Mediaboss Marketing

Two presidential campaigns ago, Donald J. Trump faced a brewing sex scandal that threatened to derail his bid for the White House.

On Thursday, a New York judge ensured that the very same scandal will loom over Mr. Trumps latest run for president, scheduling for March 25 a trial that could jeopardize his campaign and his freedom.

The judge, Juan M. Merchan, rejected Mr. Trumps bid to throw out the Manhattan district attorneys criminal charges against him that stem from a hush-money payment to a porn star in 2016. By setting a trial date for next month, Justice Merchan cleared the way for the first prosecution of a former American president in the nations history, ensuring that Mr. Trump will face at least one jury before Election Day.

The ruling is a crucial victory for the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg. He said he was pleased by the judges decision and was looking forward to the trial, where Mr. Trump is facing 34 felony charges and, if convicted, a maximum sentence of four years in prison.

Justice Merchans decision will reorient the public perception of Mr. Trumps convoluted legal conundrum, drawing the nations bleary eyes to Manhattan. Overall, the former president is facing 91 felony counts across four criminal indictments from prosecutors in Washington, Florida and Georgia, as well as Manhattan, all while he seeks to lock up the Republican presidential nomination. Never before has a former president wrestled with even one criminal indictment.

Until recently, Mr. Trumps federal case in Washington was first on the calendar. That case, in which the former president is charged with plotting to overturn the 2020 election, is widely thought to be the most consequential of the Trump criminal prosecutions. But the Thursday hearing cemented the reality that the Manhattan trial will soon begin.

Mr. Trump portrays the Manhattan case as trivial and too old to be relevant, but it presents a formidable threat. Unlike the federal cases in Washington and Florida, which Mr. Trump could try to shut down should he regain the White House, Mr. Braggs case is insulated from federal intervention. Mr. Trump would not be able to pardon himself or otherwise deploy the presidency as a legal shield.

Justice Merchans ruling also represented a forceful rejection of Mr. Trumps most battle-tested legal strategy: running out the clock. Facing a lengthy legal docket in courtrooms up and down the East Coast, Mr. Trump has sought to turn the calendar to his advantage, pushing for appeals and delays until November, on the assumption that the cases will halt if he is elected.

Mr. Trump attended the Lower Manhattan hearing on Thursday, and was more subdued than usual, sitting quietly with his arms at his sides as the judge scheduled the trial. As the hearing went on, he started blankly ahead, at times looking toward the ceiling, his red tie askew.

His lawyers objected fiercely to the judges decision that jury selection should begin on March 25, noting that the six-week trial would conflict with Mr. Trumps presidential campaign and with other court cases.

One of the former presidents lawyers, Todd Blanche, called the schedule unfathomable, arguing that we are in the middle of primary season, and claiming that the trial would overlap with dozens of Republican primaries and caucuses.

But Justice Merchan was impatient with such arguments. From the beginning of the hearing, the judge bristled at Mr. Blanches opposition to the date, at one point instructing him to stop interrupting me, please. He allowed Mr. Blanche little leeway to filibuster on behalf of his client, as Mr. Trumps lawyers often do.

Justice Merchan was also curt in denying the defenses request to throw out the case. Mr. Trumps lawyers had derided it as discombobulated and marred by legal defects and procedural failures. The judge was unconvinced. He declined to dismiss the charges, without elaborating.

Mr. Bragg last year became the first prosecutor to obtain an indictment of Mr. Trump. The charges accuse the former president of covering up a potential sex scandal involving the porn star Stormy Daniels during and after the 2016 presidential campaign. Mr. Bragg cast his case as an example of Mr. Trumps interfering in an election: Prosecutors argue that he hid damaging information from voters just days before they headed to the polls.

Mr. Bragg had been willing for the Washington election interference case to jump ahead in line, underscoring its historical significance. But appeals from Mr. Trump postponed that trial, which had initially been scheduled for March 4.

