For independent global news, visit Democracy Now!
For a newsletter about the history behind today’s politics, subscribe to Heather Cox Richardson’s newsletter, Letters from an American.
Sunday, 2 June 2024:
A Felon in the Oval Office Would Test the American System. The system of checks and balances established in the Constitution was meant to hold wayward presidents accountable, but some wonder how it will work if the next president is already a felon. The New York Times, Peter Baker, Sunday, 2 June 2024: “The revolutionary hero Patrick Henry knew this day would come. He might not have anticipated all the particulars, such as the porn actress in the hotel room and the illicit payoff to keep her quiet. But he feared that eventually a criminal might occupy the presidency and use his powers to thwart anyone who sought to hold him accountable. ‘Away with your president,’ he declared, ‘we shall have a king.’ That was exactly what the founders sought to avoid, having thrown off the yoke of an all-powerful monarch. But as hard as they worked to establish checks and balances, the system they constructed to hold wayward presidents accountable ultimately has proved to be unsteady. Whatever rules Americans thought were in place are now being rewritten by Donald J. Trump, the once and perhaps future president who has already shattered many barriers and precedents. The notion that 34 felonies is not automatically disqualifying and a convicted criminal can be a viable candidate for commander in chief upends two and a half centuries of assumptions about American democracy. And it raises fundamental questions about the limits of power in a second term, should Mr. Trump be returned to office. If he wins, it means he will have survived two impeachments, four criminal indictments, civil judgments for sexual abuse and business fraud, and a felony conviction. Given that, it would be hard to imagine what institutional deterrents could discourage abuses or excesses. Moreover, the judiciary may not be the check on the executive branch that it has been in the past. If no other cases go to trial before the election, it could be another four years before the courts could even consider whether the newly elected president jeopardized national security or illegally sought to overturn the 2020 election, as he has been charged with doing. As it is, even before the election, the Supreme Court may grant Mr. Trump at least some measure of immunity. Mr. Trump would still have to operate within the constitutional system, analysts point out, but he has already shown a willingness to push its boundaries. When he was president, he claimed that the Constitution gave him ‘the right to do whatever I want.’ After leaving office, he advocated ‘termination’ of the Constitution to allow him to return to power right away without another election and vowed to dedicate a second term to ‘retribution.'”
Revenge: analysis of Trump posts shows relentless focus on punishing enemies. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington documents the former president’s threats against perceived political opponents. The Guardian, David Smith, Sunday, 2 June 2024: “A major study of Donald Trump’s social media posts has revealed the scale of the former US president’s ambitions to target Joe Biden, judges and other perceived political enemies if he returns to power. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew), a watchdog organisation, analysed more than 13,000 messages published by Trump on his Truth Social platform and found him vowing revenge, retaliation and retribution against his foes.”
Monday, 3 June 2024:
Multiple Trump Witnesses Have Received Significant Financial Benefits From His Businesses and Campaign. Witnesses in the various criminal cases against the former president have gotten pay raises, new jobs, and more. If any benefits were intended to influence testimony, that could be a crime. ProPublica, Robert Faturechi, Justin Elliott, and Alex Mierjeski, Monday, 3 June 2024: “Nine witnesses in the criminal cases against former President Donald Trump have received significant financial benefits, including large raises from his campaign, severance packages, new jobs, and a grant of shares and cash from Trump’s media company. The benefits have flowed from Trump’s businesses and campaign committees, according to a ProPublica analysis of public disclosures, court records and securities filings. One campaign aide had his average monthly pay double, from $26,000 to $53,500. Another employee got a $2 million severance package barring him from voluntarily cooperating with law enforcement. And one of the campaign’s top officials had her daughter hired onto the campaign staff, where she is now the fourth-highest-paid employee. These pay increases and other benefits often came at delicate moments in the legal proceedings against Trump. One aide who was given a plum position on the board of Trump’s social media company, for example, got the seat after he was subpoenaed but before he testified. Significant changes to a staffer’s work situation, such as bonuses, pay raises, firings or promotions, can be evidence of a crime if they come outside the normal course of business. To prove witness tampering, prosecutors would need to show that perks or punishments were intended to influence testimony. White-collar defense lawyers say the situation Trump finds himself in — in the dual role of defendant and boss of many of the people who are the primary witnesses to his alleged crimes — is not uncommon. Their standard advice is not to provide any unusual benefits or penalties to such employees. Ideally, decisions about employees slated to give evidence should be made by an independent body such as a board, not the boss who is under investigation.”
Continue reading Aftermath of the Trump Administration, June 2024:
Trump appeal to remove District Attorney Fani Willis from Georgia election subversion case is set for October, likely putting the trial past Election Day, CNN Politics, Zachary Cohen and Sara Murray, Monday, 3 June 2024: “The Georgia Court of Appeals has set a tentative date of October 4 to hear oral arguments in the effort to have Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis removed from prosecuting the election interference case against former President Donald Trump and others. The possibility that the disqualification fight could stretch to October, as well as an ongoing question about how the Supreme Court’s upcoming ruling on presidential immunity could impact the prosecution, makes it extremely unlikely Trump will go on trial for election subversion in Georgia before Election Day. Attorneys were informed of the tentative date after the case was officially docketed Monday with the appeals court, according to a notice obtained by CNN.”
Tuesday, 4 June 2024:
Wisconsin charges 3 Trump Allies in Fake Electors Scheme. It is the fifth battleground state to prosecute former President Donald Trump’s supporters for trying to overturn his defeat in the 2020 election. The New York Times, Neil Vigdor and Danny Hakim, Tuesday, 4 June 2024: “Wisconsin brought felony charges on Tuesday against three onetime advisers of former President Donald J. Trump in connection with a fake electors plot there in 2020, becoming the fifth battleground state to prosecute his allies for their attempts to overturn his defeat that year. Kenneth Chesebro, an architect of the Trump campaign’s plans to impanel slates of bogus electors in several states that Mr. Trump lost, was named as a defendant in the action by Wisconsin’s attorney general, Josh Kaul, a Democrat. The other men charged were James R. Troupis, a former judge who was working for the campaign in Wisconsin, and Michael Roman, who was Mr. Trump’s director of Election Day operations. All three face a single count of forgery-uttering, a felony in Wisconsin that carries a penalty of up to six years in prison and a $10,000 fine.” See also, Former Trump aides charged in Wisconsin over 2020 elector plot. Separate cases related to Trump’s 2020 fake elector efforts have been filed in Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, and Georgia. The Washington Post, Patrick Marley, Tuesday, 4 June 2024: “Wisconsin’s attorney general filed conspiracy charges Tuesday against a former aide and two attorneys who advised Donald Trump over a meeting of Republicans claiming to be the state’s 2020 presidential electors even though Trump had lost the state. The charges are the first in Wisconsin related to the meeting of electors. Prosecutors have separately charged Republicans who were involved in similar efforts in Arizona, Michigan, Nevada and Georgia. Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul (D) charged Trump campaign aide Michael Roman and attorneys Kenneth Chesebro and James Troupis with one felony count each of conspiracy to commit forgery, according to the criminal complaints. Kaul said at a news conference on the steps of the state Capitol his investigation could result in more charges. Asked about the possibility of charges against the former president, Kaul said, ‘As I said, I’m not going to speak to any specific individual, but the investigation is ongoing, and decisions will be made based on the facts and the law, not on the identity of any individual.'” See also, Wisconsin attorney general files felony charges against attorneys and an aide who worked for Trump in 2020, Associated Press, Scott Bauer, Tuesday, 4 June 2024: “Felony forgery charges were filed in Wisconsin on Tuesday against two attorneys and an aide who helped submit paperwork falsely saying that former President Donald Trump had won the battleground state in 2020. The state charges are the first to come in Wisconsin and follow separate charges brought in Arizona, Michigan, Nevada and Georgia related to the fake electors scheme. The Wisconsin charges were brought against Trump’s attorney in the state, Jim Troupis, 62, attorney Kenneth Chesebro, 62, who was advising the campaign and Mike Roman, 51, who was Trump’s director of Election Day operations. Roman allegedly delivered Wisconsin’s fake elector paperwork to a Pennsylvania congressman’s staffer in order to get them to then-Vice President Mike Pence on Jan. 6, 2021. All three are due in Dane County Circuit Court on Sept. 19, according to court records. They each face one felony count punishable by up to six years in prison and fines of up to $10,000.”
