#judge juan merchan wife

[feelingbluepolitics]

On the subject of what is foreseeable.

trump has been attacking wives and families for a long time. Just two examples: 2018, Jill McCabe, wife of Andrew McCabe, the former FBI deputy director trump fired days before his pension would have vested; 2023, Judge Merchan's wife and daughter. This article includes other examples:

It's part of trump's long-term persona that he doesn't have to follow any rules -- not the Constitution of the United States of America, and not the old school mafia prescript that families -- the women and children -- should not be harmed.

Currently, trump is again gagged from attacking Judge Engoran's law clerk. So now he's been attacking Engoran's wife. Of course, the attacks are malicious lies. That's a given. Judges with integrity are very careful to avoid any appearance of impropriety in using their position and power to their own benefit in any way. (Obviously, some judges, like Roberts, Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito, do not meet this standard.)

trump can assess correctly that none of the judges involved in his "legal challenges" (a favorite media euphemism, which likely enourages trump), will explicitly prohibit him from attacking themselves or their families.

Plenty of people opine that it is stupid for trump to antagonize the judges.

Plenty of people note that trump is well aware of his power as a stochastic terrorist, with "credible threats" swamping those he spotlights, or rather, targets:

And plenty of people recite that trump's favorite legal defense strategy is, "Delay, delay, delay." (One big delay would do.)

More decent people -- not just trump's base -- should be considering that trump would be very pleased if one of his followers physically attacks Judge Engoran's wife, or makes an actual attempt.

No matter how much integrity a judge has, no one could see any judge as impartial whose family member was literally attacked as a consequence of trump's manipulations.

trump would like a mistrial declared. It seems evident that he is, in his stochastic terrorist way, trying for one. It's even more disgusting that trump's base would declare this a win.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

A jury in Manhattan has found former President Donald Trump's company guilty of a long-running criminal tax fraud scheme that lasted into his presidency.

Though Trump and his company have repeatedly faced criminal investigations, this case marks the first time his company has been charged, tried, and convicted on criminal charges.

Trump built his political brand, in large part, on his claim that he was an aggressive and successful businessman.

In all, the jury found two entities controlled by Trump guilty on 17 counts of criminal tax fraud and falsifying business records. The maximum penalty is $1.6 million.

Prosecutors had previously secured a guilty plea last summer from Trump's former longtime Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg, who became the star witness for the prosecution in the case.

But Weisselberg's co-defendants, two Trump business entities, remained under indictment.

On Halloween, prosecutors made their opening arguments in the trial of the Trump Corporation (which encompasses most of his business empire) and the Trump Payroll Corporation (which processes payments to staff), arguing that the case was about "greed and cheating."

ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY SAID IN SUMMATION THAT TRUMP SANCTIONED TAX FRAUD

Trump Corporation attorney Susan Necheles told jurors in her opening statement that the trial is not a referendum on Trump, and asked them to keep an open mind.

Both sides emphasized that Trump was not a defendant, yet the former president's name came up frequently.

Some of the most attention-grabbing evidence presented to the jury were documents with Trump's signature: a rental agreement for a luxury apartment used by Weisselberg, a private school tuition check written for a grandchild of Weisselberg's. Weisselberg admitted he did not declare these benefits as income, as required by law.

In his summation, Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass pointed a rhetorical finger directly at Trump, saying Trump sanctioned tax fraud. The defense vigorously objected, and the objection was sustained by the judge.

During the course of the trial, outside the four walls of the courtroom, Trump declared he was running for president, and frequently lambasted Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg on social media.

Weisselberg previously pleaded guilty to 15 felony tax charges. He admitted hiding the part of his salary that was paid through untaxed benefits like a luxury apartment, Mercedes-Benz leases for him and his wife, and private school tuition for his grandchildren.

The compensation was never reported to New York State or to the IRS.

As part of his plea deal, Weisselberg agreed to testify truthfully and to serve five months in jail.

