Archive for the ‘Donald Trump’ Category

Donald Trump’s Abortion About-Face Is Cynical as Ever – Vanity Fair

Donald Trump is a liar, but he has told the truth at least once: Running for president in 2016, he promised to appoint Supreme Court justices who would automatically overturn Roe v. Wade. Trump did just that by putting Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett on the bench. But nowas he campaigns to return to the White House, and as his party continues to pay for the Dobbs decision at the ballot boxhe appears to be trying to rewrite recent history.

Rolling Stone reports the former president has privately discussed plans recently to campaign as a moderate on abortion, seeking to avoid discussing reproductive rights in the hardline terms of GOP primary rivals like Ron DeSantis and instead stake out a position that makes both Republicans and Democrats very happy. The fall of Roe, hes apparently told aides, has eliminated any leverage the anti-abortion conservatives had over him.

The [anti-abortion] activists who thought they could force Donald Trump to commit political suicide were deeply mistaken, a Republican associated with Trumps campaign told the outlet. These were all-or-nothing types who should realize that he doesnt need them. They need him.

Trump's effort to rebrand as an abortion moderate is, by all means, absurd. Not only does it defy his prior statements on the issue, including his suggestion in the 2016 cycle that there should be some form of punishment for women who seek abortions; it attempts to underplay the outsize role Trump played in ending the federal right to an abortion, as he even acknowledged earlier this year. After 50 years of failure, with nobody coming even close, I was able to kill Roe v Wade, Trump wrote on his social media page in May.

Of course, that was before voters showed Republicans what they thought of the Dobbs decision and the talk of a national abortion ban in this months off-year elections: In yet another cycle, Democrats outperformed expectations, riding reproductive rights to victories in Virginia and Kentucky. In Ohio, a key swing state, voters approved a ballot measure to enshrine abortion protections in the state constitution. And a recent NBC News poll found that abortion and democracy were top concerns for single-issue voters in 2024. His supposed moderate positionwhatever that is supposed to meanis nothing more than a transparent effort to avoid the fate of Republicans who lost on the issue in 2022 and 2023. Lets be clear: Donald Trump is responsible for ending Roe v. Wade, Joe Biden wrote in September. And if you vote for him, hell go even further.

That should be obvious, but Trump has a knack for muddying the waters. I havent seen Trump say something either way on abortion, one Trump voter in bellwether Pennsylvania told the New York Times earlier this month. He doesnt seem to care either way and thats fine with me, she added. I dont think Trump was responsible for the Supreme Courts decision, another swing-state voter, from Michigan, told the outlet. I honestly think that Trump is just for less government and states rights, and Im fine with that.

With a close race expected in 2024, Democrats shouldnt take their advantage with pro-choice voters for granted. They must, as my colleague Molly Jong-Fast argued earlier this month, continue to hammer Republicansand Trump specificallyon abortion.

Read this article:
Donald Trump's Abortion About-Face Is Cynical as Ever - Vanity Fair

Donald Trump Hints at Expanded Role for the Military Within the US … – WTTW News

Surrounded by Army cadets, President Donald Trump watches the first half of the 121st Army-Navy Football Game in Michie Stadium at the United States Military Academy, Saturday, Dec. 12, 2020, in West Point, N.Y. (AP Photo / Andrew Harnik, File)

WASHINGTON (AP) Campaigning in Iowa this year,Donald Trumpsaid he was prevented during his presidency from using the military to quell violence in primarily Democratic cities and states.

Calling New York City and Chicago crime dens, the front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination told his audience, The next time, Im not waiting. One of the things I did was let them run it and were going to show how bad a job they do, he said. Well, we did that. We dont have to wait any longer.

Trump has not spelled out precisely how he might use the military during a second term, although he and his advisers have suggested they would have wide latitude to call up units. While deploying the military regularly within the country's borders would be a departure from tradition, the former president already has signaledan aggressive agendaif he wins, from mass deportations to travel bans imposed on certain Muslim-majority countries.

A law first crafted in the nations infancy would give Trump as commander in chief almost unfettered power to do so, military and legal experts said in a series of interviews.

The Insurrection Act allows presidents to call on reserve or active-duty military units to respond to unrest in the states, an authority that is not reviewable by the courts. One of its few guardrails merely requires the president to request that the participants disperse.