Garland Rebukes Attacks on Justice Department and Defends Refusal to Turn Over Biden Tape. The attorney general warned Republicans that their attacks were baseless and feeding ‘heinous threats of violence.’ The New York Times, Charlie Savage and Glenn Thrush, Tuesday, 4 June 2024: “Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, facing the prospect of a contempt vote in Congress, on Tuesday denounced attacks on the Justice Department by former President Donald J. Trump and his allies, including one he labeled a “conspiracy theory” and others he called ‘baseless and extremely dangerous falsehoods.’ Testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, the usually mild-mannered Mr. Garland bluntly pushed back against Republican demands that he turn over audio of a special counsel’s interview of President Biden over his handling of classified documents. He linked those calls to other criticism they have directed toward prosecutors at a time of ‘heinous threats of violence being directed at the Justice Department’s career public servants.’ ‘These repeated attacks on the Justice Department are unprecedented, and they are unfounded,’ he said. ‘These attacks have not, and they will not, influence our decision making. I view contempt as a serious matter. But I will not jeopardize the ability of our prosecutors and agents to do their jobs effectively in future investigations. I will not be intimidated.’ The remarks amounted to a vigorous defense of the integrity of federal law enforcement as Mr. Trump and his allies have aggressively impugned it, a campaign they stepped up after his conviction in New York State court last week on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to cover up a sex scandal.” See also, ‘I will not be intimidated’: Attorney General Merrick Garland rebuts contempt threats from House Republicans. House Republicans grilled Garland about the federal prosecutions of Donald Trump and Hunter Biden. The Washington Post, David Nakamura, Tuesday, 4 June 2024: “Attorney General Merrick Garland on Tuesday forcefully defended the Justice Department against ‘repeated attacks’ from Republican lawmakers that he said have undermined investigations and put federal employees in harm’s way. Garland’s pointed testimony before the House Judiciary Committee came as GOP House leaders have threatened to hold him in contempt in their efforts to gain access to audio recordings from special counsel Robert K. Hur’s investigation into President Biden’s handling of classified materials. Biden asserted executive privilege in April to keep the recordings from public view after Garland requested he do so over concerns that releasing them could harm future efforts to get officials to cooperate with investigations and sit for taped interviews. At the hearing, Garland accused Republicans of ‘seeking contempt as a means of obtaining — for no legitimate purpose — sensitive law enforcement information that could harm the integrity of future investigations. This effort is only the most recent in a long line of attacks on the Justice Department’s work.'” See also, Attorney General Merrick Garland slams attacks on the Justice Department, telling lawmakers: ‘I will not be intimidated,’ Associated Press, Alanna Durkin Richer and Eric Tucker, Tuesday, 4 June 2024: “Attorney General Merrick Garland rebuked Republicans Tuesday for what he described as unprecedented attacks on the Justice Department, telling lawmakers who have sought to hold him in contempt that he will ‘not be intimidated.’ Appearing before a House panel led by allies of Donald Trump, Garland condemned as a ‘conspiracy theory’ the claim that the department was behind the New York state court prosecution that led to the former Republican president’s conviction last week on 34 felony charges. And Garland slammed other ‘baseless and extremely dangerous falsehoods’ being spread about law enforcement. His unusually fiery testimony amounted to a forceful defense of the independence and integrity of the Justice Department at an unprecedented moment in which it is prosecuting both Trump and President Joe Biden’s son. Amid an onslaught by Trump and his Republican allies, Garland said his agency will not be deterred in its commitment to uphold the rule of law. Garland described a Republican effort to hold him in contempt as the latest in ‘a long line of attacks on the Justice Department.’ Those attacks ‘have not, and they will not’ influence the department’s decision making, Garland told lawmakers.”
Wednesday, 5 June 2024:
Georgia Appeals Court Stays Most Proceedings in Trump Election Case. The order means the prosecution of Donald Trump in Georgia is effectively frozen, at least through the presidential election. The New York Times, Richard Fausset, Wednesday, 5 June 2024: “The Georgia Court of Appeals on Wednesday stayed the criminal election interference case against former President Donald J. Trump until an appellate panel could resolve the matter of whether the district attorney in Fulton County should be disqualified from prosecuting the case based on a conflict of interest. In a one-page order, the court stated that any movement at the trial-court level pertaining to Mr. Trump and eight other defendants who have appealed a ruling allowing the prosecutor, Fani T. Willis, to remain on the case was ‘stayed pending the outcome of these appeals.’ Earlier this week, the appellate court set a tentative date for oral argument of Oct. 4. Legal experts expect the appeals will take months to resolve. The order was more bad news for critics and opponents of Mr. Trump who had hoped that he would stand trial in Georgia before he faced off against President Joseph R. Biden in the general election. Mr. Trump and a number of his allies were indicted in Georgia last summer in a sweeping racketeering case that accused them of trying to overturn his 2020 election loss in the state. But the case was derailed earlier this year with the revelation that Ms. Willis had been romantically involved with a lawyer she hired to manage the case.” See also, Georgia appeals court pauses lower-court proceedings in Trump election case. The order means the case against the former president and eight of his co-defendants will almost certainly not be scheduled for trial before the fall election. The Washington Post, Amy Gardner, Wednesday, 5 June 2024: “The Georgia Court of Appeals on Wednesday ordered a halt to the proceedings in the election interference case against former president Donald Trump and eight other defendants pending the outcome of their appeal seeking to disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis.” See also, Appeals court halts Trump’s Georgia case during appeal of order allowing Willis to stay on the case, Associated Press, Kate Brumback, Wednesday, 5 June 2024: “An appeals court has halted the Georgia election interference case against former President Donald Trump and others while it reviews the lower court judge’s ruling allowing Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to remain on the case. The Georgia Court of Appeals’ order on Wednesday prevents Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee from moving forward with pretrial motions as he had planned while the appeal is pending. While it was already unlikely that the case would go to trial before the November general election, when Trump is expected to be the Republican nominee for president, this makes that even more certain.”
Judge Aileen Cannon rips up court schedule in Mar-a-Lago case in ways that benefit Trump, CNN Politics, Dan Berman and Katelyn Polantz, Wednesday, 5 June 2024: “Judge Aileen Cannon is again ripping up the court schedule in former President Donald Trump’s classified documents case – pushing some of the legal questions that have been before her for months even further down the road. Cannon is planning on holding a sprawling hearing on Trump’s request to declare Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel invalid, signaling she could be more willing than any other trial judge to veto the special prosecutor’s authority. The planned hearing also adds a new, unusual twist in the federal criminal case against the former president: Cannon on Tuesday said that a variety of political partisans and constitutional scholars not otherwise involved with the case can join in the oral arguments later this month. It’s an extraordinary elevation of arguments in a criminal case – filed a year ago this week – that likely won’t see trial until next year, if at all. Wednesday, Cannon went further, adding a hearing on a gag order request from prosecutors to limit Trump’s rhetoric about law enforcement and allotting more time to hear arguments on the special counsel issue. Cannon will hear arguments on those issues the week of June 21, as well as on the effort by Trump to throw out evidence in his case that was gathered by the FBI in its 2022 search of Mar-a-Lago or provided by his former attorney Evan Corcoran to a grand jury. At the same time, she delayed other hearings without setting a new date. The calendar shuffling is the latest example of Cannon’s approach so far to the national security case: scheduling hours in court for arguments that other courts have mostly denied, and pushing off resolution of various legal matters for months. The delays are a significant legal win for Trump, who also scored a major victory in Georgia on Wednesday, where the state court of appeals put the election subversion conspiracy case there on hold indefinitely.”
Senate Republicans Block Bill to Codify the Right to Contraception Access Nationwide. Democrats scheduled the vote to highlight an issue on which Republicans are at odds with the vast majority of Americans. The New York Times, Annie Karni, Wednesday, 5 June 2024: “Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked action on legislation to codify the right to contraception access nationwide, a bill Democrats brought to the floor to spotlight an issue on which the G.O.P. is at odds with a vast majority of voters. All but two Republicans present — Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine — voted against advancing the legislation. Democrats, who unanimously supported it, were left nine votes short of the 60 they would need to take up the bill, which would protect a reproductive health option that many voters worry is actively at risk of being stripped away. ‘This should be an easy vote,’ Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, said on the Senate floor ahead of the vote. ‘It almost shouldn’t be necessary.'” See also, Senate Republicans vote against making contraception a federal right. The bill was introduced by Democrats seeking to put Republicans on the spot in an election year over their unpopular positions on reproductive rights. The Washington Post, Liz Goodwin, Wednesday, 5 June 2024: “The Senate voted Wednesday to block a bill to create a federal right to contraception access after many Republicans said they opposed the legislation as unnecessary and government overreach. The Democratic bill — intended to put Republicans on the spot in an election year on their unpopular positions on reproductive rights — would have prevented states from passing laws that limit access to contraception, including hormonal birth control and intrauterine devices. The measure failed to reach the 60 votes it needed to proceed, after all but two of the chamber’s Republicans voted against it.”
Florida Republican Congressman Byron Donalds, Trump Vice President Contender, Suggests Jim Crow Era Had an Upside. He was visiting Philadelphia to persuade Black voters to support former President Donald Trump. The New York Times, Neil Vigdor and Maya King, Wednesday, 5 June 2024: “Representative Byron Donalds, a Florida Republican whom Donald J. Trump is said to be considering for his running mate, suggested on Tuesday that the Jim Crow era had some virtues for Black people while trying to persuade voters of color to back the former president. Mr. Donalds, who has emerged as a key Black surrogate for Mr. Trump, made the comments on Tuesday evening at a ‘Congress, Cognac, & Cigars’ event in Philadelphia. The gathering, hosted by Mr. Donalds and Representative Wesley Hunt of Texas, another Black Republican, was intended to promote Mr. Trump and the Republican brand. At the event, Mr. Donalds said that the programs that followed the Jim Crow era of racial violence and segregation — the federal government’s welfare system during the 1950s and the civil rights agenda of President Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s — had a detrimental effect on Black families…. Representative Hakeem Jeffries,Democrat of New York and the House minority leader, also condemned Mr. Donalds on Wednesday, making a thinly veiled reference to the congressman during remarks on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. ‘That’s an outlandish, outrageous and out-of-pocket observation,’ Mr. Jeffries said of Mr. Donalds’s comments, pointing to the lynchings and inequities that defined the Jim Crow era. ‘How dare you make such an ignorant observation? You better check yourself before you wreck yourself.'”
