For independent global news, visit Democracy Now!
For a newsletter about the history behind today’s politics, subscribe to Heather Cox Richardson’s newsletter, Letters from an American.
Thursday, 1 February 2024:
Special counsel Jack Smith questioned witnesses about 2 rooms FBI didn’t search inside Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence. Sources said the FBI missed the rooms in their search for classified documents. ABC News, Katherine Faulders, Mike Levine, and Alexander Mallin, Thursday, 1 February 2024: “Special counsel Jack Smith’s team has questioned several witnesses about a closet and a so-called ‘hidden room’ inside former President Donald Trump’s residence at Mar-a-Lago that the FBI didn’t check while searching the estate in August 2022, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News. As described to ABC News, the line of questioning in several interviews ahead of Trump’s indictment last year on classified document charges suggests that — long after the FBI seized dozens of boxes and more than 100 documents marked classified from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate — Smith’s team was trying to determine if there might still be more classified documents there. According to sources, some investigators involved in the case came to later believe that the closet, which was locked on the day of the search, should have been opened and checked. As investigators would later learn, Trump allegedly had the closet’s lock changed while his attorney was in Mar-a-Lago’s basement, searching for classified documents in a storage room that he was told would have all such documents. Trump’s alleged efforts to conceal classified documents from both the FBI and his own attorney are a key part of Smith’s indictment against Trump in Florida.”
Allen H. Weisselberg, Trump’s Former Finance Chief, Is in Negotiations to Plead Guilty to Perjury. Weisselberg would admit to lying on the stand during the former president’s civil fraud trial, according to people familiar with the talks. The New York Times, William K. Rashbaum, Jonah E. Bromwich, and Ben Protess, Thursday, 1 February 2024: “Allen H. Weisselberg, a longtime lieutenant to Donald J. Trump, is negotiating a deal with Manhattan prosecutors that would require him to plead guilty to perjury, people with knowledge of the matter said. As part of the potential agreement with the Manhattan district attorney’s office, Mr. Weisselberg would have to admit that he lied on the witness stand in Mr. Trump’s recent civil fraud trial, the people said. Mr. Weisselberg, the former chief financial officer at Mr. Trump’s family business, also would have to say that he lied under oath during an interview with the New York attorney general’s office, which brought the civil fraud case.”
Friday, 2 February 2024:
Fani Willis, Prosecutor in Trump Georgia Case, Admits Relationship With Colleague. Willis said her relationship with Nathan Wade did not begin until after she hired him and argued that it should not disqualify her. The New York Times, Richard Fausset and Danny Hakim, Friday, 2 February 2024: “Fani T. Willis, the district attorney prosecuting the Georgia election interference case against former President Donald J. Trump, acknowledged on Friday a ‘personal relationship’ with a prosecutor she hired to manage the case but argued that it was not a reason to disqualify her or her office from it. The admission came almost a month after allegations of an ‘improper, clandestine personal relationship’ between the two surfaced in a motion from one of Mr. Trump’s co-defendants. The motion seeks to disqualify both prosecutors and Ms. Willis’s entire office from handling the case — an effort that, if successful, would likely sow chaos for an unprecedented racketeering prosecution of a former president. ‘While the allegations raised in the various motions are salacious and garnered the media attention they were designed to obtain, none provide this Court with any basis upon which to order the relief they seek,’ Ms. Willis’s filing said, adding that her relationship with the prosecutor, Nathan J. Wade, ‘has never involved direct or indirect financial benefit’ to Ms. Willis. The filing included an affidavit from Mr. Wade asserting that the relationship started only after Mr. Wade had been hired.” See also, Fani Willis admits relationship with prosecutor on Trump Georgia case, The Washington Post, Holly Bailey and Amy Gardner, Friday, 2 February 2024: “Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis (D) acknowledged that she had a personal relationship with an outside prosecutor she appointed to manage the election interference case against former president Donald Trump and his allies. But she denied claims that the relationship had tainted the proceedings. In a 176-page court filing on Friday, Willis called the claims against her ‘meritless’ and ‘salacious.’ She asked a judge to reject motions from Trump and other co-defendants that seek to disqualify her and her office from the case — and to do so without an evidentiary hearing. Willis denied claims of misconduct and said there was no evidence that the relationship between her and special prosecutor Nathan Wade had prejudiced the case. The filing included a sworn affidavit from Wade, who said there was ‘no personal relationship’ between him and Willis ‘prior to or at the time’ he was appointed. Wade’s affidavit said that in 2022 he and Willis ‘developed a personal relationship in addition to our professional association and friendship.’ The filing did not say whether that personal relationship is ongoing. Wade also denied that his role had financially benefited Willis. Mike Roman, the Trump co-defendant who first leveled allegations of misconduct, accused Wade of paying for ‘lavish’ vacations with Willis. Wade said in his affidavit that the two had split travel expenses ‘equally.’ An attached exhibit includes receipts for airline tickets for a trip to Miami in December 2022 that Willis bought for herself and Wade.”
Judge Tanya Chutkan Scraps 4 March Trial Date for Trump Election Subversion Case. Chutkan removed the planned 4 March start from her calendar, formalizing a delay that had become increasingly likely in recent weeks. It remains unclear when the trial might start. The New York Times, Alan Feuer, Friday, 2 February 2024: “The federal judge overseeing former President Donald J. Trump’s prosecution on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election issued an order on Friday scrapping the March 4 trial date for the case. The order by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan was a formal confirmation of what had seemed fairly obvious for weeks. It came after she had made a series of hints that she was going to delay the trial as Mr. Trump pursues an effort to have the underlying charges tossed out with an argument that he enjoys complete immunity from prosecution. In her order, Judge Chutkan said that she would set a new date for the proceeding in Federal District Court in Washington ‘if and when’ Mr. Trump’s immunity claims are resolved. The immunity claims are now in front of a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which has been mulling the issue since oral arguments were heard on Jan. 9. The panel, which expressed skepticism about Mr. Trump’s position, has yet to return a decision after setting an extremely aggressive schedule for briefings to be filed. Judge Chutkan’s decision to delay the trial was the latest twist in an ongoing and often bitter struggle between Mr. Trump’s lawyers and prosecutors working for the special counsel, Jack Smith, over the timing of the proceeding.” See also, After Speedy Start, Appeals Court Slows Down on Trump Immunity Decision. The implications have started coming into focus with the scrapping of March 4 as the start date for the former president’s federal trial on charges of trying to overturn the 2020 election. The New York Times, Alan Feuer and Charlie Savage, published on Saturday, 3 February 2024. See also, Trump’s D.C. trial removed from March calendar, clearing way for New York case. Administrative move comes as anticipation mounts over how – and when – an appeals court will decide former president’s claim of immunity from criminal prosecution. The Washington Post, Spencer S. Hsu and Rachel Weiner, Friday, 2 February 2024: “Former president Donald Trump’s March 4 trial date on charges of plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 election in D.C. has been taken off the calendar, a formal acknowledgment of what has long been anticipated — that his claim of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution would delay his trial while it remains on appeal.” See also, Federal judge in DC postpones Trump’s March trial on charges of plotting to overturn 2020 election, Associated Press, Eric Tucker, Friday, 2 February 2024: “A federal judge in Washington formally postponed Donald Trump’s March trial on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election as a key legal appeal from the former president remains unresolved in the courts. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan on Friday vacated the March 4 trial date in the case brought by Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith but did not immediately set a new date. The move opens the door for a separate prosecution in New York, charging Trump in connection with hush money payments to a porn actor, to proceed first. That case has long been seen as arguably the least legally perilous of the four indictments Trump faces, with the alleged misconduct less grave than accusations of mishandling classified documents or plotting to subvert a presidential election. The postponement in Washington comes as a federal appeals court has yet to resolve a pending appeal from Trump arguing that he is immune from prosecution for actions he took in the White House. It is not clear when the three-judge panel might rule, but a ruling in favor of prosecutors that permits the case to move forward is expected to be appealed by the Trump team, likely resulting in additional delays.”
Continue reading Aftermath of the Trump Administration, February 2024:
Special counsel Jack Smith mounts forceful – and unusual – defense of Trump classified documents case. The routine filing features a public rebuttal of ‘misimpressions’ allegedly fueled by the former president. Politico, Josh Gerstein and Kyle Cheney, Friday, 2 February 2024: “Special counsel Jack Smith used a routine legal filing Friday to offer a forceful public rebuttal against Donald Trump’s claims that his criminal prosecution for allegedly hoarding classified documents has been infected by politics and legal impropriety. The 68-page document began with what Smith’s team described as an effort to correct false assertions the former president had made about the nature of the case against him. ‘It is necessary to set the record straight on the underlying facts that led to this prosecution,’ the prosecutors argued. ‘The government will clear the air on those issues … because the defendants’ misstatements, if unanswered, leave a highly misleading impression.’ What followed was a lengthy recitation of the events that led prosecutors to suspect Trump had been squirreling reams of classified records at his Mar-a-Lago estate. Rather than the bloodthirsty partisan endeavor Trump describes, prosecutors say federal officials from the National Archives, intelligence community and White House counsel’s office took ‘measures’ and ‘incremental’ steps to retrieve the documents — often in coordination with some of Trump’s own designated advisers — before escalating the matter as the former president continued to resist. The approach taken in the legal brief is somewhat unusual for the Justice Department. Though the filing was submitted to U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, at times it sounded like an opening argument to a jury Trump could face in the future or the first chapter of a report meant to detail investigative findings to the public.”
Pennsylvania Barber Whose Violent Attacks on the Police on 6 January 2021 Were Widely Seen as the Tipping Point in the Storming of the Capitol by a Pro-Trump Mob Was Convicted on Friday of Federal Assault Charges, The New York Times, Alan Feuer, Friday, 2 February 2024: “The barber, Ryan Samsel, was one of the first people to confront the police on Jan. 6 and push through barricades at what is known as the Peace Circle, allowing hundreds of others behind him to breach the grounds of the Capitol and ultimately the building itself. Prosecutors at a trial for Mr. Samsel and four co-defendants, who were also convicted of assault and other charges, said that the men’s actions ‘ignited a fire that burned for over four hours at the Capitol.’ The guilty verdicts, returned by the judge after a bench trial in Federal District Court in Washington, were the latest reminders that the prosecutions of those who took part in the storming of the Capitol continue apace, even more than three years after the attack. This week alone, charges were unsealed against at least nine additional defendants, bringing the total number of people accused in connection with the Capitol attack to more than 1,260. The assault on the building has also found itself front and center in the 2024 presidential campaign as former President Donald J. Trump has lionized those who joined in it, referring to them as ‘hostages’ and ‘political prisoners.’ As he has often done with potential political liabilities, Mr. Trump has sought to flip the script on the Capitol attack and turn it to his electoral advantage through a campaign of persistent disinformation built around the assertion that the Justice Department is persecuting him and his supporters. Last week, a federal judge in Washington appointed by President Ronald Reagan denounced such attempts to rewrite the history of Jan. 6, calling them ‘shameless,’ ‘preposterous’ and potentially a ‘danger to our country.’ ‘In my 37 years on the bench, I cannot recall a time when such meritless justifications of criminal activity have gone mainstream,’ the judge, Royce C. Lamberth, wrote. ‘I have been dismayed to see distortions and outright falsehoods seep into the public consciousness.'”
Sunday, 4 February 2024:
Trump Pushes Immigration Conspiracy Theories and Mass Deportations. Former President Donald Trump suggested to Fox News that China was orchestrating illegal immigration and that Latin American governments were picking criminals to send to the United States. The New York Times, Maggie Astor, Sunday, 4 February 2024: “Former President Donald J. Trump, in an interview that aired on Fox News on Sunday, suggested falsely that Latin American governments were picking the citizens they didn’t want and shipping them to the U.S. border, resurrecting a claim that was central to his 2016 campaign. He also accused the Chinese Communist Party — without providing any evidence — of orchestrating illegal immigration into the United States, and said he believed China would try to interfere in the presidential election, adding that he liked President Xi Jinping ‘a lot.'”
Monday, 5 February 2024:
Here’s What’s in the Senate’s $118 Billion Ukraine and Border Deal. Tens of billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine would be tied to an immigration crackdown under legislation that faces a test vote in the Senate this week. The New York times, Karoun Demirjian, Monday, 5 February 2024: “Senate Democrats released a $118.3 billion emergency national security bill on Sunday that would tie a fresh infusion of aid to Ukraine to measures clamping down on migration across the United States-Mexico border. The fate of measure, which has the backing of President Biden and Senate leaders in both parties, will turn on whether enough Republicans embrace its border security provisions — a long shot given the opposition of former President Donald J. Trump and House leaders who quickly denounced it on Sunday night as a nonstarter that does not crack down enough on migration.” See also, Letters from an American (about the Senate’s Ukraine and Border Bill), Substack, Heather Cox Richardson, Monday, 5 February 2024. “Last night the Senate released the text of the national security supplemental bill on which a bipartisan team of negotiators has been working for four months. Negotiators were working on adding a border component to an urgent measure to fund aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Gaza, since extremist House Republicans said they would not pass such a measure until Congress also addressed what they insisted was a crisis at the U.S. border. The measure appropriated $60.1 billion in military aid to Ukraine, $14.1 billion in security aid for Israel, and $10 billion in humanitarian aid for Palestinians, Ukrainians, and other civilians in crises. It also invested about $20 billion in securing the southern border of the U.S., money to be used in hiring new officials, expanding detention facilities, and increasing the screening abilities of border agents to detect illicit fentanyl and other drugs. Other provisions would trigger border closures if the volume of migrants climbs past a certain number and make it more difficult to qualify for asylum. At the same time, the measure offered more pathways to citizenship and more work visas. But it appears the MAGA Republicans never really intended for such a measure to pass. They apparently thought that demanding that Congress agree to a border measure, which it has not been able to do now for decades, would kill the national security bill altogether. Certainly, once news began to spread that the negotiators were close to a deal, both former president Trump and House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), who said he was conferring with Trump, came out strongly against the measure even before anyone knew what was in it.”
Tuesday, 6 February 2024:
Three-Judge Panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Rejects Trump’s Claim of Absolute Immunity. The ruling answered a question that an appeals court had never addressed: Can former presidents escape being held accountable by the criminal justice system for things they did while in office? The New York Times, Alan Feuer and Charlie Savage, Tuesday, 6 February 2024: “A federal appeals court on Tuesday rejected former President Donald J. Trump’s claim that he was immune from prosecution on charges of plotting to subvert the results of the 2020 election, ruling that he must go to trial on a criminal indictment accusing him of seeking to overturn his loss to President Biden. The unanimous ruling, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, handed Mr. Trump a significant defeat. But it was unlikely to be the final word on his claims of executive immunity: Mr. Trump, who is on a path to locking up the Republican presidential nomination, is expected to continue his appeal to the Supreme Court. Still, the panel’s 57-page ruling signaled an important moment in American jurisprudence, answering a question that had never been addressed by an appeals court: Can former presidents escape being held accountable by the criminal justice system for things they did while in office? The question is novel because no former president until Mr. Trump had been indicted, so there was never an opportunity for a defendant to make — and courts to consider — the sweeping claim of executive immunity that he put forward. The panel, composed of two judges appointed by Democrats and one Republican appointee, said in its decision that, despite the privileges of the office he once held, Mr. Trump was subject to federal criminal law like any other American. ‘For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant,’ the panel wrote. ‘But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as president no longer protects him against this prosecution.’ The three judges cast Mr. Trump’s immunity claims as a danger to the nation’s constitutional system. ‘At bottom, former President Trump’s stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the president beyond the reach of all three branches,’ they wrote. ‘Presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that, as to the president, the Congress could not legislate, the executive could not prosecute and the judiciary could not review. We cannot accept that the office of the presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter.'” See also, The Trump Election Immunity Ruling, Annotated, The New York Times, Charlie Savage, Tuesday, 6 February 2024: “A unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected former President Donald J. Trump’s claim that he was immune to charges of plotting to subvert the results of the 2020 election. Mr. Trump is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court.” See also, Forceful Opinion Repudiates Trump’s Claim That He Can’t Be Charged in Election Case. The unanimous ruling, by a panel of appeals court judges appointed by presidents of both parties, systematically took apart the immunity claim. The New York Times, Charlie Savage, Tuesday, 6 February 2024: “Former President Donald J. Trump’s claim that he was immune from being prosecuted for any crimes he committed while trying to stay in office after losing the 2020 election was always a long shot. But in an opinion on Tuesday eviscerating his assertion, three federal appeals court judges portrayed his position as not only wrong on the law but also repellent. ‘We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a president has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power — the recognition and implementation of election results,’ they wrote, adding with an emphatic echo: ‘We cannot accept that the office of the presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter.’ The 57-page opinion was issued on behalf of all three members of a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. They included two Democratic appointees and, significantly, Judge Karen L. Henderson, a Republican appointee who had sided with Mr. Trump in several earlier legal disputes. The ruling systematically weighed and forcefully rejected each of Mr. Trump’s arguments for why the case against him should be dismissed on immunity grounds.” See also, What’s Next in the Federal Election Case Against Trump? The New York Times, Alan Feuer, Tuesday, 6 February 2024. See also, Appeals court rules Trump has no immunity from January 6 prosecution, The Washington Post, Rachel Weiner, Tuesday, 6 February 2024: “A federal appeals court has unanimously ruled that Donald Trump can be put on trial for trying to stay in power after losing the 2020 election, rejecting Trump’s sweeping claim of presidential immunity as dangerous and unsupported by the Constitution. At public arguments in January, the three judges expressed concern over the most extreme implications of Trump’s view, with one suggesting it would allow a future president to order the assassination of a political rival. But in their opinion Tuesday, they said it is Trump’s own alleged crimes — ‘an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government’ — that threaten democracy if left beyond the reach of criminal prosecution. ‘We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power — the recognition and implementation of election results,’ the judges wrote. ‘Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count.'” See also, Read the appeals court ruling on Trump’s immunity claim in January 6 trial, The Washington Post, Washington Post Staff, Tuesday, 6 February 2024. See also, 4 takeaways from Trump’s loss in his immunity case, The Washington Post, Aaron Blake, Tuesday, 6 February 2024. See also, US appeals court says Trump is not immune from prosecution in his 2020 election interference case, Associated Press, Eric Tucker and Alanna Durkin Richer, Tuesday, 6 February 2024: “A federal appeals panel ruled Tuesday that Donald Trump can face trial on charges that he plotted to overturn the results of the 2020 election, sharply rejecting the former president’s claims that he is immune from prosecution while setting the stage for additional challenges that could further delay the case. The ruling is significant not only for its stark repudiation of Trump’s novel immunity claims but also because it breathes life back into a landmark prosecution that had been effectively frozen for weeks as the court considered the appeal. Yet the one-month gap between when the court heard arguments and issued its ruling has already created uncertainty about the timing of a trial in a calendar-jammed election year, with the judge overseeing the case last week canceling the initial March 4 date. Trump’s team vowed to appeal, which could postpone the case by weeks or months — particularly if the Supreme Court agrees to take it up. The appeals panel, which included two appointees by President Joe Biden and one Republican-appointed judge, gave Trump a week to ask the Supreme Court to get involved. The eventual trial date carries enormous political ramifications, with special counsel Jack Smith’s team hoping to prosecute Trump this year and the Republican front-runner seeking to delay it until after the November election. If Trump were to defeat Biden, he could presumably try to use his position as head of the executive branch to order a new attorney general to dismiss the federal cases he faces or potentially could seek a pardon for himself.” See also, Federal appeals court rules Trump is not immune from prosecution for alleged crimes he committed during his presidency to reverse the 2020 election results, CNN Politics, Devan Cole, Hannah Rabinowitz, Holmes Lybrand, Katelyn Polantz, and Marshall Cohen, Tuesday, 6 February 2024: “The ruling is a major blow to Trump’s key defense thus far in the federal election subversion case brought against him by special counsel Jack Smith. The former president had argued that the conduct Smith charged him over was part of his official duties as president and therefore shield him from criminal liability. ‘For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution,’ the court wrote.” See also, Takeaways from the scathing appeals court ruling denying immunity to Donald Trump, CNN Politics, Jeremy Herb, Hannah Rabinowitz, Holmes Lybrand, Marshall Cohen, Katelyn Polantz, and Devan Cole, Tuesday, 6 February 2024: “A federal appeals court said Tuesday that Donald Trump is not immune from prosecution for alleged crimes he committed during his presidency, flatly rejecting Trump’s arguments that he shouldn’t have to go on trial on federal election subversion charges. In a striking 57-page unanimous opinion, the panel of three DC Circuit judges wrote that that the justice system allowed for a former president to face charges for actions he took while in office, and that the public interest in holding a potentially criminal president accountable outweighed any potential ‘chilling effect’ on the presidency. ‘We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter,’ the opinion says. ‘Former President Trump lacked any lawful discretionary authority to defy federal criminal law and he is answerable in court for his conduct,’ the judges added. Trump has pledged to appeal and has until Monday to ask the Supreme Court to temporarily block the ruling to delay his case again from heading to trial.” See also, Appeals court rules Trump is not immune from prosecution for bid to subvert the 2020 election. The unanimous 57-page decision is a major win for special counsel Jack Smith. Politico, Kyle Cheney and Josh gerstein, Tuesday, 6 February 2024: “Former President Donald Trump — and indeed any other former president — may be prosecuted for alleged crimes they committed while in office, a federal appeals court panel ruled Tuesday. The unanimous 57-page decision from a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is a major win for special counsel Jack Smith, who is seeking to put Trump on trial this year on federal felony charges stemming from his efforts to overturn the 2020 election…. The ruling affirms U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s historic conclusion that former presidents may be prosecuted for crimes they committed in office, even if those alleged crimes arguably related to their official duties. Trump had argued that former presidents could not be prosecuted for such actions without first being impeached and convicted by Congress…. The pace of the appeals court’s action has been closely scrutinized and, in some ways, could be as significant as the substance of the ruling. The decision Tuesday came 28 days after oral arguments, slowing Smith’s case and forcing a delay in Trump’s scheduled March 4 trial, but leaving open the possibility that a jury could be convened to hear the case against him in Washington sometime this spring.” See also, Federal appeals court rules Trump doesn’t have broad immunity from prosecution, NPR, Carrie Johnson, Tuesday, 6 February 2024: “A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has ruled that Donald Trump does not enjoy broad immunity from federal prosecution, a major legal setback for the former president, who said he will appeal. They wrote that for the purposes of this criminal case, ‘former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant.’ The ruling comes a month after lawyers for Trump made sweeping claims that he enjoyed immunity from federal prosecution, claims that lawyers for the special counsel said would ‘undermine democracy’ and give presidents license to commit crimes while in the White House, such as accepting bribes for directing government contracts or selling nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary.”
