Finally, Friday and Forty-Five has Thirty-Four Felony Counts Reads!

“I’m going with this. Lock him up. Guilty 34 counts.” John Buss, @repeat1968

Good Day, Sky Dancers!

Donald stands in front of many flags, noticeably shaken and spouting the usual lies.  It’s the same old, same old from the same old, same old.  This old, tired man has a lot of old, tired excuses and blame-shifting. This is the most spaced-out presser I think I’ve ever seen.  He’s just rambling on. Maybe he’s just discovered he’s mortal and is in shock.  Who knows what goes on in that addled old mind of his?  However, it’s still a clarion call for the KKKult.

This is from Reuters. “Trump supporters call for riots and violent retribution after verdict.”  Isn’t that against the Law?  Lock them up with him!

Supporters of former President Donald Trump, enraged by his conviction on 34 felony counts by a New York jury, flooded pro-Trump websites with calls for riots, revolution and violent retribution.

After Trump became the first U.S. president to be convicted of a crime, his supporters responded with dozens of violent online posts, according to a Reuters review of comments on three Trump-aligned websites: the former president’s own Truth Social platform, Patriots.Win and the Gateway Pundit.

Some called for attacks on jurors, the execution of the judge, Justice Juan Merchan, or outright civil war and armed insurrection.
“Someone in NY with nothing to lose needs to take care of Merchan,” wrote one commentator on Patriots.Win. “Hopefully he gets met with illegals with a machete,” the post said in reference to illegal immigrants.

On Gateway Pundit, one poster suggested shooting liberals after the verdict. “Time to start capping some leftys,” said the post. “This cannot be fixed by voting.”

Some Trump supporters were considered unconsolable.  Poor, nasty, racist, bigoted, homophobic, women-hating deplorables!  The New York Times attempts to gauge America’s response to the verdict. “The Trump Verdict: Americans React.  Initial reactions nationwide to former President Donald J. Trump’s conviction on all 34 counts of falsifying business records.”  This was my favorite woman-on-the-street response.

Ashley Daniels, 38, Los Angeles

“My first initial thought was joy, because it’s been going on for so long, just waiting for some sort of justice,” she said.

“But I feel a little amazed, when I looked it up, that he actually can still run for president now that he’s been convicted for 34 felonies. Like you can get denied for regular-Joe jobs, but you can be president for 34 felonies. It’s kind of crazy. But I’m hoping we’re moving in a good direction.”

The Guardian also asked some folks on the street. “‘I’d enjoy seeing him go to prison’: voters react to guilty verdict in Trump trial. Some are ‘glad to see him held accountable’ while others call conviction a ‘travesty’ and believe it will embolden his base.”

Inside the Wisconsin state capitol on Thursday evening, Brian Schimming, the chair of the Wisconsin Republican party, decried Donald Trump’s conviction in blistering terms. The conviction was an embarrassment. The verdict, “rigged”. The legal system, akin to that of a “banana republic”.

On the sprawling lawn outside the state capitol building, in deep-blue Madison, Cheyenne Carter, a 25-year-old administrative assistant, reflected on the verdict more matter-of-factly.

“I’m glad to see him be held accountable in some criminal way,” said Carter. “I would actually enjoy seeing him go to prison, or see some type of actual prison time – unfortunately, I’m sure that won’t happen.”

Like many voters, Carter made up her mind about the former president long ago, and figures others have too.

The jury’s verdict – guilty of 34 felony charges in connection with his hush-money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels – makes Trump the first US president, current or former, in history to be convicted in criminal court. It’s not clear that will change minds.

“I feel like people have made their opinion about him for years now, and it’s like, you can’t change it this far in,” said Carter.

Will Ford, an air traffic controller from Wisconsin, agreed. He hasn’t settled on Joe Biden and could see himself voting for a third-party candidate, but has never considered voting for Trump, whom he sees as a menace.

“He’s a different breed, a different kind of person,” said Ford. “If he gets elected, I think we’d be in trouble a little bit, because he’s for sure going straight after everybody who was against him.”

For Dave, a retiree from northern Wisconsin who preferred not to share his last name, the verdict proved what Trump has been claiming for months and what the Republican party establishment, evidenced in Schimming’s speech at the Capitol, appears to have settled on as a unifying message – that the cases against Trump are unfair and politically motivated.

“I think this will make him even greater – Trump will win in a landslide,” he said.

At the link, there’s another set of voter comments from the state of Georgia.  Both of these will be key states in November.  All I can continue to say is that I’ve never met a smart Trump voter. They’re either choking on racist bile, blissfully unaware of reality, or both. The big discussion last night after the verdict was how much Trump’s involvement with his defense tanked his chances of getting at least one holdout.  This is from Politico. “Trump Bungled the Trial. A conviction wasn’t inevitable.”  This analysis is provided by Ankush Khardori.

It may not have been the trial that the country deserves, but it’s the trial that we got.

On Thursday, Donald Trump became the first president in U.S. history to become a convicted felon thanks to a jury of 12 New Yorkers. The verdict was swift, coming after less than two days of deliberations in the hush money trial.

But a conviction was not inevitable. The legal issues were intricate and in some key respects novel, and some of them will credibly be at issue on appeal. The state’s evidence was voluminous but far from airtight, and there were weaknesses and gaps in the prosecution’s evidence as the case unfolded.

In fact, this was probably a winnable case — not in the form of an acquittal perhaps, but in the form of a hung jury that could have resulted by persuading one or more jurors that a case built around Michael Cohen — the former Trump lawyer/fixer turned convicted felon turned media personality — was simply not strong or reliable enough to warrant this watershed moment in American history. Trump also probably could have gotten off with convictions on misdemeanor counts of falsifying his company’s business records instead of felonies, but he never asked the judge to instruct the jurors on that point, perhaps fearing that the request might make him look weak — the worst offense of them all in his mind.

In life and in the law, hindsight is 20/20. In close political campaigns, analysts are often tempted to treat the eventual winner as the candidate that made the right decisions at the crucial points, and to treat the loser as having fumbled along. The same dynamic applies to legal proceedings too, so some caution is warranted. At some point, we may hear from some of the jurors themselves about what guided their decision, which would be a welcome addition to the historical record.

In the meantime, we are left to our own devices and to a tentative but unavoidable conclusion — that Trump and his lawyers bungled this trial.

They made a series of significant strategic and tactical errors before Cohen even took the stand that appeared likely to be the product of Trump — the client’s — decision-making. They foolishly claimed that the porn star Stormy Daniels had fabricated her story in the run-up to the 2016 election, then pilloried her ineffectively during cross-examination. They elevated peripheral witnesses (like Daniels’ lawyer) through drawn-out cross-examinations when they should have downplayed their actual relevance to the charges.

It was legal Trumpism — deny everything, attack indiscriminately.