Republican Leaders In and Out of Government Are Publicly Pushing to Prosecute Democrats as Legal Retribution for Donald Trump’s Felony Conviction, The New York Times, Jonathan Swan, Maggie Haberman, and Charlie Savage, Wednesday, 5 June 2024: “Republican allies of Donald J. Trump are calling for revenge prosecutions and other retaliatory measures against Democrats in response to his felony conviction in New York. Within hours of a jury finding Mr. Trump guilty last week, the anger congealed into demands for action. Since then, prominent G.O.P. leaders in and out of government have demanded that elected Republicans use every available instrument of power against Democrats, including targeted investigations and prosecutions. The intensity of anger and open desire for using the criminal justice system against Democrats after the verdict surpasses anything seen before in Mr. Trump’s tumultuous years in national politics. What is different now is the range of Republicans who are saying retaliation is necessary and who are no longer cloaking their intent with euphemisms.”
Thursday, 6 June 2024:
Judge Orders Trump Ally Steve Bannon to Surrender for Prison Term by 1 July. Bannon was convicted two years ago of contempt of congress for refusing to comply with a subpoena from the House January 6 committee. He faces a four-month sentence. The New York Times, Alan Feuer and Aishvarya Kavi, Thursday, 6 June 2024: “A federal judge on Thursday told Stephen K. Bannon, a longtime adviser to former President Donald J. Trump, to surrender by July 1 to start serving a four-month prison term for disobeying a congressional subpoena. Mr. Bannon was sentenced in October 2022 on contempt of Congress charges after he refused to give testimony to the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. Judge Carl J. Nichols, who has overseen the case, allowed him to remain free while he appealed. Last month, however, Mr. Bannon lost the first round of that challenge as a three-judge panel of a federal appeals court in Washington decided that his guilty verdict on charges of ignoring the House committee’s demand for his testimony was proper. Because of the panel’s ruling, Judge Nichols said he no longer believed that Mr. Bannon could rightfully continue to postpone serving his sentence.”
Friday, 7 June 2024:
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Acknowledges He Should Have Disclosed Free Trips From Billionaire Donor Harlan Crow. The trips include vacations in Indonesia and at the exclusive, men’s-only Bohemian Grove retreat, which were first reported by ProPublica last year. ProPublica, Friday, 7 June 2024: “Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas acknowledged for the first time in a new financial disclosure filing that he should have publicly reported two free vacations he received from billionaire Harlan Crow. The pair of 2019 trips, one to Indonesia and the other to the Bohemian Grove, an all-male retreat in northern California, were first revealed by ProPublica. Last year, Thomas argued that he did not need to disclose such gifts. ‘Justice Thomas’s critics allege that he failed to report gifts from wealthy friends,’ his lawyer previously said in a statement issued on the justice’s behalf. ‘Untrue.’ In the new filing released Friday, however, Thomas amended his financial disclosure for 2019, writing that he ‘inadvertently omitted’ the trips on his previous reports. Last year, ProPublica documented an array of undisclosed luxury vacations and other gifts Thomas has received over the years from several billionaires, including Crow. ProPublica revealed Crow had treated Thomas to numerous private jet flights and international yacht cruises, covered private school tuition for Thomas’ relative, and paid Thomas money in an undisclosed 2014 real estate deal.” See also, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, in Financial Disclosure, Acknowledges 2019 Trips Paid For by Harlan Crow. The justice amended an earlier filing to include vacations to Bali and an exclusive California club paid for by the Texas billionaire Harlan Crow. The New York Times, Abbie Van Sickle, Friday, 7 June 2024: “Justice Clarence Thomas acknowledged on Friday additional luxury travel he had accepted from a conservative billionaire, amending a previous financial disclosure to reflect trips he had taken to an Indonesian island and a secretive all-male club in the Northern California redwoods. The trips, taken in 2019, were earlier revealed by ProPublica, but it is the first time that Justice Thomas has included them on his financial disclosures.”
If Trump Wins, The New York Times, Charlie Savage, Jonathan Swan, and Maggie Haberman, Friday, 7 June 2024: “Donald Trump and his closest allies are preparing a radical reshaping of American government if he regains the White House. Here are some of his plans for cracking down on immigration, directing the Justice Department to prosecute his adversaries, increasing presidential power, upending America’s trade policies, retreating militarily from Europe and unilaterally deploying troops to Democratic-run cities.”
Trump plans to claim sweeping powers to cancel federal spending, The Washington Post, Jeff Stein and Jacob Bogage, Friday, 7 June 2024: “Donald Trump is vowing to wrest key spending powers from Congress if elected this November, promising to assert more control over the federal budget than any president in U.S. history. The Constitution gives control over spending to Congress, but Trump and his aides maintain that the president should have much more discretion — including the authority to cease programs altogether, even if lawmakers fund them. Depending on the response from the Supreme Court and Congress, Trump’s plans could upend the balance of power between the three branches of the federal government…. Trump and his advisers have prepared an attack on the limits on presidential spending authority. On his campaign website, Trump has said he will push Congress to repeal parts of the 1974 law that restricts the president’s authority to spend federal dollars without congressional approval. Trump has also said he will unilaterally challenge that law by cutting off funding for certain programs, promising on his first day in office to order every agency to identify ‘large chunks’ of their budgets that would be halted by presidential edict.”
Saturday, 8 June 2024:
Trump loyalist Russ Vought pushes ‘post-Constitutional’ vision for a second Trump term. Vought, the former president’s budget director, is laying the groundwork for a broad expansion of presidential powers. The Washington Post, Beth Reinhard, Saturday, 8 June 2024: “A battle-tested D.C. bureaucrat and self-described Christian nationalist is drawing up detailed plans for a sweeping expansion of presidential power in a second Trump administration. Russ Vought, who served as the former president’s budget chief, calls his political strategy for razing long-standing guardrails ‘radical constitutionalism.’ He has helped craft proposals for Donald Trump to deploy the military to quash civil unrest, seize more control over the Justice Department and assert the power to withhold congressional appropriations — and that’s just on Trump’s first day back in office. Vought, 48, is poised to steer this agenda from an influential perch in the White House, potentially as Trump’s chief of staff, according to some people involved in discussions about a second term who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations.”
Monday, 10 June 2024:
Judge Aileen Cannon Strikes One Element From Trump Indictment in Classified Documents Case. Cannon threw out one basis for the case against Trump involving a highly sensitive military map he showed an aide after leaving office. The New York Times, Alan Feuer, Monday, 10 June 2024: “A federal judge on Monday slightly narrowed the classified documents case against former President Donald J. Trump, saying prosecutors cannot charge him based on an episode in which he is said to have shown a highly sensitive military map to a political adviser months after leaving office. The decision by the judge, Aileen M. Cannon, was more of a swipe at prosecutors working for the special counsel, Jack Smith, who brought the case than a major blow to the allegations against Mr. Trump. Even though Judge Cannon technically removed the incident from the 53-page indictment, prosecutors may still be able to introduce evidence of it to the jury if the case finally goes to trial.” See also, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon ruled she will delete a paragraph in the federal superseding indictment against Donald Trump that alleges he mishandled classified materials, The Washington Post, Perry Stein and Devlin Barrett, Monday, 10 June 2024: “U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon ruled Monday that she will delete a paragraph in the federal superseding indictment against Donald Trump that alleges he mishandled classified materials after he left the White House and thwarted officials’ attempts to retrieve them. The judge said that prosecutors’ inclusion of paragraph 36 — which alleges Trump showed a classified document in September 2021 about a military operation to someone without a security clearance — is inappropriate because it is not connected to a specific crime that Trump is accused of committing. Trump is not charged with disclosing classified materials to anyone after he left office. Cannon’s ruling suggests that she believes this type of evidence, which prosecutors used to establish Trump’s alleged carelessness with classified materials, would be better introduced as evidence at trial — not in the charging document. The ruling does not have a substantive effect on the case. Cannon wrote in her ruling that if jurors take the indictment with them to deliberations, they would receive the edited version.”