The timing of Mr. Braggs trial leaves the door open for Mr. Trumps Washington trial to take place in the late spring or early summer. The fate of that case is now in the hands of the Supreme Court.

Mr. Braggs case is best known for its salacious underlying facts: During the 2016 campaign, Ms. Daniels threatened to go public with her story of a tryst with Mr. Trump, who then authorized a $130,000 payoff to keep her quiet.

The case might come down to the word of Mr. Trumps former fixer, Michael D. Cohen, who paid Ms. Daniels just days before voters went to the polls. Once Mr. Trump was elected, he reimbursed Mr. Cohen and that is where the crime occurred, prosecutors say.

Mr. Cohen, the prosecutions star witness, is expected to testify that Mr. Trump authorized his family business to falsely record the reimbursements as legal expenses. And indeed the company described the repayments in internal records as part of a retainer agreement, when in fact no such agreement existed.

Mr. Trumps lawyers had argued that Justice Merchan should throw out the case, calling Mr. Cohen a liar and disputing whether the charges should even be felonies. For falsifying business records to be a felony, Mr. Braggs prosecutors must show that Mr. Trump intended to commit or conceal another crime.

The prosecutors have invoked potential violations of federal election law under the theory that the payout served as an illegal donation to Mr. Trumps campaign as well as a state election law that bars any conspiracy to promote the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means. Justice Merchan endorsed that theory of the case.

Beyond Justice Merchans courtroom, this week is a perilous one for Mr. Trump. On Friday, another New York judge is expected to deliver a final ruling in a civil fraud case against Mr. Trump. The judge, Arthur F. Engoron, is weighing the New York attorney generals request that he penalize Mr. Trump nearly $370 million and effectively oust him from the New York business world.

In the Georgia case, Mr. Trump is accused of seeking to subvert the 2020 election results in that state. On Thursday, at the same time that Mr. Trump was in Justice Merchans courtroom, there was a hearing in Atlanta concerning a romantic relationship between the two prosecutors leading the Georgia case.

But while the other cases remain mired in the pretrial period, at Justice Merchans hearing on Thursday, attention turned swiftly to practical questions about the coming proceedings, including how a jury would be chosen. Prosecutors requested that they be permitted to ask jurors whether they believed the 2020 election had been stolen, arguing that an affirmative answer might suggest they are willing to blindly rely on Mr. Trumps statements more generally. The defense objected, and the judge withheld a final ruling for now.

The defense also lashed out at Mr. Cohen, accusing him as Mr. Trumps lawyers have in the past of having perjured himself at the former presidents recent civil fraud trial in Manhattan. Prosecutors responded only to say that Mr. Cohen could be cross-examined at trial.

Mr. Cohen himself was in New York on Thursday, but was not present in the courtroom. He was in Midtown, helping to promote an Off Broadway musical about Mr. Trump and various women in his life, including Ms. Daniels.

Original post:
Highlights From a Key Hearing in Trump's Manhattan Criminal Case - The New York Times

Donald Trumps wealth was decimated on Friday when a New York judge ordered him and his lieutenants to pay more than $364 millionbefore interestfor engaging in bank fraud, simultaneously yanking away the familys control of his eponymous real estate company and handing the former president an embarrassing legal defeat.

Importantly, New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur F. Engoron also blocked Trump from borrowing money at any bank in New York for three years, erecting an enormous barrier to his ability to appeal the judgment, potentially forcing him to sell one of his prized buildings or golf courses.

A towering 9 percent interest rate on the judgment could push the total north of $450 million, presenting Trump with the worst personal financial crisis in his 77 years, just as he fends off four criminal cases and seeks the American presidency in 2024.

This court is mindful that this action is not the first time the Trump Organization or its related entities has been found to have engaged in corporate malfeasance, Engoron wrote. This is not defendants first rodeo.

Trump and his corporate entities are on the hook for a little over $355 million before interestand depending on what exact dates the court clerk uses to calculate the interest, he could be looking at an additional $100 million penalty. Two sons who currently serve as corporate executives, Don Jr. and Eric, each also owe $4 million before interest. And the companys former chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, owes an additional $1 million before interest.