I think also Trump and his lawyer/slaves underestimated how much they could undermine Cohen. Cohen and his lawyer made a long appearance on MSNBC.  The funniest part was Cohen’s characterization of Blanche, Trump’s lawyer, as SLOAT, which is an acronym for ‘Stupidest Lawyer Of All Time.’   Cohen argued that Blanche listened to Trump’s trial strategy and that, like everything Trump touches, it died.  The most behind-the-scenes lawyer who deserves kudos is Cohen’s lawyer, Danya Perry.  She revealed that Blanche was her paralegal when he 1st started working at the same office. When Cohen was describing his prep for testimony, it was obvious that Perry’s influence had helped him greatly.  She told him to lay off the social media, make the facts surrounding him a given, and move on.  You can watch the interview with Rachel and the rest of the MSNBC night team with Cohen and Perry at the link.  He admitted to his lies and errors and just moved on. She argued it was part of why the jury wound up trusting him.

Another item discussed last night was the law in Florida that stops convicted felons from voting.  Today, in the Miami Herald, a detail in the law shows that Trump may still vote in the November election. “Trump was found guilty of crimes in New York. Can he still vote in Florida?”

Former President Donald Trump may officially be a convicted felon, but he’ll still likely be able to vote for himself in Florida this November. While Florida law bars people convicted of most felonies from voting until they’ve fulfilled all terms of their sentence, Trump, a lifelong New Yorker who changed his residency to Florida in 2019, was convicted Thursday in his former home state.

The Florida Secretary of State’s website states that a “felony conviction in another state makes a person ineligible to vote in Florida only if the conviction would make the person ineligible to vote in the state where the person was convicted.” Under New York state law, even convicted felons are allowed to register to vote, so long as they’re not currently in prison.

For now, it’s unclear what kind of punishment Trump could receive. His sentencing hearing is currently scheduled for July 11. New York state law calls for a maximum four-year prison sentence for each of the 34 counts of falsifying business records that Trump was found guilty of on Thursday.

Trump could avoid prison time altogether, according to The New York Times, if the judge overseeing the case imposes a sentence of probation. Trump has also promised to appeal his conviction, which would have an effect on his voting status.

Trump’s sentencing hearing will occur on July 11.  Catherine Christian, Former Asst. The District Attorney for the Manhattan DA also had a lot of good information on what’s to follow for both the sentencing hearing and the appeal.  The interesting thing I learned was that Trump does not have to attend the Appeal Court proceedings.  Her interview with Rachel is at the link.

There are a lot of big questions left. I’m sure we can hear and read a lot of speculation. At this point, only Judge Marchan holds the keys to many of them. I hope his sheriff’s detail is large and well-armed. In these six convening weeks, we’ll see if Trump can really call out the crazies.  We’ll also be watching the Biden campaign’s response.  They seem to be determining what will work best.  Are there enough disaffected Republicans to attempt some outreach efforts?  I’m not sure anyone can do anything, but I guess right now.  I do feel we will see some violence from those heavily armed white lone wolves out there.  It’s never good when you’re a fanatic–religious or otherwise–and you go on an armed crusade.  We shall see.

What’s on your reading and blogging list today?


Mostly Monday Michael Cohen Reads

Good Day, Sky Dancers!

There’s a lot of insanity today from the MAGA crowd and its imperial maggot.  Let’s start but not end there.

This is from CNBC‘s Dan Magan. “Trump said ‘there’s going to be a lot of woman coming forward’ if he ran for president, Michael Cohen testifies.” 

Michael Cohen testified Monday that Donald Trump warned him that “just be prepared, there’s going to be a lot of women coming forward,” once Trump announced that he was running for president.

Cohen also testified about secretly recording Trump during a meeting about reimbursing the publisher of The National Enquirer for making a $150,000 hush money payment to a Playboy model to buy her silence about an alleged affair with Trump.

Cohen’s revelations came on his first day of testimony at Trump’s New York criminal hush money trial, where the former lawyer and fixer detailed efforts to protect Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016 from being harmed by salacious disclosures.

Once slavishly devoted to Trump, Cohen is now his avowed enemy and could be the key witness against him in the case in Manhattan Supreme Court.

The 57-year-old is set to tell jurors about how he paid porn star Stormy Daniels $130,000 shortly before the 2016 presidential election, in exchange for her silence about a one-night stand she had with Trump a decade earlier.

Trump’s reimbursement of Cohen for that payoff while he was serving in the White House is the basis for the Manhattan District Attorney’s case against the ex-president.

The Trump Organization reported the Daniels-related reimbursements to Cohen as legal expenses. But District Attorney Alvin Bragg alleges that this constituted a crime — falsification of business records — committed by Trump to hide the fact that the hush money had protected his then-wobbling presidential candidate at a key moment.

Cohen will probably continue to behave, but his outside social media, much like his former boss’s, is a challenging problem for the court. This is from the Washington Post‘s Blair Guild. “The weird world of Michael Cohen’s live TikTok streaming.  The former Trump fixer, now a critic, is expected to take the stand this week in Donald Trump’s hush money criminal trial. Meanwhile, he is live wearing cowboy hat filters, receiving calls from Rosie O’Donnell and sharing his feelings on TikTok.”

The Trump fixer turned critic riffs on whatever he wants: his political beliefs, books he’s recently read and the New York Rangers have all come up. But notably, Cohen, a disbarred lawyer, occasionally veers into rants about Trump.
Cohen suspects Trump’s legal team is tuning in to his live streams.

Trump’s defense attorney Todd Blanche last week urged the judge in the case to prohibit Cohen from talking about Trump outside of court, saying it was unfair because Trump cannot respond to the attacks.

New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan did not issue a formal order, but he instructed prosecutors “to communicate to Mr. Cohen that the judge is asking him to refrain from making any more statements about this case.”

Prosecutors said they have told Cohen and other witnesses to refrain from speaking about Trump — but they conceded that they have no real power to make them stop.

The live streams typically attract a few thousand viewers, wide-ranging in their opinions about Cohen. The comments section is a mixed bag of people attacking Cohen with clown-face emojis and supporters defending his personal growth out of Trump’s sphere.

There are examples if you happen to be interested. I’ve lived long enough to be tired of white men and their ever-lasting gobstopper whinging.  Cohen is not a victim. He is one in a long line of enablers. His life would be better served if he engaged in behavior that wasn’t quite so self-serving.

I want to take some time again to show you the impact of the MAGA cult on those of us unfortunate enough to have MAGA legislators and governors.  They’re really coming from women here in Louisiana.  They want complete control over us.  This is what happens when any person with a brain sits out an election.

Here are some really appalling policies put into place to punish women for being women. We are chattel here. This is from the AP. “Louisiana lawmakers reject adding exceptions of rape and incest to abortion ban.” I’m pretty sure the woman who is now our state AG will not take these laws to the Supreme Court.  Instead, she will fight the groups that do.

Despite pleas from Democrats and gut-wrenching testimony from doctors and rape survivors, a GOP-controlled legislative committee rejected a bill Tuesday that would have added cases of rape and incest as exceptions to Louisiana’s abortion ban.

In the reliably red state, which is firmly ensconced in the Bible Belt and where even some Democrats oppose abortions, adding exceptions to Louisiana’s strict law has been an ongoing battle for advocates — with a similar measure failing last year. Currently, of the 14 states with abortion bans at all stages of pregnancy, six have exceptions in cases of rape and five have exceptions for incest.

“I will beg (committee) members to come to common sense,” Democratic state Rep. Alonzo Knox said to fellow lawmakers ahead of the vote, urging them to give approval to the exceptions. “I’m begging now.”

Lawmakers voted against the bill along party lines, with the measure failing 4-7.

