As a battleground state, there is a lot on the line in Arizona’s looming elections. President Biden is running for reelection after winning the state in 2020 by fewer than 11,000 votes, and the race for a Senate seat in the state could prove crucial in determining which party controls the body next year. The balance of the statehouse is at stake this election cycle, too, with Republicans holding a one-vote majority in each chamber.
Finally Friday Reads: What’s a democracy to do?
Posted: April 12, 2024 Filed under: just because | Tags: @repeat1968, Corrupt SCOTUS, John Buss, Lenard Leo, Stormy Daniels, Stormy Weather, The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump., Trump Bond Money, Trump Special Treatment, Trump trials 12 Comments
“You know, when the jury is seated, Trump won’t be able to contain himself.” John Buss, @Repeat1968
Good Day, Sky Dancers!
We’ve had incredibly stormy weather down here this week. Almost all the streets a few blocks downhill from me flooded, and Uptown became a surfing safari. Even City Hall was closed for the day. The winds were wild. A tornado severely damaged a small city on the North Shore close to the Mississippi Border. Fortunately, I had just bought groceries, and the electricity stayed on. It was a good week to just read a book in many ways. This weekend is the quiet before the next storm. It’s a named storm like many that go into the history books. It’s officially entitled “The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump.” We all know it as the Stormy Daniels Hush Money Case.
The first place to check to get the facts of the case as we know it is Forbes Magazine. Staff writer Alison Durkee has a bulleted timeline to highlight everything known to date. “Trump And Stormy Daniels: What To Know About Hush Money Saga That Led To Ex-President’s First Criminal Trial.”
Former President Donald Trump will go on trial in Manhattan next week as he faces felony charges for falsifying bank records—the first of his criminal cases to go to trial—which will mark the culmination of a yearslong saga stemming from his alleged affair with adult film actress Stormy Daniels and a “hush money” payment made during his 2016 campaign to keep her quiet.
Kristal did not want to hear any news yesterday afternoon. I imagine a lot of us are Kristal.
This is a historical trial. He’s the first Former President to be criminally indicted. Trump faces 34 felony charges of falsifying business records in the first degree. These charges carry a maximum sentence of 136 years if convicted on all counts. Since Trump is a criminal defendant on parole, he must attend court daily. Unless they can sedate him with tranquilizers that would stun an elephant, I doubt he can hold it together. You see, my friend John agrees with that assessment. The list of witnesses is trickling out through the media. This is from MSNBC.
NBC News obtained a list of potential witnesses for the prosecution in Trump’s hush money trial. The list includes Stormy Daniels, Karen McDougal, Michael Cohen, and Hope Hicks among other Trump associates.
Politico has a long story today about Michael Cohen and his testimony next week. “Michael Cohen on the Trump Trial: Prepare To Be Surprised. Trump’s former attorney on the hush money trial, how he’s preparing for life as the key witness and who he expects Trump will choose as a 2024 running mate.” Ryan Lizza interviewed Cohen, which is the central part of the article.
Trump’s defense is going to be to paint you as an untrustworthy witness. He’s going to cite your guilty plea for lying to Congress, and the fact that the Justice Department declined to offer you a cooperation deal because prosecutors thought you lied to them. And he’ll say you’re out for revenge and that you have a financial incentive to see him convicted. So how do you defend yourself from those accusations?
I wish that when people state that “you lied to Congress,” that you’d do me the courtesy — do yourself the courtesy — of finishing the sentence. What is the sentence? That I had done that, really, for the benefit of Donald J. Trump. And that lie centered around the number of times that I had stated that I spoke to Donald about the failed Trump Tower Moscow real estate project — in conjunction with other lawyers Jay Sekulow, Abbe Lowell, Ty Cobb, with other individuals like Alan Garten or Ivanka [Trump] and Jared [Kushner]. Everybody worked on that statement. I was just the fool who went ahead and read it into the record and submitted it. But what benefit did I have in terms of saying three times versus 10? That’s the lie: That I claimed to have spoken to Donald three times about the failed Trump Tower Moscow real estate project, when the true answer was 10.
I appreciate you putting it in context. With these other accusations, is that the way you approach it: You put those things in context for the jury so that they understand them, and what sounds like a dramatic allegation can be defanged?
Absolutely. There is a ton of misinformation, disinformation, malinformation that has been put out there by Trump and acolytes literally since the Steele dossier. We all know that the Steele dossier was completely inaccurate, as it related to me. I don’t even talk about any of the other allegations raised in that garbage document.
Hey, look what I found on the side of the street while walking Temple. You’d think gold spray paint and a Sharpie signature would last longer!
Can you imagine the energy in that courtroom when he takes the stand, and Trump has to just sit there? So, most of us know the basis of this story and have been pummeled by it for such a long time. I might as well go to that level since so many of these concerns are about killing tabloid stories. This is the first time I’ve seen someone get the dirt on Melania’s reaction to the allegations. This is from HuffPo. It’s reported by Ed Mazza. “Ex-Aide Reveals What ‘Humiliated’ Melania Trump Did After Stormy Daniels News. Stephanie Grisham also explained why the ex-president is probably “quite worried” about his wife right now.”
A former aide to Melania Trump said former President Donald Trump’s looming trial in the Stormy Daniels hush money case could be causing some stress in their marriage.
“I spent a ton of time with her when the news was breaking about Stormy Daniels,” Stephanie Grisham said on CNN on Wednesday. “And she didn’t take it lightly at all.”
Daniels claimed to have had an affair with Trump from 2006-2007, while Melania Trump was caring for the couple’s then-infant child. Grisham said separate allegations of an affair with Playboy Playmate Karen McDougal also led to tensions in the White House.
“We went to the State of the Union separately. She refused to walk out to Marine One with him because she didn’t want to be like Hillary Clinton and standing by her man,” said Grisham, who was chief of staff to the then-first lady before becoming White House press secretary under Donald Trump. “She’s a very independent and strong woman.”
She said she believed Melania Trump would “push” her husband to go on the witness stand during the hush money trial, which is set to begin next week, to defend himself in public.
“This is very, very embarrassing for her. It’s humiliating for her,” she said. “And I can guarantee you that she’s not happy right now and that he’s quite worried about that.”
You may watch the video here on CNN. Frankly, I just couldn’t get past the Botox lips. While this is all historical, sensational, and tacky, I still have this question. The analysis is also from Politico. It’s provided by James Romoser. “How Donald Trump Gets Special Treatment in the Legal System. The former president rails against a “two-tiered system of justice.” But he’s the one benefiting from it.” This is what my Inquiring Mind wants to know.
A firebrand politician named Donald is about to stand trial. Just a few days before jury selection, he goes on TV to slam the charges as baseless and biased.
“The FBI and the Justice Department,” he insists, have “targeted” their political opponents in a burst of partisan persecution.
The rhetoric sounds familiar, but this is not a story about Donald Trump. It’s about a man named Don Hill, a former Dallas City Council member who was facing bribery charges 15 years ago.
The telltale clue that this isn’t about Trump is what happened next: The judge, upset by the attempt to taint the jury pool, slapped the politician-turned-defendant with criminal contempt and ultimately sentenced him to 30 days in jail for violating a gag order.
Today, Trump routinely spouts invective far more inflammatory than anything Hill said. He denigrates prosecutors. He lies about his cases. He vilifies the judges overseeing them — and then vilifies their wives and daughters, too. Yet Trump has never faced the swift repercussions that were imposed on Hill — and are routinely imposed on other defendants in America.
Instead, Trump gets special treatment.
“I can’t imagine any other defendant posting on social media about a judge’s family and not being very quickly incarcerated,” said Russell Gold, a law professor at the University of Alabama.
As Trump prepares to begin his first criminal trial on Monday in New York, the tolerance of his tirades is perhaps the most glaring sign of the judicial system’s Trump exceptionalism. But it’s far from the only example. Over the past year, in ways large and small, in criminal cases and civil ones, Trump has consistently been given more freedom and more privileges than virtually any other defendant in his shoes.
Some judges in Trump’s cases may have afforded him unique leeway in hopes of avoiding any appearance that they are meddling in the 2024 campaign. Indeed, Trump’s role as a presidential candidate — one who is always eager to play the martyr — complicates the task of prosecutors and judges eager to lower the temperature of the proceedings. Penalizing Trump before he’s ever convicted of anything could stir a backlash and trigger more heat, not less.