The principal constraint on the presidents use of the Insurrection Act is basically political, that presidents dont want to be the guy who sent tanks rolling down Main Street, said Joseph Nunn, a national security expert with the Brennan Center for Justice. Theres not much really in the law to stay the presidents hand.

A spokesman for Trumps campaign did not respond to multiple requests for comment about what authority Trump might use to pursue his plans.

Congress passed the act in 1792, just four years after the Constitution was ratified. Nunn said it's an amalgamation of different statutes enacted between then and the 1870s, a time when there was little in the way of local law enforcement.

It is a law that in many ways was created for a country that doesnt exist anymore, he said.

It also is one of the most substantial exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits using the military for law enforcement purposes.

Trump has spoken openly about his plans should he win the presidency, including using the military at the border and in cities struggling with violent crime. His plans also have included using the military against foreign drug cartels, a view echoed by other Republican primary candidates such as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley, the former U.N. ambassador and South Carolina governor.

The threats have raised questions about the meaning of military oaths, presidential power and who Trump could appoint to support his approach.

Trump already has suggested he mightbring backretired Army Lt. Gen.Michael Flynn, who served briefly as Trumps national security adviser and twice pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI during its Russian influence probe before beingpardonedby Trump. Flynn suggested in the aftermath of the 2020 election that Trump could seize voting machines and order the military in some states to help rerun the election.

Attempts to invoke the Insurrection Act and use the military for domestic policing would likely elicit pushback from the Pentagon, where the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is Gen. Charles Q. Brown. He was one of the eight members of the Joint Chiefs who signed a memo to military personnel in the aftermath of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. The memo emphasized the oaths they took and called the events of that day, which were intended to stop certification ofDemocrat Joe Biden's victory over Trump, sedition and insurrection.

Trump and his party nevertheless retain wide support among those who have served in the military. AP VoteCast, an in-depth survey of more than 94,000 voters nationwide, showed that 59% of U.S. military veterans voted for Trump in the 2020 presidential election. In the 2022 midterms, 57% of military veterans supported Republican candidates.

Presidents have issued a total of 40 proclamations invoking the law, some of those done multiple times for the same crisis, Nunn said. Lyndon Johnson invoked it three times in Baltimore, Chicago and Washington in response to the unrest in cities after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968.

During the Civil Rights era, Presidents Johnson, John F. Kennedy and Dwight Eisenhower used the law to protect activists and students desegregating schools. Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas, to protect Black students integrating Central High School after that states governor activated the National Guard to keep the students out.

George H.W. Bush was the last president to use the Insurrection Act, a response to riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of the white police officers who beat Black motorist Rodney King in an incident that was videotaped.

Repeated attempts to invoke the act in a new Trump presidency could put pressure on military leaders, who could face consequences for their actions even if done at the direction of the president.

Michael OHanlon, director of research in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution think tank, said the question is whether the military is being imaginative enough with the scenarios it has been presenting to future officers. Ambiguity, especially when force is involved, is not something military personnel are comfortable with, he said.

There are a lot of institutional checks and balances in our country that are pretty well-developed legally, and itll make it hard for a president to just do something randomly out of the blue, said OHanlon, who specializes in U.S. defense strategy and the use of military force. But Trump is good at developing a semi-logical train of thought that might lead to a place where theres enough mayhem, theres enough violence and legal murkiness to call in the military.

Democratic Rep. Pat Ryan of New York, the first graduate of the U.S. Military Academy to represent the congressional district that includes West Point, said he took the oath three times while he was at the school and additional times during his military career. He said there was extensive classroom focus on an officers responsibilities to the Constitution and the people under his or her command.

They really hammer into us the seriousness of the oath and who it was to, and who it wasnt to, he said.

Ryan said he thought it was universally understood, but Jan. 6 was deeply disturbing and a wakeup call for me. Severalveteransandactive-duty militarypersonnel were charged with crimes in connection with the assault.

While those connections were troubling, he said he thinks those who harbor similar sentiments make up a very small percentage of the military.

William Banks, a Syracuse University law professor and expert in national security law, said a military officer is not forced to follow unlawful orders. That could create a difficult situation for leaders whose units are called on for domestic policing, since they can face charges for taking unlawful actions.