During his testimony, which laid out the details of his criminal tax fraud, Weisselberg acknowledged that he still receives a $640,000 salary from the Trump Organization – though he has been placed on leave – and of hopes to receive an end-of year bonus.

At issue in this trial was whether Weisselberg and another top executive, Trump Organization Comptroller Jeffrey McConney acted "in behalf of" the corporate entities when they compensated Weisselberg and other top executives by paying for the apartments and luxury benefits that did not get reported to the tax authorities.

TRIAL UNFOLDED AT A MOMENT OF COMPLEX LEGAL PERIL FOR TRUMP AND HIS BUSINESS

In his instructions to jurors, before they reached a verdict, Judge Juan Merchan said that did not mean Trump's company benefited from the scheme, although there was evidence that it did.

Weisselberg acknowledged knowing taxes were owed on that compensation, but it was never reported.

Prosecutors argued that by compensating top executives in this fashion, the Trump Organization was able to save significant amounts of money.

This trial unfolded at a moment of complex legal peril for Trump and his business, with his attorneys playing defense in recent weeks in three different New York City courtrooms.

Last month, a judge required Trump's firm to submit to an outside monitor as part of an on-going $250 million civil case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James.

James' lawsuit claims Trump and his children fraudulently manipulated the value of its real estate holdings for more than a decade, deceiving lenders and and cheating tax authorities.

Trump and his attorneys have pushed back, arguing that prosecutors in New York have overstepped their authority and engaged in a a political witch hunt against the former President.

Trump also faces federal probes involving his role in efforts to block the peaceful transfer of power after he lost the 2020 presidential election and his decision to keep classified documents after leaving the White House.

Last month, the U.S. Justice Department appointed a special counsel to oversee those investigations. Trump has also described that process as politically motivated.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Bill Bramhall

* * *

Cut to Courtroom 59, New York Supreme Court building at 100 Centre Street, Judge Juan Merchan, presiding

The scene before Judge Juan Merchan could not have been more different than Biden’s speech at the Holocaust Memorial Museum. Stormy Daniels provided a disturbing view into the sordid private life of Donald Trump ten years before he was elected president. See Talking Points Memo, Stormy Daniels Offers Grim Look At Transactional Trump

The prosecution called Stormy Daniels on Tuesday morning. Her testimony detailed Trump's creepy advances to Daniels, including his surprise appearance on the hotel room bed in his tee shirt and underwear when Daniels returned from the bathroom. Daniels testified about Trump's advantage in power and size, hinting at the inherent coercion in the situation when describing the events leading to their sexual encounter. See Slate, Stormy Daniels Trump testimony: imagine if this story had come out right after the tape. (“This telling described the interaction as sexual coercion bordering on assault.”)

The hints of coercion in Daniels’ testimony led Trump's attorneys to move for a mistrial—a motion denied by Judge Merchan. As Merchan noted in denying the motion, the defense failed to object to many of the statements by Daniels that Todd Blanche cited as the basis for the mistrial. Judge Merchan told Blanche that the defense could and should address any unfair prejudice during cross-examination.

Judge Merchan exhibited irritation with Stormy Daniels’ expansive answers to the prosecution’s direct examination. The judge objected on his own initiative on a few occasions (a rarity) and urged Daniels to constrain her answers to the questions asked. It was a rare moment of pique by Judge Merchan directed at the prosecution. Still, even in her excess attention to detail, Daniels painted a vivid picture of the encounter—likely to boost her credibility.

But Judge Merchan's dissatisfaction with Daniels’ expansive testimony was surpassed by the judge’s anger at Trump's facial expressions and mutterings in reaction to Daniels’ testimony. Trump sits less than ten feet from the jurors, who undoubtedly heard and saw Trump's reactions. See Huffington Post, Judge Warns Trump Attorney About Audible ‘Cursing’ As Stormy Daniels Testifies.

Judge Merchan called the attorneys to the bench for a sidebar and said the following to Todd Blanche:

I understand that your client is upset at this point, but he is cursing audibly, and he is shaking his head visually and that's contemptuous . . . I am speaking to you here at the bench because I don't want to embarrass him.

