The Conversation -- April 25, 2024

Aaron Katersky of ABC News: "A federal judge in New York on Thursday rejected ... Donald Trump's bid for a new trial in a defamation case brought by writer E. Jean Carroll. The ruling upheld the jury's $83.3 million damage award. 'Contrary to the defendant's arguments, Ms. Carroll's compensatory damages were not awarded solely for her emotional distress; they were not for garden variety harms; and they were not excessive,' Judge Lewis Kaplan wrote. 'Mr. Trump's malicious and unceasing attacks on Ms. Carroll were disseminated to more than 100 million people,' he added. 'They included public threats and personal attacks, and they endangered Ms. Carroll's health and safety.'"

Marie: I'm waiting for a couple of outlets to come up with analysis of this morning's travesty of justice, a/k/a/ the Trump immunity hearing, but the consensus seems to be that the Dirty Rotten Scoundrels will twiddle their thumbs till they eventually come up with a ruling that (1) sends the case back through the lower courts and into Trumpy Limbo Land AND (2) eliminates at least some of the charges against Trump. Democracy dies in darkness? Well, only if you figure "darkness" = the Supreme Court's edict against cameras in the courtroom. I surmise the lights were on at the Supreme Court this morning, and democracy still took a nosedive. ~~~

     ~~~ Update. Okay, here's one, and as Ken W. notes, Patrick had already covered Millhiser's analysis in today's Comments. ~~~

     ~~~ Ian Millhiser of Vox: "Thursday's argument in Trump v. United States was a disaster for Special Counsel Jack Smith, and for anyone who believes that the president of the United States should be subject to prosecution if they commit a crime. At least five of the Court's Republicans seemed eager to, at the very least, permit Trump to delay his federal criminal trial for attempting to steal the 2020 election until after this November's election. And the one GOP appointee who seemed to hedge the most, Chief Justice John Roberts, also seemed to think that Trump enjoys at least some immunity from criminal prosecution. Much of the Court's Republican majority, moreover, seemed eager not simply to delay Trump's trial until after the election, but to give him extraordinarily broad immunity from criminal prosecution should he be elected once again. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, for example, argued that when a president exercises his official powers, he cannot be charged under any federal criminal statute at all, unless that statute contains explicit language saying that it applies to the president."