But there is a big thumb on the scale in favor of the presidents interpretation of whether the order is lawful, Banks said. Youd have a really big row to hoe and you would have a big fuss inside the military if you chose not to follow a presidential order.

Nunn, who has suggested steps to restrict the invocation of the law, said military personnel cannot be ordered to break the law.

Members of the military are legally obliged to disobey an unlawful order. At the same time, that is a lot to ask of the military because they are also obliged to obey orders, he said. And the punishment for disobeying an order that turns out to be lawful is your career is over, and you may well be going to jail for a very long time. The stakes for them are extraordinarily high.

Continued here:
Donald Trump Hints at Expanded Role for the Military Within the US ... - WTTW News

Trump’s Backdoor Attempts to Delay His Trials Are Backfiring – The Daily Beast

Donald Trumps calendar is filling upand not with campaign events.

The former president is battling conflicting trial dates in a number of courts, and judges are now hopping on the phone to coordinate their schedules. In fact, two judges may have already double-booked him. (In March, Trump has three weeks to wrap up a D.C. federal trial thats potentially six weeks longbefore hes due in New York for a state trial.)

But those private exchanges have caused some drama, particularly as Trumps lawyers keep trying to push back his upcoming New York criminal trial for paying hush money to a porn star.

Over the fall, Justice Juan Merchan, who is overseeing the Stormy Daniels case, appeared willing to consider meeting sometime in September to discuss potentially shifting deadlines, according to information received by The Daily Beast. But he ultimately rejected the idea and ordered both sides to stick to the previous plan: to meet in court just a month before the porn star cover-up trial begins in March.

But he made it a formal order after Trumps lawyers tried to peer into his private conversation with U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, according to court documents we obtained.

No further disclosure is required, Merchan said in a Nov. 9 order that has not been reported until now.

He also made clear that the former presidents legal troubles are so numerous, itd be better to keep a semblance of order than add to the chaos.

Indeed, adjourning this trial prematurely can only serve to further muddy your client's already crowded trial calendar and possibly result in even further delay, Merchan wrote.

The New York state judge made his decision after prosecutors from the Manhattan District Attorneys Office claimed in court filings that the quadruple-indicted real estate tycoon is simply delaying trial dates after overbooking his top defense lawyer across the Eastern Seaboard.

DA Alvin Bragg Jr.s team is particularly pointing the finger at New York attorney Todd Blanche, who has quickly risen through the ranks to become Trumps preferred lawyer in his Manhattan hush money case, the federal trial in D.C. over election fraud, and the hoarding of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago in South Florida.

Blanches rapid ascent has irked and pushed aside some fellow defense attorneys, according to two sources familiar with internal strife in the Trump camp. A third source said Blanche has managed to earn Trumps trust by firmly pushing back on some of the politicians stranger ideas, standing out in a sea of yes-men. But now Blanche is so inundated with cases that hes trying to slow them downand Manhattan prosecutors are crying foul.

The unstated reality is that the anticipated March 25 trial in Manhattan is awfully inconvenient for Trumps attempted revenge return to the White House, forcing him into a dingy courtroom during the 2024 presidential primaries in New York and Wisconsin. And if the trial goes on for a few weeks, he could spend Pennsylvanias primary day in court, too.

But keeping to that trial date is also unrealistic, given that it leaves only three weeks to complete a historic federal trial in the nations capital that starts the day before Super Tuesdayand essentially will be a condensed, criminal version of the House Jan. 6 Committee hearings.

Justice Merchan had previously scheduled a key court hearing in February 2024 to make sure the New York case is still on track, but also late enough to know where the competing D.C. and Florida trials stand as well.

Sometime in August, Blanche and his team of nearly a dozen defense lawyers asked Merchan to push up the scheduled check-in much sooner. After getting shot down, on Oct. 3 they formally asked him to reconsider, arguing that waiting until February might harm Trumps right to adequately assist in his defense, his right to assistance of counsel, and his right to be personally present at the trial proceedings.

The real shocker, though, was what they used to justify this request: pointing to the private telephone call the New York judge had with Judge Chutkan in Washington over the summer, saying they wanted to know what exactly was said during that chat.