A nearly identical bill met the same fate last year, effectively dying in the same committee. In the hopes of advancing the legislation out of committee and to the House floor for full debate, bill sponsor Democratic state Rep. Delisha Boyd added an amendment to the measure so that the exceptions would only apply to those who are younger than 17. However, the change was still not enough to sway opponents.

This week, they’re preparing this move, as reported in the Washington Post. “Louisiana moves to make abortion pills ‘controlled dangerous substances.’  Someone possessing the pills without a valid prescription or outside of professional practice could be prosecuted and sentenced to prison.”

Louisiana could become the first state in the country to categorize mifepristone and misoprostol — the drugs used to induce an abortion — as controlled dangerous substances, threatening incarceration and fines if an individual possesses the pills without a valid prescription or outside of professional practice.

Legislators in Baton Rouge added the provision as a last-minute amendment to a Senate bill that would criminalize an abortion if someone gives a pregnant woman the pills without her consent, a scenario of “coerced criminal abortion” that nearly occurred with one senator’s sister.

A pregnant woman obtaining the two drugs “for her own consumption” would not be at risk of prosecution. But, with the exception of a health-care practitioner, a person helping her get the pills would be.

Louisiana already bans both medication and surgical abortions except to save a patient’s life or because a pregnancy is “medically futile.” Lawmakers just rejected adding exceptions for teenagers under 17 who become pregnant through rape or incest.

The amendment would list mifepristone and misoprostol under the state’s Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act, which regulates depressants, opioids and other sometimes highly addictive drugs. It elicited a strong reaction from more than 240 Louisiana doctors, who called it “not scientifically based.”

“Adding a safe, medically indicated drug for miscarriage management … creates the false perception that these are dangerous drugs that require additional regulation,” they wrote in a letter sent last week to the bill’s sponsor, Republican Sen. Thomas Pressly. They noted misoprostol’s other critical uses, including to prevent gastrointestinal ulcers and to aid in labor and delivery.

“Given its historically poor maternal health outcomes, Louisiana should prioritize safe and evidence-based care for pregnant women,” they urged.

The amendment, written with guidance from Louisiana Right to Life, was added after the Senate unanimously passed S.B. 276 in mid-April. The measure is awaiting a final vote in the House before the session ends June 3, with little opposition expected.

“As Senator Pressly has stated, the medical community regularly uses controlled substances in a myriad of medical situations, including emergencies,” said Sarah Zagorski, communications director for the antiabortion organization. “The use of these drugs for legitimate health care needs will still be available, just like all other controlled substances are still available for legitimate uses.”

H/T to JJ.

Screaming is not enough. What always makes me maddest is when any woman gives power to men who have an interest in uprooting the power of women.  This is from the marvelous Joyce Vance at her Substack.  “Mar-a-No-Go. There was little doubt before last week that federal Judge Aileen Cannon was determined to delay Trump’s criminal case in front of her—the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case—until after the election. Now, there is none.”

It’s been apparent for months that the May 20 trial date in this case wasn’t going to be the actual start of trial, as the Judge let critical motions stack up and refused to rule. This week, she announced that the trial date was off, and then she refused to set a new one. Special Counsel Jack Smith had asked for a July trial date, but Judge Cannon said it would be “imprudent and inconsistent” with her duty to “fairly consider the various pending pre-trial motions … [and] … critical CIPA issues … necessary to present this case to a jury.”

This is the language from Judge Cannon’s order where she vacates the trial date and says she’ll set a new one…some day after she decides all of the pending motions.

This case could and should have been ready for trial in December or January if she had been working on the motions and realistic deadlines all along.

Judge Cannon’s action here bears a striking similarity to what Trump asked her to do back in July of 2023, when he and co-defendant Walt Nauta filed a joint motion asking her to “postpone initial consideration of any rescheduled trial date until after substantive motions have been presented and adjudicated.” She didn’t then; she scheduled the May trial date. But now, she has given Trump what he wanted all along, and it’s contrary to what the law directs judges to do.

The Speedy Trial Act provides that, “In any case involving a defendant charged with an offense, the appropriate judicial officer, at the earliest practicable time, shall, after consultation with the counsel for the defendant and the attorney for the Government, set the case for trial on a day certain, or list it for trial on a weekly or other short-term trial calendar at a place within the judicial district, so as to assure a speedy trial.” Refusing to set a trial date is not what the rules authorize federal judges to do; in fact, the rules direct judges to set a trial date at the beginning of the case, before all of the motions are even filed. Here, we have a Judge who won’t set a trial date because of eight motions that are still pending on her docket because she has refrained from deciding them.

If one of us has our civil rights denied, we all face the same fate.  If the Justice system puts any person or company above the law, there is no such thing as true Justice in this country.

This is from Chris Geidner, writing at Law Dork. “Justice Thomas has used this “hideous place” to amass the power he now exploits. Thomas’s attack on Washington comes as he will, yet again, issue rulings that set the national rules for the legal questions before the justices.”

It is in this context that one must regard Justice Clarence Thomas’s latest attack on the city that has provided him with a federal government job since the late 1970s.

“I think what you are going to find and especially in Washington, people pride themselves on being awful. It is a hideous place as far as I’m concerned,” Thomas told the audience at the Eleventh Circuit Judicial Conference, per the Associated Press, on Friday.

It is, however, a “hideous place” that Thomas has nonetheless used to obtain increasing positions of power over the decades. Ever since he reached his perch on the U.S. Supreme Court in 1991, he has used that position to provide others within positions of power with access to the Supreme Court’s building; to establish and build relationships with the rich and powerful; and, finally, to create his own network of power among his former clerks.

Over the next seven weeks, Thomas will be one of nine people releasing decisions in 40 cases at the Supreme Court that will set forth the standard for whether presidents will be immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken in office for life, whether his Bruen decision renders unconstitutional the federal ban on gun possession by those people who have a domestic-violence restraining order out against them, and whether medication abortion remains accessible in a post-Roe America on its current terms, among many other pivotal decisions.

Further still — and throwing his cries of grievance even further into doubt — he will be doing so on a court that is the most conservative it has ever been since he joined it.

Thomas’s vote matters in all of those 40 cases, he will write an opinion in many of them; and he will write the court’s opinion in a handful of cases — setting the national rule for whatever legal question is at issue in those cases.

It is the 33rd year in which Clarence Thomas is doing so as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. From this “hideous place.”

What’s on your reading and blogging list today?


Lazy Caturday Reads

Thophile_Alexandre_Steinlen_-_The Sleeping Cat

Thophile_Alexandre_Steinlen, The Sleeping Cat

Happy Caturday!!

As Dakinikat wrote yesterday, the Trump hush money trial had a marquee witness yesterday in Hope Hicks, who was very close to Trump during the his 2016 campaign and his four years as “president.” A couple of reports/reactions:

CNN: Takeaways from Day 11 of the Donald Trump hush money trial as Hope Hicks testifies.

Donald Trump’s former campaign press secretary and White House communications director Hope Hicks took the stand Friday, sitting feet away from her former boss as she described the fallout from the “Access Hollywood” tape and the Trump White House response to stories about hush money payments.

