The Conversation -- April 27, 2024

The White House Correspondents' Dinner is tonight. Here, via Deadline, are your many options for watching the festivities, which also begins at various times. President Biden will speak, and Colin Jost, "co-anchor" of SNL's "Weekend Update" will host.

A doctor, a lawyer and a CEO walk into a bar. The punchline: they're all fake electors. ~~~

~~~~~~~~~~

Noah Weiland of the New York Times: "The Biden administration announced expansive new protections on Friday for gay and transgender medical patients, prohibiting federally funded health providers and insurers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The new rule reverses a policy instituted by the Trump administration and helps to fulfill part of President Biden's vow to restore civil rights protections for L.G.B.T.Q. people that were eliminated by his predecessor."

Michael Birnbaum & Christian Shepherd of the Washington Post: "Chinese and U.S. leaders sought Friday to stabilize their contentious relationship, but Secretary of State Antony Blinken said as he left that there had been no promises on the top U.S. priority of cutting support for Russia's defense industry.... Russia would struggle to sustain its assault on Ukraine without China's support, Blinken said. 'If China does not address this problem, we will,' he added, in a possible reference to sanctions against Chinese businesses involved in the trade with Russia." An AP report is here.~~~

~~~ Ana Swanson & Vivian Wang of the New York Times: "Preserving some semblance of cooperation -- and the difficulty of doing so -- was at the heart of a meeting between Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken and China's leader, Xi Jinping, in Beijing on Friday. It was the latest effort by the rivals to keep communications open even as disputes escalate over trade, national security and geopolitical frictions. Officials in both countries said they had made progress on a few smaller, pragmatic fronts, including setting up the first U.S.-China talks on artificial intelligence in the coming weeks. They also said they would continue improving communications between their militaries and increase cultural exchanges. But on fundamental strategic issues, each side held little hope of moving the other, and they appeared wary of the possibility of sliding into further conflict." (Also linked yesterday.)

The Trials of Trump, Ctd.

Jesse McKinley & Jonah Bromwich of the New York Times: On Friday, witness "David Pecker, who has known Mr. Trump for decades, faced a stern cross-examination from one of the former president's defense lawyers, Emil Bove, who pressed Mr. Pecker about two deals he had reached in 2015 and 2016 with people who were seeking to sell stories about Mr. Trump. Mr. Bove sought to convince the jury of two fundamental points about the stories, which Mr. Pecker bought and then buried: Such arrangements, characterized by prosecutors as 'catch and kill,' were standard for the publisher, and that Mr. Pecker had previously misled jurors about the details of the transactions.... Despite the defense lawyers' aggressive questioning, Mr. Pecker was even-keeled, a small, gray-haired man answering in a quiet monotone.... Rhona Graff, Mr. Trump's former executive assistant ... at Trump Tower, testified about entries from the Trump Organization computer system that contained contact information for Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model, and for a 'Stormy.' The day's last witness was Gary Farro, who was [Michael] Cohen's banker when the former fixer executed financial transactions with First Republic Bank to enable the hush money payment to Ms. Daniels." ~~~

     ~~~ Marie: The consensus among teevee lawyers was that Pecker held his own again Bove, and that during re-direct, the prosecution successfully cleared up any confusion Bove introduced during cross-examination. ~~~

~~~ New York Times reporters live-updated developments Friday in the Trump 2016 election interference case. See yesterday's Conversation for some entries. Justice Juan Merchan did not make any decision regarding the prosecution's assertions that Trump has violated the gag order multiple times (15, as of yesterday), but said he would hold another hearing next Thursday. New York state law allows only two penalties for violations: a $1,000 fine for each violation or incarcerations up to 30 days. So some teevee lawyers are dreaming up ways the judge might try to deter Trump from repeatedly violating the gag order. Andrew Weissmann suggested the judge could task one of Trump's lawyers with monitoring his posts; Weissmann said that Neal Katyal and suggested the judge could tell Trump he would sentence him for the violations at the end of trial, without revealing of course what the sentence would be. And Weissmann said NYU law professor Ryan Goodman suggested the judge tell Trump that if he is convicted in this case, the judge will consider the gag order violations when he sentences Trump. ~~~

~~~ Kate Christobek & Jesse McKinley of the New York Times: "The second week of Donald Trump's Manhattan criminal trial was dominated by four days of testimony by David Pecker, the former publisher of The National Enquirer, who detailed his efforts to safeguard Mr. Trump's 2016 presidential campaign.... His testimony also teed up the story of Stormy Daniels, a porn star who claims to have had sex with Mr. Trump in 2006 and received a hush-money payment in the days before the 2016 election, a deal at the center of the case.... Here's what happened during the second week, and eighth day, of Mr. Trump's trial[.]" ~~~

     ~~~ The Washington Post's summary of the week's proceedings, titled "Secrets, Lies & Payoffs Laid Bare...", is here.

