Mediaboss Marketing

Harry SiegelNew York Daily News

Before everywhere had been mapped, the places past the end of the known world would often be illustrated with monsters.

On one 16th-century globe, the sea off the coast of East Asia bears the inscription: Hic Sunt Dracones.

Whats happening now is off of the map, yet somehow on a potential collision course with Albany, New York, of all godforsaken places.

Of course, there was big news this past week from New Yorks justice system.

Democrats are in a mid-level appeals court contesting last years decision from the states top court to reject the maps theyd drawn to protect their own seats and replace them with maps drawn to give voters more say.

Thats happening as the Court of Appeals which, bizarrely enough, is New Yorks top court while the so-called Supreme Court is its main trial court is without a chief judge or a tie-breaking seventh vote after an unprecedented rejection of Democratic Gov. Hochuls nominee by Democratic lawmakers.

People are also reading

Oh, and word leaked out on Thursday evening that a Manhattan grand jury has indicted Donald Trump.

Tabloid-friendly loudmouth lowlife son of a rich man, among other things, who made his bones as a New York real estate guy, then a reality TV guy and then you cant make this stuff up! president of the United States, and is now the first one ever to subsequently face criminal charges.

The case of The People of the State of New York against Donald J. Trump is still sealed, but reportedly contains more than 30 counts even as hes running for president again.

Surely, none of those charges will have anything to do with the calls the then president made to officials in Georgia, which has its own local grand jury convened, to try and pressure them into finding the votes he needed to flip the state and steal a second term.

Nor will the charges be tied to the special counsel who has a federal grand jury in Washington looking into Trumps efforts before leaving office to overturn the election he lost, along with the classified government documents he took with him to Mar-a-Lago.

Instead, New Yorks case is reportedly centered on the $420,000 that Trumps former fixer Michael Cohen got paid by the Trump Organization after fronting $130,000 to porn star Stormy Daniels in exchange for her silence during the 2016 election about sleeping with the Donald a decade earlier, just after Melania had given birth to their son.

Thats an alleged misdemeanor, for falsifying business records, that the feds and the previous Manhattan district attorney had both decided not to charge, and where the statute of limitations seemed to have passed.

New DA Alvin Bragg, however, evidently thinks he can resurrect that zombie case and win a felony conviction against Trump through the novel legal theory that the hush money was, in fact, an unreported campaign donation.

Talk about a jury-rigged, haha, legal theory.

That term, by the way, is an old piece of sailors slang for something cobbled together from whatevers available. Natch!

Back to Albany, the famous line about how DAs could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich came from a 1985 Daily News interview with the states newly appointed chief judge a few years before he ended up in prison himself for trying to blackmail his lover while threatening her daughter.

About 40 years and a million New York scandals later the question now is if Bragg can get a judge to let him present his theory, and then get 12 Manhattan jurors to convict Trump on it, and then get the states appeals courts to stand by that conviction.

If any of that doesnt happen, Trump will scream about total vindication.

In the meantime, he will scream about the politicization of the states courts and its mostly elected judges who in practice are generally selected by each countys dominant political party.

Trump is a terrible, terribly guilty person on lots of counts but its not going to be hard for him to argue, in court and in the court of public opinion, that this is selective prosecution.

And, really, what other kind of prosecution of a former president can there possibly be?

(Trump may also argue, as John Edwards successfully did when he was prosecuted by the feds after supporters of his presidential campaign paid his mistress $1 million to keep quiet, that he was merely hiding his affair from his family.)

Well know soon enough how Bragg makes his case. Whatever it ends up, bet on future presidents however un-Trumpy getting subpoenas from local prosecutors who identify with the other party.

We are in uncharted waters.

Harry Siegel (harrysiegel@gmail.com) is an editor at The City and a columnist for the Daily News.

Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!

Here is the original post:
Democrats in uncharted waters with selective prosecution of Trump ... - Press of Atlantic City

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribunes daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

WASHINGTON Congressional Republicans are pushing an energy bill that would overturn much of President Joe Bidens climate agenda, and two South Texas Democrats are helping them.

U.S. Reps. Vicente Gonzalez of McAllen and Henry Cuellar of Laredo plan to vote for Republicans sweeping energy and permitting bill, the two lawmakers confirmed to The Texas Tribune. The bill could get a vote in the House as soon as this week before Congress breaks for its Easter recess.

The bill, dubbed the Lower Energy Costs Act, would loosen restrictions on and expand access to fossil fuel production, rolling back several provisions included in Democrats signature climate and social spending package passed last year. Democrats fiercely oppose the legislation as essentially sabotaging their years of negotiating that led to the nations biggest ever investment in combating climate change. Biden has said he will veto the Republican bill.