Tom Toles Editorial Cartoon
The central question to every discussion I have with anybody concerning Trump and his trial antics is, How The FUCK does this guy get away with it? The interesting analysis this week that Kristal avoided was the comparison between OJ Simpson’s epic trial and Trump’s endless trials. The answer is, “And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.” It took me a while to determine the resounding difference between my black and white colleagues’ reactions to the trial verdict as we watched its announcement in our corporate lawyer’s office. It was, for once, the system did to a rich black guy (football star, football announcer, and movie star) what they always do for rich and famous white men. OJ had an excellent lawyer and the prosecutors weren’t up to the challenge.
The jury saw the opportunity to make a point. Johnny Cochrane was a well-paid and extremely brilliant lawyer who knew how to do his job. I can’t say Donald will have that exact representation. Kaitlin Collins at CNN has this story. “Trump attorney who became a crucial witness against him has departed legal team.” OJ eventually got caught doing more crimes and did time. Will one of these criminal suits put this asshole in jail please?
More from Romoser.
But even in the civil fraud case — which by all accounts was a devastating loss for Trump and his businesses — there were nonetheless signs of special deference. Justice Arthur Engoron, who oversaw the trial, was extraordinarily tolerant of Trump’s courtroom antics and outbursts. During a day of testimony in November, Trump essentially converted the witness box into a campaign stump — a privilege few other witnesses would receive.
Engoron ultimately issued the nearly half-billion-dollar penalty, and Trump seemed headed toward a financial crisis when he was unable to secure a bond to stave off the immediate enforcement of the verdict.
But after Trump complained to a New York appeals court, a panel of judges intervened with an unexpected 11th-hour reprieve, issuing a terse, unexplained order that sharply reduced the bond amount that Trump had to post while he appeals the verdict. The decision ensured that Trump wouldn’t have to start selling off assets and that James couldn’t start seizing them.
The American legal system is currently undergoing a Trump-induced stress test, one that will only intensify when Trump’s Manhattan trial begins on Monday.
Each day, during breaks in trial, he’ll stand in the hallway outside the courtroom and denounce the charges. He’ll continue to test the bounds of the gag order that the judge in the case, Justice Juan Merchan, recently imposed. He may even mutter “witch hunt” within earshot of jurors, as he’s done before.
Voters will be watching. So will the prosecutors in his other criminal cases — all of whom are trying, but so far failing, to bring him to trial before Election Day. Those prosecutors have left unsaid the reason why the timing matters so much, but everyone involved knows it: If Trump is elected president again, all pending criminal cases will stop in their tracks.
This is an extremely long article, but it is definitely worth reading. It capsulizes everything most of us have been wondering about these long Trump-filled years. One more Trump Trial note, and I’m off for the weekend. This is from The Daily Beast and reported by Jose Pagliery. “Trump Bond’s Cayman Connection ‘Stinks to High Heaven.’ The company that saved Donald Trump with a $175 million bank fraud bond is playing an insurance game that has experts questioning whether New York will ever see the money.”
When the questionably leveraged company that rescued Donald Trump with a last-minute $175 million court bond insured itself with its own parent company, it raised concerns about how the company was playing with its finances.
But now, as even more details come out about that parent company—particularly that it’s based in the Cayman Islands, a notorious tax haven—the concerns are just piling up.
Former industry regulators and investigators told The Daily Beast that Knight Specialty Insurance Company being financially backed by a firm based in the Cayman Islands should raise eyebrows at the New York AG’s office—particularly because companies frequently organize in the Cayman Islands not just to avoid taxes, but also to minimize visibility into its business practices, avoid more stringent U.S. regulations, and make liability harder should things go wrong.
All of those concerns could come into play if the New York Attorney General has to chase the company down for the money Trump currently owes for committing bank fraud.
“This just stinks to high heaven,” said Dave Jones, who oversaw the nation’s largest insurance market as California’s insurance commissioner for seven years until 2018.
“Taken in its totality, this dog does not hunt. Along every step of the way, this purported bond is problematic. It’s just one issue after another that calls into question whether this bond could ever possibly satisfy the judgment,” said Jones, who’s now the director of the Climate Risk Initiative at University of California Berkeley.
Former regulators described a potential worst-case scenario: Trump loses his bank fraud case on appeal and refuses to pay, the insurance company can’t actually come up with the money, and the New York Attorney General runs into problems chasing after a second company that never explicitly promised to pay this particular court judgment—and is based in a little-regulated foreign jurisdiction in the Caribbean Sea.
“The risk here is the company will not have the liquidity to pay on the bond when demanded, and the beneficiary of this bond, the New York AG, may not have a direct claim against the reinsurer,” said former New York Department of Financial Services superintendent Maria Vullo. “That the reinsurer is in the Cayman Islands compounds this issue as it is a non-U.S. jurisdiction, which makes collection very difficult.”
These rich assholes usually do not come by their money with ethical businesses. So, why do we expect them to play by the book? Here’s another one that should be thrown in jail. “Leo rejects Senate subpoena from panel probing gifts to Supreme Court justices. The conservative judicial activist called the move ‘politically motivated,’ and the committee chair said Leo had left them ‘no other choice’ but to move forward with the compulsory process.” This is from Washington Post writer Tobi Raji.
The Senate Judiciary Committee sent a subpoena Thursday to conservative judicial activist Leonard Leo as part of a months-long inquiry into undisclosed gifts to Supreme Court justices and he promptly rejected it, calling the move “politically motivated.”
“I am not capitulating to his lawless support of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and the left’s dark money effort to silence and cancel political opposition,” Leo said of Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the committee’s chairman, in a statement to The Washington Post.
The committee voted along party lines on Nov. 30 to authorize subpoenas for Leo and Texas billionaire Harlan Crow following reports that Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomasand Samuel A. Alito Jr. accepted — and did not disclose — free luxury travel and gifts from Crow, Leo and conservative donor Robin Arkley II.
Crow did not receive a subpoena Thursday, his spokesman Michael Zona told The Post.
In a statement to The Post, Durbin said sending a subpoena to Leo was a necessary step.
“Since July 2023, Leonard Leo has responded to the legitimate oversight requests of the Senate Judiciary Committee with a blanket refusal to cooperate,” Durbin said. “His outright defiance left the Committee with no other choice but to move forward with compulsory process. For that reason, I have issued a subpoena to Mr. Leo.”
“Mr. Leo has played a central role in the ethics crisis plaguing the Supreme Court and, unlike the other recipients of information requests in this matter, he has done nothing but stonewall the Committee. This subpoena is a direct result of Mr. Leo’s own actions and choices,” Durbin continued.
First, they eliminate campaign finance law, and then the dark money warps the system. Welcome to the hell wrought by Leonard Leo and his Federalist Society buddies.
What’s on your reading and blogging list today?
And in Uptown New Orleans
Wednesday Reads: Abortion Politics: Be Enraged!
Posted: April 10, 2024 Filed under: 2024 Elections, 2024 presidential Campaign, A thread for Ranting, abortion rights, Donald Trump, just because | Tags: Abortion politics, Arizona Supreme Court, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, Florida, Roe v. Wade, States Rights 8 CommentsGood Day!!
I’m sure you’ve heard about the latest outrage from the woman-hating Arizona Supreme Court. If this law takes effect, women in the state will not be able to get an abortion unless they are at death’s door. If that means you can’t ever get pregnant again, too fucking bad. If you’re 12 years old and you’ve been raped and impregnated by your stepfather, tough shit. You’re carrying that fetus to term young lady, and you’d better not complain about it. Welcome to the post-Dobbs world. Never forget: Trump did this. For now, Republicans are pretending to have problems with this decision, but if Trump is elected and Republicans control Congress, this will likely be the law of the land.
The New York Times: Arizona Reinstates 160-Year-Old Abortion Ban.
Arizona’s highest court on Tuesday upheld an 1864 law that bans nearly all abortions, a decision that could have far-reaching consequences for women’s health care and election-year politics in a critical battleground state.
“Physicians are now on notice that all abortions, except those necessary to save a woman’s life, are illegal,” the court said in a 4-to-2 decision.
But the court, whose justices are all Republican appointees, also put its ruling on hold for the moment and sent the matter back to a lower court for additional arguments about the law’s constitutionality. Abortion providers said they expected to continue performing abortions through May as their lawyers and Democratic lawmakers searched for new legal arguments and additional tactics to delay the ruling.
The ruling immediately set off a political earthquake. Democrats condemned it as a “stain” on Arizona that would put women’s lives at risk. Several Republicans, sensing political peril, also criticized the ruling and called for the Republican-controlled Legislature to repeal it.
The decision from the Arizona Supreme Court concerned a law that was on the books long before Arizona achieved statehood. It outlaws abortion from the moment of conception, except when necessary to save the life of the mother, and it makes no exceptions for rape or incest. Doctors prosecuted under the law could face fines and prison terms of two to five years.