Ben Protess, et al., of the New York Times: "... while defendants often offer feedback to their lawyers..., [Donald Trump] could hamstring [his lawyers]. Others might concede personal failings so their lawyers can focus solely on holes in the prosecution's evidence.... But that time-honored tactic is not available to a defendant who is also the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, a man who despises weakness and is allergic to anything but praise from the people around him.... The defense team will need to walk a fine line to appease both of its audiences: 12 jurors and a singular defendant. 'Trying the case to your client's vanity, rather than to the jury, is a losing game,' said J. Bruce Maffeo, a former federal prosecutor....

"Mr. Trump is known to be mercurial and prone to outbursts. In private, he has dressed down lawyers in several of his cases, even questioning their entire strategy just minutes before they were set to appear in court, people who have seen him in action say. And inside the courtroom at two recent civil trials, he badgered lawyers, directing them to object at inopportune moments, muttering grievances into their ears and twice storming away from the defense table. Once, Mr. Trump exhorted his lawyer, Alina Habba, to 'get up' as he banged her arm with the back of his hand. Those cases ended in defeat."

Do these justices know that we can hear them? -- Patrick, in yesterday's Comments ~~~

~~~ Adam Liptak of the New York Times: "Before the Supreme Court heard arguments on Thursday on ... Donald J. Trump's claim that he is immune from prosecution, his stance was widely seen as a brazen and cynical bid to delay his trial. The practical question in the case, it was thought, was not whether the court would rule against him but whether it would act quickly enough to allow the trial to go forward before the 2024 election. Instead, members of the court's conservative majority treated Mr. Trump's assertion that he could not face charges that he tried to subvert the 2020 election as a weighty and difficult question.

"They did so, said Pamela Karlan, a law professor at Stanford, by averting their eyes from Mr. Trump's conduct. 'What struck me most about the case was the relentless efforts by several of the justices on the conservative side not to focus on, consider or even acknowledge the facts of the actual case in front of them,' she said.... Michael Dorf, a law professor at Cornell, said that 'the apparent lack of self-awareness on the part of some of the conservative justices was startling.' He noted that 'Justice Alito worried about a hypothetical future president attempting to hold onto power in response to the risk of prosecution, while paying no attention to the actual former president who held onto power and now seeks to escape prosecution.'... Sending the case back to the trial judge [as the Court seems prepared to do, Prof. Karlan] said, 'to distill out the official from the private acts in some kind of granular detail essentially gives Trump everything he wants, whether the court calls it immunity or not.'"

Wasn't the whole point [of the American Revolutionary War] that the president was not a monarch and the president was not supposed to be above the law? -- Justice Elena Kagan, during oral arguments on Trump's immunity case

~~~ Jesse Wegman of the New York Times: "The right-wing justices seemed thoroughly uninterested in the case before them, which involves a violent insurrection that was led by a sitting president who is seeking to return to office in a matter of months. Instead, they spent the morning and early afternoon appearing to be more worried that prosecuting Mr. Trump could risk future malicious prosecutions of former presidents by their political rivals. And they tried to draw a distinction between official acts, for which a president might have immunity from prosecution, and private acts, for which no immunity would apply.... The justice system is doing its job by trying to hold to account a former president for subverting the last election before he runs in the next one. That is a very important job! And yet the right-wing justices are saying, essentially, not so fast -- and maybe not at all.... Still, the right-wing justices seemed impervious to the urgency of the matter before them. 'I'm not focused on the here and now of this case,' Justice Brett Kavanaugh said. 'I'm very concerned about the future.'" ~~~

     ~~~ Marie: Even the most gullible observer must see that the winger Supremes had two objectives in mind: to act as belated accomplices to the insurrection and to be mighty contributors to Donald Trump's re-election bid. Update: At the end of yesterday's Comments thread, contributor Bill dubbed the Supreme Trump Team the "Supreme Courtesans." Nothing could be more apt vis-a-vis their contributions to the immunity hearing. And I'll be stealing that. ~~~

~~~ Uh, What about the Constitution? Josh Gerstein of Politico: "'The legal approach [right-wing Supremes] seemed to be gravitating toward has no basis in the Constitution, in precedent, or logic,' said Michael Waldman, president and CEO of New York University's Brennan Center for Justice. 'It sure ain't originalism.'... 'There is no immunity that is in the Constitution, unless this Court creates it,' [the attorney for the special counsel Michael] Dreeben declared. 'There certainly is no textual immunity.... I think it would be a sea change to announce a sweeping rule of immunity that no president has had or has needed.'... [Justice Elena Kagan said,] 'The framers did not put an immunity clause into the Constitution. They knew how to. There were immunity clauses in some state constitutions. They knew how to give legislative immunity. They didn't provide immunity to the president.... And, you know, not so surprising. They were reacting against a monarch who claimed to be above the law.'...

"Sometimes, the court has found the absence of such language to be of great import. Writing for five conservative justices in the earth-shaking abortion case two years ago, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, Justice Samuel Alito referred to the notion of guaranteed access to abortion as 'an asserted right that is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution.'" MB: Funny, innit? ~~~

