Clarence Thomas’s salary complaints sparked rightwing fears he would resign
Martin Pengelly in Washington – December 18, 2023
Photograph: Drew Angerer/Getty Images
Clarence Thomas told a Republican congressman that US supreme court justices should get a pay raise or “one or more” would quit, prompting “a flurry of activity” among rightwingers because his “importance as a conservative was paramount”, ProPublica said in its latest hard-hitting report on questionable ethics at the high court.
Cliff Stearns, the Florida Republican Thomas spoke to in 2000, told the non-profit newsroom: “We wanted to make sure he felt comfortable in his job and he was being paid properly.”
At the time, a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, would have nominated a replacement if any justice had resigned. Republicans held the Senate, which would have conducted the confirmation.
ProPublica said Thomas spoke to Stearns on a flight after giving a speech at Awakening, a “‘conservative thought weekend’ featuring golf, shooting lessons and aromatherapy along with panel discussions with businessmen and elected officials”, held in Sea Island, Georgia, in January 2000.
Thomas’s trip was paid for by event organisers, ProPublica said, adding that the justice’s reported 11 free trips on his annual disclosure form that year but not the trip to Awakening, “an apparent violation of federal disclosure law”.
Thomas’s finances have come under the spotlight this year, with ProPublica publishing a series of in-depth reports, stirring an ethics scandal.
He took and largely failed to declare gifts from Republican donors including luxury travel and resort stays, school fees and a property purchase.
An arch-conservative on a panel dominated 6-3 by the right, Thomas has been in place since a 1991 confirmation dominated by allegations of sexual harassment.
Responding to reports by ProPublica and other outlets, he has denied wrongdoing and pledged to conform to disclosure rules. Progressives have called for him to resign or be impeached and removed – vanishingly unlikely outcomes with the court in conservative hands and Republicans holding the House and contesting the Senate.
ProPublica said the justice was struggling financially at the time of his conversation with Stearns. The site published a letter dated 11 January 2000 in which the congressman told the justice: “Just a note to let you know how much I enjoyed visiting with you on the flight back from Jacksonville to Dulles.
“I intend to look into a bill to raise the salaries of members of the supreme court. As we agreed, it is worth a lot to Americans to have the constitution properly interpreted. We must have the proper incentives here, too.”
Stearns quoted the philosopher Immanuel Kant, telling Thomas to “have patience awhile; slanders are not long-lived”.
On Monday, responses to the ProPublica story included the former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann calling Thomas a “loyal judicial prostitute”.
Stearns sought help from a lobbying firm and spoke in the House. Thomas’s suggestion that resignations might be imminent reached judicial administrators. The then chief justice, William Rehnquist, said in his annual report: “The most pressing issue facing the judiciary: the need to increase judicial salaries”.
Mitch McConnell, a Republican senator from Kentucky (now minority leader), proposed removing a ban on paid speeches by justices. That effort failed, and supreme court salaries have not changed, bar keeping up with inflation.
But ProPublica also reported that “during his second decade on the court, Thomas’ financial situation appears to have markedly improved.” The justice received a $1.5m advance for his memoir and gifts from rich individuals.
In a public appearance in June 2019, Thomas was asked about court salaries.
“Oh goodness, I think it’s plenty,” Thomas said. “My wife [the rightwing activist Ginni Thomas] and I are doing fine. We don’t live extravagantly, but we are fine.”
ProPublica said: “A few weeks later, Thomas boarded [the mega-donor Harlan] Crow’s private jet to head to Indonesia. He and his wife were off on vacation, an island cruise on Crow’s 162ft yacht.”
In a statement, Caroline Ciccone, president of the watchdog Accountable.US, said the ProPublica report showed again how Thomas “has long seen his position on our nation’s highest court as a way to upgrade his own lifestyle”.
Ciccone said: “When the court itself wasn’t providing him with the luxury perks he wanted, his billionaire benefactor social circle stepped in to make it happen.
“Justice Thomas, Harlan Crow, Leonard Leo [of the Federalist Society, a key figure in rightwing activism around the US judiciary] and other key players in this corruption crisis may believe they exist above the law – but they don’t. With public trust at record lows, it’s far past time to restore credibility and integrity to our high court.”
Donald Trump echoes Vladimir Putin’s attack on ‘rottenness’ of America’s democracy
David Jackson, USA TODAY – December 18, 2023
Former President Donald Trump quoted Russian President Vladimir Putin during a campaign rally, after the Russian leader earlier this year alleged the former president’s criminal indictments show “the rottenness of the American political system.”
Trump during a Saturday campaign stop in New Hampshire alleged that President Joe Biden is a “threat to democracy” before adding “Even Vladimir Putin … says that Biden’s, and this is a quote, politically motivated persecution of his political rival is very good for Russia because it shows the rottenness of the American political system, which cannot pretend to teach others about democracy.”
Putin made the comments at an economic forum in Russia in September.
Trump has long alleged without evidence that the four sets of criminal charges he faces are campaign interference from Biden’s administration and other state and federal prosecutors.
The former president has been indicted in Washington and Georgia in connection with efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss to Biden. His two other criminal cases involve hush money payments in New York and the alleged mishandling of classified information in Florida.
During a Sunday rally in Reno, Nevada, Trump mentioned Putin only in passing during a discussion of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Trump criticized his indictments and the Biden administration at length, but did not cite Putin’s criticism of those issues.
He spent most of his time on border security, pledging a mass deportation program. Nevada is holding both a primary on Feb 6 and a caucus on Feb. 8, but only the caucuses will be used to pick convention delegates.
Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin at a meeting in 2019
Chris Christie hits Donald Trump over Vladimir Putin quote
Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, one of Trump’s opponents for the GOP presidential nomination in 2024, on Sunday called out Trump’s comments about Putin in an interview with CNN. He said Trump is now “citing Vladimir Putin as a character witness, a guy who is a murderous thug all around the world.”
Putin, who authorized Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, “is a guy who doesn’t even know what democracy is and, quite frankly, spent most of his life trying to undercut democracy all over the world,” Christie said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “And Donald Trump citing him as his expert witness that he’s being persecuted.”
Christie and other opponents have also noted the escalation of Trump’s rhetoric in recent weeks.
The former president has also employed rhetoric that echoes fascist dictators Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, historians say. Trump has described political opponents as “vermin,” and, during his New Hampshire event this weekend, said immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country.”
Trump has praised Putin throughout his political career. There is evidence that Russian intelligence officials and social media operations helped Trump during his election victory in 2016. Russian election interference was also the subject of an investigation during the former president’s term in office.
Barb McQuade, a former federal prosecutor and author of a forthcoming book on disinformation, alleged Trump was trying to make American citizens skeptical of Biden and his wider administration.
“The goal is to make people cynical, then numb, and finally indifferent to such claims,” she said.
Is SCOTUS Finally Losing Patience With the Far Right’s Bogus Cases?
Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern – December 17, 2023
Last week, the Supreme Court made two big moves in hot-button cases with major consequences for civil liberties in the United States. On Monday, the court refused to take up Tingley v. Ferguson, a First Amendment challenge to Washington state’s ban on LGBTQ+ conversion therapy for minors. Then, on Wednesday, the court agreed to hear a case that seeks to ban mifepristone, the “abortion pill,” in all 50 states—making the most common method of abortion inaccessible throughout the country.
On Saturday’s Slate Plus segment of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discussed the court’s flurry of activity as the year draws to a close. Their conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.
Dahlia Lithwick: The court’s decision not to take this case means Washington state’s restrictions on conversion therapy can stay in place. And I think the move was a bit of a surprise, right?
Mark Joseph Stern: Yes, absolutely. Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia have enacted some form of a ban on conversion therapy for minors. And while the court turned away these challenges in the past, the conservative majority has been dropping hints in recent years that it might be ready to abridge or abolish these laws. So when Tingley hit the docket, a lot of us thought it was time for a showdown. But that didn’t happen. Three justices—Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh—would’ve taken up the case. And since it takes four votes to hear an appeal, that means John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett voted against taking it up. That’s quite surprising, again, because those three justices are pretty far right when it comes to these First Amendment protections for religious speech and for laws that allegedly target conservative Christians. This case seemed to serve up those issues on a silver platter.
That, of course, leads to the question of why. Before I get into my theory, what’s yours?
I’m just going to keep saying, till the cows come home, that I just do not believe at any given moment that there are five, much less six, votes on the current Supreme Court to be justices in 2027 sitting on the smoldering dumpster fire of what’s left of all constitutional theory and history. I think they’re exercising caution. That’s my working theory.
It’s a decent one! But I have another. So, the first thing I want to flag is that this plaintiff, Brian Tingley, was represented by Alliance Defending Freedom. And our dear friends at ADF have concocted a number of other high-profile cases that turned out to be fake—including last year’s 303 Creative v. Elenis, where ADF falsely claimed that a same-sex couple asked this graphic designer to make a wedding website. It was all a lie. The court ruled for her anyway, but it drew a lot of ridicule and scorn in the process.
This case seems equally fake. Brian Tingley, the plaintiff challenging Washington state’s law, refuses to say whether he wants to perform conversion therapy and whether he intends to perform it. Yet, in their filings, ADF scrupulously avoids ever saying that Tingley actually wants to counsel a gay or transgender youth to change their orientation or gender identity. Instead, the complaint is all framed in these abstractions—that he just wants to be able to participate in the debate and speak about the realities of this ongoing controversy, yada, yada, yada. Well, none of that stuff is prohibited under this law. The only thing that’s prohibited is using your time and resources as a professional counselor to try to convert a child in exchange for money.
This particular issue was spotted by Jenner and Block’s Adam Unikowsky, who represented Equal Rights Washington, a group that intervened to defend the law. Adam pointed out the plaintiff, Tingley, does not have standing because he hasn’t said that he intends, or even wants, to violate this law. It’s still completely hypothetical. Adam also made the related point that the case isn’t ripe yet: There’s not an actual dispute here, since Tingley hasn’t said he wants to do a thing that Washington state prohibits. And on top of everything else, there’s no factual record. This was a problem that plagued 303 Creative, one that I think did come back to bite the justices: There was no factual record in that case, and the few “facts” that ADF put forward turned out to be lies or exaggerations.
Adam said, Look, these laws are in almost half the states. Why don’t you just wait until a real conflict comes up, and then you can hear the case with a real factual record that shows how the state applied the law? There will be a genuine controversy for you to resolve then. But there isn’t one here, so just deny this case. And on Monday, that’s what the court did. I think Adam’s argument was powerful for some of the justices who maybe felt like they had been taken in by ADF and decided, You know, we’re not going to play the suckers in this case. Even though Roberts and Gorsuch and Barrett probably want to tackle these conversion therapy bans, maybe they realized this was not the right case to do so because it would look to the public like they were reaching out and grabbing a controversy that does not actually exist for resolution in the courts yet.
That’s a flawless segue into another case where the totality of the injury is “I might have feelings someday”: The abortion pill case that SCOTUS took up on Wednesday, where the complete theory of standing is that a bunch of doctors might someday have sadness over the possibility of future abortion.
Right. The plaintiffs challenging mifepristone, the first drug in a medication abortion, are just doctors who hate abortion. Their theory of standing is as follows: Some woman somewhere is going to be prescribed mifepristone by a different doctor. She is going to have complications. She is going to come to our emergency room. We will have to treat her by completing her abortion. And doing that will make us extraordinarily sad.
We’ll have feelings. We’ll have standing because of our future feelings.
Exactly. Treating this hypothetical future patient will hurt our hearts too badly. The vibes will be off for the rest of the week, if not the month. The office Christmas party will be ruined. And that, they say, gives us standing to sue.
I don’t think that’s what this Supreme Court wants. I think this court is going to rule against the plaintiffs solely on standing grounds and by a lopsided vote. And if it does, I think that’s a point in favor of my theory about Tingley, right? Because guess who represents these anti-abortion doctors? Alliance Defending Freedom. The same lawyers who represent Tingley. ADF fabricated this case too. It seems like maybe ADF’s history of telling shameless lies to the courts, including SCOTUS, is starting to catch up to them. Maybe justices like Roberts and Barrett are getting a little pissed that ADF is creating so much extra work for them just to please donors and achieve victories that they couldn’t through the normal democratic process.
I think it’s worth saying here that if the Supreme Court does toss the mifepristone case on standing, it’ll get headlines that say “Supreme Court Preserves the Right to Medication Abortion,” and that will dampen an immense amount of political enthusiasm around reproductive rights. The conventional wisdom will be that the Supreme Court has taken itself out of the 2024 election, at least on this issue. Which won’t be true, because the court could still invoke the Comstock Act later to make abortion illegal in all 50 states.
But the larger point is that the Supreme Court could manage to deflate all the energy and enthusiasm among women and people who’ve been organizing after Dobbs. And that would be a really big indicator that the Supreme Court keeps gaming the press. It will make the court bottom of mind as we launch into a 2024 election where the court should be top of mind.
Trump’s rhetoric in final campaign sprint goes to new dark extremes
Zachary B. Wolf, CNN –December 17, 2023
Joseph Prezioso/AFP/Getty Images
Donald Trump’s rhetoric dropped to a spine-tingling new low this weekend with less than a month before the Iowa caucuses.
The GOP primary front-runner said migrants are “poisoning the blood” of the US and quoted Russian President Vladimir Putin about the “rottenness” of American democracy.
Whipping up thousands of supporters at a New Hampshire hockey rink on Saturday, the former president again drew comparisons to the language of Nazi Germany with the comments about migrants from mostly Africa, Asia and South America “poisoning the blood of our country.”
The language “parrots Adolf Hitler,” President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign alleged. Experts pointed to passages in Hitler’s manifesto “Mein Kampf” in which the future dictator called for racial purity and said German blood was being “poisoned” by Jews.