Arthur Engoron, Judge in Trump’s Civil Fraud Case, Asks Whether a Key Witness Lied. The Trump Organization’s ex-finance chief is negotiating a possible perjury plea. Engoron is considering how that should affect the former president’s punishment. The New York Times, Jonah E. Bromwich and Ben Protess, Tuesday, 6 February 2024: “The judge overseeing Donald J. Trump’s civil fraud case has questioned whether a key witness committed perjury during the former president’s trial, a new court filing shows. The judge, Arthur F. Engoron, asked Mr. Trump’s lawyers to address the truthfulness of the witness, Allen H. Weisselberg, Mr. Trump’s longtime chief financial officer. Mr. Weisselberg and Mr. Trump are both defendants in the case, which was brought by the New York attorney general, Letitia James. Justice Engoron, who is expected to issue a decision in the nonjury case this month, cited a recent New York Times article about Mr. Weisselberg’s testimony. The article reported that Mr. Weisselberg, 76, is negotiating a potential agreement with the Manhattan district attorney’s office that would require him to plead guilty to perjury for his testimony. ‘I of course want to know whether Mr. Weisselberg is now changing his tune, and whether he is admitting he lied under oath in my courtroom at this trial,’ Justice Engoron wrote to the lawyers on both sides of the case in a recent email made public on Tuesday.”
Dozens of House Republicans Declare Trump’s January 6 Actions Were Not Insurrection. More than 60 lawmakers signed onto the declaration as courts and state elections officials weigh whether the former president is eligible to hold office under the 14th Amendment. The New York Times, Luke Broadwater, Tuesday, 6 February 2024: “As officials across the country consider whether to bar former President Donald J. Trump from the ballot over his role in the events of Jan. 6, 2021, a contingent of House Republicans are trying to bolster his claim that he did nothing wrong. More than 60 Republicans — led by Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida and Representative Elise Stefanik of New York — said on Tuesday that they had signed onto a resolution declaring that Mr. Trump ‘did not engage in insurrection.’ The measure aims to influence courts and state election officials who are weighing whether Mr. Trump is eligible to hold office under the 14th Amendment’s ban on insurrectionists, an issue that is casting a cloud over the primary season and as Mr. Trump closes in on the Republican nomination. Senator J.D. Vance, Republican of Ohio, is introducing a companion measure in the Senate.”
Wednesday, 7 February 2024:
Senate Republicans block border deal; future of Ukraine and Israel aid is unclear. National security spending for key U.S. allies will receive its own vote after the failure to pass the border package. The Washington Post, Liz Goodwin, Leigh Ann Caldwell, and Abigail Hauslohner, Wednesday, 7 February 2024: “The Senate voted down a sweeping national security and border reform package on Wednesday after most Senate Republicans banded together with a handful of Democrats to reject the legislation their leadership helped negotiate for months. The bill included more than $60 billion in aid for Ukraine as it fends off a Russian invasion and $14 billion for Israel in its war in Gaza, and has long been a top national security priority for President Biden. Senators now will proceed to another vote on the national security aid — which also includes billions for Indo-Pacific allies and $10 billion in humanitarian aid for Gaza, Ukraine and other nations — without the border reforms. That legislation early Wednesday appeared to have growing support to overcome a procedural hurdle, but Republican senators emerged from an afternoon meeting with less optimism about its future.” See also, Senate Republicans block bipartisan border package, then scramble to find support for Ukraine aid, Associated Press, Stephen Groves and Mary Clare Jalonick, Wednesday, 7 February 2024: “Wartime aid for Ukraine was left hanging in the Senate Wednesday after Republicans blocked a bipartisan border package that had been tied to the funding, then struggled to coalesce around a plan to salvage the aid for Kyiv. After GOP senators scuttled months of negotiations with Democrats on legislation intended to cut back record numbers of illegal border crossings, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer tried to push ahead to a crucial test vote on a $95 billion package for Ukraine, Israel and other U.S. allies — a modified package with the border portion stripped out. But a deeply divided Republican conference was scrambling to find support for the wartime funding, even though it has been a top priority for Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell. It was the latest sign of the longtime Republican leader’s slipping control over his conference and underscored how the traditional GOP tenet of robust foreign involvement is giving way to Donald Trump’s ‘America First’ nationalism. At stake is the future of Ukraine’s defense against Russia.” See also, Under pressure from former president Donald Trump, Republican senators today killed the $118 billion Emergency National Security Supplemental Appropriations Act that provided funding for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan and humanitarian assistance for Gaza and also included protections for the border that Republicans themselves had demanded. Letters from an American, Heather Cox Richardson, Wednesday, 7 February 2024: “Senator Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ), one of the team of senators who had negotiated the bill, called out the Republicans who had staged photo ops at the border and insisted that Congress must address the rise in migration across the border… until Trump told them the opposite: ‘After all those trips to the desert, after all those press conferences, it turns out this crisis isn’t much of a crisis after all. Sunday morning, it’s a real crisis,’ she said. ‘Monday morning it magically disappeared.’ After four months of Senate negotiations over the bill produced a strong bipartisan agreement, Trump pulled the rug out from under a measure that gave the Republicans much of what they wanted, partly because he wanted the issue of immigration and the border to run on in 2024, it seems, but also to demonstrate that he could command Congress to do his bidding.”
Trump’s Intervention to Prevent Action to Secure the Southwestern Border Gives Biden a Chance to Shift From Defense to Offense. After three years under fire for record illegal migration on his watch, Biden can now blame Trump. The New York Times, Peter Baker, Wednesday, 7 February 2024: “When President Biden agreed to bipartisan talks on border legislation last fall, Democratic strategists hoped a deal might take the issue off the table for his re-election campaign. But with the collapse of the resulting bipartisan immigration agreement on Wednesday at the hands of former President Donald J. Trump, Mr. Biden got something else instead: someone to blame. The crisis at the southwestern border has been one of the most vexing challenges of Mr. Biden’s presidency, one that has defied his policy prescriptions and drained his public support. With record numbers of migrants illegally crossing into the country, the president has come under pressure from Democrats as well as Republicans to take more action. For three years, Mr. Biden struggled to offer voters a compelling answer to the question of why the border has turned into such a crisis on his watch. He has avoided public discussion of the issue as much as possible, preferring to focus his messaging on other priorities. But with Mr. Trump’s intervention persuading congressional Republicans to abandon the border deal that they themselves had demanded, Mr. Biden finally has an opportunity to shift from defense to offense.”
Putin interview with Tucker Carlson shows Kremlin outreach to the MAGA element of the Republican Party, The Washington Post, Robyn Dixon and Natalia Abbakumova, Wednesday, 7 February 2024: “As Russian state television propagandists salivated over Tucker Carlson’s interview with President Vladimir Putin, the first of Carlson’s falsehoods about his visit to Moscow was punctured, fittingly enough, by Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, who presumably helped arrange the whole strange venture. Carlson, the conservative former Fox News host with a history of airing bogus ‘news,’ claimed — falsely — that prominent U.S. newspapers and television outlets had refused to interview Putin since his invasion of Ukraine and were ignoring Russia’s perspective. Carlson labeled Western media as “corrupt” and accused them of lies on Tuesday in a video confirming that he was in Moscow for a Q&A with the president. ‘Mr. Carlson is wrong,’ Peskov said during his daily briefing for reporters. ‘We receive many requests for interviews with the president.’… The Kremlin’s decision to allow the interview demonstrated Putin’s interest in building bridges to the disruptive MAGA element of the Republican Party, and it seemed to reflect the Kremlin’s hope that Donald Trump would return to the presidency and that Republicans would continue to block U.S. military aid to Ukraine. Halting aid from the United States, which is Ukraine’s biggest Western supporter, could provide Russia with a path to victory in the nearly two-year war. ”
Biden Administration Toughens Limits on Deadly Air Pollution. The E.P.A. says the new rule will prevent 4,500 premature deaths annually. Industry leaders are expected to challenge the regulation, saying it will harm the economy. The New York Times, Lisa Friedman, Wednesday, 7 February 2024: “The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday tightened limits on fine industrial particles, one of the most common and deadliest forms of air pollution, for the first time in a decade. Business groups immediately objected, saying the new regulation could raise costs and hurt manufacturing jobs across the country. Public health organizations said the pollution rules would save lives and strengthen the economy by reducing hospitalizations and lost workdays. Fine particulate matter, which can include soot, can come from factories, power plants and other industrial facilities. It can penetrate the lungs and bloodstream and has been linked to serious health effects like asthma and heart and lung disease. Long-term exposure has been associated with premature deaths. The new rule lowers the annual standard for fine particulate matter to nine micrograms per cubic meter of air, down from the current standard of 12 micrograms. Over the next two years, the E.P.A. will use air sampling to identify areas that do not meet the new standard. States would then have 18 months to develop compliance plans for those areas. By 2032, any that exceed the new standard could face penalties.” See also, New air pollution rule could prevent thousands of premature deaths. The tougher standard could avert up to 4,500 premature deaths and 290,000 lost workdays per year by 2032, according to the Biden administration. The Washington Post, Maxine Joselow, Wednesday, 7 February 2024: “The Environmental Protection Agency is strengthening limits on fine particulate matter, one of the nation’s most widespread deadly air pollutants, prompting praise from public health experts and backlash from business groups. The stricter standards could prevent thousands of premature deaths, particularly in communities of color where people have breathed unhealthy air for decades. While business groups don’t dispute these enormous health benefits, they argue that the standards could cause major economic upheaval by erasing manufacturing jobs across the country. The rule illustrates the challenges facing the Biden administration as it balances two priorities: Reducing pollution in overburdened communities and reviving U.S. manufacturing. It comes as Donald Trump, the Republican presidential front-runner, campaigns on a pledge to dismantle many of President Biden’s environmental and economic policies.” See also, EPA tightens rules on some air pollution for the first time in over a decade, NPR, Alejandra Borunda, Wednesday, 7 February 2024: “[T]he U.S. Environmental Protection Agency … unveiled new, stricter limits for one of the deadliest types of air pollution: tiny particles about 30 times smaller than a human hair. These particles are called PM2.5 (shorthand for particulate matter smaller than 2.5 micrometers in diameter) and are commonly referred to as soot. The agency lowered the allowable limit for annual PM2.5 levels from 12 micrograms per cubic meter to 9. That’s a ‘significant reduction,’ says Regan Patterson, an air pollution expert at the University of California, Los Angeles. ‘The science is clear,’ says EPA Administrator Michal Regan. ‘Soot pollution is one of the most dangerous forms of air pollution and is linked to a range of serious and potentially deadly illnesses, including asthma and heart attacks.’ The new standard represents the first tightening of the rules since 2012, but states will have several years to reach the new limits.”
Thursday, 8 February 2024:
Supreme court Justices Appear Skeptical of Arguments to Keep Trump Off State Ballots. The court heard arguments about whether the former president’s attempts to subvert the 2020 election disqualify him from again holding office. Justices across the ideological spectrum question several aspects of a ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court. The New York Times, Adam Liptak, Thursday, 8 February 2024: “The Supreme Court seemed poised on Thursday to issue a lopsided decision rejecting a challenge to former President Donald J. Trump’s eligibility to hold office again. Justices across the ideological spectrum expressed skepticism about several aspects of a ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court that Mr. Trump’s conduct in trying to subvert the 2020 race made him ineligible to hold office under a constitutional provision that bars people who have sworn to support the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection. Not since Bush v. Gore, the 2000 decision that handed the presidency to George W. Bush, has the Supreme Court assumed such a direct role in a presidential contest. This time, though, it seemed the justices were not prepared to determine the outcome of the election. The ruling is likely to resolve not only whether Mr. Trump may appear on the Colorado primary ballot but also whether he is eligible to run in the general election. Indeed, the decision in the Colorado case will almost certainly apply to any other state where Mr. Trump’s eligibility to run has been challenged, including Maine, where the state’s top elections official ruled he should be excluded from the ballot. There was very little discussion of the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol or of Mr. Trump’s role in it. But a majority of the justices indicated that they were prepared to rule that individual states may not disqualify candidates in a national election unless Congress first enacts legislation allowing them to do so. Some justices also seemed open to two other arguments: that the post-Civil War prohibition at issue, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, bars candidates from holding office, as opposed to running for it, and that the president is not among the officials to whom the provision applies.” See also, Supreme Court poised to allow Trump to remain on Colorado ballot. Across the ideological spectrum, the justices voiced deep concern about permitting a single state to disqualify a presidential candidate. The Washington Post, Ann E. Marimow and Patrick Marley, Thursday, 8 February 2024: “The Supreme Court on Thursday seemed poised to allow former president Donald Trump to remain on the Colorado ballot, expressing deep concerns about permitting a single state to disqualify the leading Republican candidate from seeking national office. Justices from across the ideological spectrum warned of troubling political ramifications if they do not reverse a ruling from Colorado’s top court that ordered Trump off the ballot after finding that he engaged in insurrection around the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol. The court was considering the unprecedented and consequential question of whether a state court can enforce a rarely invoked, post-Civil War provision of the Constitution to disqualify Trump from returning to the White House. During more than two hours of argument, the justices asked questions that suggested their often divided bench could reach a unanimous or near-unanimous decision to reject the challenge to Trump’s eligibility brought by six Colorado voters. Not since the court’s 2000 ruling in Bush v. Gore, which focused on ballot-counting and sealed the election for President George W. Bush, has the Supreme Court been thrust into such a pivotal role in a presidential election.” See also, The Supreme Court seems poised to reject efforts to kick Trump off the ballot over the Capitol riot, Associated Press, Mark Sherman, thursday, 8 February 2024: “The Supreme Court seems poised to reject attempts to kick former President Donald Trump off the 2024 ballot, with conservative and liberal justices in apparent agreement in a case that puts them at the heart of a presidential election. A definitive ruling for Trump, the leading Republican candidate for president, would largely end efforts in Colorado, Maine and elsewhere to prevent his name from appearing on the ballot. The justices could act quickly, possibly by Super Tuesday on March 5, when Colorado, Maine and 13 other states will hold primaries. Conservative and liberal justices alike questioned during arguments Thursday whether Trump can be disqualified from being president again because of his efforts to undo his loss in the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden, ending with the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Their main concern was whether Congress must act before states can invoke a constitutional provision that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who ‘engaged in insurrection’ from holding office again. There also were questions about whether the president is covered by the provision.” See also, Supreme Court justices appear skeptical of effort to remove Trump from a state ballot, NPR, Carrie Johnson, Thursday, 8 February 2024: “Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court appeared skeptical Thursday of the effort to disqualify Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump from a state primary ballot because he allegedly engaged in an insurrection to try to cling to power after he lost the 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden. The historic dispute comes from Colorado, where the state’s Supreme Court threw Trump off Colorado’s Republican primary ballot. But the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling could have national implications for Trump and his political fate. The plaintiffs in the case argue that Trump’s actions in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election automatically disqualify him from office. Trump’s lawyers counter that the case against him is one of overreach.”
Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report on President Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents before he was president, Letters From an American, Heather Cox Richardson, published on Friday, 9 February 2024: “Yesterday, Special Counsel Robert Hur, appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland in January 2023 to investigate President Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents before he was president, released his report. It begins: ‘We conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter. We would reach the same conclusion even if Department of Justice policy did not foreclose criminal charges against a sitting president.’ The Department of Justice closed a similar case against former Vice President Mike Pence on June 1, 2023, days before Pence announced his presidential bid, with a brief, one-page letter. But in Biden’s case, what followed the announcement that he had not broken a law was more than 300 pages of commentary, including assertions that Biden was old, infirm, and losing his marbles and even that ‘[h]e did not remember, even within several years, when his son Beau died’ (p. 208). As television host and former Republican representative from Florida Joe Scarborough put it: ‘He couldn’t indict Biden legally so he tried to indict Biden politically.’ Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and their teams came out swinging against what amounted to a partisan hit job by a Republican special counsel. The president’s lawyers noted that it is not Department of Justice practice and protocol to criticize someone who is not going to be charged, and tore apart Hur’s nine references to Biden’s memory in contrast to his willingness to ‘accept…other witnesses’ memory loss as completely understandable given the passage of time.’ They pointed out that ‘there is ample evidence from your interview that the President did well in answering your questions about years-old events over the course of five hours. This is especially true under the circumstances, which you do not mention in your report, that his interview began the day after the October 7 attacks on Israel. In the lead up to the interview, the President was conducting calls with heads of state, Cabinet members, members of Congress, and meeting repeatedly with his national security team.’ Nonetheless, they note, Biden provided ‘often detailed recollections across a wide range of questions, from staff management of paper flow in the West Wing to the events surrounding the creation of the 2009 memorandum on the Afghanistan surge. He engaged at length on theories you offered about the way materials were packed and moved during the transition out of the vice presidency and between residences. He pointed to flaws in the assumptions behind specific lines of questioning.’ They were not alone in their criticism. Others pointed out that Republicans have made Biden’s age a central point of attack, but Politico reported last October that while former House speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) was publicly mocking Biden’s age and mental fitness, he was ‘privately telling allies that he found the president sharp and substantive in their conversations.’ Dan Pfeiffer of Pod Save America and Message Box noted that the report’s ‘characterizations of Biden don’t match those relayed by everyone who talks to him, including [Republicans].’… But the media ran not with the official takeaway of the investigation—that Biden had not committed a crime—or with a reflection on the accuracy or partisan reason for Hur’s commentary, but with Hur’s insinuations. Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo noted that the New York Times today ran five front-page stories above the fold about the report and Biden’s memory. Matt Gertz of Media Matters collected some of the day’s headlines: ‘Eight Words and a Verbal Slip Put Biden’s Age Back at the Center of 2024’ (New York Times); ‘1 Big thing: Report Questions Biden’s memory (Axios)’; ‘Biden tries to lay to rest age concerns, but may have exacerbated them’ (CNN); ‘Biden disputes special counsel findings, insists his memory is fine’ (CBS News); ‘Age isn’t just a number. It’s a profound and growing problem for Biden’ (Politico); and so on.” See also 5 Takeaways From the Biden Classified Documents Investigation Report. The special counsel, Robert K. Hur, concluded that the evidence was insufficient to charge President Biden with a crime, but sharply criticized him. The New York Times, Charlie Savage, Thursday, 8 February 2024.
Friday, 9 February 2024:
White House Calls Special Counsel Report on Biden Politically Motivated. The White House and some Democrats tried to discredit a document that characterized the president as elderly and forgetful. The New York Times, Zolan Kanno-Youngs, Erica L. Green, and Katie Glueck, Friday, 9 February 2024: “White House officials on Friday called the special counsel’s report into President Biden’s handling of classified material politically motivated, escalating their attempts to discredit a document that characterized the president as elderly and forgetful. Vice President Kamala Harris suggested that the report was more of a political attack than an unbiased legal document. Ian Sams, a spokesman for the White House Counsel’s Office, said it was ‘inappropriate’ and ‘troubling.’ The statements are part of an effort to rebuff the report by Robert K. Hur, the special counsel who was appointed by Attorney General Merrick B. Garland to investigate how classified material from Mr. Biden’s time as vice president had ended up in his garage in Delaware and an office in Washington. The report, which was released on Thursday, found that ‘no criminal charges are warranted,’ a conclusion that was immediately overshadowed by the characterization of the president’s memory. The report said Mr. Biden, 81, was a ‘well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory’ and had ‘diminished faculties in advancing age.'” See also, Democrats stress differences between Biden and Trump cases in special counsel report, The Washington Post, Amy B Wang, Friday, 9 February 2024: “After the release of a special counsel’s report that said President Biden would not be charged for mishandling classified documents, Democrats have sought to keep a focus on their argument that the report offers a far more damning assessment of former president Donald Trump, even as Republicans have continued to seize on material in the document that questioned Biden’s memory. Special counsel Robert K. Hur’s 388-page report, released Thursday evening, opened by stating that the Justice Department had found no criminal charges were warranted, and that investigators would have reached the same conclusion even if Biden were not the president. Hur’s report also made ‘several material distinctions’ between the cases of Biden and Trump, who is facing federal criminal charges centered on his own handling of classified documents. ‘Most notably, after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it,’ Hur wrote. Biden, on the other hand, ‘turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview, and in other ways cooperated with the investigation,’ the report noted.”
Prosecutors Seek to Protect Witnesses in Trump Classified Documents Case. The move to shield the identities of several witnesses suggested a mounting sense of frustration with Judge Aileen M. Cannon, who is overseeing the case. The New York Times, Alan Feuer, Friday, 9 February 2024: “Prosecutors have asked a federal judge to protect the identities of several witnesses involved in the criminal case accusing former President Donald J. Trump of illegally retaining classified documents, saying that if their names were revealed before trial they could be exposed to ‘intolerable and needless risks.’ ‘There is a well-documented pattern in which judges, agents, prosecutors and witnesses involved in cases involving Trump have been subject to threats, harassment and intimidation,’ the prosecutors wrote. The request to protect the witnesses — made in court papers filed late Thursday night — came after Mr. Trump’s legal team asked Judge Aileen M. Cannon, who is overseeing the case, for permission to name some of the witnesses in court papers it recently filed related to arguments about discovery evidence. Judge Cannon ultimately ruled in favor of Mr. Trump and said the witnesses could be identified. The government responded on Thursday night by accusing her of having committed a ‘clear error’ and by asking her to rethink her decision and to keep the identities of more than two dozen witnesses from being revealed.”
Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz’s associate, Joel Greenberg, is cooperating with the House Ethics Committee investigation into whether Gaetz had sex with an underage girl while serving as an elected official, The Hill, Filip Timotija, Friday, 9 February 2024: “The attorney for Gaetz’s former associate confirmed to The Hill on Friday that his client, Joel Greenberg, is cooperating with the pending Congressional investigation. ‘I can confirm that Mr. Greenberg has cooperated and will continue to cooperate in a pending Congressional investigation,’ Fritz Scheller said in a statement to The Hill. ‘As to the nature of the investigation, as well as its targets, that question is better left to the congressional investigators.’ Greenberg was Gaetz’s former friend who previously told investigators that he witnessed the Republican congressman having sex with a 17-year-old girl. Greenberg, a former tax collector, was sentenced to 11 years in prison after he pleaded guilty to sex trafficking of a minor.” See also, Joel Greenberg, Chief Witness Against Republican Representative Matt Gaetz, Is Cooperating With House Ethics Investigation. A year after the Justice Department decided not to bring charges against Representative Matt Gaetz in a sex-trafficking investigation, the House Ethics Committee is moving forward with an inquiry into him. The New York Times, Robert Draper and Michael S. Schmidt, Friday, 9 February 2024: “A lawyer for the chief witness against Representative Matt Gaetz, Republican of Florida, said on Friday that the witness was cooperating with a House Ethics Committee investigation into whether Mr. Gaetz had sex with an underage girl while he was serving in Congress. Fritz Scheller, a lawyer for Mr. Gaetz’s former friend and political ally Joel Greenberg, said he provided documents to the committee related to claims Mr. Greenberg has made about Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Greenberg previously told federal investigators that he had witnessed Mr. Gaetz having sex with a 17-year-old girl. ‘Mr. Greenberg has and will cooperate with any congressional request,’ Mr. Scheller said in an email on Friday. Mr. Greenberg, who pleaded guilty in May 2021 to charges including sex trafficking, is serving an 11-year prison sentence. He had previously cooperated with a Justice Department investigation into whether Mr. Gaetz had engaged in sex trafficking of a minor, a federal offense that carries a minimum of 10 years in prison.”
Saturday, 10 February 2024:
Speaking in Conway, South Carolina, Donald Trump Said as President He Had Told NATO Allies That He Would Urge Russian Aggression Against Countries That Had Not Met Unofficial Financial Commitments, The New York Times, Michael Gold, Saturday, 10 February 2024: “Former President Donald J. Trump said on Saturday that, while president, he told the leaders of NATO countries that he would ‘encourage’ Russia ‘to do whatever the hell they want’ to countries that had not paid the money they owed to the military alliance. In repeating a claim he has made previously to highlight his negotiation skills, Mr. Trump did not make clear that while there has been a spending-related dispute, it was not about an unpaid debt to NATO, but over European countries meeting their spending commitments to their own militaries. Some NATO members are spending below an unofficial commitment to spend 2 percent of their economic output on defense. Mr. Trump’s suggestion that he would encourage Russian aggression against allies of the United States — for any reason — comes as Republicans in Congress have pushed back against more aid for Ukraine in its war against Russia, and is likely to cause concern among NATO member states, which are already very nervous about the prospect of a Trump return.” See also, Trump says he’d disregard NATO treaty and urge Russian attacks on U.S. allies. The Republican front-runner said he encouraged Russia to ‘do whatever the hell they want’ to member countries he views as not spending enough on their own defense. The Washington Post, Marianne LeVine, Saturday, 10 February 2024: “Former president Donald Trump ramped up his attacks on NATO on Saturday, claiming he suggested to a foreign leader that he would encourage Russia to do ‘whatever the hell they want’ to member countries he views as not spending enough on their own defense. ‘One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, Well, sir, if we don’t pay and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?,’ Trump said during a rally at Coastal Carolina University. ‘I said, You didn’t pay. You’re delinquent. He said, Yes, let’s say that happened. No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want.'” See also, Trump says he once told a NATO ally to pay its share or he’d ‘encourage’ Russia to do what it wanted, Associated Press, Jill Colvin, Saturday, 10 February 2024: “Donald Trump said that, as president, he warned NATO allies that he ‘would encourage’ Russia ‘to do whatever the hell they want’ to countries that are ‘delinquent’ as the front-runner for the Republican nomination ramped up his attacks on foreign aid and long-standing international alliances. NATO’s leader said Trump’s words could undermine security and put American and European forces at risk. Speaking at a rally Saturday in Conway, South Carolina, Trump recounted a story he has told before about an unidentified NATO member who confronted him over his threat not to defend members who fail to meet the trans-Atlantic alliance’s defense spending targets. But this time, Trump went further, saying he had told the member that he would, in fact, ‘encourage’ Russia to do as it wishes in that case.”
Sunday, 11 February 2024:
Favoring Foes Over Friends, Trump Threatens to Upend International Order. Former President Donald Trump suggested that he would incite Russia to attack ‘delinquent’ U.S. allies, foreshadowing potentially far-reaching changes in the world order if he wins the White House again. The New York Times, Peter Baker, Sunday, 11 February 2024: “Soon after former President Donald J. Trump took office, his staff explained how NATO’s mutual defense obligations worked. ‘You mean, if Russia attacked Lithuania, we would go to war with Russia?’ he responded. ‘That’s crazy.’ Mr. Trump has never believed in the fundamental one-for-all-and-all-for-one concept of the Atlantic alliance. Indeed, he spent much of his four-year presidency undermining it while strong-arming members into keeping their commitments to spend more on their own militaries with the threat that he would not come to their aid otherwise. But he took it to a whole new level over the weekend, declaring at a rally in South Carolina that not only would he not defend European countries he deemed to be in arrears from an attack by Russia, he would go so far as to ‘encourage’ Russia ‘to do whatever the hell they want’ against them. Never before has a president of the United States — even a former one aspiring to reclaim the office — suggested that he would incite an enemy to attack American allies. Some may discount that as typical Trump rally bluster or write it off as a poor attempt at humor. Others may even cheer the hard line against supposedly deadbeat allies who in this view have taken advantage of American friendship for too long. But Mr. Trump’s rhetoric foreshadows potentially far-reaching changes in the international order if he wins the White House again in November with unpredictable consequences. What’s more, Mr. Trump’s riff once again raised uncomfortable questions about his taste in friends. Encouraging Russia to attack NATO allies, even if he were not fully serious, is a stunning statement that highlights his odd affinity for President Vladimir V. Putin, who has already proved his willingness to invade neighboring countries that do not have the protection of NATO.”
Monday, 12 February 2024:
Trump Asks Supreme Court to Pause Ruling Denying Him Absolute Immunity. The filing was former President Donald Trump’s last-ditch effort to press his claim of total immunity, which has been rejected by two lower courts. The New York Times, Adam Liptak and Abbie VanSickle, Monday, 12 February 2024: “Former President Donald J. Trump asked the Supreme Court on Monday to pause an appeals court’s ruling rejecting his claim that he is absolutely immune from criminal charges based on his attempts to subvert the 2020 election. Unless the justices issue a stay while they consider whether to hear his promised appeal, proceedings in the criminal trial, which have been on hold, will resume. The filing was Mr. Trump’s last-ditch effort to press his claim of total immunity, which has been rejected by two lower courts. The Supreme Court is now poised to determine whether and how fast his federal trial on charges that he tried to subvert the 2020 election will proceed. Unless the justices move quickly, the trial could be pushed into the heart of the 2024 campaign, or even past the election. Mr. Trump’s filing came after a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously rejected Mr. Trump’s argument that he may not be prosecuted for actions he took while in office.” See also, Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court to block a lower-court ruling that he can be criminally prosecuted for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, insisting that presidents are shielded from prosecution and that a trial would ‘radically disrupt’ his reelection bid, The Washington Post, Ann E. Marimow, Monday, 12 February 2024: “It was the second time in less than a week that the leading Republican presidential candidate turned to the nation’s highest court to intervene in an unprecedented legal question that could shape his political future, in this case explicitly requesting that the Supreme Court keep his criminal trial on hold to allow his political campaign to move forward unimpeded. At oral argument in a separate case on Thursday, the justices seemed inclined to reverse a ruling from Colorado’s top court that Trump should be barred from the ballot because of his conduct around the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Monday’s filing asks the justices to temporarily suspend — pending a formal appeal to the Supreme Court — the sweeping rejection by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit of Trump’s claim that he is shielded from prosecution for actions he took while in office.” See also, Former President Donald Trump asked the U.S. Supreme court to hit pause on his federal criminal prosecution for allegedly conspiring to obstruct the January 6, 2021, electoral certification, NPR, Carrie Johnson, Monday, 12 February 2024: “Lawyers for Trump made the request Monday, writing the justices that they are preparing a petition for certiorari, or a full application for the high court to take the case. They said they want the court to indefinitely delay the trial at a federal courthouse in Washington D.C. At issue is a dispute over whether Trump should enjoy absolute immunity from criminal charges over acts he allegedly committed while in the White House. Last week, three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit flatly rejected Trump’s bid for blanket immunity. ‘Former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant,’ the ideologically diverse judges wrote in an unsigned, unanimous opinion. ‘We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter,’ the D.C. Circuit judges wrote. Doing so, they said, ‘would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three branches.'” See also, Trump asks Supreme Court to block lower court ‘immunity’ ruling. The 39-page motion puts the fate of his criminal case in Washington, D.C. squarely in the hands of the nine justices, three of whom he nominated. Politico, Kyle Cheney and Josh Gerstein, Monday, 12 February 2024: “Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court on Monday to block a lower court’s ruling that he is not immune from criminal charges stemming from his bid to subvert the 2020 election…. Trump wants the Supreme Court to issue a ‘stay’ of the appeals court’s ruling — an action that would keep the proceedings in the trial court frozen. Those proceedings have been delayed for two months while Trump has litigated the immunity issue, and the originally scheduled trial date of March 4 has already been postponed. If the justices quickly deny Trump’s stay request, the case would be sent back to the trial court, and the former president could stand trial on the election-focused federal charges as early as this spring. If, on the other hand, the justices grant a stay, it would likely lead to months of delay for any trial in the case, almost guaranteeing a conflict with the Republican National Convention in July or the height of the presidential general election season in the late summer or fall.”
Senate Passes Aid to Ukraine, but Fate Is Uncertain in a Hostile House. Democrats and a group of Republicans teamed up to approve the $95 billion bill, which also includes aid to Israel and civilians in conflict zones, but the House speaker threatened to ignore it. The New York Times, Karoun Demirjian, Monday, 12 February 2024: “The Senate passed a long-awaited foreign aid package for Ukraine and Israel early Tuesday morning, delivering a bipartisan endorsement of the legislation after months of negotiations, dire battlefield warnings and political mudslinging. But the measure faced a buzz saw of opposition in the House, where Republican resistance threatened to kill it. The 70-to-29 vote reflected a critical mass of support in Congress for the $95 billion emergency aid legislation and for continuing to arm Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression. The measure would provide an additional $60.1 billion for Kyiv — which would bring the total U.S. investment in the war effort to more than $170 billion — as well as $14.1 billion for Israel’s war against Hamas and almost $10 billion for humanitarian aid for civilians in conflict zones, including Palestinians in Gaza. But it also splintered Republicans and foretold a bumpy road ahead in the G.O.P.-led House, where the speaker suggested late Monday that he would not act on it…. Republican hostility to the measure has been egged on by former President Donald J. Trump, who encouraged G.O.P. senators to reject an earlier version that would have included a bipartisan border security deal, and Speaker Mike Johnson.” See also, Senate passes $95 billion Ukraine, Israel aid package amid Republican divide. The measure, opposed by Trump and his Senate allies, faces uncertain prospects in the House as Ukraine struggles to repel Russia’s invasion. The Washington Post, Liz Goodwin, Monday, 12 February 2024: “The Senate passed a $95 billion national security package to aid Israel, Ukraine and other U.S. allies early Tuesday after a months-long debate that has deeply divided congressional Republicans. The bill passed 70 to 29, after 22 Republicans joined Democrats in approving the aid. But House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) preemptively rejected the legislation on Monday night, saying in a statement that the package’s failure to address U.S. border security makes it a nonstarter in the House. ‘In the absence of having received any single border policy change from the Senate, the House will have to continue to work its own will on these important matters,’ Johnson said in a statement. ‘America deserves better than the Senate’s status quo.’ Johnson and other House leaders helped torpedo an earlier version of the legislation that includes sweeping border security measures and other reforms.” See also, Senate passes a $95.3 billion aid package for Ukraine and Israel, but fate in the House is uncertain, Associated Press, Mary Clare Jalonick and Stephen Groves, published on Tuesday, 13 February 2024: “The Senate early Tuesday passed a $95.3 billion aid package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, pushing ahead after months of difficult negotiations and growing political divisions in the Republican Party over the role of the United States abroad. The vote came after a small group of Republicans opposed to the $60 billion for Ukraine held the Senate floor through the night, using the final hours of debate to argue that the U.S. should focus on its own problems before sending more money overseas. But 22 Republicans voted with nearly all Democrats to pass the package 70-29, with supporters arguing that abandoning Ukraine could embolden Russian President Vladimir Putin and threaten national security across the globe. ‘With this bill, the Senate declares that American leadership will not waiver, will not falter, will not fail,’ said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who worked closely with Republican Leader Mitch McConnell on the legislation. The bill’s passage through the Senate with a flourish of GOP support was a welcome sign for Ukraine amid critical shortages on the battlefield.”