Planned Parenthood Arizona, the plaintiff, and other abortion-rights supporters argued that the 1864 ban, which had sat dormant for decades, had essentially been overtaken by years of subsequent Arizona laws regulating and limiting abortion — primarily, a 2022 law banning abortion after the 15th week of pregnancy.
But the territorial-era ban was never repealed. And the Arizona Supreme Court said Arizona’s Legislature had not created a right to abortion when it passed the 15-week ban. Because the federal right to abortion in Roe v. Wade had now been overturned, nothing in federal or state law prevented Arizona from enforcing the near-total ban, the court wrote.
“Because the federal constitutional right to abortion that overrode § 13-3603 no longer exists, the statute is now enforceable,” the court’s four-person majority wrote, using the statutory number of the 1864 ban.
Republicans are in trouble.
The Washington Post: ‘Catastrophic,’ ‘a shock’: Arizona’s abortion ruling threatens to upend 2024 races.
A near-total abortion ban slated to go into effect in the coming weeks in Arizona is expected to have a seismic impact on the politics of the battleground state, testing the limits of Republican support for abortion restrictions and putting the issue front and center in November’s election.
Arizona’s conservative Supreme Court on Tuesday revived a near-total ban on abortion, invoking an 1864 law that forbids the procedure except to save a mother’s life and punishes providers with prison time. The decision supersedes Arizona’s previous rule, which permitted abortions up to 15 weeks.
Elisabetta Sirani, Timoclea Killing Her Rapist, 1659
Arizonans are poised to consider the issue in November, now that the groups working to amend the state’s constitution to enshrine abortion rights — which include the ACLU of Arizona and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona — say that they have acquired enough signatures to establish a ballot measure, according to the Arizona Republic. Meanwhile, Republicans in the state are asking Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs (D) and the Republican-led state legislature to come up with a solution.
The developments in Arizona are part of a wave of state actions to reckon with the future of access to reproductive care after the U.S. Supreme Court, with a conservative majority installed during Donald Trump’s presidency, overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. While several states enacted abortion restrictions as a result of overturning Roe, protecting access to reproductive care has broadly been a winning issue for Democratic candidates and for ballot measures that protect abortion access in the elections since the 2022 ruling.
Polls show that abortion is a motivating issue for Arizona voters.
All of a sudden, Arizona Republicans are not so sure they like what’s happening, now that they got their wish to overturn Roe v. Wade.
The Guardian: Arizona Republicans denounce revived 1864 abortion ban in sudden reversal.
Hours after Arizona’s supreme court declared on Tuesday that a 160-year-old abortion ban is now enforceable, Republicans in the state took a surprising stance for a party that has historically championed abortion restrictions – they denounced the decision.
“This decision cannot stand,” said Matt Gress, a Republican state representative. “I categorically reject rolling back the clock to a time when slavery was still legal and we could lock up women and doctors because of an abortion.” [….]
“Today’s Arizona supreme court decision reinstating an Arizona territorial-era ban on all abortions from more than 150 years ago is disappointing to say the least,” said TJ Shope, a Republican state senator.
“I oppose today’s ruling,” added Kari Lake, a Republican running to represent Arizona in the US Senate and a Donald Trump loyalist. Lake called on the state legislature to “come up with an immediate commonsense solution that Arizonans can support”.
Lake has made multiple statements in support of the 1864 law, as Ron Filipkowski has been documenting on Twitter. Back to the Guardian article:
Since the US supreme court overturned Roe v Wade, leading the GOP to stumble in the 2022 midterms and abortion rights supporters to win a string of ballot measures, including in purple and red states, Republicans have struggled to find a way to talk about abortion without turning off voters. But their response to the ruling on the 1864 ban may mark their fastest and strongest rebuke of abortion bans since Roe fell.
Scowling woman, by Hope Gangloff
“This is an earthquake that has never been seen in Arizona politics,” said Barrett Marson, a Republican consultant in Arizona, of the decision. “This will shake the ground under every Republican candidate, even those in safe legislative or congressional seats.” [….]
Some of the criticisms of the Tuesday ruling came from politicians who had previously supported the 1864 ban or cheered the end of Roe v Wade. Lake previously called the ban a “great law”, according to PolitiFact. David Schweikert, an Arizona congressman who is facing one of the most competitive House races in the country this November, said on Tuesday that he does not support the ruling and wants the state legislature to “address this issue immediately”, but in 2022 said the fall of Roe “pleased” him.
The speaker of the Arizona state house and the president of the state senate, who are both Republicans, also released a joint statement saying that they would be “listening to our constituents to determine the best course of action for the legislature”. In contrast, on the day Roe fell, the Republican-controlled state senate released a statement declaring that the 1864 ban was in effect immediately. That statement unleashed confusion and chaos among abortion providers in Arizona, prompting them to stop offering the procedure out of an abundance of caution.
Here’s an example of what goes on in the Arizona Senate. This happened the day before the Supreme Court ruling came out.
Arizona Central: Arizona lawmaker leads prayer circle on state seal at Capitol building, sparking backlash.
Arizona Sen. Anthony Kern invited a prayer group to the Senate floor on Monday.
Seen in a video filmed by an anonymous attendee, Kern led the group, who spoke in tongues, through a prayer as they knelt over the state seal.
This public display comes a day before the Arizona Supreme Court upheld an 160-year-old law that bans nearly all abortions on Tuesday.
“Let it be so, Father God,” Kern said. “Lord, right now, we ask thee to release the presence of the lord in the senate chamber.”
The video of the senator and his group was originally shared on TikTok by Tony Cani and reposted on many social media platforms. Jeanne Casteen, the executive director of Secular Arizona, a nonprofit advocacy organization that promotes the separation of church and state in Arizona, called attention to the video on X, formerly known as Twitter.
In her replies, many users were baffled by the senator’s behavior, citing First Amendment violations and false practices of Christianity….
However, Kern doubled down on his actions as he responded to critics in an X post.
“Looks like our prayer team stirred up some god-haters … Not to worry though…prayer over our state at the State Senate is way more powerful,” he wrote.
The Washington Post’s Dan Baltz on the political fallout from the Arizona decision: The Arizona Supreme Court just upended Trump’s gambit on abortion.
It took little more than a day for Donald Trump’s political gambit on abortion to come undone.
On Monday, the former president declined to support any new national law setting limits on abortions. Going against the views of many abortion opponents in his Republican Party, Trump was looking for a way to neutralize or at least muddy a galvanizingissue that has fueled Democratic victories for nearly two years. He hoped to keep it mostly out of the conversation ahead of the November elections.
Auguste Toulmouche’s 1866 painting The Hesitant Fiancée
On Tuesday, the Arizona Supreme Court showed just how difficult it will be to do that. The court resurrected an 1864 law that bans nearly all abortions, except to save the life of the mother. The law also imposes penalties on abortion providers.
Trump had said let the states handle the issue. The Arizona court showed the full implications of that states’ rights strategy.
The Arizona ruling came in a state that will be especially crucial in deciding the outcome of the presidential election, a state that President Biden won by fewer than 11,000 votes and that Trump’s campaign team has eyed as one of the best opportunities for a pickup. It is likely that a referendum to protect abortion rights will be on Arizona’s ballot in November. The court ruling only heightens the significance of the issue for the rest of the campaign year.
But the court ruling reverberated far beyond Arizona’s borders. The Biden-Harris campaign and other Democrats pounced on the ruling in an effort to further their argument that Trump and Republicans are a threat to freedoms.
All abortion politics are national, not local. Abortion developments — new laws, new restrictions, new stories of women caught up in heart-wrenching and sometimes life-threatening decisions — are no longer confined to the geography where they take place. They are instantly part of the larger debate.
Joyce Vance had some choice words about the Arizona situation at Civil Discourse: Welcome to 1864.
When the Supreme Court decided Dobbs, it opened up Pandora’s Box, undoing fifty years of protection for abortion rights under Roe v. Wade. In the wake of that decision, states pulled lots of horribles out of the box and used them to prevent women from making their own choices about reproductive health care. In some cases, those decisions involved their ability to conceive and carry to term in the future and even their lives. Arizona now seems intent on joining them.
This is Dobbs in action, which leaves it up to each state to decide whether women have abortion rights and, if so, to what extent. Your gerrymandered state legislature is now in charge of your healthcare and the lives of people you love….
In a couple of weeks, virtually all abortions will be a felony event in Arizona. Doctors and providers, including people who help others obtain abortions, can be prosecuted and sentenced to two to five years in prison if convicted. There are no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. As we’ve seen in other states, the mere threat of consequences like this is enough to shut down abortion procedures across the state. Welcome back to 1864.
