Aftermath of the Trump Administration, January 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, 2 January 2024:

Trump Appeals Decision Barring Him From Maine Primary Ballot. The move attempts to overturn the decision which made Maine the second state to rule the former president ineligible for the primary ballot. The New York Times, Jenna Russell, Tuesday, 2 January 2024: “Lawyers for former President Donald J. Trump filed an appeal on Tuesday seeking to overturn the ruling last week by Shenna Bellows, Maine’s secretary of state, to bar him from appearing on the state’s Republican primary ballot…. Maine became the second state to exclude Mr. Trump from its primary ballot on Dec. 28, when Ms. Bellows found him ineligible under the third section of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits people who have engaged in insurrection from holding office. Her decision followed a similar landmark finding in Colorado, where the state’s Supreme Court ruled on Dec. 19 that he could not appear on the ballot there.” See also, Trump appeals Maine’s decision to ban him from the primary ballot, The Washington Post, Patrick Marley, Tuesday, 2 January 2024: “Former president Donald Trump asked a judge Tuesday to reverse an attempt by Maine’s secretary of state to keep his name off the state’s primary ballot after she determined that he was an insurrectionist who is ineligible to hold the presidency again under the Constitution. Trump filed his appeal to Kennebec County Superior Court five days after Secretary of State Shenna Bellows (D) declared his name should not be on the ballot because of his actions before and after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. She put her ruling on hold while Trump pursues his appeal. Trump’s filing came as he prepared a separate appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court over a decision from Colorado’s top court that would keep him off the ballot in that state. Efforts to remove the former president from the ballot in other states are ongoing, increasing pressure on the Supreme Court to resolve the issue for the entire country. The cases hinge on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which says those who have sworn an oath to support the Constitution cannot hold office if they engage in insurrection. The measure — ratified in 1868, three years after the end of the Civil War — was meant to prevent Confederates from returning to power. Trump’s opponents have seized on the provision to argue that he can’t hold office again because he urged supporters to ‘fight like hell’ at the Capitol as Congress was confirming Joe Biden’s 2020 victory.”

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Rules Texas Can Ban Emergency Abortions Despite Federal Guidance. The court affirmed a ruling that sided with the state on whether emergency rooms are required to perform emergency abortions. The New York Times, Jesus Jiménez, Tuesday, 2 January 2024: “Emergency room doctors in Texas are not required to perform emergency abortions despite federal guidance that requires hospitals to offer stabilizing care, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a ruling that sided with the State of Texas, which had sued the Biden administration, arguing that the federal guidance issued in 2022 was an overstep that would ‘force abortions.’ The appeal was heard by Judge Leslie H. Southwick, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, and judges Kurt Engelhardt and Cory Wilson, who were appointed by President Donald Trump. Judge Engelhardt wrote that the federal guidance does not mandate physicians to provide emergency abortions, adding that the guidance ‘does not mandate any specific type of medical treatment, let alone abortion.'” See also, Court rules Texas doctors do not need to perform emergency abortions, The Washington Post, Dan Diamond and Caroline Kitchener, Tuesday, 2 January 2024: “A federal appeals court on Tuesday ruled that Texas hospitals and doctors are not obligated to perform abortions under a long-standing national emergency-care law, dealing a blow to the White House’s strategy to ensure access to the procedure after the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion in 2022. The federal law ‘does not mandate any specific type of medical treatment, let alone abortion,’ the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit concluded, faulting the Biden administration’s interpretation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA. The law ‘does not govern the practice of medicine,’ the court added.” See also, Federal appeals court rules emergency room doctors are not required to perform life-saving abortions. The Biden administration reminded hospitals of their obligation to perform life-saving abortions under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act after the overturn of Roe v. Wade. Texas sued, arguing it was an overstep that mandated abortions. The Texas Turbine, Eleanor Klibanoff, Tuesday, 2 January 2024: “Federal regulations do not require emergency rooms to perform life-saving abortions if it would run afoul of state law, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday. After the overturn of Roe v. Wade in June 2022, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services sent hospitals guidance, reminding them of their obligation to offer stabilizing care, including medically necessary abortions, under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). ‘When a state law prohibits abortion and does not include an exception for the life of the pregnant person — or draws the exception more narrowly than EMTALA’s emergency medical condition definition — that state law is preempted,’ the guidance said. Texas sued, saying this was tantamount to a ‘nationwide mandate that every hospital and emergency-room physician perform abortions.’ Several anti-abortion medical associations joined the lawsuit as well. Since summer 2022, all abortions have been banned in Texas, except to save the life of the pregnant patient. But doctors, and their patients with medically complex pregnancies, have struggled with implementing the medical exception, reportedly delaying or denying abortion care rather than risk up to life in prison and the loss of their license. At a hearing in November, a lawyer for the U.S. Department of Justice said that while Texas law might not prohibit medically necessary abortions, the guidance was intended ‘to ensure that the care is offered when it is required under the statute.'”

How death threats get Republicans to fall in line behind Trump. The insidious way violence is changing US politics — and shaping the 2024 election. Vox, Zack Beauchamp, Tuesday, 2 January 2024: “Across the board and around the country, data reveals that threats against public officials have risen to unprecedented numbers — to the point where 83 percent of Americans are now concerned about risks of political violence in their country. The threats are coming from across the political spectrum, but the most important ones in this regard emanate from the MAGA faithful. Trump’s most fanatical followers have created a situation where challenging him carries not only political risks but also personal ones. Elected officials who dare defy the former president face serious threats to their well-being and to that of their families — raising the cost of taking an already difficult stand. As a result, the threat of violence is now a part of the American political system, to the point where Republican officials are — by their own admissions — changing the way they behave because they fear it.”

Wednesday, 3 January 2024:

Trump Asks Supreme Court to Keep Him on the Colorado Ballot. The petition came in response to a Colorado Supreme court ruling that the former president had engaged in insurrection and was ineligible to hold office under the 14th Amendment. The New York Times, Adam Liptak, Wednesday, 3 January 2024: “Former President Donald J. Trump asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday to keep him on the primary ballot in Colorado, appealing an explosive ruling from the state Supreme Court declaring him ineligible based on his efforts to overturn the 2020 election that culminated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. That ruling, Mr. Trump’s lawyers wrote, marked ‘the first time in the history of the United States that the judiciary has prevented voters from casting ballots for the leading major-party presidential candidate.’ Mr. Trump’s appeal adds to the growing pressure on the U.S. Supreme Court to act, given the number of challenges to Mr. Trump’s eligibility and the need for a nationwide resolution of the question as the primaries approach.” See also, Trump asks the Supreme court to keep his name on the Colorado ballot. The former president, who is the 2024 Republican frontrunner, is also appealing a Maine official’s decision to bar him from that state’s ballot. The Washington Post, Patrick Marley and Ann E. Marimow, Wednesday, 3 January 2024: “Donald Trump asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday to ensure he can appear on primary ballots across the country by invalidating a ruling from Colorado’s top court that said Trump is ineligible to serve as president again. Last month, the Colorado Supreme Court concluded that Trump engaged in an insurrection before and during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol and as a result could not appear on the state’s primary ballot. It marked the first time a court said a candidate could be removed from the ballot based on a post-Civil War provision of the U.S. Constitution that bars insurrectionists from holding office.” See also, Trump asks US Supreme Court to overturn Colorado ruling barring him from ballot over January 6 attack on the US Capitol, Associated Press, Nicholas Riccardi, Wednesday, 3 January 2024: “Former President Donald Trump on Wednesday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a ruling barring him from the Colorado ballot, setting up a high-stakes showdown over whether a constitutional provision prohibiting those who ‘engaged in insurrection’ will end his political career. Trump appealed a 4-3 ruling in December by the Colorado Supreme Court that marked the first time in history that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was used to bar a presidential contender from the ballot. The court found that Trump’s role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol disqualified him under the clause. The provision has been used so sparingly in American history that the U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on it.”

Continue reading Aftermath of the Trump Administration, January 2024:

Thursday, 4 January 2024:

Democrats on the House Oversight Committee Issue Report Finding Trump Received Millions From Foreign Governments as President. House Democrats released evidence that he took in at least $7.8 million from foreign entities while in office, engaging in the kind of conduct the Republicans are grasping to pin on President Biden. The New York Times, Luke Broadwater, Thursday, 4 January 2024: “Donald J. Trump’s businesses received at least $7.8 million from 20 foreign governments during his presidency, according to new documents released by House Democrats on Thursday that show how much he received from overseas transactions while he was in the White House, most of it from China. The transactions, detailed in a 156-page report called ‘White House For Sale’ that was produced by Democrats on the House Oversight Committee, offer concrete evidence that the former president engaged in the kind of conduct that House Republicans have labored, so far unsuccessfully, to prove that President Biden did as they work to build an impeachment case against him. Using documents produced through a court fight, the report describes how foreign governments and their controlled entities, including a top U.S. adversary, interacted with Trump businesses while he was president. They paid millions to the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C.; Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas; Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue in New York; and Trump World Tower at 845 United Nations Plaza in New York. The Constitution prohibits federal officeholders from accepting money, payments or gifts ‘of any kind whatever’ from foreign governments and monarchs unless they obtain ‘the consent of the Congress’ to do so. The report notes that Mr. Trump never went to Congress to seek consent.” See also, Democrats on the House Oversight Committee issue report: Trump businesses received $7.8 million in foreign payments during presidency, The Washington Post, Jacqueline Alemany, Thursday, 4 January 2024: “During Donald Trump’s presidency, his businesses received at least $7.8 million in payments from the foreign governments and officials of 20 countries, including China, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, according to a report released by Democrats on the House Oversight Committee. The report argues that the payments violated the Constitution’s foreign emoluments clause, a provision that bars federal officials, including the president, from accepting money or gifts from foreign governments without permission from Congress. That clause was central to a protracted legal debate when Democrats controlled the House and sought access to Trump’s financial records. The issue eventually landed at the Supreme Court, but there was no definitive ruling on whether Trump illegally profited from his presidency. Instead, the justices in 2021 said the cases were moot because Trump no longer held office.” See also, Documents show China spent over $5.5 million at Trump properties while he was president, CNN Politics, Zachery Cohen and Kara Scannell, Thursday, 4 January 2024: “The Chinese government and its state-controlled entities spent over $5.5 million at properties owned by Donald Trump while he was in office, the largest total of payments made by any single foreign country known to date, according to financial documents cited in a report from House Democrats released Thursday. Those payments collectively included millions of dollars from China’s Embassy in the United States, a state-owned Chinese bank accused by the US Justice Department of helping North Korea evade sanctions and a state-owned Chinese air transit company. Accounting records from Trump’s former accounting firm, Mazars USA, were obtained by Democrats on the House Oversight Committee. China is one of 20 countries that made at least $7.8 million in total payments to Trump-owned businesses and properties during the former president’s stint in the White House, including his hotels in Washington DC, New York and Las Vegas, the report states.”

Friday, 5 January 2024:

Supreme Court to Decide Whether Trump Is Eligible for Colorado Ballot. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled last month that the former president could not appear on the state’s Republican primary ballot because he had engaged in insurrection. The New York Times, Adam Liptak, Friday, 5 January 2024: “The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide whether former President Donald J. Trump is eligible for Colorado’s Republican primary ballot, thrusting the justices into a pivotal role that could alter the course of this year’s presidential election. The sweep of the court’s ruling is likely to be broad. It will probably resolve not only whether Mr. Trump may appear on the Colorado primary ballot after the state’s top court declared that he had engaged in insurrection in his efforts to subvert the 2020 election, but it will most likely also determine his eligibility to run in the general election and to hold office at all. Not since Bush v. Gore, the 2000 decision that handed the presidency to George W. Bush, has the Supreme Court taken such a central role in an election for the nation’s highest office. The case will be argued on Feb. 8, and the court will probably decide it quickly. The Colorado Republican Party had urged the justices to rule by March 5, when many states, including Colorado, hold primaries.” See also, Supreme Court says it will decide if Trump qualifies for Colorado ballot, The Washington Post, Ann E. Marimow and Patrick Marley, Friday, 5 January 2024: “The Supreme Court said Friday that it will decide whether former president Donald Trump’s name can appear on primary election ballots, scheduling arguments just five weeks from now in a case that will have a major impact on this year’s presidential election. Colorado’s top court disqualified the Republican front-runner from the ballot last month, finding that he engaged in an insurrection before and during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Similar arguments have been made to keep Trump off the ballot in other states. While some of those challenges have failed, including in Michigan and Minnesota, the efforts are still pending in Illinois, Oregon, Massachusetts and elsewhere. Maine’s top election official last month barred Trump from that ballot, an order that the former president has appealed in state court. Friday’s announcement puts the justices in a pivotal, and potentially uncomfortable, position with echoes of the court’s involvement in the 2000 election — when its decision assured victory for George W. Bush, polarized the nation and damaged the court’s reputation as an independent institution. The court’s brief order scheduled oral arguments for Feb. 8 and came a day before the third anniversary of the Capitol riot.” See also, The Supreme Court will decide if Donald Trump can be kept off 2024 presidential ballots, Associated Press, Mark Sherman and Nicholas Riccardi, Friday, 5 January 2024: “The Supreme Court said Friday it will decide whether former President Donald Trump can be kept off the ballot because of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, inserting the court squarely in the 2024 presidential campaign. The justices acknowledged the need to reach a decision quickly, as voters will soon begin casting presidential primary ballots across the country. The court agreed to take up Trump’s appeal of a case from Colorado stemming from his role in the events that culminated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Underscoring the urgency, arguments will be held on Feb. 8, during what is normally a nearly monthlong winter break for the justices. The compressed timeframe could allow the court to produce a decision before Super Tuesday on March 5, when the largest number of delegates are up for grabs in a single day, including in Colorado.” See also, Supreme Court agrees to weigh whether Trump can be kicked off ballot in Colorado. The case raises a novel legal question under a constitutional clause that prohibits those who have ‘engaged in insurrection’ from serving in the federal government. NBC News, Lawrence Hurley, Friday, 5 January 2024: “The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to consider whether former President Donald Trump could be deemed ineligible to run for federal office again because of his actions leading up to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol — a case that could have a seismic impact on the presidential election. The justices will review a decision by the Colorado Supreme Court that said Trump could be barred from the Republican primary ballot in that state, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruling is likely to have national repercussions, potentially setting guidelines that would determine how every other state would handle the issue. The brief order said the case would be argued on an accelerated schedule on Feb. 8, indicating that a ruling will follow soon after. One other state, Maine, has issued a similar decision saying that Trump cannot appear on the ballot. Like the Colorado ruling, the Maine decision is on hold while litigation continues. Trump remains on the ballot in both states. ‘We’re glad that the Supreme Court will definitively decide whether Donald Trump can be on the ballot. We look forward to presenting our case and ensuring the constitution is upheld,’ the government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which represents the six plaintiffs who sued, said in a statement.”