Tuesday, 13 February 2024:
Supreme Court Gives Prosecutors a Week to Respond in Trump Immunity Case. The schedule the justices set was not particularly speedy, though nothing prevents the special counsel from filing sooner than the court’s February 20 deadline. The New York Times, Adam Liptak, Tuesday, 13 February 2024: “The Supreme Court on Tuesday gave Jack Smith, the special counsel prosecuting former President Donald J. Trump, a week to respond to Mr. Trump’s emergency application asking the justices to halt an appeals court’s ruling that rejected his claim that he is absolutely immune from criminal charges. In asking Mr. Smith to respond by next Tuesday at 4 p.m., the justices did not set a particularly speedy schedule. The court often asks for quicker responses to emergency applications on what critics call its shadow docket. But nothing prevents Mr. Smith from filing sooner, and he probably will. The proceedings against Mr. Trump in his criminal trial on charges of trying to subvert the 2020 election will remain frozen in the meantime. Unless the justices move quickly, the trial could be pushed into the heart of the 2024 campaign, or even past the election.”
Biden Denounces Trump’s Support for Russian Attack on Allies as ‘Un-American.’ The president cited the former president’s comments in seeking to increase pressure on House Speaker Mike Johnson to allow a floor vite on a $95 billion package of security aid for Ukraine and Israel approved by the Senate. The New York Times, Peter Baker, Tuesday, 13 February 2024: “President Biden denounced former President Donald J. Trump on Tuesday for encouraging Russia to attack certain NATO allies, calling the comments ‘dumb,’ ‘shameful,’ ‘dangerous’ and ‘un-American’ as he implored House Republicans to defy their putative nominee and pass new security aid for Ukraine and Israel. In a televised statement, Mr. Biden said a $95 billion spending package that the Senate passed earlier in the day on a bipartisan vote was imperative to help defeat the ‘vicious onslaught’ of President Vladimir V. Putin’s Russia against Ukraine. And he linked the legislative debate to Mr. Trump’s campaign speech siding with Moscow over European allies that he deemed ‘delinquent.’ ‘Can you imagine?’ Mr. Biden told reporters at the White House. ‘A former president of the United States saying that? The whole world heard it. And the worst thing is he means it. No other president in our history has ever bowed down to a Russian dictator. Let me say this as clearly as I can — I never will. For God’s sake, it’s dumb, it’s shameful, it’s dangerous, it’s un-American.’ Mr. Trump, who has long expressed admiration for Mr. Putin and derision for NATO and Ukraine, boasted at a campaign rally over the weekend that he had warned NATO allies that did not spend enough on their own militaries that he would not come to their defense if Russia attacked them. That would effectively render toothless Article 5 of the alliance’s charter, which requires members to aid one another in the event of an outside attack. But not only would he not help the allies, Mr. Trump added that he would ‘encourage’ Russia ‘to do whatever the hell they want’ against them.” See also, Biden forcefully condemns Trump’s NATO comments as ‘un-American,’ The Washington Post, Amy B Wang, Tuesday, 13 February 2024: “President Biden on Tuesday forcefully condemned as ‘un-American’ comments by former president Donald Trump in which he said he would encourage Russia to invade NATO allies if those countries did not spend enough money on defense. Biden delivered the remarks Tuesday to urge Congress to pass a $95 billion national security package to aid Israel, Ukraine and other U.S. allies. The Senate passed the bill early Tuesday morning, but House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has already rejected the package. Speaking from the White House, Biden said Trump’s comments had sent a dangerous and ‘shameful’ signal to the world. Biden was referring to a speech Trump had given at a campaign rally in South Carolina in which he imagined a NATO country asking if the United States would protect them from a Russian attack if they didn’t pay.”
Trump wants to install new Republican National Committee leadership including his daughter-in-law as co-chair, Associated Press, Steve Peoples and Jill Colvin, Tuesday, 13 February 2024: “Donald Trump wants a leadership change at the Republican National Committee in an attempt to install a new slate of loyalists — including his daughter-in-law — atop the GOP’s political machine even before the former president formally secures the party’s next presidential nomination. Current RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel says she has no plans to leave the committee until at least after South Carolina’s Feb. 24 primary election. Still, Trump on Monday night called for McDaniel to be replaced by Michael Whatley, the North Carolina GOP chairman. The new co-chair, Trump said, should be his daughter-in-law Lara Trump. Trump’s move to push out McDaniel — days after the two met at his Mar-a-Lago residence and agreed to delay a decision on her future — reflects his urgency to force Republicans to unite behind him in a likely rematch against President Joe Biden.”
Wednesday, 14 February 2024:
Special Counsel Jack Smith Asks Supreme Court to Move Quickly in Trump Immunity Case. Smith stressed that speed was in the public interest, pushing back against former President Donald Trump’s request that the court pause an appeals court ruling. The New York Times, Adam Liptak, Wednesday, 14 February 2024: “Jack Smith, the special counsel prosecuting former President Donald J. Trump on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election, urged the Supreme Court on Wednesday to reject a request from Mr. Trump to put the case on hold while he pursues appeals. ‘Delay in the resolution of these charges threatens to frustrate the public interest in a speedy and fair verdict — a compelling interest in every criminal case and one that has unique national importance here, as it involves federal criminal charges against a former president for alleged criminal efforts to overturn the results of the presidential election, including through the use of official power,’ Mr. Smith wrote. The question before the justices is preliminary: Should they pause an appeals court’s ruling rejecting Mr. Trump’s claim that he is absolutely immune from prosecution for things he did while president? The answer to that will determine whether trial proceedings may resume as the Supreme Court considers whether to hear a promised petition seeking review of the ruling itself. The trial had been scheduled to start on March 4 but was deferred while the lower courts sorted out whether Mr. Trump has immunity. When a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled against Mr. Trump this month, it gave him a brief window to seek a stay from the Supreme Court…. Mr. Smith asked the Supreme Court to move quickly. ‘The nation has a compelling interest in the prompt resolution of this case,’ he wrote, adding that Mr. Trump’s ‘personal interest in postponing trial proceedings must be weighed against two powerful countervailing considerations: the government’s interest in fully presenting its case without undue delay and the public’s compelling interest in a prompt disposition of the case.'” See also, Special Counsel Jack Smith asks Supreme Court to let Trump’s D.C. trial for his efforts to remain in office after losing the 2020 election to proceed. Federal prosecutors responded to Donald Trump’s request to delay the trial until after the election by seeking oral argument in March. The Washington Post, Ann E. Marimow, Wednesday, 14 February 2024: “Special counsel Jack Smith asked the Supreme Court to clear the way for the prosecution of Donald Trump for his efforts to remain in office after losing the 2020 election, pushing back against the former president’s claim that he should be shielded from standing trial as he again seeks the White House. In a filing Wednesday evening, Smith’s office urged the justices to let stand a unanimous ruling from a panel of the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that rejected Trump’s sweeping claims of immunity from prosecution for actions he took as president. The Supreme Court’s response will have a significant impact on whether and when Trump goes on trial in Washington, where the presiding judge has already postponed a planned March 4 start date. Federal prosecutors told the justices that Trump’s ‘alleged criminal scheme to overturn an election and thwart the peaceful transfer of power to his successor should be the last place to recognize a novel form of absolute immunity from federal criminal law.'” See also, Special Counsel Jack Smith asks the Supreme Court to let Trump’s 2020 election case proceed to trial without delay, Associated Press, Eric Tucker, Alanna Durkin Richer, and Mark Sherman, Wednesday, 14 February 2024:”Special counsel Jack Smith urged the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday to let former President Donald Trump’s 2020 election interference case proceed to trial without further delay. Prosecutors were responding to a Trump team request from earlier in the week asking for a continued pause in the case as the court considers whether to take up the question of whether the former president is immune from prosecution for official acts in the White House. Two lower courts have overwhelmingly rejected that position, prompting Trump to ask the high court to intervene. The case — one of four criminal prosecutions confronting Trump — has reached a critical juncture, with the Supreme Court’s next step capable of helping determine whether Trump stands trial this year in Washington or whether the proceedings are going to be postponed by weeks or months of additional arguments. The trial date, already postponed once by Trump’s immunity appeal, is of paramount importance to both sides. Prosecutors are looking to bring Trump to trial this year while defense lawyers have been seeking delays in his criminal cases. If Trump were to be elected with the case pending, he could presumably use his authority as head of the executive branch to order the Justice Department to dismiss it or could potentially seek to pardon himself.”
Conservative group True the Vote tells judge it has no evidence to back up its claims of Georgia ballot stuffing, Associated Press, Russ Byum, Wednesday, 14 February 2024: “A conservative group has told a Georgia judge that it doesn’t have evidence to support its claims of illegal ballot stuffing during the the 2020 general election and a runoff two months later. Texas-based True the Vote filed complaints with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in 2021, including one in which it said it had obtained ‘a detailed account of coordinated efforts to collect and deposit ballots in drop boxes across metro Atlanta’ during the November 2020 election and a January 2021 runoff. A Fulton County Superior Court judge in Atlanta signed an order last year requiring True the Vote to provide evidence it had collected, including the names of people who were sources of information, to state elections officials who were frustrated by the group’s refusal to share evidence with investigators. In their written response, attorneys for True the Vote said the group had no names or other documentary evidence to share.”
Scientists warn the Amazon rainforest could reach ‘tipping point’ by 2050. ‘We need to respond now,’ says author of study that says crucial forest has already passed safe boundary and needs restoration. The Guardian, Jonathan Watts, Wednesday, 14 February 2024: “Up to half of the Amazon rainforest could hit a tipping point by 2050 as a result of water stress, land clearance and climate disruption, a study has shown. The paper, which is the most comprehensive to date in its analysis of the compounding impacts of local human activity and the global climate crisis, warned that the forest had already passed a safe boundary and urged remedial action to restore degraded areas and improve the resilience of the ecosystem. Bernardo Flores of the Federal University of Santa Catarina, Brazil, the lead author of the study, said he was surprised by the results, which projected a potential shift from slow to rapid forest decline earlier than he had expected. The forest was already becoming weaker and more homogenous, he said. ‘By 2050, it will accelerate rapidly. We need to respond now. Once we pass the tipping point, we will lose control of how the system will behave.’ This requires international action because even a local halt to deforestation would not prevent collapse without a global reduction in the CO2 emissions that are disrupting the climate.” See also, A Collapse of the Amazon Rain Forest Could Be Coming ‘Faster Than We Thought.’ A new study weighed a range of threats and variables in an effort to map out where the rainforest is most vulnerable. The New York Times, Manuela Andreoni, Wednesday, 14 February 2024: “Up to half of the Amazon rainforest could transform into grasslands or weakened ecosystems in the coming decades, a new study found, as climate change, deforestation and severe droughts like the one the region is currently experiencing damage huge areas beyond their ability to recover. Those stresses in the most vulnerable parts of the rainforest could eventually drive the entire forest ecosystem, home to a tenth of the planet’s land species, into acute water stress and past a tipping point that would trigger a forest-wide collapse, researchers said. While earlier studies have assessed the individual effects of climate change and deforestation on the rainforest, this peer-reviewed study, published on Wednesday in the journal Nature, is the first major research to focus on the cumulative effects of a range of threats. ‘This study adds it all up to show how this tipping point is closer than other studies estimated,’ said Carlos Nobre, an author of the study. Dr. Nobre is a Brazilian Earth systems scientist who studies how deforestation and climate change might permanently change the forest.”
Thursday, 15 February 2024:
Justice Juan M. Merchan Sets a March 25 Trial for Trump’s Criminal Hush-Money Case. Merchan will preside over a Manhattan trial in which Donald Trump is accused of disguising payments to a porn star. It would be the first criminal trial of a former president. The New York Times, Jonah E. Bromwich, Ben Protess, and Kate Christobek, Thursday, 15 February 2024: “Two presidential campaigns ago, Donald J. Trump faced a brewing sex scandal that threatened to derail his bid for the White House. On Thursday, a New York judge ensured that the very same scandal will loom over Mr. Trump’s latest run for president, scheduling for March 25 a trial that could jeopardize his campaign — and his freedom. The judge, Juan M. Merchan, rejected Mr. Trump’s bid to throw out the Manhattan district attorney’s criminal charges against him that stem from a hush-money payment to a porn star in 2016. By setting a trial date for next month, Justice Merchan cleared the way for the first prosecution of a former American president in the nation’s history, ensuring that Mr. Trump will face at least one jury before Election Day.” See also, Highlights From a Key Hearing in Trump’s Manhattan Criminal Case. Ruling that the case against Donald Trump can proceed, Justice Juan M. Merchan said he planned to begin the trial on March 25. The New York Times, Thursday, 15 March 2024. See also, Trump’s first criminal trial is set for March in Manhattan on hush money charges, The Washington Post, Shayna Jacobs and Devlin Barrett, Thursday, 15 February 2024: “A judge ruled Thursday that jury selection for Donald Trump’s hush money trial would begin March 25, setting a date with history for what would be the first criminal prosecution of an ex-president — one who also leads the Republican field of 2024 candidates for the White House. Trump watched impassively from a defense table in Manhattan criminal court as New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan said he will go forward with the trial on charges that Trump falsified business records during the heat of the 2016 political campaign to keep secret a past sexual liaison with an adult-film star. The judge said he expects the trial to take about six weeks.” See also, Trump’s Manhattan criminal trial about Trump falsifying New York Business records in order to conceal damaging information before the 2016 presidential election will start on 25 March, NPR, Ximena Bustillo, Thursday, 15 February 2024: “New York Judge Juan Merchan has rejected an attempt to dismiss the charges in the hush money case against former President Donald Trump, and a jury trial will begin as originally scheduled on March 25. The case was brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who charged Trump with 34 felony counts last year, alleging he falsified New York business records in order to conceal damaging information before the 2016 presidential election. That included hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels, who was threatening to go public with charges that she had had an affair with Trump not long after he married Melania Trump. Trump, who was present for Thursday’s court hearing before Merchan, has denied the affair. With this case, Trump became the first former president in U.S. history to be criminally indicted.” See also, Trump’s Manhattan Criminal Trial Is About Fraud and Undermining Democracy, Not ‘Paying Off a Porn Star.’ It’s not about Stormy Daniels; it’s about willfully falsifying records to deceive voters. The Daily Beast, Andrew Warren, Thursday, 15 February 2024: “Donald Trump’s criminal trial against the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office is rapidly approaching. You may have heard about DA Alvin Bragg’s prosecution of Trump in New York. You may know that it involves ‘hush money’ payments, adult film actress Stormy Daniels, and campaign finance violations. But what you may not know is just how serious this case is. Bragg’s case charges Trump with 34 felonies for falsifying business records to hide from voters critical information during the 2016 presidential election. Prosecutors charge that Trump cooked his company’s books to hide his affair from voters because he was afraid that the story would hurt his candidacy. This is no frivolous distraction about infidelity. It’s about democracy. Bragg has effectively charged Trump with defrauding American voters by covering up some of the most consequential campaign finance violations in history. The charges allege Trump repeatedly lied to illegally conceal hush money payments he made to Daniels, his former mistress, to suppress the information to benefit his presidential campaign by avoiding a damaging scandal. Again and again. For months.”
Georgia Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis Spars With Lawyers Seeking Her Removal From Trump Case. Willis defended her personal conduct in a tense courtroom appearance as defense lawyers sought to disqualify her from the prosecution of Donald Trump and his allies in Georgia. The New York Times, Richard Fausset and Danny Hakim, Thursday, 15 February 2024: “It was one of the most striking developments yet in the Georgia election interference case against former President Donald J. Trump and his allies: The two lead prosecutors took the witness stand Thursday in a daylong hearing, with defense attorneys grilling them about their personal lives. The defense is arguing that Fani Willis, the Fulton County district attorney, and her office should be disqualified and removed from the prosecution, accusing her of benefiting financially from a relationship with the lead prosecutor that she hired to manage the case, Nathan Wade. If the judge removes them from the case, it would delay and potentially derail a proceeding that has major implications for the 2024 presidential election.” See also, Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis delivered fiery testimony in Georgia after witness contradicted her, The Washington Post, Thursday, 15 February 2024: “Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis (D) took the witness stand Thursday to vigorously defend herself during a high-stakes Georgia court hearing focused on her relationship with Nathan Wade, the prosecutor she hired to lead her case against former president Donald Trump. Over two hours of testimony, Willis was combative, appearing irritated by allegations of wrongdoing and accusing defense lawyers of lying. The hearing, which wrapped up late Thursday afternoon and will resume Friday morning with Willis expected to continue on the stand, examined the details of Willis’s relationship with Wade as defendants seek to disqualify her. A former friend of Willis’s testified that the relationship began in 2019, long before she hired him in 2021. Willis pushed back on that, testifying that they began dating in early 2022.” See also, Fani Willis Endures Disrespect, Racist Tropes, and Public Humiliation, Talking Points Memo, David Kurtz, published on Friday, 16 February 2024: “The smoldering confrontation in an Atlanta courtroom between District Attorney Fani Willis and the coterie of Trump co-defendants had so many layers of gender, race, and power dynamics that it felt like a theatrical production in which the playwright got a little too exuberant and ended up with an over-the-top script. Any playwright would die for Willis’ meme-a-minute dialogue, throwing off lines so memorable and original that it was hard to keep up…. The hearing was ostensibly about whether her romantic relationship with the special prosecutor she hired to manage the RICO election interference case was disqualifying. But that was a thin veil over the roiling cauldron of disrespect, racist tropes, and public humiliation that the defendants were indulging in…. Willis came in red hot, literally running from her office to the courtroom when it was her time to testify…. But it wasn’t the performative high dudgeon that Bill Clinton patented and every politican since has doubled down with. It was the seething, barely controlled anger of a Black woman put in a position none of her white male counterparts have had to endure, at the hands of a criminal defendant no less. White prosecutors have used the power of the law to torment Black people for centuries, but a Black woman becomes prosecutor and finds herself tormented by white criminal defendants…. Most of the news coverage elided the racial and gender power dynamics at play. But Black people recognize this modern day spectacle of demeaning and dehumanizing treatment: Willis’ personal life scrutinized, her sex life exposed to public ridicule, her ways of handling money and relationships treated not as a difference of culture or social class but as unethical and disqualifying. And racists recognize it, too…. If Black people know what’s going on here and racists know what’s going on here, then why … [are many] content to leave their heads in the sand?”