Trump has used the line previously, in an interview with a conservative news outlet, and bringing it out for a rally suggests he could be adding it to his routine.
He drew criticism last month for describing his political rivals as “vermin,” another term that has antisemitic connotations and was employed in Nazi rhetoric.
It’s the repetition of these lines, after their fascist roots are called out, that is more chilling than their first utterance. The former president — who leads Biden in some swing-state polling of a hypothetical rematch — has a long history with language that plays on racial prejudice and excites the right wing.
His recently repeated claim that he wants to be “dictator” for one day to build his border wall and stop immigration could be laughed off as a joke if he didn’t keep saying it.
On Sunday night, at rally in Reno, Nevada — the third GOP-nominating state — Trump claimed, without evidence, that migrants are largely coming from prisons and mental institutions. And he wondered, again without evidence, if Chinese migrants crossing the border are meant to be part of an invading army. Trump promised to reorient the US government to purge migrants. Claiming the US is now a “haven for bloodthirsty criminals,” he said he would invoke the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 law, to remove migrants from the country. The former president also promised to divert the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration to border actions.
Invoking authoritarian leaders is no longer a surprise
“He’s a populist, authoritarian narcissist,” the Republican former House Speaker Paul Ryan said last week, before Trump’s most recent comments. “So, historically speaking, all of his tendencies are basically where narcissism takes him, which is whatever makes him popular, makes him feel good at any given moment.”
Dictators erase freedoms, but Trump — who tried to overturn the 2020 election after he lost — needs an electoral victory to get there. On Saturday, he called his campaign a “righteous campaign to liberate this nation” and said, to cheers, “we are not a free nation.”
It is no longer even jarring when Trump speaks highly of authoritarian leaders, such as North Korea’s Kim Jong Un or Hungary’s Viktor Orban, as he did again Saturday in New Hampshire.
But Trump went a step further, twisting around the idea put forward by his rivals, including Biden and former Rep. Liz Cheney, that he is a threat to democracy for trying to overturn the last election.
Instead, Trump now argues, it is Biden who is a “threat to democracy.”
As a way of proving the claim, Trump cited Putin, who said in September that Trump’s legal problems are “politically motivated persecution” that is good for Russia. “‘It shows the rottenness of the American political system, which cannot pretend to teach others about democracy,’” Trump went on, quoting the Russian president.
The truth is that Putin knows about rotten systems and putting political enemies in jail; supporters of Putin’s chief rival, Alexey Navalny, can’t locate the dissident leader who is serving a 19-year prison sentence.
Trump is facing multiple criminal trials. But he will have to be convicted by unanimous juries, assuming he is tried at all. The US Supreme Court, on which three of his appointees sit, has been asked by prosecutors to weigh in on whether Trump, as a former president, is immune from prosecution.
One of Trump’s rivals for the Republican presidential nomination, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, said the pending trials are contributing to Trump’s increasingly intense rhetoric.
“Donald Trump realizes the walls are closing in,” Christie told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union” on Sunday. “He’s becoming crazier. And now he’s citing Vladimir Putin as a character witness, a guy who is a murderous thug all around the world.”
Trump-supporting Republicans like Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina don’t seem to care much what the former president says.
“We’re talking about language. I could care less what language people use as long as we get it right,” Graham said on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” although he also made clear he doesn’t agree with the poisoned blood analogy. “I believe in legal immigration. I have no animosity toward people trying to come to our country. I have animosity against terrorists and against drug dealers.”
Trump uses warnings about him to attack opponents
Twisting a warning about him and turning it into a rallying cry for his supporters is a classic Trump tactic.
He didn’t use the term “Fake News” to describe the mainstream media until after Hillary Clinton warned about an epidemic of misinformation, which she called “fake news.” Trump first used the term in a tweet the next day, on December 10, 2016, according to The Washington Post. He’s repeated it so often, including at the New Hampshire event, that now he claims to have invented it.
Similarly, he has frequently and falsely referred to the idea that he lost the 2020 election as a “big lie,” coopting it from warnings — citing the strategy of Nazi propagandists — that his repeated claims that the election results were false would ultimately convince his followers. The term “big lie” also appears in “Mein Kampf.” Most Republicans and GOP-leaners — nearly 70% in a CNN poll in August — don’t think Biden’s win was legitimate.
Tapper also played for Christie video of Trump’s comments about migrants “poisoning the blood of the country.”
“He’s disgusting,” Christie said. “And what he’s doing is dog whistling to Americans who feel absolutely under stress and strain from the economy and from the conflicts around the world, and he’s dog whistling to blame it on people from areas that don’t look like us.”
Christie, however, argued Republicans might still vote for Trump despite the comments and not because of it.
In New Hampshire, Trump takes 44% support among likely GOP primary voters, with former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley moving into second place at 29%, followed by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (11%), Christie (10%), entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy (5%) and former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson (1%).
In Iowa, Trump has majority 58% support among likely Republican caucusgoers, followed by DeSantis (22%), Haley (13%), Ramaswamy (4%), Christie (3%) and Hutchinson (less than 1%).
As CBS notes, there are some major differences between the potential electorates in each state. In New Hampshire, 57% of likely GOP primary voters say abortion should generally be legal in their state, a view shared by just 26% of likely GOP caucusgoers in Iowa. Nearly half of likely GOP caucusgoers in Iowa (48%) say they consider themselves part of the MAGA movement, compared with 33% of likely New Hampshire primary voters.
Trump’s power in the party means that, unlike Christie, most Republican candidates are not calling him out.
In an interview with ABC News to publicize her endorsement by the anti-Trump Republican governor of New Hampshire, Haley said Trump was the right president at the right time, but he will have to answer in court for his actions on January 6, 2021. She said the country needs to move beyond that kind of chaos.
“My approach is different,” said Haley, who served as ambassador to the United Nations under Trump. “No drama, no vendettas, no whining.”
She has a month left to sell that approach before the first Republicans start making their voices heard in the American process that Trump quoted Putin as saying is rotten.
CNN’s Ariel Edwards-Levy contributed to this report.
Trump quotes Putin to call Biden ‘threat to democracy,’ reiterates anti-immigrant rhetoric at New Hampshire rally
Aaron Pellish and Steve Contorno, CNN – December 16, 2023
Former President Donald Trump on Saturday quoted Russian President Vladimir Putin to attack President Joe Biden as a “threat to democracy” and doubled down on language condemned for its ties to White supremacist rhetoric, saying at a campaign event in New Hampshire that immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country.”
“Joe Biden is a threat to democracy. He’s a threat,” he told supporters at a rally in Durham, New Hampshire. “Even Vladimir Putin … says that Biden’s — and this is a quote – ‘politically motivated persecution of his political rival is very good for Russia because it shows the rottenness of the American political system, which cannot pretend to teach others about democracy.’”
Trump also praised two other authoritarian foreign leaders, calling Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban “highly respected” and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un “very nice.”