~~~ The Last Word. Paul Campos in LG&$: "Donald Trump tried to steal the 2020 presidential election. This is a simple historical fact. It's all anyone knows or needs to know about the matter for the purposes of whether one ought to make him president again.... A criminal trial on the question of whether Trump tried to steal the election is an attempt on the part of the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump violated certain highly technical federal statutes in regard to election fraud and related issues.... The last thing we need is to set up an interpretive frame in which a verdict, or the failure to reach a verdict, in a criminal trial, has any salience to the actual historical record, which is unambiguous to anyone with eyes and ears." Thanks to RAS for the link. MB: This should be the bottom line. Full stop. Instead, we get poll after poll that asks the hoi polloi, "Would you vote for Donald Trump if he was convicted of trying to overturn the last presidential election?" If there's going to be any sort of survey about the insurrection it should be along the lines of, "Would you vote for Donald Trump knowing he tried to stage a coup against his own government?"

Charles Homans of the New York Times in the Times Magazine: "No major American presidential candidate has talked like he now does at his rallies -- not Richard Nixon, not George Wallace, not even Donald Trump himself. Before November 2020, his speeches, for all their boundary crossings, stopped short of the language of 'vermin' and 'enemies within.' When I asked the political historian Federico Finchelstein what he made of the speech, he replied bluntly: 'This is how fascists campaign.'"

Conservative Bill Kristol in the Bulwark throws in the towel: "God, we need a healthy and vigorous liberalism here in America. Conservatism can no longer cut it. American conservatism was once at least in part committed to the defense of liberal democracy. Now conservatism has degenerated into rabble-rousing populism in politics, anti-intellectualism in ideas, and Know-Nothingism in civic life. Accordingly, originalism in the courts has become sophism. A real case for democratic capitalism has become the mere defense of oligarchic power and economic privilege. A necessary critique of mindless progressivism has become hostility to anything emerging from any liberal precinct, reasonable or not. A mostly healthy fighting spirit has become a partisanship that knows no bounds and that acknowledges no enemies to the right. In foreign policy, hostility both to American world leadership and to free nations around the world has replaced a commitment to a tough-minded defense of liberty. Or, to put it more simply: American conservatism has died in Trumpism."

James Pollard, et al., of the AP: "Students protesting the Israel-Hamas war at at universities across U.S., some of whom have clashed with police in riot gear, dug in Saturday and vowed to keep their demonstrations going, faculty at several schools condemned university presidents who have called in law enforcement to remove protesters. As Columbia University continues negotiations with those at a pro-Palestinian student encampment on the New York school's campus, the university's senate passed a resolution Friday that created a task force to examine the administration's leadership, which last week called in police in an attempt to clear the protest, resulting in scuffles and more than 100 arrests."

Presidential Race

Tit for Tat. Sam Stein of Politico: "If Nebraska Republicans changed their electoral college rules to help Donald Trump this November, a top Maine Democrat said her party would try to do a similar move to counteract the impact. The state House majority leader, Maureen Terry, said in a statement on Friday that the Democratic-controlled Legislature would 'be compelled to act in order to restore fairness,' should Nebraska's Republican governor sign legislation that made the state a winner-take-all election in 2024."

Amy Wang, et al., of the Washington Post: "President Biden said Friday that he will debate ... Donald Trump ahead of their expected November election rematch. Biden made the comment during a lengthy live interview with radio host Howard Stern. 'I am, somewhere,' Biden said when asked if he would debate Trump. 'I don't know when. I'm happy to debate him.' Trump later wrote on social media that he would debate 'ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, ANYPLACE.'" This is a liveblog, dated Friday. A CNN story is here.