The defense cross-examination of Daniels is picking at small inconsistencies in her story, impugning her reputation, and arguing with her. Although the defense succeeded in scoring a few points, the cross-examination has devolved into a contest of wits between an experienced attorney (Susan Necheles) and Stormy Daniels—in which Daniels is holding her own. See New York Times analysis, Jonathan Alter, Stormy Daniels Stood Up Well to the Taunts of Trump’s Lawyer.

Per Jonathan Alter,

Strangely enough, Daniels stood up better under cross than her former attorney, Keith Davidson, did last week. In certain ways, she is doing even better on cross-examination — which continues on Thursday — than she did on direct examination by the prosecution in the morning.

So, what do we make of all this?

The first lesson is that there is no substitute for requiring Trump to answer for his actions in a court of law. When constrained by the rules of evidence and the threat of imprisonment, Trump cannot filibuster and lie with impunity.

Second, Trump is a creep, misogynist, and predator who cannot be trusted to be alone with women who are not his wife. It remains to be seen whether that lesson will pierce the consciousnesses of voters in 2024—especially women. Indeed, the very reason that Trump concealed his encounter with Daniels was because of his fear about its impact on women voters in 2016.

Finally, Trump continues to benefit from a double standard of justice available to no other defendant in the US. Judge Merchan should have called out Trump's muttering and head shaking by reprimanding him in front of the jury. The judge described the behavior as contemptuous but failed to hold Trump in contempt. (Because the behavior occurred in front of Judge Merchan, he could immediately find Trump in “direct contempt” and summarily order him into confinement.) By failing to warn Trump on the record and in front of the jury, the judge will likely feel the need to do so before jailing Trump for direct contempt.

Trump's status as a former president and current candidate has warped the judicial system to an unexpected degree. Although a democracy should act cautiously in charging and jailing its former presidents, there is no exception to the rule of law for former presidents.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[william-r-melich]

Trump Gagged? No Way! - 04/03/2024

The New York supreme court judge Juan Merchan in Trump's "hush money" case has expanded on his earlier gag order which tried to restrict what Trump could publicly say about the case. The order came late yesterday which gags the former president from speaking in public about Manhattan D.A. Alvin Brag's family members and all others named including jurors, potential jurors, counsel, court staff, witnesses, and their families. The judge wrote, “This pattern of attacking family members of presiding jurists and attorneys assigned to his cases serves no legitimate purpose, it merely injects fear in those assigned or called to participate in the proceedings that not only they, but their family members as well, are ‘fair game,’ for Defendant’s vitriol.” He further wrote that courts are "understandably concerned" on restricting defendants' free speech, especially for those who are publicly notable. He further wrote, “The circumstances of the instant matter, however, are different. The conventional ‘David vs. Goliath’ roles are no longer in play as demonstrated by the singular power defendant’s words have on countless others.” In his ruling arguments he cited from the prosecution, “multiple potential witnesses have already raised grave concerns [...] about their own safety and that of their family members should they appear as witnesses against the defendant.” On those fears he wrote that they would "undoubtedly interfere" with the proceedings, and he continued. “The average observer, must now, after hearing defendant’s recent attacks, draw the conclusion that if they become involved in these proceedings, even tangentially, they should worry not only for themselves, but for their loved ones as well.” State prosecutor Matthew Colangelo wrote, “Defendant’s dangerous, violent, and reprehensible rhetoric fundamentally threatens the integrity of these proceedings and is intended to intimidate witnesses and trial participants alike—including this Court.” The state attorney's office was referencing Trump's remarks about the judge's daughter.

This judge, Juan Merchan, is compromised with a serious case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, and Trump's lawyers think he should recuse himself from the case because his daughter, Loren Merchan who owns a Democrat political consulting firm, heavily profited from her fundraisers dedicated to hurt and remove Trump from the political scene. The judge's wife, Lara Merchan, used to work for New York Attorney General Letitia James, who prosecuted Trump for a victimless crime of "over valuating" his property to get a more favorable loan, and to which he paid back fully with interest that made Duetsche Bank (no complaints) a lot of money. Another ridiculous, unconstitutionally brought case, which, like all the others, is nothing more than political persecution. Judge Juan Merchan's profile picture on X was of Donald Trump behind bars. I think it's fair to say that this judge is compromised, or as Trump would say, "by a lot!"