Trump’s comments align with a pattern of expressing fondness for foreign leaders who use anti-democratic measures to maintain power. They also come after the former president attempted to sidestep questions in a Fox News town hall about whether he would act as a dictator if reelected, saying he would not act as a dictator “except for Day 1.” Trump faces federal and state charges stemming from his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
Trump also told the crowd on Saturday that immigrants “from all over the world” are “pouring into the country,” reiterating a phrase he used previously that sparked outcry from the Anti-Defamation League.
“They’re poisoning the blood of our country. That’s what they’ve done,” Trump said. “They poison mental institutions and prisons all over the world, not just in South America … but all over the world. They’re coming into our country, from Africa, from Asia, all over the world.”
The comments mark another instance of Trump using increasingly violent rhetoric in his campaign messaging. At his most recent campaign event in New Hampshire prior to his appearance Saturday, Trump used the word “vermin” to describe his political rivals, drawing broad condemnation, including from President Joe Biden, who likened his comments to “language you heard in Nazi Germany.”
Following Trump’s use of the phrase in October, ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt linked his language to ethnically motivated massacres in Pittsburgh in 2018 and El Paso, Texas, in 2019.
“Insinuating that immigrants are ‘poisoning the blood of our country’ echoes nativist talking points and has the potential to cause real danger and violence. We have seen this kind of toxic rhetoric inspire real-world violence before in places like Pittsburgh and El Paso. It should have no place in our politics, period,” Greenblatt said in October.
The former president is planning a widespread expansion of his first administration’s hardline immigration policies if he is elected to a second term in 2024, including rounding up undocumented immigrants already in the US and placing them in detention camps to await deportation, a source familiar with the plans told CNN last month.
Trump on Saturday reiterated his proposal to “restore and expand” the travel bans he first implemented toward some countries in 2017 and pledged to “implement strong ideological screening for all illegal immigrants.” The travel ban targeted many Muslim-majority countries and African nations, leading critics to argue they were racially motivated.
In a statement released Saturday night, Biden campaign spokesperson Ammar Moussa said Trump “parroted Adolf Hitler” in his New Hampshire remarks.
“Tonight Donald Trump channeled his role models as he parroted Adolf Hitler, praised Kim Jong Un, and quoted Vladimir Putin while running for president on a promise to rule as a dictator and threaten American democracy,” Moussa said. “He is betting he can win this election by scaring and dividing this country. He’s wrong. In 2020, Americans chose President Biden’s vision of hope and unity over Trump’s vision of fear and division — and they’ll do the same next November.”
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, one of the former president’s GOP rivals, said later Saturday that he hadn’t heard Trump’s comments in New Hampshire about immigrants “poisoning the blood of our country,” instead reiterating the “huge risk” that people who cross the border illegally pose to Americans, especially “military-aged males.”
“We have to be smart about what we’re doing in this country,” DeSantis said at a news conference in Corydon, Iowa, when asked whether he believes this type of rhetoric should be used by someone who wants to lead the United States.
“We’re going to be very tough on who’s able to come into this country, because I think that what’s going on now, at the border in particular, has been a total train wreck,” he added.
Trump traveled to New Hampshire to lock down support as he tries to solidify his status as the 2024 Republican front-runner in the final weeks before the state’s first-in-the-nation GOP presidential primary.
In his first trip to the Granite State in over a month, Trump held a rally in the college town of Durham in one of the state’s most liberal counties. He’ll follow that up with an event in Reno, Nevada, on Sunday and then Waterloo, Iowa, on Tuesday – his second visit to the Hawkeye State in a week.
The burst of campaigning underscores an aggressive effort by Trump’s team to maintain his dominating lead when polls give way to actual voting. His advisers have privately voiced concerns that Trump supporters could simply assume he has a comfortable advantage in the race and is not reliant on their votes.
“We are leading by a lot, but you have to go out and vote,” Trump told supporters Wednesday night in Coralville, Iowa.
Trump’s visit to New Hampshire comes a day after rival DeSantis wrapped up his own one-day sojourn in the Granite State. It also comes as another opponent, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, appears to be gaining momentum there, punctuated by a recent endorsement by the state’s popular governor, Chris Sununu, who has long made clear his opposition to Trump’s candidacy.
Sununu told reporters Tuesday that he believed the Republican primary in New Hampshire was a two-person race.
“This is a race between two people. Nikki Haley and Donald Trump. That’s it … with all due respect to the other candidates,” Sununu said.
Trump has bashed Sununu following the endorsement, saying at his Saturday rally, “He’s endorsed somebody that can’t win, has no chance of winning.”
“He’s a selfish guy who can’t get elected anything right now,” Trump said of Sununu.
It’s unclear what impact Sununu’s endorsement will have on the primary. A recent Des Moines Register/NBC News/Mediacom poll in Iowa suggested DeSantis’ support there grew only nominally from an endorsement by another popular governor, Kim Reynolds.
A CNN/University of New Hampshire poll of likely voters in New Hampshire’s Republican primary released last month showed Trump with 42% support. Haley, his closest challenger, was at 20%.
Trump is even more dominant in national polls. A Pew Research Center survey released Thursday found 52% of Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters name the former president as their top choice in the primary. His nearest challenger was DeSantis, at 14%.
This story and headline have been updated with additional information.
CNN’s Jeff Zeleny, Alison Main, Kit Maher and Veronica Stracqualursi contributed to this report.
Revealed: House speaker did little to fight toxic ‘burn pit’ his father campaigned against
Oliver Laughland in Shreveport, Louisiana and Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Washington – December 13, 2023
Composite: Rory Doyle, Getty Images, Rachel Woolf
Mike Johnson was a few months away from assuming elected office in late 2014 when he was confronted with an impassioned appeal by the man he would later pay tribute to in his first speech as House speaker: his father Patrick.
The elder Johnson, a former firefighter in the Louisiana city of Shreveport, had survived a near fatal industrial explosion when Mike was 12 years old, a defining event in both men’s lives. He had just joined a local community environmental group, working to fight against US government plans to burn – in the open air – over 15m pounds of toxic munitions. It had thrust Patrick and his future wife Janis Gabriel onto the frontlines of Louisiana environmental advocacy.
As authorities were on the brink of approving the “open burn”, which would have sent vast quantities of known carcinogens into the air, Patrick and Janis turned to the most influential person they knew.
Then an ambitious, rightwing constitutional lawyer, Mike Johnson would in a matter of weeks fill the vacancy for Louisiana’s eighth state legislative district – whose borders are just 20 miles from Camp Minden, a military base where the illegal munitions dump – the largest in US history – was located. A small amount of the munitions had spontaneously exploded two years before, causing a 4-mile blast radius.
The pair drove to Mike Johnson’s legal offices in the late morning, Gabriel recalled, and Patrick Johnson explained to his son the immediate environmental and health dangers the toxic dump posed, not only to residents in the immediate vicinity but to members of the Johnson family living in the region.
“His father and I went to him and said: ‘Mike you need to get involved in this, this is really important. Your family really lives at ground zero,’” Gabriel said in an interview with the Guardian. “We basically begged him to say something, to someone, somewhere.”