Hicks was visibly nervous, and she mostly avoided eye contact with Trump while answering questions from prosecutors for more than two hours. When prosecutors finished with their questions and Trump’s attorney took the podium, Hicks began crying and appeared to become overwhelmed; she finished her testimony after a brief break.

Through Hicks’ testimony, prosecutors showed jurors the transcript of the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape that upended Trump’s campaign – and, according to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, fueled Trump’s concern about keeping Stormy Daniels quiet in the days before the November 2016 election….

After sitting in the witness box, Hicks looked visibly uncomfortable and quickly acknowledged as much when she began answering questions.

“I’m really nervous,” she said, adjusting herself and the microphone in front of her.

Trump often had a scowl on his face, occasionally looking at Hicks and frequently passing notes with his attorneys while watching the proceedings play out on the television above him. Hicks, for her part, looked nearly always at assistant district attorney Matthew Colangelo and the jury, not at the defendant’s table.

Much of Hicks’ testimony focused on her role on the Trump campaign in October 2016, just before Election Day. Prosecutors asked what happened when the “Access Hollywood” tape came out.

“The tape was damaging. This was a crisis,” Hicks said.

tranquility-sleeping-cat-painting-dora-hathazi-mendes

Tranquility, by Dora Hathazi Mendes

The aftermath of the tape then informed how the campaign responded when the Wall Street Journal reported on Karen McDougal’s deal with American Media, Inc. not to speak about an alleged affair as part of a $150,000 agreement

In the report, which also mentioned Daniels, Hicks, then a Trump campaign spokesperson, denied that Trump had had affairs with either woman.

Hicks was asked about her conversations with Trump as well as Michael Cohen when reporters came to her for comment.

“What I told to the Wall Street Journal is what was told to me,” Hicks said of the denial she gave about the Daniels allegations.

When cross-examining Hicks, Trump attorney Emil Bove elicited testimony that Trump was also concerned about what his wife would think. Trump asked for the newspapers not to be delivered to his residence the day the story published, Hicks testified.

“I don’t think he wanted anyone in his family to be hurt or embarrassed by anything that was happening on the campaign trial. He wanted them to be proud of him,” Hicks said.

Read more at CNN.

Marina Villaneuve at Salon: “More credible”: Legal experts say Hope Hicks’ testimony “ties everything more closely to Trump.”

Hicks discussed her key role in meetings and made clear that she “reported to Mr. Trump,” who, she said, closely managed his communications strategy. Multiple news outlets, including The New York Times, reported that Hicks said she was “very concerned” about the “Access Hollywood” tape in which Trump bragged about grabbing women by their genitals. The audio clip was published in October — a month before the election.

 “I was concerned,” Hicks said Friday. “Very concerned. Yeah. I was concerned about the contents of the email, I was concerned about the lack of time to respond, I was concerned that we had a transcript but not a tape. There was a lot at play.”

Trump’s defense, meanwhile, used their cross examination to ask Hicks questions about Cohen’s informal role with the campaign and Trump’s concern about his wife Melania’s reaction to the “Access Hollywood” tape.

“He liked to call himself a fixer, or Mr. Fix-it, and it was only because he first broke it,” Hicks said, according to The Times. Hicks also said of Cohen: “He would try to insert himself at certain moments.” [….]

New York prosecutors have cited text messages, witness testimony, phone calls and other records to allege that Trump schemed to pay off adult film star and director Stormy Daniels, model Karen McDougal as well as a doorman who falsely claimed Trump had an affair with a housekeeper. The scheme allegedly involved a $130,000 payment to Daniels described as “legal expenses” in Trump Organization records. Bragg said the scheme “mischaracterized, for tax purposes, the true nature of the reimbursements” for that payment.

Sleeping cat, by Huang YuziAccording to The Times, prosecutors asked Hicks if Cohen would have paid Daniels without alerting Trump. Hicks said that would have been out of character for Cohen. 

Prosecutors on Friday asked Hicks about an email she wrote saying “Deny, deny, deny” concerning the Washington Post’s email seeking comment about the Access Hollywood tape. She described that reaction as a “reflex.” She also said the campaign was concerned about a Wall Street Journal article about McDougal.

“One of the defining characteristics of Hope Hicks, both in the campaign and in her time in the White House, was that Mr. Trump wanted to have her in the room as often as possible,” Hofstra University constitutional law professor James Sample said. “Hope Hicks is a witness who will heighten the connection between what the jury has already heard and the prosecutors need to establish that part of the reason for these deals was to influence the election.”

Two more Trump-related stories:

Brandi Buchman at Law and Crime: Mark Meadows unmasked in Arizona fake electors indictment, faces 9 felony charges: Report.

Charges have formally been made public against Mark Meadows, the onetime chief of staff to former President Donald Trump, in the expansive fake electors case now underway in Arizona.

Trump is not charged in Arizona but is considered an unindicted co-conspirator.

As Law&Crime recently reported, 18 fake electors in the state were indicted by a grand jury on April 24 for their alleged efforts to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 election. Though several Republicans were named directly in the fraud and forgery indictment including, among others, leaders of the state’s Republican party and two incumbent state lawmakers, some of those charged had their identities redacted, including Meadows and Trump’s former attorney also facing indictment in Georgia, Rudy Giuliani.

Formal charges have still not been confirmed for Giuliani in Arizona.

The Associated Press reported first on Wednesday that the state’s attorney’s general office confirmed Meadows was being charged with nine felony counts and has been served.

An attorney for Meadows did not immediately respond to a request for comment to Law&Crime on Friday.

Those charged with trying to pass off bogus elector slates in 2020 and named openly when the indictment first went public included Arizona GOP chair Kelli Ward, her husband Michael Ward, Tyler Bowyer, Nancy Cottle, Jacob Hoffman, Anthony Kern, James Lamon, Robert Montgomery, Samuel Moorhead, Lorraine Pellegrino, and Gregory Safsten.

More at the Law and Crime link.

CBS News: Trump Media’s accountant is charged with “massive fraud” by the SEC.

BF Borgers, the independent accounting firm for Trump Media & Technology Group, is facing allegations of “massive fraud” from the Securities and Exchange Commission, which on Friday claimed the auditor ran a “sham audit mill” that put investors at risk. 

Henriette_ronner-knip, cat_nap

Henriette Ronner-Knip, Cat Nap

The SEC said Borgers has been shut down, noting that the company agreed to a permanent suspension from appearing and practicing before the agency as accountants. The suspension is effective immediately. Additionally, BF Borgers agreed to pay a $12 million civil penalty, while owner Benjamin Borgers will pay a $2 million civil penalty.

Neither the SEC statement nor its complaint mentioned Trump Media & Technology Group. Borgers didn’t respond to a request for comment.

In an email, Trump Media said it “looks forward to working with new auditing partners in accordance with today’s SEC order.”

The SEC charged Borgers with “deliberate and systemic failures” in complying with accounting standards in 1,500 SEC filings from January 2021 through June 2023, a period during which Borgers had about 350 clients. Trump Media’s March debut as a public company came after that time period, but the social media company said in its 2023 annual report that it had worked with Borgers prior to going public on the Nasdaq stock exchange.

There could be some progress in the Israel-Hamas cease fire talks, but there are still substantive disagreements. Both Haaretz reports that Hamas has agreed to the current proposal, but only if Israel withdraws from Gaza. Of course Netanyahu won’t agree to that. 