Here's the New York Times liveblog of the Supreme Hearing on the Supreme Immunity of Our Supreme Ruler. ~~~

~~~ See Akhilleus' entry near the top of today's Comments thread, in which he cites a Rolling Stone article. From the Stone piece: "'We already pulled off the heist,' says a source close to Trump, noting it doesn't matter to them what the Supreme Court decides now...."

The New York Times' liveblog of the Trump 2016 election interference case is here:

Michael Gold: "Hours before court was set to begin today, Donald Trump made a campaign stop at a construction site in Manhattan, where he was asked about David Pecker's testimony and their relationship. 'David's been very nice,' Trump said. 'He's a nice guy.'"

Nate Schweber: "As Trump's motorcade arrived at court just before 9 a.m., a group of a few dozen people demonstrating against him blocked traffic. They stretched a banner across Centre Street that read 'No One Is Above the Law.' They sang out, 'Trump is not above the law.' Police monitored, and the demonstration was orderly."

Maggie Haberman: "Prosecutors are submitting what they say are an additional four times Trump has violated the gag order, including an attack on Michael Cohen while speaking to reporters gathered in the hallway outside the courtroom.... Another violation prosecutors mention is an interview in which Trump referred to the jury as '95 percent Democrats.'... They're now describing Trump's comments at an event this morning as another violation.... Prosecutors say it was a message to Pecker and others: be 'nice,' or get attacked."

Jonah Bromwich: "Pecker resumes testifying about Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model who said that she had a sexual relationship with Trump."

Haberman: "Pecker, explaining why McDougal said she didn't want her story told, said, 'She said she didn't want to be the next Monica Lewinsky.'"

Kate Christobek: "Pecker is testifying about a conversation he had with Trump where Trump described Karen McDougal as 'a nice girl.' Pecker said this conversation made him believe that Trump 'knew who she was.' Trump is stone-faced as Pecker talks about this conversation."

Bromwich: "Pecker is now describing a follow-up conversation with Michael Cohen in which he asked Cohen who would pay for McDougal's story of having had an affair with Trump. This was a central concern for Pecker. Cohen reassured him, telling him, 'The boss will take care of it.'"

Haberman: "David Pecker is now attesting to a key point prosecutors made in their opening statement, that Trump was famously frugal. He testifies that he knew that Michael Cohen 'didn't have any authorization to disperse any funds from' the Trump Organization. Even when the two went for lunch, Pecker says, Pecker always paid."

Bromwich: "David Pecker testifies that once negotiations had taken place with Karen McDougal, Pecker again asked Michael Cohen who would pay for her story. Cohen -- who Pecker said just minutes ago had earlier promised that Trump would take care of it -- this time said, 'You should pay.' Pecker was reluctant, having already purchased another story on Trump's behalf, but Cohen again pledged that Pecker would eventually be made whole by Trump."

Jesse McKinley: "David Pecker is now describing a 2002 conversation with Arnold Schwarzenegger where he asked Pecker not to run negative stories about him before his run for governor of California. He was ultimately elected and served from 2003-2011. Pecker says that women did come forward about relationships that they had with Schwarzenegger and he did not publish stories on them. One that Pecker passed on ended up in The Los Angeles Times, he says."

Haberman: "David Pecker is now detailing the agreement American Media Inc., The National Enquirer's parent company, struck with Karen McDougal. The contract guaranteed she would be put on two magazine covers and that the company would have the right to publish fitness columns by her. It's worth noting how bizarre this set-up was. It wasn't just buying her story -- it was also giving her work within the A.M.I. empire.... Pecker says that the contract was intended to stipulate that McDougal would perform 'services' for A.M.I., that there was a basis for the $150,000 she was receiving."

McKinley: "David Pecker is asked if The National Enquirer had any intention to publish Karen McDougal’s story, which it bought for $150,000. Pecker is blunt: 'No, we did not.' This is catch and kill in a microcosm."

Bromwich: "David Pecker's last few minutes of testimony were really key. He said that his company had disguised the hush money payment to Karen McDougal as a deal for services she would perform for American Media. This is hugely important for the prosecution's case: They have to show that the conspiracy that they accuse Trump of participating in to win the 2016 election was conducted through 'unlawful means.' Pecker just indicated that it was. The jury may never catch this complicated point, but it's enormously important for the legal viability of the case."

Michael Rothfeld: "Despite David Pecker's assertions that he structured the deal with Karen McDougal to avoid violating campaign finance law, his company later admitted doing just that in its 2018 non-prosecution agreement with federal prosecutors."

McKinley: "We are in a nitty-gritty, nuts-and-bolts part of the prosecution's case, as they introduce invoices and vouchers showing the payments to Karen McDougal."

Bromwich: "Earlier, Pecker had a hard time recalling what a text message referred to, in what seemed like it could be an ominous sign for the prosecution. But he's sounded steadily more confident here, identifying exhibits that corroborate his story about McDougal.... Pecker admits straightforwardly, when asked, that he didn't 'want this story to embarrass Mr. Trump or embarrass or hurt the campaign.' This is the crescendo of his story about McDougal, and hugely powerful testimony for the prosecution."

McKinley: "David Pecker is now describing Trump's interest in obtaining boxes of material regarding Karen McDougal, saying that Trump was worried about what would happen if Pecker got 'hit by a bus' or his company was sold. Trump 'did not want someone else to potentially publish those stories.'"

Bromwich: "Joshua Steinglass, the prosecutor, wraps up his questioning about Karen McDougal by asking David Pecker about a contentious exchange with Michael Cohen, in which Pecker got concerned about the potentially unlawful implications of the deal. Cohen was upset with him and screamed: 'The boss is going to be very angry at you.' But Pecker -- thoroughly anxious at this point -- stood firm. 'The deal is off,' Pecker recalls telling him then. Pecker concludes by saying that he was never paid for the McDougal deal and we begin a 20-minute break."

Haberman: "With David Pecker back on the stand, we are turning to the infamous 'Access Hollywood' tape.... The tape, which Pecker is describing, featured an outtake of Trump on that show from the 2000s, boasting about grabbing women's genitals. Pecker describes it as 'very embarrassing, very damaging' to the campaign. It was released on Oct. 7, 2016."

McKinley: "David Pecker describes an urgent call from The National Enquirer's editor, Dylan Howard, in October 2016, in which he was informed that Stormy Daniels was shopping a story of a sexual affair with Trump for $120,000.... Pecker says he didn't want The National Enquirer associated with a porn star, meaning Stormy Daniels, because one of the tabloid's biggest distributors was Walmart, where a lot of families shop.... Pecker says that he refused to pay $120,000 for Stormy Daniels's story, noting his previous payments to a doorman shopping an apparently false story about a child fathered by Trump and to Karen McDougal, who said she had an affair with him. 'I am not a bank,' Pecker said, explaining his decision."

Rothfeld: "Prosecutors showed jurors this article, which I co-authored while at The Wall Street Journal. It revealed The National Enquirer's $150,000 payment to Karen McDougal. It was published four days before the 2016 election and first introduced the term 'catch and kill.'"

Haberman: "Pecker, before a tense and focused courtroom, is recounting Trump calling him three days before election day, after the Journal article was published. He was 'very upset, saying how could this happen, I thought you had this under control, either you or one of your people have leaked the story,' Pecker says. The call ended with no goodbye from Trump."

Bromwich: "David Pecker is now describing a post-election meeting he had with Michael Cohen at Trump Tower. Pecker said Cohen told him he had not been reimbursed for his payment to Stormy Daniels. Cohen, who also wanted to be paid a holiday bonus, asked Pecker 'if I would talk to the boss on his behalf.'"

Haberman: "Pecker says that after Cohen asked him to intercede with Trump on his behalf, he spoke privately with Trump about the bonus. 'He's been working very hard, from my perspective, and I believe that he would throw himself under a bus for you,' Pecker says he told Trump. Trump said Cohen already owned 50 taxi medallians and multiple apartments in Trump buildings, but he would take care of it."

** Bromwich: "Pecker has just given us a very detailed description of Jared Kushner walking him into Trump Tower, and then into Trump's office, shortly before Trump's inauguration as president. In the office were ... James Comey, Sean Spicer, Reince Priebus and Mike Pompeo.... Into that tableau walks Pecker, to be asked about Karen McDougal by the president-elect.... In front of Comey, the head of the F.B.I., Trump thanked Pecker for purchasing the stories -- and committing at least one crime in the process, as Pecker well knew. This is a wild, wild scene we are hearing about."

McKinley: "Seemingly important question here, as prosecutors ask David Pecker whether Trump was concerned about his wife or family finding out about his alleged affairs when he was campaigning for office. Pecker responds no. This suggests that Trump's worries were electoral, not personal."

McKinley: "Prosecutors showed a photo of Trump and Pecker walking together on the White House grounds. Pecker says they were discussing Karen McDougal at that moment."

Susanne Craig: "This was a real wow moment for me. The photo was taken from behind, the two men were clearly deep in conversation. Now Pecker tells us that the conversation was, at least in part, about Karen McDougal. 'How is Karen doing,' Pecker says Trump asked him. She is doing well, he says he responded. 'She is quiet.'"

Bromwich: "David Pecker is now describing a conversation he had with Trump more than a year after he was elected president, prompted by Karen McDougal having given a television interview. 'I thought you had -- we had -- an agreement with Karen McDougal that she can't give any interviews or be on any television shows,' Pecker recalls Trump saying then. When Pecker explained that he had amended the agreement, he says, 'Mr. Trump got very aggravated.' To emphasize, again, Pecker is saying that the president of the United States continued to monitor McDougal's movements while in office."

Haberman: "Prosecutors are now asking David Pecker to walk through his non-prosecution agreement in connection with the 2018 federal investigation into the actions of Michael Cohen and American Media Inc., The National Enquirer's parent company." ~~~