In 2022, Gonzalez and Cuellar ultimately voted along with their party to support the Democratic climate bill known as the Inflation Reduction Act. However, they expressed concern that any added burden on the oil and gas industry would negatively impact their constituents. The two withheld public support for the bill until just before they cast their votes and raised concerns within their caucus with provisions as it was being negotiated.

Both members represent districts heavily populated by blue-collar oil and gas workers, and Republicans relentlessly used high fuel costs to bludgeon Democrats in last years midterm elections.

"In order to fully realize the benefits of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, remain competitive on the world stage, and ensure the American people have access to safer roads and bridges and reliable and affordable energy, we must improve federal environmental review and permitting processes," Gonzalez said in a statement to the Tribune. While this package is far from perfect, it is a step forward. I am hopeful that we can work in a bipartisan and bicameral way to make progress on this issue and deliver for our constituents.

Politico first reported their intention to defect.

Texas Democrats have a long history of defending the states oil and gas industry, but all Democrats eventually voted for their partys bill. It contained a host of priorities Biden touted from his campaign, including boosting clean energy investments and helping lower health care costs. Democrats had extremely slim majorities in both chambers, and voting against the bill would have been a colossal affront to party leaders.

Other Texas Democrats recoiled at the Republican package, saying it rolled back essential environmental protections at the expense of the health of vulnerable communities. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin, took to the House floor to denounce the package as the "Polluters over people act."

"This dirty bill will not bring our energy costs down. But it will drive our hospital bills and our doctor bills way up," Doggett said.

Cuellar and Gonzalezs vote on the Republican package is a sign of support for undoing provisions they voted for only months ago. The new bill includes a rollback of a fee on methane emissions an extremely potent greenhouse gas that was a key feature of the Inflation Reduction Act, and would open up more public land for oil and gas drilling. The Republican package also lowers standards for environmental reviews for new infrastructure projects and promotes domestic mineral mining a key component for renewable energy.

The two Democrats have considerably greater cover voting for the Republican bill. With the Senate still in Democratic control and the House Republican majority too small to overcome a presidential veto, the bill is all but dead on arrival. Votes by Cuellar and Gonzalez will be largely symbolic.

But that symbolism distancing themselves from the more progressive wing of their party and standing by local industry could be key as Republicans continue to eye South Texas as potential winnable territory. Both Congress members faced competitive challenges last year, and Gonzalez continues to be a Republican target into 2024.

We cant wait to welcome you Sept. 21-23 to the 2023 Texas Tribune Festival, our multiday celebration of big, bold ideas about politics, public policy and the days news all taking place just steps away from the Texas Capitol. When tickets go on sale in May, Tribune members will save big. Donate to join or renew today.

Continue reading here:
Texas Reps. Vicente Gonzalez, Henry Cuellar to vote with GOP on ... - The Texas Tribune

Industry experts remain optimistic theres still time for Democrats to do something meaningful on infrastructure, especially considering Whitmers past interest. They insist, though, that the only way to make gains on road repair is coming up with new, ongoing funding.

We certainly will never give up hope, said Lance Binoniemi, vice president of government affairs for the Michigan Infrastructure and Transportation Association, which represents road and water infrastructure construction companies across the state.

But make no mistake, it will take political courage to find a long-term, sustainable road funding solution, he continued. It's as simple as that.

A March study commissioned by the Michigan Infrastructure and Transportation Association found that Michigan needs up to $3.9 billion more per year to fully fund road repairs, up from the $2.2 billion annual gap projected in a 2016 study of needs commissioned by the Snyder administration.

The new estimate is higher even though it takes into account the additional state and federal funds invested in infrastructure. The report concludes that failing to fix and maintain existing roads before they deteriorate further will continue to significantly increase road funding potentially up to $11 billion annually.

Michigans infrastructure is primarily funded by a 27.2 cents-per-gallon tax on gasoline and diesel fuel. The state has the seventh-highest per-gallon tax in the country, in part because the 6 percent sales tax applies to fuel.

Currently, 33 percent of Michigan state-operated roads eligible for federal aid are in poor condition, according to the states Transportation Asset Management Council. Local roads funded by cities and counties are in worse shape, with 45 percent in poor condition.

"The cost of inaction is not just imagined here it's real," Brad Williams of the Detroit Regional Chamber of Commerce said at a March 7 press conference on road funding. "If we don't do something soon, you know these costs are only going to go through the roof.

Efforts to come up with a better long-term funding mechanism for Michigans infrastructure have largely fallen flat.

A 2015 ballot initiative to raise new revenue for roads was rejected at the ballot box. The subsequent legislative deal signed by Snyder designed to devote another $1.2 annually to roads through an increase in vehicle registration fees and fuel taxes didnt fully kick in until 2021 and also pulled from the states general fund.