New York Attorney General Letitia James emerged victorious, having spent nearly four years investigating the company, fighting for documents and testimony, and eventually spending three months at a civil trial that concluded in January. Her investigators found that Trump routinely inflated real estate assets and scored better bank loans, while Trump doubled down on his self-aggrandizing claims and noted that banks never complained anyway.

The judge addressed that extensively in his order, noting that timely and total repayment of loans does not extinguish the harm that false statements inflict on the marketplace.

Indeed, the common excuse that everybody does it is all the more reason to strive for honesty and transparency and to be vigilant in enforcing the rules. Here, despite the false financial statements, it is undisputed that defendants have made all required payments on time; the next group of lenders to receive bogus statements might not be so lucky. New York means business in combating business fraud, he wrote.

An hour after the decision was issued, an infuriated Trump railed against the judge and reiterated the mistaken claim that he was denied a trial by jurywhen in fact his lawyers failed to formally request one.

This decision is a Complete and Total SHAM. There were No Victims, No Damages, No Complaints. Only satisfied Banks and Insurance Companies (which made a ton of money), GREAT Financial Statements, that didnt even include the most valuable AssetThe TRUMP Brand, IRONCLAD Disclaimers (Buyer Beware, and Do your Own Due Diligence), and amazing Properties all over the World, he posted on his Truth Social media network.

The Trump Organization is essentially now Trump in name only.

The tycoons sons, Don Jr. and Eric Trump, were also ejected from their leadership positions and can no longer be the companys executive vice presidentsor even lead any other corporations in New York for two years.

By mid-March, the company will have to answer to a former federal judge, Barbara Jones, who has spent a year serving as the corporations outside monitor. She has 30 days to reconfigure her current role. While the company previously had to alert her within two weeks anytime it moved more than $5 million, Jones will now have enhanced powers that put her first in line.

Her observations over the past 14 months indicate that still more oversight is required, Engoron wrote, extending her monitorship for at least another three years.

Instead of seeking her forgiveness when they submit any financial documents to an outside entity, the Trumps will have to ask for her permission.

That means the Trumps may not even have the authority to shift around money to fight this massive court order without asking Jones for her approval.

Engoron justified extending Jones tenure by noting how the company has avoided issuing statements of financial condition since she appeared, something he called a telling admission that it simply cannot, or will not, prepare an SFC without committing fraud.

Having viewed the Trump Organization as a paper-faking ruse, Justice Engoron is also forcing the company to pay for an independent director of compliance whose task is to clean it up from the inside.

Fridays conclusion marked a stunning defeat for the boastful business mogul. The 92-page order struck at the source of Trumps pride, a company he led and grew for half a centuryone that allowed him to transform his glittering entrepreneurial image in the 1980s city tabloids into a popular network TV show with The Apprentice, and eventually carried him into the White House in 2016.

The AGs triumph was all but certain. When both sides asked Engoron to issue definitive rulings before the trial started in October, the judge reviewed evidence collected by state investigators and concluded Trump had indeed engaged in bank fraud by vastly overstating the value of his properties to secure better loans, at one point even tripling the size of his three-floor palace in Trump Tower by making up space that didnt exist.

Immediately after the judgment was issued, Trump defense lawyer Alina Habba issued a statement calling the decision a manifest injusticeplain and simple.

It is the culmination of a multi-year, politically fueled witch hunt that was designed to take down Donald Trump before Letitia James ever stepped foot into the Attorney Generals office. Countless hours of testimony proved that there was no wrongdoing, no crime, and no victim, she said, continuing to make the same arguments that failed to convince the judge.

In his order, Engoron eviscerated the Trumps attempt to blame their accountants at trial, writing that the buck for being truthful in the supporting data valuations stopped with the Trump Organization, not the accountants.

He also chucked aside their attempts to downplay the inaccuracies in Trumps financial statements.