Trumps legal team formally requested that Merchan inform the parties about the substance of Your Honors communications with Judge Chutkan, claiming the conversation impacted the former presidents constitutional and statutory rights.

In a Nov. 2 court filing response, prosecutors expressed some degree of surprise that this is coming up now, given that Chutkan brought it up during a D.C. court hearing back in August, when she said she did speak briefly with Judge Merchan to let him know that I was considering a date that might overlap with his trial.

A federal court transcript shows that Trumps lawyers didnt balk when Chutkan first mentioned it, but they seemed to have an issue with it later.

This month, Assistant District Attorney Caroline S. Williamson took MAGA lawyers to task for yet again finding a pretext to claim that next years trial in New York City is too soon.

Williamson castigated Trumps ongoing efforts to adjourn the deadlines in the other criminal cases that he claims will present an unavoidable conflict here, noting the brazen way his defense lawyers are playing all sides.

She noted how Blanche showed up for an afternoon court hearing on Nov. 1 in Fort Pierce, Florida, to ask U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon to delay his upcoming federal trial for stockpiling top secret records by pointing to Trumps D.C. casethen, just hours later, the very same lawyer formally requested that Judge Chutkan pause the entire D.C. case while she considers their long-shot request to dismiss the entire legal battle over Trumps supposed absolute presidential immunity.

In a court filing to Merchan in New York, Williamson told the judge it would be a poor use of the courts resources to discuss scheduling before the dust settles on defendants efforts to delay his other criminal cases.

Taken in totality, Williamsons description appeared to portray Trumps legal team as actively engaged in a relay-delay game, playing judges against each other to push back court dates in all of his caseslike a child playing parents against each other.

Manhattan prosecutors also specifically called out the Trump legal teams posturing that it simply cant handle the sudden flood of work, pointing out how Blanche willingly became the former presidents point man on three of his four upcoming criminal trials. After all, its not exactly like hes working alone.

Trump chose all of the eleven attorneys representing him in this casenot merely the attorney who is also engaged on the D.C. and Florida criminal cases, Williamson wrote. The ten other attorneys on the defense team include experienced and capable counsel, many of whom have represented defendant and the Trump Organization for years.

Aside from Blanche, that long list has included Emil Bove, Susan R. Necheles, Gedalia M. Stern, Joe Tacopina, Stephen Weiss, Steven Yurowitz, and others.

Manhattan prosecutors took an additional shot at Blanche, noting that he decided to take on the D.C. and Florida cases after the New York judge had specifically warned everyone in May to clear their calendars for this historic criminal trial that lay ahead.

Merchan advised prosecutors and defense lawyers to not engage or otherwise enter into any commitments, personal, professional, or otherwise, that would prevent you from starting a trial on March 25, 2024, and completing it without interruption.

Judging by whats in the court documents, the only delay Manhattan prosecutors welcome seems to be if the D.C. trial scheduled to start on March 4 runs long. If Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith succeeds in convicting the former president for defrauding the nation in an insidious attempt to stay in power after losing the election, that would mean that Trump is already a felon by the time he shows up in New York to face a jury for faking business records to cover up his Stormy Daniels sexual affair.

At this point, there seems to be little reason for delay in New York other than an overlap with the D.C. election case. According to prosecutors, Trumps team back in May already got the 5,000 pages of testimony, exhibits and witness notes that comprise the core materials in this case.

However, judges are increasingly losing patience for these types of Trumpian delay tactics. For example, in front of Chutkan earlier this year, Trumps lawyers tried to delay the trial by warning that speeding along too quickly threatens to go forward with the haste of the mob. They cited a 1932 Supreme Court decision that disagreed with the way nine young black Black men and teenagers were indicted in Alabama for raping two white women, and all but one were immediately sentenced to death after one-day trials.

That didnt go over well with Chutkan, who noted wryly that this case, for any number of reasons, is profoundly different from Powell.

Mr. Trump is represented by a team of zealous, experienced attorneys and has the resources necessary, she commented. I have seen many cases unduly delayed because a defendant lacks adequate representation or cannot properly review discovery because they are detained. That is not the case here.