Ex-F.B.I. Informant Alexander Smirnov Is Charged With Lying Over Bidens’ Role in Ukraine Business. The informant’s story was part of a series of explosive and unsubstantiated claims by Republicans that the Bidens engaged in potentially criminal activity. The New York Times, Glenn Thrush, Thursday, 15 February 2024: “The special counsel investigating Hunter Biden has charged a former F.B.I. informant with fabricating claims that President Biden and his son each sought $5 million bribes from a Ukrainian company — a stinging setback for Republicans who cited the allegations in their push to impeach the president. The longtime informant, Alexander Smirnov, 43, is accused of falsely telling the F.B.I. that Hunter Biden, then a paid board member of the energy giant Burisma, demanded the money to protect the company from an investigation by the country’s prosecutor general at the time. The explosive story, which seemed to back up unsubstantiated Republican claims of a ‘Biden crime family,’ turned out to be a brazen lie, according to a 37-page indictment unsealed late Thursday in a California federal court, brought by the special counsel, David C. Weiss. Mr. Smirnov’s motivation for lying, prosecutors wrote, appears to have been political. During the 2020 campaign, he sent his F.B.I. handler ‘a series of messages expressing bias’ against Joseph R. Biden Jr., including texts, replete with typos and misspellings, boasting that he had information that would put him in jail.” See also, Former FBI informant Alexander Smirnov charged with lying about Biden’ business dealings, The Washington Post, Devlin Barrett and Jacqueline Alemany, Thursday, 15 February 2024: “Special counsel David Weiss — who has previously filed criminal charges against President Biden’s son Hunter — announced new charges Thursday against a former FBI informant who officials say lied about the Bidens’ business dealings. The indictment returned by a grand jury in Los Angeles accuses Alexander Smirnov of making a false statement and creating a false and fictitious record. The charges amount to a stark rebuke of conservatives, particularly Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, who touted Smirnov’s claims as he and other Republican lawmakers tried to build a corruption case against the president and his family.” See also, Ex-FBI informant Alexander Smirnov charged with lying about Joe and Hunter Biden’s ties to Ukrainian energy company, Associated Press, Lindsay Whitehurst and Lisa Mascaro, published on Friday, 16 February 2024: “An FBI informant has been charged with fabricating a multimillion-dollar bribery scheme involving President Joe Biden, his son Hunter and a Ukrainian energy company, a claim that is central to the Republican impeachment inquiry in Congress. Alexander Smirnov falsely reported to the FBI in June 2020 that executives associated with the Ukrainian energy company Burisma paid Hunter and Joe Biden $5 million each in 2015 or 2016, prosecutors said in an indictment. Smirnov told his handler that an executive claimed to have hired Hunter Biden to ‘protect us, through his dad, from all kinds of problems,’ according to court documents. Prosecutors say Smirnov in fact had only routine business dealings with the company in 2017 and made the bribery allegations after he ‘expressed bias’ against Joe Biden while he was a presidential candidate.”
Trump’s NATO Threat Reflects a Wider Shift on America’s Place in the World. Alliances that were once seen as the bulwark of the Cold War are now viewed as an outdated albatross by a significant segment of the US public. The New York Times, Peter Baker, Thursday, 15 February 2024: “When former President Donald J. Trump told a campaign rally in South Carolina last weekend that he would encourage Russia to attack NATO allies who ‘didn’t pay,’ there were gasps of shock in Washington, London, Paris, Tokyo and elsewhere around the world. But not in South Carolina. At least not in the room that day. The crowd of Trump supporters decked out in ‘Make America Great Again’ T-shirts and baseball caps reacted to the notion of siding with Moscow over longtime friends of the United States with boisterous cheers and whistles. ‘Delinquent’ allies? Forget them. Not America’s problem. The visceral rejection of the American-led security architecture constructed in the years after World War II serves as a reminder of how much the notion of U.S. leadership in the world has shifted in recent years. Alliances that were once seen as the bulwark of the Cold War are now viewed as an outdated albatross by a significant segment of the American public that Mr. Trump appeals to. The old consensus that endured even in the initial years after the end of the Cold War has frayed under the weight of globalization, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Great Recession of 2008-09 and Mr. Trump’s relentless assault on international institutions and agreements. While polls show most Americans still support NATO and other alliances, the increasingly vocal objections in some quarters hark back to a century ago when much of America just wanted to be left alone.”
Friday, 16 February 2024:
Trump Manhattan Fraud Trial Penalty Will Exceed $450 Million. The ruling in Donald Trump’s civil fraud case could cost him all his available cash. The judge said that the former president’s ‘complete lack of contrition’ bordered on pathological. The New York Times, Jonah E. Bromwich and Ben Protess, Friday, 16 February 2024: “A New York judge on Friday handed Donald J. Trump a crushing defeat in his civil fraud case, finding the former president liable for conspiring to manipulate his net worth and ordering him to pay a penalty of nearly $355 million plus interest that could wipe out his entire stockpile of cash. The decision by Justice Arthur F. Engoron caps a chaotic, yearslong case in which New York’s attorney general put Mr. Trump’s fantastical claims of wealth on trial. With no jury, the power was in Justice Engoron’s hands alone, and he came down hard: The judge delivered a sweeping array of punishments that threatens the former president’s business empire as he simultaneously contends with four criminal prosecutions and seeks to regain the White House. Justice Engoron barred Mr. Trump for three years from serving in top roles at any New York company, including portions of his own Trump Organization. He also imposed a two-year ban on the former president’s adult sons and ordered that they pay more than $4 million each. One of them, Eric Trump, is the company’s de facto chief executive, and the ruling throws into doubt whether any member of the family can run the business in the near term. The judge also ordered that they pay substantial interest, pushing the penalty for the former president to $450 million, according to the attorney general, Letitia James.” See also, The Civil Fraud Ruling on Donald Trump, Annotated, The New York Times, Kate Christobek, Friday, 16 February 2024. See also, Highlights From the Decision in Trump’s Fraud Case. Across 92 pages judge Arthur Engoron took Mr. Trump to task several times–both for his business practices and his comportment in the courtroom. The New York Times, William K. Rashbaum, Friday, 16 February 2024. See also, Judge Arthur Engoron orders Trump to pay more than $350 million after civil fraud trial. The New York Attorney General’s office says Trump will also have to pay interest in the case that so far adds up to nearly $100 million. The Washington Post, Shayna Jacobs and Mark Berman, Friday, 16 February 2024: “A judge on Friday ordered former president Donald Trump to pay more than $350 million in penalties, plus interest, following a civil fraud trial, finding that he and others had carried out a years-long scheme to use ‘blatantly false financial data’ to borrow money at lower rates. New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron issued a deluge of punishments, including years-long bans on Trump and his adult sons taking top jobs in companies in the state, and he did so with biting language, castigating defendants as stubbornly unwilling to admit fault or acknowledge reality. ‘Their complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological,’ Engoron, who heard the case without a jury, said in a written decision.” See also, Judge Arthur Engoron orders Trump to pay $355 million for lying about his wealth in staggering civil fraud ruling, Associated Press, Michael R. Sisak, Jake Offenhartz, and Jennifer Peltz, Friday, 16 February 2024: “A New York judge ordered Donald Trump on Friday to pay $355 million in penalties, finding that the former president lied about his wealth for years in a sweeping civil fraud verdict that pierces his billionaire image but stops short of putting his real estate empire out of business. Judge Arthur Engoron’s decision after a trial in New York Attorney General Letitia James’ lawsuit punishes Trump, his company and executives, including his two eldest sons, for scheming to dupe banks, insurers and others by inflating his wealth on financial statements. It forces a shakeup at the top of his Trump Organization, putting the company under court supervision and curtailing how it does business. The decision is a staggering setback for the Republican presidential front-runner, the latest and costliest consequence of his recent legal troubles. The magnitude of the verdict on top of penalties in other cases could dramatically dent Trump’s financial resources and damage his identity as a savvy businessman who parlayed his fame as a real estate developer into reality TV stardom and the presidency. He has vowed to appeal and won’t have to pay immediately. Trump’s true punishment could be far costlier because under state law he is also required to pay interest on the penalties, which James said puts him on the hook for a total of more than $450 million. The amount, which would be paid to the state, will grow until he pays.”
Takeaways From Day 2 of the Hearing in the Georgia Trump Case. In questioning a key witness, defense lawyers failed to undercut assertions by the prosecutors whom they are trying to get disqualified from the election interference case. The New York Times, Richard Fausset, Danny Hakim, and Annie Betts, Friday, 16 February 2024: “Defense lawyers for Donald J. Trump and his co-defendants in Georgia found themselves frustrated in efforts to extract damaging information from a key witness on Friday, as they sought to disqualify the lead prosecutors accusing Mr. Trump and his allies of a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election. The defense is arguing that Fani T. Willis, the Fulton County district attorney, and her office should be disqualified and removed from the prosecution, accusing her of benefiting financially from a romantic relationship with the special prosecutor she hired for the case, Nathan J. Wade.”
Trump Privately Expresses Support for a 16-Week Abortion Ban. In supporting a 16-week ban with exceptions, Donald Trump appears to be trying to satisfy social conservatives who want to further restrict abortion access and voters who want more modest limits. The New York Times, Maggie Haberman, Jonathan Swan, and Lisa Lerer, Friday, 16 February 2024: “Former President Donald J. Trump has told advisers and allies that he likes the idea of a 16-week national abortion ban with three exceptions, in cases of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother, according to two people with direct knowledge of Mr. Trump’s deliberations. Mr. Trump has studiously avoided taking a clear position on restrictions to abortion since Roe v. Wade was overturned in the middle of 2022, galvanizing Democrats ahead of the midterm elections that year. He has said in private that he wants to wait until the Republican presidential primary contest is over to publicly discuss his views, because he doesn’t want to risk alienating social conservatives before he has secured the nomination, the two people said.”
Wisconsin Picks New Legislative Maps That Would End Years of Republican Gerrymandering. Under legal pressure to address Wisconsin’s ‘Swiss cheese’ and oddly shaped districts, the Legislature approved redrawn maps that promise to create a new dynamic in a state known for its pivotal role in national politics. ProPublica, Megan O’Matz, Friday, 16 February 2024: “Wisconsin’s dinosaur-shaped legislative district could soon be history. The curiously drawn district and other oddities associated with the state’s extreme gerrymandering would be erased in new voting maps passed this week by the Wisconsin Legislature. A state Supreme Court decision finally forced Wisconsin Republicans to cede an advantage they enjoyed for more than a decade with maps that made the state one of the nation’s foremost examples of gerrymandering. The Senate and Assembly voted to adopt voting maps drawn by the office of Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat. Evers said a week ago that he would sign his redistricting plan into law if passed unchanged by the Legislature, and proponents of fairer maps have encouraged him to do so. The surprising legislative development promises to end a six-month battle in front of the state’s now left-leaning high court, which ruled the GOP maps unconstitutional shortly before Christmas.”
Aleksei Navalny, Russian Opposition Leader, Dies in Prison at 47. The Kremlin’s fiercest critic, whose work brought arrests, attacks, and a near-fatal poisoning in 2020, had spent months in isolation. The New York Times, Valerie Hopkins and Andrew F. Kramer, Friday, 16 February 2024: “Aleksei A. Navalny, an anticorruption activist who for more than a decade led the political opposition in President Vladimir V. Putin’s Russia while enduring arrests, assaults and a near-fatal poisoning, died on Friday in a Russian prison. He was 47. His death was announced by Russia’s Federal Penitentiary Service and a spokeswoman for Mr. Navalny. The spokeswoman, Kira Yarmysh, said on Saturday in a statement on X that Mr. Navalny’s mother had been officially notified of his death. Ms. Yarmysh said Russian investigators had transferred Mr. Navalny’s body from the penal colony in the Arctic where he has been held to a nearby town for examination. No cause of death has been specified.” See also, Biden Says ‘Putin Is Responsible’ After Report of Navalny’s Death. Russian authorities say the opposition leader Aleksei Navalny has died in prison. An anticorruption campaigner, he rose to become the most prominent critic of President Vladimir Putin. The New York Times, Anton Troianovski and Peter Baker, Friday, 16 February 2024: “President Biden said that there was “no doubt” that President Vladimir V. Putin’s government was behind the death of Aleksei A. Navalny, the outspoken dissident who Russian authorities said had died at a remote Arctic prison on Friday. ‘Make no mistake: Putin is responsible for Navalny’s death,’ Mr. Biden said at a White House news conference, while acknowledging that the United States still did not know details of what happened. ‘What has happened to Navalny is even more proof of Putin’s brutality. No one should be fooled.'” See also, After Report of Navalny Death, Haley Attacks Trump Over Past Praise for Putin. ‘Putin did this. The same Putin who Donald Trump praises and defends,’ Nikki Haley said. Mr. Trump has so far kept silent since reports that Aleksei A. Navalny died. The New York Times, Anjali Huynh, Friday, 16 February 2024: “Many Republicans lined up to condemn President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia on Friday after Russian authorities reported the death of Aleksei A. Navalny, the outspoken opposition leader. But Nikki Haley went further, using criticism of Mr. Putin to attack former President Donald J. Trump, her rival in the G.O.P. primary, for his past remarks that praised Mr. Putin.” See also, Russia says Alexei Navalny, galvanizing opposition leader and Putin’s fiercest foe, died in prison, Associated Press, Jim Heintz, Dasha Litvinova, and Emma Burrows, Friday, 16 February 2024: “Alexei Navalny, who crusaded against official corruption and staged massive anti-Kremlin protests as President Vladimir Putin’s fiercest foe, died Friday in the Arctic penal colony where he was serving a 19-year sentence, Russia’s prison agency said. He was 47. The stunning news — less than a month before an election that will give Putin another six years in power — brought renewed criticism and outrage from world leaders toward the Russian president who has suppressed opposition at home. After initially allowing people to lay flowers at monuments to victims of Soviet-era repressions in several Russian cities, police sealed off some of the areas and started making arrests.” See also, The Death of Alexey Navalny, Putin’s Most Formidable Opponent. The opposition leader, who died in prison, had been persecuted for years by the Russian state. He remained defiant, and consistently funny, to the very end. The New Yorker, Masha Gessen, Friday, 16 February 2024: “Alexey Navalny spent at least a decade standing up to the Kremlin when it seemed impossible. He was jailed and released. He was poisoned, and survived. He was warned to stay away from Russia and didn’t. He was arrested in front of dozens of cameras, with millions of people watching. In prison, he was defiant and consistently funny. For three years, his jailers put him in solitary confinement, cut off his access to and arrested his lawyers, piled on sentence after sentence, sent him all the way across the world’s largest country to serve out his time in the Arctic, and still, when he appeared on video in court, he laughed at his jailers. Year after year, he faced down the might of one of the world’s cruellest states and the vengeance of one of the world’s cruellest men. His promise was that he would outlive them and lead what he called the Beautiful Russia of the Future. On Friday, they killed him. He was forty-seven years old.”
Saturday, 17 February 2024:
Trump allies Plan New Sweeping Abortion Restrictions. His supporters are seeking to attack abortion rights and abortion access from a variety of angles should he regain the White House, including using a long-dormant law from 1873. The New York Times, Lisa Lerer and Elizabeth Dias, Saturday, 17 February 2024: “Allies of former President Donald J. Trump and officials who served in his administration are planning ways to restrict abortion rights if he returns to power that would go far beyond proposals for a national ban or the laws enacted in conservative states across the country. Behind the scenes, specific anti-abortion plans being proposed by Mr. Trump’s allies are sweeping and legally sophisticated. Some of their proposals would rely on enforcing the Comstock Act, a long-dormant law from 1873, to criminalize the shipping of any materials used in an abortion — including abortion pills, which account for the majority of abortions in America.”
Nikki Haley Calls Navalny a ‘Hero,’ Saying Trump Must Answer for His Death. Haley has long criticized her former boss over what she has described as his love of dictators and authoritarian leaders. The New York Times, Jazmine Ulloa, Saturday, 17 February 2024: “Nikki Haley on Saturday called Aleksei A. Navalny, the outspoken Russian opposition leader, ‘a hero’ and amped up the pressure on former President Donald J. Trump to respond to the news of his death. She said Mr. Navalny had died at the hands of President Vladimir V. Putin and that Mr. Trump needed to ‘answer to that.’ Speaking with reporters outside her rally at a park in Irmo, S.C., Ms. Haley praised Mr. Navalny for calling out Mr. Putin for corruption and fixing elections. She said he had fled his country only to return ‘to fight the good fight.’ ‘And then he was arrested, and now Putin has done to him what Putin does to all of his opponents — he kills them,’ she said, before turning to Mr. Trump, her rival in the G.O.P. primary. ‘And Trump needs to answer to that. Does he think Putin killed him? Does he think Putin was right to kill him? And does he think Navalny was a hero?’
Tucker Carlson faces new backlash over Putin interview after Navalny death, The Washington Post, Adela Suliman and Maria Luisa Paúl, Saturday, 17 February 2024: “Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson is facing a fresh wave of criticism over his controversial interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin last week — and his subsequent comments that ‘every leader kills people’ — following the death of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny on Friday. Navalny died suddenly in an Arctic Russian prison colony Friday, collapsing after he felt ‘unwell’ after taking a walk, Russia’s prison service said. Russian opposition figures, and some global leaders, called it a state-sponsored murder. On Feb. 8, just over a week before Navalny’s death, Carlson made global headlines when he aired a two-hour interview with Putin. He framed it as a media coup — even as critics noted that Putin dominated the interview, offering rambling accounts of Russian history while Carlson spent most of the time in silence. Then on Monday, Carlson was questioned at the World Government Summit in Dubai, asked by Egyptian journalist Emad Eldin Adeeb why he did not challenge Putin on Navalny, freedom of speech in Russia, or restrictions on the opposition ahead of upcoming elections. Carlson responded: ‘I didn’t talk about the things that every other American media outlet talks about,’ adding: ‘I have spent my life talking to people who run countries, in various countries, and have concluded the following: That every leader kills people, including my leader. Every leader kills people, some kill more than others. Leadership requires killing people, sorry, that’s why I wouldn’t want to be a leader.’ The comments appeared to come back to haunt him Friday, after Navalny’s death was announced.”
Monday, 19 February 2024:
New Wisconsin Legislative Maps Diminish Republican Advantage. The new maps, which were drawn by the state’s Democratic governor, Tony Evers, and signed into law Monday, include an almost even split between Democratic-and Republican-leaning districts. The New York Times, Anjali Huynh, Monday, 19 February 2024: “Gov. Tony Evers of Wisconsin signed into law on Monday new legislative maps that could drastically alter the state’s balance of power, giving Democrats a chance to win control of the state’s legislature for the first time in more than a decade…. Despite the state being a battleground in national races, Republicans, aided by heavily gerrymandered maps, have controlled both of the state’s legislative chambers since 2011. They now hold about two-thirds of the seats in both the Senate and the Assembly. But Democrats look likely to pick up seats under the new maps, which will be used during the November election. The maps outline an almost even split between Democratic- and Republican-leaning districts: 45 are Democratic-leaning, 46 are Republican-leaning, and eight are likely to be a tossup, according to an analysis from The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Several incumbents are being drawn into each other’s districts, The Associated Press reported.”