Biden Condemns Trump as Dire Threat to Democracy in a Blistering Speech. The president framed the election as a choice between a candidate devoted to upholding American ideals and a chaos agent willing to discard them for his personal benefit. The New York Times, Reid J. Epstein, Friday, 5 January 2024: “President Biden on Friday delivered a ferocious condemnation of Donald J. Trump, his likely 2024 opponent, warning in searing language that the former president had directed an insurrection and would aim to undo the nation’s bedrock democracy if he returned to power. On the eve of the third anniversary of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol by Mr. Trump’s supporters, Mr. Biden framed the coming election as a choice between a candidate devoted to upholding America’s centuries-old ideals and a chaos agent willing to discard them for his personal benefit. ‘There’s no confusion about who Trump is or what he intends to do,’ Mr. Biden warned in a speech at a community college not far from Valley Forge in Pennsylvania, where George Washington commanded troops during the Revolutionary War. Exhorting supporters to prepare to vote this fall, he said: ‘We all know who Donald Trump is. The question is: Who are we?’ In an intensely personal address that at one point nearly led Mr. Biden to curse Mr. Trump by name, the president compared his rival to foreign autocrats who rule by fiat and lies. He said Mr. Trump had failed the basic test of American leaders, to trust the people to choose their elected officials and abide by their decisions. ‘We must be clear,’ Mr. Biden said. ‘Democracy is on the ballot. Your freedom is on the ballot.'” See also, Biden, in Valley Forge speech, hits Trump hard as threat to democracy. The address marks a new phase of the Biden campaign that will emphasize Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The Washington Post, Matt Viser, Friday, 5 January 2024: “President Biden on Friday delivered his first campaign speech of this election year, attempting to define the 2024 presidential race as a battle for the future of American democracy and portray former president Donald Trump as its chief antagonist. In remarks that cast the future of the country in stark and dire terms — focusing more tightly on his predecessor than perhaps in any other speech in his presidency — Biden framed his campaign in sweeping language. ‘Today we’re here to answer the most important of questions: Is democracy still America’s sacred cause?’ he said. ‘It’s what the 2024 election is all about.’… Biden spent considerable time describing details of what occurred three years ago — calling Jan. 6 a day ‘that we nearly lost America’ — and took aim at the way Trump is now attempting to recast the events of that day. ‘Trump is trying to steal history the same way he tried to steal the election,’ he said. ‘We saw it with our own eyes. Trump’s mob wasn’t a peaceful protest. It was a violent assault. They were insurrectionists, not patriots.'” See also, Biden warns against Trump reelection after January 6 Capitol riot, a day ‘we nearly lost America,’ Associated Press, Colleen Long and Zeke Miller, Friday, 5 January 2024: “President Joe Biden warned Friday that Donald Trump’s efforts to retake the White House in 2024 pose a grave threat to the country, the day before the third anniversary of the violent riot at the U.S. Capitol by then-President Trump’s supporters aiming to keep him in power. Speaking near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, where George Washington and the Continental Army spent a bleak winter nearly 250 years ago, Biden said that Jan. 6 2021, marked a moment where ‘we nearly lost America — lost it all.’ He said the presidential race — a likely rematch with Trump, who is the far and away GOP frontrunner — is ‘all about’ whether American democracy will survive…. Biden, laid out Trump’s role in the Capitol attack, as a mob of the Republican’s supporters overran the building while lawmakers were counting Electoral College votes that certified Democrat Biden’s win. More than 100 police officers were bloodied, beaten and attacked by the rioters who overwhelmed authorities to break into the building. ‘What’s Trump done? He’s called these insurrectionists patriots,’ Biden said, ‘and he promised to pardon them if he returns to office.’ He excoriated Trump for ‘glorifying’ rather than condemning political violence. At least nine people who were at the Capitol that day died during or after the rioting, including several officers who died of suicide, a woman who was shot and killed by police as she tried to break into the House chamber, and three other Trump supporters who authorities said suffered medical emergencies. Biden said that by ‘trying to rewrite the facts of Jan. 6, Trump is trying to steal history the same way he tried to steal the election.'”

New York Attorney General Letitia James Seeks $370 Million From Trump After Civil Fraud Trial. The penalty is well over the $250 million that James had estimated in the fall of 2022 when she sued the former president. The New York Times, Jonah E. Bromwich, Friday, 5 January 2024: “The New York attorney general on Friday asked the judge who had overseen the civil fraud trial of Donald J. Trump to penalize the former president about $370 million, saying the trial had demonstrated that he had gained that amount through unlawful conduct. The sum was well over the $250 million that the attorney general, Letitia James, had estimated in the fall of 2022, when she sued Mr. Trump, accusing him of inflating his net worth to obtain favorable treatment from banks and insurers. The trial began in October and proceedings ended last month, but Mr. Trump’s fate is not yet settled. The attorney general’s penalty request came in a post-trial brief filed on Friday. Mr. Trump’s lawyers, in one of their own filings, wrote that ‘the attorney general has woefully failed to prove her case and is not entitled to any of the relief,’ including any financial penalty.” See also, New York Attorney General Letitia James is seeking $370 million from Trump and co-defendants in civil fraud trial, CNN Politics, Kara Scannell, Lauren del Valle, and Jeremy Herb, Friday, 5 January 2024: “The New York attorney general is seeking more than $370 million from Donald Trump and his co-defendants and to bar the former president from doing business in the state, according to a post-trial brief filed Friday in Trump’s civil fraud trial. New York Attorney General Letitia James argued that Trump and his co-defendants’ intent to defraud while preparing the former president’s financial statements was ‘inescapable,’ seeking the repayment of $370 million in disgorgement, or ‘ill-gotten gains’ – a dramatic increase over the original figure of $250 million. ‘The myriad deceptive schemes they employed to inflate asset values and conceal facts were so outrageous that they belie innocent explanation,’ the attorney general wrote.”

Master Calendar of Trump Court Dates: Criminal and Civil Cases, Just Security, Norman L. Eisen, Ryan Goodman, Siven Watt, Samara Angel, and Beth Markman, updated on Friday, 5 January 2024: “Following a series of recent court developments, former President Donald Trump’s 2024 legal schedule is coming into focus, as is his political one. In the calendar below, we capture significant events in both domains—and how they interrelate. The busy legal schedule includes the Supreme Court’s consideration of Trump’s eligibility under the 14th Amendment as well as cases in which Trump is a criminal or civil defendant. The DC Circuit will shortly hear oral argument on the question of Trump’s absolute immunity. New York State’s civil fraud trial concluded last month, with closing arguments, and a written decision expected this month. The trials then cascade throughout 2024, starting with the second E. Jean Carroll case in January and reaching a crescendo with the federal election interference trial in DC currently set for March, followed by the federal classified documents trial in Florida in May and the Georgia election interference case proposed by prosecutors for August. The New York hush money/election interference case is also scheduled for March. Additionally, Trump or his allies are challenging a recent ruling in Maine disqualifying him from its 2024 ballot, with a decision on another possible disqualification expected soon in Oregon. As if that hyperactive legal schedule were not enough, it will all transpire alongside the election calendar with the primary season beginning with the Iowa and New Hampshire contests this month. We are publishing this calendar to track both the legal and political milestones and to understand the interaction of the case schedules with each other and with the political dates.”

Saturday, 6 January 2024:

Trump Signals an Election Year Full of Falsehoods About the January 6 Insurrection and Democracy. In dueling sets of speeches, Donald Trump and President Biden are framing the election as a battle for the future of democracy–with Mr. Trump brazenly casting Mr. Biden as the true menace. The New York Times, Michael C. Bender, Lisa Lerer, and Michael Gold, Friday, 6 January 2024: “Rarely in American politics has a leading presidential candidate made such grave accusations about a rival: warning that he is willing to violate the Constitution. Claiming that he is eager to persecute political rivals. Calling him a dire threat to democracy. Those arguments have come from President Biden’s speeches, including his forceful address on Friday, as he hammers away at his predecessor. But they are also now being brazenly wielded by Donald J. Trump, the only president to try to overthrow an American election. Three years after the former president’s supporters stormed the Capitol, Mr. Trump and his campaign are engaged in an audacious and baseless attempt to paint Mr. Biden as the true menace to the nation’s foundational underpinnings. Mr. Trump’s strategy aims to upend a world in which he has publicly called for suspending the Constitution, vowed to turn political opponents into legal targets and suggested that the nation’s top military general should be executed. The result has been a salvo of recriminations from the top candidates in each party, including competing events to mark Saturday’s third anniversary of the attack on the Capitol. The eagerness from each man to paint the other as an imminent threat signals that their potential rematch this year will be framed as nothing short of a cataclysmic battle for the future of democracy — even as Mr. Trump tries to twist the very idea to suit his own ends.”

A Warning About Donald Trump and 2024, The New York Times, The Editorial Board, Saturday, 6 January 2024: “At the outset of this election year, with Donald Trump leading the race to be the Republican presidential nominee, Americans should pause to consider what a second Trump term would mean for our country and the world and to weigh the serious responsibility this election places on their shoulders. By now, most American voters should have no illusions about who Mr. Trump is. During his many years as a real estate developer and a television personality, then as president and as a dominant figure in the Republican Party, Mr. Trump demonstrated a character and temperament that render him utterly unfit for high office. As president, he wielded power carelessly and often cruelly and put his ego and his personal needs above the interests of his country. Now, as he campaigns again, his worst impulses remain as strong as ever — encouraging violence and lawlessness, exploiting fear and hate for political gain, undermining the rule of law and the Constitution, applauding dictators — and are escalating as he tries to regain power. He plots retribution, intent on eluding the institutional, legal and bureaucratic restraints that put limits on him in his first term. Our purpose at the start of the new year, therefore, is to sound a warning.”

Trump shares bizarre video declaring “God made Trump,’ suggesting he is embracing a messianic image, Business Insider, Alia Shoaib, Saturday, 6 January 2024: “Former President Donald Trump shared a bizarre fan-made video on Truth Social, which declared that he was divinely chosen to lead the country. ‘And on June 14, 1946, God looked down on his planned paradise and said, I need a caretaker. So God gave us Trump,’ the video starts. The narrator goes on to frame Trump as a messianic figure who was created by God to ‘fight the Marxists’ and ‘call out the fake news for their tongues as sharp as a serpent’s.’ Trump has long had a solid base of support among evangelical Christians in the United States, and polls show that a high portion believes that God anointed him to rule — even though he has never suggested having any strong personal faith. Trump’s sharing of the video suggests that he fully embraces the role ahead of the 2024 election. The video describes Trump’s supposed strengths, including his ‘arms strong enough to rustle the Deep State and yet gentle enough to deliver his own grandchild.’ It’s not clear which of his grandchildren Trump is meant to have delivered.”

Sunday, 7 January 2024:

Special counsel investigation uncovers new details about Trump’s inaction during January 6, 2021, insurrection. Aides allegedly said Trump was ‘not interested in doing more to stop the riot. ABC News, Katherine Faulders, Mike Levine, Alexander Mallin, and Will Steakin, Sunday, 7 January 2024: “Special counsel Jack Smith’s team has uncovered previously undisclosed details about former President Donald Trump’s refusal to help stop the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol three years ago as he sat watching TV inside the White House, according to sources familiar with what Smith’s team has learned during its Jan. 6 probe. Many of the exclusive details come from the questioning of Trump’s former deputy chief of staff, Dan Scavino, who first started working for Trump as a teenager three decades ago and is now a paid senior adviser to Trump’s reelection campaign. Scavino wouldn’t speak with the House select committee that conducted its own probe related to Jan. 6, but — after a judge overruled claims of executive privilege last year — he did speak with Smith’s team, and key portions of what he said were described to ABC News. New details also come from the Smith team’s interviews with other White House advisers and top lawyers who — despite being deposed in the congressional probe — previously declined to answer questions about Trump’s own statements and demeanor on Jan. 6, 2021, according to publicly released transcripts of their interviews in that probe. Sources said Scavino told Smith’s investigators that as the violence began to escalate that day, Trump ‘was just not interested’ in doing more to stop it. Sources also said former Trump aide Nick Luna told federal investigators that when Trump was informed that then-Vice President Mike Pence had to be rushed to a secure location, Trump responded, ‘So what?’ — which sources said Luna saw as an unexpected willingness by Trump to let potential harm come to a longtime loyalist.”