See more here:
Trump's Backdoor Attempts to Delay His Trials Are Backfiring - The Daily Beast

Trump Fined $5,000 for Violating Gag Order in NY Fraud Trial – The New York Times

The judge presiding over the civil fraud trial of Donald J. Trump fined the former president $5,000 on Friday for a blatant violation of a gag order imposed this month.

The judge, Arthur F. Engoron, stopped short of holding Mr. Trump in contempt but warned that the former president still could face harsher punishments, even jail time, if he ran afoul of the order again.

In the trials opening days, Justice Engoron had barred Mr. Trump from attacking his court staff after the former president posted a picture on social media of Justice Engorons law clerk, Allison Greenfield, with Senator Chuck Schumer, the majority leader. Mr. Trump labeled Ms. Greenfield Schumers girlfriend and said she was running this case against me.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Schumer this month called the social media post ridiculous, absurd, and false, adding that the senator did not know Ms. Greenfield.

Mr. Trumps post was removed from his social media platform, Truth Social, on Oct. 3, the day Justice Engoron imposed the gag order, but a copy of the post remained visible on his campaign website.

The post was finally removed from the website around 10 p.m. on Thursday, after Justice Engoron learned of it and contacted Mr. Trumps legal team. A lawyer for Mr. Trump, Christopher M. Kise, said in court on Friday that the failure to remove the post sooner was inadvertent. He apologized on behalf of Mr. Trump.

In a new order on Friday, Justice Engoron said he had imposed only a nominal $5,000 fine because it was Mr. Trumps first violation and an unintentional error, but he warned that additional infractions would merit harsher punishments.

Make no mistake: future violations, whether intentional or unintentional, will subject the violator to far more severe sanctions, Justice Engoron wrote. He said possible punishments included steeper fines, holding Mr. Trump in contempt of court and possibly imprisoning him.

The judge added that, In the current overheated climate, incendiary untruths can, and in some cases already have, led to serious physical harm, and worse.

Mr. Trump, who has frequently attacked judges, prosecutors and witnesses in the civil and criminal cases against him, is subject to limitations on his speech not only in the Manhattan fraud case, but a federal case in which he is accused of trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

The judges overseeing the cases must strike a balance between respecting the First Amendment rights of a man seeking the White House again and keeping their courts orderly and dignified.

They also must consider what would be an effective punishment and deterrent for a man who estimates his net worth in the billions.

In the gag order, Justice Engoron had said that personal attacks on his staff were unacceptable and that he would not tolerate them under any circumstances.

He forbade any posts, emails or public remarks about his staff members, adding that serious punishments would follow were he disobeyed.

Both his gag order and the one levied by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, the federal judge in Washington overseeing the election case, leave Mr. Trump wide ambit for comment.

Judge Chutkans written order, put on hold Friday for more arguments, prevents Mr. Trump from making public comments targeting her staff, the special counsel Jack Smith and his employees, and any reasonably foreseeable witnesses.

But Mr. Trump remains free to criticize his political opponents, the judges themselves and an American justice system he has described as rigged against him.

Mr. Trump has also taken aim at Letitia James, the New York attorney general, who brought the civil fraud case against him, his adult sons and their family business.

Ms. James has accused them of fraudulently inflating Mr. Trumps net worth to obtain favorable loans from banks. The trial will continue next week with the testimony of Michael D. Cohen, Mr. Trumps former fixer turned nemesis.

Mr. Trump himself was absent from the proceedings on Friday, but he attended the trial earlier in the week, using the camera-lined hallway outside the courtroom to issue periodic statements on his legal cases and political matters.

In person, he did not come close to violating Justice Engorons order.

Originally posted here:
Trump Fined $5,000 for Violating Gag Order in NY Fraud Trial - The New York Times

At Donald Trump’s civil trial, appraiser recalls Eric Trump’s ‘lofty’ views on property value – The Associated Press

  1. At Donald Trump's civil trial, appraiser recalls Eric Trump's 'lofty' views on property value  The Associated Press
  2. Court employee arrested for approaching Donald Trump during civil trial  ABC News
  3. Keeping Up With the Trump Trials: Donald Trump's No Good, Very Bad Week  Slate

More:
At Donald Trump's civil trial, appraiser recalls Eric Trump's 'lofty' views on property value - The Associated Press