Arizona women can still travel to nearby California, New Mexico, or Colorado, where abortion is accessible, at least for now. But the distances can be long, travel prohibitively expensive for some women, and impractical for those with jobs or with children and/or parents to care for.
Arizona is leaning into the national trend. The Guttmacher Institute tracks abortion laws across the country. As of this week, only two states, Vermont and Oregon, provide what they characterize as the “most protection” for abortion. Fifteen states are in the “most restrictive” category, which includes measures like the complete ban with very limited exceptions in Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia, and South Carolina. We can add Arizona to that list after today’s decision. Guttmacher categorizes six additional states as “very restrictive,” (this is where Arizona used to be) and another seven states as “restrictive”. The map is stark and getting worse.
Read the rest at Civil Discourse.
Three more pieces on Trump and his waffling on abortion politics.
Jessica Valenti at Abortion, Every Day:
If you missed Donald Trump’s abortion ‘announcement’ yesterday, the short version is that he’s trying to wash his hands of the issue by saying abortion should be up to the states. He knows abortion is a loser for the GOP—and if there’s anything Trump hates, it’s losing.
CNN notes that the disgraced former president has been waffling behind the scenes for months, and The Washington Post reports that anti-abortion advisors like Kellyanne Conway and Sen. Lindsey Graham tried to talk Trump out of yesterday’s announcement.
Blue Monday, by Annie Lee
They not only told him that his stance meant he’d be supporting the states that allow ‘abortions up until birth’, but that he’d also be implicitly supporting the states whose bans he thinks are too restrictive—like Florida’s and Arizona’s.
Indeed, a Biden campaign spokesperson didn’t waste any time before tweeting that Trump was “endorsing every single abortion ban in the states, including abortion bans with no exceptions…and he’s bragging about his role in creating this hellscape.”
The response from anti-abortion groups and other Republicans has been mixed. While groups like Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America made clear that they’re focused on defeating President Joe Biden, they also took a couple of hits at Trump. SBA president Marjorie Dannenfelser, for example, said the group is “deeply disappointed.” Sen. Lindsey Graham also spoke up, saying he “respectfully” disagrees and that he’s going to push ahead with federal legislation. (Because Trump takes criticism so well, he lashed out at the pair in a series of posts on Truth Social.)
Former vice president Mike Pence, who has said he’s not endorsing Trump, called Trump’s stance a “slap in the face to millions of pro-life Americans.”
Others, however, aren’t so worried. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, for example, told The Washington Post that he was confident that Trump would still sign a federal ban: “I take the president’s statement with a comma, not a period.”
David R. Lurie at Public Notice: Trump’s deeply misogynist lie about moms killing babies.
On Monday, Donald Trump released a video announcing his much heralded abortion “policy.” The statement was typically garbled, deliberately vague, and chock full of absurd assertions.
For example, Trump bizarrely asserted that that “both sides wanted and, in fact, demanded” that Roe v. Wade be “ended.” His suggestion is that the entire nation was clamoring for the end of reproductive rights that he engineered with his Supreme Court nominations, when in fact national polling shows that a solid majority supports legal abortion. (If you can stomach it, you can watch Trump’s entire video statement below.)
As has long been typical, many in the press misreported the gist of the statement. A New York Times headline declared that Trump had said “Abortion Restrictions Should Be Left to the States.” This is incorrect, and gives Trump undeserved credit for his typical, and deliberate, ambiguity.
Trump did not say he would refuse to sign a federal abortion ban into law, and his record is to the contrary. He supported a federal 20-week ban when he was in the White House and said was “disappoint[ed]” when it was filibustered in the Senate.
But the headlines not only misstated what Trump said, they also omitted the most repugnant and revealing portion of his presentation — his repulsive lie that women have been “execut[ing]” their own children “after birth,” with the assistance of doctors.
Trump said:
“It must be remembered that the Democrats are the radical ones on this position because they support abortion up to and even beyond the ninth month. The concept of having an abortion in the later months and even execution after birth. And that’s exactly what it is. The baby is born, the baby is executed after birth is unacceptable. And almost everyone agrees with that.”
The claim is a grotesque derivation of the “partial birth” abortion smear GOP politicians have employed for years as a cover for their agenda to wholly, or near wholly, ban abortion care, which they have succeeded in doing in large swaths of the nation since SCOTUS ended federal abortion rights in June 2022.
Trump’s version of this familiar lie is not only over the top, but it reveals his deep affinity with the Christian right. It’s an affinity rooted not in a shared faith with right-wing Christians, but rather in a deeply shared fear of women’s empowerment, with the policy goal of taking it away.
Angry Woman, by Van Winslow
Kimberly Leonard and Arik Sarkissian at Politico: Trump’s abortion stance could put Florida Republicans in a bind.
MIAMI — There’s no state that will need to navigate Donald Trump’s abortion stance quite like Florida, which has authorized one of the strictest abortion bans in the country but also could broadly enshrine abortion rights protections in the state constitution through a ballot measure in November.
The Republican Party of Florida and key conservative lawmakers, including Gov. Ron DeSantis, consider Florida’s ballot initiative “extreme” and want voters to oppose it. But they’re not calling on Trump to pick up a megaphone over the cause. They generally support his stance to leave one of the most politically treacherous issues for Republicans up to states to decide — even as abortion rights supporters in Arizona, a key battleground state, also are trying to put a similar initiative on the ballot.
“I’ve always believed this is a states’ issue,” said Evan Power, the Republican Party of Florida chair. “That is why we will fight to oppose the Florida constitutional amendment because the people’s representatives here in Florida have adopted a Florida constitutionally-sound approach.”
State Sen. Joe Gruters, a longtime Trump ally and an RNC national committee member, agreed with Power’s assessment about state decision-making and called the former president’s statement “perfect.” Asked whether he wanted Trump’s help on getting the word out about the referendum, Gruters replied that DeSantis — someone he has clashed with in the past — could keep championing the issue.
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, a Florida Republican who has drawn several Democratic challengers, also said this is a “states rights issue.”
“He’s doing exactly what he’s supposed to be doing,” she said of Trump.
Florida Republicans have good reason to tread lightly around Trump. The former president attacked one of his close allies, Sen. Lindsey Graham, after the South Carolina Republican broke with the president over abortion. One of the nation’s most influential anti-abortion groups, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, also stated it was “deeply disappointed” by Trump’s decision. Marjorie Dannenfelser, the group’s president, later reiterated the organization’s support of Trump.
Read the rest at Politico.
That’s all I have for you today, because women’s reproductive freedom is all I can think about right now. I’m hoping other angry women and men around the country will react by voting for Democrats in November.
Solar Eclipse Monday Reads: Will Donald look at the Sun Again?
Posted: April 8, 2024 Filed under: just because, Solar Eclipse, U.S. Politics | Tags: @repeat1968, Here comes the Solar Eclipse!, John Buss 2 Comments
It’s Eclipse Day! Be safe out there! John Buss @repeat1968
Good Day, Sky Dancers!
It’s quite the day today! The country’s gone nuts over the Solar Eclipse, and it’s separated by nuts who think the Rapture is coming and nuts who are just plain enjoying their nerdy selves. Count me in the later number. Count Governor Hillbilly HuckaBuck in Arkansas as nutty with a lot of stupid on the side. “Gov. Sanders declares state of emergency ahead of eclipse.” This is from the NBC affiliate in Little Rock.
This reminds me of the approach to school here. Jefferson Parish is sending their students home early. New Orleans Parish says their students will use the opportunity to learn something. Scalise is the Jefferson Parish Congress Critter, just to let you know where they stand.
Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders declared a state of emergency on Friday ahead of the solar eclipse, according to a news release.
Sanders said in the release that she released funds from the Response and Recovery Fund to help commercial carriers transport essentials to customers in the state during the eclipse.
The essential items listed in the order include groceries, pharmacy items, medical equipment, goods, commodities, fuel, poultry, livestock and feed.
The release said the decision was made out of caution due to the expected increase of visitors to Arkansas “potentially causing hardships.”
“We want to make sure Arkansans and all visitors have an enjoyable experience and come back again and again,” Sanders said in a statement.
The order will allocate $100,000 from the fund to address program and administrative costs and will be managed by the director of the Arkansas Division of Emergency Management.
The only idiot I know that’s stared at the sun during an eclipse is the Orange Dotard.
So, someone found this down here in Lafayette, Lousyana. Don’t even ask! Maybe that’s why we’ve got a few sprinkles of rain! He’s coming! He’s coming!
