Deseret News
"The president’s new pitch: Less Bidenomics, more Bidenocracy"
Story by Samuel Benson
13 MARCH 2024
Good morning, friends.
3 things to know
1. Trump, a moral exemplar? A new Deseret News/HarrisX poll of U.S. voters shows that a big majority — nearly 80% — of Republican voters say Donald Trump reflects their moral values “a great deal” or “some.” A similar share of Democrats say the same of President Joe Biden.
2. No Labels plans to run a presidential candidate, the centrist political group announced Friday after months of polling and speculation. But because they want a Republican to top their “unity ticket,” their options are limited, as several rumored options — like Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman Jr. — told the Deseret News they’re out.
3. Trump continued his RNC takeover this weekend, successfully installing his handpicked options as the organization’s new leaders (including his daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, as co-chair). “People have to understand that America First, the MAGA movement is the new Republican Party,” declared Donald Trump Jr.
The Big Idea
Less Bidenomics, more Bidenocracy
Americans got an early glimpse at Biden’s 2024 campaign strategy Thursday night.
During his State of the Union address, Biden delivered a starkly partisan speech, teeing up the major themes of his 2024 reelection campaign and taking repeated shots at “his predecessor” (mentioned 13 times).
To many Democrats, the emphatic, impassioned Biden offered a strong rebuttal to concerns about his age and cognitive fluidity.
To many Republicans, the speech was overtly political and an “utter disgrace.”
Pundits spent the weekend debating whether the speech was effective, appropriate or even good.
Let’s move beyond those conversations and think toward November.
A major criticism of the address was that it sounded like a campaign speech.
If so, what did Biden’s State of the Union tell us about the president’s reelection campaign?
A few observations:
Democracy is on the ticket, or so Biden will claim.
It’s an attempted sequel to Biden’s 2020 campaign message — that Biden can return America to normalcy and democratic strength.
This time around, Biden has the added ammo of persistent falsehoods about a stolen 2020 election and the Jan. 6 riot (”the gravest threat to democracy since the Civil War,” he said).
Biden opened his speech on the theme, and as he ticked through other issues — the economy, immigration, abortion — he painted them all in the shadow of a bigger issue: democracy.
Even some of Trump’s biggest critics question whether the message will resonate with voters.
“Jan. 6 will be four years old by the election,” Mitt Romney told The New York Times in January.
“Biden needs fresh material, a new attack, rather than kicking a dead political horse.”
“Bidenomics” have been demoted.
Once the centerpiece of Biden’s reelection pitch, the president waited to talk economics until he marched through other issues — the economy, foreign policy, abortion, IVF, mental health, COVID-19.
And while he touched on his administration’s wins, like reducing post-pandemic unemployment and promoting domestic manufacturing, he mentioned his efforts to decrease inflation only in passing, despite inflation once being a central part of his message.
Perhaps he’s recognizing the disconnect between what economists are saying and what voters are seeing.
Regardless, an interesting shift.
Foreign policy is here to stay.
In October, shortly after Hamas attacked Israel, I noted that foreign policy rarely plays a major role in U.S. presidential elections.
(“Voting ends at the water’s edge,” the saying goes.)
I readily admit that I was wrong on this, if Biden’s speech was any indication.
Biden spoke of Russia’s war on Ukraine before mentioning a single domestic concern.
He chided Trump for his NATO comments.
He spent a significant amount of time discussing his support for Israel and his concern for Palestinian civilians.
Trump is doing himself no favors by praising Putin and criticizing U.S. allies.
Biden is rightfully capitalizing.
What I’m reading
NATO braces for conflict:
Last month, Trump encouraged Russia to “do whatever the hell they want” to NATO countries who don’t spend 2% of their annual GDP on defense.
Today, Polish president Andrzej Duda visits Washington, and he plans to propose an increase to 3% “because of growing threats” from Russia and beyond.
NATO members must raise their defense spending to 3 percent of GDP (Andrzej Duda, The Washington Post)
The toughest job in Washington?
Within a year of taking office, Jake Sullivan — Biden’s national security adviser — oversaw the withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Six months later, war broke out in Ukraine.
Now, Sullivan navigates the U.S.’ continued response to Russia and negotiations with Israel and Palestine.
A prescient look at the role of a firefighter when the world is ablaze: Biden’s National Security Adviser Navigates a World of Chaos (Vivian Salama, Gordon Lubold and Sabrina Siddiqui, Wall Street Journal)
TikTok time:
The House is rushing a vote to force TikTok’s Chinese parent company to sell the app to a U.S. company, garnering bipartisan support.
But after TikTok encouraged its users to call their congresspeople — flooding congressional offices with thousands of calls from pre-teens — a more influential opponent weighed in: Trump.
Four big questions for Washington on TikTok (Mallory Culhane, Politico)
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... a104&ei=44
THE MAGA-MAN DONALD TRUMP
Re: THE MAGA-MAN DONALD TRUMP
The Morning Carpool
"Governor Hochul Scrambles to ‘Plug the Leak’ and Stop Businesses From Leaving New York"
Story by Gordon James
20 MARCH 2024
Governor Kathy Hochul has been in the spotlight after a court fined Donald Trump and his company $355 million for fraud, sparking concerns among business leaders about the implications for operating in New York.
The hefty fine, contributing to total damages exceeding $450 million, has prompted figures like Grant Cardone to reconsider their business ventures in the state.
Real estate mogul Grant Cardone is shifting his investment focus away from New York, eyeing markets in Texas and Florida, in response to the perceived instability and risks the recent court ruling introduces.
This decision follows a significant ruling that prohibits Trump and his sons from holding executive positions in New York companies, raising eyebrows in the business community about future regulatory impacts.
Governor Hochul reassures that the ruling is an outlier, emphasizing that rule-abiding New York businessmen have nothing to fear, contrasting Trump’s actions with the integrity of most local business owners.
She underscores that the vast majority of New York’s entrepreneurs, who play by the rules and maintain transparency, are in a different league than those caught in legal controversies, aiming to instill confidence amidst the unrest.
The NY court ruling has the business community on edge, fearing it could cool the state’s commercial and real estate sectors.
Shark Tank’s Kevin O’Leary voices similar apprehensions, advising against New York developments due to the negative repercussions for business investments.
Amidst fears of a business and investment exodus from New York due to the court ruling, factors like the state’s regulatory challenges and high taxes are spotlighted by worried leaders.
Governor Kathy Hochul has stepped in, reassuring businesses with legal compliance that they have nothing to fear, highlighting the specific nature of the case involved.
The ruling’s long-term effects on New York’s economy and legal scene are under intense debate, touching on Trump’s finances and potential legal maneuvers.
The controversy draws varied opinions, underscoring the ruling’s significant ripple effects across New York’s business, real estate, and regulatory spheres as stakeholders eagerly watch for the outcome.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/smallbu ... 6550&ei=26
"Governor Hochul Scrambles to ‘Plug the Leak’ and Stop Businesses From Leaving New York"
Story by Gordon James
20 MARCH 2024
Governor Kathy Hochul has been in the spotlight after a court fined Donald Trump and his company $355 million for fraud, sparking concerns among business leaders about the implications for operating in New York.
The hefty fine, contributing to total damages exceeding $450 million, has prompted figures like Grant Cardone to reconsider their business ventures in the state.
Real estate mogul Grant Cardone is shifting his investment focus away from New York, eyeing markets in Texas and Florida, in response to the perceived instability and risks the recent court ruling introduces.
This decision follows a significant ruling that prohibits Trump and his sons from holding executive positions in New York companies, raising eyebrows in the business community about future regulatory impacts.
Governor Hochul reassures that the ruling is an outlier, emphasizing that rule-abiding New York businessmen have nothing to fear, contrasting Trump’s actions with the integrity of most local business owners.