As an ancient maxim has it, de minimis non curat lex, the law is not concerned with trifles. Neither is this Court. But that is not what we have here, he wrote. The frauds found here leap off the page and shock the conscience.

However, Engoron did not deliver everything the AG asked for. He awarded slightly less money than she had requested and declined to permanently ban Trump from the real estate industry. Engoron also reversed his pretrial decision to cancel the Trump Organizations business licenses, doing away with what would have been the corporate death penalty and effectively ending a legal battle thats currently on appeal in New Yorks higher courts.

While seeming to strike a tough but fair judgment, Engoron still delivered a few surprises.

Although this trial was civil in nature, Engoron still managed to punish a Trump confidant who has played a key role in protecting Trump from several criminal investigations in New York. Allen Weisselberg, an accountant who has served as Trumps right-hand money man and company chief financial officer for decades, took the fall for his boss at the Trump Organizations tax fraud trial in 2022 before another judge and spent 99 days at the citys dreaded Rikers Island jail.

But Trumps mob-like tactics were on full display when Weisselberg revealed at that separate trial that the company was dangling an annual bonus over his head that would push his pay to $1 milliona compromising financial arrangement, given that he was on the witness stand and answering damning questions about his employer.

Engoron, who recently expressed concern that Weisselberg lied in the bank fraud trial, noted in his Friday order that the Trump Organization has been keeping its former executive on a short leash meant to keep this key witness quiet. The judge ordered Weisselberg to pay $1 million hes already received since leaving the company, a clear attempt to claw back what the judge saw as ill-gotten payments that served as nothing more than hush money.

Weisselberg and the accountant he oversaw, Jeffrey McConney, are also forbidden from ever again working in corporate finance. (The two men appear to be retired now anyway.)

Trump is expected to immediately appeal the decision, but doing so will be a logistical nightmare. New York requires that a person seeking to pause this kind of judgment immediately front a massive sum, anywhere from 110 percent to 120 percent of the judgment. And while Trump boasted in sworn testimony last year that he had some $400 million in cash, that wouldnt be enough to cover this bank fraud judgment and last months $83 million verdict in his rape defamation case. Both cases require him to post the money up front, squeezing him at the same time.

In New York, expensive appellate bonds can be covered by insurers. But those types of companies are licensed by the state, and Engorons decision also prohibits Trump from borrowing money from any entity licensed by New Yorks Department of Financial Services. Industry experts told The Daily Beast that this two-pronged attack could force Trump to immediately sell one of the buildings that bear his namein Chicago or New Yorkor desperately seek a foreign bank that has enough assets to loan him the money but has oddly avoided setting up shop in the financial capital of the world.

Obviously, the whole case centers around Trump making repeated and massive false statements, said Tom Gober, a forensic accountant and certified fraud examiner.

Other than a friend, I cant imagine any lender being willing to stick his nose out that far knowing that hes going to get his nose cut off. Its not looking good for Trump. Hes going to have to come up with something, Gober said.

Trump cant even rely on misappropriating MAGA donor funds that he keeps collecting in his bid for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. The Save America political action committee already spent $24.8 million on lawyers and lawsuits in the second half of 2023, draining his coffers to protect him from this case and the ongoing criminal prosecutions in Georgia, Florida, New York, and Washington.

Then theres the matter of Trumps potential escape. Engorons colossal judgment doesnt just apply to Trumps companies, but to him as an individualas well as the revocable trust where he parked his riches at the start of his presidential administration in 2017. That means Trump cant rely on his go-to method for avoiding his past financial failures: corporate bankruptcy.

As a real estate developer, Trump was notorious for refusing to put skin in the game and creating legal distance between himself and his business deals, which is why he managed to survive the collapse of his casinos and resorts when they went bankrupt in 1991, 1992, 2004, and 2009. But Trump, who would wince at the mere thought of an embarrassing personal bankruptcy, wont be able to take that route either, given that he would first be forced to sell off his brand name assets anyway.