Monday, 8 January 2024:

Trump’s Lawyers Say He Should Be Immune From Prosecution in Georgia Case. The motion echoes an argument that former President Donald Trump is making in a separate federal criminal case against him. The New York Times, Richard Fausset, Monday, 8 January 2024: “Lawyers for former President Donald J. Trump in the election interference case in Georgia asked on Monday to have the criminal charges against him there dismissed based in part on an argument that Mr. Trump is also making in the federal criminal case against him: that presidents should enjoy sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution for ‘official acts’ taken while in office. ‘The indictment in this case charges President Trump for acts that lie at the heart of his official responsibilities as president,’ the lawyers in the Georgia case wrote in the new motion. ‘The indictment is barred by presidential immunity and should be dismissed with prejudice.’ In August, a grand jury in Fulton County, Ga., indicted Mr. Trump and 18 of his allies on racketeering and other state charges as part of what prosecutors say was a multipronged effort to overturn his 2020 election loss in Georgia. Four of the defendants have pleaded guilty and pledged to cooperate with prosecutors. Among other legal troubles, Mr. Trump has also been indicted on four federal charges in Washington for his attempts to remain in power after Joseph R. Biden Jr. defeated him nationally in 2020. On Tuesday, a federal appeals court will hear arguments on whether Mr. Trump should have absolute immunity from prosecution.” See also, Trump claims immunity from prosecution in Georgia election case, The Washington Post, Holly Bailey, Monday, 8 January 2024: “Former president Donald Trump urged an Atlanta-area judge to dismiss charges he illegally conspired to overturn his 2020 election loss in Georgia, claiming his alleged actions were at the ‘heart’ of his sworn responsibilities as president and that he is immune from criminal prosecution. Trump’s immunity claims came in motions filed Monday in Fulton County Superior Court seeking to throw out state charges alleging criminal election interference. The arguments from Steve Sadow, an Atlanta attorney representing Trump in the Georgia case, largely echo immunity claims made by Trump’s defense team in the separate federal election interference case against him. A federal appeals court in Washington on Tuesday is scheduled to hear arguments over Trump’s immunity claims in that case, with Trump expected to attend the hearing in-person. While the state and federal cases against Trump are separate, the decision on Trump’s immunity in the federal case could affect his case in Georgia, where the former president and 18 allies were indicted in August as part of a sweeping racketeering indictment tied to efforts to overturn Trump’s 2020 election loss in the state.” See also, Trump wants Georgia election subversion case dismissed, arguing he has presidential immunity, CNN Politics, Zachary Cohen, Katelyn Polantz, Jason Morris, and Nick Valencia, Monday, 8 January 2024: “Former President Donald Trump is seeking to have the sweeping criminal conspiracy case against him in Georgia thrown out by arguing he is protected from prosecution under presidential immunity. Trump’s immunity claims in the Georgia case, filed on Monday as part of a motion to dismiss state-level criminal charges against the former president, are similar to those argued by his defense team in the federal election subversion case.”

Trump suggests that, if he is re-elected, he will have Biden indicted. Trump has argued that former presidents are entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for any ‘official acts’ conducted during their presidency. NBC News, Summer Concepcion, Monday, 8 January 2024: “Former President Donald Trump on Monday suggested that if he is re-elected he would have President Joe Biden indicted, a day before an appeals court hears arguments on his claim that presidential immunity protects him from prosecution for his role in the Jan. 6 attack. In a post to his Truth Social platform early Monday, Trump said he plans to attend oral arguments on his presidential immunity claim before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Tuesday, and claimed that it was his obligation as president to find voter fraud…. Trump then argued that, if his attempts to avoid prosecution over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election are unsuccessful, Biden shouldn’t be entitled to presidential immunity either. ‘If I don’t get Immunity, then Crooked Joe Biden doesn’t get Immunity,’ Trump wrote….”

Trump Is Connecting With a Different Type of Evangelical Voter. They are not just the churchgoing, conservative activists who once dominated the Republican Party. The New York Times, Ruth Graham and Charles Homans, Monday, 8 January 2024: “White evangelical Christian voters have lined up behind Republican candidates for decades, driving conservative cultural issues into the heart of the party’s politics and making nominees and presidents of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. But no Republican has had a closer — or more counterintuitive — relationship with evangelicals than Mr. Trump. The twice-divorced casino magnate made little pretense of being particularly religious before his presidency. The ardent support he received from evangelical voters in 2016 and 2020 is often described as largely transactional: an investment in his appointment of Supreme Court justices who would abolish the federal right to abortion and advance the group’s other top priorities. Evangelical supporters themselves often compare Mr. Trump to the ancient Persian king Cyrus the Great, who freed a population of Jews even though he was not one of them. But religion scholars, drawing on a growing body of data, suggest another explanation: Evangelicals are not exactly who they used to be. Being evangelical once suggested regular church attendance, a focus on salvation and conversion and strongly held views on specific issues such as abortion. Today, it is as often used to describe a cultural and political identity: one in which Christians are considered a persecuted minority, traditional institutions are viewed skeptically and Mr. Trump looms large.”

Trump’s Pattern of Pressure to Overturn the 2020 Election, The New York Times, Lazaro Gamio and Karen Yourish, Monday, 8 January 2024: “Donald J. Trump pressured state and federal government officials to overturn results of the 2020 election in more than 30 phone calls or meetings, according to The Times’s analysis of the indictments related to those efforts…. The Times compiled every conversation between Mr. Trump and at least one other government official cited in the indictments. Most of the officials repeatedly rejected his requests. But Mr. Trump kept asking.”

Tuesday, 9 January 2024:

Federal Appeals court Seems Skeptical of Trump’s Immunity Claim. A three-judge panel appeared unlikely to grant the former president’s request that it throw out federal criminal charges that he plotted to overturn the 2020 election. The New York Times, Alan Feuer, Charlie Savage, Eileen Sullivan, and Glenn Thrush, Tuesday, 9 January 2024: “A federal appeals court expressed deep skepticism on Tuesday about former President Donald J. Trump’s claim that he is immune from charges of plotting to subvert the 2020 election, suggesting that it is unlikely to rule in his favor on a central element of his defense. As Mr. Trump looked on, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit peppered his lawyer D. John Sauer with tough questions about his assertion that his client could not be prosecuted for actions he took while in the White House. The judges seemed incredulous when Mr. Sauer said a president could use the military to assassinate a political rival and be shielded from prosecution unless the Senate first convicted him at an impeachment proceeding. At another point, Judge Karen L. Henderson, the panel’s sole Republican appointee, seemed to reject a central part of Mr. Trump’s argument: that his efforts to overturn his loss to Joseph R. Biden Jr. cannot be subject to prosecution because presidents have a constitutional duty to ensure that election laws are upheld. ‘I think it’s paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate the criminal law,’ Judge Henderson said. Still, the panel seemed torn at times about how broadly it might rule, with Judge Henderson suggesting that a sweeping decision to deny immunity to former presidents could result in a flood of partisan prosecutions. She also raised the prospect of sending the issue back to the trial judge, Tanya S. Chutkan, for additional scrutiny on issues like whether Mr. Trump’s actions should be thought of as official or private. Such a move would play into the former president’s desire to delay a trial on the election charges. Regardless of how the panel ultimately rules, the issue of immunity is likely to reach the Supreme Court, which is already hearing another crucial question about whether Mr. Trump can be removed from state ballots. The pace and outcome of the immunity question will play a major role in deciding when — or whether — Mr. Trump will go to trial in the election interference case. They could also go a long way in determining the timing of the three other criminal trials that Mr. Trump is facing in the months ahead.” See also, 5 Takeaways From the Federal Appeals Court Hearing on Trump’s Immunity Claim. A ruling by the court, and the timing of its decision, could be a major factor in determining when, or even whether, the former president will go to trial in the federal election case. The New York Times, Charlie Savage and Alan Feuer, Tuesday, 9 January 2024. See also, Judges skeptical that Trump is immune from January 6 prosecution, The Washington Post, Rachel Weiner, Spencer S. Hsu, Perry Stein, and Devlin Barrett, Tuesday, 9 January 2024: “A panel of three federal appellate judges expressed skepticism Tuesday about Donald Trump’s claim to sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution and concerns about the implications, with one suggesting that it would allow a future president to have a political rival assassinated by the military without repercussions. Trump argues that he cannot be tried for trying to overturn the 2020 election results because he was acquitted by the Senate of inciting the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack. James Pearce, a Justice Department lawyer, called that ‘an extraordinarily frightening’ proposition. The three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit tasked with reviewing Trump’s claims, which were rejected by his trial judge last month, appeared to agree during the hour-long hearing. ‘A president could sell pardons, could sell military secrets, could order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival?’ Judge Florence Y. Pan asked. ‘Would such a president be subject to criminal prosecution if he’s not impeached?’ D. John Sauer, representing Trump, insisted that for any crime connected to a president’s ‘official duties,’ the ‘political process’ of impeachment and conviction by the Senate ‘would have to occur’ before prosecution. He predicted that if a president was involved in murder, he would be ‘speedily’ impeached.” See also, Four key takeaways from Trump’s presidential immunity hearing. A three-judge appeals court panel heard oral arguments Tuesday over whether Trump can be charged with trying to overturn the 2020 election. The Washington Post, Perry Stein, Tuesday, 9 January 2024. See also, Trump’s appeals hearing on presidential immunity claims, CNN Politics, Dan Berman, Tuesday, 9 January 2024. See also, With Trump present in court, judges express skepticism of claims that he’s immune from prosecution, Associated Press, Eric Tucker, Alanna Durkin Richer, and Lindsay Whitehurst, Tuesday, 9 January 2024: “With Donald Trump listening intently in the courtroom, federal appeals court judges in Washington expressed deep skepticism Tuesday that the former president was immune from prosecution on charges that he plotted to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The panel of three judges, two of whom were appointed by President Joe Biden, also questioned whether they had jurisdiction to consider the appeal at this point in the case, raising the prospect that Trump’s appeal could be dispensed with on more procedural grounds. During lengthy arguments, the judges repeatedly pressed Trump’s lawyer to defend claims that Trump was shielded from criminal charges for acts that he says fell within his official duties as president. That argument was rejected last month by the lower-court judge overseeing the case against Trump, and the appeals judges suggested through their questions that they, too, were dubious that the Founding Fathers envisioned absolute immunity for presidents after they leave office. ‘I think it’s paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate criminal law,’ said Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, an appointee of former President George H.W. Bush.” See also, Trump’s lawyer argues that a president can order SEAL Team Six to assassinate his political rival if Congress is cool with it, Business Insider, Sonam Sheth, Tuesday, 9 January 2024.

Filing in Georgia Trump Case Claims ‘Improper’ Relationship Between Prosecutors. A defendant in the election interference case is arguing that the district attorney overseeing it and a special prosecutor she hired should be disqualified. The New York Times, Richard Fausset, Tuesday, 9 January 2024: “A lawyer for one of the defendants charged along with former President Donald J. Trump in the Georgia election interference case said in a court filing on Monday that the district attorney overseeing the case, Fani T. Willis, had engaged in a ‘clandestine’ relationship with the special prosecutor she hired to help handle it. The filing, from a lawyer representing Michael A. Roman, a former Trump campaign official, provided no proof of the relationship or other claims it contained. It argued that the relationship should disqualify Ms. Willis, her office and the special prosecutor, Nathan Wade, from prosecuting the case.” See also, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis accused of misconduct by Trump co-defendant in Georgia case. A lawyer for Mike Roman claims that Willis has had an inappropriate relationship with a leading member of her team, and seeks to disqualify them. The Washington Post, Holly Bailey and Amy Gardner, Tuesday, 9 January 2024: “A co-defendant in the Georgia election-interference case against former president Donald Trump has accused Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis of conducting an improper relationship with the case’s lead prosecutor and asked a judge to disqualify the entire prosecution team from the case. Mike Roman, one of Trump’s remaining 14 co-defendants in the criminal case and a former high-ranking campaign aide during the 2020 election, alleged in a motion filed Monday that Willis has engaged in a personal relationship with the special prosecutor she hired to lead the case, who has been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for his work…. The filing did not offer evidence to back up these sensational claims.”

Keeping Track of the Trump Investigations, The New York Times, updated on Tuesday, 9 January 2024: “State and federal prosecutors are pursuing multiple investigations into Donald J. Trump’s business and political activities, with the cases expected to play out over the coming months. Here is a guide to the major criminal cases involving the former president.”

See How 2023 Shattered Records to Become the Hottest Year. Month after month global temperatures didn’t just break records, they surpassed them by far. This year could be even warmer. The New York Times, Raymond Zhong and Keith Collins, Tuesday, 9 January 2024: “The numbers are in, and scientists can now confirm what month after month of extraordinary heat worldwide began signaling long ago. Last year was Earth’s warmest by far in a century and a half. Global temperatures started blowing past records midyear and didn’t stop. First, June was the planet’s warmest June on record. Then, July was the warmest July. And so on, all the way through December. Averaged across last year, temperatures worldwide were 1.48 degrees Celsius, or 2.66 Fahrenheit, higher than they were in the second half of the 19th century, the European Union climate monitor announced on Tuesday. That is warmer by a sizable margin than 2016, the previous hottest year. To climate scientists, it comes as no surprise that unabated emissions of greenhouse gases caused global warming to reach new highs. What researchers are still trying to understand is whether 2023 foretells many more years in which heat records are not merely broken, but smashed. In other words, they are asking whether the numbers are a sign that the planet’s warming is accelerating.” See also, Earth shattered global heat record in ’23 and it’s flirting with warming limit, European agency says, Associated Press, Seth Borenstein, Tuesday, 9 January 2024: “Earth last year shattered global annual heat records, flirted with the world’s agreed-upon warming threshold and showed more signs of a feverish planet, the European climate agency said Tuesday. The European climate agency Copernicus said the year was 1.48 degrees Celsius (2.66 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times. That’s barely below the 1.5 degrees Celsius limit that the world hoped to stay within in the 2015 Paris climate accord to avoid the most severe effects of warming. And January 2024 is on track to be so warm that for the first time a 12-month period will exceed the 1.5-degree threshold, Copernicus Deputy Director Samantha Burgess said. Scientists have repeatedly said that Earth would need to average 1.5 degrees of warming over two or three decades to be a technical breach of the threshold.”

Wednesday, 10 January 2024:

Trump Won’t Give Closing Argument at Fraud Trial After Judge Sets Limits. The former president’s lawyer said he could not abide by limitations set by the judge in the civil fraud case. ‘I will not hesitate to cut him off,’wrote Justice Arthur F. Engoron. The New York Times, Jonah E. Bromwich and Ben Protess, Wednesday, 10 January 2024: “Donald J. Trump backed down from delivering his own closing argument in his civil fraud trial after refusing to abide by a judge’s restrictions — including that he not give ‘a campaign speech’ — in the latest clash between Mr. Trump’s political aims and American legal norms. Mr. Trump, who considers himself his own best spokesman, had planned to address the court during closing arguments on Thursday. But one of his lawyers called limits imposed by the judge, Arthur F. Engoron, unacceptable. The judge said in a recent email exchange with Mr. Trump’s lawyers that while he was predisposed to allow Mr. Trump to speak, the former president, like any lawyer, would be limited to discussing the facts of the case and the relevant law, and barred from attacking the judge, the judge’s staff members or New York’s attorney general, whose suit against Mr. Trump led to the trial. Those conditions may have nullified Mr. Trump’s purpose in speaking. As he mounts another run for the White House while facing the civil trial and four criminal indictments, Mr. Trump has sought to transform his legal liabilities into political assets, casting his accusers as enemies of democracy and their cases as a coordinated witch hunt.” See also, Judge Arthur Engoron says Donald Trump won’t give his own closing argument at civil fraud trial after disputing the rules that apply to attorney’s closing arguments, Associated Press, Jennifer Peltz and Jack Offenhartz, Wednesday, 10 January 2024: “Donald Trump won’t make his own closing argument after all in his New York civil business fraud trial after his lawyers objected to the judge’s insistence that the former president stick to ‘relevant’ matters and ‘not deliver a campaign speech.’ Judge Arthur Engoron nixed Trump’s unusual plan on Wednesday, a day ahead of closing arguments. The judge had initially indicated he was open to the idea, saying he’d let Trump speak if he agreed to abide by rules that apply to attorneys’ closing arguments. Among other things, Engoron wanted the former president and current Republican front-runner to promise he wouldn’t assail his adversaries in the case, the judge or others in the court system.”