In Secret Recordings, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito Endorses Nation of ‘Godliness.’ Chief Justice John Roberts Talks of Pluralism. The two justices were surreptitiously recorded at a Supreme Court gala last week by a woman posing as a Catholic conservative. The New York Times, Abbie Van Sickle, Monday, 10 June 2024: “Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. told a woman posing as a Catholic conservative last week that compromise in America between the left and right might be impossible and then agreed with the view that the nation should return to a place of godliness. ‘One side or the other is going to win,’ Justice Alito told the woman, Lauren Windsor, at an exclusive gala at the Supreme Court. ‘There can be a way of working, a way of living together peacefully, but it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised.’ Ms. Windsor pressed Justice Alito further. ‘I think that the solution really is like winning the moral argument,’ she told him, according to the edited recordings of Justice Alito and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., which were posted and distributed widely on social media on Monday. ‘Like, people in this country who believe in God have got to keep fighting for that, to return our country to a place of godliness.’ ‘I agree with you, I agree with you,’ he responded. The justice’s comments appeared to be in marked contrast to those of Chief Justice Roberts, who was also secretly recorded at the same event but who pushed back against Ms. Windsor’s assertion that the court had an obligation to lead the country on a more ‘moral path.’ ‘Would you want me to be in charge of putting the nation on a more moral path?’ the chief justice said. ‘That’s for people we elect. That’s not for lawyers.’ [The recording was first reported by Rolling Stone.]” See also, In secret recording Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito talked about the political divide and the need for the US to return to godliness, The Washington Post, Justin Jouvenal and Ann E. Marimow, Monday, 10 June 2024: “Already facing criticism for politically charged flags seen flying at their homes, Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito and his wife came under fresh scrutiny Monday following an unusual sting operation in which they appear to have been secretly recorded discussing America’s political divide and ethics controversies surrounding the couple. A liberal documentary filmmaker posted on X, formerly Twitter, recordings she said she made of the justice and his wife, Martha-Ann Alito while posing as a religious conservative at a Supreme Court Historical Society annual dinner at the high court in D.C. on June 3. After prodding, she captured the justice apparently saying ‘one side or the other is going to win’ the nation’s polarized politics and endorsing her contention that the nation needs to return to ‘godliness.’ The recording is extraordinary in the sense that it marks a type of hardball political tactic being deployed against the high court that had previously been seen on the campaign trail or in sting efforts by groups like Project Veritas. The recording was first reported by Rolling Stone.”
Tuesday, 11 June 2024:
House Democrats step up to try to stop Project 2025 plans for a Trump White House, Associated Press, Lisa Mascaro, Tuesday, 11 June 2024: “Warning about the far-right Project 2025 agenda for a Donald Trump White House, a group of House Democrats has launched a task force to start fighting the proposal and stop it from taking hold if the Republican former president returns to power. Democratic Rep. Jared Huffman of California is unveiling The Stop Project 2025 Task Force on Tuesday, the latest sign that congressional Democrats and outside groups are treating Trump’s campaign seriously in the expected rematch against Democratic President Joe Biden this fall. ‘The stakes just couldn’t be higher,’ Huffman told The Associated Press. Huffman said the Project 2025 agenda will hit ‘like a Blitzkrieg’ and lawmakers need to be ready.”
Hunter Biden Conviction Undercuts a Trump Narrative, and a Fund-Raising Pitch. Many allies of Donald Trump had secretly wanted an acquittal, which they predicted would have turbocharged fund-raising and fed their claims of a rigged justice system. The New York Times, Jonathan Swan, Maggie Haberman, and Michael Gold, Tuesday, 11 June 2024: “The moment had finally come. Late Tuesday morning, nearly five years after Republicans first went after Hunter Biden, the president’s son could finally be called a convicted felon. But Donald J. Trump and other Republicans did not seem to be relishing the opportunity. The early reaction to a jury’s guilty verdict against Hunter Biden on three felony gun charges resembled a shriveling balloon. ‘The Hunter Biden gun conviction is kinda dumb tbh,’ said one close Trump ally, Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida, in a post on X, using an abbreviation for ‘to be honest.’ Another Trump associate, Charlie Kirk, called it a ‘fake trial.’ Many Trump allies had been secretly rooting for an acquittal. The talking points wrote themselves: It would have been yet more evidence that the United States justice system was rigged in favor of the Bidens and against the Trumps. Tuesday’s guilty verdict was inconvenient to that narrative. Even more valuable would have been the fund-raising potential.”
Wednesday, 12 June 2024:
Donald Trump Jumps the Shark. The former president’s rants are more incoherent than ever. But he doesn’t need to make sense to keep his followers in the tank. The Nation, Chris Lehmann, Wednesday, 12 June 2024: “Before a Las Vegas crowd gathered in sweltering 105-degree heat, the 45th president delivered a jittery parable about sharks, boats, and batteries. The gist of it seemed to be that the powerful electric batteries on motorboats might pose a hazard of electrocution if the boat were capsizing—and this could be a mortal dilemma for a pleasure cruiser, if the craft were within 10 yards of a ravenous shark. The immediate context for Trump’s word-picture was his pledge to halt further production of electric vehicles—but what sharks, sinking boats, and Trump’s free-associative impressions of a nautical disaster have to do with that is anyone’s guess…. Trump’s verbal performance has long failed to matter to his mass following. What Trump says is far less consequential than how he says it: His Mad Libs vitriol aimed at a rotating cast of targets—the press, the invading immigrant hordes, the communist-led deep state, the rigged and tyrannical legal system—furnishes his following with a plug-and-play martyrology. This is by now a well-honed political transaction: Trump’s petulant tantrums dramatize his admirers’ utmost sense of persecution—and they do the same for him.”
Thursday, 13 June 2024:
Supreme Court Maintains Broad Access to Abortion Pill. the decision does not eliminate efforts to restrict the availability of the pill. The New York Times, Abbie Van Sickle, Thursday, 13 June 2024: “The Supreme Court on Thursday maintained access to a widely available abortion pill, rejecting a bid from a group of anti-abortion organizations and doctors to undo the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the drug. In a unanimous decision, written by Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, the court held that the anti-abortion groups lacked a direct stake in the dispute, a requirement to challenge the F.D.A.’s approval of the pill, mifepristone. ‘The plaintiffs do not prescribe or use mifepristone,’ Justice Kavanaugh wrote. ‘And F.D.A. is not requiring them to do or refrain from doing anything.’ He added, ‘A plaintiff ’s desire to make a drug less available for others does not establish standing to sue.’ The case originally sought to erase the F.D.A.’s approval of mifepristone. But by the time it reached the Supreme Court, the question had been narrowed to whether the agency had acted legally in 2016 and 2021, when it broadened distribution of the pill, eventually including telemedicine and mail options. The ruling handed a muted victory to abortion rights groups. Even as they praised the decision for averting severe restrictions on the availability of the pill, they warned that the outcome could be short-lived. Anti-abortion groups vowed to press ahead, promising that the fight was far from over and raising the possibility that other plaintiffs, states in particular, would mount challenges to the drug.” See also, Supreme Court upholds broad access to key abortion pill mifepristone. Ever since the high court eliminated the right to abortion in 2022, medications to terminate pregnancy have grown in importance and been challenged in court. The Washington Post, Ann E. Marimow and David Ovalle, Thursday, 13 June 2024: “The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to limit access to a widely used abortion medication, rejecting a challenge from antiabortion doctors two years after the court’s conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade. In a unanimous ruling, the court sided with the Biden administration and the manufacturer of mifepristone and reversed a lower court decision that would have made it more difficult to obtain the drug used in more than 60 percent of U.S. abortions. The justices found that the plaintiffs did not have legal grounds to bring the challenge. Writing for the court, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said the antiabortion doctors behind the case do not prescribe or use mifepristone, and the FDA’s relaxed regulation of the medication does not require those doctors to do or refrain from doing anything.”
Harlan Crow Provided Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas at Least 3 Previously Undisclosed Private Jet Trips, Senate Investigation Finds. Thomas flew to Montana and other destinations on billionaire Harlan Crow’s dime. Crow’s lawyer revealed these flights to the Senate Judiciary Committee, whose ongoing investigation was sparked by ProPublica’s reporting. ProPublica, Justin Elliott, Joshua Kaplan, and Alex Mierjeski, Thursday, 13 June 2024: “Billionaire political donor Harlan Crow provided at least three previously undisclosed private jet trips to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in recent years, an investigation by Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats has found. The flights, which were detailed by Crow’s lawyer in response to inquiries from the committee, took the justice to destinations including the region near Glacier National Park in Montana and Thomas’ hometown in Georgia. The committee launched its investigation in response to ProPublica reporting last year that revealed numerous undisclosed gifts Crow provided to Thomas, including private school tuition for a relative and luxury vacations virtually every year for more than two decades. Democrats on the committee authorized a subpoena for information from Crow last November, but the subpoena was not issued, and the new information came as a result of negotiations between the Senate and Crow’s attorneys.” See also, Documents Show Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Took Additional Trips on Harlan Crow’s Private Jet. A congressional committee released documents showing that Thomas had not disclosed three private jet trips paid for by the Texas billionaire Harlan Crow. The New York Times, Abbie Van Sickle, Thursday, 13 June 2024: “Justice Clarence Thomas never disclosed three trips aboard the private jet of the Texas billionaire Harlan Crow, according to documents obtained by the Senate Judiciary Committee released on Thursday. The documents, obtained by Democrats on the panel, list three visits that have not previously been reported: one to a city in Montana, near Glacier National Park, in 2017; another to his hometown, Savannah, Ga., in March 2019; and another to Northern California in 2021. The purpose of each trip was not immediately clear, nor was the reason for their omission on the justice’s disclosure forms. However, all of the flights involve short stays: two were round trips that did not include an overnight stay. The revelation underlined the extent to which Justice Thomas has relied on the generosity of his friends over the years and the consistency with which he declined to report those ties.” See also, New documents show unreported trips by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Thomas took three previously unreported trips paid for by conservative Texas billionaire Harlan Crow, according to documents released by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Washington Post, Justin Jouvenal and Tobi Raji, Thursday, 13 June 2024: “Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas took three previously unreported trips paid for by conservative Texas billionaire Harlan Crow, according to new documents released Thursday by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Details of the private jet flights between 2017 and 2021 were obtained as part of an investigation the committee has been conducting into reports of lavish undisclosed travel and perks provided to justices by Crow and other wealthy benefactors that have sparked calls for reform. Crow released the information after the committee issued subpoenas in November for him and conservative activist Leonard Leo to provide information to the body. The subpoenas have never been enforced.”