Although much of Trumps anger in recent months has been directed at the state and federal prosecutors who have secured four criminal indictments against him, Trump has expressed particular outrage at the bank fraud case. His relentless attacks against Engoron and the courts law clerk, the attorney Allison Greenfield, has resulted in nonstop death threats against them from his loyalist followersincluding a bomb scare at the judges home on the final day of trial.

The nature of this political intimidation was most readily apparent by the courts decision to release this decision on Friday afternoon, ensuring that Engoron and Greenfield could leave the courthouse in time for any violent reprisal, according to a person briefed on the security arrangements.

The former president has little time to address this personal financial crisis, however, as he must already begin to prepare for his battle against the Manhattan District Attorney at another New York courthouse just a block away.

On Thursday, Justice Juan Merchan batted away Trumps attempts to delay his upcoming criminal trial for faking business records to effect a coverup of his sexual affair with the porn star Stormy Daniels that spared his scandal-ridden 2016 presidential campaign from additional embarrassment. Trump will be back in court four days a week starting Monday, March 25.

See original here:
Trump's Bank Fraud Trial Ends With $364 Million Gut Punch - The Daily Beast

Lawsuits challenging Donald Trumps eligibility to appear on the 2024 presidential primary ballots have sprung up in several states.

Individuals and left-wing organisations have claimed that Mr Trump violated Section Three of the 14th Amendment known as the insurrection clause citing his involvement in the January 6 attack on the US Capitol.

Section Three of the amendment prohibits those who take part in insurrections or aid enemies of the US government from taking office.

To date, such challenges have been brought in both federal district and state courts across at least 16 states.

So far only one state, Colorado, has removed Mr Trump from the ballot under the 14th Amendment. The states Supreme Court ruled on 19 December that the former president is ineligible to appear on the state ballot and cannot be considered an option for the White House.

While Mr Trump says he plans to appeal the Colorado decision, likely taking the case up to the US Supreme Court, he is also preparing for challenges, appeals and decisions in other states.

Heres a look at the other challenges to Mr Trumps eligibility for the 2024 race:

After a lawsuit was filed to remove Mr Trump from the race in Michigan, a state court judge ruled in November that Mr Trump could appear on the ballot.

The judge said that neither courts nor the Michigan Secretary of State have the authority to determine when someone is eligible to run for office.

The judge claimed Section Three of the 14th Amendment was a political question which is non-justiciable.

Free Speech For the People, a liberal group, appealed the decision but the states appeals court upheld the lower courts decision.

The Minnesota Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit in the state seeking to remove Mr Trump from the ballot in November.

After hearing oral arguments in the case, the justices said that neither election officials nor the court had the authority to stop the Republican Party from making Mr Trump the partys official nominee.

However, plaintiffs could re-challenge Mr Trumps ability to appear on the general election ballot.

Oregon Secretary of State LaVonne Griffin-Valade has said she would keep Mr Trumps name on the primary ballot, citing her lack of authority to determine the qualifications of candidates.

But at the beginning of December, Oregon voters and the organisation Free Speech for People filed a petition to the states Supreme Court challenging Mr Trumps eligibility under the 14th Amendment.

A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by John Anthony Castro, an individual running as a 2024 Republican presidential candidate, claiming that Mr Castro did not have the standing to challenge Mr Trumps eligibility.

Mr Castro, who has little campaign presence or financial contributions, claimed he was suffering competitive injury against Mr Trump who should be disqualified under the 14th Amendment.

But a federal judge said Mr Castro was not legitimately competing with Mr Trump.

Other lawsuits brought forth by Mr Castro in New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Florida, California, Montana, Idaho, Kansas, Alaska, Oklahoma, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Utah and North Carolina were also dismissed.

Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows is expected to decide Mr Trumps primary ballot eligibility next week.

Ms Bellows held a hearing last week to further evaluate three separate complaints, brought by former Maine politicians and a lawyer, regarding Mr Trumps eligibility.