Thursday, 11 January 2024:

Trump Civil Fraud Trial: Trump Delivers Final Words of His Defense’s Closing Arguments in Fraud Trial. He directly attacked New York Attorney General Letitia James and Judge Arthur Engoron who is overseeing the case. The former president faces a $370 million penalty in the trial, which threatens his family business. The New York Times, Jonah E. Bromwich, Ben Protess, and Kate Christobek, Thursday, 11 January 2024: “Donald J. Trump’s civil fraud trial concluded on Thursday much as it unfolded over the past three months: in chaos, with the former president insulting the judge to his face, lashing out at the New York attorney general who brought the case and declaring himself ‘an innocent man.’ Inside a packed Manhattan courtroom where each side presented its closing arguments, Mr. Trump delivered surprise remarks in his own defense with the judge staring stone-faced from the bench and the attorney general, Letitia James, sitting just feet away as the defendant accused her of pursuing a political vendetta. Mr. Trump’s airing of grievances reflected visceral disdain for Ms. James — a Democrat and one of his chief antagonists — but it also amplified a broader strategy of painting himself as the victim of a grand conspiracy. As Mr. Trump mounts another run for the White House while facing the civil trial and four criminal indictments, he has sought to turn the cases on their head, accusing his accusers of the same conduct that landed him in legal jeopardy…. After court was adjourned, Ms. James defended her case, saying that it had ‘never been about politics, personal vendetta, or about name calling. This case is about the facts and the law, and Mr. Trump violated the law,’ she said.” See also, Trump assails his New York civil fraud trial in courtroom speech as case winds down, The Washington Post, Shayna Jacobs and Mark Berman, Thursday, 11 January 2024: “Donald Trump’s civil fraud trial wound down Thursday with closing statements in the case, which accuses the former president of exaggerating the values of his properties and other assets to secure better financial terms. While much of the day unfolded in conventional fashion — with lawyers from both sides using their allotted time to offer summaries of the case — Trump was allowed to interrupt that rhythm shortly before lunchtime to deliver an extended disquisition, excoriating the judge, the entire case and New York Attorney General Letitia James, who filed the lawsuit and is seeking a $370 million penalty.” See also, Closing statements conclude in Trump’s New York civil fraud trial, The Washington Post, Shayna Jacobs, Mark Berman, Maegan Vazquez, Wesley Parnell, Amy B Wang, Thursday, 11 January 2024. See also, Trump rants that New York civil fraud trial is a ‘fraud on me’ after judge allows him to speak during closing arguments.The trial concluded Thursday with Judge Arthur Engoron saying he hopes to decide the case by the end of the month. NBC News, Adam Reiss and Dareh Gregorian, Thursday, 11 January 2024: “An angry Donald Trump told the judge presiding over his New York civil fraud trial Thursday that the case is ‘a fraud on me,’ while lawyers from the state attorney general’s office painted the former president as a remorseless fraudster who intentionally lied about his net worth in a successful scheme to line his pockets with even more money. Trump spoke on the final day of his trial. State Judge Arthur Engoron said immediately after closing arguments that he hopes to issue a ruling by the end of the month. ‘It’s up to me now, and I will do my best to have a final decision by Jan. 31st,’ Engoron said after hours of closing statements in a case that could cost Trump up to $370 million and permanently ban him from the New York real estate industry where he made his name.” See also, Donald Trump defies judge and gives courtroom speech on tense final day of New York civil fraud trial, Associated Press, Michael R. Sisak and Jennifer Peltz, Thursday, 11 January 2024: “Barred from giving a formal closing argument, Donald Trump wrested an opportunity to speak in court at the conclusion of his New York civil fraud trial Thursday, unleashing a barrage of attacks in a six-minute diatribe before being cut off by the judge. In an extraordinary move for any defendant, Trump not only sought to make his own summation but then brushed past a question from the judge about whether he would follow rules requiring him to keep his remarks focused on matters related to the trial. ‘I am an innocent man,’ Trump protested. ‘I’m being persecuted by someone running for office, and I think you have to go outside the bounds.’ Judge Arthur Engoron let him continue almost uninterrupted for what amounted to a brief personal summation, then cut him off for a scheduled lunch break. Trump’s in-court remarks, which were not televised, ensured a tumultuous final day for a trial over allegations that he habitually exaggerated his wealth on financial statements, deceiving a bank and insurance companies into giving him plum deals.”

Friday, 12 January 2024:

E. Jean Carroll Doesn’t Want Trump to Make Defamation Trial a ‘Circus.’ Next week Carroll will seek a second round of damages from the former president for his denials that he sexually assaulted her. The New York Times, Benjamin Weiser, Friday, 12 January 2024: “A lawyer for the writer E. Jean Carroll, whose latest defamation lawsuit against Donald J. Trump is scheduled for trial next week in Manhattan, asked a judge Friday to ensure that if the former president testifies, that he does not stray beyond the narrow issue in the case, with the goal of ‘turning this trial into a circus.’ ‘If Mr. Trump appears at this trial, whether as a witness or otherwise,’ the lawyer, Roberta A. Kaplan, wrote in a letter, ‘his recent statements and behavior strongly suggest that he will seek to sow chaos.’ In the letter, which comes just four days before jury selection is to begin in Federal District Court, Ms. Kaplan cited Mr. Trump’s continued derogatory public comments about Ms. Carroll and his behavior in another case involving him this week. On Thursday, Mr. Trump attended the final day of trial in the New York attorney general’s civil fraud case against him, where — after the judge allowed him to argue on his own behalf — he attacked the attorney general, Letitia James, called himself the victim of fraud and assailed the judge to his face. Afterward, Mr. Trump told reporters that he also planned to attend Ms. Carroll’s trial.”

Donald Trump ordered to pay The New York Times and its reporters nearly $400,000 in legal fees, Associated Press, Michael R. Sisak, Friday, 12 January 2024: “Former President Donald Trump was ordered Friday to pay nearly $400,000 in legal fees to The New York Times and three investigative reporters after he sued them unsuccessfully over a Pulitzer Prize-winning 2018 story about his family’s wealth and tax practices. The newspaper and reporters Susanne Craig, David Barstow and Russell Buettner were dismissed from the lawsuit in May. Trump’s claim against his estranged niece, Mary Trump, that she breached a prior settlement agreement by giving tax records to the reporters is still pending. New York Judge Robert Reed said that given the ‘complexity of the issues’ in the case and other factors, it was reasonable that Donald Trump be forced to pay lawyers for the Times and the reporters a total of $392,638 in legal fees. ‘Today’s decision shows that the state’s newly amended anti-SLAPP statute can be a powerful force for protecting press freedom,’ Times spokesperson Danielle Rhoads Ha said, referring to a New York law that bars baseless lawsuits designed to silence critics. Such lawsuits are known as SLAPPs or strategic lawsuits against public participation.”

Monday, 15 January 2024:

Trump notches a commanding win in the Iowa caucuses as DeSantis edges Haley for second place, Associated Press, Steve Peoples, Thomas Beaumont, and Hannah Fingerhut, Monday, 15 January 2024: “Former President Donald Trump scored a record-setting win in the Iowa caucuses on Monday with his rivals languishing far behind, a victory that affirmed his grip on the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. In what was the lowest-turnout caucus in a quarter-century, participants endured life-threatening cold and dangerous driving conditions to meet in hundreds of schools, churches and community centers across the state. But those who ventured out delivered a roughly 30-point win for Trump that smashed the record for a contested Iowa Republican caucus with a margin of victory exceeding Bob Dole’s nearly 13-percentage-point victory in 1988. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis finished a distant second, just ahead of former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley. The results left Trump with a tighter grip on the GOP nomination, though it could take several more months for anyone to formally become the party’s standard bearer. The magnitude of Trump’s victory, however, posed significant questions for both DeSantis and Haley. Neither candidate appeared poised to exit the race, though they leave Iowa struggling to claim making much progress in trying to become Trump’s strongest challenger.” See also, Voters Look Past Legal Problems to Give Trump a Big Victory in Iowa Caucuses. The possibility of a two-person race remains elusive for Trump foes. The New York Times, Shane Goldmacher, Monday, 15 January 2024: “Donald J. Trump won the Iowa caucuses in a landslide on Monday, a crucial first step in his bid to claim the Republican nomination in a third consecutive election as voters looked past his mounting legal jeopardy and embraced his vision of vengeful disruption. Mr. Trump’s record-breaking triumph, called by The Associated Press on Monday night only 31 minutes after the caucuses had begun, gave the former president an important win in a state that had rejected him eight years ago. But on a bitter cold night, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida finished in a distant second place, according to The A.P. His narrow edge over Nikki Haley in a state where he had increasingly banked his candidacy could provide him some much-needed money and momentum in the battle for the mantle of Mr. Trump’s chief rival.” See also, 5 Takeaways From Trump’s Runaway Victory in the Iowa Caucuses. The former president crushed Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley and also benefited from their close battle for second, which seems set to prolong a three-way race. The New York Times, Lisa Lerer, Maggie Haberman, and Jonathan Swan, Monday, 15 January 2024. See also, Trump scores decisive win in Iowa caucuses; DeSantis places second, The Washington Post, Ashley Parker and Tyler Pager, Monday, 15 January 2024: “Donald Trump romped to a decisive victory Monday night in the frigid Iowa caucuses, cementing his formidable grip over the Republican Party and pushing the nation closer to a historic modern rematch with President Biden. With 96 percent of the vote tallied, Trump was leading with 51 percent Monday night — more than his next two rivals combined. His wide advantage on a night when turnout was low put him on pace to shatter the previous margin of victory in the Republican caucuses, as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis narrowly edged out former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley for second place.”

As Trump Continues to Insult E. Jean Carroll, 2nd Defamation Trial Opens. The writer has already won $5 million for his sexual abuse and his subsequent denials. But the former president still claims he does not know who she is. The New York Times, Benjamin Weiser, Maggie Haberman, and Maria Cramer, Monday, 15 January 2024: “A Manhattan jury will be asked a narrow question this week: How much money must former President Donald J. Trump pay the writer E. Jean Carroll for defaming her after she accused him of raping her? Ms. Carroll’s chance encounter decades ago at the Bergdorf Goodman department store, in which she said Mr. Trump shoved her against a dressing room wall, pulled down her tights and forced himself on her, was already the focus of a trial last year. A jury in May awarded Ms. Carroll just over $2 million for the assault and nearly $3 million for defamation over Mr. Trump’s remark in October 2022 calling her claim ‘a complete con job.’ The trial starting Tuesday focuses on separate statements by Mr. Trump in June 2019, directly after Ms. Carroll disclosed her allegation in New York magazine. At the time, Mr. Trump called her claim ‘totally false,’ saying that he had never met Ms. Carroll, a former Elle magazine advice columnist, and that she invented a story to sell a book.”

Tuesday, 16 January 2024:

Second E. Jean Carroll trial against Trump begins in New York, The Washington Post, Shayna Jacobs and Mark Berman, Tuesday, 16 January 2024: “A civil defamation trial against former president Donald Trump began Tuesday in New York to determine what additional damages, if any, he owes E. Jean Carroll, a writer who in 2019 accused him of sexually assaulting her decades earlier. A jury in a separate civil case last year found that Trump sexually abused and defamed Carroll and owed her $5 million in damages. The trial that started Tuesday is focused on whether he owes Carroll additional damages for separate comments he made about her. During opening statements Tuesday, attorneys for Carroll and Trump presented clashing depictions of what happened after she first publicly accused him of assault. Trump responded to Carroll’s accusations with vehement denials, with the then-president saying that she was ‘totally lying’ and ‘not my type.’ Trump’s comments only intensified the trauma endured by Carroll and sparked a flood of harassment, her attorney said in court Tuesday.”

Trump Signals Plans to Go After Intelligence Community in Document Case. Court papers filed by his lawyers, formally a request for discovery evidence, sounded at times more like political talking points. The New York Times, Alan Feuer, Tuesday, 16 January 2024: “Lawyers for former President Donald J. Trump said in court papers filed on Tuesday night that they intended to place accusations that the intelligence community was biased against Mr. Trump at the heart of their defense against charges accusing him of illegally holding onto dozens of highly sensitive classified documents after he left office. The lawyers also indicated that they were planning to defend Mr. Trump by seeking to prove that the investigation of the case was ‘politically motivated and biased.’ The court papers, filed in Federal District Court in Fort Pierce, Fla., gave the clearest picture yet of the scorched earth legal strategy that Mr. Trump is apparently planning to use in fighting the classified documents indictment handed up over the summer. While the 68-page filing was formally a request by Mr. Trump’s lawyers to the office of the special counsel, Jack Smith, to provide them with reams of additional information that they believe can help them fight the charges, it often read more like a list of political talking points than a brief of legal arguments. Criminal defendants routinely make such requests in what are known as motions to compel discovery, but many of the requests in Mr. Trump’s filing appeared intended to paint Mr. Trump as the victim of the spy agencies that once served him and of purported collusion between the Biden administration and prosecutors who have filed some of the four criminal cases he now faces.”