As for me, once a Girl Scout and Daisy and Brownie Leader, always one! Today, I’m going to try to see the eclipse. I got eclipse glasses for me and the neighbors. I’ve also been introducing all the AirBNB invaders to Ricky, Lucy, Rob, and Laura, the Gold Crested Night Herons, who are back in their nests in Oak Trees on the Neutral Ground. I also ranted about the highly inappropriate gentrifiers and the historical houses they wrecked during yesterday’s Bywater house tour.
We live in a historic district from the 1830s. Appreciate it! Your kitchens do not belong in the back parlor, which has been ripped open to the front parlor, with the historical features ripped off and sent to auction! Mine, the pocket door, and the original fireplace mantels are still there! There are plenty of burbs for your turquoise vinyl loveseats in little boxes built for that! I got that from my mother, who led the charge to restore a Victorian Mansion built by a Civil War General and Union Pacific Railroad man. Being a docent in that House was my very first job. It also taught me a lot about architectural styles and furniture. My Little House is perfect example of the period, precisely what I dreamed of owning. I don’t want to sit in an opened-up room staring at a kitchen and sitting in a room with furniture that looks like it came from my orthodontist’s office in the ’60s.
Lucy! I’m home!!!
Let’s get back to the Orange Dotard and his new ad. It concerns the Solar Eclipse, which is a doozy. This is from The Guardian. “Trump posts bizarre solar eclipse ad – with his head blocking out the sun, plunging US into darkness. During the August 2017 total solar eclipse, the then-president went viral when he ignored all eclipse safety recommendations by gazing directly at the sun with his naked eyes.” I really don’t ever want to see the word naked and Trump together in one headline.
Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Is it the moon crossing the sun? No, it’s Donald Trump’s head.
Seven years on from the notorious moment where he stared directly at the sun during the last solar eclipse over the US, the former president is jumping on the sungazing bandwagon yet again.
On Sunday night, Mr Trump posted a bizarre campaign ad on Truth Social where his own head takes on the role of the moon – blocking out the sun and plunging America into total darkness.
The video begins with the words “the most important moment in human history is taking place in 2024” emblazoned over an image of the flaming sun, while dramatic music plays in the backdrop.
Images show large crowds gathered to watch the solar event, staring up at the sky wearing protective glasses.
The footage moves between the awestruck crowds and the sun where a huge silhouette begins to slowly move across it.
But, it’s not the moon causing the rare phenomenon. It’s the outline of Mr Trump’s head – complete with quiff, bushy eyebrows and long neck.
As his head covers the entirety of the sun – creating its own solar eclipse – a phrase flashes across the screen: “We will save America. And make it great again.”
And that was the meme world comeback!
Coincidentally, one of my fellow brownies sent this to me today. It’s a picture of a driving tour pamphlet my mother wrote about old Houses in Council Bluffs, Iowa. I illustrated it in high school. I love restored old houses.
There are a lot of headlines you might want to check out, and I will list a few. I need to focus on the natural world and my neighbors right now! I’m getting ramped up for rain that will ruin my eclipse view. Hey! A Girl Scout has to do what a Girl Scout does!
- Washington Post: Trump says abortion should be left to states, declines to endorse national limit.
- Jose Pagliery, writing for The Daily Beast: Trump’s $175 Million Bond Is Even Shadier Than It Looks
- Marianna Sotomayor, writing for the Washington Post: Speaker Johnson’s job is on the line as the House returns
- USA Today: Biden promises student loan relief as early as this fall through new plan
- David Gilbert, writing for Wired: Inside the Election Denial Groups Planning to Disrupt November
- New York Times: Trump, at Fund-Raiser, Says He Wants Immigrants From ‘Nice’ Countries
Update: New Orleans Rains and clouds did not cooperate with viewing the eclipse. I enjoyed chatting and meeting with the Underground Women’s Astronomy and Shit-stirring Committee. Thanks to Anne Renee, and Nancy! Also, the gay couple across the street was out on the porch with the eclipse glasses I gave everyone I could, only to find out the local libraries were doing that, too. You can always depend on New Orleans Librarians! They are fierce!
Let us know how you made it out. I hope you can get through whatever WordPress is doing to make it impossible for nearly everyone–including me–to reply to threads!!
Lazy Caturday Reads
Posted: April 6, 2024 Filed under: 2024 presidential Campaign, cat art, caturday, Donald Trump, Joe Biden | Tags: 2024 campaign fund raising, Don Hankey, iran, israel, Judge Arthur Engoron, Letitia James, Nancy Pelosi, Trump's incoherent speeches, Trump's NY fraud case, Trump's role in January 6 insurrection, Trump's wealthy financial backers, Ukraine war 4 CommentsHappy Caturday!!
Painting by Artush, 2013
I’ve been trying to understand what is going on with the bond Trump tried to post in order to appeal his fraud conviction in New York. He supposedly posted a bond of $175 million, but then problems arose. Here’s what I’ve found so far.
Ben Protess and Matthew Haag at The New York Times: New York Attorney General Questions Trump’s $175 Million Bond Deal.
The New York attorney general’s office on Thursday took exception to a $175 million bond that Donald J. Trump recently posted in his civil fraud case, questioning the qualifications of the California company that provided it.
The dispute stems from a $454 million judgment Mr. Trump is facing in the case, which the attorney general’s office brought against the former president and his family business. The attorney general, Letitia James, accused Mr. Trump of fraudulently inflating his net worth, leading to a monthslong trial last year that ended with a judge imposing the huge penalty.
Mr. Trump had to obtain the bond as a financial guarantee while he appeals the penalty — or else open himself up to the possibility that Ms. James would collect. Without a bond in place, she could have frozen his bank accounts and begun the complicated process of trying to seize some of his New York properties.
Mr. Trump appeared to stave off this calamity on Monday when he posted the $175 million bond from the California firm, Knight Specialty Insurance Company. Although he was originally required to secure a guarantee for the full $454 million judgment, an appeals court recently granted him a break, allowing him to post the smaller bond.
By providing the bond — which is a legal document, not an actual transfer of money — Knight essentially promises New York’s court system that it will cover $175 million of the judgment against Mr. Trump if he loses his appeal and fails to pay. In return, Mr. Trump pays a fee to Knight, and pledges it a significant amount of cash as collateral.
So what happened?
Now, however, Ms. James is raising questions that could imperil the deal with Knight, which is owned by Don Hankey, a billionaire who made his fortune with subprime loans. And the judge in the case, Arthur F. Engoron, has tentatively scheduled a hearing for April 22 to discuss the bond.
In a court filing on Thursday, Ms. James noted that Knight was not registered to issue appeal bonds in New York, and so she demanded that the company or Mr. Trump’s lawyers file paperwork to “justify” the bond within 10 days. Ms. James is seeking to clarify whether Knight, which had never posted a similar court bond before aiding Mr. Trump, is financially capable of fulfilling its obligation to pay the $175 million if Mr. Trump defaults.
Even if Knight lacks the funds itself, the company should be able to tap the collateral Mr. Trump pledged.
In an interview this week, Mr. Hankey said that Mr. Trump pledged $175 million in cash as collateral that was being handled by a brokerage firm. Mr. Trump, in the meantime, is able to earn interest on the money.
So I guess we’ll all have to wait a couple of weeks until this gets addressed in court on April 22.
By Alison Friend
From Kaitlin Lewis at Newsweek: Donald Trump Bond Rejected Due to Low Fee, Insurer Suggests.
The billionaire behind the surety company that posted Donald Trump‘s civil fraud bond said that insurers “probably didn’t charge” the former president enough when covering the pledge.
Trump posted a $175 million bond on Monday as he appeals a ruling by New York State Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron, who found the former president and others associated with The Trump Organization liable of misleading insurers and lenders to obtain stronger financial terms.
But the bond was rejected by the court’s filing system later that same day due to missing paperwork, including a “current financial statement.” New York Attorney General Letitia James later raised questions about the “sufficiency” of the bond.
Don Hankey, chairman of the Los-Angeles based Hankey Group and owner of the Knight Specialty Insurance Company that posted Trump’s bond, told Reuters in an interview published Friday that his firm charged the former president a low fee when agreeing to put up the $175 million bond. The businessman reportedly declined to disclose the fee, but said that Knight picked a lower amount because it did not believe there was much risk involved.
According to online agency Insureon, which handles small-business insurance, a surety bond’s fee can range from 1 percent to 15 percent of the total bond amount.
Hankey added during the interview that his company had “been getting a lot of emails” and phone calls since backing Trump’s bond, adding, “Maybe that’s part of the reason he had trouble with other insurance companies.” The former president’s lawyers had pleaded with a New York appeals court to lower the bond amount from Trump’s original $454 million order in damages, arguing that it was a “practical impossibility” to meet the penalty.