Wisconsin Democrats tear into Trump after he reportedly called Milwaukee ‘a horrible city.’ The former president’s convention city did not take kindly to his criticism. Politico, Shia Kapos, Thursday, 13 June 2024: “Democrats are in an uproar over Donald Trump reportedly calling Milwaukee, the host city for the GOP’s national convention, ‘a horrible city’ during a meeting with House Republicans on Capitol Hill on Thursday. ‘Add it to the list of things Donald Trump is wrong about,’ Wisconsin’s Democratic Gov. Tony Evers wrote on X, in a post that included a clown emoji.”
Senate Republicans Block In Vitro Fertilization (I.V.F.) Access Bill as Democrats Press for Political Edge. The failed test vote was the latest move by Democrats to highlight reproductive issues in the run-up to the elections in November. The New York Times, Maya Miller, Thursday, 13 June 2024: “Senate Republicans on Thursday blocked legislation that would codify the right to access fertility treatments such as in vitro fertilization, in the latest election-year bid by Democrats to spotlight G.O.P. opposition to protecting reproductive freedoms. On a vote of 48 to 47, all but two Republicans opposed advancing the bill, which would give Americans the statutory right to receive fertility treatments and decide how their reproductive material is used, stored and disposed of. That left the measure well short of the 60 votes it needed to move forward, an outcome Democrats anticipated and even welcomed as part of their strategy to remind voters where Republicans stand on issues of abortion and reproductive health.” See also, Senate Republicans block bill to protect access to in vitro fertilization. The vote Thursday was an attempt by Democrats to challenge Republicans on their claims that they support in vitro fertilization. The Washington Post, Patrick Svitek, Thursday, 13 June 2024: “Senate Republicans on Thursday blocked consideration of a bill to protect access to in vitro fertilization, the latest Democratic effort to put the GOP on the defensive amid a broader election-year debate over reproductive health care.”
Friday, 14 June 2024:
Supreme Court Rejects Trump-Era Ban on Gun Bump Stocks. The justices found that the administration had exceeded its power in prohibiting the sale and possession of the gun attachments. The New York Times, Abbie VanSickle, Friday, 14 June 2024: “The Supreme Court on Friday struck down a ban on bump stocks enacted by the Trump administration after a deadly mass shooting in Las Vegas in 2017. The decision, by a vote of 6 to 3, split along ideological lines. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, found that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives had exceeded its power when it prohibited the device, an attachment that enables a semiautomatic rifle to fire at a speed rivaling that of a machine gun…. Although the case centers on firearms, it is not a Second Amendment challenge. Rather, it is one of several cases this term seeking to undercut the power of administrative agencies.” See also, Supreme court strikes down Trump-era federal ban on bump stock devices. The case focused on whether bump stocks qualify as machine guns under a law that bars civilians from owning such weapons. The Washington Post, Justin Jouvenal and Ann E. Marimow, Friday, 14 June 2024: “A divided Supreme Court on Friday struck down a federal ban on bump stock devices that allow semiautomatic rifles to fire hundreds of bullets a minute, upending one of the few recent efforts by the federal government to address the nation’s epidemic of gun violence. The 6-3 ruling along ideological lines continues the conservative majority’s record of limiting gun restrictions, most notably in a landmark 2022 ruling that has made it easier to challenge modern gun control laws. Friday’s ruling did not implicate the Second Amendment right to bear arms, but rather the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ interpretation of a law restricting machine guns.”
Sunday, 16 June 2024:
The Resistance to a New Trump Administration Has Already Started. An emerging coalition that views Donald Trump’s agenda as a threat to democracy is laying the groundwork to push back if he wins in November, taking extraordinary pre-emptive actions. The New York Times, Charlie Savage, Reid J. Epstein, Maggie Haberman, and Jonathan Swan, Sunday, 16 June 2024: “Opponents of Donald J. Trump are drafting potential lawsuits in case he is elected in November and carries out mass deportations, as he has vowed. One group has hired a new auditor to withstand any attempt by a second Trump administration to unleash the Internal Revenue Service against them. Democratic-run state governments are even stockpiling abortion medication. A sprawling network of Democratic officials, progressive activists, watchdog groups and ex-Republicans has been taking extraordinary steps to prepare for a potential second Trump presidency, drawn together by the fear that Mr. Trump’s return to power would pose a grave threat not just to their agenda but to American democracy itself.”
If Trump Wins, The New York Times, Charlie Savage, Jonathan Swan, and Maggie Haberman, Sunday, 16 June 2024: “Donald Trump and his closest allies are preparing a radical reshaping of American government if he regains the White House. Here are some of his plans for cracking down on immigration, directing the Justice Department to prosecute his adversaries, increasing presidential power, upending America’s economic policies, retreating militarily from Europe and unilaterally deploying troops to Democratic-run cities.”
Tuesday, 18 June 2024:
President Biden Gives Legal Protections to Undocumented Spouses of U.S. Citizens. The new policy is one of the most significant actions to protect immigrants in years. It affects about 500,000 people who have been living in the United States for more than a decade. The New York Times, Zolan Kanno-Youngs, Miriam Jordan, Jazmine Ulloa, and Hamed Aleaziz, Tuesday, 18 June 2024: “President Biden on Tuesday granted far-reaching new protections for hundreds of thousands of immigrants who have been living in the United States illegally for years but are married to American citizens. Under the new policy, some 500,000 undocumented spouses will be shielded from deportation and given a pathway to citizenship and the ability to work legally in the United States. It is one of the most expansive actions to protect immigrants since Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, was enacted 12 years ago to protect those who came to the United States as children. ‘These couples have been raising families, sending their kids to church and school, paying taxes, contributing to our country,’ Mr. Biden said at the White House, where he was joined by members of Congress and DACA recipients, known as Dreamers. ‘They’re living in the United States all this time with fear and uncertainty. We can fix that.'” See also, President Biden announces plan to aid longtime undocumented immigrants. Biden’s policy will make it easier for hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants married to U.S. citizens to apply for legal residency. The Washington Post, Maria Sacchetti and Cleve R. Wootson Jr., Tuesday, 18 June 2024: “Javier Quiroz crossed the U.S. border illegally from Mexico with his mother when he was 3, and that passage has shadowed him all his life. Now 33, he is a registered nurse married to a U.S. citizen in Texas who can sponsor him for a green card. They have never applied because federal law requires that Quiroz first leave the United States, with no guarantee that he may return. President Biden announced Tuesday, with Quiroz standing beside him, that immigrant spouses of American citizens may apply for permanent residency without leaving the country, washing away their fears of being separated from their families and putting them on a path to U.S. citizenship. ‘The steps I’m taking today are overwhelmingly supported by the American people, no matter what the other team says,’ Biden said, referring to Republican critics of his immigration policies. ‘The reason is simple: It embraces the American principle that we should keep families together.'” See also, President Biden is offering some migrants a pathway to citizenship. Here’s how the plan will work. Associated Press, Rebecca Santana, Tuesday, 18 June 2024: “A new Biden administration policy announced Tuesday will give roughly half a million immigrants who are married to American citizens but lack legal status in the United States a pathway to citizenship for them and their children. It is one of President Joe Biden’s most sweeping immigration policies and one that migrant advocates had been heavily lobbying the administration to undertake.” See also, Half a million immigrants could eventually get US citizenship under a sweeping new plan from Biden, Associated Press, Seung Min Kim and Stephen Groves, Tuesday, 18 June 2024: “President Joe Biden ordered expansive election-year action Tuesday to offer potential citizenship to hundreds of thousands of immigrants without legal status in the U.S., aiming to balance his recent aggressive crackdown on the southern border that enraged advocates and many Democratic lawmakers. The president announced that his administration will, in the coming months, allow certain U.S. citizens’ spouses without legal status to apply for permanent residency and eventually citizenship without having to first depart the country. The action by Biden, a Democrat, could affect upwards of half a million immigrants, according to senior administration officials.”