Of course, the mainstream media's talking point's echoe-chamber put out that Trump made threatening remarks about the judge's daughter, when in fact he did no such thing. One of his Truth Social posts reads, “Judge Juan Merchan, a very distinguished looking man, is nevertheless a true and certified Trump Hater who suffers from a very serious case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. In other words, he hates me! His daughter is a senior executive at a Super Liberal Democrat firm that works for Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff, the Democrat National Committee, Senate Majority PAC, and even Crooked Joe Biden.”

As I have said before, I think all of these cases against Trump should be dismissed and thrown out, as they are obviously political witch hunts directed by Biden's crooked administration and their weaponized justice department. So, Trump appropriately calls them the "Biden trials." The left thinks they can stop him from coming back to DC, and this judge thinks he can silence him, to keep him from pointing out all of the obvious corruption in that's clearly in plain sight for anyone with a functioning brain to see; --No Way! No Way! - will they ever silence or stop him, and No Way! - will they ever silence or stop us, we the people. Trump is right when he declares these trials as being "election interference," and that they should never, ever take place in the United States of America: abso-futting-lutely; -- No Way!

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Dean Obeidallah at The Dean's Report:

Just about every conversation featuring legal experts in the media talking about Donald Trump's conduct includes the line: "If he were anyone else, he'd already be in jail." That tells you that Trump continues to receive special treatment. I don’t know about you, but I’m thoroughly disgusted with this special treatment for a man who attempted a coup, incited the Jan 6 attack, is charged with 88 felonies for a range of crimes including violating the Espionage Act and who is now attacking the family of the New York judge handling his criminal case there. It’s long, long past time this ends. And the way to do that is for the New York judge presiding over his election fraud case--where Trump faces 34 felonies--to order him held in custody for contempt until his April 15 trial begins.

Last week, the judge handling this case, Juan Merchan, imposed a gag order that prohibited Trump from attacking witnesses, prosecutors, jurors and court staff--as well as their relatives. In response, Trump repeatedly attacked the Judge’s daughter by name as being biased for working for organizations tied to Democrats. Trump even posted a news article to his Truth Social platform that displayed two pictures of Ms. Merchan. In addition, Trump continued to repeat a lie that the judge’s wife had posted a photo online of Trump in prison. In reality, the social media account at issue—as Trump has been told in the past--had no connection to Merchan’s wife.

Those posts by Trump, while violating the spirit of the gag order, did not violate the express language because that prior order did not cover the family of the judge. But before we address the law, please understand that that there’s only one reason Trump is targeting the judge’s family: To incite threats and potentially violence against them by Trump supporters. Trump is attempting to intimidate the judge by saying if you rule against me on key issues, we know who your family is. It’s the same message Trump wants to send to potential witnesses and jurors in the case, namely, we may not be able to get to you, but we will come after your family. Former FBI Assistant Director Frank Figliuzzi explained on my SiriusXM show Monday that Trump is using mob tactics to intimidate witnesses and others by inciting threats against their family.   Figliuzzi even shared that in one case he handled, a family member of a witness was killed.  

[...]

Getting back to this case, the Manhattan DA—in their pleading to expand the original gag order to protect Judge Marchan’s family��correctly noted, “There is no constitutional right to target the family of this Court.” The prosecutor then continued with a very accurate statement: “Defendant knows what he is doing, and everyone else does too.”