Hankey also said that he was shocked that James had questioned the bond, telling Reuters that he was “surprised they’re coming down harder on our bond or looking for reasons to cause issues with our instrument.”
I don’t completely understand that. Maybe Daknikat can make more sense of it than I can.
ProPublica has a scoop on Trump’s efforts to mislead the appeals court that ended up lowering his bond amount: Trump’s Lawyers Told the Court That No One Would Give Him a Bond. Then He Got a Lifeline, but They Didn’t Tell the Judges.
Former President Donald Trump scored a victory last week when a New York court slashed the amount he had to put up while appealing his civil fraud case to $175 million.
His lawyers had told the appellate court it was a “practical impossibility” to get a bond for the full amount of the lower court’s judgment, $464 million. All of the 30 or so firms Trump had approached balked, either refusing to take the risk or not wanting to accept real estate as collateral, they said. That made raising the full amount “an impossible bond requirement.”
But before the judges ruled, the impossible became possible: A billionaire lender approached Trump about providing a bond for the full amount.
The lawyers never filed paperwork alerting the appeals court. That failure may have violated ethics rules, legal experts say.
In an interview with ProPublica, billionaire California financier Don Hankey said he reached out to Trump’s camp several days before the bond was lowered, expressing willingness to offer the full amount and to use real estate as collateral.
“I saw that they were rejected by everyone and I said, ‘Gee, that doesn’t seem like a difficult bond to post,’” Hankey said.
As negotiations between Hankey and Trump’s representatives were underway, the appellate court ruled in Trump’s favor, lowering the bond to $175 million. The court did not give an explanation for its ruling.
Hankey ended up giving Trump a bond for the lowered amount.
It appears Trump’s attorneys could get in trouble over this. According to the article, even if the lawyers didn’t know about the new offer until after the appeals court decision, they were required to inform the court about the new offer after the fact. Read more details at ProPublica.
Brandi Buchman has an important legal story at Law and Crime: The Trump Docket: A window into Trump’s ‘private’ acts on Jan. 6 may soon be opened by a federal judge.
Very soon, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., is expected to issue a ruling that could expose key pieces of discovery that some lawyers say prove Donald Trump acted in his “private” capacity on Jan. 6, 2021 — not in his official role — when whipping up a mob of his supporters at the Ellipse and urging them to descend on the Capitol where lawmakers were meeting to certify the 2020 election.
This is a key distinction for a group of former and current U.S. lawmakers and police suing Trump for violations of the Ku Klux Klan Act, as Law&Crime previously reported. Just this week, the former president filed a motion to stay that civil litigation indefinitely, invoking his brewing immunity question before the Supreme Court.
Law&Crime spoke to Joseph Sellers, an attorney representing the lawmaker plaintiffs. The parties met this week to finish briefing the requests for discovery before U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta.
Trump argues the overlap between the civil claim and his criminal indictment prosecuted by special counsel Jack Smith is too great and that going to trial, or even beginning pretrial proceedings like discovery, would threaten his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
While there may be some overlap in the details of the respective cases, Sellers said Trump’s wait-and-see approach by invoking the immunity question doesn’t hold up.
“The criminal case that’s before the Supreme Court on the question of immunity is framed entirely differently in this respect and it’s quite important. In our civil case, the question is whether his conduct was primarily of an official or private nature. That’s pivotal,” he said.
When the Supreme Court set arguments on Trump’s immunity question, they framed the question in a way that assumes Trump’s conduct on Jan. 6 was official and as a result, the question was whether he was immune from criminal prosecution.
The private-versus-official distinction isn’t presented there, Sellers said.
Because of this, the lawmakers say that no matter what the high court does, it should have no impact on the availability of immunity in the civil case. Invoking Trump’s criminal Jan. 6 trial, which is currently in purgatory itself, is a “grossly overbroad request,” the attorney said.
Head over to Law and Crime to read the rest.
By Heidi Taillefer
The Guardian has an interesting article on Trump’s insane, rambling public rants at The Guardian by Rachael Leingang: Trump’s bizarre, vindictive incoherence has to be heard in full to be believe.
He’s on the campaign trail less these days than he was in previous cycles – and less than you’d expect from a guy with dedicated superfans who brags about the size of his crowds every chance he gets. But when he has held rallies, he speaks in dark, dehumanizing terms about migrants, promising to vanquish people crossing the border. He rails about the legal battles he faces and how they’re a sign he’s winning, actually. He tells lies and invents fictions. He calls his opponent a threat to democracy and claims this election could be the last one.
Trump’s tone, as many have noted, is decidedly more vengeful this time around, as he seeks to reclaim the White House after a bruising loss that he insists was a steal. This alone is a cause for concern, foreshadowing what the Trump presidency redux could look like. But he’s also, quite frequently, rambling and incoherent, running off on tangents that would grab headlines for their oddness should any other candidate say them.
Journalists rightly chose not to broadcast Trump’s entire speeches after 2016, believing that the free coverage helped boost the former president and spread lies unchecked. But now there’s the possibility that stories about his speeches often make his ideas appear more cogent than they are – making the case that, this time around, people should hear the full speeches to understand how Trump would govern again.
Watching a Trump speech in full better shows what it’s like inside his head: a smorgasbord of falsehoods, personal and professional vendettas, frequent comparisons to other famous people, a couple of handfuls of simple policy ideas, and a lot of non sequiturs that veer into barely intelligible stories.
Leingang provides many examples of Trump’s incoherence. Here’s just one long quoted section:
Some of these bizarre asides are best seen in full, like this one about Biden at the beach in Trump’s Georgia response to the State of the Union:
“Somebody said he looks great in a bathing suit, right? And you know, when he was in the sand and he was having a hard time lifting his feet through the sand, because you know sand is heavy, they figured three solid ounces per foot, but sand is a little heavy, and he’s sitting in a bathing suit. Look, at 81, do you remember Cary Grant? How good was Cary Grant, right? I don’t think Cary Grant, he was good. I don’t know what happened to movie stars today. We used to have Cary Grant and Clark Gable and all these people. Today we have, I won’t say names, because I don’t need enemies. I don’t need enemies. I got enough enemies. But Cary Grant was, like – Michael Jackson once told me, ‘The most handsome man, Trump, in the world.’ ‘Who?’ ‘Cary Grant.’ Well, we don’t have that any more, but Cary Grant at 81 or 82, going on 100. This guy, he’s 81, going on 100. Cary Grant wouldn’t look too good in a bathing suit, either. And he was pretty good-looking, right?”
This is a long piece, so if you’re interested, head over to the Guardian and read the whole thing.
The fund-raising race in the presidential campaign is the focus of a number of stories today.
Politico: Biden campaign announces pulling in $90M in March.
President Joe Biden’s campaign said it raised $90 million in March, a sum that’s likely to grow the president’s significant financial edge over former President Donald Trump.
The Biden campaign said it had $192 million in cash on hand, a total that includes funds from the campaign, the Democratic National Committee and related joint fundraising committees. It’s the largest war chest amassed by any Democratic presidential candidate at this point in the cycle, according to a Biden campaign memo announcing the totals on Saturday. Aides released the total ahead of the monthly Federal Elections Commission filing deadline later this month.
Biden’s monthly totals come on the same day as Trump is holding his own major fundraiser. The former president’s campaign said they expect to raise more than $43 million at a one-night event in Palm Beach, Florida. Saturday’s Trump fundraiser aims to top the “three presidents” extravaganza in New York City last week, when Biden, joined by former Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, hauled in more than $26 million on a star-studded night.
Biden’s financial edge has remained a bright spot for the president, who continues to struggle with stubbornly low approval ratings and trails Trump narrowly in national polling averages.
Biden and the DNC ended February with more than double the cash-on-hand that Trump and the RNC had. Trump has failed to match his 2020 fundraising totals, and he’s also diverted millions of dollars to help pay his legal fees.
Former President Donald Trump has secured commitments totaling $50 million for a Saturday fundraiser in Palm Beach, Florida, according to four sources familiar with an effort that could bring in double what three Democratic presidents raised last week for President Joe Biden’s re-election push.
Hosted by hedge-fund billionaire John Paulson, the event will benefit Trump’s campaign, his Save America PAC, the Republican National Committee and state chapters of the GOP under a joint-fundraising agreement.
“Saturday’s event signifies the GOP’s finance team is all back home,” said one of the sources, who plans to attend the fundraiser. “Should produce a record haul.”
Trump also held a call with donors and fundraisers on Friday, in which he said he expected to double the amount Democrats raised at the recent Democratic event, according to one of the other sources, who was on the call.