House Ethics Committee expands investigation into Florida Republican Representative Matt Gaetz. The rare, detailed update from the bipartisan panel clarified the status of the investigation and detailed new lines of inquiry into the Florida lawmaker. The Washington Post, Jacqueline Alemany, Tuesday, 18 June 2024: “The House Ethics Committee is still investigating allegations against Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), including that he may have engaged in sexual misconduct and illegal drug use, and accepted improper gifts. It has opened up new lines of inquiry into the Florida lawmaker, according to a statement released by the bipartisan panel on Tuesday. The 10-member committee, which rarely discloses information about ongoing investigations, clarified the status of its review of Gaetz in the lengthy statement. Since initiating its investigation in April 2021, the panel wrote that it has ‘determined that certain of the allegations merit continued review’ and that the committee has identified additional allegations that ‘merit review,’ while at the same time dispensing with other charges.” See also, House Ethics Committee investigation into Matt Gaetz is now reviewing allegations of sexual misconduct and illicit drug use, Associated Press, Kevin Freking, Tuesday, 18 June 2024: “The House Ethics Committee on Tuesday gave an unusual public update into its long-running investigation of Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., saying its review now includes whether Gaetz engaged in sexual misconduct and illicit drug use, accepted improper gifts and sought to obstruct government investigations of his conduct. The committee also announced that it was no longer reviewing four other allegations involving the congressman, including that he shared inappropriate images or videos with colleagues on the House floor or that he accepted a bribe or converted campaign funds to personal use.”
Wednesday, 19 June 2024:
Louisiana Requires All Public Classrooms to Display Ten Commandments. A law signed by Governor Jeff Landry on Wednesday makes the state the only one with such a mandate. Critics have vowed to mount a constitutional challenge. The New York Times, Rick Rojas, Wednesday, 19 June 2024: “Gov. Jeff Landry signed legislation on Wednesday requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in every public classroom in Louisiana, making the state the only one with such a mandate and reigniting the debate over how porous the boundary between church and state should be. Critics, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, vowed a legal fight against the law they deemed ‘blatantly unconstitutional.’ But it is a battle that proponents are prepared, and in many ways, eager, to take on. ‘I can’t wait to be sued,” Mr. Landry said on Saturday at a Republican fund-raiser in Nashville, according to The Tennessean. And on Wednesday, as he signed the measure, he argued that the Ten Commandments contained valuable lessons for students. ‘If you want to respect the rule of law,’ he said, ‘you’ve got to start from the original law giver, which was Moses.’ The legislation is part of a broader campaign by conservative Christian groups to amplify public expressions of faith, and provoke lawsuits that could reach the Supreme Court, where they expect a friendlier reception than in years past. That presumption is rooted in recent rulings, particularly one in 2022 in which the court sided with a high school football coach who argued that he had a constitutional right to pray at the 50-yard line after his team’s games.” See also, Louisiana requires Ten Commandments to be displayed in public classrooms, The Washington Post, Anumita Kaur, Wednesday, 19 June 2024: “Gov. Jeff Landry (R) signed legislation Wednesday requiring every public classroom in Louisiana to display the Ten Commandments, becoming the only state with such a law and inflaming tensions over the separation between church and state. ‘This bill mandates the display of the Ten Commandments in every classroom — public elementary, secondary and post-education schools — in the state of Louisiana, because if you want to respect the rule of law, you’ve got to start from the original lawgiver, which was Moses,’ Landry said at a bill-signing ceremony. Critics vowed to challenge the law in court, calling it unconstitutional and warning that it will lead to religious coercion of students. ‘The First Amendment promises that we all get to decide for ourselves what religious beliefs, if any, to hold and practice, without pressure from the government,’ the Louisiana chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, the Freedom From Religion Foundation and Americans United for Separation of Church and State said in a joint statement Wednesday. ‘Politicians have no business imposing their preferred religious doctrine on students and families in public schools.'” See also, New law requires all Louisiana public school classrooms to display the Ten Commandments, Associated Press, Sara Cline, Wednesday, 19 June 2024: “Louisiana has become the first state to require that the Ten Commandments be displayed in every public school classroom, the latest move from a GOP-dominated Legislature pushing a conservative agenda under a new governor. The legislation that Republican Gov. Jeff Landry signed into law on Wednesday requires a poster-sized display of the Ten Commandments in ‘large, easily readable font’ in all public classrooms, from kindergarten to state-funded universities. ‘If you want to respect the rule of law, you’ve got to start from the original lawgiver, which was Moses’ who got the commandments from God, Landry said.”
Thursday, 20 June 2024:
Judge Aileen Cannon in Trump Documents Case Rejected Suggestions to Step Aside. Two federal judges in South Florida privately urged Cannon to decline the case when it was assigned to her last year, according to two people briefed on the matter. She chose to keep it. The New York Times, Charlie Savage and Alan Feuer, Thursday, 20 June 2024: “Shortly after Judge Aileen M. Cannon drew the assignment in June 2023 to oversee former President Donald J. Trump’s classified documents case, two more experienced colleagues on the federal bench in Florida urged her to pass it up and hand it off to another jurist, according to two people briefed on the conversations. The judges who approached Judge Cannon — including the chief judge in the Southern District of Florida, Cecilia M. Altonaga — each asked her to consider whether it would be better if she were to decline the high-profile case, allowing it to go to another judge, the two people said. But Judge Cannon, who was appointed by Mr. Trump, wanted to keep the case and refused the judges’ entreaties. Her assignment drew attention because she has scant trial experience and had previously shown unusual favor to Mr. Trump by intervening in a way that helped him in the criminal investigation that led to his indictment, only to be reversed in a sharply critical rebuke by a conservative appeals court panel. The extraordinary and previously undisclosed effort by Judge Cannon’s colleagues to persuade her to step aside adds another dimension to the increasing criticism of how she has gone on to handle the case.”
Friday, 21 June 2024:
Supreme Court Upholds Law Disarming Domestic Abusers. The decision amounted to a retreat from what had been an unbroken series of major decisions expanding gun rights that started in 2008. The New York Times, Adam Liptak, Friday, 21 June 2024: “The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the government can take guns away from people subject to restraining orders for domestic violence, limiting the sweep of a blockbuster decision in 2022 that had vastly expanded Second Amendment rights. Indeed, Friday’s decision amounted to a retreat from what had been an unbroken series of major rulings favoring gun rights that started in 2008, when the court first recognized an individual constitutional right to keep firearms in the home for self-defense. In the 2022 decision, the court established a right to carry guns outside the home and announced a new test to assess all sorts of gun control laws, one that looked to historical practices to judge their constitutionality. That new test has sown confusion in the lower courts, with some judges striking down laws that had been on the books for decades. The case decided Friday, United States v. Rahimi, asked whether a Texas man could be prosecuted under federal law making it a crime for people subject to domestic violence restraining orders to possess guns. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority in the 8-to-1 decision, said that the answer was yes and that Second Amendment rights have limits. ‘When a restraining order contains a finding that an individual poses a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner, that individual may — consistent with the Second Amendment — be banned from possessing firearms while the order is in effect,’ the chief justice wrote. ‘Since the founding, our nation’s firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms.’… Legal experts said Friday’s ruling was a victory for supporters of gun regulations.” See also, Supreme Court upholds gun ban for domestic violence restraining orders, The Washington Post, Ann E. Marimow, Friday, 21 June 2024: “The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal law that prevents people who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders from having firearms — its first major Second Amendment decision since a 2022 ruling that expanded gun rights. The court said the Constitution permits laws that strip guns from those deemed dangerous, one of a number of firearms restrictions that have been imperiled since the conservative majority bolstered gun rights in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen…. But the decision was limited in scope, leaving for another day more difficult questions about the viability of other gun-control measures, such as laws banning military-style semiautomatic rifles and large-capacity magazines, or restrictions on gun possession by nonviolent offenders.”
Monday, 24 June 2024:
Where Joe Biden and Donald Trump Stand on Abortion, Democracy, the Economy, Immigration, Israel and Gaza, Social Security, and Medicare, The New York Times, Maggie Astor, Monday, 24 June 2024: “Maybe it seems as though we have been here before. But this rerun of the 2020 election is happening in a vastly changed world, with urgent stakes for matters both domestic and international. We have learned more about President Biden and former President Donald J. Trump over the last four years, too. Here is what both men have done and want to do on some of the most pressing issues, starting with abortion, democracy, the economy, immigration, Israel and Gaza and Social Security and Medicare.”
Tuesday, 25 June 2024:
Judge Juan Merchan Rules Trump Can Now Criticize Witnesses Who Testified Against Him. Merchan, who oversaw Donald Trump’s criminal trial, loosened the rules governing what Trump can say about it, and said his gag order would be lifted after his July 11 sentencing. The New York Times, Ben Protess, Tuesday, 25 June 2024: “A judge on Tuesday loosened a gag order on Donald J. Trump in his Manhattan criminal case, allowing the former president to criticize witnesses who took the stand against him as well as others involved in the trial that led to his conviction. The judge, Juan M. Merchan, who presided over Mr. Trump’s seven-week trial this spring, ruled that Mr. Trump is now free to complain about the prosecution’s witnesses, including his former fixer, Michael D. Cohen. Once Mr. Trump is sentenced on July 11, the judge ruled, he can publicly assail others who are currently covered by the gag order, including prosecutors and their relatives. Mr. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, is still subject to a different order prohibiting him from releasing the identities of jurors, or publicly attacking them by name. But under Justice Merchan’s ruling, Mr. Trump can now complain broadly about the jury that convicted him. The judge appeared conflicted about his decision involving the jury on Tuesday, writing that ‘it would be this court’s strong preference to extend those protections,’ but he said that he felt the law required him to drop the restrictions. The unwinding of the order could unleash Mr. Trump’s wrathful rhetoric about the people involved in the case against him just as he prepares to debate President Biden this week.”