Getting that deal through took years of negotiations and was still politically controversial and subsequent efforts by Whitmer to fix the damn roads and reopen discussions about gas tax hikes were rebuffed by a then-Republican-majority Legislature.

Whitmers suggestion when she took office in 2019 was to raise the gas tax by 45 cents per gallon, an idea that was dismissed as ludicrous by Republicans and even made many Democrats wary.

Addressing the states road funding needs now would be no less politically difficult. The MITA-commissioned study explored several options that would make up the difference, including:

Michigan Democrats now control the Legislature and the governors office and so could, in theory, make headway on road funding. But their slim majorities in both chambers, which includes lawmakers in politically competitive districts, means any serious effort would need at least some Republican buy-in, said Adrian Hemond, a Democratic strategist and CEO of the firm Grassroots Midwest.

A road funding package means raising new revenues that means raising somebody's taxes, he said. Nobody in a vulnerable seat wants to vote for that. Nobody in leadership wants people in vulnerable seats to vote for that. There's really not a way to make that happen in a politically responsible way without it being bipartisan.

Whitmer told Bridge Michigan in December she wont pursue another major gas tax hike. In her February budget proposal, Whitmer didnt propose any major infrastructure funding overhauls, instead focusing on past bonding investments and proposing setting aside funds to match federal government infrastructure grants that could become available.

She has expressed some interest in alternative ideas, including a fee on vehicle miles, pointing to states like Oregon that reimburse motorists for fuel taxes if they instead pay a tax based on how many miles they drive.

Industry insiders say its imperative the state consider such options as electric vehicles which dont rely on gas, but will still cause wear and tear on Michigan roads become more prevalent.

A report conducted by Anderson Economic Group for the County Road Association of Michigan found that, because Michigans main source of road funding comes from fuel taxes, the state missed out on an estimated $50 million from 2019 to 2021 from electric vehicle drivers. That shortfall will only grow as more drivers make the switch to electric vehicles.

See original here:
Michigan Democrats in no rush to prioritize fixing the damn roads - Bridge Michigan

WASHINGTON House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said Thursday night that a Democratic prosecutors criminal charges against former President Donald Trump represent nothing less than an assault on the United States of America.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has irreparably damaged our country in an effort to tilt the 2024 presidential election in favor of Democrats, according to the most powerful Republican on Capitol Hill.

As he routinely frees violent criminals to terrorize the public, he weaponized our sacred system of justice against President Donald Trump, McCarthy said in a prepared statement. The American people will not tolerate this injustice, and the House of Representatives will hold Alvin Bragg and his unprecedented abuse of power to account.

McCarthy was one of several Republicans not just criticizing Braggs charges, which remain under seal, but suggesting that Trump should not be prosecuted by a Democrat for violating the law under any circumstances. Their statements dont specify any possible charges or explain why they might be bogus, implying instead that the case is fundamentally flawed simply because Bragg is a Democrat.

The sham New York indictment of President Donald Trump is one of the clearest examples of extremist Democrats weaponizing government to attack their political opponents, Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), the No. 2 House Republican, said in a tweet.

Even Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, widely expected to be Trumps top rival for the GOP presidential nomination, called the indictment a purely political attack. The weaponization of the legal system to advance a political agenda turns the rule of law on its head, DeSantis said. It is un-American.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who has already endorsed Trumps 2024 candidacy, called the case legal voodoo and political persecution. (Meanwhile, the top two Republicans in the Senate, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Minority Whip John Thune of South Dakota, have said nothing.)

Story continues

Braggs case relates to hush money payments Trump made to former adult film star Stormy Daniels to prevent her publicizing an alleged tryst just days before the 2016 election. Trumps former attorney Michael Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to making unlawful campaign contributions for his role in the scheme, since the $130,000 payoff to Daniels amounted to a campaign expense and greatly exceeded legal contribution limits.

The following year, Cohen provided Congress with documents reflecting the series of checks Trump wrote to reimburse him for the initial payment to Daniels.

So picture this scene, Cohen told lawmakers during a hearing. In February 2017, one month into his presidency, Im visiting President Trump in the Oval Office for the first time, and its truthfully awe-inspiring. Hes showing me all around and pointing to different paintings. And he says to me something to the effect of, Dont worry, Michael. Your January and February reimbursement checks are coming. They were FedExd from New York, and it takes a while for that to get through the White House system.

Cohen is likely a main witness in Braggs case, and Republicans say hes not credible because hes a convicted criminal who repeatedly lied on Trumps behalf when he worked as the former presidents lawyer. Republicans have also noted that federal prosecutors declined to press charges against Trump over the campaign finance violation, which, they argue, indicates a weak case.