A terse back and forth followed, she said.
“He just wasn’t interested,” Gabriel said. “He had other things to do. He was never interested in environmental things.”
The couple left deeply disappointed.
“It just blew my mind that he wouldn’t give five minutes of his time to the effort,” she said. “He basically shut us down.”
A spokesperson for Johnson said he “disputes this characterization as described” but did not respond to an invitation to elaborate further.
Gabriel, 72, has thought about this failed appeal to Johnson repeatedly in recent months, ever since he was thrust from relative obscurity to the US house speakership in October.
A denier of climate science, Mike Johnson has spoken about how his evangelical faith has shaped his political worldview. According to a broad examination of his past statements, Johnson’s anti-climate advocacy often bears the hallmarks of a Christian fundamentalism linked to creationism.
Louisiana’s fourth congressional district, which includes Camp Minden, has long voted staunchly Republican, but many residents still hold deep concerns about pollution and the climate crisis. In a year the district experienced record heat and a number of climate related disasters, some say their representative in Washington, who is now second in line to the presidency, is fundamentally failing them.
Mike Johnson’s views on climate change became publicly apparent in 2017, just five months into his first term in the US Congress. Asked how he felt about the climate crisis by a constituent at a rowdy town hall meeting in Shreveport, Johnson launched into a critique of climate change data, saying he had also seen “the data on the other side”.
“The climate is changing, but the question is: is the climate changing because of the natural cycles of the atmosphere over the span of history, or is it changing because we drive SUVs?
“I don’t believe in the latter. I don’t think that’s the primary driver.”
Some attendees booed.
Two years later, Johnson – who has received almost $350,000 in political donations from the oil and gas industry since his election in 2016 – led the Republican Study Committee as it lobbied against progressive Democratic efforts to implement a Green New Deal. Johnson denounced the sweeping federal blueprint for climate action as a “guise to usher in the principles of socialism” and create a system of “full government control”.
In Louisiana, which is economically dependent on the oil and gas industry, the remarks were consistent with the Republican party’s support for fossil fuels.
But to experts who study the Christian fundamentalist movement of creationism, the comments revealed a worldview that falls far outside traditional Republican pro-industry norms. They see the remarks, and Johnson’s rejection of climate science, as evidence of Johnson’s adherence to young-Earth creationist beliefs, including the presumption that the Earth is just 6,000 years old.
Johnson has been closely associated with the creationist movement since 2014 – before his entry into politics – when he became a vocal supporter and lawyer for Answers in Genesis (AiG), a global fundamentalist Christian organization that built a gigantic Noah’s Ark replica and amusement park in Kentucky. Following a headline-grabbing legal battle, Johnson ultimately helped the group secure taxpayer incentives for the project.
“Creationists can just wave away all of the geologic evidence of climate change because they are convinced that all rock layers were laid down in a global flood about 4,400 years ago,” said David MacMillan, a former Christian fundamentalist who has left the movement.
MacMillan grew up attending creationist conferences, had posts published on AiG’s website, and helped raise money for the establishment of AiG’s first creationist museum near Cincinnati, earning him a spot on a donor wall and a lifetime pass to attend. Now – having left his fundamentalist views behind – he is speaking out about the dangers of science denial.
“They will tell you that hundreds of thousands of annual ice core layers are just a bunch of snow that formed while the Earth was cooling off after Noah’s flood. They believe climate scientists are sifting through meaningless noise to try and find patterns that will get them noticed and promote narratives that please the global elite who want to control us.”
What’s more, MacMillan added, most fundamentalists argue that even if the climate is changing, it should make no difference because they also expect the imminent, apocalyptic, final judgment of the world.
MacMillan, who knows Ham, said the AiG founder pioneered a technique of trying to sow doubts about science by presenting scientific consensus as merely a belief system, much like religion.
In a video interview with the Canadian psychologist and alt-right provocateur Jordan Peterson in November last year, Johnson drew directly from this creationist strategy when asked why Democrats pursue policies to address the climate crisis.
“They regard the climate agenda as part of their religion,” Johnson said. “I don’t know any other way to explain it. They pursue it with religious zeal. And they care not what type of pain these policies inflict upon the people that they are supposed to be serving because they’re not serving the people, they’re serving the planet.”
While many media reports have highlighted Johnson’s controversial relationship with Ham, MacMillan said Johnson’s close association with the group – his bio appears on its website, he has written blog posts for the group, and spoken at an AiG event in Kentucky – means Johnson would likely have had to agree to the group’s statement of faith, which includes the assertion that the Bible is “factually true” and that its authority is not limited to spiritual or redemptive themes, but also history and science.
According to the group’s website: “All persons employed by the AiG ministry in any capacity, or who serve as volunteers, should abide by and agree to our Statement of Faith and conduct themselves accordingly.”
An AiG editorial review board regularly reviews all articles, books and other materials produced or distributed by the group to make sure they are in line with AiG values and that there “is not mission drift”.
In a speech delivered at Ham’s Ark Encounter conference center last year, Johnson raised the apocalypse and Christ’s second coming.
“We are hopeful people because we know how the book ends … God wins,” he said in an address that was met with a standing ovation. “The charge is for us, it’s not yet determined. We’re going to be here until the Lord tarries, when the Lord comes back. And maybe that’s soon, because we’re seeing a lot of signs.”
Mike Johnson and his wife are due to speak at an AiG conference event in April next year, entitled: “Reclaim: overcoming the war on women for the glory of God.”
“There is no doubt that Mike Johnson demonstrated to AiG’s satisfaction that he agrees with every aspect of that statement of faith,” MacMillan said.
A short biography of Johnson is included on AiG’s contributor’s page. A review of the 267 biographies on the AiG site indicates he is one of only two elected officials to post on the fundamentalist group’s website. The other is Tony Perkins, a former Louisiana state representative and the current president of the Family Research Council, a far-right evangelical lobby group. Perkins, one of Johnson’s political mentors, once said he believed floods were sent by God to punish homosexuality and regularly cites the Bible to deny solutions to the climate crisis.
When asked by the Guardian if Johnson had ever endorsed the AiG statement of faith, or if he shared Ham’s views on climate or if he believed the earth was 6,000 years old, a spokesperson said: “The Speaker is not responsible for the views of others” and did not respond to an invitation to elaborate.
AiG did not respond to specific questions about Johnson and the group’s statement of faith and instead commented on his legal work for the organization. “Mr Johnson served the ministry very effectively and professionally in the matter and Answers in Genesis was very pleased and grateful for his services,” said spokesman A Larry Ross.
Janis Gabriel pointed to Mike Johnson’s hardline faith and political pragmatism when explaining her interpretation of why he had brushed aside his father’s appeals to help with the air pollution crisis at Camp Minden.
“It speaks to those religious beliefs,” said Gabriel. “‘Don’t take care of the environment because we have a finite amount of time here and God will take care of you.’ It’s crazy.”