She underscores that the vast majority of New York’s entrepreneurs, who play by the rules and maintain transparency, are in a different league than those caught in legal controversies, aiming to instill confidence amidst the unrest.
The NY court ruling has the business community on edge, fearing it could cool the state’s commercial and real estate sectors.
Shark Tank’s Kevin O’Leary voices similar apprehensions, advising against New York developments due to the negative repercussions for business investments.
Amidst fears of a business and investment exodus from New York due to the court ruling, factors like the state’s regulatory challenges and high taxes are spotlighted by worried leaders.
Governor Kathy Hochul has stepped in, reassuring businesses with legal compliance that they have nothing to fear, highlighting the specific nature of the case involved.
The ruling’s long-term effects on New York’s economy and legal scene are under intense debate, touching on Trump’s finances and potential legal maneuvers.
The controversy draws varied opinions, underscoring the ruling’s significant ripple effects across New York’s business, real estate, and regulatory spheres as stakeholders eagerly watch for the outcome.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/smallbu ... 6550&ei=26
Re: THE MAGA-MAN DONALD TRUMP
The Washington Examiner
"Due process and property rights ‘being shaken to the core’ by New York attorney general’s vendetta against Trump"
Story by Elizabeth Stauffer
22 MARCH 2024
Here’s what New York Attorney General Letitia James told ABC News in February after Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron, the presiding judge in James’s civil fraud trial against former President Donald Trump, ordered Trump to pay a massive $355 million fine, plus accrued prejudgment interest dating back to the day the case was filed: “If he does not have the funds to pay off the judgment, we will seek judgment enforcement mechanisms in court, and we will ask the judge to seize his assets."
"We are prepared to make sure that the judgment is paid to New Yorkers."
"And yes, I look at 40 Wall St. [a Trump-owned property] each and every day.”
In a Monday filing to a New York appeals court, Trump’s lawyers admitted he was unable to secure an appeal bond of $464 million to satisfy the debt and begin the appeal process.
The motion asked the court either to pause the exorbitant judgment or reduce the bond to $100 million.
The filing states: “Despite scouring the market, we have been unsuccessful in our effort to obtain a bond for the Judgment Amount for Defendants for the simple reason that obtaining an appeal bond for $464 million is a practical impossibility under the circumstances presented."
"… These diligent efforts have included approaching about 30 surety companies through 4 separate brokers.”
The filing also states that none of the surety agencies they contacted were “willing to accept hard assets such as real estate as collateral for appeal bonds.”
The Wall Street Journal editorial board noted, “This isn’t surprising given the recent write-downs in commercial real estate and enormous uncertainty about their valuations, especially in places like New York."
"Insurers may also fear Ms. James’s legal retribution if they provide the bond to Mr. Trump.”
This development has left James salivating over the prospect of seizing Trump’s properties after the March 25 deadline.
But imagine her absolute mortification if shareholders of social media platform Truth Social vote to take the company public on Friday, a move that could hand Trump a $3.5 billion windfall.
The Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday that, although Trump would be prohibited from selling his shares for six months, it’s possible he could borrow against his stake in the company.
That would certainly wipe the grin off James’s face.
Engoron’s ruling found that Trump was liable for overstating the values of his assets on bank loan applications to obtain more favorable interest rates, which, as it turns out, is a common practice among commercial real estate developers.
New York City is the financial capital of the world, and its bankers are among the most sophisticated and savvy on the planet.
They expect developers to inflate property valuations and simply adjust them down to more realistic levels before making their lending decisions.
Significantly, all of the loans were paid back — on time.
Not only was this a victimless crime, according to George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley, but during the trial, “witnesses [loan officers] testified that they wanted to do more business with Trump, who was described as a ‘whale’ client with high yield business opportunities.”
As per the Wall Street Journal, a defendant must post a bond to appeal a verdict in New York state.
So, even though there are numerous grounds for an appeal in this case, including the Eighth Amendment, which states that “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted,” by setting such an excessive fine, Engoron is effectively blocking Trump from beginning the appeal process.
New York venture capitalist and co-host of Shark Tank Kevin O’Leary sees the Democrats’ abuse of the legal system against Trump as an “attack on America.”
He told Fox News on Tuesday that “the reason this is the No. 1 economy on Earth is because we have laws and we have due process."
"And we have property rights."
"It attracts capital from all around the world."
"All of that is being shaken to the core here."
"It has absolutely nothing to do with Donald Trump at this point, in my view, and it is completely bipartisan."
"This is an attack on America."
"No one is going to put any money to work in New York in these amounts until this thing settles down."
"The whole world is watching, and everybody’s waiting for one thing we haven’t got yet: adult supervision.”
James’s vendetta against Trump may force him to sell properties at fire sale prices just so he can proceed with his appeal.
If that were to happen and Engoron’s obscene judgment is ultimately reduced or even eliminated, the damage would already have been done.
If such an outcome is a possibility, what investor, foreign or domestic, would risk buying property in New York?
Or in any other Democratic-run U.S. city?
James is going for immediate gratification here and ignoring the unintended medium- and long-term consequences that will surely follow.
O’Leary is right.
Love him or hate him, this is bigger than Donald Trump.
The biggest casualty of this grotesque abuse of prosecutorial power will be America.
We are losing the one thing that separates us from Third World countries: equal justice under the law.
Elizabeth Stauffer is a contributor to the Washington Examiner, Power Line, and AFNN, and she is a fellow at the Heritage Foundation Academy. She is a past contributor to RedState, Newsmax, the Western Journal, and Bongino.com. Her articles have appeared on RealClearPolitics, MSN, the Federalist, and many other sites. Please follow Elizabeth on X or LinkedIn.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... aeec&ei=66
"Due process and property rights ‘being shaken to the core’ by New York attorney general’s vendetta against Trump"
Story by Elizabeth Stauffer
22 MARCH 2024
Here’s what New York Attorney General Letitia James told ABC News in February after Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron, the presiding judge in James’s civil fraud trial against former President Donald Trump, ordered Trump to pay a massive $355 million fine, plus accrued prejudgment interest dating back to the day the case was filed: “If he does not have the funds to pay off the judgment, we will seek judgment enforcement mechanisms in court, and we will ask the judge to seize his assets."
"We are prepared to make sure that the judgment is paid to New Yorkers."
"And yes, I look at 40 Wall St. [a Trump-owned property] each and every day.”
In a Monday filing to a New York appeals court, Trump’s lawyers admitted he was unable to secure an appeal bond of $464 million to satisfy the debt and begin the appeal process.
The motion asked the court either to pause the exorbitant judgment or reduce the bond to $100 million.
The filing states: “Despite scouring the market, we have been unsuccessful in our effort to obtain a bond for the Judgment Amount for Defendants for the simple reason that obtaining an appeal bond for $464 million is a practical impossibility under the circumstances presented."
"… These diligent efforts have included approaching about 30 surety companies through 4 separate brokers.”
The filing also states that none of the surety agencies they contacted were “willing to accept hard assets such as real estate as collateral for appeal bonds.”
The Wall Street Journal editorial board noted, “This isn’t surprising given the recent write-downs in commercial real estate and enormous uncertainty about their valuations, especially in places like New York."
"Insurers may also fear Ms. James’s legal retribution if they provide the bond to Mr. Trump.”
This development has left James salivating over the prospect of seizing Trump’s properties after the March 25 deadline.
But imagine her absolute mortification if shareholders of social media platform Truth Social vote to take the company public on Friday, a move that could hand Trump a $3.5 billion windfall.
The Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday that, although Trump would be prohibited from selling his shares for six months, it’s possible he could borrow against his stake in the company.