~~~ Christobek: "Justice Merchan tells the jury that this is being offered to provide context and to help them assess Pecker's credibility. He adds that this is not evidence of the defendant's guilt."

Bromwich: "[Pecker] says that he hasn't spoken to Trump since 2019. 'Even though we haven't spoken, I still consider him a friend,' Pecker adds, as he testifies against Trump at his criminal trial.... The prosecution is done questioning David Pecker.... Pecker had only just begun to describe the hush-money payment made to Stormy Daniels. That means that other witnesses, likely includin Michael Cohen, will be left to give most of the testimony about it. The lack of testimony from Pecker about Daniels also makes me wonder if Daniels herself might testify...."

McKinley: "Emil Bove, the defense lawyer, is questioning David Pecker about his history of 'checkbook journalism,' and drawing out that his magazines only published about half of the stories that they bought.... In an admission of the ugly side of the tabloid trade, Pecker says that his magazines would buy negative stories as leverage against celebrities to coerce them into providing interviews and other access."

Bromwich: "I believe Bove is seeking to show that the catch-and-kill deals were not standalone examples of a shady conspiracy, but rather standard practice at the publisher."

Haberman: "Emil Bove is now walking David Pecker through how he engaged in very similar behavior to help Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaign for governor of California, orchestrating catch-and-kill deals to protect him."

Bromwich: "David Pecker is testifying that he suppressed stories on behalf of Ari and Rahm Emanuel."

Bromwich: "Emil Bove, Trump's lawyer, spent the last part of his cross-examination pressing David Pecker on what seems to be an inconsistency about whether Hope Hicks was at the 2015 Trump Tower meeting, where Pecker first agreed to suppress stories on Trump's behalf. Bove's questioning suggested that Pecker told federal prosecutors that Hicks was not at the meeting, and told state prosecutors that she was.... Prosecutors objected to that line of questioning, and Justice Merchan appears to agree with them: Joshua Steinglass, a prosecutor, says that Hicks was simply not mentioned in the 2018 meeting with federal prosecutors and thus there was no inconsistency in Pecker's story, as Bove was suggesting. 'It's misleading and we're going to correct this tomorrow,' Justice Merchan says, adopting a scolding tone with Bove for the first time." ~~~

McKinley: "After the jury leaves, Justice Merchan expresses frustration with Bove. 'I don't think you're responding to what I'm saying,' the judge tells him."

Eric Levenson of CNN: “The New York Court of Appeals on Thursday overturned the sex crimes conviction against Harvey Weinstein, the powerful Hollywood producer whose downfall stood as a symbol of the #MeToo movement. The court, by a 4-3 vote, ordered a new trial. 'We conclude that the trial court erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes because that testimony served no material non-propensity purpose,' the ruling, written by Judge Jenny Rivera, states. 'The court compounded that error when it ruled that defendant, who had no criminal history, could be cross examined about those allegations as well as numerous allegations of misconduct that portrayed defendant in a highly prejudicial light. The synergistic effect of these errors was not harmless.'"

Washington. Danny Westneat of the Seattle Times: "The Republican base, it turns out, is now opposed to democracy.... After the candidates left [the state's GOP convention], the convention's delegates got down to crafting a party platform. [Among their decisions:] A resolution called for ending the ability to vote for U.S. senators. Instead, senators would get appointed by state legislatures, as it generally worked 110 years ago prior to the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913. 'We are devolving into a democracy, because congressmen and senators are elected by the same pool,' was how one GOP delegate put it to the convention. 'We do not want to be a democracy.'... Then ... they passed a resolution calling on people to please stop using the word 'democracy.'... The resolution sums up: 'We ... oppose legislation which makes our nation more democratic in nature.'... When people say 'democracy itself is on the ballot' in this election, though, I think this is what they're talking about." Thanks to RAS for the link. ~~~

     ~~~ Marie: Westneat seems to be making light of the rubes' dislike of democracy, at least to some extent, but read it in the context of Robert Kagan's WashPo essay, linked below, and you see how these particular rubes are exactly the people the Founders worried about: those who lacked "public virtue" and had little or no appreciation for "natural rights."

~~~~~~~~~~

Zolan Kanno-Youngs of the New York Times: "President Biden signed a $95.3 billion package of aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan on Wednesday, reaffirming U.S. support for Kyiv in the fight against Russia's military assault after months of congressional gridlock put the centerpiece of the White House's foreign policy in jeopardy. 'It's a good day for world peace,' Mr. Biden said from the State Dining Room of the White House. 'It's going to make America safer, it's going to make the world safer, and it continues America's leadership in the world and everyone knows it.'... But even as he hailed the package on Wednesday, Mr. Biden said the process should have 'been easier, and should have gotten there sooner.... But in the end we did what America always does. We rose to the moment.'... 'Imagine if instead we had failed,' Mr. Biden said as he admonished 'MAGA Republicans' for allowing Ukrainian officials to run low on artillery. The White House first sent a request for the security package in October, but Republicans -- many of them egged on by ... Donald J. Trump -- said the United States was bearing too much of the burden. Mr. Trump, who has long expressed admiration for President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, has made clear that he would not back Ukraine if he wins in November." (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~

~~~ How Biden Did It. Liz Goodwin, et al., of the Washington Post: "House Speaker Mike Johnson had walked into something of an ambush. President Biden had called the four congressional leaders -- Johnson (R-La.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), along with Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) -- to the Oval Office in late February ostensibly to talk about heading off a government shutdown. But Biden and the others had devised a plan to pressure Johnson to push through a Ukraine aid package that was deeply dividing House Republicans. Biden's national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, and CIA Director William J. Burns gave a dire presentation, warning that Ukraine would lose the war without immediate U.S. support....