Bullying the Bully. Katie Rogers of the New York Times: "This week, one presidential candidate has called the other a loser, made fun of him for selling Bibles, and even poked fun at his hair. That kind of taunting is generally more within the purview of ... Donald J. Trump.... But lately, the barbs have been coming from President Biden, who once would only refer to Mr. Trump as 'the former guy.'... 'We'll never forget lying about Covid and telling the American people to inject bleach in their arms,' Mr. Biden said at a fund-raiser on Thursday evening.... 'He injected it in his hair,' Mr. Biden said. He is coming up with those lines himself [according to a campaign spokesman]." ~~~

     ~~~ Marie: The difference between Biden's "bullying" and Trump's bullying, which Rogers doesn't address, is that Biden is gently calling attention to a bully's own failings by telling affable jokes about him. Trump, by contrast, viciously picks on people -- often vulnerable people -- by attacking them with lies or by making fun of conditions the people cannot change, like their race or their appearance or their physical limitations.

Chris Cameron of the New York Times: "The Republican Party sent a letter to the Secret Service on Friday urging the police agency to keep protesters farther away from the venue for the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee in July.... Todd R. Steggerda, counsel to the Republican National Committee..., argued that convention attendees would be forced to pass by the protesters on their way into the venue, raising the potential for confrontations.... The R.N.C. did not propose an alternative location for the demonstration zone in the letter, instead suggesting that the Secret Service expand the security perimeter to move protesters away from the area." The park currently designated as the place protesters may gather is about a quarter mile from the convention arena.

New York Times: "The Wall Street Journal reports that allies of Donald Trump are devising ways of watering down the central bank's independence if he is re-elected president. If true, that change would represent the biggest shake-up in U.S. monetary policy in decades. But it also raises questions about whether such a plan is possible -- or whether Trump's Wall Street supporters would back it.... Among the most consequential would be asserting that Trump had the authority to oust Jay Powell as Fed chair before Powell's term is up in 2025. While Trump gave Powell the job in 2017, he has since soured on his pick for raising rates, and has publicly said he wouldn't give Powell a second term." (Also linked yesterday.)

Donald Trump Has Been Asking, "Are You Better Off Than You Were Four Years Ago?" Let's Check. Top News in at NBC News, April 26, 2020: "Prescriptions for two antimalarial drugs jumped by 46 times the average when the president promoted them on TV. There's no proof they work against Covid-19.... The extraordinary change in prescribing patterns reflects, at least in part, the outsize reach of the Trump megaphone, even when his pronouncements distort scientific evidence or run counter to the recommendations of experts in his own administration. It also offers the clearest evidence yet of the perils of a president willing to push unproven and potentially dangerous remedies to a public desperate for relief from the pandemic." (Also linked yesterday.)