That would certainly wipe the grin off James’s face.
Engoron’s ruling found that Trump was liable for overstating the values of his assets on bank loan applications to obtain more favorable interest rates, which, as it turns out, is a common practice among commercial real estate developers.
New York City is the financial capital of the world, and its bankers are among the most sophisticated and savvy on the planet.
They expect developers to inflate property valuations and simply adjust them down to more realistic levels before making their lending decisions.
Significantly, all of the loans were paid back — on time.
Not only was this a victimless crime, according to George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley, but during the trial, “witnesses [loan officers] testified that they wanted to do more business with Trump, who was described as a ‘whale’ client with high yield business opportunities.”
As per the Wall Street Journal, a defendant must post a bond to appeal a verdict in New York state.
So, even though there are numerous grounds for an appeal in this case, including the Eighth Amendment, which states that “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted,” by setting such an excessive fine, Engoron is effectively blocking Trump from beginning the appeal process.
New York venture capitalist and co-host of Shark Tank Kevin O’Leary sees the Democrats’ abuse of the legal system against Trump as an “attack on America.”
He told Fox News on Tuesday that “the reason this is the No. 1 economy on Earth is because we have laws and we have due process."
"And we have property rights."
"It attracts capital from all around the world."
"All of that is being shaken to the core here."
"It has absolutely nothing to do with Donald Trump at this point, in my view, and it is completely bipartisan."
"This is an attack on America."
"No one is going to put any money to work in New York in these amounts until this thing settles down."
"The whole world is watching, and everybody’s waiting for one thing we haven’t got yet: adult supervision.”
James’s vendetta against Trump may force him to sell properties at fire sale prices just so he can proceed with his appeal.
If that were to happen and Engoron’s obscene judgment is ultimately reduced or even eliminated, the damage would already have been done.
If such an outcome is a possibility, what investor, foreign or domestic, would risk buying property in New York?
Or in any other Democratic-run U.S. city?
James is going for immediate gratification here and ignoring the unintended medium- and long-term consequences that will surely follow.
O’Leary is right.
Love him or hate him, this is bigger than Donald Trump.
The biggest casualty of this grotesque abuse of prosecutorial power will be America.
We are losing the one thing that separates us from Third World countries: equal justice under the law.
Elizabeth Stauffer is a contributor to the Washington Examiner, Power Line, and AFNN, and she is a fellow at the Heritage Foundation Academy. She is a past contributor to RedState, Newsmax, the Western Journal, and Bongino.com. Her articles have appeared on RealClearPolitics, MSN, the Federalist, and many other sites. Please follow Elizabeth on X or LinkedIn.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... aeec&ei=66
Re: THE MAGA-MAN DONALD TRUMP
The Western Journal
"Lib Host Jon Stewart Overvalued His Home By 829% After Saying Trump Civil Case Is 'Not Victimless'"
Story by Warner Todd Huston
29 MARCH 2024
Virulently anti-Trump comedian and TV host Jon Stewart is facing a backlash after being accused of perpetrating the same behavior that he has criticized former President Donald Trump of committing.
Stewart is facing criticism after attacking Trump over claims that he overvalued some of his properties, a claim lodged against him during the former president’s New York civil case.
The former president has blasted the $454 million appeal bond and his legal team has questioned the ruling and said it is untoward for a "victimless crime."
But Stewart has scoffed at that defense.
Stewart's "The Daily Show" had run a clip of "Shark Tank" star Kevin O’Leary attacking the ruling on CNN and saying that the whole court case is a danger for the entire real estate industry, the New York Post reported.
In the clip, CNN’s Laura Coates replied to O'Leary by pointing out that Trump was accused of falsifying business records in the second degree, along with insurance fraud and making false financial statements, all in connection with an attempt to inflate his assets.
But O'Leary explained that "everything that you just listed off is done by every real estate developer everywhere on Earth in every city."
"This has never been prosecuted."
After the clip ended, Stweart jumped in to quip, "How is he not this mad about overvaluations in the real world?
"Because they are not victimless crimes," Stewart added.
Stewart continued his attack, saying that, "money isn’t infinite."
"A loan that goes to the liar doesn’t go to someone who’s giving a more honest evaluation."
"So the system becomes incentivized for corruption."
He went on to claim that if someone pays lower taxes based on lower property values, then that is fraud.
"The attorney general of New York knew that Trump’s property values were inflated because when it came time to pay taxes, Trump undervalued the very same properties," Stewart exclaimed.
"It was all part of a very specific real estate practice known as lying."
Stewart's righteous indignation, though, soon came under fire when social media users began to notice a small flaw in Stewart's pious stance against Trump and his "fraud."
The Post reported that Stewart's 2014 sale of his Tribeca duplex was not all as above-board as the TV host may have contended.
Stewart sold his 6,280-square-foot apartment to financier Parag Pande for $17.5 million.
But at the time, the asking price of the property was not made public.
However, according to 2013-2014 assessor's report, the property was only assessed at a market value of only $1.882 million.
And the assessor's value came in even lower at $847,174.
The overvaluation added up to a whopping 829 percent, according to the Post.
With all that, it was noted that Stewart paid far less in taxes on a property assessed at a mere $847,174, than he would on a property "worth" $17.5 million.
But even more to the point, Pande resold the property for only around $13 million in 2021, a 26 percent loss.
Stewart's financial windfall caused many to wonder if the TV star committed the same "fraud" that he claimed that Trump committed.
Did @jonstewart commit fraud when he sold his penthouse for $17.5M?
NY listed its market value at $1.8M an AV at around 800k
Who did he He defraud??
I am SHOCKED
SHOCKED pic.twitter.com/9okis96VQP
— Tim Pool (@Timcast) March 26, 2024
The Post added that the tax bill for Stewart's penthouse was assessed in the same way that Trump's was, the same formula that New York Attorney General Letitia James used to claim Trump committed fraud.
"Stewart’s reps did not respond to The Post’s request for comment," the outlet reported.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/lib-h ... 05b9&ei=46
"Lib Host Jon Stewart Overvalued His Home By 829% After Saying Trump Civil Case Is 'Not Victimless'"
Story by Warner Todd Huston
29 MARCH 2024
Virulently anti-Trump comedian and TV host Jon Stewart is facing a backlash after being accused of perpetrating the same behavior that he has criticized former President Donald Trump of committing.
Stewart is facing criticism after attacking Trump over claims that he overvalued some of his properties, a claim lodged against him during the former president’s New York civil case.
The former president has blasted the $454 million appeal bond and his legal team has questioned the ruling and said it is untoward for a "victimless crime."
But Stewart has scoffed at that defense.
Stewart's "The Daily Show" had run a clip of "Shark Tank" star Kevin O’Leary attacking the ruling on CNN and saying that the whole court case is a danger for the entire real estate industry, the New York Post reported.
In the clip, CNN’s Laura Coates replied to O'Leary by pointing out that Trump was accused of falsifying business records in the second degree, along with insurance fraud and making false financial statements, all in connection with an attempt to inflate his assets.
But O'Leary explained that "everything that you just listed off is done by every real estate developer everywhere on Earth in every city."
"This has never been prosecuted."
After the clip ended, Stweart jumped in to quip, "How is he not this mad about overvaluations in the real world?
"Because they are not victimless crimes," Stewart added.
Stewart continued his attack, saying that, "money isn’t infinite."
"A loan that goes to the liar doesn’t go to someone who’s giving a more honest evaluation."
"So the system becomes incentivized for corruption."
He went on to claim that if someone pays lower taxes based on lower property values, then that is fraud.
"The attorney general of New York knew that Trump’s property values were inflated because when it came time to pay taxes, Trump undervalued the very same properties," Stewart exclaimed.