BBC: Israel-Gaza war: Ceasefire talks intensify in Cairo.

Efforts have intensified to secure a deal for a ceasefire in Gaza and the release of hostages, with talks resuming in Cairo on Saturday.

Hamas said its delegation was travelling in a “positive spirit” after studying the latest truce proposal.

“We are determined to secure an agreement in a way that fulfils Palestinians’ demands,” it said.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said “taking the ceasefire should be a no-brainer” for the militant group.

Hamas’s negotiators have returned to the Egyptian capital to resume long-running talks – brokered by Egypt and Qatar – that would temporarily pause Israel’s offensive in Gaza in return for freeing hostages.

In a statement released last night, Hamas said it wanted to “mature” the agreement on the table, which suggests there are areas where the two sides still disagree.

The main issue appears to involve whether the ceasefire deal would be permanent or temporary.

Hamas is insisting any deal makes a specific commitment towards an end to the war, but Israel is reluctant to agree while the group remains active in Gaza. It’s thought the wording being discussed involves a 40-day pause in fighting while hostages are released, and the release of a number of Palestinian prisoners being held in Israeli jails.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly insisted there will be a fresh military ground operation in the southern Gazan city of Rafah, even if a deal is agreed. Israeli media reported on Saturday that his position remained unchanged despite the latest round of talks.

But the US – Israel’s biggest diplomatic and military ally – is reluctant to back a new offensive that could cause significant civilian casualties, and has insisted on seeing a plan to protect displaced Palestinians first. An estimated 1.4 million people have taken shelter in Rafah after fleeing the fighting in the northern and central areas of the strip.

I certainly hope so. IMHO, Biden should cut off weapons support to Israel unless they start paying attention to his recommendations.

Jonathan Landay at Reuters: Democratic lawmakers tell Biden evidence shows Israel is restricting Gaza aid.

Scores of lawmakers from U.S. President Joe Biden’s Democratic Party told him on Friday that they believe there is sufficient evidence to show that Israel has violated U.S. law by restricting humanitarian aid flows into war-stricken Gaza.

A letter to Biden signed by 86 House of Representatives Democrats said Israel’s aid restrictions “call into question” its assurances that it was complying with a U.S. Foreign Assistance Act provision requiring recipients of U.S.-funded arms to uphold international humanitarian law and allow free flows of U.S. assistance.

The White Cat, Franz Marc

The White Cat, Franz Marc

Such written assurances were mandated by a national security memorandum that Biden issued in February after Democratic lawmakers began questioning if Israel was upholding international law in its Gaza operations.

The lawmakers said the Israeli government had resisted repeated U.S. requests to open enough sea and land routes for aid to Gaza, and cited reports that it failed to allow in enough food to avert famine, enforced “arbitrary restrictions” on aid and imposed an inspection system that impeded supplies.

“We expect the administration to ensure (Israel’s) compliance with existing law and to take all conceivable steps to prevent further humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza,” the lawmakers wrote.

Biden’s memorandum requires that Secretary of State Antony Blinken report to Congress by Wednesday on whether he finds credible Israel’s assurances that its use of U.S. arms adheres to international law.

At least four State Department bureaus advised Blinken last month that they found Israel’s assurances “neither credible nor reliable.”

The Democratic convention is in Chicago this year, and it’s looking like we could see a repeat of 1968, when Mayor Daley unleashed his storm troopers on Vietnam war protesters as the whole world watched. That ended with Richard Nixon finally getting into the White House. This year the results could be even worse. 

Tyler Pager at The Washington Post: Democrats bracing for massive protests at party’s August convention.

As protests over the Israel-Gaza war sweep college campuses, pro-Palestinian activists are ramping up plans for a major show of force at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, increasingly worrying Democrats who fear the demonstrations could interfere with or overshadow their efforts to project unity ahead of the November election.

If unruly protests unfold during the four days of the convention on Aug. 19-22 — especially if they feature inflammatory rhetoric, property damage or police intervention — they could strike at the heart of the Democratic message that President Biden represents competent and stable leadership, while presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump is an agent of chaos and confusion.

William Daley, a native Chicagoan who co-chaired the 1996 Democratic convention in the city and later served as President Barack Obama’s chief of staff, said he has heard more angst in recent days from fellow Democrats about the scenes that might unfold at this year’s party gathering. The convention, with more than 4,500 delegates set to formally nominate Biden for president, will serve as a starting gun for the final sprint to Election Day on Nov. 5.

“This last week has taken the demonstrations to a different level,” Daley said. “It portends that you have the potential for big demonstrations. Whether they get violent — that’s more imaginable today than it was a year ago.”

Still, Daley, who attended the 1968 convention in Chicago with his father, then-Mayor Richard J. Daley, strenuously pushed back against comparisons to that notoriously violent event, saying the country is not facing the same kind of angry, anarchic violence. In 1968, the streets of Chicago were engulfed in riots and bloodshed, prompting the activation of the National Guard, as the convention nominated Hubert H. Humphrey just months after the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy.

“To analogize what’s going on in the country today with 1968 is ridiculous,” Daley said. “Only people who weren’t alive in ’68 have that idiotic perception.”

He’s right about that, but there are lot of people now who don’t remember 1968. Of course in those days, college students actually had skin in the game–they were in danger of being drafted and sent to Vietnam.

I’ll end with some Abortion rights stories. There is good news and bad news.

The New York Times: Missouri and South Dakota Move Toward Abortion Rights Ballot Questions.

Two more states with near-total abortion bans are poised to have citizen-sponsored measures on the ballot this year that would allow voters to reverse those bans by establishing a right to abortion in their state constitutions.

Sleeping Cat, by Kawanabe Kyosai

Sleeping Cat, by Kawanabe Kyosai

On Friday, a coalition of abortion rights groups in Missouri turned in 380,159 signatures to put the amendment on the ballot, more than double the 172,000 signatures required by law. The Missouri organizers’ announcement followed a petition drive in South Dakota that announced on Wednesday that it, too, had turned in many more signatures than required for a ballot amendment there.

Both groups are hoping to build on the momentum of other states where abortion rights supporters have prevailed in seven out of seven ballot measures in the two years since the United States Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, which had established a constitutional right to abortion for nearly five decades.

Groups in about 10 other states have secured spots on the ballot for abortion rights measures or are collecting signatures to do so. Those include Arizona and Nevada, swing states where Democrats are hoping that voters who are newly energized around abortion rights will help President Biden win re-election.

Politico: With 6-week abortion ban in place, Florida eyes ‘Safe Haven’ expansion.

Florida’s six-week abortion ban officially went into effect this week. But another bill also intended to lower the number of abortions could soon quietly become law as well.

An expansion of Florida’s “Safe Haven” policy — which decriminalizes surrendering unwanted infants, as long as they are given up to specific agencies like hospitals, fire stations and EMS services — faces just one more hurdle to becoming law. It has long been a piece of legislation in the toolbox of anti-abortion supporters who view legal infant surrenders as a way to encourage more women to carry their pregnancies to term.

The bill’s fate still hangs in the balance, because it has yet to be sent to Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’ desk by legislative leaders. The governor’s office did not respond to a request for comment on the bill, but a sponsor of the bill, state Rep. Mike Beltran, said he doesn’t anticipate a veto.