Gabriel, who was discussing her relationship with the House speaker for the first time publicly, said she was disclosing details of private conversations because Johnson now holds a position of immense power. She wanted to further public understanding of “what and who he is and how that will affect the job he’s doing for us.”
“That is the important conversation,” she said.
In his 2022 interview with Peterson, Mike Johnson couched his critique of those seeking climate solutions around conversations he was having with residents in his district.
“When I’m in Louisiana I try to explain to our folks, listen: ‘They have effectively replaced father God with mother Earth. . . . They believe we owe fealty to Mother Earth.”
Even as the speaker rejects concerns about the climate crisis, Louisiana’s fourth congressional district is already experiencing new extremes tied to global heating.
Louisiana, too, endured months of devastating drought, which contributed to a water crisis in the south-east, and hundreds of wildfires in America’s wettest state. The largest wildfire in Louisiana’s history occurred this year in Johnson’s district, scorching a staggering 33,000 acres and decimating the local economy. The heat and drought combined cost Louisiana’s agriculture industry $1.69bn alone this year.
The state also logged a record number of heat-related deaths over the summer, according to a spokesman for the Louisiana health department [LDH], with 69 people dying between June and September this year. This was almost double the death toll of any in the past six years, according to data released to the Guardian by LDH.
A report published this year, which examined all occupational heat related illnesses between 2010-2020 found that the highest rates of illness occurred in Louisiana’s north-west, which has some of the largest rates of poverty in the state and is entirely covered by Johnson’s district.
“Heat exposure is intensifying as the frequency, severity, and duration of extreme heat events increases due to climate change,” the government report acknowledges.
In Shreveport, six people died from extreme heat this year alone – a record year, according to Todd Thoma, who has served as coroner in the Shreveport area for 16 years. “This was an exceptional year to me,” Dr Thoma said, as he combed through each case file in his office, pointing to a combination of prolonged extreme heat, high poverty rates and power outages that contributed to the increased risks for the city’s most vulnerable residents.
A 62-year-old woman who died in June after a tornado knocked out power to her home, leaving her with no air conditioning. A 49-year-old man, found collapsed on the sidewalk just four days later. And, on 13 July, 34-year-old Ted Boykin, a father of one who was found dead inside a trailer home, with no air conditioning, that was used by Shreveport’s unhoused community.
The ambient air temperature inside was 98F, according to the coroner’s report. Boykin’s internal temperature was 107.9F.
In an interview Boykin’s sister, Sandy Boykin-Hays, said she considered her brother a victim of the climate crisis and chastised her congressman and others for a failure to accept science.
“He was let down by the system,” said Boykin-Hays. “And to them [in Washington], I’m sure they wouldn’t believe, even if it [climate change] was staring them in the face, because they’re rich. They have money. They don’t have to worry about air conditioning or where your next meal is coming from.”
Boykin-Hays, who works as a food delivery driver and volunteers with homeless outreach, was forced to take out a $3,000 loan to pay for her brother’s funeral.
“They’re ignoring the true issue because it doesn’t affect them,” she said.
In Washington, where Johnson now holds the power to bring legislation to the House floor, the speaker has not yet expressed a position on a bill introduced by California Democrat Judy Chu, to protect workers from excessive heat, despite it receiving some bipartisan support in committee.
“The denial of the climate crisis by Maga extremists like the Speaker isn’t just a danger to the health of his constituents during summer months,” said Chu. “It’s a danger to the long-term well being of future generations in America and around the world.”
Both Janis Gabriel and Patrick Johnson became board members of the Citizens Advisory Group set up to engage with the EPA over community concerns at Camp Minden, according to meeting minutes reviewed by the Guardian and interviews with two other board members.
Johnson even co-wrote, recorded and performed an original song to help the “stop the burn” efforts, which eventually helped force the EPA into a course change by approving use of a cleaner alternative to dispose of the waste throughout 2016 and 2017.
“Take a stand against the poison, protect our future children’s lives,” Patrick Johnson sings.
The former firefighter had become a national advocate for hazardous material safety after surviving a fiery explosion caused by leaking ammonia at a cold storage facility. Another firefighter died in the 1984 accident. The near-death experience, said Gabriel, changed his spiritual outlook. The couple met in 2013 when Johnson attended Gabriel’s Daoist center as a student in Shreveport to practice tai chi and qigong martial arts. The pair married in October 2016, shortly before Johnson’s death from cancer in December that year.
The elder Johnson, said Gabriel, clearly accepted climate science and was “acutely aware of the environment”. While he “certainly didn’t agree” with Mike Johnson’s “extremist stance” on Christianity, he accepted it. The pair disagreed over support for Donald Trump, Gabriel said.
Mike Johnson has described his father’s survival in the 1984 explosion as an “actual miracle” that “made me a person of very deep faith”. His campaign literature still references the accident and, in his first speech as speaker, Johnson described how his father’s near death “changed all of our life trajectories”.
But from January 2015, when he formally entered politics, Johnson appeared to display little interest in the Camp Minden issue that his father was campaigning on. It was a period described by three organizers as the start of heightened advocacy.
He was given invitations to attend citizens meetings as local campaigning ramped up, according to the board’s chairman Ron Hagar, but did not attend.
“He stayed as far away from it as possible,” said Hagar, a close friend of Patrick Johnson’s. “He had no sense of responsibility to stand up for the people he’s representing.”
A search of public records did not indicate Mike Johnson had spoken on the issue at the time although he was listed as a co-sponsor of a minor 2015 state house resolution to stop the facility from accepting further waste explosives. Photographs show Johnson was also present at a December 2015 press conference at the site, but according to a senior organizer in attendance, Johnson did not speak and the state representative is not quoted in local media.
The issue was championed by a Democratic state representative for the 10th district, which includes Minden, named Gene Reynolds. Reynolds, who is now retired, did not return multiple calls for comment.
A spokesperson for Johnson pointed to public activity cited by the Guardian and “other activities” to dispute claims he had not been involved in the matter.
Johnson’s short tenure in the state legislature was spent focused on far-right policy initiatives tied to his Biblical worldview, including introducing legislation to push back against same sex marriage, and a continued focus on his non-profit law practice, including work with Ham’s Ark Encounter.
Following her husband’s death, Gabriel moved out of state. She began to lose touch with Johnson, although the pair exchanged occasional cordial text messages.
In one May 2019 exchange, seen by the Guardian, Johnson contacted Gabriel to wish her a happy Mother’s Day. Gabriel told him she had left Shreveport permanently and moved to a different state.
“Don’t blame you one bit for staying there! Shreveport is really going downhill now and it’s sad to watch,” Johnson replied.
Gabriel then explained that her decision to leave had come on Patrick’s advice, partly due to his prediction of “worsening environmental problems”. She also told Johnson that his father would be proud of his “love and devotion and support” of his own children.
“Dad was right about the environmental problems in Shreveport. Those and other issues are mounting,” Johnson replied. But in the same message, he moved quickly to update her on his rapid rise in Congress: “I’ve been advanced in leadership in record time (currently the 10th ranked Republican!), and God continues to affirm that we are doing what He has called us to do, so that keeps us encouraged.”