"It was all part of a very specific real estate practice known as lying."
Stewart's righteous indignation, though, soon came under fire when social media users began to notice a small flaw in Stewart's pious stance against Trump and his "fraud."
The Post reported that Stewart's 2014 sale of his Tribeca duplex was not all as above-board as the TV host may have contended.
Stewart sold his 6,280-square-foot apartment to financier Parag Pande for $17.5 million.
But at the time, the asking price of the property was not made public.
However, according to 2013-2014 assessor's report, the property was only assessed at a market value of only $1.882 million.
And the assessor's value came in even lower at $847,174.
The overvaluation added up to a whopping 829 percent, according to the Post.
With all that, it was noted that Stewart paid far less in taxes on a property assessed at a mere $847,174, than he would on a property "worth" $17.5 million.
But even more to the point, Pande resold the property for only around $13 million in 2021, a 26 percent loss.
Stewart's financial windfall caused many to wonder if the TV star committed the same "fraud" that he claimed that Trump committed.
Did @jonstewart commit fraud when he sold his penthouse for $17.5M?
NY listed its market value at $1.8M an AV at around 800k
Who did he He defraud??
I am SHOCKED
SHOCKED pic.twitter.com/9okis96VQP
— Tim Pool (@Timcast) March 26, 2024
The Post added that the tax bill for Stewart's penthouse was assessed in the same way that Trump's was, the same formula that New York Attorney General Letitia James used to claim Trump committed fraud.
"Stewart’s reps did not respond to The Post’s request for comment," the outlet reported.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/lib-h ... 05b9&ei=46
Re: THE MAGA-MAN DONALD TRUMP
Reuters
"US judge receptive to Trump documents claims in warning sign for prosecutors"
Story by Andrew Goudsward
2 APRIL 2024
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal judge overseeing the criminal case that accuses Donald Trump of mishandling classified documents has signaled an openness to the former U.S. president’s defense claims, in a sign that prosecutors might face a difficult road ahead.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who was nominated to the bench by Trump, has asked Trump and prosecutors to propose jury instructions based on two legal scenarios that favor a claim from Trump that national security lawyers said have little relevance to the charges.
Trump and Special Counsel Jack Smith, who brought the case, face a Tuesday deadline to respond to the judge’s order.
The dispute is another instance of Cannon lending credence to Trump's legal arguments about highly sensitive records taken to his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida when he left the White House in 2021.
While Trump has clashed with judges in many of his legal cases, Cannon has been receptive to his defense in ways that could alter the course of the documents case.
“You have a court who is more favorable to the views of one party versus the other, and you’re seeing orders and decisions that are reflective of that,” said Brandon Van Grack, a former Justice Department national security official.
Trump has pleaded not guilty to charges accusing him of knowingly retaining secret records related to the U.S. national defense and obstructing efforts by the U.S. government to retrieve them.
The prosecution is one of four facing Trump as he seeks to unseat Democrat Joe Biden in the Nov. 5 presidential election.
Trump has cast the cases as part of a politically motivated effort to damage his campaign.
At issue in Cannon’s recent order is Trump’s claim that he treated the documents as personal under a 1978 law that allows former presidents to keep records that have no connection to their official responsibilities.
Trump’s lawyers argue his decision to keep the records shows that he deemed them to be his personal property.
Prosecutors have said the documents could not be construed as personal because they relate to U.S. intelligence and military matters.
The records law could not authorize Trump to keep classified papers, they said.
Cannon expressed skepticism at a March 14 court hearing that Trump’s claim requires the charges to be tossed out, but said it may prove “forceful” at a future trial.
She later ordered dueling sets of proposed jury instructions, assuming either that the government would have to prove the records belong to the government, or that neither the judge nor the jury could question Trump’s stance that they are personal.
“Both of them are completely irrelevant,” Kel McClanahan, a national security lawyer who has represented members of the U.S. intelligence community, said of the competing scenarios.
“And both actually favor the defendant.”
Mark Zaid, a defense lawyer who has worked on cases involving classified information, said he is unaware of an instance when a document produced by a federal agency was declared a personal record by a president.
Allowing a jury to consider those claims would “give Trump a fighting chance in a jury trial that would never likely exist in another case,” Zaid said.
A trial date remains uncertain.
Cannon has not yet ruled on competing proposals from Trump and prosecutors to delay the currently scheduled May 20 trial until later this summer.
Cannon has escaped the ire Trump has directed at judges overseeing his other legal cases, who he has frequently accused of bias and criticized in personal terms.
Cannon ruled in Trump’s favor in a legal challenge to the investigation filed before charges were brought, which was later reversed by a federal appeals court.
She has signaled support for some of Trump’s other arguments, including his request for more records from the Biden administration to attempt to build a case that the investigation was politically motivated.
In a setback for Trump’s defense, Cannon last month rejected an attempt to invalidate the central charge against him – willfully retaining classified information.
Cannon said Trump’s lawyers could raise the issue later, noting it raised arguments “warranting serious consideration.”
(Reporting by Andrew Goudsward; Editing by Andy Sullivan)
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... a40a&ei=81
"US judge receptive to Trump documents claims in warning sign for prosecutors"
Story by Andrew Goudsward
2 APRIL 2024
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal judge overseeing the criminal case that accuses Donald Trump of mishandling classified documents has signaled an openness to the former U.S. president’s defense claims, in a sign that prosecutors might face a difficult road ahead.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who was nominated to the bench by Trump, has asked Trump and prosecutors to propose jury instructions based on two legal scenarios that favor a claim from Trump that national security lawyers said have little relevance to the charges.
Trump and Special Counsel Jack Smith, who brought the case, face a Tuesday deadline to respond to the judge’s order.
The dispute is another instance of Cannon lending credence to Trump's legal arguments about highly sensitive records taken to his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida when he left the White House in 2021.
While Trump has clashed with judges in many of his legal cases, Cannon has been receptive to his defense in ways that could alter the course of the documents case.
“You have a court who is more favorable to the views of one party versus the other, and you’re seeing orders and decisions that are reflective of that,” said Brandon Van Grack, a former Justice Department national security official.
Trump has pleaded not guilty to charges accusing him of knowingly retaining secret records related to the U.S. national defense and obstructing efforts by the U.S. government to retrieve them.
The prosecution is one of four facing Trump as he seeks to unseat Democrat Joe Biden in the Nov. 5 presidential election.
Trump has cast the cases as part of a politically motivated effort to damage his campaign.
At issue in Cannon’s recent order is Trump’s claim that he treated the documents as personal under a 1978 law that allows former presidents to keep records that have no connection to their official responsibilities.
Trump’s lawyers argue his decision to keep the records shows that he deemed them to be his personal property.
Prosecutors have said the documents could not be construed as personal because they relate to U.S. intelligence and military matters.
The records law could not authorize Trump to keep classified papers, they said.
Cannon expressed skepticism at a March 14 court hearing that Trump’s claim requires the charges to be tossed out, but said it may prove “forceful” at a future trial.
She later ordered dueling sets of proposed jury instructions, assuming either that the government would have to prove the records belong to the government, or that neither the judge nor the jury could question Trump’s stance that they are personal.
“Both of them are completely irrelevant,” Kel McClanahan, a national security lawyer who has represented members of the U.S. intelligence community, said of the competing scenarios.
“And both actually favor the defendant.”
Mark Zaid, a defense lawyer who has worked on cases involving classified information, said he is unaware of an instance when a document produced by a federal agency was declared a personal record by a president.
Allowing a jury to consider those claims would “give Trump a fighting chance in a jury trial that would never likely exist in another case,” Zaid said.
A trial date remains uncertain.