Marie: A Washington Post article is headlined on the site's front page" "He threatened Marjorie Taylor Greene amid a mental health crisis...." My visceral reading of the headline was that the person suffering the mental health crisis was MTG. Seems reasonable. Then I read a bit of the story itself, and this phrase, too, confused me: "... including several of his two children...." If you have only two children, how can there be several among them? The English language is confusing.

~~~~~~~~~~

Michigan Senate Race. Neil Vigdor of the New York Times: "Peter Meijer, a Republican who voted to impeach ... Donald J. Trump when he was a member of the House, announced on Friday that he was dropping out of the Republican primary race for U.S. Senate in Michigan. 'The hard reality is the fundamentals of the race have changed significantly since we launched this campaign,' Mr. Meijer said in a post on Facebook, adding that he did not have a 'strong pathway to victory.' He was facing a crowded primary field featuring another high-profile Republican: Mike Rogers, who served seven terms in the House and rose to become the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.... The seat is being vacated by Senator Debbie Stabenow, the state's senior senator and a Democrat, who announced last year that she would not seek a fifth term.... The Republican nominee is likely to face Representative Elissa Slotkin, the most prominent Democrat seeking to succeed Ms. Stabenow." CNN's report is here.

South Dakota. Kristi Shoots Her Pets Dead if They Displease Her. Phillip Nieto of Mediaite: "South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem (R), who is being eyed as a potential running mate to Donald Trump, admitted to shooting and killing a puppy she called 'less than worthless' -- along with her 'disgusting' goat -- in her new book." Read on for details. And here Gail Collins was so upset about Mitt's traveling with his dog on the roof of the car.

News Lede

CNN: "Destructive tornadoes gutted homes as they plowed through Nebraska and Iowa, and the dangerous storm threat could escalate Saturday as tornado-spawning storms pose a risk from Michigan to Texas."

The Conversation -- April 26, 2024

The New York Times is live-updating developments in the Trump 2016 election interference case:

Jonah Bromwich: "... the judge, Juan Merchan, makes a scheduling clarification, saying that another hearing to determine whether Trump violated a gag order that bars him from attacking witnesses and others four additional times will be held next Thursday morning. We are still waiting for the outcome of an earlier hearing on the gag order, in which prosecutors asked that Trump be held in contempt and fined at least $10,000."

Bromwich: "one of the defenses lawyers, Emil Bove, resumes his cross examination of David Pecker. Bove apologizes for making it seem yesterday as if Pecker had lied in a conversation with federal prosecutors about whether Hope Hicks had been present for a meeting in Trump Tower. Prosecutors have described the meeting, which occurred in 2015, as central to a conspiracy at the heart of this case. Bove blames himself, saying, 'this was my fault.'"

Bromwich: "Bove now asks Pecker to describe the negative stories that The National Enquirer ran about Trump's 2016 Republican opponents, including Ben Carson, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz.... Bove is still trying to convince the jury that Pecker didn't have some special arrangement with Trump: Instead, his publication was doing what it had always done."

Maggie Haberman: "... it's worth calling back to something Trump said when one of the negative Enquirer stories about Ted Cruz, one of his rivals, came out in 2016: 'I did not know about it, and have not, as yet, read it,' Trump said at the time. 'Likewise, I have nothing to do with the National Enquirer and unlike Lyin' Ted Cruz I do not surround myself with political hacks and henchman and then pretend total innocence.'"

Jesse McKinley: "Prosecutors repeatedly object to the defense team's use of 'President Trump' to refer to a conversation in June 2016, pointing out that Trump wasn't president at that point. Justice Merchan sustains."

Bromwich: "Though it's difficult to follow, Bove is making an important point right now about an agreement that The National Enquirer made with Karen McDougal, the former Playboy model whose story about an affair with Trump the tabloid purchased and sought to bury. Prosecutors had tried to suggest that the agreement -- which included a number of different benefits for McDougal -- was made to disguise a $150,000 hush money payment. But Bove is pointing out that it was not a mere disguise: that Ms. McDougal actually did receive the benefits of the agreement.... Bove then seeks to emphasize that McDougal's primary focus was not cash, but the desire to restart her career."

Bromwich: "Emil Bove's voice just got very sharp as he asked Pecker about whether Pecker had made an error yesterday when he said Trump thanked him for catching and killing the doorman's story. 'Was that another mistake?' the lawyer asked, loudly. 'Do you believe that President Trump said that to you as you sit here right now?' Pecker answered so quietly that I couldn't be sure what he said.... Bove is suggesting that Pecker testified inconsistently: in 2018, according to the F.B.I.'s notes, he told agents that Trump had not thanked him at the Jan. 6 meeting. That contradicts what he said yesterday. Pecker had been resisting the implication that he contradicted himself but here, he agrees. Bove is satisfied he's made his point and the jurors are excused for a break."

Bromwich: "David Pecker just did prosecutors a big favor. Emil Bove has been trying to get him to admit that his testimony contradicted something his lawyers told state prosecutors in 2019. The statement in question concerns the all-important meeting at Trump Tower four years earlier, in which Pecker agreed to help suppress negative stories about Trump.... [But Pecker clarified the matter, demonstrating that what his lawyer had said in 2019 was consistent with his own testimony this week.] We've now had several of these exchanges, in which the defense lawyer Emil Bove has tried to catch David Pecker in a contradiction. But Pecker is not playing along, and he is repeatedly disagreeing with Bove. He is fighting back against these attacks and seeming a bit more like the tough tabloid publisher that he used to be. It's hurting the effectiveness of the points the defense is trying to land, confusing matters more than clarifying them."