Trump Breaks Silence on Navalny Death, but He Doesn’t Condemn Putin. His winding social media post on Monday contained no reference to Vladimir V. Putin, the Russian president, who has been widely condemned after the death of one of his most vocal critics, Aleksei A. Navalny. The New York Times, Anjali Huynh, Monday, 19 February 2024: “Days after the death of the Russian opposition leader Aleksei A. Navalny was first reported, Donald J. Trump broke his silence in a social media post on Monday that barely mentioned Mr. Navalny and that did not condemn President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia. Instead, he used Mr. Navalny’s death to suggest that his own legal battles amounted to political persecution. It was a note he hit first on Sunday, when he shared screenshots of an opinion essay that compared his relationship with President Biden to the one between Mr. Navalny and Mr. Putin. ‘The sudden death of Alexei Navalny has made me more and more aware of what is happening in our Country,’ the former president wrote on Truth Social on Monday, using an alternative spelling of Mr. Navalny’s given name. He pointed to what he called ‘CROOKED, Radical Left Politicians, Prosecutors, and Judges leading us down a path to destruction.’ But the winding social media post contained no reference to Mr. Putin, who has drawn widespread condemnation from politicians in the United States and abroad amid speculation that he or the Russian government had a hand in Mr. Navalny’s death. Instead, Mr. Trump cited ‘Open Borders, Rigged Elections, and Grossly Unfair Courtroom Decisions’ in casting the U.S., in all capital letters, as a ‘nation in decline, a failing nation.'”
Tuesday, 20 February 2024:
Trump allies prepare to infuse ‘Christian nationalism’ in second administration. Spearheading the effort is Russell Vought, president of The Center for Renewing America, part of a conservative consortium preparing for Trump’s return to power. Politico, Alexander Ward and Heidi Przybyla, Tuesday, 20 February 2024: “An influential think tank close to Donald Trump is developing plans to infuse Christian nationalist ideas in his administration should the former president return to power, according to documents obtained by POLITICO. Spearheading the effort is Russell Vought, who served as Trump’s director of the Office of Management and Budget during his first term and has remained close to him. Vought, who is frequently cited as a potential chief of staff in a second Trump White House, is president of The Center for Renewing America think tank, a leading group in a conservative consortium preparing for a second Trump term. Christian nationalists in America believe that the country was founded as a Christian nation and that Christian values should be prioritized throughout government and public life. As the country has become less religious and more diverse, Vought has embraced the idea that Christians are under assault and has spoken of policies he might pursue in response. One document drafted by CRA staff and fellows includes a list of top priorities for CRA in a second Trump term. ‘Christian nationalism’ is one of the bullet points. Others include invoking the Insurrection Act on Day One to quash protests and refusing to spend authorized congressional funds on unwanted projects, a practice banned by lawmakers in the Nixon era.”
Prosecutors say ex-FBI informant charged with lying about Bidens had Russian intelligence contacts, Associated Press, Rio Yamat and Lindsay Whitehurst, Tuesday, 20 February 2024: “A former FBI informant charged with making up a multimillion-dollar bribery scheme involving President Joe Biden, his son Hunter and a Ukrainian energy company had contacts with Russian intelligence-affiliated officials, prosecutors said Tuesday. Prosecutors revealed the alleged contact as they urged a judge in Las Vegas to keep Alexander Smirnov behind bars while he awaits trial. But U.S. Magistrate Judge Daniel Albregts allowed Smirnov to be released from custody on electronic GPS monitoring. He is accused of falsely telling his FBI handler that executives with the Ukrainian energy company Burisma paid Hunter and Joe Biden $5 million each around 2015 — a claim that became central to the Republican impeachment inquiry in Congress. Smirnov, 43, hid his face and did not speak to reporters Tuesday night when he walked out of the courthouse with his lawyers and girlfriend at his side. He wore a GPS monitor on his left ankle and had changed into street clothes and out of the yellow jail garb he had worn in court.” See also, Prosecutors say ex-FBI informant charged over false Hunter Biden reports claimed he got information from Russian intelligence. Prosecutors said in their filing Tuesday that Alexander Smirnov ‘is actively peddling new lies that could impact U.S. elections after meeting with Russian intelligence officials.’ NBC News, Sarah Fitzpatrick and Ryan J. Reilly, Tuesday, 20 February 2024: “A former FBI informant who allegedly fed the bureau false information about President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden during the 2020 presidential campaign said that some of the information he spread came from ‘officials associated with Russian intelligence,’ prosecutors said in a filing Tuesday. Alexander Smirnov, a 43-year-old who had been working as a confidential human source for the FBI since 2010, was ordered released under conditions after a detention hearing in a federal courtroom in Las Vegas on Tuesday. Prosecutors said in their filing Tuesday that Smirnov ‘is actively peddling new lies that could impact U.S. elections after meeting with Russian intelligence officials in November.'”
There Is Much More at Stake in Trump’s Manhattan Case Than Just Hush Money, The New York Times, Norman Eisen, Joshua Kolb, and Barbara McQuade, Tuesday, 20 February 2024: “To understand why this case matters, think about a precedent, an earlier episode of an election-related felony and its cover-up. That was the Watergate scandal, which hung over Richard Nixon’s re-election campaign in 1972. Voters did not have the information then to make an informed decision about Mr. Nixon, partly because the criminal investigation and trials of ‘the plumbers’ had not concluded before the election and the majority of the evidence remained concealed. Because the investigation was unresolved, Mr. Nixon’s nefarious conduct worked; he was in the White House when the full revelations came out later, to devastating effect. The salaciousness of the details in Mr. Trump’s case obscures what it is actually about: making covert payments to avoid losing an election and then further concealing it. Indeed, that is how Mr. Bragg has described the case, that it is ‘about conspiring to corrupt a presidential election and then lying in New York business records to cover it up.'”
Trump compares death of Putin critic Navalny to his legal troubles. The episode has renewed debate about Trump’s coziness with Russia and drawn bipartisan criticism as he remains the Republican presidential front-runner. The Washington Post, Patrick Svitek, Marianne LeVine, and Isaac Arnsdorf, Tuesday, 20 February 2024: “Donald Trump and some of his allies continue to compare his legal problems to the plight of Alexei Navalny, while the former president has yet to condemn the Friday death of the imprisoned Russian dissident who was President Vladimir Putin’s strongest critic. ‘It’s a form of Navalny,’ Trump said at a Fox News town hall on Tuesday, responding to a question from Laura Ingraham about the $355 million fine against his businesses after a New York civil trial. ‘It’s happening in our country too.’“We are turning into a communist country in many ways,” Trump continued. ‘I got indicted four times, I have eight or nine trials. All because of the fact that I’m in, you know this, all because of the fact that I’m in politics. They indicted me.'”
Alabama Supreme Court Rules Frozen Embryos Are Children, Raising Questions About Fertility Care. The ruling raises worrisome legal issues for would-be parents far beyond Alabama whose hopes for children may depend on in vitro fertilization. The New York Times, Roni Caryn Rabin and Azeen Ghorayshi, Tuesday, 20 February 2024: An Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling that frozen embryos in test tubes should be considered children has sent shock waves through the world of reproductive medicine, casting doubt over fertility care for would-be parents in the state and raising complex legal questions with implications extending far beyond Alabama. On Tuesday, Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, said the ruling would cause ‘exactly the type of chaos that we expected when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and paved the way for politicians to dictate some of the most personal decisions families can make.’… Referencing antiabortion language in the state constitution, the judges’ majority opinion said that an 1872 statute allowing parents to sue over the wrongful death of a minor child applies to ‘unborn children,’ with no exception for ‘extrauterine children.’ ‘Even before birth, all human beings have the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory,’ Chief Justice Tom Parker wrote in a concurring opinion.”
Wednesday, 21 February 2024:
Trump and allies are planning militarized mass deportations and detention camps. As president, Trump sought to use military planes and bases for deportation. Now, he and his allies are talking about a new effort that current and former officials warn could be impractical and dangerous. The Washington Post, Isaac Arnsdorf, Nick Miroff, and Josh Dawsey, Wednesday, 21 February 2024: “Faced with a surge of migrant families at the U.S.-Mexico border in 2018 and 2019, Donald Trump’s White House discussed ways to more aggressively deploy the resources and the might of the U.S. military. Aides and officials spoke privately about detaining migrants on military bases and flying them out of the country on military planes — ideas that the Pentagon headed off. Throughout his presidency, Trump himself would frequently demand to send troops to the border and catch people crossing. ‘He was obsessed with having the military involved,’ said a former senior administration official, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private discussions. That approach and unfinished business have taken on renewed significance and urgency as the country confronts another migrant crisis on the U.S.-Mexico border, and as Trump closes in on the Republican presidential nomination. The former president is making immigration a core campaign theme, promoting a proposal for an unprecedented deportation effort if he is returned to power. Trump pledges that as president he would immediately launch ‘the largest domestic deportation operation in American history.’ As a model, he points to an Eisenhower-era program known as ‘Operation Wetback,’ using a derogatory slur for Mexican migrants. The operation used military tactics to round up and remove migrant workers, sometimes transporting them in dangerous conditions that led to some deaths. Former administration officials and policy experts said staging an even larger operation today would face a bottleneck in detention space — a problem that Trump adviser Stephen Miller and other allies have proposed addressing by building mass deportation camps.”
Thursday, 22 February 2024:
Trump Judge Aileen Cannon Is Under Scrutiny. Cannon is facing a series of tests in the classified documents case. The New York Times, Alan Feuer and Maggie Haberman, Thursday, 22 February 2024: “When Judge Aileen Cannon was handed the job last spring of overseeing Donald Trump’s prosecution on charges of mishandling classified documents, she was already under fire. Many legal analysts as well as Trump critics assailed her for having issued a ruling in an early part of the inquiry that was favorable to him but so legally questionable that an appeals court chided her in overturning it. Now Judge Cannon is facing a series of decisions that will further test her legal acumen and give an indication of how she views the case and its famous main defendant. The biggest decision in front of the judge, who was appointed to the federal bench by Trump in his waning days in office, is when she will hold the trial. It is currently set to start on May 20, but will almost certainly be delayed. How much of a delay she decides on — and whether she postpones the trial until after the election — will signal how much she intends to indulge Trump’s strategy of trying to run the clock out.”
Joe Biden and Nikki Haley spar over abortion after Alabama Supreme Court rules that embryos are ‘children,’ NPR, Lexie Schapitl, Thursday, 22 February 2024: “An Alabama Supreme Court ruling that frozen embryos are considered children could have sweeping implications for access to in-vitro fertilization across the country — and is becoming 2024 presidential campaign fodder. President Biden called the decision ‘outrageous and unacceptable’ and ‘a direct result of the overturning of Roe v. Wade.’ Biden said in a statement that his administration ‘won’t stop until we restore the protections of Roe v. Wade in federal law,’ a key tenet of his reelection campaign. Biden’s comments came one day after Republican presidential hopeful Nikki Haley seemed to side with the Alabama court’s decision, telling NBC News, ‘Embryos, to me, are babies.'”
A step-by-step guide to how one debunked story fueled Republicans’ Biden impeachment effort, CNN Politics, Zachary B. Wolf and Marshall Cohen, Thursday, 22 February 2024: “The basic gist of the story is this: A shadowy ex-FBI informant with ties to Russia has been arrested and charged with giving false information to the FBI, but not before the alleged lies were used by Republicans to publicly accuse President Joe Biden of bribery. When you look at the facts now, it seems ridiculous and incredible – a single, unverified FBI interview blows up into public allegations against the president of the United States and fuels plans for his impeachment. But it has taken months of incremental developments to arrive at this point, and there are many unanswered questions in the developing saga of Alexander Smirnov, the accused peddler of misinformation. Smirnov has been charged with lying to the FBI and creating false records, but he has not yet entered a plea. His lawyers say he’s ‘presumed innocent’ and will rigorously fight the charges.” See also, The Crazy Collapse of the House Republican’s Impeachment Case Against Biden. ‘A big Russian Intelligence Op’ flops on Capitol Hill. The New Yorker, Susan B. Glasser, Thursday, 22 February 2024: “On Tuesday evening, federal prosecutors filed a court document that, in a couple dozen bizarre and ultimately explosive pages, effectively put an end to one of Donald Trump’s great election-year hopes—the impeachment of President Joe Biden. The filing revealed that Alexander Smirnov, a longtime F.B.I. informant who told investigators that Biden and his son Hunter had each received a five-million-dollar bribe from a Ukrainian energy company, had not only invented that claim but had also admitted to passing along bad information about the Bidens from ‘officials associated with Russian intelligence.’ Smirnov first relayed the sensational and very much unconfirmed bribery claim in a 2020 interview with the F.B.I. This past summer, Republicans pursuing the President released a redacted version of the F.B.I. report that included Smirnov’s allegation. It was their smoking gun, their white whale—the only concrete example they had managed to turn up with a specific person attesting to an actual criminal act on the part of the President. Sean Hannity, the Fox News host and Trump confidant, mentioned the alleged Biden bribe in eighty-five segments in 2023, according to the watchdog Media Matters. (Eighty-five, it should be noted, out of three hundred and twenty-five segments on what Hannity, channelling Trump, likes to call the ‘Biden crime family’—an average of more than one per night!) On the evening when Senator Chuck Grassley made Smirnov’s now debunked claim public, Hannity somberly told his viewers that Biden had been ‘very credibly accused of public corruption on a scale this country has never seen before.'”
Friday, 23 February 2024:
Judge formally says Trump owes $454 million in civil fraud case; countdown starts for him to put up the money for appeal, CNN Politics, Kara Scannell and Lauren del Valle, Friday, 23 February 2024: “A New York judge on Friday formally ordered Donald Trump to pay $454 million, including interest, a move that will give the former president one month to post nearly half a billion dollars to appeal the fraud verdict. Judge Arthur Engoron’s signed judgment was posted to the court docket Friday, one week after he found Trump, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump liable for fraud in the civil case brought by New York Attorney General Letita James. Once Trump and the others are served with the judgment, the 30-day clock for them to file an appeal starts. During that period Trump will need to put up cash or post bond to cover the $355 million and additional roughly $100 million in interest he was ordered to pay. The sons were each ordered to pay $4 million back in gains they improperly received because of the fraud. The judge also banned the Trumps from serving as officers of a business entity in New York for several years.”
Trump Frames Election as Battle Against ‘Wicked’ System Bent on Attacking Christians. Speaking at a Christian media convention in Nashville, former President Donald J. Trump claimed that a ‘radical left, corrupt political class’ was persecuting Christians. The New York Times, Michael Gold, Friday, 23 February 2024: “Former President Donald J. Trump often characterizes his presidential campaign as a battle for America’s future. But speaking at a Christian broadcast media convention in Nashville on Thursday, he wrapped that depiction within a stark good-versus-evil framework, portraying his political opponents as part of a ‘wicked’ system. Mr. Trump also revived his claim that America’s ‘greatest threat is not from the outside of our country’ but ‘from within,’ language that drew alarm last year from experts who saw in it echoes of autocratic leaders. During Thursday’s speech at the National Religious Broadcasters convention in Nashville, Mr. Trump portrayed the threat as liberals — more specifically, a ‘radical left, corrupt political class’ — whom he broadly cast as intrinsically bent on attacking Christianity.”
Ignoring Warnings, Republicans Trumpeted Now-Discredited Allegation Against Biden. Republicans in Congress built their impeachment case against President Biden around a bribery accusation that the F.B.I. had warned them was uncorroborated. The New York Times, Luke Broadwater and Glenn Thrush, Friday, 23 February 2024: “In May 2023, Senator Charles E. Grassley, a chief antagonist of President Biden, strode to the Senate floor with some shocking news: He had learned, he said, of a document in the F.B.I.’s possession that could reveal ‘a criminal scheme involving then-Vice President Biden.’ Mr. Grassley, an Iowa Republican, suggested to any Americans listening that there was a single document that could confirm the most sensational corruption allegations against Mr. Biden — and that the Federal Bureau of Investigation was engaging in a coverup…. Over the next few months, Mr. Grassley’s quest to make public the allegation — laid out in an obscure document known as an F.B.I. Form 1023 — became a fixation, and a foundation of the growing Republican push to impeach Mr. Biden as payback for Democrats’ treatment of former President Donald J. Trump. At the center of it all was the unsubstantiated accusation that Mr. Biden had taken a $5 million bribe from the executive of a Ukrainian energy company, Burisma. But what neither Mr. Grassley nor any of the other Republicans who amplified the claims said in their breathless statements was that F.B.I. officials had warned them repeatedly to be cautious about the accusation, because it was uncorroborated and its credibility unknown. All that the form proved, federal law enforcement officials explained, was that a confidential source had said something, and they had written it down. And now federal prosecutors say the claim was made up. But the cautions Republicans received from the start about the materials did not stop them from repeating the unverified allegation hundreds of times over many months, in official settings and interviews on right-wing media outlets…. Last week, a federal grand jury in California indicted the former F.B.I. informant who had made the accusation, Alexander Smirnov, on charges that he had fabricated the story in 2020 to help defeat Mr. Biden in the presidential campaign. Prosecutors also asserted in a court filing that Mr. Smirnov, a dual citizen of the United States and Israel who operated as a businessman and fixer in the former Soviet states, had told federal investigators that ‘officials associated with Russian intelligence were involved’ in passing an unspecified story about Hunter Biden, the president’s son, who had been a board member of Burisma. Current and former law enforcement officials said confidential informants dissemble all the time — often to impress their handlers or settle grudges — which is why the release of a raw, unverified report from a single source is strictly prohibited.”
In his welcome speech at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference, the right-wing activist and media personality Jack Posobiec said he wanted to end democracy and finish the mission of 6 January, installing a God-first government, NBC News, Ben Goggin, Friday, 23 February 2024: “’Welcome to the end of democracy. We are here to overthrow it completely,’ [Posobiec] said Thursday. ‘We didn’t get all the way there on Jan. 6, but we will endeavor to get rid of it.’… [I]n his speech Friday, Posobiec continued to use rhetoric evocative of a violent revolution. ‘After we burn that swamp to the ground, we will establish the new American republic on its ashes, and our first order of business will be righteous retribution for those who betrayed America,’ he declared.” See also, MAGA Republican Jack Posobiec Pledges ‘End of Democracy’ to Rabid Cheers at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). Republicans at CPAC 2024 are openly vowing to take down democracy. The New Republic, Tori Otten, Friday, 23 February 2024: “Conservative activist Jack Posobiec joyfully hailed the ‘end of democracy’ at the Conservative Political Action Conference, further emphasizing Republicans’ apparent desire to completely overthrow America as we know it. Posobiec, who helped popularize the ‘Pizzagate’ conspiracy theory, appeared at CPAC’s opening day on Wednesday. He spoke during a panel moderated by former White House adviser and white supremacist Steve Bannon. ‘Welcome to the end of democracy. We are here to overthrow it completely,’ Posobiec said as the event began. ‘We didn’t get all the way there on January 6, but we will endeavor to get rid of it and replace it with this, right here,’ he said, gesturing to the crowd and holding up his fist. As he spoke, Bannon laughed and said, ‘Amen!'”