But unlike many proposals considered alongside outright abortion bans — like “fetal personhood” or funding decisions — the Safe Haven bill in Florida attracted bipartisan support during the legislative session earlier this year. It’s found success with anti-abortion lawmakers supporting it in hopes of further reducing abortions, and with frustrated pro-abortion rights lawmakers who view it as a triage to help a desperate person with no other options.

“This was a way of doing something that was pro-life without making the left agitated,” Beltran, a Republican from Apollo Beach, said in an interview. “It was a good way to find common ground on the life issue when options were more limited.”

State law currently allows for a surrender up to 7 days after the child was born. This bill would more than quadruple the amount of time to 30 days and also authorize 911 responders to arrange an infant drop-off location in case the child’s guardian has no transportation to an agency’s site.

You’d have to be insane or just plain evil to believe that it would be less painful to dump a baby in a box at the fire department than to have an abortion early in a pregnancy. 

The Washington Post: Texas man files legal action to probe ex-partner’s out-of-state abortion.

As soon as Collin Davis found out his ex-partner was planning to travel to Colorado to have an abortion in late February, the Texas man retained a high-powered antiabortion attorney — who court records show immediately issued a legal threat.

1975.83.58_1.tif

Young Cat Sleeping, by Mabel Wellington Jack

If the woman proceeded with the abortion, even in a state where the procedure remains legal, Davis would seek a full investigation into the circumstances surrounding the abortion and “pursue wrongful-death claims against anyone involved in the killing of his unborn child,” the lawyer wrote in a letter, according to records.

Now, Davis has disclosed his former partner’s abortion to a state district court in Texas, asking for the power to investigate what his lawyer characterizes as potentially illegal activity in a state where almost all abortions are banned.

The previously unreported petition was submitted under an unusual legal mechanism often used in Texas to investigate suspected illegal actions before a lawsuit is filed. The petition claims Davis could sue either under the state’s wrongful-death statute or the novel Texas law known as Senate Bill 8 that allows private citizens to file suit against anyone who “aids or abets” an illegal abortion.

The decision to target an abortion that occurred outside of Texas represents a potential new strategy by antiabortion activists to achieve a goal many in the movement have been working toward since Roe v. Wade was overturned: stopping women from traveling out of state to end their pregnancies. Crossing state lines for abortion care remains legal nationwide.

The case also illustrates the role that men who disapprove of their partners’ decisions could play in surfacing future cases that may violate abortion bans — either by filing their own civil lawsuits or by reporting the abortions to law enforcement.

Sickening.

That’s it for me today. Have a great weekend, Sky Dancers!!


Finally Friday Reads: Today’s Hope Day

It’s pretty obvious. John Buss, @repeat1968

Good Day, Sky Dancers!

Former Trump assistant Hope Hicks was called today by the prosecution as its ninth witness.  Her testimony will likely be important.  She also did not want to testify and is credible.  News from the folks inside the courtroom state that Donald is glaring at her.  Her first words into the mic were “I’m really nervous.”

Yesterday’s trial was pretty hilarious as Michael Cohen’s documents and tapes were presented. Many included statements from Donald that incriminated him.  This is from the Business Insider.  “Donald ‘Von ShitzInPantz’ has now formally been entered into the public record at Trump’s hush-money trial.” Everyone but Laura Ingraham has the shitz and giggles over it.

Another week, another contempt-of-court hearing for former President Donald Trump — and this one was a doozy.

On Thursday morning, prosecutors at Trump’s Manhattan hush-money trial argued that he violated his gag order last week when he made four on-camera statements attacking witnesses and the jury.

Things got weird when his defense attorney Todd Blanche complained that Trump must remain silent about witnesses and jurors while his opponents get to say “anything they want.”

That’s when President Joe Biden and Donald “Von ShitzInPants” made their bizarre cameo appearances on the official trial record.

Biden “mocked President Trump,” Blanche told the judge, quoting into the record a joke the president had made Saturday at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.

“Donald has had a few tough days lately. You might call it stormy weather,” Biden quipped in a very apparent reference to Stormy Daniels, the porn star at the center of the hush-money trial.

“President Trump can’t respond to that” by criticizing Daniels, Blanche said Thursday to the judge, state Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan.

Likewise, Trump’s personal attorney turned nemesis, Michael Cohen, can take whatever potshot he chooses, Blanche told the judge.

But Trump must remain silent, Blanche added, even when Cohen mocks him as Donald “Von ShitzInPantz,” a favorite insult on Cohen’s podcast and his account on the social-media site X.

Blanche proceeded to read that colorfully worded, offending post into the record as Trump sat listening at the defense table.

“This one says, oh my, ShitzInPantz,” Blanche recited as he entered a screenshot of the post into the court record as Exhibit 64 — without any objection from prosecutors.

The official court stenographer duly followed along, typing the phrase into the court record as “shits in pants.”

I’m going to skip to the next part but you really should read the entire article. It’s just more surreality that surrounds Donald.  Donald can dish it out but cannot take it.

The judge showed skepticism toward Blanche’s argument that Trump “can’t say anything.”

“You’re saying he can’t respond to what President Biden said?” the judge asked Blanche at one point, his voice sounding incredulous.

“There’s nothing in the gag order that says he can’t,” the judge told Trump’s lawyer.

But the judge also appeared sympathetic to Blanche’s complaints that Cohen and Daniels enjoyed the protection of a gag order while having carte blanche to attack Trump — and continue to do so.

“They’re not defendants in this case,” Merchan said. “I can’t extend a gag order to them. I just don’t have the authority.”

Merchan can, however, remove Cohen from the gag order’s protection, something the judge suggested last week he would consider.

“They’re all similar,” Blanche said of Cohen’s relentless jabs at Trump. “They’re over the top about his character, about his candidacy.”

The lawyer added of Cohen: “This is not a man that needs protection from the gag order.”

The Judge has not announced his decision on the gag violation orders in front of him today. Norman Eisen’s take on the substance of yesterday’s hearing is an important read at CNN today.  “Opinion: How one text exchange gave Trump an ominous day in court.”

When a lawyer who is presenting a case at trial bumps into a colleague outside of court, a common question is, “How’s the case coming in?” This query reflects that planning a trial is one thing — but how well the evidence, especially testimony given by the witnesses, actually “comes in” before the judge and jury is another.

In Donald Trump’s Manhattan election interference trial, the case is coming in better than expected, and that is ominous for the former president.

A key moment in Thursday’s examination of Keith Davidson illustrated that. Davidsonis an attorney who represented both Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels as their hush money payments were negotiated with former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen — payoffs alleged to have been part of the election influence scheme.

Although Davidson is just a supporting actor in this drama, his role innegotiating the alleged payment to Daniels makes him an important witness to lay down the basic facts of the alleged “catch and kill” plot — and to corroborate the details that former American Media, Inc. CEO and National Enquirer publisher David Pecker established and Cohen will ultimately testify about.

Perhaps the most dramatic moment of Davidson’s morning testimony came when he was asked about an election night 2016 text message exchange with Dylan Howard —aformer editor of the National Enquirer who helped broker the negotiations for the story. The prosecution asked Davidson to explain the meaning of a text he had sent to Howard that evening. As the election was about to be called for Trump, Davidson sent a text to Howard asking, “What have we done?”

