt them as believe his policies have helped them. A majority of voters think the economy is in poor condition. And the share of voters who strongly disapprove of Mr. Biden’s handling of his job has reached 47 percent, higher than in Times/Siena polls at any point in his presidency. The poll offers an array of warning signs for the president about weaknesses within the Democratic coalition, including among women, Black and Latino voters. So far, it is Mr. Trump who has better unified his party, even amid an ongoing primary contest.”

Monday, 4 March 2024:

Trump Prevails in Supreme Court Challenge to His Eligibility. The justices ruled that the 14th Amendment did not allow Colorado to bar the former president from the state’s primary ballot. The New York Times, Adam Liptak, Monday, 4 March 2024: “The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that states may not bar former President Donald J. Trump from running for another term, rejecting a challenge from Colorado to his eligibility that threatened to upend the presidential race by taking him off ballots around the nation. Though the justices provided different reasons, the decision’s bottom line was unanimous. All the opinions focused on legal issues, and none took a position on whether Mr. Trump had engaged in insurrection, as Colorado courts had found. All the justices agreed that individual states may not bar candidates for the presidency under a constitutional provision, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, that prohibits insurrectionists from holding office. Four justices would have left it at that, with the court’s three liberal members expressing dismay at what they said was the stunning sweep of the majority’s approach. But the five-justice majority, in an unsigned opinion answering questions not directly before the court, ruled that Congress must act to give Section 3 force. ‘The Constitution makes Congress, rather than the states, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates,’ the majority wrote, adding that detailed federal legislation was required to determine who was disqualified under the provision. The decision was produced on a rushed schedule, landing the day before the Super Tuesday primaries in Colorado and around the nation. In a series of unusual moves, the court did not announce that it would issue an opinion until Sunday and did not take the bench to do so on Monday, instead simply posting the decision on its website. The decision was the court’s most important ruling concerning a presidential election since George W. Bush prevailed in Bush v. Gore in 2000.” See also, Highlights of the Supreme Court’s Opinions on Trump’s Ballot Eligibility. The main opinion was a joint ruling that was not signed by any particular justice. None of the opinions addressed whether Donald Trump engaged in insurrection. The New York Times, Charlie Savage, Monday, 4 March 2024. See also, Supreme Court rejects Colorado ruling and keeps Trump on the ballot nationwide. While the decision was unanimous, the liberal justices wrote a sharp concurrence that accused the conservative majority of going further than needed. The Washington Post, Ann E. Marimow, Monday, 4 March 2024: “The Supreme Court on Monday unanimously sided with former president Donald Trump, allowing the 2024 Republican presidential front-runner to remain on the election ballot and reversing a Colorado ruling that disqualified him from returning to office because of his conduct around the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. The justices said the Constitution does not permit a single state to disqualify a presidential candidate from national office. The court warned of disruption and a chaotic state-by-state patchwork if a candidate for nationwide office could be declared ineligible in some states, but not others, based on the same conduct…. The court’s decision to keep Trump on the ballot applies to other states with similar challenges to his candidacy and, for now, removes the Supreme Court from directly determining the path of the 2024 presidential election. While the decision was unanimous, the court’s three liberal justices also wrote separately, saying the conservative majority went too far and decided an issue that was not before the court in an attempt to ‘insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding office.’… The justices drew a clear distinction between state and national elections, writing that ‘States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.’ Five of the six conservative justices then went further, writing that the disqualification clause can be enforced for national office only through federal legislation — not a federal court challenge or nonlegislative action by Congress. ‘Responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States,”’the majority said.” See also, 4 takeaways from the Supreme Court’s ruling on Trump and the 14th Amendment, The Washington Post, Aaron Blake, Monday, 4 March 2024. See also, Supreme Court restores Trump to ballot, rejecting state attempts to ban him over Capitol attack, Associated Press, Mark Sherman, Monday, 4 March 2024: “The Supreme Court on Monday unanimously restored Donald Trump to 2024 presidential primary ballots, rejecting state attempts to ban the Republican former president over the Capitol riot. The justices ruled a day before the Super Tuesday primaries that states cannot invoke a post-Civil War constitutional provision to keep presidential candidates from appearing on ballots. That power resides with Congress, the court wrote in an unsigned opinion.”

Continue reading Aftermath of the Trump Administration, March 2024:

March 1, 2024 Filed Under: Trump administration/Republican House and Senate/Supreme Court, Trump: A Daily Chronicle, Uncategorized

Aftermath of the Trump Administration, October 2024

Tuesday, 1 October 2024:

Wednesday, 2 October 2024:

Aftermath of the Trump Administration, September 2024

Sunday, 1 September 2024:

Monday, 2 September 2024:

Tuesday, 3 September 2024:

Something’s Poisoning America’s Land. Farmers Fear ‘Forever’ Chemicals

Aftermath of the Trump Administration, August 2024

Thursday, 1 August 2024:

Friday, 2 August 2024:

Aftermath of the Trump Administration, July 2024

Monday, 1 July 2024:

Aftermath of the Trump Administration, June 2024

Sunday, 2 June 2024:

Monday, 3 June 2024:

How 3M Discovered, Then Concealed, the Dangers of Forever Chemicals

Aftermath of the Trump Administration, May 2024

Wednesday, 1 May 2024:

Thursday, 2 May 2024:

Friday, 3 May 2024:

Aftermath of the Trump Administration, April 2024

Monday, 1 April 2024:

Aftermath of the Trump Administration, March 2024

Friday, 1 March 2024:

Saturday, 2 March 2024:

Monday, 4 March 2024:

The Archives

Categories