Golf shirts and classified documents: New court filings show Trump’s clutter. Pushing back on Trump’s claim that prosecutors mishandled evidence, special counsel Jack Smith shows the evidence was a mess. The Washington Post, Perry Stein and Devlin Barrett, Tuesday, 25 June 2024: “Special counsel Jack Smith revealed new photos in a court filing Monday evening that depict how haphazardly Donald Trump stored classified materials at his Florida property post-presidency, with golf shirts stuffed into boxes alongside the sensitive materials, newspaper clippings and other mementos. The images — a grab bag of national security secrets, souvenirs and various odds and ends — are part of prosecutors’ effort to show that the dozens of boxes containing government materials at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence and private club were so messy and disorganized that investigators could not preserve the precise order of the contents they retrieved. The Justice Department has released photos of the classified documents before, but the new filing offers the largest number of such images. In one, a document with redactions sits in a box on top of an edition of The Washington Post with a front-page story describing Trump’s difficult relationship with the FBI. Next to that box sit two cases of Diet Coke bottles.”
Thursday, 27 June 2024:
A Fumbling Performance, and a Panicking Party. President Biden’s shaky, halting debate performance has Democrats talking about replacing him on the ticket. The New York Times, Peter Baker, Thursday, 27 June 2024: “President Biden hoped to build fresh momentum for his re-election bid by agreeing to debate nearly two months before he is to be formally nominated. Instead, his halting and disjointed performance on Thursday night prompted a wave of panic among Democrats and reopened discussion of whether he should be the nominee at all. Over the course of 90 minutes, a raspy-voiced Mr. Biden struggled to deliver his lines and counter a sharp though deeply dishonest former President Donald J. Trump, raising doubts about the incumbent president’s ability to wage a vigorous and competitive campaign four months before the election. Rather than dispel concerns about his age, Mr. Biden, 81, made it the central issue. Democrats who have defended the president for months against his doubters — including members of his own administration — traded frenzied phone calls and text messages within minutes of the start of the debate as it became clear that Mr. Biden was not at his sharpest. Practically in despair, some took to social media to express shock, while others privately discussed among themselves whether it was too late to persuade the president to step aside in favor of a younger candidate. ‘Biden is about to face a crescendo of calls to step aside,’ said a veteran Democratic strategist who has staunchly backed Mr. Biden publicly. ‘Joe had a deep well of affection among Democrats. It has run dry.'” See also, Trump’s Debate Performance: Relentless Attacks and Falsehoods. The former president’s remarks onstage, repeated often on the campaign trail, were striking with his opponent standing a few feet away. The New York Times, Michael Gold, Thursday, 27 June 2024: “For most of Thursday night’s debate, former President Donald J. Trump verbally pummeled President Biden, painting his political opponent as an ineffective leader with a torrent of attacks that were frequently false, lacked context or were vague enough to be misleading. Mr. Trump went directly after Mr. Biden’s personal character, calling him ‘weak’ and little respected by global leaders who were ‘laughing’ at him. He tried to accuse Mr. Biden of corruption, dubbing the president as a ‘Manchurian candidate’ who was ‘paid by China,’ a nod to frequent accusations of undue influence for which there is no evidence. He directly blamed Mr. Biden for a wave of immigrants ‘coming in and killing our citizens at a level we’ve never’ seen, a hyperbolic claim that is not backed up by available statistics. And in a wild misrepresentation of facts, Mr. Trump claimed falsely that Mr. Biden ‘encouraged’ Russia to attack Ukraine, even though Mr. Biden has consistently tried to rally support for Ukraine and his administration took active steps to warn President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia not to invade.” See also, Debate Fact Check: Biden and Trump on the Economy, Immigration, and Foreign Policy, The New York Times, The New York Times staff, Thursday, 27 June 2024: “President Biden and former President Donald J. Trump faced off on Thursday in the first presidential debate of the general election. We examined their policy claims, personal attacks and their records in office.” See also, Six Takeaways From the First Presidential Debate. In a testy personal clash, President Biden failed to ease worries about his age, Donald Trump forcefully made his case (with wild claims and exaggerations), and the moderators held their fact-checking fire. The New York Times, Shane Goldmacher and Jonathan Swan, Thursday, 27 June 2024: “President Biden struggled through his first debate of the 2024 campaign against Donald J. Trump, meandering and mumbling through answers as the former president pressed his case for a second term with limited resistance from his rival. They disagreed on abortion, inflation, climate change, foreign affairs and immigration. But the sharpest contrast was in their presentation. Mr. Trump was confident and forceful, even as he let loose a stream of misleading attacks and falsehoods. Mr. Biden spoke with a hoarse and halting voice, closing his eyes occasionally to gather thoughts that sometimes couldn’t be corralled. Democratic anxiety rose by the minute. About halfway through, people close to Mr. Biden put out word that he had a cold. Mr. Trump relentlessly hammered Mr. Biden on areas of vulnerability, sending exaggerations and embellishments — he was the ‘greatest’ and his opponent the ‘worst’ — flying unchecked through the audience-free CNN studio in Atlanta.” See also, Biden stumbles in fiery debate as Trump spreads falsehoods. The president called Trump a ‘convicted felon’ and ‘whiner,’ while his Republican rival said Biden’s performance in office has been ‘absolutely criminal.’ The Washington Post, Toulouse Olorunnipa, Michael Scherer, and Isaac Arnsdorf, Thursday, 27 June 2024: “President Biden struggled through a raspy voice and uneven delivery Thursday to unleash a charged and deeply personal attack on his longtime rival, former president Donald Trump, who responded in kind with a blizzard of personal gibes and falsehoods at the first presidential debate of the cycle. Biden noticeably stumbled at times as he delivered his retorts with a thin voice, mumbled words and occasional look of confusion — a performance that drew immediate worries among Democrats concerned about his age and perceived fragility among many voters. Trump, who attempted to deliver a less voluble and defiant performance than past debates, based many of his answers around falsehoods that went unchallenged by the debate moderators.” See also, Fact-checking the first Biden-Trump 2024 presidential debate. Trump made dozens of false claims, many of them his favorites. Biden made a few. The Washington Post, Glenn Kessler, published on Friday, 28 June 2024. See also, Fact Checking the CNN presidential debate, CNN Politics, CNN Staff, Thursday, 27 June 2024: “Both President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump made false and misleading claims during CNN’s presidential debate on Thursday – but Trump did so far more than Biden, just like in their debates in 2020. Trump made more than 30 false claims at the Thursday debate. They included numerous claims that CNN and others have already debunked during the current presidential campaign or prior. Trump’s repeat falsehoods included his assertions that some Democratic-led states allow babies to be executed after birth, that every legal scholar and everybody in general wanted Roe v. Wade overturned, that there were no terror attacks during his presidency, that Iran didn’t fund terror groups during his presidency, that the US has provided more aid to Ukraine than Europe has, that Biden for years referred to Black people as ‘super predators,’ that Biden is planning to quadruple people’s taxes, that then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi turned down 10,000 National Guard troops for the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, that Americans don’t pay the cost of his tariffs on China and other countries, that Europe accepts no American cars, that he is the president who got the Veterans Choice program through Congress, and that fraud marred the results of the 2020 election. Trump also added some new false claims, such as his assertions that the US currently has its biggest budget deficit and its biggest trade deficit with China. Both records actually occurred under Trump. Biden made at least nine false or misleading claims in the debate. He used false numbers while describing two of his key Medicare policies, falsely claimed that no US troops had been killed on his watch, repeated his usual misleading figure about billionaires’ tax rates, baselessly claimed that Trump wants to eliminate Social Security, falsely said that the unemployment rate was 15% when he took office, inaccurately said that the Border Patrol union had endorsed him before clarifying that he was talking about agents’ support for the border bill he had backed, and exaggerated Trump’s 2020 comments about the possibility of treating Covid-19 by injecting disinfectant. Here is a detailed fact check from CNN’s reporting team.” See also, Biden’s debate performance spurs Democratic panic about his ability to lead the party against Trump, Associated Press, Steve Peoples and Zeke Miller, Thursday, 27 June 2024: “Above all, Joe Biden’s allies wanted him to demonstrate strength and energy on the debate stage to help put to rest questions about the 81-year-old Democrat’s physical and mental acuity. But on the biggest stage in U.S. politics on Thursday night, Biden did not meet their modest expectations. And by the end of the 90-minute showdown, the Democratic president’s allies — party strategists and rank-and-file voters alike — descended into all-out panic following a debate performance punctuated by repeated stumbles, uncomfortable pauses, and a quiet speaking style that was often difficult to understand. Publicly and privately, Democrats questioned whether the party could or should replace him as the party’s presidential nominee against the 78-year-old Republican former President Donald Trump this fall. ‘I’m not the only one whose heart is breaking right now. There’s a lot of people who watched this tonight and felt terribly for Joe Biden,’ former Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill said on MSNBC. ‘I don’t know if things can be done to fix this.'”