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass asked Davidson what the meaning of those words were. He answered that it meant “our efforts may have in some way — strike that — our activities may have in some way assisted the presidential campaign of Donald Trump.”

When Davidson said those words, the normal hush of the courtroom was suddenly punctuated by the audible clattering of the keyboards of more than 60 journalists seated in the pew-like benches. Why? After all, prosecutors need not prove the alleged secret payment to Daniels actually swung the election, and prosecutor Matthew Colangelo said as much in the DA’s opening statement: “We will never know.”

We’re beginning to get some reporting from the Hick’s testimony today.  This is from The Guardian. “‘We were all just following his lead’: Hope Hicks says Trump ‘very involved’ in campaign and media responses – live.”

Hope Hicks says she reported to Donald Trump directly in her role as press secretary during his campaign.

Asked how often she would speak to Trump during the campaign, Hicks says she spoke with Trump every day by telephone and in person.

The prosecution asked how involved Trump was involved in the media responses during his campaign. Hicks replies: “Very involved”. Asked how involved he was in the overall messaging during the campaign, Trump said:

“Mr Trump was responsible for it. He knew what he wanted to say and how he wanted to say it and we were all just following his lead. He deserves the credit.”

Here’s a discussion between Eissen and CNN reporter Paula Newton

And here’s some more.

If you want to read a blow-by-blow of the questions and testimony follow  Inner City Press.

I’m sure more will be out this afternoon. I’ll try to keep posting down the thread.

What’s on your reading and blogging list today?

I was in a street car yesterday trying to get home when Mick and the guys rolled towards the JazzFest up the tracks going the other directions with NOPD motorcycles and a long line of limos and black SUVs.  I used to live to work sound at the fest but it’s just gotten out of hand. I don’t even go anymore. But here’s a treat with a cute anecdote reported by a friend of mine.  Our new governor is worse than DeSantis and Abbott and probably the Puppy Murderer too.

The fun thing about their performance they brought out New Orleans musicians to perform with them.  Their first hit, Time is on My Side, was first performed by New Orleans’s own Irma Thomas. Watch and listen!

 

 


Thursday Reads: The Wheels of Justice

lady-justice-sepia-laura-pierre-louis

Lady Justice, by Laura Pierre Louis

Good Day, Sky Dancers!!

“The wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine.” No one knows the source for this quote–one candidates is Sun Tzu and another is Sextus Empricus. But it looks like that is what is happening now in the many legal investigations of Donald Trump. Frankly, I’ve let go of frustration over how slowly the wheels are turning, because I believe there is progress being made. I’m not convinced Trump will ever go to prison, but I think he will finally pay a price for his crimes against our country. Here’s the latest:

Donald J. Trump is set to be questioned under oath on Thursday in a civil fraud lawsuit brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, the latest in a series of legal predicaments entangling the former president, who also faces a separate 34-count criminal indictment unsealed last week.

Ms. James’s civil case, which was filed in September and is expected to go to trial later this year, accuses Mr. Trump, his family business and three of his children of a “staggering” fraud for overvaluing the former president’s assets by billions of dollars. The lawsuit seeks $250 million that it contends they reaped through those deceptions, made in Mr. Trump’s annual financial statements — and asks a judge to essentially run him out of business in the state if he is found liable at trial.

Ms. James’s office plans to question Mr. Trump as part of the discovery phase of the case, in preparation for the trial.

The former president, who spent the night at his Manhattan residence in Trump Tower, arrived at the attorney general’s office shortly before 10 a.m. As a crowd chanted “New York hates you,” Mr. Trump’s motorcade drove into the parking garage underneath the office building at 28 Liberty Street….

This is the second time that lawyers for Ms. James, a Democrat, are questioning Mr. Trump under oath: He also sat for a deposition in the summer of 2022, shortly before the attorney general filed her lawsuit. During that deposition, Mr. Trump lashed out at Ms. James, accusing her of being motivated by politics and then invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination hundreds of times over the course of four hours.

Depositions are held in private, so the specifics of his testimony will not be immediately known. But as of Wednesday evening, Mr. Trump was not expected to assert his Fifth Amendment right, people familiar with his thinking said.

Because he was in the White House or on the campaign trail for several years — and no longer running his company — Mr. Trump might try to avoid providing direct answers to Ms. James’s questions, instead giving insubstantial responses. He might say, for example, that he does not recall a particular incident or was not present for it. He could also claim that he delegated the valuation of his assets to employees.

Trump vented his anger and frustration in ugly, deranged posts on his Twitter clone, Truth Social. Examples:

 

This man belongs in a rubber room!

Special Counsel Jack Smith is moving rapidly in his January 6 and stolen documents investigations. The Washington Post reports that Smith is looking into Trump’s fundraising using lies about election fraud: Special counsel focuses on Trump fundraising off false election claims.

Federal prosecutors probing the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol have in recent weeks sought a wide range of documents related to fundraising after the 2020 election, looking to determine if former president Donald Trump or his advisers scammed donors by using false claims about voter fraud to raise money, eight people familiar with the new inquiries said.

Franco/Flemish School; Justice

Franco/Flemish School; Justice; The Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology; unknown British artist

 

Special counsel Jack Smith’s office has sentsubpoenas in recent weeks to Trump advisers and former campaign aides, Republican operatives and other consultants involved in the 2020 presidential campaign, the people said. They have also heard testimony from some of these figures in front of a Washington grand jury, some of the people said.

The eight people with knowledge of the investigation spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing criminal investigation.

The fundraising prong of the investigation is focused on money raised during the period between Nov. 3, 2020, and the end of Trump’s time in office on Jan. 20, 2o21, and prosecutors are said to be interested in whether anyone associated with the fundraising operation violated wire fraud laws, which make it illegal to make false representations over email to swindle people out of money.

The new subpoenas received since the beginning of March, which have not been previously reported, show the breadth of Smith’s investigation, as Trump embarks on a campaign for reelection while assailing the special counsel investigation and facing charges of falsifying business records in New York and a separate criminal investigation in Georgia.

The subpoenas seek more specific types of communications so that prosecutors can compare what Trump allies and advisers were telling one another privately about the voter-fraud claims with what they were saying publicly in appeals that generated more than $200 million in donations from conservatives, according to people with knowledge of the investigation.

Read more at the WaPo.

Trump is hilariously suing Michael Cohen for $500 million for violating a nondisclosure agreement. Raw Story: Trump accidentally admits Michael Cohen told the truth in his new lawsuit: Legal expert.

Former President Donald Trump is launching a $500 million lawsuit against his former attorney and fixer Michael Cohen, alleging that he violated attorney-client privilege when he issued a tell-all book about the hush payment he helped Trump faciliate to adult film star Stormy Daniels.

But that claim doesn’t make any sense for Trump, said former Manhattan prosecutor Karen Friedman Agnifilo on CNN’s “OutFront” on Wednesday — because it implicitly requires Trump to admit that everything Cohen said, which he is now denying by pleading not guilty to criminal charges against him in New York, is actually true.

“When you look at this, Trump is alleging that Michael Cohen broke attorney-client privilege, he’s talking about all these falsehoods that he put out there,” said anchor Erica Hill. “Is there a legal merit here? I mean, does he have a case?