A Potentially Huge Supreme court Case Has a Hidden Conservative Backer. The case, to be argued by lawyers linked to the petrochemicals billionaire Charles Koch, could sharply curtail the government’s regulatory authority. The New York Times, Hiroko Tabuchi, Tuesday, 16 January 2024: “The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on Wednesday that, on paper, are about a group of commercial fishermen who oppose a government fee that they consider unreasonable. But the lawyers who have helped to propel their case to the nation’s highest court have a far more powerful backer: the petrochemicals billionaire Charles Koch. The case is one of the most consequential to come before the justices in years. A victory for the fishermen would do far more than push aside the monitoring fee, part of a system meant to prevent overfishing, that they objected to. It would very likely sharply limit the power of many federal agencies to regulate not only fisheries and the environment, but also health care, finance, telecommunications and other activities, legal experts say. ‘It might all sound very innocuous,’ said Jody Freeman, founder and director of the Harvard Law School Environmental and Energy Law Program and a former Obama White House official. ‘But it’s connected to a much larger agenda, which is essentially to disable and dismantle federal regulation.’ The lawyers who represent the New Jersey-based fishermen, are working pro bono and belong to a public-interest law firm, Cause of Action, that discloses no donors and reports having no employees. However, court records show that the lawyers work for Americans for Prosperity, a group funded by Mr. Koch, the chairman of Koch Industries and a champion of anti-regulatory causes.”

Wednesday, 17 January 2024:

Muttered Insults, Stern Warnings: Inside Trump’s Second Defamation Trial. The former president’s right to be at his trial ‘can be forfeited,’ the judge warned. E. Jean Carroll is seeking at least $10 million in damages for his denials that he sexually assaulted her. The New York Times, Benjamin Weiser, Maria Cramer, and Kate Christobek, Wednesday, 17 January 2024: “Donald J. Trump shook his head. He exhaled loudly. He whispered to his lawyer. He muttered ‘con job’ and ‘witch hunt.’ As the writer E. Jean Carroll told a jury in a Manhattan courtroom Wednesday how Mr. Trump had wrecked her reputation and made her a target of his most fervent followers, the former president sat at the defense table and bridled. His comments, the kind of protestations familiar from his rallies and speeches, were unusual only because they came amid a civil jury trial over a suit that Ms. Carroll had brought against Mr. Trump. She was testifying about what happened when Mr. Trump called her a liar after she accused him in 2019 of a decades-old rape. Suddenly, Mr. Trump’s grousing escalated into an extraordinary exchange after a lawyer for Ms. Carroll, out of the jury’s presence, cited Mr. Trump’s comments about Ms. Carroll’s testimony and complained that jurors might be able to hear him. The judge, Lewis A. Kaplan, who had sparred all morning with one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Alina Habba, over her objections to Ms. Carroll’s testimony, appeared to be losing his patience. ‘Mr. Trump has the right to be present here,’ the judge began, adding that Mr. Trump could forfeit that right if he is disruptive and if he disregards court orders. ‘I hope I don’t have to consider excluding you from the trial,’ Judge Kaplan said. ‘I understand you’re probably very eager for me to do that.’ Mr. Trump threw his hands up. ‘I would love it,’ he said. ‘I know you would,’ Judge Kaplan said. ‘You just can’t control yourself in these circumstances, apparently.'” See also, Judge threatens to throw Trump out of E. Jean Carroll defamation trial. Carroll has sued former president Donald Trump for allegedly defaming her after she publicly accused him of sexual assault. The Washington Post, Shayna Jacobs, Wednesday, 17 January 2024: “A federal judge threatened to throw Donald Trump out of court Wednesday after the former president defied an order to keep quiet during writer E. Jean Carroll’s testimony at his defamation trial, which resulted in Trump becoming combative with the jurist. U. S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan addressed the former president after being told for the second time by Carroll’s lawyers that Trump, seated at the defense table, was denigrating Carroll loudly enough for the nine-member jury to have heard it. Trump had already received one warning from Kaplan, an official court order. ‘Mr. Trump, I hope I don’t have to consider excluding you from the trial,’ Kaplan said before a midday break. While Trump has a right to be there, the judge said, ‘that right can be forfeited … if he is disruptive.'” See also, Judge threatens to boot Donald Trump from courtroom over loud talking as E. Jean Carroll testifies, Associated Press, Michael R. Sisak, Larry Neumeister, and Jake Offenhartz, Wednesday, 17 January 2024: “Donald Trump was threatened with expulsion from his Manhattan civil trial Wednesday after he repeatedly ignored a warning to keep quiet while writer E. Jean Carroll testified that he shattered her reputation after she accused him of sexual abuse. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan told the former president that his right to be present at the trial will be revoked if he remains disruptive. After an initial warning, Carroll’s lawyer said Trump could still be heard making remarks to his lawyers, including ‘it is a witch hunt’ and ‘it really is a con job.'” See also, Why Donald Trump Is Facing E. Jean Carroll in court a Second Time. A jury already found that the former president sexually assaulted E. Jean Carroll, a former magazine writer, and defamed her. Why is he in court again? The New York Times, Maria Cramer and Kate Christobek, published on Thursday, 18 January 2024.

Maine Judge Suspends Decision to Exclude Trump From Primary Ballot. The judge sent the matter back to Maine’s secretary of state, ordering her to modify, withdraw, or confirm her ruling after the Supreme Court rules on a similar case out of Colorado. The New York Times, Jenna Russell, Wednesday, 17 January 2024: “A Maine judge ordered the state’s top election official on Wednesday to wait for a U.S. Supreme Court ruling before putting into effect her decision to exclude former President Donald J. Trump from Maine’s Republican primary ballot. Justice Michaela Murphy of Maine Superior Court said in the ruling that the official, Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, had been forced under Maine law to issue her decision quickly, without the benefit of the high court’s input. The Supreme Court has agreed to review, at Mr. Trump’s request, an earlier decision by a Colorado court to exclude him from the ballot, and is expected to hear arguments in the case on Feb. 8. Ms. Bellows had cited the Colorado court’s reasoning in her decision. ‘The secretary confronted an uncertain legal landscape when she issued her ruling,’ Justice Murphy wrote in a 17-page decision, and ‘should be afforded the opportunity to assess the effect and application’ to her ruling of whatever the high court decides. She added: ‘Put simply, the United States Supreme Court’s acceptance of the Colorado case changes everything about the order in which these issues should be decided, and by which court.'” See also, Maine judge delays Trump ballot decision until Supreme Court ruling, The Washington Post, Patrick Marley, Wednesday, 17 January 2024: “A Maine judge on Wednesday put off deciding whether Donald Trump’s name can appear on that state’s primary ballot, saying the Supreme Court needs to rule on the issue first in a similar case out of Colorado. The ruling sent the case back to Maine’s secretary of state and put it on hold. A nationwide push from Trump’s critics is aiming to prevent the former president from running for office again.” See also, Maine judge delays decision on removing Trump from ballot until Supreme Court rules in Colorado case, Associated Press, David Sharp and Nicholas Riccardi, Wednesday, 17 January 2024: “A Maine judge on Wednesday put on hold a decision on former President Donald Trump’s ballot status to allow time for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on a similar case in Colorado. Trump’s lawyers appealed in state court when Secretary of State Shenna Bellows removed the Republican front-runner from the presidential primary ballot but then asked the judge to pause proceedings to allow the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the Colorado case, which could render the lawsuit moot. Superior Court Judge Michaela Murphy concluded she lacked authority to stay the judicial proceedings but she wrote that she did have authority to send the case back to the secretary of state with instructions to await the outcome of the U.S. Supreme Court case before withdrawing, modifying or upholding her original decision. In her decision, the judge said that the issues raised in the Maine case mirror the issues raised in the Colorado case before the U.S. Supreme Court. She wrote that her decision ‘minimizes any potentially destabilizing effect of inconsistent decisions and will promote greater predictability in the weeks ahead of the primary election.'”

Conservative Supreme Court Justices Appear Skeptical of Executive Agencies’ Regulatory Power. The Supreme Court considered whether to overrule the seminal 1984 Chevron decision, which requires judges to defer to agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous statutes. The New York Times, Adam Liptak, Wednesday, 17 January 2024: “Members of the Supreme Court’s conservative majority seemed inclined on Wednesday to limit or even overturn a key precedent that has empowered executive agencies, threatening regulations in countless areas, including the environment, health care and consumer safety. Each side warned of devastating consequences should it lose, underscoring how the court’s decision in a highly technical case could reverberate across wide swaths of American life…. Judging from questions in two hard-fought arguments that lasted a total of more than three and a half hours, the foundational doctrine of administrative law called Chevron deference appeared to be in peril. The doctrine takes its name from a 1984 decision, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the most cited cases in American law. Under it, judges must defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes. In close cases, and there are many, the views of the agency take priority even if courts might have ruled differently. Supporters of the doctrine say it allows specialized agencies to fill in gaps in ambiguous statutes to establish uniform rules in their areas of expertise, a practice they say was contemplated by Congress. Its opponents, including business groups hostile to what they see as overregulation, counter that it is the role of courts, not executive branch officials, to determine the meanings of statutes. They also say that agencies’ interpretations can change with new administrations and put a thumb on the scale in favor of the government even when it is a party to the case.” See also, How a Fishery Case Fits Into a Long-Game Effort to Sap Regulation of Business. A case before the Supreme Court appears poised to be the next step in the conservative legal movement’s yearslong effort to chip away at the administrative state. The New York Times, Charlie Savage, Wednesday, 17 January 2024: “The Supreme Court heard arguments on Wednesday in a set of cases that could pave the way for its conservative supermajority to undercut how American society imposes rules on businesses, advancing a key goal of the conservative legal movement. Such a ruling would make it easier to challenge regulations across a gamut of issues, like keeping the air and water clean; ensuring that food, drugs, cars and consumer products are safe; and much more.” See more, Supreme Court divided over whether to curb power of federal agencies, The Washington Post, Ann E. Marimow, Wednesday, 17 January 2024: “A divided Supreme Court debated whether and how to curtail the power of federal agencies Wednesday, with liberals urging the court to defer to the judgment of government experts, and conservatives saying judges should not systematically favor government regulators over private companies, industry or individuals in litigation. After more than three hours of argument, it was unclear whether the court’s conservative majority would overturn or simply scale back the 40-year-old precedent that is under review in a pair of cases brought by herring fishermen from New Jersey and Rhode Island.” See also, Supreme Court conservatives signal willingness to roll back the power of federal agencies, CNN Politics, Devan Cole, Wednesday, 17 January 2024: “The Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority spent several hours Wednesday attacking a longstanding legal doctrine that gives federal agencies wide latitude to create policies and regulations in various areas of life. The justices heard two cases concerning the so-called Chevron deference, which emerged from a 1984 case. Oral arguments in the first case went well beyond the allotted hour, with the conservatives signaling their willingness to overturn the decades-old case and their liberal colleagues sounding the alarm on how such a reversal would upend how the federal government enforces all kinds of regulations.”

Thursday, 18 January 2024:

Trump Asks Supreme Court to Rule He Is Eligible to Hold Office. The forceful brief was the former president’s main submission in his appeal of a ruling barring him from the Colorado primary ballot on the ground that he had engaged in insurrection. The New York Times, Adam Liptak, Thursday, 18 January 2024: “Former President Donald J. Trump urged the Supreme Court on Thursday to reverse a ruling barring him from the primary ballot in Colorado and to declare him eligible to seek and hold the office of the presidency. Mr. Trump’s brief, his main submission in an extraordinary case with the potential to alter the course of the presidential election, was a forceful recitation of more than half a dozen arguments about why the Colorado Supreme Court had gone astray in ruling him an insurrectionist barred from office by the Constitution. ‘The court should put a swift and decisive end to these ballot-disqualification efforts, which threaten to disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans and which promise to unleash chaos and bedlam if other state courts and state officials follow Colorado’s lead and exclude the likely Republican presidential nominee from their ballots,’ the brief said. The case will be argued on Feb. 8, and the court will probably decide it quickly, perhaps by March 5, when many states, including Colorado, hold primaries. The case turns on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Adopted after the Civil War, it bars those who had taken an oath ‘to support the Constitution of the United States’ from holding office if they then ‘shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.'” See also, Trump urges Supreme Court to keep his name on ballot, warns of ‘bedlam,’ The Washington Post, Ann E. Marimow, Thursday, 18 January 2024: “Donald Trump urged the Supreme Court on Thursday to ensure his name can appear on election ballots nationwide, warning of ‘chaos and bedlam’ if the justices do not reverse Colorado’s top court, which disqualified the former president because of his actions on and leading up to Jan. 6, 2021. Trump’s attorney asked the justices to put a ‘swift and decisive end’ to efforts in more than 30 states to remove him from primary and general election ballots based on a section of the 14th Amendment that bars those who have engaged in insurrection from holding office.” See also, Republican lawmakers, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, sign Supreme Court brief on keeping Trump on the ballot, The Washington Post, Maegan Vazquez, Thursday, 18 January 2024: “Nearly 180 congressional Republicans signed on to an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Donald Trump’s legal battle to remain on the primary election ballot in Colorado. The long list of signatories to the brief includes someone who has largely steered clear of the 2024 race and who previously said the former president is responsible for provoking the 2021 insurrection: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). The Supreme Court is scheduled to hold oral arguments on Feb. 8 in a case to decide whether Trump, the front-runner in the 2024 GOP presidential primary race, can appear on the ballot. Colorado’s state Supreme Court disqualified Trump from the ballot last month, finding that he engaged in an insurrection before and during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. The decision marked the first time a court has ruled to keep a presidential candidate off the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution — a post-Civil War provision that bars insurrectionists from holding office.”

Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis Seeks to Avoid Testifying in Colleague’s Divorce Case. Willis was subpoenaed in the divorce case of a colleague she hired to manage the Trump prosecution in Georgia, with whom she is accused of having a romantic relationship. The New York Times, Richard Fausset, Thursday, 18 January 2024: “Fani T. Willis, the district attorney prosecuting the Georgia election interference case against former President Donald J. Trump, is trying to quash a subpoena seeking her testimony in the divorce proceedings of a special prosecutor she hired to manage the case. A court filing last week accused Ms. Willis of having a romantic relationship with the prosecutor, Nathan J. Wade. The motion containing the accusation was filed by Michael Roman, one of Mr. Trump’s 14 co-defendants in the criminal case. The motion argues that the relationship, which it provided no proof of, amounted to a conflict of interest; it seeks to have Mr. Wade, Ms. Willis and her office dismissed from the case. Mr. Roman’s lawyer has said that sealed court records in the pending divorce case between Mr. Wade and his wife, Joycelyn, contain documentation of his relationship with Ms. Willis. Ms. Wade’s lawyer subpoenaed Ms. Willis last week, requiring her to be deposed on Jan. 23. On Thursday, Ms. Willis responded with a filing stating that she ‘lacks personal knowledge of any matter that is relevant’ to the divorce. She did not directly acknowledge the allegation, but said there was no reason for her to testify because both Mr. Wade and his wife had declared their marriage to be ‘irretrievably broken.’ ‘It is well-established that when both parties in a divorce proceeding assert that a marriage is irretrievably broken, which is a legal conclusion signifying that there is no hope for reconciliation, there is no genuine issue of fact that remains to be decided concerning the divorce,’ Cinque Axam, a lawyer for Ms. Willis, wrote in the filing.”

Judge in Trump Georgia case orders hearing on Fani Willis misconduct claims, The Washington Post, Amy Gardner and Holly Bailey, Thursday, 18 January 2024: “A state judge overseeing the election interference case against former president Donald Trump in Georgia has scheduled a hearing for Feb. 15 to hear evidence regarding accusations that Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis (D) and her lead prosecutor engaged in an improper relationship and mishandled public money. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee also wrote in his order that Willis must respond to the accusations in writing by Feb. 2. Willis has declined to directly address the explosive accusations that first came to light last week in a filing from one of Trump’s co-defendants, former campaign aide Mike Roman. The filing did not include evidence to substantiate the claims. McAfee’s order, which was obtained and first reported by The Washington Post, could force Willis to address the allegations in televised court proceedings, a development that could at least be embarrassing for the district attorney and at worst for her derail the investigation completely. The district attorney separately signaled Thursday that she plans to fight the efforts to disqualify her from the case, filing a motion to block a subpoena that could force her to testify in the contentious divorce case of her lead prosecutor, Nathan Wade.”

Friday, 19 January 2024:

Trump confuses Nikki Haley with Nancy Pelosi when talking about January 6. The former president has previously mixed up President Joe Biden and former President Barack Obama, among other flubs. NBC News, Megan Lebowitz, Friday, 19 January 2024: “Former President Donald Trump appeared to mistakenly refer to GOP rival Nikki Haley instead of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., when discussing the Jan. 6 , 2021, riot at a campaign rally in New Hampshire on Friday night. The mix-up came during Trump’s remarks to a crowd of supporters in Concord, where he spoke for more than 90 minutes and repeatedly bashed Haley, who served in his administration as an ambassador to the United Nations and has never been a member of Congress. ‘Nikki Haley, you know they, do you know they destroyed all of the information, all of the evidence, everything, deleted and destroyed all of it. All of it, because of lots of things like Nikki Haley is in charge of security. We offered her 10,000 people, soldiers, National Guard, whatever they want. They turned it down. They don’t want to talk about that. These are very dishonest people,’ Trump said. Trump has previously accused Pelosi of turning down 10,000 soldiers on Jan. 6, a claim that has been debunked. The final report by the now-defunct Jan. 6 committee said: ‘Some have suggested that President Trump gave an order to have 10,000 troops ready for January 6th. The Select Committee found no evidence of this. In fact, President Trump’s Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller directly refuted this when he testified under oath.'”

Trump Claims Immunity Extends Even to Acts That ‘Cross the Line.’ In a social media post, Donald Trump appeared to take a stance that went even further than his lawyers have in court about the scope of immunity from prosecution that a president should enjoy. The New York Times, Alan Feuer and Maggie Haberman, Friday, 19 January 2024: “Former President Donald J. Trump said on Friday night that American presidents deserve complete immunity from prosecution even for acts that ‘cross the line,’ contending for the second time this week that the holder of the nation’s highest office should effectively remain beyond the reach of criminal law. Mr. Trump’s remarks on his social media platform, Truth Social, were the latest signal that he seems to view the presidency as an office unbounded by the normal checks of the criminal justice system. The statements were made as Mr. Trump was seeking to build on his dominant position in the race for the Republican nomination with a decisive win in the New Hampshire primary next week. Mr. Trump’s statements appeared to go further than legal arguments that one of his lawyers made in his efforts to use sweeping claims of executive immunity to dismiss a federal indictment he is facing accusing him of plotting to illegally overturn the 2020 election. Last week, a three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in Washington expressed deep skepticism about Mr. Trump’s immunity arguments, suggesting it was unlikely to rule in his favor on a central element of his defense in the case. The appeals court panel could make its ruling at any time.”

Credit Card Statements Suggest Prosecutors in Trump Case Traveled Together. Records included in a court filing follow claims that Fani T. Willis had begun a relationship with Nathan Wade before hiring him to help lead the Trump case. The New York Times, Richard Fausset, Friday, 19 January 2024: “The estranged wife of a special prosecutor accused of having a romantic relationship with Fani T. Willis, the Atlanta district attorney who hired him, offered evidence on Friday that Ms. Willis accompanied him on trips unrelated to their work: leading the Georgia case against former President Donald J. Trump. A court filing from Joycelyn Wade, who is in divorce proceedings with the prosecutor, Nathan J. Wade, included what it said were statements for a credit card account belonging to Mr. Wade. The statements showed that he bought plane tickets for himself and Ms. Willis, including tickets to San Francisco from Atlanta purchased on April 25, 2023, and to Miami from Atlanta purchased on Oct. 4, 2022. The release of the credit card statements follows a motion filed last week by Michael Roman, one of Mr. Trump’s 14 co-defendants in the Georgia case. That motion, which did not include any proof, claimed that Ms. Willis was having a romantic relationship with Mr. Wade that began before she hired him in 2021 to manage the high-profile case. The motion also stated that Mr. Wade, who has been paid more than $650,000 by the district attorney’s office, paid for vacations with Ms. Willis.” See also, Georgia prosecutor in Trump case paid for flights with Fani Willis, filing shows, The Washington Post, Amy Gardner and Holly Bailey, Friday, 19 January 2024: “The lead prosecutor in the election interference case against former president Donald Trump paid for at least two airline trips with embattled Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis (D) while the investigation was underway, according to bank statements filed in his divorce case Friday. The bank statements may corroborate an accusation leveled against Willis and prosecutor Nathan Wade by one of Trump’s co-defendants that they have been engaged in an improper personal relationship. The statements were part of a filing by lawyers for Wade’s estranged wife, Joycelyn Mayfield Wade, in an effort to compel Willis to testify in the divorce proceeding, which the district attorney sought to avoid in a separate filing on Thursday. Nathan Wade purchased tickets for himself and Willis on two occasions, according to the statements — a trip to Miami purchased in October 2022 on American Airlines, and a second trip purchased in April 2023 to San Francisco on Delta Air Lines. Former Trump campaign aide Mike Roman, who is charged alongside Trump in the Georgia case, has argued that Willis improperly benefited from hiring Wade as a special prosecutor by receiving free travel from him. Wade, who is an attorney in private practice, has earned more than $650,000 from Willis’s office for his work. In addition to seeking to disqualify Willis and Wade, Roman also seeks to have the entire case dismissed. In his filing this month, he argued that in addition to violating rules of professional conduct, Willis may be guilty of fraud if she accepted gifts from an employee whom she hired.” See also, Credit card statements show Trump special prosecutor appointed by Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis bought her plane tickets. A Fulton county commissioner says he is now pursuing an investigation into Willis over allegations that she had an improper relationship with prosecutor Nathan Wade. NBC News, Blayne Alexander, Charlie Gile, and Dareh Gregorian, Friday, 19 January 2024: “Nathan Wade, the outside special prosecutor appointed by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to oversee her criminal racketeering case against Donald Trump, purchased plane tickets for the DA for trips together, according to credit card statements included in a Friday court filing obtained by NBC News. A co-defendant in the Trump case, Michael Roman, had previously made misconduct accusations against the pair, alleging they had been ‘engaged in an improper, clandestine personal relationship during the pendency of this case, which has resulted in the special prosecutor, and, in turn, the district attorney, profiting significantly from this prosecution at the expense of the taxpayers.’ Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee has scheduled a hearing on the allegations for Feb. 15. The credit card statements showing Wade had purchased tickets for himself and Willis to travel San Francisco and Miami in 2022 and 2023 were attached to a filing by Wade’s estranged wife, Joycelyn Wade, in the couple’s ongoing divorce case in Cobb County, Georgia. The DA’s office declined to comment on the credit card statements.”

Louisiana Lawmakers Approve Map That Empowers More Black Voters. The Legislature passed a congressional map that creates a second majority-Black district while shielding the state’s most powerful conservatives in Washington from political jeopardy. The New York Times, Emily Cochrane, Friday, 19 January 2024: “Louisiana lawmakers on Friday approved a new congressional map that would create a second district with a majority of Black voters, after a federal court found that the existing map appeared to illegally undercut the power of Black voters in the state. Given that Black voters often back Democratic candidates in the state, the new map also increases the possibility of Democrats’ taking control of a second congressional seat in Louisiana. ‘It’s a powerful moment for Black voters in this state and it’s a powerful moment for history,’ said Ashley K. Shelton, president of the Power Coalition for Equity and Justice and one of the plaintiffs who had challenged the map.” See also, Louisiana legislature approves new congressional map with second majority-Black district, The Washington Post, Maegan Vazquez, Friday, 19 January 2024: “The Louisiana state legislature on Friday approved a new congressional map that includes two majority-Black districts after being ordered to do so by a federal court that found that the existing map illegally diminished Black voting power. Approval by the legislature comes after a years-long court battle to give Black voters in the state more adequate voting representation. Previously, Black voters in Louisiana had a majority in just one of the state’s six congressional districts, despite making up nearly a third of the statewide population. The new map is expected to give Democrats an edge in upcoming elections. The map was approved by the state’s Senate on Wednesday and passed in the Louisiana House in a landslide 86-16 vote. The map soon heads to the desk of Gov. Jeff Landry (R), who was sworn into office last week, for approval. Landry has said he supports the map.” See also, Louisiana lawmakers pass new congressional map with second majority-Black district, Associated Press, Sara Cline, Friday, 19 January 2024: “The Louisiana Legislature passed a congressional map with a second majority-Black district on Friday, marking a win for Democrats and civil rights groups after a legal battle and political tug-of-war that spanned nearly two years. Democrats have long fought for a second majority-minority district among Louisiana’s six congressional districts — arguing that the political boundaries passed by the GOP-dominated legislature in 2022 discriminates against Black voters, who make up one-third of Louisiana’s population. The change could deliver an additional seat in Congress to the Democratic Party. The GOP has resisted drawing another minority district, arguing that the 2022 map is fair and constitutional. But in an about-face this special legislative session, the map received bipartisan support after Republicans said their hands had been tied by a looming Jan. 30 court-mandated deadline and fears that a federal judge, who was nominated by former President Barack Obama, would redraw the map herself if the task was not by completed lawmakers.”

Saturday, 20 January 2024:

Nikki Haley questions Trump’s mental fitness after he appears to confuse her for Nancy Pelosi, Associated Press, Meg Kinnard, Saturday, 20 January 2024: “Nikki Haley on Saturday questioned whether Donald Trump is mentally capable of serving as president again after he repeatedly seemed to confuse her with former U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a campaign speech. As she campaigned in Keene, New Hampshire, Haley referenced Trump’s speech the night before, in which he mistakenly asserted that Haley was in charge of Capitol security on January 6, 2021, when a mob of Trump supporters stormed the building seeking to stop the certification of his loss to Democrat Joe Biden. Trump first said that Haley turned down security offered by his administration on Jan. 6 and then again mentioned Haley, adding, ‘They destroyed all of the information, all of the evidence, everything, deleted and destroyed all of it.’ Trump, 77, has accused Pelosi of turning down security he says his administration offered, but a special House committee empaneled to probe the attack found no evidence to support that claim.”

Sunday, 21 January 2024:

Inside the Heritage Foundations’s Plans for ‘Institutionalizing Trumpism.’ ‘People will lose their jobs,’ the think tank’s president says about federal workers. ‘Hopefully their lives are able to flourish in spite of that.’ The New York Times Magazine, Lulu Garcia-Navarro, Sunday, 21 January 2024: “Since taking over the Heritage Foundation in 2021, Kevin D. Roberts has been making his mark on an institution that came to prominence during the Reagan years and has long been seen as an incubator of conservative policy and thought. Roberts, who was not well known outside policy circles when he took over, has pushed the think tank away from its hawkish roots by arguing against funding the war in Ukraine, a turnabout that prompted some of Heritage’s policy analysts to leave. Now he’s looking ahead, to the 2024 election and beyond. Roberts told me that he views Heritage’s role today as ‘institutionalizing Trumpism.’ This includes leading Project 2025, a transition blueprint that outlines a plan to consolidate power in the executive branch, dismantle federal agencies and recruit and vet government employees to free the next Republican president from a system that Roberts views as stacked against conservative power. The lesson of Trump’s first year in office, Roberts told me, is that ‘the Trump administration, with the best of intentions, simply got a slow start. And Heritage and our allies in Project 2025 believe that must never be repeated.'”