"As the bill's chances dimmed, White House Chief of Staff Jeff Zients convened a daily strategy meeting. Aides would try to figure out if Biden should call McConnell and Schumer or summon congressional leaders to the Oval Office. They tried to pick the right moment to call wavering lawmakers, and to decide whether the outreach should be made by top White House officials, retired generals or even Zelensky." ~~~

~~~ Marie: Of course Republicans are going to lie about the effects of the bill, as Trump's ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell did when he claimed the bill would send $100 billion to "foreign countries." As Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post writes, "The one thing Grenell got right is that the bill cost nearly $100 billion.... But it's highly misleading to say these funds are going to foreign countries. Nearly 80 percent will be spent on weapons made in the United States or by the U.S. military. This spending may be for the benefit of foreign countries -- such as Ukraine in its war against Russia -- but the money is mostly being used to create jobs in the United States." ~~~

~~~ Cristiano Lima-Strong of the Washington Post: "President Biden announced Wednesday he has signed legislation to ban or force a sale of TikTok, just hours after Congress dealt the video-sharing platform's Chinese ownership a historic rebuke following years of failed attempts to tackle the app's alleged national security risks. The Senate approved the measure 79 to 18 late Tuesday as part of a sprawling package offering aid to Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan, with the House having passed it Saturday. Biden confirmed that he signed the bill into law during a White House address on Wednesday, though he did not directly address the language targeting TikTok."

Mixed Message. Ana Swanson of the New York Times: "Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken cheered on the sidelines at a basketball game in Shanghai on Wednesday night, and spent Thursday chatting with students at New York University's Shanghai campus and meeting American business owners. It all went to emphasize the kind of economic, educational and cultural ties that the United States is pointedly holding up as beneficial for both countries. But ... even as the Biden administration tries to stabilize the relationship with China, it is advancing several economic measures that would curb China's access to the U.S. economy and technology. It is poised to raise tariffs on Chinese steel, solar panels and other crucial products to try to protect American factories from cheap imports. It is weighing further restrictions on China's access to advanced semiconductors to try to keep Beijing from developing sophisticated artificial intelligence that could be used on the battlefield."

Mike Butts In. Annie Karni of the New York Times: "Speaker Mike Johnson on Wednesday said President Biden should take action, including potentially sending in the National Guard, to quell pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University and on other campuses across the country that he said had grown violent and antisemitic. 'There is executive authority that would be appropriate,' Mr. Johnson said during a news conference on the steps of Columbia's Low Library, where he was booed and heckled by some onlookers. 'If these threats are not stopped, there is an appropriate time for the National Guard. We have to bring order to these campuses.'... The United States has a grim history of employing the military to quell campus protests. In 1970, the Ohio National Guard opened fire on antiwar protesters at Kent State University, killing four students and wounding nine others....

"On Wednesday, Mr. Johnson, who met with Jewish students privately before his news conference, appeared to be looking for an opportunity to reclaim some conservative credibility and spotlight an issue that unites his party. He said that Dr. Nemat Shafik, the university president whom he also met with briefly, should resign if she cannot immediately get the situation under control. He called her a 'very weak and inept leader.' And he accused progressives of stoking antisemitism in America."

David Goodman, et al., of the New York Times: "A wave of pro-Palestinian protests spread and intensified on Wednesday as students gathered on campuses around the country, in some cases facing off with the police, in a widening showdown over campus speech and the war in Gaza. University administrators from Texas to California moved to clear protesters and prevent encampments from taking hold on their own campuses as they hav at Columbia University, deploying police in tense new confrontations that already have led to dozens of arrests. At the same time, new protests continued erupting in places like Pittsburgh and San Antonio. Students expressed solidarity with their fellow students at Columbia, and with a pro-Palestinian movement that appeared to be galvanized by the pushback on other campuses and the looming end of the academic year."

Mychael Schnell of the Hill: "Rep. Donald Payne Jr. (D-N.J.), who represented New Jersey in the House for more than a decade, has died at the age of 65. New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy (D) confirmed Payne's death in a statement on Wednesday." @12:45 pm ET Wednesday, this is a developing story. (Also linked yesterday.) Rep. Drake's New York Times obituary is here.

The Trials of Trump & the Trump Mob

Marie: Today is a Big News day, and alas, I will be away for most of the day. The criminal trial of his nibs is back in business in Manhattan, and as you know, New York Times reporters do a credible job of liveblogging it. In the meantime, Trump's buddies on the Supreme Court will be hearing his nibs' appeal to their worser angels by asking them to declare him king of the realm, immune from any and all criminal prosecution, including and especially the main criminal case against him: his effort to overthrow the 2020 presidential election. The Supremes' main Web page is here, and it should have a link to allow you to listen to oral arguments, which begin at 10 am ET. Also, MSNBC indicated yesterday they would carry the arguments live; the advantage to "watching" the oral arguments is that, as I recall, the cable stations show you who is speaking. In addition, the NYT and other outlets like ScotusBlog, the WashPo & CNN should have liveblogs.