Bragg is not a federal prosecutor, so his charges could relate to state business records laws, since the payments to Cohen were labeled as legal expenses. But we dont know yet, because the charges remain under seal.

Trump may also face charges in Georgia related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, plus federal charges related to the 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol and his refusal to turn over official documents at the end of his term.

Some prominent Republicans have acknowledged the uncertainty of the situation and even gone so far as to note that former presidents of the United States are, in fact, subject to the same laws as everyone else.

No one is above the law, including former presidents, former Vice President Mike Pence said on CNN Thursday, before adding that a controversy over campaign finance shouldnt be the basis of such an unprecedented prosecution.

Former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, a Republican who opposes Trumps 2024 presidential bid, even suggested people should wait to see the facts of the case.

While the grand jury found credible facts to support the charges, it is important that the presumption of innocence follows Mr. Trump, Hutchinson said. We need to wait on the facts and for our American system of justice to work like it does for thousands of Americans every day.

But Hutchinson and Pence are outliers. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), for one, called the indictment devastating to the rule of law.

Cruz told HuffPost earlier this month that even if Trump did violate state law by creating fraudulent business expenses, that would only be a trifling offense.

It may be that you committed a crime this morning if you sped a mile an hour over the speed limit, but our justice system doesnt target someone you dont like and go searching for a needle in a haystack to bring a partisan prosecution, Cruz said.

Continued here:
Republicans Suggest Democrats Are Simply Not Allowed To Prosecute Trump - Yahoo News

A plurality of Democrats say they want President Biden to step aside and not seek a second term in the White House next year, according to a new national survey

Forty-four percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters questioned in a Monmouth University Poll released on Monday said the president should step aside and allow someone else to run as the Democratic Partys standard-bearer in 2024. A quarter of respondents said Biden should seek re-election next year, with 30% saying they had no preference.

The polls release comes as the president gears up to run for re-election.Biden has repeatedly said he intends to seek a second term in the White House, but he has yet to make any formal announcements. However, the president hinted toward a re-election campaign during a speech early last month to party leaders and activists at the DNCs winter meeting, which was held this year in Philadelphia.

BIDEN HAULS IN BIG BUCKS FOR DEMOCRATS AHEAD OF LIKELY 2024 RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN

President Joe Biden speaks at the Democratic National Committee winter meeting, Feb. 3, 2023, in Philadelphia. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

"Were just getting started," Biden told a boisterous crowd. "I intend to get more done."

"Let me ask you a simple question are you with me?" the president asked the crowd. The question instantly elicited cheers and loud chants of "four more years."

HINTING AT 2024 RE-ELECTION, BIDEN TELLS DEMOCRATS WERE JUST GETTING STARTED'

While no major Democrats are expected to primary challenge the president, best-selling author and spiritual adviser Marianne Williamson earlier this month launched her second straight long-shot bid for the partys presidential nomination.

President Biden shakes hands with supporters after addressing the crowd at the Democratic National Committee's meeting in Philadelphia on Feb. 3, 2023. (Fox News)

But if the president surprises the political word and decides not to seek another term, the Monmouth poll indicates that Democrats have no clear idea on whom theyd like to see as their partys 2024 nominee.

BIDEN APPROVAL RATING REMAINS UNDERWATER, BELOW MOST OF HIS RECENT PREDECESSORS

Just over half of those questioned (51%) couldnt offer a name when asked who they would like to see as the Democrats standard-bearer next year if the president declined to run again.

Vice President Kamala Harris speaks at the Democratic National Committee meeting, on Feb. 3, 2023, in Philadelphia. (Fox News)

Vice President Kamala Harris grabbed the backing of 13%, with Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont the runner-up in the 2016 and 2020 Democratic nomination races and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg who ran in 2020 both at 6% support. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts another 2020 Democratic presidential contender was at 4%, with California Gov. Gavin Newsom at 3%. No one else topped 1% in the survey.

While only a quarter of those questioned said they wanted Biden to run for re-election, the president enjoyed a favorable rating of 74% in the poll.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"Democrats appear to be saying they like the job Biden has done, but maybe its time for him to move on when his term is up. However, no top tier of candidates emerges when these voters are asked to name a preferred alternative. Part of that could simply be the holding pattern that Democrats are in because Biden has signaled that he will, in fact, run," Monmouth University Polling Institute director Patrick Murray said.

The Monmouth University poll was conducted March 16-20, with 542 Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters nationwide. The surveys sampling error for results in the release was plus or minus 6.3 percentage points.

See the original post here:
Only a quarter of Democrats want President Biden to run for re-election in 2024: poll - Fox News