Tuesday, 23 January 2024:

5 Takeaways From the New Hampshire Primary. Donald Trump made history with a second straight victory, as Nikki Haley and her supporters look increasingly adrift in his Republican Party. The New York Times, Lisa Lerer, Maggie Haberman, and Jonathan Swan, Tuesday, 23 January 2024: “The much-fabled power of New Hampshire’s fiercely independent voters wasn’t enough to break the spell Donald J. Trump has cast over the Republican Party. Brushing aside Nikki Haley a little over a week after he steamrolled her and Ron DeSantis in Iowa, Mr. Trump became the first Republican presidential candidate who was not a White House incumbent to carry the nation’s first two contests. His winning margin of 11 percentage points in moderate New Hampshire demonstrated his ironclad control of the party’s hard-right base and set him on what could very well be a short march to the nomination. For Ms. Haley, the former South Carolina governor, it was a disappointing finish in a state she had poured considerable resources into carrying. Her efforts to cobble together a coalition of independents and anti-Trump Republicans, with support from the state’s popular governor, were no match for Mr. Trump’s legions of loyalists.” See also, Trump beats Haley decisively in New Hampshire, closing in on nomination, The Washington Post, Isaac Arnsdorf, Colby Itkowitz, Sabrian Rodriguez, and Meryl Kornfield. Tuesday, 23 January 2024: “Donald Trump marched closer to the Republican nomination with a sweep of the first two contests, defeating former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley on Tuesday as voters turned out in projected record numbers in New Hampshire’s primary. Trump’s lead here was decisive enough for the Associated Press to project his win shortly after polls closed. With nearly 75 percent of the vote tallied, Trump led Haley by about 11 percentage points. The Republican primary attracted widespread interest across the state, with turnout on pace to surpass the previous high, according to Edison Research estimates. Trump’s victory dealt another blow to critics in his party who saw the New Hampshire race as perhaps the last best chance to stop or slow him.” See also, Trump wins New Hampshire primary as rematch with Biden appears increasingly likely, Associated Press, Holly Ramer, Will Weissert, and Jill Colvin, 23 January 2024: “Former President Donald Trump easily won New Hampshire’s primary on Tuesday, seizing command of the race for the Republican nomination and making a November rematch against President Joe Biden feel all the more inevitable. The result was a setback for former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, who finished second despite investing significant time and financial resources in a state famous for its independent streak. She’s the last major challenger after Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis ended his presidential bid over the weekend, allowing her to campaign as the sole alternative to Trump. Trump’s allies ramped up pressure on Haley to leave the race before the polls had closed, but Haley vowed after the results were announced to continue her campaign. Speaking to supporters, she intensified her criticism of the former president, questioning his mental acuity and pitching herself as a unifying candidate who would usher in generational change.” See also, 5 takeaways from the New Hampshire primary, NPR, Domenico Montanaro, published on Wednesday, 24 January 2024: “Donald Trump beat Nikki Haley by a significant margin in New Hampshire — 11 points — despite nearly half the electorate being comprised of independent voters. Haley won 6 in 10 independents Tuesday, but lost three-quarters of Republicans. It’s hard to see another state favorable enough to Haley to give her the opportunity to dislodge Trump as the likely nominee. But Haley is vowing to continue.”

Full Appeals Court Spurns Request by Trump to End Gag Order in Election Criminal Case. The former president now has one option left if he wants to keep fighting the order: appealing to the Supreme Court. The New York Times, Charlie Savage, Tuesday, 23 January 2024: “The full federal appeals court in Washington on Tuesday rejected former President Donald J. Trump’s bid to lift a gag order imposed on him in the criminal case in which he stands accused of trying to subvert the results of the 2020 election. The terse ruling, issued on behalf of the 11 judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, leaves Mr. Trump with only the option of appealing to the Supreme Court if he wants to keep fighting the gag order, which restricts his ability to publicly criticize certain people involved in the legal proceeding.” See also, Appeals court rejects Trump’s bid to reconsider gag order in the election interference case, Associated Press, Tuesday, 23 January 2024: “Washington’s federal appeals court on Tuesday rejected Donald Trump’s request to reconsider a gag order restricting the former president’s speech in the case charging him with plotting to overturn the 2020 election. Lawyers for the Republican presidential front-runner had asked the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to examine the gag order after a three-judge panel upheld but narrowed the restrictions on his speech. Trump can now appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Wednesday, 24 January 2024:

White House Said to Delay Decision on Enormous Natural Gas Export Terminal. Before deciding whether to approve it, the Energy Department will analyze the climate impacts of CP2, one of 17 proposed LNG export terminals. The New York Times, Coral Davenport, Wednesday, 24 January 2024: “The Biden administration is pausing a decision on whether to approve what would be the largest natural gas export terminal in the United States, a delay that could stretch past the November election and spell trouble for that project and 16 other proposed terminals, according to three people with knowledge of the matter. The White House is directing the Energy Department to expand its evaluation of the project to consider its impact on climate change, as well as the economy and national security, said these people, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss internal deliberations. The Energy Department has never rejected a proposed natural gas project because of its expected environmental impact. The move comes as Mr. Biden gears up for what is likely to be a contentious re-election campaign. He is courting climate voters, particularly the young activists who helped him win election in 2020 and who have been angered by his administration’s approval last year of the Willow project, an enormous oil drilling operation in Alaska. It also comes as the United States leads the world in both liquefied natural gas exports and oil and gas production. The country has seven export terminals with five more already under construction. The project in question, Calcasieu Pass 2, is among 17 additional terminals that have been proposed by the fossil fuel industry.”

Biden Receives Endorsement from United Automobile Workers Union. The group, which endorsed President Biden in the 2020 election, made the self-described most ‘pro-union president in history’ work for its official approval. The New York Times, Katie Rogers, Noam Scheiber, and Jonathan Weisman, Wednesday, 24 January 2024: “The United Automobile Workers union endorsed President Biden on Wednesday, delivering an influential boost as he faces a battle against former President Donald J. Trump to win the support of labor groups. Mr. Biden, who calls himself the ‘most pro-union president in history,’ delighted striking U.A.W. workers but angered auto industry executives when he appeared on a picket line with workers last fall. On Wednesday, he appeared in front of a national conference of autoworkers to tell them that he had been proud to do it.” See also, Biden endorsed by United Auto Workers, shoring up union vote in automaking swing states, The Washington Post, Lauren Kaori Gurley, Wednesday, 24 January 2024: “The United Auto Workers endorsed President Biden at its annual legislative conference Wednesday in Washington, signaling union support in auto-making swing states, where former president Donald Trump is also popular. The endorsement is a political victory for the self-proclaimed ‘most pro-union president,’ who has gone to great lengths to appeal to union members, including autoworkers. ‘Rarely, as a union, do you get so clear of a choice between two candidates,’ said UAW President Shawn Fain, as he explained the UAW endorsement. ‘Donald Trump is a scab. Donald Trump is a billionaire, and that’s who he represents.'” See also, ‘Honored to have your back, and you to have mine’: Biden is endorsed by United Auto Workers in election, Associated Press, Tom Krisher, Fatima Hussein, and Darlene Superville, Wednesday, 24 January 2024: “President Joe Biden picked up an endorsement from the United Auto Workers union Wednesday, an important boost to the Democratic president’s reelection bid as he pushes to sway blue-collar workers his way in critical auto-making swing states such as Michigan and Wisconsin. ‘I’m honored to have your back and you have mine,’ Biden said to the cheering crowd. ‘That’s the deal.’ Biden spoke as the union closed out a three-day gathering in Washington to chart its political priorities. The event follows Tuesday’s primary vote in New Hampshire, where Republican front-runner Donald Trump cemented his hold on core Republican voters with a victory and Biden scored a write-in win. Biden has long billed himself as the most labor-friendly leader in American history, and went so far as to turn up on a picket line with union workers at a GM parts warehouse in the Detroit area during a strike last fall.”

Study published in JAMA Internal Medicine estimates that in states with abortion bans there have been 65,000 pregnancies from rape, Axios, Adriel Bettelhaim, Wednesday, 24 January 2024: “More than 64,500 pregnancies have resulted from rape in the 14 states that banned abortion since Roe v. Wade was overturned, with the vast majority occurring in states that don’t make exceptions for rape, researchers estimated today in a leading medical journal. The projection in JAMA Internal Medicine aims to shed light on the frequency of these pregnancies at a time when exceptions for rape loom large in abortion debates. Researchers, led by the medical director at Planned Parenthood of Montana, say even states with bans that have exceptions for rape impose other requirements that make it difficult to access the procedure. Rape victims have few options other than self-managed abortions, including by illegal methods or via pills obtained through the mail, or traveling out of state to where abortion is legal. As a result, many have to carry a pregnancy to term, the researchers wrote. Using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the FBI, researchers estimated that 519,981 rapes occurred in states with bans from July 2022 — in the immediate aftermath of Roe being overturned — through Jan. 1, 2024. Adjusting for the fraction of female victims ages 15 to 45 and the cases likely to result in a pregnancy, they projected 64,565 pregnancies resulted from rape during the four to 18 months various state bans were in effect. Nine out of 10 pregnancies were in states with no exceptions for rape victims, with 45% of those (26,313) in Texas. Missouri was next highest with 5,825.” See also, Raped, pregnant, and in an a state that bans abortions? Researchers gauge how often it happens: 64,565 pregnancies caused by rape in the 14 states where abortion is banned since the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Supreme Court decision overturned the federal guarantee of abortion rights in June 2022. NPR, Selena Simmons-Duffin, Wednesday, 24 January 2024: “As an abortion provider in Montana, Dr. Samuel Dickman has seen patients routinely who tell him they became pregnant after a rape. His sense was the patients who were telling him were only a fraction of the true number. ‘There are certainly far more survivors of rape who become pregnant as a result, who — for totally understandable reasons — don’t want to disclose that fact to a medical provider that they just met.’ Dickman used to live and practice in Texas, and he began to wonder about patients who became pregnant due to rape in states where abortion is no longer an option. (He is also the medical director of Planned Parenthood Montana and a plaintiff in several lawsuits challenging abortion restrictions in Montana.) He and a group of colleagues have arrived at an answer. They estimate in a research letter published Wednesday in JAMA Internal Medicine that 64,565 pregnancies have been caused by rape in the 14 states where abortion is banned. The figure, while an estimate that may spark some debate, is an important data point since the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Supreme Court decision overturned the federal guarantee of abortion rights [in June 2022]. While there once was political consensus that abortion should be permitted in cases of rape, that has changed. Few states with total bans on abortion have exceptions for rape. Those that have exceptions require victims to report the rape to authorities, something that research shows happens only in a small fraction of sexual assaults.”

Thursday, 25 January 2024:

Trump-Carroll Defamation Trial: Trump Briefly Takes Stand in Civil Case. E. Jean Carroll seeks at least $10 million from the former president in a second defamation trial. A jury last year found that he had sexually abused her in the 1990s. The New York Times, Benjamin Weiser, Maria Cramer, and Kate Christobek, Thursday, 25 January 2024: “Former President Donald J. Trump took the stand in his own defense on Thursday in the trial of E. Jean Carroll’s defamation lawsuit against him, a civil case that grew out of her accusation that he raped her in a department store dressing room in the mid-1990s. His testimony, after days of anticipation, lasted less than five minutes. ‘The defense calls President Donald Trump,’ Alina Habba, his lead lawyer, told the court. She asked the former president whether he stood by his remarks in a deposition in which he had called Ms. Carroll a liar. ‘One hundred percent, yes,’ Mr. Trump said. ‘She said something; I consider it a false accusation.’ Mr. Trump’s brief appearance came after much debate before the trial over whether the judge, Lewis A. Kaplan, should ensure Mr. Trump did not stray from the sole issue in the case — damages. Ms. Carroll’s lawyer, Roberta A. Kaplan, had written to the judge, saying Trump might see a political benefit ‘from intentionally turning this trial into a circus.’ In the end, both sides seemed to attain at least part of their goals on Thursday: Mr. Trump answered the handful of questions his lawyer asked, and he did not embark on a rant about Ms. Carroll.” See also, Trump delivers brief testimony in E. Jean Carroll defamation damages trial. ‘This is not America,’ the former president angrily declared as he walked out of the courtroom. The Washington Post, Shayna Jacobs, Devlin Barrett, and Mark Berman, Thursday, 25 January 2024: “A visibly angry Donald Trump took the witness stand in New York federal court Thursday, delivering a few minutes of testimony in a defamation damages trial against him before walking out of court in a huff, declaring, ‘This is not America.’ The former president’s much-anticipated testimony — in a civil trial brought by writer E. Jean Carroll for defaming her — lasted about three minutes and did not offer much in the way of evidence, but the front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination complained bitterly before and after testifying that the judge was being unfair to him.”

Trump joins effort to oust Fulton District Attorney Fani Willis, citing racial bias, Atlanta Journal Constitution, Tamar Hallerman, Thursday, 25 January 2024: “Donald Trump on Thursday joined a push to disqualify District Attorney Fani Willis from prosecuting Fulton County’s election interference case, saying her defiant remarks at a historic Black church showed ‘racial animus’ toward the former president and his co-defendants. In a court filing, Trump’s two top Atlanta attorneys accused Willis, who is Black, of a ‘glaring, flagrant, and calculated effort to foment racial bias into this case.’ That could unfairly prejudice a jury, they said, and violated Georgia’s rules of professional conduct. Trump’s lawyers Steve Sadow and Jennifer Little weighed in a little more than two weeks after explosive allegations emerged that Willis was in a secret relationship with one of the case’s special prosecutors and benefitting financially from it. Willis’ only public comments about the claims so far came in a recent Martin Luther King Jr. Day service at downtown’s Big Bethel AME Church. During her 35-minute speech, Willis didn’t address the relationship accusations head-on but defended the special prosecutor, Nathan Wade, who is also Black, and accused her critics of playing the ‘race card.'” See also, Trump Joins Motion to Disqualify Prosecutor Fani Willis in Georgia Election Case. Trump’s lawyers argued that Willis violated state bar rules when she claimed in a recent speech that racism was behind the effort to remove her. The New York Times, Richard Fausset and Danny Hakim, Thursday, 25 January 2024: “Lawyers for former President Donald J. Trump on Thursday joined an effort to disqualify Fani T. Willis from leading the election interference case against Mr. Trump in Georgia, on the grounds that she created a conflict of interest by hiring her romantic partner to help prosecute the case. Mr. Trump’s lawyers also raised a new argument for ousting Ms. Willis, the Fulton County district attorney: that she violated state bar rules when she claimed in a recent speech that racism was behind the effort to remove her. The relationship claim surfaced on Jan. 8 in a filing from Michael Roman, one of Mr. Trump’s co-defendants in the Georgia case. Six days later, Ms. Willis, who is Black, gave a speech at a church in Atlanta in which she suggested that her critics were ‘playing the race card’ by criticizing her hiring of the special prosecutor, Nathan J. Wade, who is also Black. Ms. Willis has neither confirmed nor denied a relationship with Mr. Wade, though she has been ordered to provide a written response to Mr. Roman’s motion by next week.” See also, Trump attorneys accuse Fani Willis of trying to ‘foment racial bias.’ Trump’s lawyers in the Georgia election interference case want the Fulton County district attorney disqualified and the case dismissed after her comments in an Atlanta church. The Washington Post, Amy Gardner and Holly Bailey, Thursday, 25 January 2024: “Lawyers defending former president Donald Trump in the Georgia election interference case on Thursday accused Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis (D) of making racially charged accusations against the defendants that could prejudice a future jury and asked a judge to disqualify her and dismiss the case.”