Charlie Savage of the New York Times: "The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Thursday over Mr. Trump's claim that criminal charges against him in the federal election subversion case must be thrown out because the Constitution makes him all but immune from being prosecuted for actions he took as president-- no matter what the evidence may show. That vision of a presidency operating above the law dovetails with second-term plans that Mr. Trump and his allies are making to eliminate myriad internal checks and balances on the executive branch and to centralize greater power in his hands.... As he once declared to a cheering crowd of supporters in 2019, referring to the portion of the Constitution that creates and empowers the presidency: 'I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.'" ~~~

~~~ Two NYU Law Professors Say Supremes Flunk Democracy. Melissa Murray & Andrew Weissmann in a New York Times op-ed: "... the [Supreme C]ourt's insistence on putting its own stamp on this case -- despite the widespread assumption that it will not change the application of immunity to this case and the sluggish pace chosen to hear it -- means that it will have needlessly delayed legal accountability for no justifiable reason.... The court's delay may have stripped citizens of the criminal justice system&'s most effective mechanism for determining disputed facts: a trial before a judge and a jury, where the law and the facts can be weighed and resolved.... The Supreme Court's ... delays ... therefore [risk] transforming our nation into a Potemkin village of democracy that bears the surface trappings of legal institutions but without actual checks on the executive branch of government."

Marie: Yesterday, I wrote that "as far as I can tell, David Pecker hasn't testified to anything that implicated Trump in any illegal activity. If Trump talks a publisher into running fake negative stories about his opponents or quashing negative stories about himself, it's tawdry, but it's not illegal.... Pecker's NDAs with Trump's lady friends and others are not illegal, either, even if the intent is to deceive readers & the millions of voters who scan the Enquirer at the check-out lane." But Wednesday afternoon on MSNBC, my law guru Andrew Weissmann remarked that Pecker was providing in-kind as well as actual cash contributions to the Trump campaign. So it occurs to me that if Trump didn't report those contributions -- and we can be fairly certain he didn't -- then he violated federal campaign finance law and maybe state election law, too.

"How Trump Turned the 2016 Primary into a Supermarket Tabloid Gutter Fight." Isaac Arnsdorf, et al., of the Washington Post: "Back in March 2016, as the Republican presidential primary narrowed to a showdown between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, unsubstantiated rumors about the senator from Texas having extramarital affairs started appearing in the National Enquirer, a supermarket tabloid of wide circulation and ill repute. Cruz called the allegations 'complete and utter lies ... a smear that has come from Donald Trump and his henchmen.' Trump responded, 'I had absolutely nothing to do with it.' Eight years later, testimony in a Manhattan courtroom finally revealed what happened. According to the Enquirer's then-publisher, David Pecker, Cruz was right.... The fresh details about the inner workings of [Trump's] tactics in the 2016 Republican primaries provide fresh clarity on how his unlikely candidacy upended the customs and logic of presidential campaigns. And in another measure of how completely that overhaul has taken hold, those same rivals maligned by Trump in 2016 are now vocally defending him against the current charges."

MEANWHILE, Out West ~~~

Yvonne Sanchez of the Washington Post: "An Arizona grand jury on Wednesday indicted seven attorneys and aides affiliated with Donald Trump's 2020 presidential campaign as well as 11 Arizona Republicans on felony charges related to their alleged efforts to subvert Joe Biden's 2020 victory in the state, according to an announcement by the state attorney general. Those indicted include former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, attorneys Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, John Eastman and Christina Bobb, top campaign adviser Boris Epshteyn and former campaign aide Mike Roman. They are accused of allegedly aiding an unsuccessful strategy to award the state's electoral votes to Trump instead of Biden after the 2020 election. Also charged are the Republicans who signed paperwork on Dec. 14, 2020, that falsely purported Trump was the rightful winner, including former state party chair Kelli Ward, state Sens. Jake Hoffman and Anthony Kern, and Tyler Bowyer, a GOP national committeeman and chief operating officer of Turning Point Action, the campaign arm of the pro-Trump conservative group Turning Point USA. The indictments cap a year-long investigation by Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes (D) into how the elector strategy played out in Arizona, which Biden won by 10,457 votes. Trump was not charged, but he is described in the indictment as an unindicted co-conspirator....

"In releasing the indictment, Mayes's office redacted the names of all of the individuals outside of Arizona who were charged until they have been served their indictments. The Washington Post was able to identify all of them through the accounts of their alleged actions described in the indictment." MB: On MSNBC, Mary McCord said she identified Unindicted Coconspirator 4 as Ken Chesebro. Politico's story is here. The New York Times report is here.