A resident of New Jersey filed a complaint to a state superior court claiming Mr Trump is ineligible under the 14th Amendment.

The attorney general of the state asked the court to dismiss the case citing its lack of ripeness and jurisdiction.

A Wyoming resident filed a lawsuit in a state district court in November seeking to remove Mr Trump as well as Senator Cynthia Lummis from appearing on the 2024 primary ballot.

Two residents of Virginia have filed federal lawsuits requesting Mr Trump be removed from the states primary ballot.

Mr Trump and the Republican Party of Virginia have made a motion to dismiss the case.

A New York Republican and attorney have filed a lawsuit in district court asking that neither Mr Trump, nor any of his 18 co-defendants in the Georgia election interference case, be permitted to participate or hold office in New York.

Read the original here:
Where is Donald Trump facing 14th Amendment challenges? - Yahoo News

Former President Donald Trump is currently trending on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, with the hashtag #TrumpSmells, along with the also trending, #TrumpStinks.

It seems as though the 77-year-old has some bad hygiene as Adam Kinzinger, a former Republican representative, allegedly told the public to "wear a mask" around the former President due to his distinct smell -- which he says is due to bad body odor.

Im genuinely surprised how people close to Trump havent talked about the odor, Kinzinger wrote on X earlier this week. Its truly something to behold. Wear a mask if you can."

Days after Kinzinger's post went viral, the hashtag #TrumpSmells began trending and is now the number one topic on the social media platform, as people cannot stop talking about Trump's B.O. (#TrumpStinks is also trending.)

One user shared a series of photos showing people near Donald Trump who are seemingly in discomfort due to a nasty smell.

They have been trying to tell us that #TrumpSmells the whole time. pic.twitter.com/19UZFmjnkg

— Alex Cole (@acnewsitics) December 22, 2023

And one user shared the same photo of Mike Pence, seen with former President Donald Trump, writing, "Pence knows better than most."

Pence knows better than most.#TrumpSmells pic.twitter.com/NZXWlUpCEh

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) December 22, 2023

Plus, a podcast with comedian Kathy Griffin that aired earlier this year is now being re-shared for the comments she made about Trump regarding his distinct smell.

She explained that the former president smelled like body odor with kind of like scented makeup products.

Kathy Griffin’s description of Donald Trump causes Mary Trump to cringe on her podcast…

“Donald has a distinct smell that doesn’t really get enough press.”#TrumpSmells pic.twitter.com/zsvzcytwdH

— Christopher Webb (@cwebbonline) December 23, 2023

As one user wrote, "I can't believe we didn't see it before. Everyone tried to warn us that #TrumpSmells," as they shared a video of the Japanese Prime Minister shaking hands with Donald Trump.

I can't believe we didn't see it before. Everyone tried to warn us that #TrumpSmells pic.twitter.com/JanpG4CZo0

— Alex Cole (@acnewsitics) December 23, 2023

While one user accused the President of sitting like he is "on the toilet."

"Given what weve been hearing about #trumpFunk latelymaybe, just maybe, Donald Trump always sits like hes on a toilet is because hes always literally s---ing in his pants. #trumpSmells," they wrote along with a series of photos.

Given what we’ve been hearing about #trumpFunk lately…maybe, just maybe, donald trump always sits like he’s on a toilet is because he’s always literally shitting in his pants. #trumpSmells pic.twitter.com/NmTR5jSxHv

— Kenny BooYah! ?? (@KwikWarren) December 23, 2023

Another had some fun with the trending hashtag, using a cartoon of Donald Trump in court, writing, "#TrumpSmells Odor in the Court. Odor in the Court."

#TrumpSmells Odor in the Court. Odor in the Court. pic.twitter.com/k1aUW21ULC

— Chuckadero ?????????????????? (@ChuckScheper) December 23, 2023

The former President is currently on trial in a$250 million civil lawsuit as he was questioned for intentionally inflating his property and assets in other words, committing fraud.