Bromwich: "Bove concludes his cross-examination, asking Pecker about his obligations in cooperating with the prosecution at this trial. 'To be truthful,' Pecker says, still seemingly in a fighting mood. Then the former publisher adds, 'I've been truthful to the best of my recollection.' Bove sits down."

Bromwich: [On redirect,] "Joshua Steinglass, the prosecutor, uses Emil Bove's repetition of the phrase 'standard operating procedure' against him, as he points out all the parts of the agreement with Karen McDougal that were not so standard. Pecker agrees with Steinglass throughout as he asks him these questions, hurting the defense's argument."

Haberman: "Steinglass is systematically getting Pecker to lay out the ways in which The Enquirer's arrangement with Trump was sui generis."

Haberman: "... Steinglass ... asks David Pecker about the overlap between The Enquirer's readership and Trump's political base. 'All that base loved reading positive stories about Donald Trump,' Pecker says. 'And when he announced his presidency, going from The Apprentice to running for the president of the United States, our sales increased....' Steinglass sums up their back and forth: 'Running stories about Mr. Trump appealed to your readership.' Steinglass then makes the point that it was not in The Enquirer's best interest to kill the McDougal story, because it would have sold well. But they killed it because doing so helped Trump. 'Yes,' Pecker says."

Bromwich: [After some additional questioning by both Steinglass & Bove, Pecker leaves the stand.] "Susan Hoffinger, the head of the district attorney's investigations division, will question [Rhona] Graff, who is the second witness. Graff was Trump's former assistant at the Trump Organization. Hoffinger, along with Joshua Steinglass, led the team that convicted Trump's company two years ago."

Haberman: "Rhona Graff says she worked at the Trump Organization for 34 years. Her understanding was that Donald Trump owned the company and she worked directly for him.... Graff says her lawyers are being paid by the Trump Organization. This is a running theme with some witnesses close to Trump -- he or his political-action committee have continued to pay their legal fees. Michael Cohen flipped on Trump, partly because the Trump Organization stopped paying his legal fees."

Christobek: "We are now looking at redacted entries from the Trump Organization's computer system that contain contact information for Karen McDougal and 'Stormy.'"

Haberman: "Susan Hoffinger, the prosecutor, is asking Graff to verify that she compiled records of various items like emails, contact lists and calendar entries.... Rhona Graff testifies that she saw Stormy Daniels at Trump Tower, in the waiting area of the 26th floor, where Trump's office is located."

Bromwich: [Gary Farro is called to the stand.] "Farro was a banker at First Republic when Michael Cohen was seeking to arrange the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels. Cohen, seeking to get the money together, was contacted by Farro's assistant at First Republic Bank.... First Republic Bank, Gary Farro reminds the jurors, no longer exists. It was seized and sold by regulators last year, one of several banks that were the casualties of bank runs after interest rate hikes."

Christobek: "This material is dry but the prosecutor, Rebecca Mangold, is questioning Gary Farro slowly and deliberately. Farro said that Michael Cohen was eager to connect with him and wanted to open a limited liability company immediately. Farro then took steps to open an account for him and specified with his team that Cohen didn't want addresses on the checks.... At the conclusion of his testimony today, Gary Farro referenced a document showing that Michael Cohen opened a limited liability company called Essential Consultants L.L.C., and indicated that it was a real estate consulting company. The company was later used to pay Stormy Daniels the hush money."

Bromwich: "And now we're adjourned for the day. Trump looks utterly spent as he rises at the end of the long first week of testimony in his criminal trial. As he passes reporters, he grimaces, then glares, putting on a braver face as he leaves the courtroom."

Ana Swanson & Vivian Wang of the New York Times: "Preserving some semblance of cooperation -- and the difficulty of doing so -- was at the heart of a meeting between Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken and China's leader, Xi Jinping, in Beijing on Friday. It was the latest effort by the rivals to keep communications open even as disputes escalate over trade, national security and geopolitical frictions. Officials in both countries said they had made progress on a few smaller, pragmatic fronts, including setting up the first U.S.-China talks on artificial intelligence in the coming weeks. They also said they would continue improving communications between their militaries and increase cultural exchanges. But on fundamental strategic issues, each side held little hope of moving the other, and they appeared wary of the possibility of sliding into further conflict."

New York Times: "The Wall Street Journal reports that allies of Donald Trump are devising ways of watering down the central bank's independence if he is re-elected president. If true, that change would represent the biggest shake-up in U.S. monetary policy in decades. But it also raises questions about whether such a plan is possible -- or whether Trump's Wall Street supporters would back it.... Among the most consequential would be asserting that Trump had the authority to oust Jay Powell as Fed chair before Powell's term is up in 2025. While Trump gave Powell the job in 2017, he has since soured on his pick for raising rates, and has publicly said he wouldn't give Powell a second term."

Donald Trump Has Been Asking, "Are You Better Off Than You Were Four Years Ago?" Let's Check. Top News in at NBC News, April 26, 2020: "Prescriptions for two antimalarial drugs jumped by 46 times the average when the president promoted them on TV. There's no proof they work against Covid-19.... The extraordinary change in prescribing patterns reflects, at least in part, the outsize reach of the Trump megaphone, even when his pronouncements distort scientific evidence or run counter to the recommendations of experts in his own administration. It also offers the clearest evidence yet of the perils of a president willing to push unproven and potentially dangerous remedies to a public desperate for relief from the pandemic."