~~~ The indictment, via Politico, is here. ~~~

~~~ Sanchez & others at the WashPo have a rundown of who the perps are and what parts they played in the scheme.

AND in Michigan. Laura Romero of ABC News: "... Donald Trump, his former chief of staff Mark Meadows, and Rudy Giuliani are unindicted co-conspirators in the Michigan attorney general's case against the state's so-called "fake electors" in the 2020 election, a state investigator revealed in court on Wednesday. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel charged 16 Republicans last year with forgery and conspiracy to commit election forgery for allegedly attempting to replace Michigan's electoral votes for Joe Biden with electoral votes for Trump at the certification of the vote on Jan. 6, 2021. During Wednesday's hearing, which was part of preliminary examinations for the so-called fake electors, Howard Shock, a special agent for the attorney general's office, also testified that former Trump attorney Jenna Ellis is also an unindicted co-conspirator."

Will Sommer of the Washington Post: "Gateway Pundit, the popular far-right blog, is filing for bankruptcy as it faces lawsuits alleging it promoted bogus claims about the 2020 election, its founder announced Wednesday -- though he vowed to continue publishing. Since its launch in 2004, the site has become a prolific clearinghouse for conspiracy theories about the election, school shootings, and other topics, helping to funnel such flimsy stories from the fringes of the internet to the broader pro-Trump right thanks to its substantial audience. But all those conspiracy theories have had a cost for Jim Hoft, the Missouri blogger who founded Gateway Pundit. In a message on the site, Hoft said its parent company would file for bankruptcy because it was under attack from 'progressive liberal' lawsuits."

Presidential Race

Robert Kagan in a Washington Post op-ed adapted from his book: "How to explain [the] willingness [of voters] to support Trump despite the risk he poses to our system of government? The answer is not rapidly changing technology, widening inequality, unsuccessful foreign policies or unrest on university campuses but something much deeper and more fundamental. It is what the Founders worried about and Abraham Lincoln warned about: a decline in what they called public virtue.... A healthy republic would not be debating whether Trump and his followers seek the overthrow of the Founders' system of liberal democracy. What more do people need to see than his well-documented attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power...? Trump not only acknowledges his goals, past and present; he promises to do it again if he loses this year. For the third straight election, he is claiming that if he loses, then the vote will have been fraudulent.... This kind of open challenge to our democracy was never meant to be addressed by the courts."

Lori Aratani of the Washington Post: "The Biden administration on Wednesday announced a slate of new rules aimed at bringing more transparency to the cost of air travel and making it easier for customers to get refunds when flights are delayed or canceled. Under the new rules, airlines and ticket agents will be required to disclose up front fees for checked and carry-on bags and for canceling or changing a reservation. Previously, the Transportation Department only required airlines and ticket agents to initially disclose mandatory carrier-imposed and government charges. The rules would also streamline the refund process for travelers when they experience significant delays or when their flights are canceled.... Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said the rules, along with other steps the administration has taken, represent the biggest expansion of passenger rights in the Transportation Department's history."

That Didn't Take Long. Julian Mark of the Washington Post: "The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups on Wednesday sued the Federal Trade Commission over a new rule that would make most noncompete agreements illegal, setting up a potential showdown over the scope of the agency's authority. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in the Eastern District of Texas, comes a day after the FTC voted 3-2 to issue a rule that bans noncompete agreements, which restrict workers from switching employers within their industry.... The suit comes as the power of federal agencies faces intense legal scrutiny, with the Supreme Court in recent years inclined to limit the scope of the administrative state."

Abbie VanSickle of the New York Times: "The Supreme Court appeared sharply divided on Wednesday over whether Idaho's near-total abortion ban overrides a federal law that protects patients who need emergency care in a case that could determine access to abortions in emergency rooms across the country. In a lively argument, questions by the justices suggested a divide along ideological lines, as well as a possible split by gender on the court. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative, appeared skeptical that Idaho's law, which bars doctors from providing abortions unless a woman's life is in danger or in cases of ectopic or molar pregnancies, superseded the federal law. The argument also raised a broader question about whether some of the conservative justices, particularly Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., may be prepared to embrace language of fetal personhood, that is, the notion that a fetus would have the same rights [as] the pregnant woman." This is the pinned item in a liveblog. (Also linked yesterday.) The stand-alone version of VanSickle's report is here. ~~~

[Marie: Personally, I am not prepared to embrace the language of Alito personhood, as I definitely don't think Insufferable Sam should have the same rights as a pregnant woman.]

Pam Belluck: "Justice Sotomayor asks Idaho's lawyer if it's true that the state's ban would prevent abortion in a situation where a woman would otherwise lose an organ or have serious medical complications.... 'Yes, Idaho law does say that abortions in that case aren't allowed,' he said."

Belluck: "The [U.S.] solicitor general reminds the justices of a crucial point: In the kinds of pregnancy emergencies in which an abortion is typically required, there is no chance for a live birth. In most of those cases, including when a woman's water has broken much too early, the pregnancy could not be viable and by making her wait for an abortion until she is on the brink of death, it is just causing additional suffering for the woman, the solicitor general says."

Elizabeth Dias: "This frank discussion about what can happen to pregnant women's bodies -- the dysfunction of their bodily systems, the loss of their reproductive organs and fertility, their other organs shutting down -- shows the challenges anti-abortion activists face as their mission of ending abortion, once largely theoretical, has become utterly concrete for so many Americans."

Will Hobson of the Washington Post: "The Justice Department announced Tuesday it has agreed to pay nearly $139 million to victims of former Team USA gymnastics doctor Larry Nassar, settling legal claims brought over the department's failure to investigate allegations that could have brought the convicted child molester to justice sooner and prevented dozens of assaults. One of the largest of its kind in Justice Department history, the settlement brings to a close the last major legal case in an ugly chapter of Olympic sports in this country. Nassar's prolific abuses occurred over a span of decades at international events including the Olympics, as well as at Michigan State University, where Nassar worked, and local gymnastics centers in Michigan and around the country." (Also linked yesterday.)

~~~~~~~~~~

Arizona. Jack Healy, et al., of the New York Times: "Arizona took a major step on Wednesday toward scrapping an 1864 law banning abortion, when three Republican lawmakers in the state House of Representatives broke ranks with their party and voted with Democrats to repeal the ban. Republicans have narrow majorities in both chambers of Arizona's Legislature, and had blocked earlier repeal efforts in the two weeks since the Arizona Supreme Court ignited a political firestorm by reviving the Civil War-era law.... The State Senate could take up a vote on repeal next week. With two Republican senators already supporting repeal, Democrats say they believe they will prevail. Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat and a vocal supporter of abortion rights, has been urging lawmakers to repeal the 1864 law and is expected to sign a repeal if it reaches her desk." ~~~