Special counsel Jack Smith asks Supreme Court to rule quickly on whether Trump can be prosecuted
Mark Sherman and Eric Tucker – December 11, 2023
Special counsel Jack Smith speaks to the media about an indictment of former President Donald Trump, Aug. 1, 2023, at an office of the Department of Justice in Washington. Smith is asking the Supreme Court to take up and rule quickly on whether former President Donald Trump can be prosecuted on charges he plotted to overturn the 2020 election results. A federal judge ruled the case could go forward, but Trump signaled he would ask the federal appeals court in Washington to reverse that outcome. Smith is attempting to bypass the appeals court. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)The Supreme Court is seen at sundown in Washington, on Nov. 6, 2020. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)
WASHINGTON (AP) — Special counsel Jack Smith on Monday asked the Supreme Court to take up and rule quickly on whether former President Donald Trump can be prosecuted on charges he plotted to overturn the 2020 election results.
A federal judge ruled the case could go forward, but the Republican former president signaled he would ask the federal appeals court in Washington to reverse that outcome.
Smith is attempting to bypass the appeals court. The request filed Monday for the Supreme Court to take up the matter directly reflects Smith’s desire to keep the trial, currently for March 4, on track and to prevent any delays that could push back the case until after next year’s presidential election.
“This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin,” prosecutors wrote.
The earliest court would consider the appeal would be Jan. 5, the date of the justices’ next scheduled private conference.
Underscoring the urgency for prosecutors in securing a quick resolution that can push the case forward, they wrote: “It is of imperative public importance that respondent’s claims of immunity be resolved by this Court and that respondent’s trial proceed as promptly as possible if his claim of immunity is rejected.”
At issue is a Dec. 1 ruling from U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan that rejected arguments by Trump’s lawyers that he was immune from federal prosecution. In her order, she wrote that said the office of the president “does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass.”
“Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability,” Chutkan wrote. “Defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office.”
Trump faces charges accusing him of working to overturn the results of the 2020 election he lost to Democrat Joe Biden before the violent riot by his supporters at the U.S. Capitol. He has denied any wrongdoing.
Putin Critic Alexei Navalny Has Gone Missing From Prison
Nikki McCann Ramirez – December 11, 2023
Allies of Alexei Navalny say the imprisoned Russian opposition leader has been missing for days.
On Monday, Navalny’s spokesperson Kira Yarmysh wrote on X, formerly Twitter, that “the lawyers tried to get to IK-6 and IK-7 — two [prison] colonies in the Vladimir region where Alexey
[Navalny] might be. They have just been informed simultaneously in both colonies that he is not there. We still don’t know where Alexey is.”
Yarmysh added in a separate post that Russian authorities had refused to disclose where Navalny had been transferred.
Last year, Navalny was sentenced to nine years in prison on what are widely regarded as fabricated charges of corruption intended to silence his criticism of Russian President Vladimir Putin. In August, an additional 19 years were added to his sentence. Prior to his imprisonment, Navalny survived at least two documented assassination attempts, once in 2017, and again in 2020.
This is a breaking news story and will be updated.
Trump says he won’t testify again at his New York fraud trial. He says he has nothing more to say
Michael R. Sisak and Jill Colvin – December 10, 2023
Former President Donald Trump, center, sits at the defense table with his attorney’s Christopher Kise, left, and Alina Habba, at New York Supreme Court, Thursday, Dec. 7, 2023, in New York. (AP Photo/Eduardo Munoz Alvarez, Pool, File)Former President Donald Trump, second from left, sits at the defense table with his attorney’s Christopher Kise, left, Alina Habba, second from right, and Clifford Robert at New York Supreme Court, Thursday, Dec. 7, 2023, in New York. (AP Photo/Eduardo Munoz Alvarez, Pool)
NEW YORK (AP) — Donald Trump said Sunday he has decided against testifying for a second time at his New York civil fraud trial, posting on social media a day before his scheduled appearance that he “very successfully & conclusively” testified last month and saw no need to do so again.
The former president, the leading contender for the 2024 Republican nomination, had been expected to return to the witness stand Monday as a coda to his defense against New York Attorney General Letitia James ‘ lawsuit.
James, a Democrat, alleges Trump inflated his wealth on financial statements used in securing loans and making deals. The case threatens Trump’s real estate empire and cuts to the heart of his image as a successful businessman.
“I will not be testifying on Monday,” Trump wrote in an all-capital-letters, multipart statement on his Truth Social platform less than 20 hours before he was to take the witness stand.
“I have already testified to everything & have nothing more to say,” Trump added, leaving the final word among defense witnesses to an accounting expert hired by his legal team who testified last week that he found “no evidence, whatsoever, for any accounting fraud” in Trump’s financial statements.
A Trump spokesperson did not immediately respond to questions about his decision.
The decision was an abrupt change from Trump’s posture in recent days, when his lawyers said he was insistent on testifying again despite their concerns about a gag order that has cost him $15,000 in fines for disparaging the judge’s law clerk.
“President Trump has already testified. There is really nothing more to say to a judge who has imposed an unconstitutional gag order and thus far appears to have ignored President Trump’s testimony and that of everyone else involved in the complex financial transactions at issue in the case,” Trump lawyer Christopher Kise said Sunday.
Trump’s decision came days after his son, Eric Trump, ditched his return appearance on the witness stand. Trump said on social media that he’d told Eric to cancel.
It also follows Trump’s first trip back to court since he testified in the case on Nov. 6. Last Thursday, he watched from the defense table as the accounting professor, New York University professor Eli Bartov, blasted the state’s case and said Trump’s financial statements “were not materially misstated.”
Trump’s cancellation caught court officials by surprise. Without Trump on the witness stand, the trial will be on hold until Tuesday, when Bartov will finish his testimony. State lawyers say they’ll then call at least one rebuttal witness.
In a statement, James said whether Trump testified again or not, “we have already proven that he committed years of financial fraud and unjustly enriched himself and his family. No matter how much he tries to distract from reality, the facts don’t lie.”
Trump was often defiant and combative when he testified Nov. 6. Along with defending his wealth and denying wrongdoing, he repeatedly sparred with the judge, whom he criticized as “extremely hostile,” and slammed James as “a political hack.”
Trump answered questions from state lawyers for about 3½ hours, often responding with lengthy diatribes. His verbose answers irked the judge, Arthur Engoron, who admonished, “This is not a political rally.”
Had Trump returned to the stand Monday, it would’ve been his defense lawyers leading the questioning, but lawyers from James’ office could have cross-examined him, too.
Engoron is now considering six other claims, including allegations of conspiracy and insurance fraud. James seeks penalties of more than $300 million and wants Trump banned from doing business in New York. The judge is deciding, rather than a jury, because juries aren’t allowed in this type of case.
Though testimony is nearly over, the trial that started Oct. 2 will bleed into next year. Closing arguments are scheduled for Jan. 11, just four days before the Iowa caucuses start the presidential primary season. Engoron said he hopes to have a decision by the end of January.