It was not immediately clear whether all of the committed money would be collected by Saturday night.
This is from The Hill: Biden campaign hits Trump over guests at upcoming Palm Beach high-dollar fundraiser.
President Biden’s reelection campaign hit former President Trump on Friday over the guest list for his high-dollar fundraiser in Palm Beach, Fla., this weekend….
In a statement first sent to The Hill, the Biden campaign focused on the expected attendees to hit Trump on his fundraising strategy of looking to billionaires who have targeted programs such as Social Security.
Taking Inventory, by Erica Oller
“If you want to know who Donald Trump will fight for in a second term, just look at who he is having over for dinner Saturday night – tax cheats, scammers, racists, and extremists,” Biden campaign senior spokesperson Sarafina Chitika said.
“Make no mistake, Donald Trump will do the bidding of his billionaires buddies instead of what is best for the American people. He’ll take their checks and cut their taxes, and leave hard working Americans behind, shipping their jobs overseas, gutting Social Security and Medicare, ripping away health care protections, and banning abortion,” she added.
The Biden campaign pointed to Paulson, whom Trump has reportedly considered for Treasury Secretary if he wins, and who said during a 2018 New York University panel that Social Security could be switched to “to defined contribution from defined benefit.”
It called out Jeff Yass, a billionaire businessman and major investor in TikTok, as an expected attendee who floated privatizing Social Security accounts in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece in 2019….
Additionally, the campaign pointed to Michael Hodges, founder of a payday lender, as an attendee. He reportedly told other payday lenders in 2019 that contributions to Trump’s 2020 campaign could mean access to the then-administration, according to The Washington Post. It also pointed out that members of the Mercer family are Trump donors and that hedge fund manager Robert Mercer has argued that the Civil Rights Act was a mistake, citing The New Yorker.
The Biden campaign also pointed to John Catsimatidis, who is expected at the dinner. Catsimatidis, a billionaire who ran for New York City mayor in 2013, compared former President Obama’s plans in 2013 to raise taxes on the wealthy to how “Hitler punished the Jews,” according to Newsweek.
IMO, it’s great that Biden’s campaign is pointing out the creepy rich guys who are supporting Trump.
Some foreign policy stories:
CNN: US preparing for significant Iran attack on US or Israeli assets in the region as soon as next week.
The US is on high alert and actively preparing for a “significant” attack that could come as soon as within the next week by Iran targeting Israeli or American assets in the region in response to Monday’s Israeli strike in Damascus that killed top Iranian commanders, a senior administration official tells CNN.
Senior US officials currently believe that an attack by Iran is “inevitable” – a view shared by their Israeli counterparts, that official said. The two governments are furiously working to get in position ahead of what is to come, as they anticipate that Iran’s attack could unfold in a number of different ways – and that both US and Israeli assets and personnel are at risk of being targeted.
A forthcoming Iranian attack was a major topic of discussion on President Joe Biden’s phone call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday.
As of Friday, the two governments did not know when or how Iran planned to strike back, the official said.
By Christina Bernazzani
A direct strike on Israel by Iran is one of the worst-case scenarios that the Biden administration is bracing for, as it would guarantee rapid escalation of an already tumultuous situation in the Middle East. Such a strike could lead to the Israel-Hamas war broadening into a wider, regional conflict – something Biden has long sought to avoid.
It has been two months since Iranian proxies attacked US forces in Iraq and Syria, a period of relative stability after months of drone, rocket and missile launches targeting US facilities. The lone exception came on Tuesday, when US forces shot down a drone near al-Tanf garrison in Syria. The drone attack, which the Defense Department said was carried out by Iranian proxies, came after the Israeli strike on the Iranian embassy in Damascus.
“We asses that al-Tanf was not the target of the drone,” a defense official said Tuesday. “Since we were unable to immediately determine the target and out of safety for US and coalition partners, the drone was shot down.”
The incident came after the Israeli airstrike on the Iranian embassy in Damascus on Monday, though an Israel Defense Forces spokesman told CNN that their intelligence showed the building was not a consulate and is instead “a military building of Quds forces disguised as a civilian building.”
More at the CNN link.
Axios: Pelosi joins call to halt U.S. weapons transfers to Israel.
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) signed onto a call by progressive members of Congress for the U.S. to stop transferring weapons to Israel over a strike that killed seven aid workers in Gaza.
Why it matters: It’s a significant break with Israel by a long-standing supporter that underscores growing fissures between Democrats and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government.
Driving the news: The letter, led by Reps. Mark Pocan (D-Wisc.), Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), was released on Friday with 37 signatures from 37 other Democrats, including Pelosi.
“In light of the recent strike against aid workers and the ever-worsening humanitarian crisis, we believe it is unjustifiable to approve these weapons transfers,” the lawmakers wrote to President Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken.
Isabelle Khurshudyan at The Washington Post: With no way out of a worsening war, Zelensky’s options look bad or worse.
KYIV — As Russia steps up airstrikes and once again advances on the battlefield in Ukraine more than two years into its bloody invasion, there is no end to the fighting in sight. And President Volodymyr Zelensky’s options for what to do next — much less how to win the war — range from bad to worse.
Zelensky has said Ukraine will accept nothing less than the return of all its territory, including land that Russia has controlled since 2014. But with the battle lines changing little in the last year, militarily retaking the swaths of east and south Ukraine that Russia now occupies — about 20 percent of the country — appears increasingly unlikely.
Negotiating with Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the war — something Zelensky has rejected as long as Russian troops remain on Ukrainian land — is politically toxic. The Ukrainian public is hugely opposed to surrendering territory, and Putin shown no willingness to accept anything short of Ukraine’s capitulation to his demands.
The status quo is awful. With the fight now a grinding stalemate, Ukrainians are dying on the battlefield daily. But a cease-fire is also a nonstarter, Ukrainians say, because it would just give the Russians time to replenish their forces.
Ukrainian and Western officials view Zelensky as largely stuck. Aid from the United States, Ukraine’s most important military backer, has been stalled for months by Republicans in Congress. Previously approved modern fighter jets — the U.S.-made F-16 — are expected to enter combat later this year — but in limited quantity, meaning they will not be a game changer. NATO countries are still exercising restraint in their assistance, evidenced by the recent uproar after French President Emmanuel Macron said European nations should not rule out sending troops.
“How will Zelensky get out of this situation? I have no idea,” said a Ukrainian lawmaker who, like other officials and diplomats interviewed for this article, spoke on the condition of anonymity to be candid about the highly sensitive politics. “And of course it concerns me.”
The responsibility for this nightmare belongs solely to House Speaker Mike Johnson, who is loyalties are to Trump and Putin, and not his country.
That’s it for me today. What do you think? What other stories are you following?
Finally Friday Reads: Inquiring Minds want to Know
Posted: April 5, 2024 Filed under: just because | Tags: @repeat1968, Bedminster Earthquake, Bone Spurs and Bone Saw redux, John Buss, Kari Lake and Roseann Barr Do Mar-a-Lardo, Trump's Loser Meme Stock 6 Comments
John Buss, @repeat1969,
Good Day, Sky Dancers!
We woke up to the news of an earthquake centered in Bedminster, N.J., which means Orange Caligula’s summer palace is likely damaged somehow. I’m visualizing lots of nuclear secrets flying out of the grave of his first wife, Ivana. Perhaps more boxes will turn up, giving Jack Smith a possible new venue outside the loose Canon’s reign of ignorance.
Of course, the Orange Dotard was down in Mar-a-Lardo at an event that should have seen fewer white jackets and a lot of straight jackets. It was a fundraiser for Crazy Kari Lake with a special message from guest Rosann Barr, who is on the NF list these days. She is definitely Not Funny. But, she’s gone full metal maga jacket and QAnon. See the tweet below.
Trump’s meme stock is doing terribly, even by Trump standards. This is from Reuters. Basically, it’s no Game Stop. “Trump-and-dump: Speculators bet on Truth Social ‘meme’ stock.” Abigail Summerville has the lede.
(RDDT.N), and X found that most were looking to score a quick profit.
They bet that Trump supporters’ fascination with the stock was untethering TMTG’s stock price from the company’s business fundamentals.
TMTG’s current valuation of approximately $6.6 billion is equivalent to about 1,600 times the loss-making company’s revenue in 2023 of $4.1 million, according to LSEG data.
No other U.S. company of similar market capitalization has such a high valuation multiple, the LSEG data shows. This is despite TMTG warning investors in regulatory filings that its operational losses raise “substantial doubt” about its ability to remain in business.