The DA is correct. We all know what Trump is doing: He is trying to intimidate the judge, witnesses, prosecutors and prospective witnesses.  That is exactly what Bragg’s team explained, writing: “We all know exactly what defendant intends because he has said for decades that it is part of his life philosophy to go after his perceived opponents ‘as viciously and as violently’ as he can.” The prosecutors added that Trump, “promised very recently that “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!’ He is carrying out that promise right now.” That led to Judge Marchan’s ruling Monday night expanding the original gag order to protect his own family from Trump. (Take that in for a moment.) The Judge wrote in his opinion that Trump’s  “pattern of attacking family members of presiding jurists and attorneys assigned to his cases serves no legitimate purpose.”  Rather, “It merely injects fear in those assigned or called to patriciate in the proceedings, that not only they, but their family members as well, are "fair game" for Defendant's vitriol.”

The judge then warned, “The average observer, must now, after hearing defendant’s recent attacks, draw the conclusion that if they become involved in these proceedings, even tangentially, they should worry not only for themselves, but for their loved ones as well.”  He added, “Such concerns will undoubtedly interfere with the fair administration of justice and constitutes a direct attack on the Rule of Law itself.” The judge later emphasized this very point, writing, “Again, all citizens, called upon to participate in these proceedings, whether as a juror, a witness, or in some other capacity, must now concern themselves not only with their own personal safety, but with the safety and the potential for personal attacks upon their loved ones.” The judge added, “That reality cannot be overstated.”

Dean Obeidallah is right. Donald Trump continues to get special treatment for committing crimes that would have seen a commoner be thrown in prison a long time ago. Trump should be in jail until at least his trial for repeatedly breaking gag orders.

From the 04.01.2024 edition of SiriusXM Progress's The Dean Obeidallah Show:

[worldofwardcraft]

What will it take?

November 6, 2023

The very day after his August indictment in the Georgia election interference case, crime lord Donald Trump issued this ominous warning: "If you go after me, I'm coming after you." If a Mafia boss, drug chieftain, gang member or any other defendant said this, that person would be immediately remanded to the appropriate pokey. But in Trump's case, the legal system (along with the news media) simply closed its eyes and shrugged.

It's just another illustration of our two-tiered system of justice — one law for Trump and another for the rest of us. In April, after pleading not guilty to 34 felony counts in the hush money case brought by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, Trump went on a rampage attacking Bragg, his wife and the judge overseeing the trial.

According to ABC News, Judge Juan Merchan received dozens of threats as a result. Bragg too was menaced when a letter threatening to kill "Alvin" arrived at his office. So what did Judge Merchan do? He asked that "both parties" (!) refrain from inflammatory language. "This is a request I'm making," he said. "I'm not making it an order."

It's the same story in every jurisdiction where Trump is facing criminal charges. Even when courts issue gag orders, he still attacks judges, prosecutors, court personnel and potential witnesses both at his MAGA cult rallies and on his failing social media platform.

Judge Arthur Engoron, presiding over Trump's business fraud trial, tried lightly fining him. First, $5000, and then $10,000. But to no avail. Meanwhile, Tanya Chutkan, the DC judge in Trump's election interference trial, issued a narrow gag order, then stayed it pending appeal. Following which Trump lashed out at Special Counsel Jack Smith and committed a bit of witness tampering, declaring that his former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, would be a "weakling and a coward" to take an immunity deal and testify against him.

In a motion pointing out Trump's continuing provocations, Smith convinced Chutkan to reinstate her gag order. But last week the appeals court stayed it yet again. So the question remains: How to keep Trump from shooting off his big mouth, endangering others and hindering a fair trial? Former Trump White House lawyer Ty Cobb sees Chutkan having only one recourse.

I think she’ll come in with a much heavier penalty, and ultimately, I think he’ll spend a night or a weekend in jail…I think it’ll take that to stop him.

Cobb's right. Only slapping the cuffs on him, taking away his phone and plunking him behind bars will bring Trump's outrageous misconduct to a halt.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

May 7, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

MAY 08, 2024

The past two days of former president Trump’s criminal trial for falsifying business records to hide a $130,000 payment to adult film actress Stephanie Clifford, also known as Stormy Daniels, to silence her before the 2016 election have been illuminating in different ways.