Judge Aileen Cannon to Revisit Key Legal Finding in Trump Classified Documents Case. Even though another federal court has ruled on the matter, Judge Aileen Cannon said she would hold a hearing to determine whether prosecutors can use information from one of the former president’s lawyers. The New York Times, Alan Feuer, Thursday, 27 June 2024: “The federal judge overseeing former President Donald J. Trump’s classified documents case said on Thursday that she intended to look anew at a hugely consequential legal victory that prosecutors won last year and that served as a cornerstone of the obstruction charges filed against Mr. Trump. In her ruling, the judge, Aileen M. Cannon, said she would hold a hearing to reconsider another judge’s decision to allow prosecutors to pierce the attorney-client privilege of one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers under what is known as the crime-fraud exception. That provision allows the government to get around the normal protections afforded to a lawyer’s communications with a client if it can prove that legal advice was used to commit a crime. Depending on how Judge Cannon ultimately rules, her decision to redo the fraught and lengthy legal arguments about the crime-fraud exception could deal a serious blow to the obstruction charges in the indictment of Mr. Trump. Even if she ends up confirming the initial judge’s findings, holding yet another hearing on the issue will take more time and play into Mr. Trump’s strategy of delaying the case from going to trial for as long as possible.”
Friday, 28 June 2024:
Supreme Court Justices Limit the Power of Federal Agencies, Imperiling an Array of Regulations. A foundational 1984 decision had required courts to defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statues, underpinning regulations on health care, safety, and the environment. The New York Times, Adam Liptak, Friday, 28 June 2024: “The Supreme Court on Friday reduced the power of executive agencies by sweeping aside a longstanding legal precedent, endangering countless regulations and transferring power from the executive branch to Congress and the courts. The precedent, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the most cited in American law, requires courts to defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes. There have been 70 Supreme Court decisions relying on Chevron, along with 17,000 in the lower courts. The decision is all but certain to prompt challenges to the actions of an array of federal agencies, including those regulating the environment, health care and consumer safety. The vote was 6 to 3, dividing along ideological lines. ‘Chevron is overruled,’ Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. ‘Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.’ In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan said the ruling amounted to a judicial power grab. ‘A rule of judicial humility,’ she wrote, ‘gives way to a rule of judicial hubris.’ Justice Kagan summarized her dissent from the bench, a rare move and a sign of profound disagreement. ‘Courts, in particular this court, will now play a commanding role’ in setting national policy, she said. The court has overturned major precedents in each of the last three terms: on abortion in 2022, on affirmative action in 2023 and now on the power of administrative agencies.” See also, Here’s What the Court’s Chevron Ruling could Mean in Everyday Terms. The decision is expected to prompt a rush of litigation challenging regulations across the entire federal government, from food safety to the environment. The New York Times, Coral Davenport, Christina Jewett, Alan Rappeport, Margot Sanger-Katz, Noam Scheiber, and Noah Weiland, Friday, 29 June 2024: “The Supreme Court’s decision on Friday to limit the broad regulatory authority of federal agencies could lead to the elimination or weakening of thousands of rules on the environment, health care, worker protection, food and drug safety, telecommunications, the financial sector and more. The decision is a major victory in a decades-long campaign by conservative activists to shrink the power of the federal government, limiting the reach and authority of what those activists call ‘the administrative state.’ The court’s opinion could make it easier for opponents of federal regulations to challenge them in court, prompting a rush of new litigation, while also injecting uncertainty into businesses and industries. ‘If Americans are worried about their drinking water, their health, their retirement account, discrimination on the job, if they fly on a plane, drive a car, if they go outside and breathe the air — all of these day-to-day activities are run through a massive universe of federal agency regulations,’ said Lisa Heinzerling, an expert in administrative law at Georgetown University. ‘And this decision now means that more of those regulations could be struck down by the courts.’ The decision effectively ends a legal precedent known as ‘Chevron deference,’ after a 1984 Supreme Court ruling. That decision held that when Congress passes a law that lacks specificity, courts must give wide leeway to decisions made by the federal agencies charged with implementing that law. The theory was that scientists, economists and other specialists at the agencies have more expertise than judges in determining regulations and that the executive branch is also more accountable to voters.”
Supreme Court curbs federal agency power, overturning Chevron precedent. The Chevron precedent was targeted by conservatives who say the government gives too much power to federal bureaucrats. The Washington Post, Ann E. Marimow and Justin Jouvenal, Friday, 28 June 2024: “The Supreme Court on Friday sharply curtailed the power of federal agencies to regulate vast parts of American life, sweeping aside a 40-year-old legal precedent that the government relied on to defend thousands of rules on everything from the environment to banking to drugs. The 6-3 opinion along ideological lines was a victory for conservatives, who have long said federal agencies wield too much power to impose regulations that burden business and stifle innovation. Legal experts said the decision will lead to a flood of challenges to regulations. For decades, the court’s decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council directed judges to defer to the reasonable interpretations of federal agency officials in cases that involve how to administer ambiguous federal laws.”
Supreme Court Says Prosecutors Improperly Used an Obstruction Law in Charging a Pro-Trump January 6 Rioter. The ruling that the Justice Department misused a 2002 law in charging a pro-Trump rioter who entered the Capitol could have an impact on hundreds of other cases, including one against Donald Trump. The New York Times, Adam Liptak, Friday, 28 June 2024: “The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that federal prosecutors had improperly used an obstruction law to prosecute some members of the pro-Trump mob that stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The ruling could affect the prosecutions of hundreds of rioters out of the more than 1,400 who have been charged with an array of offenses for taking part in the effort to block certification of the 2020 election results. It could also have an effect on part of the federal case against former President Donald J. Trump accusing him of plotting to overturn his 2020 loss at the polls. But the precise impact on those cases will not become clear until trial courts review them in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Prosecutors had argued that the law applied to efforts to obstruct an ‘official proceeding’ — the joint session of Congress that took place on Jan. 6, 2021, to certify the Electoral College results. But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, read the law narrowly, saying it applied only when the defendant’s actions impaired the integrity of physical evidence. Lower courts will now apply that strict standard, and it may lead them to dismiss charges against some defendants, although most of those charged or convicted under the obstruction law also face other charges.” See also, Highlights of the Supreme Court Ruling on Obstruction Charge in January 6 Case. The decision concerned the scope of an obstruction charge to address accounting fraud and the destruction of evidence. Among the defendants facing it is former President Donald Trump. The New York Times, Friday, 28 June 2024. See also, Justices strike obstruction charge for January 6 defendant, likely impacting others. Hundreds have been charged with felony obstruction, among other counts, for their role in the 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. The Washington Post, Ann E. Marimow and Devlin Barrett, Friday, 28 June 2024: “Federal prosecutors improperly charged a Jan. 6 defendant with obstruction, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday, a decision that will likely upend many cases against rioters who disrupted the certification of the 2020 presidential election and one which Donald Trump’s legal team may use to try to whittle down one of his criminal cases. After the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, federal prosecutors charged more than 350 participants among the pro-Trump mob with obstructing or impeding an official proceeding. The charge carries a 20-year maximum penalty and is part of a law enacted after the exposure of massive fraud and shredding of documents during the collapse of the energy giant Enron. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said prosecutors’ overly broad reading of the statute gives them too much discretion to seek a 20-year maximum sentence ‘for acts Congress saw fit to punish only with far shorter terms of imprisonment.'”
To Serve His Country, President Biden Should Leave the Race, The New York Times, Editorial Board, Friday, 28 June 2024: “President Biden has repeatedly and rightfully described the stakes in this November’s presidential election as nothing less than the future of American democracy. Donald Trump has proved himself to be a significant jeopardy to that democracy — an erratic and self-interested figure unworthy of the public trust. He systematically attempted to undermine the integrity of elections. His supporters have described, publicly, a 2025 agenda that would give him the power to carry out the most extreme of his promises and threats. If he is returned to office, he has vowed to be a different kind of president, unrestrained by the checks on power built into the American political system. Mr. Biden has said that he is the candidate with the best chance of taking on this threat of tyranny and defeating it. His argument rests largely on the fact that he beat Mr. Trump in 2020. That is no longer a sufficient rationale for why Mr. Biden should be the Democratic nominee this year. At Thursday’s debate, the president needed to convince the American public that he was equal to the formidable demands of the office he is seeking to hold for another term. Voters, however, cannot be expected to ignore what was instead plain to see: Mr. Biden is not the man he was four years ago. The president appeared on Thursday night as the shadow of a great public servant. He struggled to explain what he would accomplish in a second term. He struggled to respond to Mr. Trump’s provocations. He struggled to hold Mr. Trump accountable for his lies, his failures and his chilling plans. More than once, he struggled to make it to the end of a sentence.” See also, The Reckoning of Joe Biden. For the President to insist on remaining the Democratic candidate would be an act not only of self-delusion but of national endangerment. The New Yorker, David Remnick, published on Saturday, 29 June 2024.
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!