~~~~~~~~~~

The Trials of Trump, Ctd.

The Supreme Accomplices. Adam Liptak of the New York Times: "The Supreme Court's conservative majority appeared ready on Thursday to rule that former presidents have some degree of immunity from criminal prosecution, a move that could further delay the criminal case against ... Donald J. Trump on charges that he plotted to subvert the 2020 election. Such a ruling would most likely send the case back to the trial court, ordering it to draw distinctions between official and private conduct. It would amount to a major statement on the scope of presidential power.... There were only glancing references to the timing of the trial and no particular sense of urgency among the more conservative justices at Thursday's argument. Instead, several of them criticized what they suggested was a political prosecution brought under laws they said were ill suited to the case at hand."

Marie: 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 federal courtrooms. As far as I know, the lights were on at the Supreme Court Thursday morning, and democracy still took a nosedive. My suggestion: the D.C. Metropolitan Police pick up the winger Supremes and charge them with aiding and abetting a massive crime spree. And hold them in the D.C. jail with the other J-6 prisoners. Maybe they can join the choir; I'm sure Alito has a lovely singing voice. And Clarence! That baritone!

MSNBC hosts got to the crux of the hearing in a two-hour special last night. Here's a segment to give you the flavor of the hearing:

Oval Office = U.S. Crime Center. Brent Griffiths of Business Insider, republished in Yahoo! News: "Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was animated on Thursday when she discussed the potential of what could happen to the presidency if the Supreme Court were to grant presidents the sweeping immunity ... Donald Trump is seeking. 'The most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority could go into office knowing there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes,' Jackson said during oral arguments. 'I'm trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country.'... Jackson appeared alarmed that some of her colleagues, especially some of the court's conservatives, seemed more afraid of limiting presidential immunity ... [than of limiting a president's freedom to commit crimes without consequence]."

Rick Hasen: "After a couple of hours of oral argument, it appears that the Supreme Court is unlikely to embrace either Donald Trump's extreme position -- that would seem to give immunity for a president who ordered an assassination of a rival or staged a coup -- or the government's position that a former president is not absolutely immune even for his or her official acts. Conservatives on the Court are going to make it hard to prosecute a former president for most crimes. But they are likely to reject some of the most extreme, insane, authoritarian arguments that were made by Trump's lawyer. The final opinion will likely come closer to the government's position, but it will almost certainly result in a divided set of opinions (which take more time to draft) and a lot of work on remand to rework the results of the case. The bottom line is that Trump is likely to get what he wants -- a further delay of this election subversion case...."

digby: "Today's Supreme Court argument on presidential immunity was profoundly depressing. It really sounded like the majority is persuaded that they must protect criminal president Donald Trump (and any like him in the future) from any kind of accountability for his crimes.... It appears that this court has not been chastised at all by the country's reaction to their radical actions in Dobbs or anything else. So, if they do what it looks very likely they will do, which is to at least give Trump the delay he seeks and possibly upend the constitutional order at his behest, he could get off scott free whether he wins or loses.... Trump is a narcissistic sociopathic criminal. He will gather power-mad zealots with an ax to grind all around him. Don't kid yourself. He will have no limits." ~~~

     ~~~ Marie: You thought it was bad when the Supremes picked president George W. Bush by stopping the Florida recount? Now they're the David Peckers of 2024, picking the president* before the election by putting their thumbs on the scale. And if, as in 2000, the election is close in a state or states that would decide the national election, what do you think the same Supremes will do? Play fair? Ha!

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." (Also linked yesterday.)

Here's the New York Times liveblog of the Supreme Hearing on the Supreme Immunity of Our Supreme Ruler. (Also linked yesterday.)

Charlie Savage & Alan Feuer of the New York Times have some takeaways from the hearing that will leave you will a sick feeling.

See Akhilleus' entry near the top of yesterday'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...."

Jonah Bromwich, et al., of the New York Times: "Over nearly six hours of testimony on Thursday, [National Enquirer publisher David] Pecker described how he had helped quash three scandalous stories about Mr. Trump, including by setting in motion a hush-money deal with a porn star, Stormy Daniels. That payment is central to the prosecution's case: Prosecutors have charged Mr. Trump with 34 felonies, accusing him of covering up the payoff to Ms. Daniels.... Mr. Pecker introduced the jury to a dark art in the world of supermarket tabloids, the practice known as 'catch and kill' -- buying the rights to a story with no intention of publishing it. The National Enquirer used the tactic to silence [Karen] McDougal [who has said she had a relationship with Trump] and the doorman with his account of an out-of-wedlock child, which turned out to be false....

"In a powerful moment for the prosecution, Mr. Pecker acknowledged a clear-cut motive for keeping the model's story under wraps: protecting Mr. Trump's chance of winning the White House.... He also acknowledged that it is unlawful for a corporation to spend money that way to influence the election, another pivotal moment in the early days of the trial. (The Federal Election Commission later punished The Enquirer's parent company with fines of $187,000; Mr. Trump's campaign was not sanctioned.)"