Yesterday, witnesses established that the paper trail of payments to Trump fixer Michael Cohen, who forwarded the money to Daniels, had been falsified. That paper trail included invoices, checks, and records. Witnesses also established that Trump micromanaged his finances, making it hard to believe he didn’t know about the scheme. 

That scheme looked like this: Former Trump Organization employee Jeffrey McConney said that Trump’s former financial chief Allen Weisselberg, who has gone to jail twice in two years for his participation in Trump’s financial schemes and is there now, told him to send money to Cohen. Cohen had paid Daniels $130,000 from a home equity loan in 2016 to buy her silence about a sexual encounter with Trump. Cohen received 11 checks totaling $420,000 in repayment, including enough money to cover the taxes he would have to pay for claiming the payments as income for legal services, and a bonus. 

Nine of those checks came from Trump’s personal bank account. His team sent the checks to him at the White House for his personal signature. 

A number of observers have suggested that the evidence presented through documents yesterday was not riveting, but historians would disagree. Exhibit 35 was Cohen’s bank statement, on which Weisselberg had written the numbers to reflect the higher payment necessary to cover Cohen’s tax bill for the money. Exhibit 36 was a sheet of paper on which McConney had recorded in his own hand how the payments to Cohen would work. The sheet of paper had the TRUMP logo on it. 

“It’s rare to see folks put the key to a criminal conspiracy in writing,” legal analyst Joyce White Vance wrote in Civil Discourse, “but here it is. It’s great evidence for the prosecution.” 

Today, Daniels took the stand, where she testified about how she had met Trump, he had invited her to dinner but greeted her in silk or satin pajamas, then went on to describe their sexual encounter. The testimony was damaging enough that Trump’s lawyers asked for a mistrial, which Judge Juan Merchan denied, noting that the lawyers had not objected to much of the testimony and must assume at least some responsibility for that. 

The case is not about sex but about business records. But it is hugely significant that the story Daniels told today is the one Trump was determined that voters would not hear before the 2016 election, especially after the “grab ‘em by the p*ssy” statement in the Access Hollywood tape, which was released in early October 2016. While his base appears to be cemented to him now, in 2016 he appeared to think that the story of him having sex with an adult film star while his wife had a four-month old baby at home could cost him dearly at the ballot box. 

The other election-related cases involving Trump indict him for his determination to cling to power after voters had turned him out in 2020. This case, from before he took office, illuminates that his willingness to manipulate election processes was always part of his approach to politics. 

Joyce White Vance is right that it’s rare to see folks put a criminal conspiracy in writing, but it is not unheard of. In our own history, the big ranchers in Johnson County, Wyoming, organized as the Wyoming Stock Growers’ Association, decided in 1892 to clear out the smaller cattlemen pushing their animals onto the federal land and the railroad land the ranchers considered their own. They hired 50 gunmen in Texas to kill their competitors, and they gave them a written list of the men they wanted dead. 

The gunmen killed four of the smaller cattlemen after cornering them in a cabin, but outraged settlers surrounded the gunmen and threatened to hang them all. Local law enforcement sided with the small cattlemen, and the Wyoming Stock Grower’s Association appealed to the governor for help in restoring order. The governor, in turn, appealed to President Benjamin Harrison, who sent troops to rescue the stock growers’ men from the angry settlers and lawmen. The expense of keeping the stock growers’ men imprisoned nearly broke the state.

Witnesses became mum, and the cases against the Texas gunmen fell apart. The stock growers had first intimidated and then killed those who tried to challenge their monopoly on the Wyoming cattle industry. Then, thwarted by local lawmen, they called in the federal government, and those stock growers involved in the Johnson County War actually got away with murder.

This evening, Judge Aileen Cannon vacated the May 20, 2024, trial date for the criminal case of Trump’s retention of classified documents and declined to set a new date. With so many remaining issues unresolved, she wrote, it would be “imprudent” to set a new trial date. 