“It’s an interesting case here because, on the one hand, he’s saying everything is false, right?” said Agnifilo. “So if he was breaching attorney-client privilege, you’re doing that by telling things that were said to you in confidence. But so, is he saying things that Michael Cohen is saying are true because I told him in confidence, and now he’s breached that privilege? Or is he saying that the things are false? Because if they’re false, why didn’t he bring a defamation claim? So it kind of makes no sense.

“It really reads to me like he’s just trying to put his defense in the criminal case out and try and get his statements out there in the court of public opinion.”

She added: “I also think it’s worth noting that there is a little bit of witness intimidation going on here as well. And he’s just using the court system like he seems to want to do, by going after his foes and adversaries.”

Politico: Appeals court rejects Peter Navarro’s bid to retain hundreds of presidential records.

A federal appeals court panel on Wednesday rejected a bid by former Trump White House adviser Peter Navarro to retain hundreds of government records despite a judge’s order to return them promptly to the National Archives.

“There is no public interest in Navarro’s retention of the records, and Congress has recognized that the public has an interest in the Nation’s possession and retention of Presidential records,” the three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded in a unanimous two-page order.

The Justice Department sued Navarro last year, seeking to reclaim hundreds of records — contained in Navarro’s personal ProtonMail account — that the government said should have been returned to the National Archives after the Trump administration came to an end in January 2021.

justica-justice-fabiano-millani-2ac232b8

Justica Justice, by Fabiano Millani

 

Navarro acknowledged that at least 200 to 250 records in his possession belong to the government, but he contended that no mechanism exists to enforce that requirement — and that doing so might violate his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. Last month, U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly rejected that claim, ordering Navarro to promptly return the records he had identified as belonging to the government.

But Navarro appealed the decision, rejecting the notion that the Justice Department had any legitimate mechanism to force him to return the records. And he urged the court to stay Kollar-Kotelly’s ruling while his appeal was pending. But the appeals court panel — which included Judges Patricia Millett and Robert Wilkins, both appointees of President Barack Obama, and Judge Neomi Rao, an appointee of President Donald Trump — rejected Navarro’s stay request.

Within minutes, Kollar-Kotelly put the squeeze on Navarro, ordering him to turn over the 200 to 250 records “on or before” Friday. She also ordered him to perform additional searches or presidential records that might be in his possession by May 8, with further proceedings scheduled for later in the month.

I’m not sure if these records are related to the January 6 investigation, but Navarro has claimed that giving them up will violate his Fifth Amendment rights.

The flurry of filings is the latest twist in a saga that began when the National Archives discovered that Navarro had relied on a ProtonMail account to do official government business — the result of a congressional investigation into the Trump administration’s handling of the coronavirus crisis.

Navarro is also trying to fend off criminal charges for defying a different congressional investigation — the probe by the Jan. 6 select committee — into his role in strategizing to help Trump overturn the results of the 2020 election. He faces charges for contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena issued by the select committee, a case that has been repeatedly delayed amid battles over executive privilege and immunity for presidential advisers.

In its brief order rejecting Navarro’s stay, the appeals court panel concluded that returning the documents would not violate Navarro’s protection against self-incrimination.

allegory-of-justice-gaetano-gandl

Allegory of Justic, by Gaetano Gandolfi

The wheels of justice are grinding slowly in the Trump investigations, but it looks like they are moving more quickly than the fight for women’s rights their own bodily autonomy. This decision makes no sense to me.

AP: Court preserves access to abortion pill but tightens rules.

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled that the abortion pill mifepristone can still be used for now but reduced the period of pregnancy when the drug can be taken and said it could not be dispensed by mail.

The decision late Wednesday temporarily narrowed a ruling by a lower court judge in Texas that had completely blocked the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the nation’s most commonly used method of abortion. Still, preventing the pill from being sent by mail amounts to another significant curtailing of abortion access — less than a year after the reversal of Roe v. Wade resulted in more than a dozen states effectively banning abortion outright.

The case is likely to go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“We are going to continue to fight in the courts, we believe the law is on our side, and we will prevail,” White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Thursday, speaking to reporters from Dublin during a visit by President Joe Biden.

Opponents that brought the Texas lawsuit against the drug last year cast the decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals as a victory.

Abortion rights groups expressed relief that the FDA approval would remain in place for now but criticized the court for reinstating restrictions on the drug. Whole Woman’s Health, an abortion provider that operates six clinics in five states, said in a tweet they were continuing to offer mifepristone in clinics and through virtual services while reviewing the decision that came down shortly before midnight Wednesday.

For goddess sake! Just leave women alone to decide on their medical care in consultation with their doctors!! It’s time to ban Viagra, which is far more dangerous than Mifepristone.

In other news, the case of the leaked classified documents is moving rapidly. The New York Times has now named the leaker: Leader of Online Group Where Secret Documents Leaked Is Air National Guardsman.

The leader of a small online gaming chat group where a trove of classified U.S. intelligence documents leaked over the last few months is a 21-year-old member of the intelligence wing of the Massachusetts Air National Guard, according to interviews and documents reviewed by The New York Times.

The national guardsman, whose name is Jack Teixeira, oversaw a private online group named Thug Shaker Central, where about 20 to 30 people, mostly young men and teenagers, came together over a shared love of guns, racist online memes and video games.

Two U.S. officials confirmed that investigators want to talk to Airman Teixeira about the leak of the government documents to the private online group. One official said Airman Teixeira might have information relevant to the investigation.

Federal investigators have been searching for days for the person who leaked the top secret documents online but have not identified Airman Teixeira or anyone else as a suspect. The F.B.I. declined to comment.

Starting months ago, one of the users uploaded hundreds of pages of intelligence briefings into the small chat group, lecturing its members, who had bonded during the isolation of the pandemic, on the importance of staying abreast of world events.

The New York Times spoke with four members of the Thug Shaker Central chat group, one of whom said he has known the person who leaked for at least three years, had met him in person, and referred to him as the O.G. The friends described him as older than most of the group members, who were in their teens, and the undisputed leader. One of the friends said the O.G. had access to intelligence documents through his job.

While the gaming friends would not identify the group’s leader by name, a trail of digital evidence compiled by The Times leads to Airman Teixeira.

The Times has been able to link Airman Teixeira to other members of the Thug Shaker Central group through his online gaming profile and other records. Details of the interior of Airman Teixeira’s childhood home — posted on social media in family photographs — also match details on the margins of some of the photographs of the leaked secret documents.

The Times also has established, through social media posts and military records, that Airman Teixeira is enlisted in the 102nd Intelligence Wing of the Massachusetts Air National Guard. Posts on the unit’s official Facebook page congratulated Airman Teixeira and colleagues for being promoted to Airman First Class in July 2022.

This is kind of funny, because The Washington Post claimed an exclusive in a story this morning that did not name the leaker: Leaker of U.S. secret documents worked on military base, friend says. But it really wasn’t an exclusive, because Aric Tolder reported the story at bellingcat first.

Now, he has the byline in the NYT story. Hahaha. Hooray for the underdog. He also plans to stay at bellingcat for now.

I imagine there will be more news breaking on this story today. I’ll be watching. Have a great Thursday everyone!!