Cannon has not yet ruled on competing proposals from Trump and prosecutors to delay the currently scheduled May 20 trial until later this summer.
Cannon has escaped the ire Trump has directed at judges overseeing his other legal cases, who he has frequently accused of bias and criticized in personal terms.
Cannon ruled in Trump’s favor in a legal challenge to the investigation filed before charges were brought, which was later reversed by a federal appeals court.
She has signaled support for some of Trump’s other arguments, including his request for more records from the Biden administration to attempt to build a case that the investigation was politically motivated.
In a setback for Trump’s defense, Cannon last month rejected an attempt to invalidate the central charge against him – willfully retaining classified information.
Cannon said Trump’s lawyers could raise the issue later, noting it raised arguments “warranting serious consideration.”
(Reporting by Andrew Goudsward; Editing by Andy Sullivan)
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... a40a&ei=81
Re: THE MAGA-MAN DONALD TRUMP
The New York Post
"Joe Biden can’t get out of the hole he’s already dug for himself"
Opinion by Dan McLaughlin
4 APRIL 2024
It was supposed to be unthinkable.
After losing to Joe Biden in 2020, after Jan. 6, after four felony indictments and all manner of other legal troubles, after years of surveys showing solid majorities of Americans widely dislike Donald Trump and after feuds with Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis that have yet to heal, it’s seven months to Election Day and the polls consistently show Trump leading Biden.
How did Biden screw this up so badly?
The latest Wall Street Journal poll shows Trump leading by 2 to 8 points in each of six battleground states (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and North Carolina), trailing Biden only in Wisconsin — and a pure head-to-head matchup has the two men tied in Wisconsin.
Look at the RealClearPolitics poll averages, and the story is much the same: Trump leads Biden by less than a point in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and by 3 points or more in each of the other five big battlegrounds.
In states with a clear poll leader, Trump leads Biden 219-214 in the Electoral College.
If you count every lead, no matter how thin, Trump wins by a lopsided 312-226, the biggest Electoral College margin since Barack Obama in 2012.
It’s not over yet
That would also mean Trump carrying eight states where Democrats are defending a Senate seat in November while losing none where Republicans are defending one.
Chuck Schumer can’t be happy at that prospect.
It’s early for Trump to start counting his chickens.
The polling industry has struggled to reliably forecast elections as fewer and fewer Americans answer their phones or even have a landline.
Many of Trump’s leads are modest.
The Journal poll was conducted March 17-24, and national polls that were in the field since then have been a bit more favorable to Biden.
Large numbers of voters, especially independents, still say they are undecided.
It’s also early enough that the campaigns, which don’t really kick into gear until after Labor Day, can still have an effect.
Democrats are likely to maintain their significant edge in fundraising, which means more money for ads and getting out the vote.
The war in Gaza may be over by November, which would help heal fractures in Biden’s voting base.
Trump may yet be convicted at one or more criminal trials between now and then.
And the race could be upended if Biden (who’s 81) or Trump (who turns 78 in June) were to have a serious health issue.
But you’d much rather be where Trump is in the polls right now than where Biden is.
Trump was never in this strong a position at any point in the 2016 or 2020 elections.
At this stage in 2020, Biden was up 4 points in Michigan, 3 in Wisconsin and North Carolina and 2 in Pennsylvania.
At this point in 2016, Hillary Clinton was up 10 in Michigan and Wisconsin, 9 in Pennsylvania and 2 in North Carolina — and she lost all four states.
How much of this is Biden’s fault?
His job-approval rating is still hovering just over 40%, well below where Trump stood at this point in 2020 as the nation locked down in the midst of the pandemic.
Only 28% told the Journal that Biden has the mental and physical fitness to do the job, and that’s consistent with what other pollsters have found.
Voters are dissatisfied with the economy, the border and the world situation, and they increasingly remember Trump as doing a better job.
Trump hasn’t done anything different; he just looks better as people see the alternative.
It also helps people think more about the first three years of Trump’s term and less about 2020’s lockdowns and riots.
Many voters now seem to think of those events as an anomaly that won’t return.
Dem base is sagging
Biden’s support is sagging badly among black and Hispanic voters, and younger people are tuning him out.
So are the faithful: A February Marquette poll found that Biden trailed Trump by 12 points among Catholics, 15 among mainline Protestants and 25 among weekly churchgoers.
In Michigan, Emerson College found Trump 1 to 3 points ahead of Biden (depending how many other candidates you include) — but Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer would be 5 points ahead of Trump.
That’s on Joe.
Yet Biden refuses to change course or change his message: The economy is good, Trump is a threat to democracy, and abortion, abortion, abortion.
Those campaign tactics helped Democrats avoid what should have been a much worse loss in 2022, but they still lost the national popular vote in House races — and a repeat of that showing would mean President Trump: The Sequel.
But don’t expect an old dog to learn new tricks.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 7c7b&ei=30
"Joe Biden can’t get out of the hole he’s already dug for himself"
Opinion by Dan McLaughlin
4 APRIL 2024
It was supposed to be unthinkable.
After losing to Joe Biden in 2020, after Jan. 6, after four felony indictments and all manner of other legal troubles, after years of surveys showing solid majorities of Americans widely dislike Donald Trump and after feuds with Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis that have yet to heal, it’s seven months to Election Day and the polls consistently show Trump leading Biden.
How did Biden screw this up so badly?
The latest Wall Street Journal poll shows Trump leading by 2 to 8 points in each of six battleground states (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and North Carolina), trailing Biden only in Wisconsin — and a pure head-to-head matchup has the two men tied in Wisconsin.
Look at the RealClearPolitics poll averages, and the story is much the same: Trump leads Biden by less than a point in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and by 3 points or more in each of the other five big battlegrounds.
In states with a clear poll leader, Trump leads Biden 219-214 in the Electoral College.
If you count every lead, no matter how thin, Trump wins by a lopsided 312-226, the biggest Electoral College margin since Barack Obama in 2012.
It’s not over yet
That would also mean Trump carrying eight states where Democrats are defending a Senate seat in November while losing none where Republicans are defending one.
Chuck Schumer can’t be happy at that prospect.
It’s early for Trump to start counting his chickens.
The polling industry has struggled to reliably forecast elections as fewer and fewer Americans answer their phones or even have a landline.
Many of Trump’s leads are modest.
The Journal poll was conducted March 17-24, and national polls that were in the field since then have been a bit more favorable to Biden.
Large numbers of voters, especially independents, still say they are undecided.
It’s also early enough that the campaigns, which don’t really kick into gear until after Labor Day, can still have an effect.
Democrats are likely to maintain their significant edge in fundraising, which means more money for ads and getting out the vote.
The war in Gaza may be over by November, which would help heal fractures in Biden’s voting base.
Trump may yet be convicted at one or more criminal trials between now and then.
And the race could be upended if Biden (who’s 81) or Trump (who turns 78 in June) were to have a serious health issue.
But you’d much rather be where Trump is in the polls right now than where Biden is.
Trump was never in this strong a position at any point in the 2016 or 2020 elections.
At this stage in 2020, Biden was up 4 points in Michigan, 3 in Wisconsin and North Carolina and 2 in Pennsylvania.
At this point in 2016, Hillary Clinton was up 10 in Michigan and Wisconsin, 9 in Pennsylvania and 2 in North Carolina — and she lost all four states.
How much of this is Biden’s fault?
His job-approval rating is still hovering just over 40%, well below where Trump stood at this point in 2020 as the nation locked down in the midst of the pandemic.
Only 28% told the Journal that Biden has the mental and physical fitness to do the job, and that’s consistent with what other pollsters have found.
Voters are dissatisfied with the economy, the border and the world situation, and they increasingly remember Trump as doing a better job.