Saturday, 24 February 2024:
Trump Says Indictments, and His Mug Shot, Are Helping Him With Black Voters. In a speech to the Black Conservative Federation, former President Donald J. Trump made express overtures to Black voters, whom he and his campaign are eager to win over. The New York Times, Michael Gold, Saturday, 24 February 2024: “Former President Donald J. Trump, in a speech to a Black conservative group on Friday night, said he believed that the four criminal cases he is facing have earned him support from Black voters because they saw the historic unfairness of the justice system reflected in his legal woes. ‘I think that’s why the Black people are so much on my side now,’ Mr. Trump said at a gala hosted by the Black Conservative Federation in Columbia, S.C. ‘Because they see what’s happening to me happens to them. Does that make sense?’ At another point in his speech, he suggested that Black voters had warmed to him ‘because they have been hurt so badly and discriminated against, and they actually viewed me as, I’m being discriminated against. It’s been pretty amazing.’ Mr. Trump has long used ‘law and order’ to rally his conservative base, as well as coded racist language to attack political opponents. His comments on Friday came in a speech filled with express overtures to Black voters, a group that has overwhelmingly voted Democratic for decades, but whose support he and his campaign are eager to win.” See also, Trump says Black voters like him more because of his indictments and mug shot. Trump tells a group of Black conservatives: ‘I’m being indicted for you, the Black population.’ The Washington Post, Josh Dawsey, Saturday, 24 February 2024: “Former president Donald Trump sought to appeal to Black voters on Friday night in South Carolina by repeatedly citing the 91 felony charges he faces and comparing them to unfair treatment from the criminal justice system toward minorities in America. ‘A lot of people said that’s why the Black people liked me, because they had been hurt so badly and discriminated against. And they actually viewed me as I’m being discriminated against … Maybe there’s something to it,’ he said, right after talking about the charges. He also cited his mug shot in Georgia — taken last summer after he was charged for trying to overturn the state’s election results — as a reason that Black voters would gravitate toward him in November. Trump said he now saw Black Americans wearing mug shots on their T-shirts…. He also said: ‘I’m being indicted for you, the Black population.'” See also, Trump says his criminal indictments boosted his appeal to Black voters, Associated Press, Matt Brown, Saturday, 24 February 2024: “Former President Donald Trump claimed Friday that his four criminal indictments have boosted his support among Black Americans because they see him as a victim of discrimination, comparing his legal jeopardy to the historic legacy of anti-Black prejudice in the U.S. legal system. Trump argues he is the victim of political persecution, even though there is no evidence President Joe Biden or White House officials influenced the filing of 91 felony charges against him. Earlier in the week, Trump compared himself to Alexei Navalny, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s top domestic rival, who died in a remote Arctic prison after being jailed by the Kremlin leader.” See also, Nikki Haley calls Trump’s ‘disgusting’ comments about Black people a ‘huge warning sign.’ NPR, Stephen Fowler, Saturday, 24 February 2024: “Nikki Haley called comments Donald Trump made about Black people at an event Friday “disgusting” and proof Republicans would lose the presidential race if he’s the nominee. That’s the chaos that comes with Donald Trump. That’s the offensiveness that’s going to happen every day between now and the general election, which is why I continue to say Donald Trump cannot win a general election. He won’t. Speaking at the Black Conservative Federation Gala in Columbia, S.C., Friday night, former President Donald Trump made a series of inflammatory comments about Black voters, including suggesting that Black voters support him because of his criminal indictments, that they have ’embraced’ his mug shot and that he could only see Black people in the audience because of how bright the stage lights were.”
‘My ultimate and absolute revenge’: Trump gives chilling CPAC speech on his presidential agenda. Unbound and unhinged, ex-president vilifies immigrants before devolving into bizarre riffs, including calling himself ‘total genius.’ The Guardian, David Smith, Saturday, 24 October 2024: “Donald Trump styled himself as a ‘proud political dissident’ and promised ‘judgment day’ for political opponents in an address on Saturday that offered a chilling vision of a democracy in imminent peril. In classic carnival barker form, the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination accused Joe Biden of weaponising the government against him with ‘Stalinist show trials.’ He pledged to crack down on border security and deliver the biggest deportation in US history if he wins the 5 November election.” See also, Nazis mingle openly at CPAC, spreading antisemitic conspiracy theories and finding allies, NBC News, Ben Goggin, Saturday, 24 February 2024: “Nazis appeared to find a friendly reception at the Conservative Political Action Conference this year. Throughout the conference, racist extremists, some of whom had secured official CPAC badges, openly mingled with conference attendees and espoused antisemitic conspiracy theories. The presence of these individuals has been a persistent issue at CPAC. In previous years, conference organizers have ejected well-known Nazis and white supremacists such as Nick Fuentes. But this year, racist conspiracy theorists didn’t meet any perceptible resistance at the conference where Donald Trump has been the keynote speaker since 2017. At the Young Republican mixer Friday evening, a group of Nazis who openly identified as national socialists mingled with mainstream conservative personalities, including some from Turning Point USA, and discussed ‘race science’ and antisemitic conspiracy theories.”
Sunday, 25 February 2024:
Beyond shock and awe: Inside Trump’s potential second-term agenda. From nationwide abortion bans to classroom culture wars, assaults on climate science and political weaponization of the military, his return to the White House could make Trump 1.0 seem tame. Politico, Politico Staff, Sunday, 25 February 2024: “An increasingly detailed picture of former President Donald Trump’s second-term agenda is emerging — one that would make the near-daily shocks of his norm-shattering first White House tenure look tame. Some of the particulars have already blown up into campaign furors, thanks to Trump’s public remarks about abandoning NATO allies and serving as a “dictator” on “day one,” as well as leaks of his private musings on a 16-week abortion ban. His supporters’ policy manifestos have yielded headlines predicting that Trump 2.0 would bring mass deportations of immigrants, overt use of the Justice Department to punish his political enemies, and — as POLITICO reported Tuesday — an embrace of ‘Christian nationalism’ to guide federal policies. Other items on the potential Trump second-term agenda would be more granular but also far-reaching, from publishing federal science reports that dispute the reality of global warming, to launching new and wider trade wars, cracking down on liberal school districts’ transgender policies and freeing the crypto industry from the threat of regulation. What these proposals have in common: They would go well beyond steps Trump took — or in many cases even attempted — from 2017 to 2021.”
Monday, 26 February 2024:
In Trump Criminal Case, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg Asks for Gag Order Before Trial. Lawyers for Bragg are seeking to protect jurors and witnesses in the first criminal prosecution of a former president. The New York Times, Jonah E. Bromwich, Ben Protess, and William K. Rashbaum, Monday, 26 February 2024: “Manhattan prosecutors on Monday asked the judge overseeing their criminal case against Donald J. Trump to prohibit the former president from attacking witnesses or exposing jurors’ identities. The requests, made in filings by the Manhattan district attorney’s office, noted Mr. Trump’s ‘longstanding history of attacking witnesses, investigators, prosecutors, judges, and others involved in legal proceedings against him.’ In outlining a narrowly crafted gag order, the office hewed closely to the terms of a similar order upheld by a federal appeals court in Washington in another of Mr. Trump’s criminal cases. The gag order in the Manhattan case, if the judge approves it, would bar Mr. Trump from ‘making or directing others to make’ statements about witnesses concerning their role in the case. The district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, also asked that Mr. Trump be barred from commenting on prosecutors on the case — other than Mr. Bragg himself — as well as court staff members. Although Mr. Bragg carved himself out of the gag order request, the district attorney has received the brunt of the attacks from Mr. Trump and his supporters. In an affidavit released Monday, the head of his security detail listed some of the worst of the dozens of attacks directed at Mr. Bragg last year, including racial slurs and death threats.” See also, New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg seeks partial Trump gag order to protect jurors by shielding their names and addresses from public view. Bragg cited Donald Trump’s ‘long history of making public and inflammatory remarks about the participants in various judicial proceedings.’ The Washington Post, Shayna Jacobs, Monday, 26 February 2024: “Prosecutors preparing for Donald Trump’s first criminal trial next month are seeking a partial gag order to prevent the former president and those speaking on his behalf from disparaging witnesses, jurors and others involved in the case, and have asked a judge to protect jurors by shielding their names and addresses from public view. The motions filed Monday to New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan show the high stakes and tensions surrounding the first criminal trial of a former U.S. president — one of four prosecutions Trump faces as he closes in on the 2024 Republican nomination for president.”
Special counsel Jack Smith says Trump’s handling of classified documents was far worse than Biden’s. In a new filing in Trump’s Florida case, Smith cited Robert Hur’s report on Joe Biden’s retention of classified material. Politico, Kyle Cheney, Monday, 26 February 2024: “Special counsel Jack Smith said Monday that President Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents — which earned him a scolding from special counsel Robert Hur — is not ‘remotely’ similar to the ‘deceitful criminal conduct’ of Donald Trump. In a 12-page filing countering Trump’s claim that he’s been selectively prosecuted by attorneys loyal to the Biden administration, Smith’s team rejected Trump’s effort to compare the former president’s conduct to Biden’s. In fact, Hur’s report underscored why Trump is facing criminal charges and Biden is not, they noted. ‘The defendants have not identified anyone who has engaged in a remotely similar suite of willful and deceitful criminal conduct and not been prosecuted. Nor could they,’ assistant special counsel David Harbach wrote.” See also, Special Counsel Jack Smith Rejects Claims of Unfairness in Trump Classified Documents Case. Smith said in a court filing that never before had a former official ‘engaged in conduct remotely similar to Trump’s.’ The New York Times, Alan Feuer, Monday, 26 February 2024: “Federal prosecutors on Monday rejected former President Donald J. Trump’s claims that he was unfairly charged with holding on to classified documents after he left office, saying that his case bore no comparison to the one in which President Biden was cleared of wrongdoing even though he was found in possession of classified materials after leaving the vice presidency. In rebuffing what was known as a ‘selective prosecution’ claim by Mr. Trump, the prosecutors said that while many government officials over the years had taken classified materials with them after leaving office — often inadvertently, but occasionally willfully — Mr. Trump’s case remained unique because of the extent to which he had ‘resisted the government’s lawful efforts to recover them.’ ‘There has never been a case in American history in which a former official has engaged in conduct remotely similar to Trump’s,’ they wrote. In their 12-page filing, the prosecutors dismissed as a ‘conspiracy theory’ a separate claim that Mr. Trump has raised in his own defense — that Mr. Biden had ‘secretly directed’ the classified documents case and used the special counsel who filed the indictment, Jack Smith, as a ‘puppet’ and a ‘stalking horse.’ ‘Decisions made by the Department of Justice generally, and the special counsel specifically, have been made on the basis of the facts and the law, not political considerations,’ the prosecutors wrote. ‘The defendants offer no evidence to the contrary, because there is no such evidence.'”
Judge Says Ex-F.B.I. Informant Alexander Smirnov to Be Held in Custody Indefinitely. Smirnov pleaded not guilty to charges that he lied to the F.B.I. about President Biden and his son Hunter accepting bribes. The New York Times, Lauren Herstik and Glenn Thrush, Monday, 26 February 2024: “Alexander Smirnov, the former F.B.I. informant charged with falsely claiming that President Biden and his son Hunter had accepted bribes, will be held in custody indefinitely because he poses a significant flight risk, a judge in California ruled on Monday. After a 45-minute hearing, a bespectacled Mr. Smirnov — stocky, bearded with close-cropped salt-and-pepper hair and wearing tan and orange prison togs — pleaded not guilty in heavily accented English, turning around briefly to wave at his longtime girlfriend seated in the gallery. Judge Otis D. Wright II of Federal District Court found fault with a decision by a federal magistrate in Las Vegas who last week released Mr. Smirnov, 43, a confidential informant since 2010, and dismissed the argument by prosecutors that he would try to escape to Russia. Prosecutors working for David C. Weiss, the special counsel investigating Hunter Biden, offered new details about the circumstances of Mr. Smirnov’s rearrest last week in the office of his lawyer. They grew alarmed after a search of the $980,000 condo where he has lived for the past two years revealed nine handguns, they said. (Prosecutors said that Mr. Smirnov had paid for the apartment but that it was in his girlfriend’s name.) A prosecutor for Mr. Weiss, Leo Wise, explained that the sheer number of guns prompted Justice Department officials to make an arrest at the law office, rather than Mr. Smirnov’s home, which they believed would not be safe. They were able to track his movements because of an ankle monitor.” See also, Judge orders Biden informant Alexander Smirnov to remain in jail. The former FBI informant is accused of lying when he claimed that Joe and Hunter Biden took bribes to shield a Ukrainian energy company. The Washington Post, Isaac Stanley-Becker and Devlin Barrett, Monday, 26 February 2024: “A former FBI informant pleaded not guilty Monday to charges that he lied to the FBI when he claimed to know that Joe Biden and his son Hunter took bribes, and the judge overseeing his case ordered him to remain in jail out of concern he might flee the country. Alexander Smirnov was arrested earlier this month, sending shock waves through Congress, where Republicans had pinned their allegations of Biden family corruption largely on claims Smirnov made to an FBI agent in 2020. Those claims, the Justice Department now charges, were lies. The decision by U.S. District Judge Otis D. Wright II to keep Smirnov in jail while he fights the charges marked the latest chapter in a puzzling turn of events with significant stakes for the Republican-led impeachment inquiry into President Biden — and a broader GOP effort to paint the president as corrupt while he campaigns for reelection. In arguing for Smirnov to remain behind bars, prosecutors working for special counsel David C. Weiss have cited the former informant’s self-professed ties to Russian intelligence agents — ties that raise the possibility that Smirnov’s alleged lies about the Bidens were part of a foreign plot to interfere with U.S. democracy. The government’s lead prosecutor, Leo Wise, argued in court on Monday that Smirnov was peddling new stories about the president’s family as recently as September, portraying him as an ongoing conduit for Russian intelligence.” See also, Ex-FBI informant Alexander Smirnov will remain in jail while awaiting trial on charges of lying to FBI about the Bidens. Smirnov could be a flight risk, a federal judge in California concluded. Politico, Alex Nieves and Betsy Woodruff Swan, Monday, 26 February 2024: “Alexander Smirnov, the former FBI informant who is charged with lying to the FBI about the Biden family, will remain in jail until his trial, a federal judge ruled Monday. U.S. District Judge Otis D. Wright II hastily called the Monday hearing after Smirnov was rearrested last week following his release by a Las Vegas magistrate judge. Wright said the dual American and Israeli citizen has a concerning habit of making false statements and could be a flight risk if released on bail.”
Trump, his adult sons, and former Trump Organization officials appeal civil fraud judgment in New York, CNN Politics, Kara Scannell, Monday, 26 February 2024: “Former President Donald Trump, his adult sons, and two former Trump Organization officials have appealed the $464 million judgment entered against them in the New York attorney general’s civil fraud case. The Trumps filed a notice of appeal with the court on Monday, the first business day after Judge Arthur Engoron made the judgment official. Donald Trump is personally on the hook for $454 million, including interest payments. In the filing, the attorneys said they were appealing the money judgment and other relief, including the bans against the Trumps from serving as officers of New York corporations for a period of years and whether the judge ‘committed errors of law and/or fact, abused its discretion, and/or acted in excess of its jurisdiction.'” See also, Donald Trump appeals $454 million judgment in New York civil fraud case, Associated Press, Michael R. Sisak, Monday, 26 February 2024: “Donald Trump has appealed his $454 million New York civil fraud judgment, challenging a judge’s finding that he lied about his wealth as he grew the real estate empire that launched him to stardom and the presidency. The former president’s lawyers filed notices of appeal Monday asking the state’s mid-level appeals court to overturn Judge Arthur Engoron’s Feb. 16 verdict in Attorney General Letitia James’ lawsuit and reverse staggering penalties that threaten to wipe out Trump’s cash reserves. Trump’s lawyers wrote in court papers that they’re asking the appeals court to decide whether Engoron ‘committed errors of law and/or fact’ and whether he abused his discretion or ‘acted in excess’ of his jurisdiction. A notice of appeal starts the appeals process in New York. Trump’s lawyers will have an opportunity to expand on their grievances in subsequent court filings. Trump wasn’t required to pay his penalty or post a bond in order to appeal, and appealing won’t automatically halt enforcement of the judgment. The Republican presidential front-runner has until March 25 to secure a stay, a legal mechanism pausing collection while he appeals. Trump would receive an automatic stay if he puts up money, assets or an appeal bond covering what he owes. Trump’s lawyers could also ask the appeals court to grant a stay without obtaining a bond or with a bond for a lower amount.”
Kenneth Chesebro, key figure in fake electors plot, concealed damning posts on secret Twitter account from investigators, CNN Politics, Em Steck, Andrew Kaczynski, Marshall Cohen, and Allison Gordon, Monday, 26 February 2024: “Kenneth Chesebro, the right-wing attorney who helped devise the Trump campaign’s fake electors plot in 2020, concealed a secret Twitter account from Michigan prosecutors, hiding dozens of damning posts that undercut his statements to investigators about his role in the election subversion scheme, a CNN KFile investigation has found. Chesebro denied using Twitter, now known as the platform X, or having any ‘alternate IDs’ when directly asked by Michigan investigators last year during his cooperation session, according to recordings of his interview obtained by CNN. But CNN linked Chesebro to the secret account based on numerous matching details — including biographical information regarding his work, family, travels and investments. The anonymous account, BadgerPundit, also showed a keen interest in the Electoral College process and lined up with Chesebro’s private activities at the time. The Twitter posts reveal that even before the 2020 election, and then just two days after polls closed, Chesebro promoted a far more aggressive election subversion strategy than he later let on in his Michigan interview.”
Ronna McDaniel, the Republican National Committee’s Top Official, Plans to Step Down on 8 March. Donald Trump has publicly backed a new leader, Michael Whatley, to replace her, as the former president continues to tighten his grip on the Republican Party. The New York Times, Maggie Haberman, Monday, 26 February 2024: “The chairwoman of the Republican National Committee said on Monday that she would step down in just over a week, as former President Donald J. Trump seeks to install a new handpicked leader for the national party ahead of the general election this fall. The decision is not a surprise. The chairwoman, Ronna McDaniel, told Mr. Trump weeks ago that she planned to leave shortly after the South Carolina primary, which was held on Saturday. But she now sets in motion a new election within the party’s official body, where Mr. Trump’s preference for chair and co-chair will try to secure enough votes to take over. Mr. Trump has publicly backed Michael Whatley, the chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party and the national committee’s general counsel, to replace Ms. McDaniel. And he has said that he wants his daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, to be the next co-chair. Mr. Trump’s remarks on the R.N.C. leadership came in the run-up to the South Carolina primary on Saturday, and in anticipation of his tightening his grip on the party. He ended up defeating his main rival, former Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina, by more than 20 points in her home state.” See also, Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel confirms she is stepping down. Critics have grown increasingly frustrated over the party’s lackluster fundraising and its preparations for the general election. The Washington Post, Josh Dawsey, Ashley Parker, and Marianne LeVine, Wednesday, 26 February 2024: “The longtime leader of the Republican National Committee confirmed Monday that she is leaving her post before the 2024 election, as the party faces a cash crunch and people close to former president Donald Trump attempt to wrest control of the organization. Ronna McDaniel, who was elected as chair in 2017 after running Trump’s successful 2016 campaign in Michigan, will step down on March 8, she said in a statement…. McDaniel won her fourth term — a record — in 2023 and expected to remain in the job until 2025. But she faced a groundswell of criticism from the grass roots of the Republican Party — which was eventually echoed by Trump, who originally defended her.” See also, Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel to leave post as Trump asserts control over party, PBS/Associated Press, Steve Peoples, Monday, 26 February 2024: “Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel will leave her post on March 8, having been forced out of the GOP’s national leadership as Donald Trump moves toward another presidential nomination and asserts control over the party.”