The stock is also among the most actively traded, according to Trade Alert data. While social media posts indicate some Trump supporters have bought TMTG shares, a lot of the trading volume is coming from speculators looking for a quick flip.
“I invested $10,000 last Tuesday because MAGA is crazy and they will pump the stock,” said Sarah, a 21-year-old software developer from Pennsylvania who asked for her last name not to be published. MAGA stands for Trump’s campaign slogan, ‘Make America Great Again’.
The appeal of TMTG to speculators helps explain the stock’s volatility. The shares have risen as much as fivefold in the last two months and are currently valuing Trump’s majority stake in the company at about $3.8 billion.
A bout of this volatility came on Monday, as the stock lost more than fifth of its value. It remained unclear whether hedge funds and other Wall Street firms will get comfortable with such risks to join the speculation. Big investment firms will be required in a few weeks to disclose what, if any, their position in TMTG was as of the end of March.
Like Kari Lake, he’s not having much luck in the courtroom.
Kari herself is fresh off a loss in a defamation case. I guess she is just following in Trump’s footsteps. This is from MSNBC’s The Reid Out’s Ja’han Jones. It was reported last week. “Kari Lake is literally about to pay for her war on fellow Republicans. The Arizona Senate candidate conceded in court that she had said untrue things about a local election official. Now, she’ll fight over how much she has to pay him.” I guess running for high office as a Republican is the best way to get your court mishaps paid for by someone else.
On Tuesday, Kari Lake essentially admitted defeat in the latest stage of her crusade against a Maricopa County election official whom she falsely accused of cheating her out of a gubernatorial election victory in 2022.
Lake announced she won’t contest a claim that she defamed Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer, a fellow Republican, after spending the better part of the past two years spreading conspiracy theories about him. Richer filed a defamation lawsuit last year alleging that Lake and her allies drastically altered his life and forced him to hire security after they spread lies about him online and at various events.
As NBC News reported:
Lake’s legal team on Tuesday filed a default judgment motion that indicated she was not challenging her culpability. She instead seeks to dispute the damages. She also said Richer should have to turn over relevant medical and psychiatric records to show that his health was negatively affected, as he detailed in his lawsuit. Lake requested a jury for the default judgment hearing. Lake, a staunch Trump ally, has repeatedly pushed the lie that she won her 2022 bid for governor, and in doing so she took aim at Richer.
This amounts to a pretty pitiful retreat on Lake’s part. But as you might imagine, she’s not framing things that way. Instead, she’s leaning into victimhood and portraying her decision not to challenge the defamation claims as tactful politicking.
In a video posted on social media Tuesday night, she called the lawsuit “ludicrous” and said it was part of an effort by “political elites” to empty out her coffers. “Since they can’t blackmail or bribe me, they’ve resorted to filing a punishing lawsuit to try to stop me,” she said. She claimed, without even a hint of self-awareness, that she and putative Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump are being subjected to “lawfare” — conservatives’ favorite buzzword these days — designed to “punish, impoverish, and destroy” political opponents through the legal system. She ended by saying that she “won’t be taking part” in the suit.
I hope Trump doesn’t turn on her if she starts peddling a line of Bibles. Also, I don’t think Roseanne’s advice had any chance of hitting folks with solid university degrees in Florida.
Trump had two very bad days in Court last week although the Cannon decision left him some breathing room. BB did a great job of covering those. The fallout is rather deliscious. This is written by Katherine Doyle for NBC News’ ‘The nuclear button’: Special counsel could seek removal of judge in Trump classified docs case, attorneys warn, Special counsel Jack Smith and Judge Aileen Cannon traded terse words in filings this week.” Good Night Aileen, Good Night Aileen!
Special counsel Jack Smith could soon seek to have the judge presiding over former President Donald Trump’s classified documents case recused, prosecutors and defense attorneys warn, describing Smith as being pressed to the “breaking point” over arguments his office said could taint a trial irrevocably.
Smith faulted Judge Aileen Cannon in a scathing rebuke for seeming to take at face value Trump’s “fundamentally flawed” claim around a president’s official and personal records when she asked both sides to put forth competing versions of instructions for jurors in the case and said her request would “distort” the trial. Smith indicated in that filing that if Cannon ruled against federal prosecutors, this could be a trigger for an appeal to the 11th Circuit that could remove her from the case.
“He is close to pushing the nuclear button,” said Palm Beach County State Attorney David Aronberg. “It is a high burden to reach, and it is rarely done, but her proposed jury instructions may have pushed him to the breaking point.”
That proposal for jury instructions, a final version of which would be delivered to jurors at the end of a trial, seemed to consider Trump’s interpretation of how classified documents could be preserved after leaving office, which is at the center of the charge against him.
The latest, most exciting story on Trump and his travails and travels leads to Saudi Arabia. This is from Brian Buetler’s Substack Off Message. “Unmask Donald Trump. If President Biden knows Trump and his henchmen are sabotaging U.S. foreign policy for partisan gain, he should let the American public know before the election.”
President Biden may have reached his wits end, however belatedly, with Benjamin Netanyahu. A readout of their most recent conversation suggests that, in the wake of the World Central Kitchen killings, and the subsequent flight-to-safety of humanitarian workers, U.S. aid will be conditioned going forward on a rapidly implemented ceasefire (of uncertain length) in order to meliorate the catastrophe on the ground.
But Biden’s larger picture goal—and perhaps the only way to lastingly tie this Israeli government’s hands—is a grand settlement, along the lines he’s been negotiating, that would sweeten the deal for Israel by normalizing its relations with Saudi Arabia.
He should thus be alarmed at the news (if it is indeed news to him) that Trump has held at least one undisclosed phone call with Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi crown prince, in recent days.
Trump has been strangely at pains of late to imply that he is at odds with the rest of his party, which lusts for bloody retribution against Palestinians. He recently told a duo of right-wing Israeli journalists, “You have to finish up your war,” and stressed the same thing to the Republican apparatchik Hugh Hewitt, insisting in his television-addled way that Israel is “absolutely losing the PR war.”
On its face, that suggests agreement with Biden. If we could ever take Trump at face value or trust his motives, his private contacts with MBS might not be so worrisome. There is speculation and reporting to suggest that Trump views Netanyahu as disloyal for having congratulated President Biden on winning the 2020 election—perhaps this is his retribution? And he may see some advantage in getting caught advocating for Israel to end its war, so that he might claim credit if a ceasefire materializes in the coming weeks.
But the clear optimum for him—what is in his best interest, the only interest he cares about—is to scuttle Biden’s efforts to reach a grand diplomatic settlement in the region. And between his secret conversations, his private business arrangements with Saudi royals, and his control over Republicans in Congress, he almost certainly has the clout required to subvert U.S. foreign policy in this way. Just as he’s subverted Biden’s Ukraine policy and border-security negotiations for personal gain.
He’s also not necessarily working alone. We learned this week that Netanyahu hosted Jared Kushner for dinner in December, and that Trump treats his degenerate former national-security henchman Richard Grenell as an “envoy” to right-wing leaders abroad.
What’s more likely: that Trump is Biden’s earnest partner seeking an end to the war in Gaza? Or that he would like to create that impression domestically, while working behind the scenes to prolong it? Biden shouldn’t just wonder if Trump and his lackeys are collectively up to no good. He should suspect it. And insofar as he has access to information that confirms his suspicion, he should reveal it to the American public.
Okay, I’m done with this. I can’t handle the daily garbage skow trip that carries the latest grift, insanity, and stupidity of Trump and his cronies. I nearly puked at a picture of Roger Stone and Rosanne Barr sitting beside each other. It’s like a circus of goons!
So, here’s the good news, and it’s always down in the fine print or a quick chyron. “Job growth zoomed in March as payrolls jumped by 303,000 and unemployment dropped to 3.8%.” This is reported by CNBC’s Jeff Cox. This is something that needs to be SHOUTED IN ALL CAPS.
-
Nonfarm payrolls increased 303,000 for the month, well above the Dow Jones estimate for a rise of 200,000.
-
The unemployment rate edged lower to 3.8%, as expected, even though the labor force participation rate moved higher to 62.7%.
-
Wages rose 0.3% for the month and 4.1% from a year ago, both in line with Wall Street estimates.
-
Health care led with 72,000 new jobs, followed by government (71,000), leisure and hospitality (49,000), and construction (39,000).
Nothing moves an economy like a big infrastructure boost from the Federal Government. Thank you, Dark Brandon!
What’s on your reading and blogging list today?
And this is for Orange Caligula.
peej
Carissa
bostonboomer
dakinikat
ecocatwoman
mablue2
Mama Lopez
peggysue22
quixote
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Sky Dancing 
Recent Comments