Friday, 26 January 2024:

Jury Orders Trump to Pay E. Jean Carroll $83.3 Million After Years of Insults. The ex-president was found liable for sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll, but called her a liar. The award was ‘a huge defeat for every bully who has tried to keep a woman down,’ she said. The New York Times, Benjamin Weiser, Jonah E. Bromwich, Maria Cramer, and Kate Christobek, Friday, 26 January 2024: “Former President Donald J. Trump was ordered by a Manhattan jury on Friday to pay $83.3 million to the writer E. Jean Carroll for defaming her in 2019 after she accused him of a decades-old rape, attacks he continued in social media posts, at news conferences and even in the midst of the trial itself. Ms. Carroll’s lawyers had argued that a large award was necessary to stop Mr. Trump from continuing to attack her. After less than three hours of deliberation, the jury responded by awarding Ms. Carroll $65 million in punitive damages, finding that Mr. Trump had acted with malice. On one recent day, he made more than 40 derisive posts about Ms. Carroll on his Truth Social website. On Friday, Mr. Trump had already left the courtroom for the day when the judge, Lewis A. Kaplan, called in the nine-member jury shortly after 4:30 p.m., warning the lawyers, ‘We will have no outbursts.’ The verdict was delivered nine minutes later to utter silence in the courtroom. In addition to the $65 million, jurors awarded Ms. Carroll $18.3 million in compensatory damages for her suffering. Mr. Trump’s lawyers slumped in their seats as the dollar figures were read aloud. The jury was dismissed, and Ms. Carroll, 80, embraced her lawyers. Minutes later, she walked out of the courthouse arm in arm with her legal team, beaming for the cameras. ‘This is a great victory for every woman who stands up when she’s been knocked down and a huge defeat for every bully who has tried to keep a woman down,’ Ms. Carroll said in a statement, thanking her lawyers effusively. Mr. Trump, who had walked out of the courtroom earlier during the closing argument by Ms. Carroll’s lawyer, said in a Truth Social post that the verdict was ‘absolutely ridiculous.’ ‘Our Legal System is out of control, and being used as a Political Weapon,’ he said, pledging to appeal. ‘They have taken away all First Amendment Rights.’ Notably, he did not attack Ms. Carroll.” See also, Trump Will Be Able to Wait to Pay Full $83.3 Million Until All Appeals Are Exhausted. Donald J. Trump–the rare defendant who can afford a judgment of this size–could secure a bond to cover it while his appeals play out. The New York Times, Ben Protess and Maggie Haberman, Friday, 26 January 2024. See also, Trump ordered to pay E. Jean Carroll $83.3 million in defamation damages trial, The Washington Post, Washington Post Staff, Friday, 26 January 2024: “A federal court jury awarded a total of $83.3 million in damages to E. Jean Carroll for defamatory comments Donald Trump made about her as president in 2019, remarks attacking her character that kicked off years of threats and harassment from the former president’s supporters. Most of the award involved $65 million in punitive damages after jurors concluded that Trump acted spitefully and wantonly toward Carroll after she accused him of sexually assaulting her in the 1990s. Jurors also awarded a combined $18.3 million in compensatory damages. Trump won the Republican presidential primary in New Hampshire earlier this week. He also recently won the Iowa caucuses, even as he faces multiple lawsuits and four criminal indictments. In May, a civil jury in New York found that Trump sexually abused and defamed Carroll, and awarded her a combined $5 million in damages, a finding Trump has appealed. The former president said he will appeal the latest verdict as well.” See also, Takeaways from the $83.3 million jury verdict against Donald Trump, CNN Politics, Jeremy Herb, Lauren del Valle, and Kara Scannell, Friday, 26 January 2024: “A jury said that Donald Trump should pay $83.3 million in damages Friday, an eye-popping sum that marks the sharpest legal setback for a former president now entangled in multiple criminal and civil cases while he campaigns for the White House. The verdict was the second time over the past year that a jury has awarded E. Jean Carroll millions of dollars in damages from Trump for his defamatory statements disparaging her and denying her rape allegations. But this verdict was on a whole different scale – awarding $65 million in punitive damages alone and a total dollar figure eight times higher than what Carroll initially sought in her lawsuit. Friday’s verdict, while sure to be appealed, comes ahead of a judge’s expected decision later this month in Trump’s civil fraud trial that could threaten the former president’s business empire, along with the four criminal indictments that are awaiting trial and a US Supreme Court hearing on whether the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination can appear on the ballot.”

Voters in Colorado Case Lay Out Their Argument to Block Trump From Ballot. A group of Colorado voters urged the Supreme Court to uphold a lower court decision blocking the former president from the state’s primary ballot. The New York Times, Abbie VanSickle, Friday, 26 January 2024: “A group of Colorado voters laid out its argument to the Supreme Court on Friday for why former President Donald J. Trump should be barred from the state’s primary ballot, contending that his actions leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol amounted to an insurrection. In a court filing embedded with photographs of rioters attacking the Capitol and tweets from Mr. Trump, the voters forcefully asserted that Mr. Trump had spurred a brazen attack on democracy, betraying his oath of office. ‘As president, Trump swore to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,’ the voters’ brief said. It added, ‘Instead of peacefully ceding power, Trump intentionally organized and incited a violent mob to attack the United States Capitol in a desperate effort to prevent the counting of electoral votes cast against him.’ Mr. Trump’s lawyers asked the Supreme Court to intervene after Colorado’s top court declared him ineligible because it found that he had engaged in insurrection in his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election leading up to the Capitol riot. The justices are expected to hear the case, Trump v. Anderson, No. 23-719, on Feb. 8, less than a month before Super Tuesday, when many states, including Colorado, hold their primaries.” See also, Colorado voters press Supreme Court to bar Trump from return to office, The Washington Post, Ann E. Marimow, Friday, 26 January 2024: A group of Colorado voters on Friday asked the Supreme Court to bar Donald Trump from the state’s primary ballot, telling the justices in their brief that he is ineligible to return to the White House after spearheading the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The high court is set to consider on Feb. 8 the unprecedented question of whether a post-Civil War provision of the Constitution disqualifies Trump from holding office. The case will shape the course of the 2024 presidential election, in which Trump is on track to secure the Republican nomination for the third consecutive cycle. The justices are reviewing a Colorado Supreme Court decision finding that Trump engaged in insurrection and is disqualified from the primary ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which initially was adopted to prevent Confederate leaders from returning to the halls of power.”

Monday, 29 January 2024:

As Trump Awaits Fraud Penalty, a Monitor’s Report Could Raise His Risk. A monitor drew attention to ‘deficiencies’ in the Trump Organization’s financial reporting ahead of a verdict in a case brought by New York State that seeks $370 million. The New York Times, Jonah E. Bromwich and Ben Protess, Monday, 29 January 2024: “As a New York judge weighs Donald J. Trump’s civil fraud case, new accusations of deficiencies in his company’s financial reporting could provide the judge with ammunition for a forceful ruling against the former president and his family business. The judge, Arthur F. Engoron, will soon decide on any consequences Mr. Trump might face as a result of the New York attorney general’s accusation that he fraudulently exaggerated his net worth to obtain favorable loans. After a monthslong trial, the attorney general, Letitia James, asked for a penalty of roughly $370 million, which would come on the heels of a separate jury verdict in a defamation case requiring Mr. Trump to pay $83.3 million. The new accusations against Mr. Trump’s family business, the Trump Organization, came late last week in a report from an outside monitor whom Justice Engoron assigned in late 2022 to keep an eye on the company. The monitor, Barbara Jones, a former federal judge, has overseen how the company represents its finances to lenders. Her report highlighted several paperwork issues at a family company trying to shake a legacy of sloppiness: missing disclosures, typos, math errors and questions about a $48 million loan between Mr. Trump and one of his companies. Ms. Jones, now a law firm partner, told the judge that collectively, the issues “may reflect a lack of adequate internal controls.” See also, Trump lashes out at financial monitor in business fraud case after she reports errors, CNBC, Kevin Breuninger, Monday, 29 January 2024: “Donald Trump on Monday lashed out at the financial monitor overseeing the Trump Organization and urged a judge to fire her days after she reported a range of issues — and flagged a questionable $48 million loan — in the former president’s New York civil business fraud case. The independent monitor, Barbara Jones, ‘desperately seeks to justify the continued receipt of millions of dollars in fees going forward,’ an attorney for Trump wrote in a letter to Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron. The attorney, Clifford Robert, said Jones has collected more than $2.6 million in 14 months on the job. New York Attorney General Letitia James has asked Engoron to order that Jones continue to monitor the Trump Organization for at least five years as part of his judgment in the case…. Robert made that argument three days after Jones submitted a report to Engoron accusing the Trump Organization of providing incomplete, inconsistent or incorrect information about its financial disclosures. In a footnote in that report, Jones said she identified a loan between Trump himself and an entity related to Trump Chicago Tower that later turned out not to exist. She was told that the loan was believed to total $48 million, but that there are no agreements memorializing it.”

Retired conservative federal judge J. Michael Luttig urges Supreme Court to disqualify Trump from office, CNN Politics, Devan Cole, Monday, 29 January 2024: “A former conservative federal appellate judge is urging the Supreme Court to keep Donald Trump off the ballot, arguing the ex-president’s effort to cling to power after his 2020 election loss was ‘broader’ than South Carolina’s secession from the US that triggered the Civil War. ‘Mr. Trump tried to prevent the newly-elected President Biden from governing anywhere in the United States. The South Carolina secession prevented the newly-elected President Lincoln from governing only in that State,’ J. Michael Luttig, a former judge on the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals, told the justices in a friend-of-the-court brief filed Monday. ‘Trump incited, and therefore engaged in, an armed insurrection against the Constitution’s express and foundational mandates that require the peaceful transfer of executive power to a newly-elected President,’ the brief said. ‘In doing so, Mr. Trump disqualified himself under Section 3 (of the Constitution).'”

The Case for Disqualification. The Supreme Court must decide if it will honor the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment and bar Donald Trump from holding public office or trash the constitutional defense of democracy against insurrections. The New York Review of Books, Sean Wilentz, published online on Monday, 29 January 2024 and on Thursday, 22 February 2024 in the print edition. “Even as Donald Trump roars and intimidates with ever more violent threats, even as his lawyers warn that kicking him off the ballot in November would ‘unleash chaos and bedlam,’ even as it becomes evident that we are not in the midst of a normal national election but an ongoing coup d’état by a charismatic despot, it is taking a long time for the public to understand the enormity of the events of January 6, 2021, and all that precipitated them. In the moment, American historians were better equipped to grasp their profound political implications. Less than a week after the attack on the Capitol, Eric Foner, the preeminent authority on Reconstruction, pointed to Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified three years after the end of the Civil War, which bars anyone who has sworn to uphold the Constitution and who has engaged in insurrection from ever holding office again. Plainly, Foner said, then-president Donald Trump, along with other public officials, had sworn ‘an oath to defend the Constitution and, on Jan. 6, they violated it.’ To bar them from public office, as the Constitution mandates, ‘would be the mildest of punishments’ for ‘an uprising that left five people dead, threatened the lives of members of Congress, caused havoc in the Capitol, and sought to overturn the results of the presidential election.’ Upholding the law of the land, Foner remarked, ‘would be an affirmation of the vitality of our wounded democracy.’ Three years later the Supreme Court will now decide whether to sustain the recent decisions of the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine secretary of state to follow the Constitution’s mandate, much as Foner suggested. Unsurprisingly, Trump’s lawyers and defenders, when not unsubtly raising the specter of mass violence, have groped for any escape route they can find.”

Tuesday, 30 January 2024:

Trump’s PACs Spent Roughly $50 Million on Legal Expenses in 2023. The former president is facing four criminal indictments and potential trials that could drive his legal bills even higher as he seeks to lock up the Republican presidential nomination. The New York Times, Maggie Haberman and Shane Goldmacher, Tuesday, 30 January 2024: “Donald J. Trump piled up legal expenses in 2023 as he was indicted four times, spending approximately $50 million in donor money on legal bills and investigation-related expenses last year, according to two people briefed on the figure. It is a staggering sum. His lone remaining rival in the 2024 Republican primary, Nikki Haley, raised roughly the same amount of money across all her committees in the last year as Mr. Trump’s political accounts spent paying the bills stemming from his various legal defenses, including lawyers for witnesses. The exact figure spent on legal bills will be reported on Wednesday in new filings to the Federal Election Commission. But even those totals can be imprecise depending on how certain expense items are categorized by those doing the paperwork. The broader picture expected to be outlined in the documents is one of a former president heading toward the Republican nomination while facing enormous financial strain.”

Federal appeals court declines to revisit a ruling that could weaken the Voting Rights Act, NPR, Hansi Lo Wang, Tuesday, 30 January 2024: “A federal appeals court has denied a request to revisit a ruling that could undermine a key tool for enforcing the Voting Rights Act’s protections against racial discrimination in the election process. It’s the latest move in an Arkansas state legislative redistricting case, filed by civil rights groups representing Black voters in the southern state, that could turn into the next U.S. Supreme Court battle that limits the scope of the landmark civil rights law. The full 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals released its decision Tuesday after attorneys led by the American Civil Liberties Union appealed the ruling by a three-judge panel last year. That panel found that federal law does not allow private groups and individuals — who have for decades brought the majority of lawsuits under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act — to sue because that law does not explicitly name them. Only the head of the Justice Department, the panel found, can bring these kinds of lawsuits.”

Even though the Trump administration is no longer in office, I am continuing to post summaries of the daily political news and major stories relating to this tragic and dangerous period in US history. I try to focus on the differences between the Trump administration and the Biden administration and on the ongoing toxic residual effects of the Trump administration and Republicans. I usually post throughout the day and let the news settle for a day or so before posting.

I created Muckraker Farm in 2014 as a place to post muckraking (investigative) journalism going back to the 19th century. I hope to return to this original project soon. You can find these muckraking pieces under the Home Page link at the top of this site. Thanks for reading!