Trump hasn’t done anything different; he just looks better as people see the alternative.
It also helps people think more about the first three years of Trump’s term and less about 2020’s lockdowns and riots.
Many voters now seem to think of those events as an anomaly that won’t return.
Dem base is sagging
Biden’s support is sagging badly among black and Hispanic voters, and younger people are tuning him out.
So are the faithful: A February Marquette poll found that Biden trailed Trump by 12 points among Catholics, 15 among mainline Protestants and 25 among weekly churchgoers.
In Michigan, Emerson College found Trump 1 to 3 points ahead of Biden (depending how many other candidates you include) — but Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer would be 5 points ahead of Trump.
That’s on Joe.
Yet Biden refuses to change course or change his message: The economy is good, Trump is a threat to democracy, and abortion, abortion, abortion.
Those campaign tactics helped Democrats avoid what should have been a much worse loss in 2022, but they still lost the national popular vote in House races — and a repeat of that showing would mean President Trump: The Sequel.
But don’t expect an old dog to learn new tricks.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 7c7b&ei=30
Re: THE MAGA-MAN DONALD TRUMP
FOX News
"New poll shows Biden’s 2024 lead vanishing with Trump on trial"
Story by Brandon Gillespie
25 APRIL 2024
A new Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday shows President Biden's slight lead over former President Trump vanishing despite Trump's ongoing criminal trial in New York City.
Trump's trial, related to the 34 counts of falsifying business records he's charged with, began last week with jury selection and moved into opening arguments this week.
Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
The poll also found the presidential race to be in a dead heat with Biden and Trump tied at 46% support.
The two remain tied at 37% with the inclusion of independent presidential candidates Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (16%) and Dr. Cornel West (3%) and the Green Party's Jill Stein (3%).
Those numbers mark a significant closing of the gap for Trump, who trailed Biden 48%-45% in Quinnipiac's March poll.
However, with the inclusion of Kennedy, West and Stein, Trump held a one-point lead over Biden 39%-38%.
Biden's job approval remained dismally low at 35% support, down from 37% in March, while 61% said they disapprove of his job performance, up from 59%.
Regarding the charges Trump faces in his ongoing New York trial, a plurality of 46% said they believe the former president did something illegal, while 45% said he didn't.
However, 27% believe he did something unethical but not illegal, and 18% believe he did nothing wrong.
If Trump were to be convicted on the charges, 21% said they would be less likely to vote for him, 62% said it would not affect their vote and 15% said they would be more likely to vote for him.
Trump has argued the trial is pure politics, a "political persecution," and he maintains his innocence.
The former president, the first ever to be a defendant in a criminal trial, vowed to "tell the truth" if he takes the stand.
He has also argued the trial is unfairly keeping him from the campaign trail, giving Biden an advantage.
Fox News' Brooke Singman contributed to this report.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 0009&ei=39
"New poll shows Biden’s 2024 lead vanishing with Trump on trial"
Story by Brandon Gillespie
25 APRIL 2024
A new Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday shows President Biden's slight lead over former President Trump vanishing despite Trump's ongoing criminal trial in New York City.
Trump's trial, related to the 34 counts of falsifying business records he's charged with, began last week with jury selection and moved into opening arguments this week.
Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
The poll also found the presidential race to be in a dead heat with Biden and Trump tied at 46% support.
The two remain tied at 37% with the inclusion of independent presidential candidates Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (16%) and Dr. Cornel West (3%) and the Green Party's Jill Stein (3%).
Those numbers mark a significant closing of the gap for Trump, who trailed Biden 48%-45% in Quinnipiac's March poll.
However, with the inclusion of Kennedy, West and Stein, Trump held a one-point lead over Biden 39%-38%.
Biden's job approval remained dismally low at 35% support, down from 37% in March, while 61% said they disapprove of his job performance, up from 59%.
Regarding the charges Trump faces in his ongoing New York trial, a plurality of 46% said they believe the former president did something illegal, while 45% said he didn't.
However, 27% believe he did something unethical but not illegal, and 18% believe he did nothing wrong.
If Trump were to be convicted on the charges, 21% said they would be less likely to vote for him, 62% said it would not affect their vote and 15% said they would be more likely to vote for him.
Trump has argued the trial is pure politics, a "political persecution," and he maintains his innocence.
The former president, the first ever to be a defendant in a criminal trial, vowed to "tell the truth" if he takes the stand.
He has also argued the trial is unfairly keeping him from the campaign trail, giving Biden an advantage.
Fox News' Brooke Singman contributed to this report.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 0009&ei=39
Re: THE MAGA-MAN DONALD TRUMP
The Telegraph
"‘He liked to use the Oxford comma’ – Trump aide reveals how he crafted his ‘signature’ tweets"
Story by Raoul Simons
11 MAY 2024
Donald Trump dictates his tweets to an aide and delivers precise instructions about the use of punctuation marks such as Oxford commas and exclamation points, a court has heard.
Madeleine Westerhout, who worked as Mr Trump’s personal secretary until 2019, told his New York hush money trial that the ex-president preferred her to note down his thoughts rather than write the social media posts himself.
He would then edit them on paper and had very specific requirements about grammar, according to Ms Westerhout, who later became tearful in the witness box as she recalled her time in the White House.
“My recollection is there are certain words he liked to capitalise,” she said.
“Words like ‘country’."
"He liked to use exclamation points.
“It is my understanding that he liked to use the Oxford comma.”
Mr Trump is accused of falsifying records to hide a payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels.
He denies the charges.
Giving evidence for the prosecution, Ms Westerhout provided details about Mr Trump’s workflow for communicating via Twitter, his preferred social media platform until the end of his presidency in 2020.
Mr Trump did not use a computer or have an email address, to the best of her knowledge.
He preferred to dictate his tweets to her, she said.
Ms Westerhout, whose desk was positioned directly outside the Oval Office, said she would take notes, quickly type up the draft and print it out for him.
Occasionally, Mr Trump would have more edits.
She told the court she soon learned what made a “signature” Trump tweet.
Dan Scavino, Mr Trump’s top aide, had access to the @realDonaldTrump account, she said, and he would generally craft the tweets once the wording had been finalised.
But Ms Westerhout said she would occasionally stand-in when Mr Scavino was absent.
In the wake of the Jan 6 Capitol riot in 2021, Mr Trump was banned from Twitter for messages the site said risked “further incitement of violence”.
The Republican presidential candidate has since formed Truth Social, which is now his preferred social media platform.
Ms Westerhout, 33, was forced to resign from the White House in 2019 after she reportedly bragged to journalists at an off-the-record dinner that she had a better relationship with Trump than his own daughters, Ivanka and Tiffany.
When asked about the dinner with reporters by the prosecution, Ms Westerhout began to cry in the witness box and spoke of her regret over a “youthful indiscretion”.
Ms Westerhout was also asked about a 2020 book she wrote titled “Off the Record: My Dream Job at the White House, How I Lost It, and What I Learned”, which describes Mr Trump in a favourable light.
“I thought it was really important to share with the American people the man I got to know,” she said through tears.
“I don’t think he’s treated fairly.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... f0b5&ei=53
"‘He liked to use the Oxford comma’ – Trump aide reveals how he crafted his ‘signature’ tweets"
Story by Raoul Simons
11 MAY 2024
Donald Trump dictates his tweets to an aide and delivers precise instructions about the use of punctuation marks such as Oxford commas and exclamation points, a court has heard.
Madeleine Westerhout, who worked as Mr Trump’s personal secretary until 2019, told his New York hush money trial that the ex-president preferred her to note down his thoughts rather than write the social media posts himself.
He would then edit them on paper and had very specific requirements about grammar, according to Ms Westerhout, who later became tearful in the witness box as she recalled her time in the White House.