He, along with his sons, are accused of using "numerous acts of fraud and misrepresentation" to inflate Trump's net worth in order to get more favorable loan terms."

Plus, just days ago, the majority ruling came out banning Trumps name to be on Colorados ballot. A majority of the court holds that President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the majority ruling read.

It continued, Because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Colorado Secretary of State to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot.

Others are claiming that the reason #TrumpSmells is trending is because "he doesn't change his adult diaper."

"Apparently #TrumpSmells because he rarely changes his adult diapers! F---ing gross!!!" one user wrote.

Apparently #TrumpSmells because he rarely changes his adult diapers! Fucking gross!!! pic.twitter.com/trUNLtUnZE

— Morgan J. Freeman (@mjfree) December 22, 2023

Another said, "#TrumpSmells like pig s---."

#TrumpSmells like pig shit. ? pic.twitter.com/ha435icaCw

— ????? ??????????? (@LePapillonBlu2) December 22, 2023

A spokesperson for former President Donald Trump commented on the recent claims from Adam Kinzinger, telling The Independent that Adam Kinzinger farted on live TV and is an unemployed fraud. He has disgraced his country and disrespects everyone around him because he is a sad individual who is mad about how his miserable life has turned out.

Originally posted here:
Something Stinks: Why #TrumpSmells Is Trending On X - Yahoo Entertainment

Republican senators who voted to acquit former President Trump during his second trial after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol largely say they don’t regret their votes years later, as Trump looks like he’ll be the party’s standard-bearer again in 2024.

One Republican senator who frequently criticizes Trump’s conduct but nevertheless voted to acquit Trump of inciting insurrection said they would have voted the same way if given a second chance after knowing the outcome.  

“The way I look at it is the standard is high because you’re undermining the will of the American people,” the senator said of Trump’s post-Jan. 6 impeachment trial. “If you can’t meet that threshold, it’s inappropriate to convict for the purposes for keeping out of office.” 

A second Republican senator often critical of Trump who voted to acquit and requested anonymity to look back in history to reconsider that choice said it was apparent at the time that whatever Republican voted to convict Trump would face a political backlash.  

The senator said that even if Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) at the time had wanted to rid his party of Trump, it could have cost him his leadership position if he voted to convict.  

“I don’t think so,” the senator said when asked whether McConnell would have voted differently had he known that Trump would come back to dominate the 2024 GOP presidential primary.  

“I think he would have made the calculated decision that he would not have been able to be leader of the caucus after that. He would have been deciding to be a senior committeeman for the next six years,” the senator speculated of his long-time colleague from Kentucky. 

Former Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said in a recent interview that he believes many Republicans on Capitol Hill would have voted differently on impeachment and barring Trump from future office if they had known he would resurrect himself politically to win a third nomination for president.  

“I think there are a lot of people in Congress, good friends of mine, who would take [their] vote back if they could because I think a lot of these members of Congress — like on the second impeachment — they thought Trump was dead. They thought after Jan. 6 he wasn’t going to have a comeback, he was dead,” he said.  

But GOP senators who spoke with The Hill didn’t lend credence to Ryan’s arguments, either on or off the record.

GOP senators who did vote to impeach Trump say they don’t regret their decision.

“I have no regrets,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), who was one of seven Republican senators who voted to convict Trump on the charge of inciting insurrection in 2021.  

Her thoughts align with Ryan’s in that Murkowski suspects some of her GOP colleagues do have regrets about their vote. She marveled at Trump’s comeback, noting that many Republicans thought Trump was finished politically after the awful spectacle of Jan. 6, 2021. 

“I think they’re looking at this and [think,] ‘It’s like a zombie coming back from the dead.’ He was political roadkill. Two impeachments and now these indictments — four indictments — and you’re telling me he’s the heir apparent?” 

But Murkowski said none of her colleagues who voted to acquit Trump is willing to admit making a mistake, even in private.  