     ~~~ So Then. Joseph Choi of the Hill: "Two Arizona state House lawmakers were removed from key committees Monday following the chamber's vote to repeal the state's 1864 abortion ban, with one Republican who voted with Democrats among them. Arizona state House Rep. Matt Gress (R) was removed from the Appropriations Committee, while Rep. Oscar De Los Santos (D) was removed from both the Appropriations Committee and Rules Committee.... Gress was the sole Republican to vote with Democrats when they attempted to pass the [repeal] bill last week." MB: Expressing the slightest support for women's health will cost you in Arizona.

~~~~~~~~~~

Israel/Palestine, et al. The Washington Post's live updates of developments Thursday in the Israel/Hamas war are here: "Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz celebrated his country's 'ironclad' alliance with the United States after President Biden signed into law a foreign aid package that includes billions of dollars in military funding for Israel and humanitarian aid for Gaza. A top Hamas political official told the Associated Press the group could agree to a truce with Israel if there is a solution to establish an independent Palestinian state. Israel has pledged to eliminate Hamas, and talks have so far failed to reach a Gaza cease-fire and hostage release deal."

News Lede

CNN: "The US economy cooled more than expected in the first quarter of the year, but remained healthy by historical standards. Economic growth has slowed steadily over the past 12 months, which bodes well for lower interest rates, but the Federal Reserve has made it clear it's in no rush to cut rates."

Comments

[Marie Burns]

Here's a comment by Jeanne, brought forward from late yesterday:

So sad. Meadows and Ghouliani indicted in AZ. Life is a ruin for them, and I applaud it. I was just out there, and I saw very few Dumpie signs and flags, which surprised me. I don't doubt that I will be disappointed on a daily basis going forward, but tonight: Huzzahs!

[Akhilleus]

Justice delayed is justice filleted.

And the Traitor partizans on the Supreme Court know just where to put the knife to make sure their side never loses, and that Justice. As well as democracy, is properly carved and ready for the oven.

These arrogant hacks have made sure the question of kingly immunity demanded by the Orange Monster, a question that should have been decided six months ago, would be shoved to the extreme end of their calendar, but they promise to have an answer for a waiting country in a few MORE months. Never mind that had this been a claim by a Democrat for absolute immunity protecting him from any and all crimes, that guy would already be in prison. They would have taken care of that in an overnight shadow docket ruling.

The sniggering during today’s show hearing (they’ve already decided) will be barely hidden behind pompous expressions of Concern for the Constitution. They know their guy has already won.

In fact, Trump lawyers have been celebrating their victory for a long time now…

“Donald Trump‘s inner circle doesn’t expect the Supreme Court to go along with his extreme arguments about executive power in the immunity case before the justices. But what the high court does now is almost beside the point: Trump already won…

‘We already pulled off the heist,’ says a source close to Trump, noting it doesn’t matter to them what the Supreme Court decides now…

the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority, which Trump built as president, came through for him in a way that many Trump advisers didn’t believe was probable. When news broke in late February that the court would take up Trump’s claims of vast immunity, Trumpland was so elated that a lawyer close to Trump told Rolling Stone they were ‘literally popping champagne.’”

Get out the fillet knives.

[RAS]

North America Building Trade Union (@NABTU) video endorsement of Biden.

[RAS]

JV Last via digby

"In taking in the testimony of David Pecker, it is tempting to say that he was the Joseph Goebbels of the MAGA movement, but that’s not quite right. Pecker is much closer to Dietrich Eckart.

in 1920 he convinced some Nazi financial backers to purchase a tabloid newspaper, the Völkischer Beobachter (the “People’s Observer”).

Eckart became the paper’s editor and this former tabloid suddenly started functioning as the house organ of the Nazi Party."

[RAS]

New York Times

"Harvey Weinstein’s Conviction Is Overturned by New York’s Top Court
Manhattan prosecutors must now decide whether to retry Mr. Weinstein, the disgraced Hollywood producer whose sexual abuse case sparked the #MeToo movement."

[RAS]

"The WA GOP put it in writing that they’re not into democracy

But then the convention veered into more unexpected anti-democratic territory.

A resolution called for ending the ability to vote for U.S. senators. Instead, senators would get appointed by state legislatures, as it generally worked 110 years ago prior to the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913.

“We are devolving into a democracy, because congressmen and senators are elected by the same pool,” was how one GOP delegate put it to the convention. “We do not want to be a democracy.”

Then they kicked it up a notch. They passed a resolution calling on people to please stop using the word “democracy.”

“We encourage Republicans to substitute the words ‘republic’ and ‘republicanism’ where previously they have used the word ‘democracy,’ ” the resolution says. “Every time the word ‘democracy’ is used favorably it serves to promote the principles of the Democratic Party, the principles of which we ardently oppose.”

The resolution sums up: “We … oppose legislation which makes our nation more democratic in nature.”"

[Ken Winkes]

Two embarrassments:

I live in WA State, the one with the belligerently nutty Greedy Old Party. Some of them are probably my neighbors.

Howsomeever, I see that as good news for the very superior Democrat running for governor.

And I'm embarrassed to say that from what I read, I understand the Weinstein reversal. Seems the judge overseeing the case tossed some grit in the wheels of justice.

But I sure don't like it.

[Akhilleus]

I listened for a time (sporadically—the feed kept cutting out) to the arguments for and against total immunity for the Fat King.

As you might expect, the traitors were often antagonistic towards Jack Smith’s counsel, Michael Dreeben. Little Johnny Roberts complained that the lower court ruling against Fatty has a lot of problems. Gorsuch made a point of trying to bully Dreeben into admitting that presidents do have immunity (in certain cases). “So we’ll just call it immunity, right? Immunity!” (Gorsuch comes off as a real prick. Not as snarky a prick as Alito, but a prick nonetheless.)

When Dreeben pointed out practically the only reference the Constitution makes regarding a president and the rule of law, ie, that the president faithfully act to ensure that the laws of the United States are followed, Bart O’Kavanaugh sneered “ALL the laws?” Yes, said Dreeben. All.

Bart then went on a tear involving a series of hypotheticals that seemed as if he found that requirement ridiculous. I half expected him to say “So the President has to make sure jaywalking laws are obeyed?”

Gorsuch sniffed that under Jack Smith’s approach, a president could be indicted for leading a civil rights rally that might delay some official business (because, of course—civil rights! Always bad—unless it’s to uphold the rights of some KKK meeting, I suppose).

But this is how they do it. Rather than address the elephant in the room: their guy led a violent insurrection to overthrow an election and stay in power despite losing, they point to the ground and say “Oh…but look at those ants! And over there. A centipede! We need to talk about those!” thereby burying the actual problem under a mountain of picayune and incredibly hypothetical situations.

They also enjoy interrupting. If the argument is going in a direction they don’t like, they steer it to something completely different. “Oh, you’re talking about the Constitution? We know all about that. But…peanut butter. Do you like peanut butter? No? It’s all American. The idea!” Okay, a bit of an exaggeration, but you get the point. Let’s not talk about Donald Trump. Let’s talk about some bizarre hypothetical.

My guess is they’ll send the whole thing back to Chutkan for “further review” after which Fatty’s lawyers will appeal again. Meaning it might get back to the Supremes some time in 2025.

Because the whole point of this exercise is to guarantee minority rule by Republicans, no matter what, and to ensure that democracy gets it in the neck.

[Akhilleus]

This morning’s grilling of the National Enquirer head, Pecker (Pecker head?) went into that company’s catch and kill of Karen McDougal’s (likely horrible) dalliances with the Orange Monster.

At one point, it comes out that not only was she paid for her silence, she was given a “job” (*wink-wink*) with AMI. This “job” entailed her penning some bullshit column about fitness. As former Enquirer editor, Lachlan Cartwright, made clear in his Sunday Times piece (linked the other day), she never hit so much as the space bar on a keyboard. The Enquirer found a couple of ghost writers who worked up all her “stories”. So, even the cover, that she was being paid as a writer, was a lie.

Everything connected to Trump just drips with sleaze.

[Akhilleus]

Fatty must be thrilled to hear that rapist Harvey Weinstein is being released from prison. Hey, if that rapist got off, I can too!

[Jeanne]

Had to be out and about today so only heard bits of the whole ridiculous case before the high court and to add my ire toward Gorsuck. He SAID that he was not so much worried about how the info today would apply to this case, but how it applies to FUTURE cases. I said to husband that Gorsuck had nothing to add so he added nothing, admitting that he really saw no problem with all of the wretched details of the case. Ho hum. What a bunch of losers. I only heard a speck of Father Alito's braying, so saved myself total screaming at the car radio...

I am quite sure that if the liberal justices had been given more time, they would have nailed it, but as usual, the blabbing was mostly a whole lot of clouds of obscurity and disinformatiion by the people who agree with the GQP morons saying the quiet part out loud and proud, that they don't want democracy. Very discouraging. I think the Cracked Court will punt again and we are screwed as far as time goes.

[RAS]

It is still ridiculous that an insurrectionist's hubby sat in judgement of Trump's Jan 6th immunity claims.

[Patrick]

At the end, Jackson made the point that the justices' lengthy wrangling over official v. unofficial/personal and core functions and outer perimeters was unnecessary, because the petitioner (DiJiT) had filed on a black and white question: total immunity, or not?

But as they have done in the past, they pushed into issues they need not decide, and will probably remand and ask the lower courts to address all the interesting non-pertinent questions they thought up today, which will delay the trial bigly.

[Ken Winkes]

Patrick already wrote this one:

https://www.vox.com/scotus/24140309/supreme-court-donald-trump-immunity-jack-smith

[RAS]

"'Wreak havoc': New GOP head urged staffer to inundate Black group with Trump calls in 2020
Daniel Bice
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

On Election Day 2020, two days earlier, Iverson sent two text messages to Huffman, who was then Trump Victory's state strategic initiative director, encouraging him to get a bunch of Trump supporters to fill Souls to the Polls, a Black get-out-the-vote organization, with requests to be taken to go vote.

He [Huffman] said Iverson clearly was trying to overwhelm and discourage Souls to the Polls, a Milwaukee group with strong ties to Democrats, by forcing the group to spend valuable resources on Trump supporters, who may or may not have voted, to various polling locations in Milwaukee."

[Ken Winkes]

The SCOTUS fiddles while the nation burns...and they make dreadful music and worse law.

[NiskyGuy]

So, as a hypothetical, instead of the sitting president ordering the killing of is political opponent, he ordered the killing of six supreme court justices. The murders take place and the House votes to impeach. That president's party members, holding enough seats in the senate, vote not according to fact-based-evidence or civic duty, but according to party loyalty as we have seen in the recent past, and the president is not impeached. Is that president immune to prosecution after leaving office?

I don't want anyone killed. But come on! As a rational, fact-based rule-follower guy, I am beyond exasperated with the wink-wink nudge-nudge shit that has coddled right-wing fuckery at the highest levels of government, which has been growing since Reagan but rose to a new level starting with the dinner in DC on Obama's inauguration night, through McTurtle's court stacking crap, through today's oral arguments.

The Rs seem to believe that Democrats won't adopt their tactics. They probably won't, but imagine what would happen if they did.

[RAS]

Biden could just order Thomas and Alito thrown in jail or Guantanamo for their corruption, for democracy. And Kacsmaryk and the 5th District of Appeals for constitutional violations.
Then after he cleaned out the judiciary corruption the new proper judges would probably declare he overstepped his powers and put the criminals back in their robes.