Tuesday, 27 February 2024:
Key Witness in the Georgia Election Case Says He Doesn’t Know When the Romance Between Trump Prosecutors Began. A judge brought the witness back to court as he weighs whether the prosecutors leading the Georgia election case against Donald Trump have a disqualifying conflict of interest. The New York Times, Richard Fausset and Danny Hakim, Tuesday, 27 February 2024: “In a potential setback to former President Donald J. Trump and his co-defendants in the Georgia election interference case, a key witness testified on Tuesday that he had no knowledge of when a romantic relationship began between the two prosecutors leading the case. Defense attorneys are seeking to disqualify Fani T. Willis, the district attorney of Fulton County, claiming that her romantic relationship with the lawyer she hired to run the case, Nathan Wade, has created an untenable conflict of interest. Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade have said that the relationship began only after she hired him in November 2021. Mr. Trump’s lawyer has accused them of lying. For weeks, the defense had suggested that the key witness, Terrence Bradley, the former divorce lawyer and law partner of Mr. Wade, could provide crucial testimony contradicting Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade. But Mr. Bradley testified in court on Tuesday that ‘I don’t know when the relationship started,’ and that he ‘never witnessed anything.'”
Wednesday, 28 February 2024:
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Trump’s Immunity Claim, Setting Arguments for April. The former president’s trial on charges of plotting to subvert the 2020 election will remain on hold while the justices consider the matter. The New York Times, Adam Liptak, Wednesday, 28 February 2024: “The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to decide whether former President Donald J. Trump is immune from prosecution on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election, further delaying his criminal trial as it considers the matter. The justices scheduled arguments for the week of April 22 and said proceedings in the trial court would remain frozen, handing at least an interim victory to Mr. Trump. His litigation strategy in all of the criminal prosecutions against him has consisted, in large part, of trying to slow things down. The Supreme Court’s response to Mr. Trump put the justices in the unusual position of deciding another aspect of the former president’s fate: whether and how quickly Mr. Trump could go to trial. That, in turn, could affect his election prospects and, should he be re-elected, his ability to scuttle the prosecution…. The Supreme Court’s brief order said the court would decide this question: ‘Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.'” See also, In Taking Up Trump’s Immunity claim, Supreme Court Bolstered His Delay Strategy. By scheduling a hearing for late April on the former president’s assertion that he cannot be prosecuted for his actions in office, the justices increased the chances that he will not face trial by Election Day. The New York Times, Alan Feuer, Wednesday, 28 February 2024: “The Supreme Court that former President Donald J. Trump helped to shape tossed him a legal lifeline on Wednesday night, making a choice that substantially aided his efforts to delay his federal trial on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election. By deciding to take up Mr. Trump’s claim that presidents enjoy almost total immunity from prosecution for any official action while in office — a legal theory rejected by two lower courts and one that few experts think has any basis in the Constitution — the justices bought the former president at least several months before a trial on the election interference charges can start. It is not out of the question that Mr. Trump could still face a jury in the case, in Federal District Court in Washington, before Election Day. At this point, the legal calendar suggests that if the justices issue a ruling by the end of the Supreme Court’s term in June and find that Mr. Trump is not immune from prosecution, the trial could still start by late September or October. But with each delay, the odds increase that voters will not get a chance to hear the evidence that Mr. Trump sought to subvert the last election before they decide whether to back him in the current one. If Mr. Trump is successful in delaying the trial until after Election Day and he wins, he could use the powers of his office to seek to dismiss the election interference indictment altogether. Moreover, Justice Department policy precludes prosecuting a sitting president, meaning that, once sworn in, he could likely have any federal trial he is facing postponed until after he left office.” See also, Supreme Court to weigh Trump’s immunity claim in D.C. 2020 election trial. Justices set argument for the week of April 22, likely delaying Donald Trump’s election-obstruction trial until at least late spring or summer. The Washington Post, Ann E. Marimow, Wednesday, 28 February 2024: “The Supreme Court will review Donald Trump’s unprecedented claim that he is shielded from prosecution for actions taken while in office, further delaying the former president’s federal trial in the nation’s capital on charges of conspiring to overturn his 2020 election loss to remain in power. The justices set arguments for the week of April 22 to consider a unanimous ruling from a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which early this month rejected Trump’s sweeping assertion of immunity from prosecution. Trump’s pretrial proceedings in D.C. will remain on hold until a ruling is issued, putting the Supreme Court in the politically fraught position of influencing the timing of an election obstruction trial for the leading Republican presidential candidate. The high court could rule at any time after argument and almost certainly will do so before its term ends in late June or early July, potentially pushing any D.C. trial well into the presidential election season. Some legal experts had predicted that at least the required four justices would want to weigh in on whether presidential acts can be criminally prosecuted — a question Trump has also raised in his separate Florida and Georgia trials. But simply by taking up the matter now, the high court has effectively helped Trump achieve his goal of pushing back at least the D.C. trial, which originally was scheduled to start next week. The former president has repeatedly pressed to postpone all his trials until after the November election, raising the possibility that if he is elected he could try to have the federal cases dismissed.” See also, Supreme Court sets April arguments over whether Trump can be prosecuted for election interference, Associated Press, Mark Sherman, Wednesday, 28 February 2024: “The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to decide whether former President Donald Trump can be prosecuted on charges he interfered with the 2020 election, calling into question whether his case could go to trial before the November election. While the court set a course for a quick resolution, it maintained a hold on preparations for a trial focused on Trump’s efforts to overturn his election loss. The court will hear arguments in late April, with a decision likely no later than the end of June. That timetable is much faster than usual, but assuming the justices deny Trump’s immunity bid, it’s not clear whether a trial can be scheduled and concluded before the November election. Early voting in some states will begin in September. The court’s decision to intervene in a second major Trump case this term, along with the dispute over whether he is barred from being president again because of his actions following the 2020 election, underscores the direct role the justices will have in the outcome of the election. Trump’s lawyers have sought to put off a trial until after the election.”
Trump Rebuffed After Asking a Judge to Delay His $454 Million Penalty. The former president, who is appealing the penalty in his civil fraud case, offered a bond of only $100 million to pause the judgment. The New York Times, Ben Protess and Kate Christobek, Wednesday, 28 February 2024: “Donald J. Trump on Wednesday lost his initial bid for a New York appeals court to pause the more than $450 million judgment he faces in a civil fraud case, a decision that could expose him to financial peril. Mr. Trump’s lawyers had asked the appeals court to allow him to post only a $100 million bond — a promise from an outside company that the judgment eventually will be paid — because securing one for the full amount was ‘impossible,’ they said. A single appellate court judge assigned to consider Mr. Trump’s request, Anil Singh, turned him down on Wednesday. Mr. Trump will try again next month with a panel of five appellate court judges, but for now, the former president is still on the hook to post a bond for the full amount of more than $450 million. And any company providing one would probably require him to pledge cash and other collateral that he does not yet have. If Mr. Trump fails to secure the bond, the New York attorney general’s office, which brought the case accusing him of fraudulently inflating his net worth, can collect the $454 million from him. The attorney general, Letitia James, is expected to provide Mr. Trump a 30-day grace period, which will expire on March 25, at which point she could move swiftly to seize Mr. Trump’s bank accounts and perhaps take control of his New York properties.” See also, Judge won’t delay Trump financial penalty but lets his sons remain atop company for now, The Washington Post, Shayna Jacobs and Mark Berman, Wednesday, 28 February 2024: “A New York judge on Wednesday rejected a request from Donald Trump to delay enforcement of a judgment totaling at least $450 million while he appeals that order, but allowed the former president’s adult sons to remain in leadership positions at the Trump Organization for the time being. The decision dealt with a separate judge’s order this month in a civil fraud case that imposed millions of dollars in punishments, plus interest, against Trump and other defendants including his adult sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump. New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron had determined in that case that Trump and others had given false data to financial institutions and insurance companies so they could borrow money at lower rates and save on costs. Engoron hit Trump with the hefty financial penalty and gave him and his sons years-long bans from holding top jobs in New York corporations, among other punishments. On Wednesday, Trump’s lawyers asked an appeals court judge to stay Engoron’s judgment, which they assailed as ‘unprecedented and punitive.’ His attorneys also sought to post a $100 million bond rather than the fuller amount, which they suggested could top $500 million, and suggested that if a stay was not granted, the defendants could be forced to sell properties.” See also, Appellate judge refuses to halt Trump’s $454 million fraud penalty while he appeals, Associated Press, Michael R. Sisak and Jennifer Peltz, Wednesday, 28 February 2024: “A New York appellate judge on Wednesday refused to halt collection of Donald Trump’s $454 million civil fraud penalty while he appeals, leaving the former president less than a month to pay the staggering sum or secure a bond covering the full amount he owes. Judge Anil Singh of the state’s mid-level appeals court rejected Trump’s offer of a $100 million bond, though he did give Trump leeway that could help him secure the necessary bond before New York Attorney General Letitia James seeks to enforce the judgment starting March 25. Singh granted a stay pausing part of Judge Arthur Engoron’s Feb. 16 verdict that barred Trump, his company and co-defendants from borrowing money from New York financial institutions. The Republican presidential front-runner’s lawyers had told the appellate court earlier Wednesday that the lending ban had made it impossible for him to secure a bond for the full amount. Trump’s lawyers warned he may need to sell some properties to cover the penalty and would have no way of getting them back if he is successful in his appeal. State lawyers said those disclosures suggested Trump — who has more than a half-billion dollars in pending court debt — was having trouble coming up with enough cash to foot the bill. The penalty is increasing by nearly $112,000 each day because of interest and will eclipse $455 million on Saturday.”
Mitch McConnell Will step down as the Senate Republican leader in November after a record run in the job, Associated Press, Michael Tackett, Wednesday, 28 February 2024: “Mitch McConnell, the longest-serving Senate leader in history who maintained his power in the face of dramatic convulsions in the Republican Party for almost two decades, will step down from that position in November. McConnell, who turned 82 last week, announced his decision Wednesday in the well of the Senate, the chamber where he looked in awe from its back benches in 1985 when he arrived and where he grew increasingly comfortable in the front row seat afforded the party leaders. ‘One of life’s most underappreciated talents is to know when it’s time to move on to life’s next chapter,’ he said. ‘So I stand before you today … to say that this will be my last term as Republican leader of the Senate.'” See also, Senator Mitch McConnell to Step Down as Republican Leader at the End of the Year. The long-serving leader said he would step aside from the role at the end of his term but remain in the Senate, acknowledging that his views on national security had put him out of step with his party. The New York Times, Carl Hulse, Wednesday, 28 February 2024: “Senator Mitch McConnell, the longtime top Senate Republican, said on Wednesday that he would give up his spot as the party’s leader following the November elections, acknowledging that his Reaganite national security views had put him out of step with a party now headed by former President Donald J. Trump. ‘Believe me, I know the politics within my party at this particular time,’ Mr. McConnell, who turned 82 last week, said in a speech on the Senate floor announcing his intentions. ‘I have many faults. Misunderstanding politics is not one of them.’ His decision, reported earlier by The Associated Press, was not a surprise. Mr. McConnell suffered a serious fall last year and experienced some episodes where he momentarily froze in front of the media. He has also faced rising resistance within his ranks for his push to provide continued military assistance to Ukraine as well as his close-to-the-vest leadership style. And his toxic relationship with Mr. Trump, whom he blamed for the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol — after orchestrating his acquittal in an impeachment trial on charges of inciting an insurrection — put him profoundly at odds with the rest of his party.” See also, Mitch McConnell to step down as Republican Senate leader in November, The Washington Post, Liz Goodwin and Amy B Wang, Wednesday, 28 February 2024: “Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) plans to step down from his leadership position in November, he announced Wednesday, a move that would mark the end of his tenure as the longest-serving Senate leader in American history. The announcement marks the beginning of the end of an era in American politics. McConnell has been a towering force over his decades in the Senate, enraging Democrats by using hardball tactics to reshape the federal judiciary and later serving as an occasional voice of rebuke to former president Donald Trump, whom he excoriated publicly for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.”
Judge Orders Trump Removed From Illinois Primary Ballot. The judge, a Democrat, stayed her ruling until Friday, leaving Donald Trump’s team time to appeal the decision. The New York Times, Mitch Smith, Wednesday, 28 February 2024: “A state judge in Illinois ruled on Wednesday that former President Donald J. Trump had engaged in insurrection and was ineligible to appear on the state’s primary ballot. The decision creates uncertainty for the state’s March election, in which early voting is already underway. It also adds urgency for the U.S. Supreme Court to provide a national answer to the questions that have been raised about Mr. Trump’s eligibility to appear on ballots in more than 30 states. The judge, Tracie R. Porter of the State Circuit Court in Cook County, said the State Board of Elections had erred in rejecting an attempt to remove Mr. Trump and said the board ‘shall remove Donald J. Trump from the ballot for the general primary election on March 19, 2024, or cause any votes cast for him to be suppressed.’ But the decision by Judge Porter, a Democrat, was stayed until Friday, which means Mr. Trump can remain on the Illinois ballot at least until then. A spokesman for the Trump campaign said the ruling was unconstitutional and vowed to appeal.”
Thursday, 29 February 2024:
Federal Judge Blocks Sweeping New Immigration Law in Texas. The ruling halts implementation of a law that would allow police officers to arrest and expel migrants, a victory for the federal government in its clash with Texas over immigration powers. The New York Times, J. David Goodman, Thursday, 29 February 2024: “A federal court in Austin on Thursday blocked a Texas law that would allow state and local police officers to arrest migrants who cross from Mexico without authorization, siding with the federal government in a legal showdown over immigration enforcement. The ruling, by Judge David A. Ezra of the Western District of Texas, was a victory for the Biden administration, which had argued that the new state law violated federal statutes and the U.S. Constitution. The Texas law had been set to go into effect on March 5; it will now be put on hold while a federal lawsuit to overturn the law moves forward. In granting a preliminary injunction on Thursday, Judge Ezra, who was appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan, said that the federal government was likely to eventually win the case on the merits. ‘No matter how emphatic Texas’s criticism of the federal government’s handling of immigration on the border may be to some,’ Judge Ezra wrote in his 114-page decision, ‘disagreement with the federal government’s immigration policy does not justify a violation of the Supremacy Clause’ of the Constitution.” See also, Judge blocks Texas law authorizing arrests of suspected illegal immigrants. The legislation has been criticized by civil rights groups as permitting racial profiling. The Washington Post, Arelis R. Hernández and Patrick Svitek, Thursday, 29 February 2024: “A federal judge has blocked a Texas law empowering police across the state to arrest immigrants suspected of entering the country illegally — a measure derided by advocates as permitting racial profiling and criminalizing anyone who looks like an immigrant. U.S. District Judge David A. Ezra granted a preliminary injunction Thursday that will keep the law, Senate Bill 4, from taking effect on March 5 after the Biden administration and immigrant advocacy groups sued to stop it. The state will appeal to the conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, setting the stage for a prolonged legal battle.” See also, Judge blocks Texas law that gives police broad powers to arrest migrants who illegally enter the US, Associated Press, Acacia Coronado, Thursday, 29 February 2024: “A federal judge on Thursday blocked a new Texas law that would give police broad powers to arrest migrants suspected of illegally entering the U.S., dealing a victory to the Biden administration with a broad rejection of Republican Gov. Greg Abbott’s immigration enforcement effort. U.S. District Judge David Ezra’s preliminary injunction pausing a law that was set to take effect March 5 came as President Joe Biden and his likely Republican challenger in November, Donald Trump, were visiting Texas’ southern border to discuss immigration. The state attorney general’s office immediately appealed the ruling, according to a statement Thursday. The ruling rebuked Texas’ immigration enforcement effort on multiple fronts, brushing off claims by Republicans about an ongoing ‘invasion’ along the southern border due to record-high illegal crossings. Ezra also said the law violates the Constitution’s supremacy clause, conflicts with federal immigration law, and could hamper U.S. foreign relations and treaty obligations. It is the second time in six months that Ezra has stopped one of Abbott’s border escalations, having also ruled against a floating barrier Texas erected in the Rio Grande.”
Trump’s claims of a migrant crime wave are not supported by national data. An NBC News review of available 2024 crime data shows overall crime levels dropping in cities that have received the most migrants. NBC News, Olympia Sonnier and Garrett Haake, Thursday, 29 February 2024: “When Donald Trump speaks at the southern border in Texas on Thursday, you can expect to hear him talk about “migrant crime,” a category he has coined and defined as a terrifying binge of criminal activity committed by undocumented immigrants spreading across the country…. [D]espite the former president’s campaign rhetoric, expert analysis and available data from major-city police departments show that despite several horrifying high-profile incidents, there is no evidence of a migrant-driven crime wave in the United States. That won’t change the way Trump talks about immigrants in his bid to return to the White House, as he argues that President Joe Biden’s immigration policies are making Americans less safe. Trump says voters should hold Biden personally responsible for every crime committed by an undocumented immigrant. An NBC News review of available 2024 crime data from the cities targeted by Texas’ ‘Operation Lone Star,’ which buses or flies migrants from the border to major cities in the interior — shows overall crime levels dropping in those cities that have received the most migrants.”
The Scandal of Clarence Thomas’s New Clerk, Crystal Clanton. Clanton became notorious for sending outlandishly racist texts. Now she has been hired to work for Justice Clarence Thomas–and a dubious new story has surfaced to clear her name. The New Yorker, Jane Mayer, Thursday, 29 February 2024: “Last week, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas shocked the legal community when the news broke that one of his new law clerks will be Crystal Clanton—who became notorious in 2015 for apparently sending texts that said, ‘I HATE BLACK PEOPLE. Like fuck them all . . . I hate blacks. End of story.’ For most young lawyers, sending such a text would indeed have been the ‘end of story.’ Instead, Clanton is on the cusp of clinching one of the most coveted prizes in the American legal system. In the past several years, as Clanton has risen through the ranks of conservative legal circles, the story of her alleged racist outburst has been curiously transformed into a tale of victimhood. The new narrative is that Clanton was somehow framed by an unnamed enemy who—for motives that remain unclear—fabricated the racist texts to defame her. This new account has been greeted with suspicion by many. If the revised story is a lie, then it threatens to implicate not just Justice Thomas, who has endorsed it, but several lower-court federal judges and the leader of a major political group aligned with former President Donald Trump. Indeed, the whole affair may prove one of the most shopworn axioms of political reporting—that the coverup is worse than the crime.”
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!