“Nobody’s saying it out loud. But, again, I certainly have no regrets,” she said, noting that Ryan, the former Speaker, is “a smart guy” and “he was around a lot of people who kind of walked the plank for Donald Trump.”  

“The party would be in a lot better shape if he were not the prospective nominee and right now that’s the way it looks. Maybe Nikki Haley can do a miracle,” Murkowski said, referring to the former South Carolina governor who is narrowing Trump’s lead in New Hampshire ahead of its primary contest.

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), who voted to convict and remove Trump from office after his first and second impeachment trials, chuckled about Ryan’s claim that many Republicans wish they had a do-over on their impeachment vote. 

“I love Paul, he has a source of information I don’t. I’m not going to confirm or deny. I don’t have any question about my vote. No one has come to me and said, ‘I wish I had a different vote,’” he said.  

Instead, Romney said colleagues have told him “they respect someone who votes their conscience.” 

“I wish everybody would have voted [as] I did on almost everything, including impeachment,” he said. “There’s no question the Republican Party would be better off without Donald Trump. We’re a populist party now which is fueled by resentment and anger, and that’s a dead-end street.” 

McConnell told colleagues a week after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol that he was open to convicting Trump.  

“I have not made a final decision on how I will vote and I intend to listen to the legal arguments when they are presented to the Senate after the House voted 232-197 to impeach Trump.  

In the end, he voted to acquit, though he gave a scathing floor address about Trump, and their relationship has never been friendly since Trump left the White House.

McConnell in the Feb. 13 address said there was “no question” that Trump was “practically and morally responsible” for the attack on the Capitol.  

The first GOP senator who spoke to The Hill about the vote to acquit acknowledged harboring serious concerns about Trump’s influence on the Republican Party but insisted it would have been inappropriate to take the question of Trump’s return to power out of voters’ hands.  

“A problem with today’s world is people want the result that they want and the process is irrelevant and that’s a problem because the process is what defends our freedoms and liberties,” the senator said.  

But the lawmaker acknowledged there was widespread discussion among GOP senators at the time of Trump’s second impeachment trial about the political benefit of banning Trump from federal office forever.  

“That pitch was made at the time of the vote: ‘We got to keep this guy from serving again,’” the senator recalled. “Are there people who would be wishing this would be different? Sure.”  

Flash forward to December 2023, and there are many Senate Republicans, including members of the leadership, who hold concerns about Trump’s viability as a general election candidate and his impact on Senate races, given his track record of alienating moderate Republican and college-educated women voters. 

With Trump crushing the rest of the Republican presidential primary field, Republican senators acknowledge he is likely to win the nomination but many of them think the party would have a better chance of defeating President Biden with another nominee, such as Haley, who polls better than Trump in a matchup against Biden. 

Trump created new political headaches for GOP leaders in Washington this month when he declared that immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country” and approvingly quoted Russian President Vladimir Putin’s claim that the American political system is rotten. 

McConnell and Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) slapped down Trump’s comments about immigrants and were silent after the Colorado Supreme Court barred him from the 2024 ballot for supporting insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.  

McConnell said after the 2022 midterm election that the GOP brand turned off centrists and moderate Republicans “who looked at us and concluded: Too much chaos, too much negativity.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a member of the Senate GOP leadership team, said in May that “Trump’s time has passed him by” and Republicans need “a candidate who can actually win.”  

The two other Republican senators still in Congress who voted to convict Trump and bar him from ever running again for president — Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) — said they stand by their votes. 

Asked if the party would be better without Trump, Cassidy said: “What basically you’re asking me is did I think he should be impeached and I did. That speaks for itself.” 

Collins said she heard about Ryan’s comments but didn’t read what he said exactly. 

“I made my decision based on the evidence presented at the trial and that was the only basis for it. I’ve not heard anyone second guess his or her decision on this,” she said. “I have a lot of respect for Paul Ryan. In 2016, I wrote him in for president.”  

Read the original:
GOP senators who voted to acquit Trump insist they dont regret it - The Hill