Trump has had a prime role in the trial. Along with his testimony, he has voluntarily gone to court eight days to watch witnesses, turning his appearances into de facto campaign stops. During breaks, he has taken full advantage of the cameras parked in the courthouse hallway, spinning what’s happening inside the courtroom, where cameras aren’t allowed, in the most favorable light.
Trump’s frequent presence in court — as a witness, observer and aggrieved defendant — has underscored the unique personal stakes for a billionaire who’s also juggling four criminal cases and a campaign.
Where other politicians have shied from legal peril, Trump has leaned in as his court and political calendars increasingly overlap, with primaries a few weeks away and the first of his criminal trials slated for March.
But Trump’s interest in vindicating his company and his wealth has also run up against the limitations of the gag order, which was reinstated at the end of November by a state appellate court after a two-week interlude. The same gag order was also in effect when he testified in November.
Despite the gag order, Trump was adamant in recent days that he’d testify again — even as one of his lawyers, Alina Habba, said she discouraged him from taking the stand.
“He still wants to take the stand, even though my advice is, at this point, you should never take the stand with a gag order,” Habba told reporters last week, before Trump changed his mind.
Trump spent Saturday evening with Habba at the New York Young Republican Club’s black-tie gala. At the event, about a mile from the courthouse, he went on at length highlighting his objections, saying, “I have proven my innocence literally every single day.”
“There’s a lot that has to be done to begin to rebuild the Republican Party, potentially to build a new conservative party,” Cheney told ABC “This Week” co-anchor Jonathan Karl in an interview that aired Sunday. “But in my view, that has to wait until after the 2024 election because our focus has got to be on defeating Donald Trump.”
Cheney, author of the new book “Oath and Honor: A Memoir and a Warning,” said she hasn’t “ruled anything out” when asked if running as a third-party candidate next year is a possibility, but she stressed that she would not “do something that has the impact of helping Donald Trump.”
Democrats have contended that third-party candidates would only hurt President Joe Biden and benefit Trump in the general election, if he is the Republican nominee. They have particular animosity toward No Labels, a group working to secure ballot access across the country as it weighs putting forward an independent, bipartisan “unity ticket” made up of one Republican and one Democrat as the presidential and vice presidential nominees.
Cheney believes that because there are several third-party candidates already in the race — like Cornel West, Jill Stein and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — that even without a No Labels ticket, there is still going to be “a fractured electorate,” so the principal question remains: “What do we do to defeat the man who is an existential threat to our republic?”
PHOTO: ‘This Week’ co-anchor Jonathan Karl interviews former Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney. (Al Drago/ABC)
The former three-term Wyoming congresswoman and member of Republican leadership said that it’s also “crucially important in this next cycle … to elect candidates who believe in the Constitution” to ensure that the peaceful transfer of power is completed after the next election, including on Jan. 6, 2025, when Congress will be tasked with counting the electoral votes submitted by the states — the final step before the next inauguration.
“I’ve expressed very clearly my view that having Mike Johnson as the speaker, having this Republican majority in charge, you can’t count on them to defend the Constitution at this moment,” Cheney said.
Johnson joined with more than 100 other House Republicans in 2020 in supporting a lawsuit to overturn Biden’s win in some key swing states; Johnson and numerous other Republicans also voted against certifying the 2020 election results. After winning the speakership, Johnson declined to say whether he stood by that.
In her new book, Cheney writes about how she came to believe Trump needed to be impeached as the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol was unfolding and lawmakers were being whisked out of the chambers to safety. As the House Republican Conference chair at the time of the riot, Cheney ended up being the highest-ranking Republican — and one of just 10 Republicans total — to vote to impeach Trump on Jan. 13, 2021.
He has repeatedly maintained he did nothing wrong and was ultimately acquitted by Senate Republicans in a 57-43 vote, but Cheney continued to speak out against Trump, arguing he bore responsibility for the Jan. 6 attack.
Before losing her 2022 primary to a Trump-endorsed challenger, she served as vice chair of the House select committee investigating that attack.
Trump, for his part, has long criticized Cheney as well. He wrote in a recent social media post that she was “crazy” and has called her “smug.”
In a March 18, 2021, interview, Karl asked Trump if he really wanted to go to the Capitol on Jan. 6, as the riot was unfolding.
“I was thinking about going back during the problem, to stop the problem, doing it myself. Secret Service didn’t like that idea too much. And you know what? I would have been very well received,” Trump said, according to Karl’s latest book, “Tired of Winning.”
“Don’t forget — the people that went to Washington that day, in my opinion, they went because they thought the election was rigged,” Trump said then.
Karl asked Cheney in Sunday’s interview: “Isn’t that right there an admission by Trump himself of his own culpability?”
“Yes,” Cheney said. “One of the things that’s really important throughout all of this is Donald Trump’s intent. And we see again and again sort of the premeditation for this whole plan, the premeditation to claim victory, but also the fact that while the mob, the violence, was underway and the electoral vote was stopped — the armed mob at that point was carrying out his wishes.”
Three days after Jan. 6, Karl spoke to then-House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy. In that interview, McCarthy told him, “What’s real crazy is back in our district, there’s tons of people who are ready to storm the Capitol again. I just don’t know about these people.”
Cheney told Karl that, behind closed doors, McCarthy initially “was being responsible” but then changed course.
“One of the things that was striking to me in writing the book was it was absolutely clear in those days, just after the sixth, on the calls that we were having in leadership, Kevin McCarthy was very clear and very strong about the potential for violence against members of the House,” Cheney said. “He actually understood reality and was being responsible in the beginning. But it didn’t take long until the political necessity of appeasing Donald Trump caused him to take a different path.”
A McCarthy spokesman said in a recent statement to CNN, responding to Cheney’s book, that she had “McCarthy Derangement Syndrome.”
PHOTO: ‘This Week’ co-anchor Jonathan Karl interviews former Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney. (Al Drago/ABC)
Not even a month after the attack, which McCarthy had said Trump “bears responsibility” for, McCarthy visited Trump at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida, a move that was seen by many as re-legitimizing Trump’s place in the Republican Party.
Cheney and others who have publicly taken a stance against Trump and how his influence has changed the Republican Party have faced threats in response. She called that a “sad” reality of the political environment today.
“This isn’t sort of the threat of physical violence because of terrorist organizations or outside entities. This is the threat of violence because of a former president of the United States. And I think we have to be very careful as a country that we stop and we think about what that means and the path that we’re going down,” she said.
Karl asked Cheney what she thinks people will say about her and her legacy, years in the future.
“I hope that they will say she did the right thing and that she put the country ahead of politics and ahead of partisanship at a moment when it really mattered,” she said.
“And that project is, in your mind, just getting started?” Karl asked.
“Certainly,” Cheney said. “Once we get through this election cycle and we defeat Donald Trump, I think there’s clearly a huge amount of work that has to be done to restore, to right the ship of, our democracy.”