“My recollection is there are certain words he liked to capitalise,” she said.
“Words like ‘country’."
"He liked to use exclamation points.
“It is my understanding that he liked to use the Oxford comma.”
Mr Trump is accused of falsifying records to hide a payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels.
He denies the charges.
Giving evidence for the prosecution, Ms Westerhout provided details about Mr Trump’s workflow for communicating via Twitter, his preferred social media platform until the end of his presidency in 2020.
Mr Trump did not use a computer or have an email address, to the best of her knowledge.
He preferred to dictate his tweets to her, she said.
Ms Westerhout, whose desk was positioned directly outside the Oval Office, said she would take notes, quickly type up the draft and print it out for him.
Occasionally, Mr Trump would have more edits.
She told the court she soon learned what made a “signature” Trump tweet.
Dan Scavino, Mr Trump’s top aide, had access to the @realDonaldTrump account, she said, and he would generally craft the tweets once the wording had been finalised.
But Ms Westerhout said she would occasionally stand-in when Mr Scavino was absent.
In the wake of the Jan 6 Capitol riot in 2021, Mr Trump was banned from Twitter for messages the site said risked “further incitement of violence”.
The Republican presidential candidate has since formed Truth Social, which is now his preferred social media platform.
Ms Westerhout, 33, was forced to resign from the White House in 2019 after she reportedly bragged to journalists at an off-the-record dinner that she had a better relationship with Trump than his own daughters, Ivanka and Tiffany.
When asked about the dinner with reporters by the prosecution, Ms Westerhout began to cry in the witness box and spoke of her regret over a “youthful indiscretion”.
Ms Westerhout was also asked about a 2020 book she wrote titled “Off the Record: My Dream Job at the White House, How I Lost It, and What I Learned”, which describes Mr Trump in a favourable light.
“I thought it was really important to share with the American people the man I got to know,” she said through tears.
“I don’t think he’s treated fairly.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... f0b5&ei=53
Re: THE MAGA-MAN DONALD TRUMP
Newsweek
"Fani Willis, Letitia James Face Probe Over Donald Trump Cases"
Story by Kate Plummer
11 MAY 2024
Fani Willis and Letitia James, two prosecutors involved in legal actions against former President Donald Trump are among those facing a probe surrounding their communications with the Department of Justice.
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has asked the DOJ to provide communications between the department and Willis, the Fulton County district attorney and New York Attorney General James.
Bailey has also asked the department to hand over activity and communications between the department and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and Special Prosecutor Jack Smith.
Willis, James, Bragg, and Smith are prosecuting Trump in four criminal indictments and a civil case.
Willis is prosecuting Trump and others accused of trying to overturn his 2020 election loss in Georgia.
James successfully prosecuted Trump in his civil fraud case which found Trump, his sons Donald Jr. and Eric, and the Trump Organization liable for a scheme in which the value of Trump's net worth and assets were unlawfully inflated to obtain more favorable business deals.
Meanwhile, Smith alleges Trump worked to overturn the results of the 2020 election, won by President Joe Biden.
He is also prosecuting the former president in his classified documents case in which he is accused of retaining national security information after leaving the White House.
The final case, led by Bragg, concerns Trump allegedly falsifying business records over hush money payments to former adult film star Stormy Daniels to keep an alleged affair secret in the weeks before his 2016 election.
The case is currently in its fourth week of trial and is expected to last six weeks.
Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee for 2024, has denied any wrongdoing across all cases and has pleaded not guilty to the criminal charges against him.
Newsweek contacted representatives for Willis and James by email, Smith and the DOJ by website form and Bragg by phone to comment on this story outside of business hours.
Writing on X, formerly Twitter, Bailey said his office had "reason to believe Biden's corrupt Department of Justice is the headquarters of the illicit prosecutions against President Trump."
He said: "The investigations and subsequent prosecutions of former President Donald J. Trump appear to have been conducted in coordination with the United States Department of Justice."
In another post, he alleged the legal actions "have been weaponized to keep President Trump sidelined from the political arena."
He vowed to "fight for President Trump until he is back in the White House."
Speaking to Newsweek, Todd Landman, a professor of political science at the School of Politics and International Relations at the University of Nottingham in the United Kingdom said the probe has implications for all the aforementioned cases.
He said: "The motivations to do this are evident from the tweet, but it is perfectly legitimate to ask the question."
"The genesis of the Manhattan case of course was during the Trump administration, which was then accelerated by Alvin Bragg, where the indictments were decided by a grand jury."
Landman said the other cases were launched after Trump lost the 2020 election.
"If the investigation reveals any political pressure to bring them, then this could have implications for all the cases."
"The DOJ will need to demonstrate that it followed all protocols, carried out investigations to obtain evidence, and crafted indictments based on the evidence and the absence of direction from the Biden administration."
He said: "In Georgia, the investigation was led from the DA's office and the indictment resulted from a grand jury."
"The DA's role has been adjudicated and is under appeal."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... b9e2&ei=65
"Fani Willis, Letitia James Face Probe Over Donald Trump Cases"
Story by Kate Plummer
11 MAY 2024
Fani Willis and Letitia James, two prosecutors involved in legal actions against former President Donald Trump are among those facing a probe surrounding their communications with the Department of Justice.
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has asked the DOJ to provide communications between the department and Willis, the Fulton County district attorney and New York Attorney General James.
Bailey has also asked the department to hand over activity and communications between the department and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and Special Prosecutor Jack Smith.
Willis, James, Bragg, and Smith are prosecuting Trump in four criminal indictments and a civil case.
Willis is prosecuting Trump and others accused of trying to overturn his 2020 election loss in Georgia.
James successfully prosecuted Trump in his civil fraud case which found Trump, his sons Donald Jr. and Eric, and the Trump Organization liable for a scheme in which the value of Trump's net worth and assets were unlawfully inflated to obtain more favorable business deals.
Meanwhile, Smith alleges Trump worked to overturn the results of the 2020 election, won by President Joe Biden.
He is also prosecuting the former president in his classified documents case in which he is accused of retaining national security information after leaving the White House.
The final case, led by Bragg, concerns Trump allegedly falsifying business records over hush money payments to former adult film star Stormy Daniels to keep an alleged affair secret in the weeks before his 2016 election.
The case is currently in its fourth week of trial and is expected to last six weeks.
Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee for 2024, has denied any wrongdoing across all cases and has pleaded not guilty to the criminal charges against him.
Newsweek contacted representatives for Willis and James by email, Smith and the DOJ by website form and Bragg by phone to comment on this story outside of business hours.
Writing on X, formerly Twitter, Bailey said his office had "reason to believe Biden's corrupt Department of Justice is the headquarters of the illicit prosecutions against President Trump."
He said: "The investigations and subsequent prosecutions of former President Donald J. Trump appear to have been conducted in coordination with the United States Department of Justice."
In another post, he alleged the legal actions "have been weaponized to keep President Trump sidelined from the political arena."
He vowed to "fight for President Trump until he is back in the White House."
Speaking to Newsweek, Todd Landman, a professor of political science at the School of Politics and International Relations at the University of Nottingham in the United Kingdom said the probe has implications for all the aforementioned cases.
He said: "The motivations to do this are evident from the tweet, but it is perfectly legitimate to ask the question."
"The genesis of the Manhattan case of course was during the Trump administration, which was then accelerated by Alvin Bragg, where the indictments were decided by a grand jury."
Landman said the other cases were launched after Trump lost the 2020 election.
"If the investigation reveals any political pressure to bring them, then this could have implications for all the cases."
"The DOJ will need to demonstrate that it followed all protocols, carried out investigations to obtain evidence, and crafted indictments based on the evidence and the absence of direction from the Biden administration."