This is the case in which the U.S. government accuses Trump of retaining hundreds of classified documents that compromised the work of the Central Intelligence Agency, which provides intelligence on foreign countries and global issues; the Department of Defense, which provides military forces to ensure national security; the National Security Agency, which collects intelligence from communications and information systems; the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, which provides intelligence from imagery; the National Reconnaissance Office, which operates satellites and reconnaissance systems; the Department of Energy, which manages nuclear weapons; and the Department of State, including the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, which provides intelligence to U.S. diplomats. 

These are the documents the Federal Bureau of Investigation later recovered from Mar-a-Lago, where they were stored in public spaces, including a bathroom, after Trump first retained them, then denied he had them, and then tried to hide them. 

The U.S. government charges that “[t]he classified documents TRUMP stored in his boxes included information regarding defense and weapons capabilities of both the United States and foreign countries; United States nuclear programs; potential vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies to military attack; and plans for possible retaliation in response to a foreign attack. The unauthorized disclosure of these classified documents could put at risk the national security of the United States, foreign relations, the safety of the United States military, and human sources and the continued viability of sensitive intelligence collection methods.” 

Today, Trump's trial for his retention of these classified documents is indefinitely postponed.

Trump appointed Cannon to the bench, and the Senate confirmed her after he lost the 2020 presidential election. She has seemed to be in no hurry to bring the case to trial before the 2024 election, a case that, if he is reelected, Trump will almost certainly quash. 

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

June 10, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

JUN 11, 2024

Former president Trump met with a New York City probation officer today for a pre-sentencing interview. They met over video for a first step in the sentencing process, in which an officer assesses the convicted criminal’s living situation, finances, mental health, addiction, and criminal record. Trump was expected to have his lawyer, Todd Blanche, with him when he linked in from Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach. Judge Juan Merchan will take the information from the interview into account when he sentences Trump. He will also consider that Trump was held in contempt 10 times during the trial for violating the gag order designed to stop him from attacking witnesses and court personnel and their families.

Ever since a New York jury unanimously found the former president guilty of 34 felonies on Thursday, May 30, he and his supporters have tried to assert that he is, in fact, in a strong position for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination and for the November election itself. First, they insisted that his convictions made him more popular than ever, an assertion undermined by their own desperate avoidance of other trials and the demands of both Trump and House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) to have the Supreme Court somehow step in to overturn a conviction by a state court.

Trump has also tried to reassert dominance by insisting in at least five interviews that he will seek “revenge” on Democrats for prosecuting him, and MAGA loyalists have echoed this threat. But as Greg Sargent pointed out today, this, too, is spin. 

There is a big difference between a prosecution advancing on the basis of evidence gathered by law enforcement, evidence that prompted grand juries to indict Trump, and his own threats to prosecute President Joe Biden and other Democrats simply because he had to endure a prosecution, not because there is any evidence that they have committed crimes. The first serves the rule of law, the second shatters it.

Since the conviction, as political analyst Simon Rosenberg points out, the right-wing Murdoch media empire “has gone into hyperdrive.” That empire, which includes the Fox News Channel, supports Trump and knowingly lied that the 2020 election had been stolen. On June 4, the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal printed a story saying that “behind closed doors, Biden shows signs of slipping,” but the piece quoted only former House speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), who previously had hammered Biden in public but privately assured colleagues he was mentally sharp.

One of the authors of the piece sparked outrage in October 2021 by tweeting that Biden, who was visiting the graves of his dead children and wife, “goes to church and walks through a graveyard in Wilmington as his legislative agenda is dying in Washington.” 

In November 2021, Biden signed into law the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act. In June 2022 he signed into law the Safer Communities Act, a gun safety law. In August 2022 he signed into law the CHIPS and Science Act that invested billions in semiconductor manufacturing and science, and the Inflation Reduction Act that provided record funding for addressing climate change and permitted Medicare to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies over drug prices. Together, those legislative accomplishments rival those of Presidents Lyndon Baines Johnson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose congressional majorities were far stronger than Biden’s.

The Republicans’ frantic pushback on Trump’s conviction reveals both that it has hurt him badly, and that without Trump projecting the dominance of a strongman, they have little to fall back on except for personal attacks on Biden. 