The New York Times' liveblog of proceedings Thursday in the Trump 2016 election interference case is here. See yesterday's Conversation for some detailed observations.

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.'" (Also linked yesterday.)

Dan Rosenzweig-Ziff, et al., of the Washington Post: "Arrests at pro-Palestinian protests that expanded Thursday to colleges across the country brought the total number of people detained in a week of demonstrations to more than 500, with officials struggling to quell the unrest by clearing encampments and closing buildings. A tumultuous scene and dozens of arrests late Wednesday at the University of Southern California pushed its administration to cancel the school's main commencement ceremony May 10, citing new safety measures that have been put in place after protests there.... In one of the most dramatic clashes, police officers in Atlanta disrupted an encampment at Emory University and faced off with demonstrators while attempting to clear the area. An officer deployed a stun gun at a protester who was being restrained, according to social media video.... The Atlanta Police Department said officers used chemical irritants but denied using rubber bullets in making arrests." ~~~

~~~ Molly Hennessy-Fiske & Patrick Svitek of the Washington Post: On Thursday, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R), called out more than 100 state troopers to clear out protesters planning to occupy a lawn at the UT-Austin campus. "... that decision ... led to dozens of arrests amid dramatic video of riot-clad troopers on campus.... Critics were quick to note ... that Abbott proudly signed a law in 2019 that aimed to protect free speech on college campuses by guaranteeing anyone can protest in common outdoor areas as long as they are not breaking the law or disrupting the regular functioning of the school. That is precisely what those arrested Wednesday were doing, they said." ~~~

~~~ Stephanie Saul of the New York Times: "Columbia University's faculty senate, fearing the repercussions of a censure vote against the school's president, Nemat Shafik, plans instead to vote on a watered-down resolution expressing displeasure with a series of her decisions, including summoning the police last week to arrest protesting students on campus. Senators worried that a censure vote could result in Dr. Shafik's removal at a time of crisis. And some feared that such a vote would be perceived as yielding to Republican lawmakers who had called for her resignation, according to interviews with several members of the senate who attended a closed-door meeting on Wednesday, some of whom requested anonymity to talk about a private meeting. The senate is scheduled to meet again on Friday to vote on a resolution."

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.'" (Also linked yesterday.)

~~~~~~~~~~

Florida. Tara Suter of the Hill: "Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) said Thursday his state 'will not comply' with recently unveiled changes to Title IX by the Biden administration. 'Florida rejects [President Biden';s] attempt to rewrite Title IX,' DeSantis said in a video posted to the social platform X. 'We will not comply, and we will fight back.'... The Biden administration on Friday unveiled a final set of changes to Title IX that add protections for transgender students to the federal civil rights law on sex-based discrimination. The changes will take effect in early August."

Maryland. Lilly Price of the Baltimore Sun: " Pikesville High School's athletic director was arrested Thursday morning in connection with an artificial intelligence-made audio clip of the school's principal having a fake, racist conversation. Dazhon Darien, 31, is charged with disrupting school activities after Baltimore County Police say he created the falsified audio recording of Eric Eiswert in January. The audio clip using the principal's voice went viral and was swiftly condemned by the Baltimore County community. The school was inundated with outraged calls and needed an increased police presence and additional counselors.... Billy Burke, head of the union that represents Eiswert, said the principal's family was being harassed and threatened.... Eiswert has been on leave since the audio recordings went public. Pikesville High School has been run by district staff since Eiswert left and the plan remains to keep those temporary administrators on the job through the end of the school year...." ~~~

     ~~~ Jaclyn Diaz of NPR: "For just a few dollars, anyone can harness artificial intelligence to make audio and visual deepfakes. Stakes are high, but deepfake detection software doesn't always get it right." MB: IOW, we're all vulnerable to this kind of hoax.

Texas. You Have to Punish the Black Ladies. Sam Levine of the Guardian: "A Texas prosecutor will appeal against a court ruling tossing out a five-year prison sentence for a woman who unintentionally tried to vote while ineligible in the 2016 election, an unexpected move that continues one of the most closely watched voting prosecutions in the US. Last month, the second court of appeals, which is based in Fort Worth, threw out the 2018 conviction of Crystal Mason, a Black woman who submitted a provisional ballot in 2016 that ultimately went uncounted. Mason was on supervised release for a federal felony at the time she voted and has said she had no idea she was ineligible. The panel said prosecutors had failed to prove Mason actually knew she was ineligible.But the Tarrant county district attorney, Phil Sorrells, a Republican, announced on Thursday he was appealing to the Texas court of criminal appeals, the highest criminal court in Texas."

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. (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~

     ~~~ 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, also linked yesterday, 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."

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."