He said: "In Georgia, the investigation was led from the DA's office and the indictment resulted from a grand jury."
"The DA's role has been adjudicated and is under appeal."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... b9e2&ei=65
Re: THE MAGA-MAN DONALD TRUMP
The New York Post
"This may be the week Alvin Bragg’s case against Trump falls apart"
Opinion by Jonathan Turley
13 MAY 2024
Even for those of us who have long been critics of the “hush money” case against Donald Trump and its dubious legal theory, it has been surprising to see that the prosecutors had no more evidence than we previously knew about.
The assumption was that no rational prosecutor would base a major criminal case almost entirely on the testimony of Michael Cohen, who was recently denounced by a judge as a serial perjurer peddling “perverse” theories in court.
The calculus of Alvin Bragg is now obvious.
He is counting on the jury convicting Trump regardless of the evidence.
Which is also why Bragg likely fears that the judge, not the jury, will decide the case.
After the government closes its evidence this week, the defense will move for a direct verdict by the judge on the basis that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.
Many of us agree with that assessment.
After three weeks of testimony, there is still confusion on what crime Trump allegedly committed.
Bragg has vaguely referred to the labelling of payments to Stormy Daniels as “legal expenses” as a fraud committed to steal the election.
However, the election was over when those denotations were made.
Moreover, many believe that such a characterization for payments related to a nondisclosure agreement is accurate.
(Hillary Clinton’s campaign claimed in the same election that hiding the funding for the Steele dossier as legal expenses was perfectly accurate).
Judge Juan Merchan, in my view, has failed repeatedly to protect the rights of the accused in this case.
But if he wants to show he is truly neutral, Merchan should grant the motion for a directed verdict.
Alvin Bragg has his Trump trial, all he needs now is a crime
To prevent that, Bragg has to show Merchan that someone claimed to have evidence directly tying Trump to an intentional fraudulent scheme to conceal a crime.
Thus far, Bragg hasn’t come close.
Indeed, many of his witnesses helped Trump more than they hurt him.
Bragg started with the testimony of David Pecker, former publisher of the National Enquirer tabloid, on an uncharged transaction to kill a story of a Trump affair with a different woman, Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model.
The relevancy was marginal but the testimony backfired in that Pecker admitted that Trump told him that he knew nothing about any reimbursement to Cohen for any hush money.
He further said that he had killed or promoted stories for Trump in the years before he ever announced for president.
He also said that he had killed stories for other celebrities and politicians, including Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tiger Woods, Rahm Emanuel and Mark Wahlberg.
For good measure, Pecker noted that Cohen often exaggerates and would become loud and argumentative in their discussions.
Witnesses said that Trump likely had a mix of motivations for wanting to kill a story, including sparing his family from embarrassment.
Daniels’ own counsel contradicted the prosecution’s reference to the payment as “hush money.”
Judge allows Stormy Daniels to give irrelevant, salacious testimony just to humiliate Trump
So prosecutors now turn to a witness, Michael Cohen, with a record of saying whatever serves his interests and those of his sponsors.
Everything is riding on his testimony.
It is not enough to say that Trump wanted to hush up the alleged affair.
That is no crime and NDAs are common and legal.
Cohen has to say that Trump specifically knew and approved of the characterization of the payments as “legal expenses.”
He further has to establish that Trump intended the denotation to conceal the payments for the purposes of election violations or fraud.
That could make this a “he said, he said” case if Trump were to actually testify.
However, Merchan’s earlier rulings make such testimony highly unlikely.
The court approved a sweeping scope for cross examination if Trump dares to take the stand.
No competent lawyer would advise him to do so after Merchan’s rulings.
That is exactly where Bragg wants to be: with a “he said” not a “he said, he said” case.
With Trump effectively silenced, Bragg will argue that Cohen’s testimony is enough to get to the jury.
Given the blind rage of many New Yorkers for Trump, the testimony of a convicted, disbarred, serial perjurer may be enough.
The question, then, is whether the judge will let it get that far.
Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/ ... a3b0&ei=25
"This may be the week Alvin Bragg’s case against Trump falls apart"
Opinion by Jonathan Turley
13 MAY 2024
Even for those of us who have long been critics of the “hush money” case against Donald Trump and its dubious legal theory, it has been surprising to see that the prosecutors had no more evidence than we previously knew about.
The assumption was that no rational prosecutor would base a major criminal case almost entirely on the testimony of Michael Cohen, who was recently denounced by a judge as a serial perjurer peddling “perverse” theories in court.
The calculus of Alvin Bragg is now obvious.
He is counting on the jury convicting Trump regardless of the evidence.
Which is also why Bragg likely fears that the judge, not the jury, will decide the case.
After the government closes its evidence this week, the defense will move for a direct verdict by the judge on the basis that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.
Many of us agree with that assessment.
After three weeks of testimony, there is still confusion on what crime Trump allegedly committed.
Bragg has vaguely referred to the labelling of payments to Stormy Daniels as “legal expenses” as a fraud committed to steal the election.
However, the election was over when those denotations were made.
Moreover, many believe that such a characterization for payments related to a nondisclosure agreement is accurate.
(Hillary Clinton’s campaign claimed in the same election that hiding the funding for the Steele dossier as legal expenses was perfectly accurate).
Judge Juan Merchan, in my view, has failed repeatedly to protect the rights of the accused in this case.
But if he wants to show he is truly neutral, Merchan should grant the motion for a directed verdict.
Alvin Bragg has his Trump trial, all he needs now is a crime
To prevent that, Bragg has to show Merchan that someone claimed to have evidence directly tying Trump to an intentional fraudulent scheme to conceal a crime.
Thus far, Bragg hasn’t come close.
Indeed, many of his witnesses helped Trump more than they hurt him.
Bragg started with the testimony of David Pecker, former publisher of the National Enquirer tabloid, on an uncharged transaction to kill a story of a Trump affair with a different woman, Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model.
The relevancy was marginal but the testimony backfired in that Pecker admitted that Trump told him that he knew nothing about any reimbursement to Cohen for any hush money.
He further said that he had killed or promoted stories for Trump in the years before he ever announced for president.
He also said that he had killed stories for other celebrities and politicians, including Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tiger Woods, Rahm Emanuel and Mark Wahlberg.
For good measure, Pecker noted that Cohen often exaggerates and would become loud and argumentative in their discussions.
Witnesses said that Trump likely had a mix of motivations for wanting to kill a story, including sparing his family from embarrassment.
Daniels’ own counsel contradicted the prosecution’s reference to the payment as “hush money.”
Judge allows Stormy Daniels to give irrelevant, salacious testimony just to humiliate Trump
So prosecutors now turn to a witness, Michael Cohen, with a record of saying whatever serves his interests and those of his sponsors.
Everything is riding on his testimony.
It is not enough to say that Trump wanted to hush up the alleged affair.
That is no crime and NDAs are common and legal.
Cohen has to say that Trump specifically knew and approved of the characterization of the payments as “legal expenses.”
He further has to establish that Trump intended the denotation to conceal the payments for the purposes of election violations or fraud.
That could make this a “he said, he said” case if Trump were to actually testify.
However, Merchan’s earlier rulings make such testimony highly unlikely.
The court approved a sweeping scope for cross examination if Trump dares to take the stand.
No competent lawyer would advise him to do so after Merchan’s rulings.
That is exactly where Bragg wants to be: with a “he said” not a “he said, he said” case.
With Trump effectively silenced, Bragg will argue that Cohen’s testimony is enough to get to the jury.
Given the blind rage of many New Yorkers for Trump, the testimony of a convicted, disbarred, serial perjurer may be enough.
The question, then, is whether the judge will let it get that far.
Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/ ... a3b0&ei=25