Trump had counted on using immigration against Biden and ordered his loyalists to scuttle the bipartisan immigration measure the Senate hammered out in February in order to keep the issue alive. Swing voters took notice: in March a focus group showed that 9 out of 13 Wisconsin swing voters blamed Trump for killing the bill.

As soon as that measure failed, the administration began to talk of what Biden could do through an executive order, despite believing that such an order would be challenged in the courts. At the same time, Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris continued their pressure on the Mexican government to increase its own immigration enforcement. That process worked, and undocumented migration has dropped sharply at the southern border. Meanwhile, the administration’s parole program for people from Venezuela, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Cuba has cut undocumented migration from those countries by almost 90%. 

Then on Tuesday, June 4, likely trying to get ahead of the usual summer rise in immigration, and after Senate Republicans once again killed the bipartisan border measure,  Biden issued an executive order permitting him to seal the southern border temporarily when undocumented crossings surge to more than 2,500 a day, a restriction stricter than that negotiated in the Senate measure Trump scuttled. This order looks more like Trump’s effort to curb migration—one that courts blocked—at least in part because without legislation, there is no new funding to provide the additional courts the administration wants in order to move asylum cases faster. 

As predicted, the order is likely to face legal challenges. Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT), who worked with Senator James Lankford (R-OK) on the Senate immigration bill, wrote in a statement: “I am sympathetic to the position the administration is in, but I am skeptical [that] the executive branch has the legal authority to shut down asylum processing between ports of entry on its own. Meaningful asylum reform requires a bipartisan solution in Congress.” 

Nonetheless, while Trump continues to demagogue immigration issues, the charge that Biden wants “open borders”—which was always disinformation—is now harder to make. 

Meanwhile, the measures Democrats advocate are so popular that Republican legislators are taking credit for projects funded by them even though they voted against the laws themselves. Katherine Tully-McManus of Politico pointed out today that Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA) voted against the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law that will deliver nearly $470 million to her district. She has attended a highway ribbon cutting and boasted of the modernization of locks and dams on the Mississippi River in her district despite her “no” vote.

Representative Nancy Mace (R-SC) called the infrastructure law a “socialist wish list” and a “fiasco” but nonetheless celebrated a federal grant for nearly $26 million to invest in public transit in her district. 

This credit-taking is widespread among those who opposed the law. Just this weekend, Trump falsely asserted that it was he, not Biden, who lowered the cost of insulin to $35 a month. In fact, it was Biden who signed into law the Inflation Reduction Act that made such negotiations possible.

There is little else for Trump to stand on. The Republicans’ position on abortion is so unpopular that when Trump spoke today to the Danbury Institute, which calls for abortion to be “eradicated entirely,” he never mentioned the word abortion. Instead of delivering a keynote address, he spoke for less than two minutes and said that the attendees “can’t vote Democrat” because “[t]hey’re against religion.” 

Democrats pushed back on the Wall Street Journal’s article attacking Biden, calling it a “hit piece” and noting that their own quotations did not make the cut. Observers pointed out that reporters jump on Biden’s speech while Trump’s jumbled and offensive statements—like his crazy hash of MIT, electric batteries, boats, and sharks yesterday—rarely get reproduced.

The Biden campaign is addressing that lack with a new ad campaign, one that deliberately punctures the idea of Trump as a strongman. One ad shows foreign leaders laughing at Trump’s statements, and another, directed at Latino voters, shows Trump last week kissing former Maricopa County, Arizona, sheriff Joe Arpaio, whom Trump pardoned after his conviction related to racial profiling. Another ad from the Biden campaign in the wake of the 80th anniversary of D-Day focuses on Trump’s quotations mocking the military as suckers and losers and quoting some of his other offensive statements about those who serve. 

Finally, the Biden team rushed to produce an ad today using Trump’s own words from a rally this weekend in the broiling Nevada desert in which he said he didn’t want people to keel over because: “We need every voter. I don’t care about you. I just want your vote. I don’t care.”

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON